Incoming Paleo Community Rant!

People are like that on the internet.

I rant but a i don’t try to sound angry...

TRY

Life finds a way....

SasquaDash

I don’t think being nick picky about details is a bad thing. It’s not a direct cause of the rudeness found in the paleontological community, If someone is gonna be sick of it they can but it’s dependent on both parties to stay calm.

HinikunaGoji

I understand that a lot of people on the internet act this way. The problem is that the paleo community's behavior has gotten way too out of control to the point were it's actually doing more harm than good. For lack of a better term, the community has become so toxic that it's doing a lot of damage to the field of paleontology. When people want to learn about dinosaurs, they shouldn't have to worry about being targeted by a group of condescending, narcissistic a**holes. I've tried to ignore the issue in the past, hoping that it will eventually resolve itself, but it has only gotten worse. These people need to be called out on their garbage behavior and held accountable for their actions. Ignoring the problem isn't helping. These issues need to be addressed if the community wants to improve, otherwise its going to become more extinct than the creatures they study...

HinikunaGoji 

It's not just about people nit picking details or not liking something that others like, It's about how these people act and the way they treat others. A lot of the people involved claim to be professionals, yet they act like a bunch of angry toddlers and are constantly attacking others like a pack of rabid jackals (I can name at least eight public figures who are guilty of this). It's gotten so bad that there are times that you can't even mention paleontology or dinosaurs without the situation devolving into a massive fight. Are we really just going to sit here and pretend that this is okay? I feel like these problems should be addressed, not ignored.

I feel a bit bad because even if I haven't really talked about it online I can be nitpicky about media with dinosaurs, for example, Dino Ranch. It's a new(er) show on Disney Jr (my baby brother watches it), and I'm always going off on it.

um...so yeah i'm not helping am i

Kattozilla

I don't know why you would be so upset over that show, it's just a harmless cartoon for preschoolers... 

I'm not upset

just...

d i s a p p o i n t e d

and i more just like to riff on it for fun like i always do for kids shows

Disney always were backwards when it came to dinosaurs. I remember one disney show stated that the dinosaurs died off because of the Ice Age

T-Rex vs Stegosaurus anyone?

Xenotaris

Are you referring to Jim Henson's "Dinosaurs"? The final episode of that show featured the dinosaurs creating a bunch of environmental problems that eventually led to a "nuclear winter/ice age", with the end of the episode implying that the dinosaurs had caused their own extinction.

Ah shoot fam

i feel like its a reference to something but i dont know what... *wink wink*

SasquaDash
I almost forgot about THAT show, yeah there was a lot of things wrong about that show. Caveman and Dinosaurs living together ughhh. Meat eating Triceratop boss, Plant eating t. rex and megalosaurus. Also the main character's family doesn't make any sense at a biological stand point, how the hell does a Megalosaurus who marries I guess a Dilophosaurus gives birth to a Protoceratops, Hypsilophodon, and Ceratosaurus (or whatever Genus the Baby was)?

But no this Disney show was more of a cheap CGI cartoon.

Don't get me started with that trash called a Good Dinosaur

I can handle scientifically inaccurate dinosaurs, I am a huge Jurassic Park/World fan. I also love The Land Before Time. I guess I am more of a middle road paleo/dinosaur fan.

As I grow older I prefer more scientifically accurate dinosaurs but I do love when a dinosaur movie tries to explain why the inaccuracy are there. Jurassic Park/World has an easy justification that they are genetically modified man-made dinosaurs rather than natural original dinosaurs that died off 66 Million Years Ago.

The Land Before Time is set in its own little world but also along the way they try to introduce more scientifically accurate species in the sequels. The reason why little foot and friends don't change is because they have to look recognizable.

Kattozilla

I used to thought the T. rex was an Allosaurus until years later I realized it was a three fingered Tyrannosaurus because Walt himself thought it looked better.

I never watched it but I heard Dinosaurs was a good show

Yep three-fingered rex is a thing.

It had its moments but a lot of it for me was cringe. The only character I liked was the baby and the dad

dababy

lesssss goooooo

(ok i'm sorry)

At least Dinosaur Train gives Buddy two fingers.

And some dinosaurs have feathers (not ALL the ones that need them but at least a few) so there's that

And also the theme is catchy af

I never saw Dinosaur Train. 

