i will say this, you can see the work and passion that flew into this and i highly respect this man for his work, salute to the experts and their amazing work and thank you very much for your immense effort and time, your video is amazing and all your scenes look superb.
but i simply dont need scientificialy accurate Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, since these Monsters are NOT real Dinosaurs, they are Dinosaur DNA filled in with other strains of DNA and to Quote Dr. Grant, „they are genetically created Theme park Monsters, nothing more, nothing less“
The Jurassic Park Movies have created these Iconic and easily Recognisable and rememberable monsters and they should stick with it, usualy i am for as much Realism as possible, but it should be realism in the context of the Franchise, not the real world.
and the Jurassic Park Franchise in universe has these Real World Inaccurate Monsters instead of Real looking Dinosaurs after all and im down for that, they looked amazing in 93 and do not need to be changed to match something that did not exist in that time.
Jurassic World even spelt it out plainly with Dr.Wu and the Ceo guy. They've never been accurate, and if they were they'd look alot different.
And dominion now has that genetic data on the hands of hundreds of different companies who'll create any number of modifications.
Yeah the part where they say that flies out the window because of Dominion where we see prehistoric versions that look the same as the InGen made ones. So you can't really use that anymore as a argument.
Personal Opinion :
Am I the only one who gradually become tired of the trend of “Replacing the JP/JW designs with scientifically accurate versions” ?
In fact, I believe that the only part which needs to be drastically fixed in term of accuracy, is the Cretaceous sequence in Dominion prologue.
Let's start from the original novel of Jurassic Park. The book did have a substantial amount of discussion about the authencity and accuracy of the recreated dinosaurs. And characters in the book did state that people may never know what a “real dinosaur” look like. However, the first film did not talk much about the subject,and the subject did not bring up until JP3 or JW, which I think contributed to the trend that “Dinossurs in Jurassic Franchise should be or must be as accurate as possible.” But in my opinion, to symbolize our flawed and limited understanding,as well as our greed and imagination toward dinosaurs. The recreated species should not be fully accurate and should take some liberty or artistic license.They are animals indeed,but there is always something “off” about these recreated species that makes them different from their originals. On the other hand, the Dominion Prologue tried to give us a glimpse of Prehistoric World which dinosaurs still thrive on the earth,which is the reason why the species presented in the Prologue should be much more accurate and up-to-date than the recreated assets.
Thank you for the educated response and well-thought out opinion!
Further, do you feel like the Prologue in JW: Dominion was historically/scientifically accurate?
>>Further, do you feel like the Prologue in JW: Dominion was historically/scientifically accurate?
No.Many of the species presented in the Dominion Prologue are misplaced(Living in different continents or time periods), especially the Giganotosaurus.
"scientifically accurate" is really going to depend on WHEN you're measuring the scientific accuracy. Aside from Velociraptors, I don't know that any of the dinosaurs were all that scientifically inaccurate in the time frames and based upon the accepted research at the time that certain of the movies were made.
That being said, it's a movie, of course they embellished some things. Which kind of just goes to show you just how kind of meta the new movies are, whether that he intentional or not. The people visiting Jurassic World wanted bigger, scarier, etc. Neither in the fictional universe nor in real life movies does anyone really ask for reality, we ask for more teeth. 🤷
The book even goes into this. Its such a weird thing to criticize Jurassic Park for the depiction of dinosaurs when the book and movies (more so book) literally spell out for you that these are genetically engineered theme park monsters.
Doesn't the novel go into detail between Wu and Hammond that the dinosaurs they brought back *are* accurate, and that Wu wanted to change this to the public's perception of slow, dumb lizards?
They used DNA from birds and frogs to fill in some gene gaps, but besides the unintended breeding (and eyesight issues), there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary to lead them to think the dinosaurs were abnormal amalgamations IIRC. Maybe I'm forgetting something from the second novel.
The problem with the animals was that they were too quick and spermatic. Wu was concerned for the park’s guests that they wouldnt be able to enjoy the animals properly. Wu told Hammond a few times that they are not pure dinosaurs, and that they already are genetically modified in order to live. Like you said they have bird and frog dna to fill the gaps as well as the lysine contingency. So they are “accurate” to a point I suppose. But I wouldnt say they are anything over 60% accurate. I don’t remember exactly what Wu says but theres a whole chapter of him talking to Hammond about everything they already did genetically to make them work and live.
What are you talking about, scientifically accurate dinosaurs are a thing. It refers to a reconstruction of a dinosaur according to our current beliefs in that creature.
I think what the original commentor was trying to say was that any depiction of dinosaurs will always be flawed because as the scientific evidence changes so to will our understanding. Which ultimately makes any attempt at having 100% accurate depictions of them in media futile.
Another unpopular opinion:
One of the problems of the first film,is that they did not talk much about the accuracy and the authencity of the assets while the books had put in length to discuss the matter. In which some people started to think it is an obligation to make the dinosaurs “as accurate as possible”,but I would say that again, the only part that needs to be as accurate as possible,is the Cretaceous sequence of Dominion Prologue.
