Jurassic World Argument

The feathers thing... Is actually More of an "Advised" Scientific Theory, More then Cold Hard truth. 

You see, We wear winter coats... But will those all Show up in the Fossil record? Nope. 

My belief, Is that Dinosaurs of Colder Reigons, And during winters, Would grow feathers for warmth.

While some may maintain them all year round for warmth.

Others may just have a little crown on their heads for mating purposes.

My point being, Is we don't really have ENOUGH, To fully justify that Every dinosaur had feathers... Do you know the Climate they had? Really Bloody Hot. 

I can tell you now from living in canada, That you DO NOT, Grow/Wear Things to Intened to Keep you warm, WHEN IT ALREADY IS WARM. 

My final parting bit will be this...

Do you think a Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Pachyrhinosaurus, would have Feathers?

Think about that for a minute... 

Would a t-rex or velociraptor with feathers running around like a chicken be scary at all?

No.

Yeah, Not all of them would have feathers but some of them would from that theory, there's no way we can be 100% sure but it's a higly suggested theory now and it really dosn't matter if they did or not for the movie because they already have an established look.

Double Post.

A dinosaur was found with fossilized feathers early on in the evolutionary timeline, so it would have made more sense to see them with SOME feathers.

i dont think all dinosaurs had feathers. it came in handy for velociraptor because it gets rather cold in the desert and it was small so its hard for it to generate enough heat on its own. for something like a tyrannosaurus it most likely didnt need them in adulthood but had them when they were young for body warmth and shed them as they got older. i dont really like when people assume things. i get that the whole field is built around guess work and assumptions but we can take these things as truth until we have cold hard evidence. if theres something that disproves my own thoughts on how feathers were featured on dinosaurs i will at least give it some thought instead of saying there absolutely wrong 

Well... I'm a little upset. I knew from early on that they probably wouldn't have feathers, but having it confirmed is a bit disapointing. NOW, Godzillasaurus Rex, you just used the worst arguement ever. Your arguement is dowsed in ignorance, which I will attempt to correct. 

Now, imagine you're stranded on an island full of prehistoric monsters who want to eat your flesh. I don't think it'll matter to you whether or not they have feathers, as the are still plenty F***ing dangerous, and will kill and eat you. I bet that you'd crap yourself in that situation. So, your arguement is BS.

Now Paden has a much better arguement. He is using actual logic and reasoning to explain why he believes that feathers would be impractical. Do I agree with him? No, not really. But I do respect him.

@Silver_Falcon

I was referring to CGI dinosaurs and not real dinosaurs. My pants would be full of crap indeed I was on an island trapped with dinos that are out for blood.

Why would the CGI having (or not) feathers make it less scary? It's not that it's a chicken attacking them, it's still a velociraptor. If anything, I think feathers could be used to make them even scarier. Today, some of the most intelligent animals on Earth posess feathers, namely crows and birds of prey. These animals are generally very tidy animals, and will clean themselves off after a kill.

Now imagine watching a gang of raptors chasing down and killing a group of humans (something like the tall grass scene in TLW, but with feathers). The camera looks back and we see some raptors fighting over a kill, their arm feathers spread out and ruffling, teeth and claws bared. Another pair, having already eaten his fill, stand to the side. One of them is grooming itself, while the other one just stares at you with eyes modeled after a bird of prey's.

Another example is the dinosaurs seen in Dinosaur Planet. Despite the Velociraptors being feathered and of the proper size, some of them still looked villainous, and threatening. The raptors in Terra Nova were also impressive, and even scary. (if you haven't seen either of these, please, go watch them. They are great shows.)

Terra Nova Nykoraptor

Dinosaur Planet Velociraptor

Dinosaur Revolution Velociraptor

I honestly just think it depends on how it's executed in some cases.

Dinosaur Revolutin Velociraptor looks really goofy IMO. While Terra Nova and Dinosaur Planet is more of how I'd imagine a good looking feathered dinosaur.

i cant believe scientists are bitching about a science fiction film... like seriousely? lol its just a film to entertain...

GODZILLASAURUS REX Yeah You would crap your pants, wouldn't you. 

We all would. Feathers or not. 

