Comments (Page 412)

Yeah!It seems really nice,can't wait to see the full trailer next week!

Dinos seem to look real,I'll confirm after seeing the whole trailer.

Paden, a little less than a week ago you said: Its not a trailer its a teaser. When i was saying that the countdown was to a trailer. Now there's proof that its going to be a trailer not a teaser.

You also said that if it would be a trailer, it would mean that the movie is weeks from release.

What do you say now?

I never restricted this to only carnivores.  That would be great.

juat don't have a mini triceratops and a mini t.tex in the same house........

I agree
CGI is cool, but I want to see the new version of this awesome robots
on the behind the scene :)

GOJIRA2K - You know, I hadn't considered that possibility? You're quite right; many of the herbivores would be ideal animals for pets - provided they could be made more, hmm, congruent with what we associate as friendly! I'd adore having a protoceratops as a pet! :)

This definitely would be very cool and as the others said very expensive to make. But, if successful, they would sell like crazy. Ever since the first dinosaurs were discovered man has had an obsession with them. Most people (myself included) have dreamt about having a dinosaur as a pet.

Plus you guys have only been talking about carnivores as pets. Why not herbivores? Just being herbivores they are much safer. As Something Real said that with carnivores they would need to have a mammalian emotional gene, but herbivores would not. They are already more well-tempered to begin with. They didn't kill to eat, they kill that much to begin with, they only killed to protect themselves. Herbivores like Parasaurolophos, Iguanodon, or Brachiosaurus would excellent candidates for pets.

Hoping the trailer will show us if the Spino will have a habitat. They put a rex int he park, so it's possiable. Just a little cameo would be great. Thursday cannot come fast enough! 

so does this mean that for the first time, jurassic park is finally open?

TYRANT KING - Of course, we could genetically engineer a mini T-Rex with the mind and fur of a German Shepherd! That'd be a beautiful animal - and warm and fuzzy to boot! I'd own one or five of those darlings! :)

TYRANT KING - An incredibly compelling notion. The genetics would definately play a very large factor in the overall outcome of the animal. You'd want a creature that evidences strong mammalian emotional drives and mentality if it's going to be a "friend" to anything. Thus, you'd have to completely rewrite the genetic aspects responsible for the animal's brain. I've a strong feeling that, were we to give rise to miniature dinosaurs that maintained their original mental aspects, we'd have some incredibly vicious and base-instinctual creatures interested solely in eating, sleeping and making little versions of their minature selves. However, were it possible to "graft" canine or feline emotional and mental characteristics into the animal in question, it would likely be a wonderful pet. Of course, what makes us mammals enjoy pets most of all is their soft and empathetic nature. Our minds are hard wired to take enjoyment from petting the soft fur of creatures, which is why therapy animals are almost entirely dogs, cats and other mammals. Scales and/or feathers just don't engender the same emotional response as fur for the vast majority of the human race. For the most part, reptiles are viewed as exotic pets; the minds of most individuals perceive them as very neat, yet slightly strange. Therefore, while I have no doubt that people would absolutely love to see minature dinos - even own them as novelties - I strongly doubt they'd replace our mammalian pets. Most people like their pets to be soft, warm and fuzzy!

Regardless, this is a very neat and intriguing topic! Thank you for presenting this to us! :)

**AL** - I completely agree with your sentiment. Don't worry; I've never been the keeper of an animal that was part of questionable trade. You have my word. :)

They do move in herds!

I am so pumped for the full trailer now!

They are the same size though the allosaurid will look dimensionly bigger so it would be more intimidating. How would they fight?

the allo charges then sidesteps and bites the side of the lion who roars in pain. The allo then starts slashing through the fur and flesh.

Taking on predators half it's size. And those huge herbivores are fallen in large prides and the lions will often fail.

Erectopus is an allosauruid. At 10 feet long and 450 pounds. and its 1 inch teeth and 4 inch claws. This will turn the lion into a pussy cat.

Yes, but more derivated Carcharodontosaurids appear to be even more bulky. Acrocanthosaurus is pretty gracile if compared to derivated Carcharodontosaurids.

I have a very high belief in Charcarodontosaurs being bulky, but agile. They were active sauropod hunters and had to be able to get to the tricky spots to kill what it needed to.

