Comments (Page 231)

Oh my gosh, this type of topic again.

Look, just because a dinosaur is feathered DOES NOT MEAN it doesn't have the potential to be scary.

In fact, I'd say feathered dinosaurs are much more intimidating than scaley ones.

Instead of thinking of dinosaurs with modern, uniform feathers, you have to think of them as they were: protofeathers. Mangy, disoriented, spilt-ended protofeathers. Now add blood stains from previous kills, and you got yourself a terrifying animal.

A T-rex is no different to this equation.

But seriously, imagine if THIS came running at you full speed:

Or THIS:

Are these honestly any less scary than the naked counterpart?

Oh  now I see, you took them down...Sorry, It either glitched or I may of hel Ctrl V too long, I atcually didn't read my post after since I went for dinner and sat down to watvh the rugby, sorry. 

Like I usually say I try to be as nice and as honest as possible, it wasn't even a joke. Sorry if it annoyed anyone, I truly am. 

I am no troll/spamer

JPC

GMan what do you mean? I can only see one "Alan"

???

If they take the story off the island, I think it would be a good opportunity to give them supporting roles or cameos. At that point they wouldn't be going back to the island. The island would be coming to them. So it's less of a logistic story problem of, "How do we get characters who don't want to go back to come back?"

Also it could be to show them as monsters as you say. They even said in the movie that they are not natural and very inaccurate as to what dinosaurs really looked like.

Even Trevorrow mentioned how nothing was natural in the movie, the point of Jurassic World to be how when man plays "God" (God complex that the Jurassic Park movies focus on a lot) he must face the consequences, no matter how harsh and unfair.

AN example being how this women, Zara, most unfortunately died. Not just die, but ultimately suffer.

My opinion is very similar as to what Sci-Fi King stated. I actually drew an image the other day of V. mongeleonisis (Excuse for my spelling) and I made sure to make it as bird-like as possible.

Creatures like Spinosaurus to me definitely probably did not have feathers, but in the Bigger than T. rex documentary they did breifly mention how "for all they know this thing could have had some proto-feathers". Of course they didn't mean it seriously but it goes to show how much we don't know... And may have wrong...

I just stand by my point that the scene is meant for guilty but brutal fun in a sequel that has been hyped and constantly evolving for so many years.

I still think it was awesome in the way Vader said earlier, and I stand by my point, people sometimes take this stuff way too seriously.

KASEY KOCKROACH - Hmm...I can certainly see your point. That is most assuredly another aspect that must be considered and weighed when viewing the film. :)

To express one more view, I think her death is kind of the point of the movie. If you see a million extras acting as people in a crowded park, running around in circles with CGI dinosaurs chasing them, you don't really think about any one particular person's problems and the loss of their life. Seeing the brutalization of a character that actually shows feelings helps you forget these are creatures and fictional monsters that normally only attack nameless people in the background. That's what gives the movie weight, stakes, tension, like a main protagonist (Pratt, Howard, Sy, Wong) could actually be seriously injured or die, that each human's life is seriously on the line. 

KASEY KOCKROACH - Hahaha! Goofball! ;)

Well, that there is the strangest post I've ever read in an internet forum. :P

I kid, I kid.

KASEY KOCKROACH - You have made many extremely good points - all of which I respect and understand in their context and validity. Thank you for engaging in this conversation; you have conducted yourself in an incredibly calm, intelligent and respectful manner - aspects I find to be exceedingly valuable and admirable! Well done, my friend! :)

If anything, it's actually less gruesome than Eddie's death in Lost World. 

I'm aware of the Fluffening.

Now, my views on all things feathery!

I believe all dromaeosaurs were fully feathered, with wing-like things on their arms, a lot of feathers covering the tail, and a lot on the neck, but I also think they had a naked snout and had a slightly more down-like substance covering the rest of their body. Therizinosaurs were probably like this, but with mainly a down-like substance covering most of their body instead of full feathers.

Personally, I believe most ceratopsians had quills on their back and tails. A few tyrannosaurs were fully feathered in my opinion, with more on their arms, neck, and tails. The larger ones, like Daspletosaurus and Albertosaurus, had a little on their arms, necks, and tails, but the rest was covered in a light down. I believe Tyrannosaurus had down or some sort of proto-feathers running down their neck and back, with this material covering the end of the tail (This is for adult Tyrannosaurus, as juveniles were probably fully feathered).

Some creatures, such as Dryosaurus, probably had short quills running down their back, with light down running down their back on either side of the quills.

Most carnivores, like Allosaurus and Yangchuanosaurus, probably had some sort of down somewhere on their body, probably on their backs or arms.

Ornithomimids definately had a lot on their arms and tails in my opinion, with slightly less on their necks and backs.

However, creatures like Spinosaurus and Koreaceratops were probably naked.