I'm a great feather fan, and to be honest, what we think or what our opinion about feathered dinosaurs is, doesn't really count. It's irrelevant if you like a feathered Velociraptor or not, it won't change the fact that Velociraptor was feathered. Now, of course not all dinosaur had feathers, mostly coelurosaurs have shown us evidence strong enough to assume they were feathered.

Also Paden, it doesn't count if a dinosaur or a bird is feathered in a cold or warm climate, it really doesn't. Feathers, unlike fur, are very good for both warming up and cooling down, that's why you see fully feathered birds in al climates, but the mammals in warmer climates are essentially fur-less.

Anyway, on a more "On topic" note... as much as an accuracy fan or feather fan I may be, I think it would be stupid to portray feathered dinosaurs in JW. For one, Jurassic Park is not a documentary saga, they're entertainment movies, they're not meant to educate us, but to entertain us. Furthermore, feathered dinosaurs would ruin the continuity of the other films, it would be stupid to see feathered dinosaurs just pop up in a movie after its predecessors were all scaly and reptilians.

A last reason would be... *may be shocking* JW's dinosaurs... aren't dinosaurs... this is NOT a dinosaur movie, it's a monster movie... those animals are genetically modified monsters that use bits of dinosaur genome.

Of course movie monsters should not be feathered.

BTW... These scientists need to get a life. 

BTW... These scientists need to get a life. 

Dinostve93 i agree! 

We cant change the continuaty of the films look what happend to jp3. My theory tho based on JURASSIC TIME where it is about the memoirs of john hammond actually read by richard attenbrough himself tells a story before jurassic park leading to the park And site b experiments 

http://youtu.be/u_WpsDOXtGQ Any wy my point being is that he said that ingen released three types of raptors into the island. My guess is that the third species are the ones in jp3 which had the feather gene implanted. Now i loved the feathers on their head, they looked awesome just didnt get explained. Thats my theory based on that evidence in the link. Check it out. Thty are also a difderent species, red eyed and round pupils as apposed to yellow with slit pupils, something to think about. 

Any way about the film . Yh they are all gen modified so as long as they still look pretty much how tey should thats gd enough for me! And also for the ppl who said a chicken aint scary! Have u ever pissed off a chicken beforw lmao !! Vicous little bastards! 

if there was a 20ft chicken running after me id bloody run i know that. Put things in perspextive ppl! 

It isn't even a debate now: Velociraptor (and its relatives) were feathered. T.rex was likely feathered as well, big size doesn't matter. However, in JP, dinosaurs aren't feathered because they aren't dinosaurs, but mutants.

It looks like Horner wanted feathered dinosaurs, but he was ignored. For example, over a year ago, Horner told Cau that JW was going to include feathered dinosaurs

NANO-REX3 - This is an extremely compelling topic you've brought forward! Hmm, with regards to the animals presented in Jurassic World, I'd have to say the absence of feathers is a negligable aspect. What Mr. Hammond and InGen created were hybridized animals drawn from multiple genetic sources. There's no telling what that sort of cross-cultivation would produce! The lack of feathers being evidenced by some of the animals could be a tame result compared to the other anomalies that could have arisen due to the egentic tampering InGen pioneered! In the end, however, I believe that it's perfectly fine for the animals of Jurassic World to not have feathers as they aren't true dinosarus; they're genetic bastardizations produced to awe crowds and bring in revinue for the company. With that as the case, I suppose it's fine for such a glaring lack to be present - it highlights the animals in such a way to make them seem as "fake" as the corporation that produced them!

    This was a very fun topic to consider! Thank you so much for presenting this to us! :)

Actually, I just thought of a solution that makes everyone happy...

So, there are some new dinos in the park, right? And we know that one of these is Deinonychus, right? Well, If I recall correctly, Deinonychus wasn't a species originally on the island. Now, that would mean they, the masrani geneticists, would have to have created them, right?

So, what if they, based off of more recent scientific knowledge filled in the Deinonychus DNA with that of a, say, eagle? This would mean there are the Velociraptors, who have no feathers, and the Deinonychus, who do. This would provide the series purists with what they want and the scientific purists with what they want.

So, who's with me?

SILVER_FALCON - I could certainly live with that arrangement! :)