Xenotaris

Yes, Jim Henson's had its inaccuracies, however the show itself was ever meant to be accurate, it was meant to be a stylized world that was meant to be a satire of our own society, and in that way it did an amazing job. Hell, some of the topics featured in the episodes hold up extremely well and are still pretty relevant to the issues we are currently facing (there was an episode making fun of racism, boarder walls and attempts to blame recession on immigration, which is more relevant today, than it was in the 90s). The main antagonist of the show was named B.P. Richfield (named after B.P. Oil), who would carelessly try to destroy the environment (This was BEFORE the B.P. oil spill). Honestly, this show was ahead of its time.

Honestly, I never got the hate that The Good Dinosaur received. Sure, it wasn't Pixar's strongest film, but at the same time I thought the story was pretty cute and harmless, and had some interesting ideas (although, I feel that the premise of the dinosaurs surviving extinction, and creating their own society was a bit underused). It's not a movie that I would watch over and over again, but it is a movie that I did enjoy and I wouldn't be opposed to watching it again.

Fantasia was made in the 40s, so at the time it was made, many of the dinosaur depictions were considered accurate (including the three-fingered rex). A lot of it may be outdated Today, but that doesn't stop it from being a beautifully made piece of animation.

This is honestly one of my main problems with the paleo community. They throw a fit over any slight inaccuracies and complain about every tiny detail. I find the fact that people are getting this angry over slightly inaccurate portrayals of prehistoric creatures kind of ridiculous, especially when you consider the fact that no one has a problem with modern animals being portrayed inaccurately. There's so much drama and tragedy happening in the world today, slightly wrong depictions of long dead creatures are the least of our problems... 

ack see

i do this to myself without realizing it

actually as I mentioned they knew Tyrannosaurus had on two digits per hand, It was Walt Disney who added the third finger due to personal preference. 

The Good Dinosaur sucks because the dinosaur designs were just atrocious and the arrogant belief that humans would evolve anyways despite that dinosaurs would prevent mammals from taking any large roles in the ecosystem when you had microraptors and small dromaeosaurs already supplying the niche for primates. 

Xenotaris

The Good Dinosaur was a fantasy movie it wasn't trying to be realistic. As for their designs, I don't think they were that bad, they were simple, stylized, almost child-like interpretations of dinosaurs. I see no problem with that...

My childhood drawings of dinosaurs looked alot better than their interpretations. The Land Before Time had better dinosaur designs than a Good Dinosaur, they shouldn't have tried to set it up as a what-if scenario if the asteroid missed.  The movie was made for anti-science people and pro-humanism people

Xenotaris

Uh...over dramatic, much?

I don't hate it, it just makes me 'uncomfortable' because uuhhh...a certain youtuber talked about it and some bad stuff about that youtuber has been revealed and i kinda associate The Good Dinosaur with them and...yeah

Kattozilla

Which youtuber? And what information are you talking about?

Disney gives a semi-creationist vibe which I don't like

Ok so the ytber was Cosmodore and the information.....uh....let's just say hopefully he's not allowed near a school

Kattozilla

Oh, Okay. Yeah, I know about the Cosmodore situation and how bad it is, which sucks because I used to really enjoy his videos...

That being said I think it's a little unfair to hate on the Good Dinosaur because of the fact that he reviewed it. What Cosmo did was completely unforgivable, but I don't think that the movie should suffer because of one reviewer's actions. 

They really shouldn't. But, my silly little brain decides to associate everything with everything and I can't get it out of my head

Kattozilla

Another big staple of Cosmodore's channel was that he reviewed every season of SpongeBob SquarePants (one of my favorite cartoons of all time). When the information of his actions surfaced, I was of course pretty disgusted. However, it didn't change the fact that I still loved SpongeBob, it was a huge part of my childhood and was extremely influential to me, and that will never change. He may have reviewed it, but he wasn't officially part of its production.

If a member of a show/movie/game's production does something horrible or has an extremely terrible attitude (there's one in particular that I plan on addressing in my upcoming paleo rant) then I understand not supporting the project. However, a reviewer has no say in the production of a certain product, they are only giving their opinion on it. It would be like if a critic reviewed Jaws, and then it was revealed that this critic had actually murdered someone. His/her actions wouldn't affect the quality of Jaws as a film just because they gave a review for it.

I do understand your concerns, but like I said, art shouldn't be judged by actions of a reviewer, it should be judged on its own merits.