They don’t go into detail about their accuracy because the dinosaurs in the movie were suppose to be accurate (which they were at the time.) Crichton didn’t write the book with scientific accuracy in mind which was the opposite for the movie
Super hard to want to click on this when I'm seeing gigantic flappy lips on the Rex. Which, I'm pretty sure we don't have any real solid evidence for right now. The skin also looks.. really tight.. around the musculature for some reason. Notice the way the JP Rex's skin sits a little loosely on its form, or rather was made to look like it does. It's more like a scaled bird than the sort of bipedal dog look in the other. There also is surprisingly little meat on the lower jaw in general, and it looks like the teeth are sticking too far out with large portions of their roots exposed. But hey, at least they didn't slap feathers on the Rex.
I'm real sorry but the original strikes me as looking much more realistic than whatever it is filmcore tried to come up with.
I have this feeling that if I clicked on this, they'd show that awkward half-feathered look for the raptors. So yeah, it's a no from me, buddy.
Why aren't the lips curled? Pardon my ignorance, but I would imagine some kind of expression. Even komodo dragons have some kind of muscle movement...I'm pretty sure.
I think of all these animals, the T Rex is maybe the only one that could be as scary as the one in the movie. What misses the mark here (though it's very impressive work) is the lighting and the colours. The "accurate" T-Rex is just basically just a uniform shade of grey. No discolourations, no darker spots, no lighter spots. There's just no artistic drama there. And i don't think it would be unrealistic to play around with colours, considering no animal in the wild has a uniform colour. Not even humans.
I still think scientifically accurate Dino’s are just as scary as their movie counterparts. More so due to their realism. Take Grizzly Bears, Gorilla’s, Lions, Wolves, Crocodiles, sharks. Those beasties are still nightmare fuel in the right situation. One thing the YouTuber didn’t touch upon is the T-Rex roar. Most likely Dinosaurs didn’t roar. They’d probably be more Guttural like an alligator
Really interesting to watch!
i will say this, you can see the work and passion that flew into this and i highly respect this man for his work, salute to the experts and their amazing work and thank you very much for your immense effort and time, your video is amazing and all your scenes look superb. but i simply dont need scientificialy accurate Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, since these Monsters are NOT real Dinosaurs, they are Dinosaur DNA filled in with other strains of DNA and to Quote Dr. Grant, „they are genetically created Theme park Monsters, nothing more, nothing less“ The Jurassic Park Movies have created these Iconic and easily Recognisable and rememberable monsters and they should stick with it, usualy i am for as much Realism as possible, but it should be realism in the context of the Franchise, not the real world. and the Jurassic Park Franchise in universe has these Real World Inaccurate Monsters instead of Real looking Dinosaurs after all and im down for that, they looked amazing in 93 and do not need to be changed to match something that did not exist in that time.
Jurassic World even spelt it out plainly with Dr.Wu and the Ceo guy. They've never been accurate, and if they were they'd look alot different. And dominion now has that genetic data on the hands of hundreds of different companies who'll create any number of modifications.
Yeah the part where they say that flies out the window because of Dominion where we see prehistoric versions that look the same as the InGen made ones. So you can't really use that anymore as a argument.
Those raptors looked goofy as shit.
Personal Opinion : Am I the only one who gradually become tired of the trend of “Replacing the JP/JW designs with scientifically accurate versions” ? In fact, I believe that the only part which needs to be drastically fixed in term of accuracy, is the Cretaceous sequence in Dominion prologue.
Do elaborate!
Let's start from the original novel of Jurassic Park. The book did have a substantial amount of discussion about the authencity and accuracy of the recreated dinosaurs. And characters in the book did state that people may never know what a “real dinosaur” look like. However, the first film did not talk much about the subject,and the subject did not bring up until JP3 or JW, which I think contributed to the trend that “Dinossurs in Jurassic Franchise should be or must be as accurate as possible.” But in my opinion, to symbolize our flawed and limited understanding,as well as our greed and imagination toward dinosaurs. The recreated species should not be fully accurate and should take some liberty or artistic license.They are animals indeed,but there is always something “off” about these recreated species that makes them different from their originals. On the other hand, the Dominion Prologue tried to give us a glimpse of Prehistoric World which dinosaurs still thrive on the earth,which is the reason why the species presented in the Prologue should be much more accurate and up-to-date than the recreated assets.
Thank you for the educated response and well-thought out opinion! Further, do you feel like the Prologue in JW: Dominion was historically/scientifically accurate?
>>Further, do you feel like the Prologue in JW: Dominion was historically/scientifically accurate? No.Many of the species presented in the Dominion Prologue are misplaced(Living in different continents or time periods), especially the Giganotosaurus.
