If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(IT World)   Paleontologists are ticked off that dinosaurs in upcoming Jurassic Park 4 won't have feathers   (itworld.com) divider line 77
    More: Asinine, Jurassic Park 4, paleontology, dinosaurs, Jurassic Park, Hollywood, velociraptor, University of Southampton, New Scientist  
•       •       •

2950 clicks; posted to Geek » on 08 Apr 2013 at 6:40 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



77 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-08 06:31:59 PM
Complain about feathers, eh?

Aww, lighten up!
 
2013-04-08 06:43:13 PM
They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.
 
2013-04-08 06:48:35 PM
They have a problem with the lack of feathers, and not the fact that they are making Jurassic Park 4?

Talk about screwed up priorities.
 
2013-04-08 06:51:09 PM

Mugato: 30 million years ago.


~240-65 millions years ago?

/They clearly had feathers but it's canon gee-darnit. No point to change it now.
 
2013-04-08 06:52:17 PM
But as New Scientist explains:

Since the early 1990s, when the first Jurassic Park came out, evidence has mounted that many of its lizard-skinned stars in fact wore feathery bling. The turkey-sized Velociraptor and at least some of the gigantic tyrannosaurs had feathers. A few dinosaurs even had iridescent ones, perhaps for display.

Bling? WTF New Scientist?
 
2013-04-08 06:54:57 PM
www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com
 
2013-04-08 06:55:02 PM

fuhfuhfuh: They have a problem with the lack of feathers, and not the fact that they are making Jurassic Park 4?

Talk about screwed up priorities.


JP 3D, a 20 year old movie is making a decent amount of money in theaters right now. If I was a studio suit, I'd be shiatcanned if I didn't greenlight a JP4.
 
2013-04-08 06:57:47 PM
www.deadcaterpillar.com
 
2013-04-08 07:00:56 PM
Next thing you know, they'll complain about the stars were not accurate in the sky during night scenes in the Titanic.

Oh wait...

/Pluto is still real to me, dammit!
 
2013-04-08 07:03:07 PM
Even if they did have information that dinos had feathers back when the first film was made, thats not how people know them. Plus, it was the first time animals were rendered in CGI. It would have been a pain in the cock to also give them CG feathers. And it would have looked stupid.
 
2013-04-08 07:06:27 PM
Getting the feathers right would make the raptors even more sinister, and the boffins would be tickled pink.
 
2013-04-08 07:16:10 PM

scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]

popcultureasylum.com

And he slashes at you with this. A six inch blade hidden behind his ear.
 
2013-04-08 07:19:08 PM

Spartapuss: scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]
[popcultureasylum.com image 400x267]

And he slashes at you with this. A six inch blade hidden behind his ear.


Jesus, it's like Motley Crue gangbanged a raptor.
 
2013-04-08 07:27:39 PM

scottydoesntknow: Spartapuss: scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]
[popcultureasylum.com image 400x267]

And he slashes at you with this. A six inch blade hidden behind his ear.

Jesus, it's like Motley Crue gangbanged a raptor.


Jurassic Park, directed by Tim Burton and/or Terry Gilliam.
 
2013-04-08 07:28:38 PM

scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]


imgs.xkcd.com

/oblig
//hot like feathery death machines
 
2013-04-08 07:30:30 PM

scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]


Nah, the truth is way more interesting.

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-04-08 07:36:49 PM

Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.


5/10

 
2013-04-08 07:37:13 PM

Khellendros: scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]

Nah, the truth is way more interesting.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x234]


Meh, I still prefer my raptors to have the raw power to take down prey right there, not flap above it like a seagull caught in a woman's hair.
 
2013-04-08 07:40:10 PM
I actually want feathered dinosaurs, just to see how they can make them look scary.
 
2013-04-08 07:56:15 PM

FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10


What does 5/10 mean?
 
2013-04-08 08:19:28 PM

Eternal Virgin: I actually want feathered dinosaurs, just to see how they can make them look scary.


If all mammals except for bats went extinct, some far-future paleontologists would be trying to convince its fellows that yes, those ancient grizzly bears and tigers would have been terrifying even though they were covered with fuzzy fur, just like harmless little bats.
 
