i was thinking about doing one of those DASPLETOSAURUS, maybe for a bonus fight at the end of the season.

because certain paleontologists like to state  unfounded theories. Jack Horner seems to be (or at least was) actively seeking anything that would take Rex's status as an apex predator down. It's a bit ridiculous

Obviously the Liopleuroden, the film needs some oceanic dinosaurs and whats scarier than the Liopleuroden...Well except the megalodon. Actually wouldn't mind seeing both of them. Maybe one is just about to eat a cast memeber when the two get into an underwater scrap over the humans.

I would like to see it were you can play as the Dinosaurs or humans like were the dinosaurs hunt both the humans and other dinos........ lets just say like a Primal Carnage theme Xbox 360 and PS3.

Tell me more about this Stomping Land.

Really Napolian Dynamite lol but I do like your choices and what I want to see a Yutyrannus in the movie.

Tyrannosaurus Rex the Tyrant King.

Interesting, I'll be reading when you start.

Another good piont.

Alrighty, first draft will be ready within the week.

Thats not good you pissed off MrHappy.

Why would Rex being an active hunter be challenged anyway? I mean seriously, Late Cretaceous North America had three predators that I am aware of: T-Rex, Nanotyrannus, and Dromeasaurus, Rex being the only one above one ton in weight, so what's going to keep the Edmontosaurus and Triceratops populations in check without Rex?

PFG I cant wait to read the fight with Utahraptor. But i want to read one were the raptors are pack hunting and run in to a T-rex and fight over a meal.

Its called opinions for a ****ing reason! Quote this, quote that, quote quote quote, that is ****ing annoying! Why the **** are you spelling stuff like "carkarotontosauris"? What is a carkarotontosauris anyway? We are young, not stupid! You've lost patience with us? We lost patience with you a while go, but after trying and failing to give you some reason, it's come to this, so at this point, I say **** it. I was in a good mood, but now you've pissed me off. I am trying to be an adult (seeing as to how you are not), but I will lose it, very shortly. 

This does sound good.

I agree with this. T-Rex was more of a hunter until its food got source scarce then would scavange to find food but in all Tyrannosaurus was and always be a hunter.

I never thought about that. That is agood point. Why don't they look at T-Rex's predecessors?

Ah bloody hell just shut up and play some Primal Carnage.

Mr.Happy Is going to be taking the directors seat on Spino VS Carchar

Hasbro/Kenner

What two? Paden you can only choose one...

Nien...

Y'see For the JP-3D line, They had some of the old kenner molds from JP3 used, Now I like the old molds, Because some of them were the best things ever, But with competition like GI JOE I think Hasbro Might produce more of the figures... But Kenner and Hasbro Are in a contract I believe (I don't have the box anymore but I recall kenner and hasbro ON the back of it) With universal... 

your gonna love the new expected line, So many Unused molds For new creatures/vehicles/people... You'll still see some repaints of many characters from JP3 And maybe the older ones depending on characters in the film... 

Sounds Interesting... Although Spino I presume Killed out of Territorial reasons more then Revenge... Still Lets see what happens

---Then why the fuck do you guys have a whole sub forum about dinosaur discussion if it is all "opinions"??? You cannot have scientific dinosaur discussions if you refute everything as an opinion... You guys have literally zero logic.

Listen, Godzillasaurus, do you have any real ****ing Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus to do your tests on, do we have a living full sized healthy dinosaur for us to test, no. We have bones. Can you actually know something from a bone, no. I mean, there is nothing to stop your arguments and everyone on earth will agree with you unless their brain is mentally deformed? If you answer no, then you probably don't know it. (This is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point) Basically, you can infer general shape with bone, general diet, and general things from bone, but not specifics. So please, stop ****ing arguing everyone before I unleash my army on you all. Leuitenant 9097, and the dinos.

Ok, now I have lost patience with all of you. If you think of fossils as poor indicators of what an animal's general ecology was, you are wrong. One can easily theorize based ON WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE WE ALREADY HAVE; it is not a fucking opinion. If I dig up a sauropod femur and say "wow, this thing is huge. This is way bigger than that of diplodocus!" (or something like that), it isn't going to be a fucking opinion. You guys must really be pretty young if you all sound like this "carkarotontosauris had a mutch mor thik skull then spinasaurus becuz it was so mutch biger!" and refute everything as an opinion even when you have an entire sub forum devoted to scientific dinosaur discussion...

I hated the original Tyrannosaurus in the LBT series. Well, logically. A Tyrannosaurus can't do epic ninja jumps and slices, OR survive a fall into a 100-story deep trench!

KENNER JP FTW!!!!!