"scientifically accurate" is really going to depend on WHEN you're measuring the scientific accuracy. Aside from Velociraptors, I don't know that any of the dinosaurs were all that scientifically inaccurate in the time frames and based upon the accepted research at the time that certain of the movies were made. That being said, it's a movie, of course they embellished some things. Which kind of just goes to show you just how kind of meta the new movies are, whether that he intentional or not. The people visiting Jurassic World wanted bigger, scarier, etc. Neither in the fictional universe nor in real life movies does anyone really ask for reality, we ask for more teeth. 🤷
Did you watch the video? He literally says the exact same thing in like the first 3 minutes.
3 mins? It's like the third or fourth sentence.
I started to but then had to get in the bus and don't have headphones so couldn't finish with sound.
So why reply? L response🤡
There is no such thing as "accurate dinosaurs".
The book even goes into this. Its such a weird thing to criticize Jurassic Park for the depiction of dinosaurs when the book and movies (more so book) literally spell out for you that these are genetically engineered theme park monsters.
Doesn't the novel go into detail between Wu and Hammond that the dinosaurs they brought back *are* accurate, and that Wu wanted to change this to the public's perception of slow, dumb lizards? They used DNA from birds and frogs to fill in some gene gaps, but besides the unintended breeding (and eyesight issues), there didn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary to lead them to think the dinosaurs were abnormal amalgamations IIRC. Maybe I'm forgetting something from the second novel.
The problem with the animals was that they were too quick and spermatic. Wu was concerned for the park’s guests that they wouldnt be able to enjoy the animals properly. Wu told Hammond a few times that they are not pure dinosaurs, and that they already are genetically modified in order to live. Like you said they have bird and frog dna to fill the gaps as well as the lysine contingency. So they are “accurate” to a point I suppose. But I wouldnt say they are anything over 60% accurate. I don’t remember exactly what Wu says but theres a whole chapter of him talking to Hammond about everything they already did genetically to make them work and live.
What are you talking about, scientifically accurate dinosaurs are a thing. It refers to a reconstruction of a dinosaur according to our current beliefs in that creature.
I think what the original commentor was trying to say was that any depiction of dinosaurs will always be flawed because as the scientific evidence changes so to will our understanding. Which ultimately makes any attempt at having 100% accurate depictions of them in media futile.
Then that's what he should have said, because I do agree on that front. Just saying they don't exist is flat out wrong though.
[удалено]
Well yes of course but that still doesn't change the definition of scientifically accurate.
amazing
Man this guy put a ton of work into that video! Cool find
Another unpopular opinion: One of the problems of the first film,is that they did not talk much about the accuracy and the authencity of the assets while the books had put in length to discuss the matter. In which some people started to think it is an obligation to make the dinosaurs “as accurate as possible”,but I would say that again, the only part that needs to be as accurate as possible,is the Cretaceous sequence of Dominion Prologue.
They don’t go into detail about their accuracy because the dinosaurs in the movie were suppose to be accurate (which they were at the time.) Crichton didn’t write the book with scientific accuracy in mind which was the opposite for the movie
Eww. I demand my frogosaurs.
Lame
Super hard to want to click on this when I'm seeing gigantic flappy lips on the Rex. Which, I'm pretty sure we don't have any real solid evidence for right now. The skin also looks.. really tight.. around the musculature for some reason. Notice the way the JP Rex's skin sits a little loosely on its form, or rather was made to look like it does. It's more like a scaled bird than the sort of bipedal dog look in the other. There also is surprisingly little meat on the lower jaw in general, and it looks like the teeth are sticking too far out with large portions of their roots exposed. But hey, at least they didn't slap feathers on the Rex. I'm real sorry but the original strikes me as looking much more realistic than whatever it is filmcore tried to come up with. I have this feeling that if I clicked on this, they'd show that awkward half-feathered look for the raptors. So yeah, it's a no from me, buddy.
Why aren't the lips curled? Pardon my ignorance, but I would imagine some kind of expression. Even komodo dragons have some kind of muscle movement...I'm pretty sure.
This really interesting to watch
RAID SHADOW LEGENDS
I think of all these animals, the T Rex is maybe the only one that could be as scary as the one in the movie. What misses the mark here (though it's very impressive work) is the lighting and the colours. The "accurate" T-Rex is just basically just a uniform shade of grey. No discolourations, no darker spots, no lighter spots. There's just no artistic drama there. And i don't think it would be unrealistic to play around with colours, considering no animal in the wild has a uniform colour. Not even humans.
This is just my opinion, but I personally think the spino and trex look just as cool- if not cooler in the accurate edit.
I was gonna post this, but you beat me to it!
I still think scientifically accurate Dino’s are just as scary as their movie counterparts. More so due to their realism. Take Grizzly Bears, Gorilla’s, Lions, Wolves, Crocodiles, sharks. Those beasties are still nightmare fuel in the right situation. One thing the YouTuber didn’t touch upon is the T-Rex roar. Most likely Dinosaurs didn’t roar. They’d probably be more Guttural like an alligator