I am full aware of this.

This will take a lot of time though.

Yes, I meant more bulky.

Nor would it ever meet one.

Its a Genetic Creature we're creating, It would only resemble it, But it would not be it. 

The only way the two might meet, Would be through a Time machine. 

Because as Each day passes, It makes it just that much harder to find a Dinosaur DNA Sample. 

This is after they have been trained and tolerate humans. Just like early cainines and primates it would bbe rough at first but then become mans most bada** friend.

Well, dogs have been living with men since Mesolitic (10.000-8.000 b.C.), while a Carcharodontosaurus has never met a man. What would be its reaction?

Scaling from Giganotosaurus holotype is better, as Carcharodontosaurus was likely more strongly built than Acrocanthosaurus, like G.carolinii. As I've already pointed out, the whole thing will get somewhere between ~7 and ~8 t.

Uh, yea. Of course it is better.

Are you telling me that a dog-sized Carcharodontosaurus is better than a dog itself? I don't think so.

In the "near" (60 years)future I could do it.

I'm not saying it's impossible, its just extremely difficult... But it's a good idea. 

Don't give up on it. 

Definatley... But it'd take So much time to even get a Prototype constructed. 

Bio-engineering is also not a completely Steady feild so, We could design one, For sure, But we don't know if It's heart is going to work, Or if it's going to even live at all. 

@Jhawkins1987

Truer words have never been spoken.

It's basic human Nature to Critique, To complain, To correct.

All I am stating, Is that I wish the Film had been executed a little... Differently... 

It could have Hand puppets for all I care.  

I've been greatly concerned about the CG element of this for a long time. As well as the Believablitiy.

Now, Some of you have already called me out on this, More so Raptor-401.

About how it's supposed to be Futuristic. 

Indeed, It is.

However, If you ever Researched into it a little more, The Technology in the First film, Did exist. 

The technology in the book was fickle, But it was Researched and thought was put behind it. (Some of the Computers could be out classed by a Modern Mac book.)

In the Twentieth Century, We went From Fighting in Trenches, To fighting Thousands of Miles apart from eachother. We went from the First Fraglie Steps of Flight, To the Edge of the Earth. 

We went from No Idea of what Genetics was, To being able to Clone Livestock...

Realism, Is what I'm looking for. 

The end result would be a awesome pet that would replace all others.

Don't post them. And I know all about the black market and illegal animal trade. I am the last person you have to say that to. I live in Florida and I see and hear of this quite often.

An interesting concept...

But a difficult one to Acheive, It'd take years upon years of Genetic Tampering just to Develope one, And then Millions of Dollars just for Lab equipment alone. 

Plus, You'd have to Breed a Huge stock just to get one that Fits your Specifications. 

It'd take nearly Half a million or More Stock just to narrow down the Right genes. But it'd take nearly a Million to Perfect the Genetics in it.

However, Sometimes, Doing work like this is only limited by the Imagination. Not by the Sciences. 

I get on Scified for the first time today... to find ive pissed myself!!!!  When I saw the trailer had been released, i was already on Youtube lol! 

The cladogramm was outdated indeed, I had two of them and I didn't remember wich the most updated one was.

You're right even abput Acrocanthosaurus.

But no, Giganotosaurus being the best basis for C.saharicus isn't a common belief. G.carolinii and C.saharicus are much closer than A.atokensis and C.saharicus. It doesn't matter if C.saharicus doesn't belong to Giganotosaurinae. Using A.atokensis is liberal, and would produce a freaking ~13.9~14.3 m (so ~14 m +), ~9~10 t thing. ~12.4 m is possible indeend, if we use Carrano's estimates, A such thing would actually weight around to ~6.8 t (~6~7 t), as Hartman estimated the equally long MUCPv-ch1 at ~6.8 t.

And that Mapusaurus pubic shaft is pretty doubtful if you ask. The difference between G.carolinii's holotype and that Mapusaurus specimen is pretty small, and we know that G.carolinii and M.rosae didn't share the same proportions, so its pubic shaft may be proportionally thicker. Imo the safest thing to say is that that specimen was around the same size as the largest Giganotosaurus specimen.