Most hadrosaurs and all sauropods, ankylosaurs, and stegosaurs were probably like this.

@Kasey Kockroach

Being totally honest, you have a point there with the fat drunken man theory.

On a side note, to make a grim confession, I find Zara's death kind of funny in a 'dark comedy' sort of way. In fact, there's a lot of understated black comedy throughout (like the fat security guard's death by means of choosing the lamest hiding spot possible, or Hoskins becoming into a hilariously pathetic stuttering mess as he faces the raptor that's clearly been longing to rip him apart). 

Yes, that is good that you clarified that. And sometimes it does take a while for the new image to settle.

Just imagine a bird of prey, when it hunt, how patient it is and how it will surprise atatck its prey while viciously mauling it apart...

T.rex certainly was nothing to mess with, non-reptile looking or not.

Hands down Zara. She might've even been alive when she was swallowed by the Mosasaurus.

Hamanda is probably a second. He was grabbed by the Indominus, shocked by electric weapons, dropped about 10 feet, and crushed bythe Indominus rex's foot.

In the long run, I'm only expressing my personal view and don't really see myself as being 'correct'. I watch B-monster movies more often than I probably should, so I'm aware I'm desensitized to things like this scene, of which is indeed QUITE mild compared to what I've witnessed in other films (many far more deserving of backlash than this). 

Really, my main point is honestly...what's the big deal? Someone got eaten in a Jurassic Park movie? Stop the presses!

I also must honestly express...I think it's only controversial because it's a woman involved, she wasn't established as a complete jerk, and she was played by an actress who, from what I've seen, has a following. I truly don't think we'd be nearly as shocked if it was, say, a fat drunken man going through that. :P

@Raptor-401

Well, my apologies to the user who drew it, I actually meant that a Tyrannosaurus Rex itself would look terrible covered in feathers like that, not that the drawing was bad. I will actually go reword my last comment, because in truth the drawing looks very good in terms of detail. I probably should have been more clear on that, my bad.

I dunno... Maybe I will get used to it, but I think I like the more reptile version.

@Raptor-401

Maybe, but I just didn't feel like that was what the movie was trying to give off.

Yeah, I plan to get a 32" one, nothing too big or small, they go average 170-300 dollars depending on the quality.

KASEY KOCKROACH - This is a most engaging conversation! I believe it could be argued that the woman presented in Jaws directly shows the monstrous nature of the shark itself. On the other hand, Zara is killed in a fashion that only depicts the choas that ensues due to the I-rex's rampage. The pteranodons and other winged reptiles are not panicking at the point in which they descend upon the crowds in which Zara is standing; they are actively hunting - otherwise, they would have simply flown on in terror to evade the creature that had inadvertantly set them loose. The value of Zara's death felt inconsequential within the scheme of the film; an arbitrary throw-in that was added to produce shock. Indeed, I sympathized with her plight - but it did not move me to feel disdain toward the film's villain. It only left me thinking "why?". This, in my opinion, is not of value to the film. Had the filmmakers desired for me to feel anger for the I-rex's rampage, they should have had it slay Zara. As it stands, we have only cause and effect; nothing stimulating or emotionally rivetting. Intellectual honesty demands a certain amount of leeway; there is no mistake with regards to that sentiment. However, I can not shake this underlying sense that Zara's death was a sideshow attraction.

HDTV? Niiiiice....

Well the babysitter could have been freaking out since she was probably thinking that she might be losing her job if she can't find the kids she is supposed to be taking care of.

I gather she was indeed a bit cold, but then, so was Claire at first. I had gotten the understated impression she was devoted to her work in a way that left her as emotionally surpressed as her boss. She was understandably annoyed at having to babysit her boss' nephews, but she clearly sounded distraught when they went missing. The boys were upset that their aunt had pretty much emotionally abandoned them at first, and took it out their emotional frustrations on their babysitter. 

Sam Neil should. Jeff Goldblum made his in one scene with Lowery's desk. Big picture of Ian Malcom on his own book.

Yes, when I saw the raptor figures didn't even close their mouths, I was even more baffled by the 14.99$ price! Not baffled, just surprised.

I do have the money, but I am tyring to save money to buy a HDTV to use in my home desk as both a computer monitor and gaming consoles, so right now I am trying to be very conservative on what I buy, but who knows, maybe I might get it.

I will say the Raptors probably should have been around ten dollars, seems more fitting.

Like I said though, the big Indominus Rex figure is pretty cool, so you might decide to get it at some point if you have the money. Especially if you have other JP figures, they would look awesome posed with the Indominus Rex.

I think Jurassic World did that not really to horrify audiences but to just simply scare them a little bit and show them a possible outcome of what would happen if or when man tries to control and trap nature, eventually the consequences becoming cruel and taking the innocent out with it.