2013-04-08 08:21:57 PM

Mugato: FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10

What does 5/10 mean?


He's trying to say that you're 5/10 of the way to the correct age of the dinos.  But 4.5/10 would be closer.  I wouldn't worry about it.
 
2013-04-08 08:33:21 PM

I_Am_Weasel: Complain about feathers, eh?

Aww, lighten up!


Bastards are on the warpath
 
2013-04-08 08:36:18 PM

Mugato: FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10

What does 5/10 mean?


On fark? Usually that you've said something intelligent someone else disagrees with, but has no actual reply to.
 
2013-04-08 08:40:06 PM

Mugato: FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10

What does 5/10 mean?


About a half.
 
2013-04-08 08:41:20 PM
JP would totally be paleontologically accurate if the dinosaurs had feathers! Never mind the acid-spitting dilophosaurs and the Deinonychus-sized velociraptors.
 
2013-04-08 08:42:16 PM

hawcian: scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x234]

/oblig
//hot like feathery death machines



Khellendros: scottydoesntknow: [www.walkingwithdinosaurs.com image 800x400]

Nah, the truth is way more interesting.

[imgs.xkcd.com image 740x234]



Fark never fails.
 
2013-04-08 08:42:36 PM

LordJiro: JP would totally be paleontologically accurate if the dinosaurs had feathers! Never mind the acid-spitting dilophosaurs and the Deinonychus-sized velociraptors.


And the Deinonychus-sized Dilophosaurs..
 
2013-04-08 08:48:18 PM

Erix: LordJiro: JP would totally be paleontologically accurate if the dinosaurs had feathers! Never mind the acid-spitting dilophosaurs and the Deinonychus-sized velociraptors.

And the Deinonychus-sized Dilophosaurs..


And Dogson.
images.wikia.com
 
2013-04-08 08:51:04 PM

revrendjim: Mugato: FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10

What does 5/10 mean?

About a half.


I love you.
 
2013-04-08 08:59:45 PM

Mugato: FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10

What does 5/10 mean?


1/2, or .5 or 50%
 
2013-04-08 09:03:37 PM

CygnusDarius: Erix: LordJiro: JP would totally be paleontologically accurate if the dinosaurs had feathers! Never mind the acid-spitting dilophosaurs and the Deinonychus-sized velociraptors.

And the Deinonychus-sized Dilophosaurs..

And Dogson.
[images.wikia.com image 500x271]


Nobody cares about Dodgson.
 
2013-04-08 09:10:53 PM

Somaticasual: Mugato: FreetardoRivera: Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.

5/10

What does 5/10 mean?

On fark? Usually that you've said something intelligent someone else disagrees with, but has no actual reply to.


7/10 not bad
 
2013-04-08 09:13:30 PM
If I were making Jurassic Park 4, I'd use it as a mechanism to bring people around to the idea of marriage equality.  I'd be sure to feature happily married lesbian dinosaurs raising perfectly normal dino kids.  I'd have scientists and raptors falling in love, and show how ravaging it is on their relationships when they're denied to marry the human or dinosaur of their choice.  But no, these topics are simply too controversial and the studios will never take them head on, instead turning a blind eye to dinosexual love and gay dinosaurs.
 
2013-04-08 09:14:55 PM

hawcian: CygnusDarius: Erix: LordJiro: JP would totally be paleontologically accurate if the dinosaurs had feathers! Never mind the acid-spitting dilophosaurs and the Deinonychus-sized velociraptors.

And the Deinonychus-sized Dilophosaurs..

And Dogson.
[images.wikia.com image 500x271]

Nobody cares about Dodgson.


Dodgson! Dodgson! We've got Dodgson here!
 
2013-04-08 09:22:57 PM
Want to see the feathers?

CGI IS EXPENSIVE YOU KNOW!
 
2013-04-08 10:27:25 PM
Raptors with feathers might be scary, but a Trex would look simply retarded.

As a kid I was a dino fanatic, but as I got older and started keeping reptiles as pets the whole thing was confusing regarding body temperature. Dinos wouldn't be cold blooded and be that large, but being warm blooded without fur/feathers would be a huge waste of energy.
 