Listen, Godzillasaurus, do you have any real ****ing Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus to do your tests on, do we have a living full sized healthy dinosaur for us to test, no. We have bones. Can you actually know something from a bone, no. I mean, there is nothing to stop your arguments and everyone on earth will agree with you unless their brain is mentally deformed? If you answer no, then you probably don't know it. (This is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point) Basically, you can infer general shape with bone, general diet, and general things from bone, but not specifics. So please, stop ****ing arguing everyone before I unleash my army on you all. Leuitenant 9097, and the dinos.

Ahhhh... aren't dinosaurs amazing?

5 pages of 'pacific' debate for reptiles dead from the beginning of time... reptiles that we can only dream out of what left of their bones... claiming our dreams as facts...

Again, that's why I love dinosaurs.

:)

Just drop it. Your arguing isn't doing any good, and it won't change the fact that we say this is your opinion (I'm trying to be nice, don't start arguing, you will be biting off more than you can chew). 

I rather like it. I think we're all a bit fed up of the same rehashed story that was up 3. It could demonstrate the park in operation for some duration, including all the stuff about underwater dinosaur in lagoons etc. then the group opposed to the park seize control. I'm not talking about die hard with guns. They could be serious dinosaur or cloning opposers that switch off the fences allowing the dinosaur to roam free, and cause hell. I think this could present opportunities for debate about ethics somewhere in it, along the lines of the meeting room scene in the first film. 

Back up just one step, people! There are no opinions going on here; if spinosaurus has a morphology that is well suited for fishing and gripping, that is a fact or, to the very least, a theory based on the facts that we already have. Now if I were to call spinosaurus the best dinosaur ever, THAT is an opinion. You guys simply cannot have an entire subforum devoted to factual scientific discussion if you refute everything that is said as an opinion; it just doesn't work that way...

Quote: Spinosaurus was huge & powerful, but it was also a fairly slim and gracile animal.

---The truth is, is really was not all that gracile... It was much more robust and powerful than you claim it to be, but yet you deny that because of your stupid "opinionated" BS

Quote: It's jaws might be able to withstand twisting and pressure but one look at it's teeth is, in my opinion, proof that this animal was not hunting and killing large prey items.

---So does that mean that they were weak? So what if they were not ideal for killing, they were not adapted for slicing and ripping but instead piercing deeply and gripping. Spinosaurus did not need to have a morphology well suited for killing, simply because it hunted large fish (and I am talking HUGE fish like onchopristis). Unlike carcharodontosaurus, its snout and teeth were well designed for gripping; an animal being adapted for killing large sauropods does not make it a better predator. Both animals are evolved to cope with different prey items, and neither is necessarily "far better" in the regard that you are implying

But that said, spinosaurus' teeth were still more than capable of killing via well-placed and yet powerful puncturing to a prey animal's spinal cord or throat.

Quote: Recurved teeth only exist, with maybe 1 or 2 exceptions, in land predators for the simple reason that teeth that curve backwards are useful for holding onto and tearing at prey that is trying to get away.

---Umm, teeth that are recurved, laterally compressed, and serrated are poorly designed for gripping. Carcharodontosaurus' dentition was only adept at cutting and ripping, not piercing and gripping like the generally stronger and conical teeth of spinosaurus. Spinosaurus' teeth were well designed for piercing and gripping, those of carcharodontosaurus were not. That is a circular argument to claim that carcharodontosaurus' teeth were adapted for gripping while spinosaurus' were not, because that is simply incorrect.

Quote: Spinosaurus has the conical teeth of a crocodile, this doesn't mean it had a weak bite, but it means that it was built for primarily catching smaller, aquatic prey.

Spinosaurus was adapted more-so for taking down large and powerful fish; its teeth and snout were very strong. So no, spinosaurus did not only go after "small aquatic prey"

Quote: Robustness of jaws is only one factor of an animals diet. Spinosaurus simply was not designed to be a big game hunter, Allosaurs like Carcharodontosaurus where, that's simply the facts based on the evidence we have

But spinosaurus in general possessed a much more robust sbout and tooth morphology alike. Its snout was designed to grip large and powerful fish without breaking, and its teeth would not simply crack as well as you are implying. Simply put, its snout was likely far stronger than that of allosaurus and carcharodontosaurus; it was designed for multidirectional resistance and would most likely not be injured in gripping. This is the opposite case for allosaurs; their snouts would likely be fractured in just events, as their less heavily-constructed and more pneumatic (less dense) build wouldn't allow for as impressive gripping strength.

Haha, really great chapter. Good job, I enjoyed that very much. :)

Great fight, I was rooting for Labocania, and I love the first pic ;)

My guesses are:

Utahraptor

Suchomimus

Tarascosaurus

Megalosaurus

Gorgosaurus.

Wow, it seems we all agree, haha.

Agree with MrHappy entirely.

Good chapter MrHappy, keep up the good work! ;)

i've been waiting for someone to do this! i'd like to see  it

good stuff :) excited for part 2