EVen then, for all we know this could have been a mean lady, what if she was rude? The point is, there is not much to know about her as if she was really "innocent", just a little thought of mine I wanted to put out there.

ALso I just wanted to say welcome to the forums, I am one of the moderators here on Scified, so if you ever need ANY help, go ahead an send me a PM and I will be ther to answer it ASAP! :)

The T. rex was drawn by user DinoSteve93 right here on the forum, as a side note. And I don't think its terrible, there is after all a fair chance it looked something like that.

YOu probably look at it weirdly like I did, but I got used to it and actually found a bit cooler after thinking about it, just look at how some birds hunt today.

Now I look at scaly T. rexes and just laugh on how cliche they look as giant bumbling monsters.

FOr example, take the recent Spinosaurus reconstruction, at first many found it appaling to look at, then when it was updated and people threw away their biased portrayals of it, people like me thought of it as more majestic and cool!

Just a thought.

DINOBONEZ - Welcome to SCIFIED! It is always agreeable to see new faces! I very much enjoyed the way in which you presented this topic. There is a professional and legitimate quality to your assertions that I find to be quite compelling! My own views happen to lean in the same driection as yours with regards to this topic of discourse. Thank you ever so much for taking the time to create this topic and present it to us! :)

Well... in all honesty I don't find a Tyrannosaurus nearly as cool with feathers than without.

I guess I won't buy the big Indominus Rex set, thanks for describing it to me!

I don't think I will get the Rapto figures since I thought they were very bad quality and too expensive from they quality I saw from them. If they somehow lower to about 7-9 dollars, perhaps I'll buy one.

I do not plan to open it since I always seem to lose LEGOs, so yeah, maybe It'll be worth some bucks in the near future!

Well, it probably depends on how much you like the Indominus Rex. I'm a huge fan of it, it's just awesome, so I had to have the figures.

That said, the disappointments were that the figure does not stand well, there are several screw holes on one side and the sharp areas are pretty rounded.

However, the roar feature, and glowing feature, look and sound pretty cool, and the figure is pretty bad looking in my opinion, it just has flaws. Overall, I would say buy what you most want first, but if you're an Indominus Rex fan the figure is not bad for $30 if you got the money.

And the smaller Indominus Rex figure is pretty cool too, not nearly as many flaws on that one in my opinion.

I also have Blue, and while the paint is slightly off, it looks cool facing the Indominus figure as long as you can get it to stand.

And hey, no worries on the Lego set, give it a couple years and I'm sure it will be worth a lot more than it is right now. Just look at the JP 3 Lego sets.

There is no true horror to Saw. Cringing, which I suppose in some way can be related to fear, but they're still pretty artless with no underlying purpose to their gruesomeness beyond making audiences recoil in revulsion (though I have been told the first Saw film isn't that bad). 

The (apparently infamous as far as I've witnessed, and I've been quite fascinated) death being discussed here is quite different in execution. It's DELIBERATELY brutal, and very intentionally horrifying, certainly among the strongest moments of such in the film. You're SUPPOSED to sympathize and relate to the poor woman's undeserved predicament, just as the poor woman in the opening of Jaws didn't deserve her fate. Indominus indirectly caused this by scaring away the pterodactyls and causing them to have a massive panic, the winged beasts clearly scared out of their minds and acting more out of that than any real aggression. In a way, I sympathize with them as much as I do for the humans being terrorized. 

As for the first film's raptors, they remain animals lashing out and attacking out of natural instinct. The series has always presented the dinosaurs as animals, not monsters who seek and kill for pleasure. Even the spinosaurus can be seen as being very territorial. 

Also this I believe somewhat helps my statement:

It is from Wikipedia:

"The ground-breaking discovery of fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex soft tissue allowed a molecular comparison of cellular anatomy and protein sequencing of collagen tissue, both of which demonstrated that T. rex and birds are more closely related to each other than either is to Alligator."

There is actually no evidence that T. rexhad feathers, though I follow what most paleontologist say when they say that T. rexprobably had quills on its back. I imagine T. rex to have feathers, but that's just me.

Perhaps one day we will know for sure.

I think this because of how much of a bird it was like. EVen when they found T. rex tissue that somehow survived for so long, it was descriibed to be similar to the tissue and blood vessels of an ostrich/emu, making me think T. rexhad feathers considering how bird-like it seems to me.

But that's my take of the cake, this will be interesting to read what others will say.

KASEY KOCKROACH - You make a very compelling case for your assertion. Let us examine it in greater detail. Your argument is that the Indominous Rex's presence within the film entitled a certain amount of horror. I agree. However, the velociraptors in Jurassic Park also increased the dread and suspense to a large degree - one that (in my opinion) far exceeded that presented by the I-rex in Jurassic World. Zara's death felt almsot exploitative - viciousness for its own sake.