2013-04-08 10:47:19 PM

Dinobot: Next thing you know, they'll complain about the stars were not accurate in the sky during night scenes in the Titanic.

Oh wait...


The cool thing is, Cameron went back and put the correct stars in for the re-release.  What's the excuse for JP4?
 
2013-04-08 10:53:51 PM

nocturnal001: Raptors with feathers might be scary, but a Trex would look simply retarded.

As a kid I was a dino fanatic, but as I got older and started keeping reptiles as pets the whole thing was confusing regarding body temperature. Dinos wouldn't be cold blooded and be that large, but being warm blooded without fur/feathers would be a huge waste of energy.


Yeah, whales and elephants have a hell of a time being large, warm-blooded and virtually hairless.
 
2013-04-08 10:55:01 PM
Who cares, it's entertainment. Now they'll know how I feel whenever I watch a movie with the U.S. Air Force in it. Just sit there shaking your head thinking; Nope that's wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Bullshiat, that could never happen.
 
2013-04-08 11:11:38 PM

Mugato: They wrote in a plot device to explain why they could take creative license with the dinosaur designs. They spliced frog DNA with the dino DNA so they're not going to be exactly like the dinos from 30 million years ago. And since they already established raptors as not having feathers, it would be internally inconsistent to suddenly give them feathers in the sequel.

You paleo-nerds had hundreds of years to let everyone know that some dinos had feathers. It's too late to whine about the depictions of them now.


look, the frog DNA was also what allowed them to gender-morph and start breeding.  You know what the solution to that problem is, my friend?  Bird DNA.  Feathers and all.
 
2013-04-08 11:31:01 PM
Since XKCD is already covered, here is another hotlinked comic that about sums it up:www.dumbingofage.com
 
2013-04-08 11:42:02 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

T-Rex with the teeny arms makes a bit more sense like this...
 
2013-04-08 11:46:57 PM
I think they could make some really cool looking dinosaurs with sleek feathers. Also have to add to everyone else's Velociraptor beef: Their claws are for latching on to prey and/or puncturing organs.
 
2013-04-08 11:54:22 PM
I am totally staying out of this one.
 
2013-04-08 11:57:42 PM
Yeah, raptors with feathers would actually be fairly awesome in a big budget film...

www.dinosaur-world.com
www.ucmp.berkeley.edu
blogs.smithsonianmag.com
images.nationalgeographic.com
blogs.nature.com
www.nhm.ac.uk
images.nationalgeographic.com
fascinatingly.com
www.abc.net.au
 
2013-04-09 12:03:14 AM

hubiestubert: Yeah, raptors with feathers would actually be fairly awesome in a big budget film...

[www.dinosaur-world.com image 667x554]
[www.ucmp.berkeley.edu image 350x280]
[blogs.smithsonianmag.com image 500x678]
[images.nationalgeographic.com image 513x450]
[blogs.nature.com image 850x332]
[www.nhm.ac.uk image 400x252]
[images.nationalgeographic.com image 435x525]
[fascinatingly.com image 660x425]
[www.abc.net.au image 285x314]


legacy.shadowlordinc.com
 
2013-04-09 12:04:11 AM

hubiestubert: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 850x381]

T-Rex with the teeny arms makes a bit more sense like this...


Nah; While it's tiny cousin Dilong had a coat of filamentous feathers (like Motley Raptor above), there is evidence of mosaic scales on T-Rex samples found.

Chances are either they were born with feathers but shed them as they grew (insulation value diminished with size) or they had areas of their bodies that were featherless.
 
2013-04-09 12:09:26 AM
ts1.mm.bing.net

RAWR!
 
2013-04-09 12:10:54 AM
Also, T-rex, allosaurus, etc. are more like giant crocodiles, not running around on land. Powerful tale, legs built for launching, eyes and nostrils at the top of their head. If you look at a T-rex foot, they look like the swimming foot of a crocodile with long, relatively slender bones. Not the small, rounder bones used to support large amounts of weight. Their little "arms" would seem useless, but are perfect when youre belly down scooting along the bottom of a lake or river.
 
Displayed 50 of 77 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report