Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Speculative biology is simultaneously a science and form of art in which one speculates on the possibilities of life and evolution. What could the world look like if dinosaurs had never gone extinct? What could alien lifeforms look like? What kinds of plants and animals might exist in the far future? These questions and more are tackled by speculative biologists, and the Speculative Evolution welcomes all relevant ideas, inquiries, and world-building projects alike. With a member base comprising users from across the world, our community is the largest and longest-running place of gathering for speculative biologists on the web.

While unregistered users are able to browse the forum on a basic level, registering an account provides additional forum access not visible to guests as well as the ability to join in discussions and contribute yourself! Registration is free and instantaneous.

Join our community today!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Jurassic Park IV
Topic Started: Jun 3 2012, 08:20 PM (3,230 Views)
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Canis Lupis
Jun 4 2012, 12:09 PM
I am a "Jurassic Park" fan. Always have been, always will be. I've read the book about five times. Seen the first two movies about ten. Third movie, only twice. And that was because I couldn't stand that they replaced the T-rex with the Spinosaurus.

You don't get rid of the T-rex and the Raptors. Are they overused? Yes. But they (along with Stegosaurus, Triceratops, Parasaurolophus, and some kind of sauropod (take your pick)) are the quintessential dinosaurs that any prehistoric park that specializes in dinosaurs needs to have in order to attract a lot of visitors.

It's like a zoo. Have you ever been to a zoo that doesn't have lions, tigers, elephants, some kind of monkey and/or ape, giraffes, and some kind of macropod? It's just not done. Granted, there might be a few exceptions, but the vast majority of zoos are going to have those. Crowds are guaranteed to love those animals and thus come to your zoo to see them.

It would be the same thing with those quintessential dinosaurs. Most guests (and I'm talking about your average guest here, not a biologically astute guest like one of us would be) go to zoos for the quintessential animals but stay for the unique ones. It would be the same with prehistoric parks: come for the T-rex, but stay for the Argentinasaurus.
The man has a point. Bonus if the animal is in baby form? You know how crowded Cinicinnatti Zoo was when the baby giraffe was born? Very fuckin' crowded. And meanwhile, all I was thinking was 'when do we get to the reptile house?'
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


No story there.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canis Lupis
Member Avatar
Dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the Earth.

Fakey
 
The man has a point. Bonus if the animal is in baby form? You know how crowded Cinicinnatti Zoo was when the baby giraffe was born? Very fuckin' crowded. And meanwhile, all I was thinking was 'when do we get to the reptile house?'


A baby of practically any mammalian species is sure to attract a large audience. When a baby elephant was born at the Louisville Zoo and Columbus Zoo, there was a huge crowd (I was a part of it at both places). The same thing happened when an orphaned baby polar bear was transferred to the Louisville Zoo (which I frequent).

People like cute animals. These are usually baby mammals, due to their big eyes, fluffiness (in most cases) and general curiousity (such as watching a baby elephant play with its trunk to discover what it is used for).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Can't forget baby crocodilians though. I wish the zoo would let us watch the baby crocodilians. They're like concentrated diabetes.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Temporary
Transhuman
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
JohnFaa
Jun 4 2012, 10:31 AM
They'll probably include crappy featherless raptors alongside crappy featherless tyrannosaurs.

There, happy?
At least they'd have an excuse, look when the original Jurassic Park was made. Besides, continuity and all that (I seem to actually remember hearing somewhere that Spielberg did want a more accurate remake, but I'm not sure).

I'd rather have a remake. I'll always love the originals, but still. Currently scientifically accurate dinosaurs would be great.
Quote:
 
When the student is ready, the teacher will appear


I'm here.

Posted Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Should we bring back Recon? Click here to share your opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canis Lupis
Member Avatar
Dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the Earth.

I'd love to see a more accurate remake. So long as they made the dinosaurs just as real-looking as in the original. I swear, even though the movie is around two decades old, they are some of the most realistic dinosaurs I have ever seen in a movie or documentary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


They are not dinosaurs. They are themepark monsters made for a non-expert in the early 90's, hence why they look the way they do.

So it's ok for them not to have feathers. They are protogynous hermaphrodites and you're complaining about them not being fluffy?
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Canis Lupis
Member Avatar
Dinosaurs eat man, woman inherits the Earth.

Oh, I understand why they are the way they are. And, in fact, I'd probably enjoy the 1990s version more than a feathered remake. Which is why I don't complain about the dilophosaurus in the movie (even though it is completely different from the dilophosaurus in the book).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
lamna
Jun 4 2012, 03:46 PM
They are not dinosaurs. They are themepark monsters made for a non-expert in the early 90's, hence why they look the way they do.

So it's ok for them not to have feathers. They are protogynous hermaphrodites and you're complaining about them not being fluffy?
Because them being able to switch sexes is symbolic that sexuality of all forms is natural and, since humanity is seen as morons from the movie's point of view, it shows how far we strayed from natural goodness into our heteronormative opression.

Dinosaurs, therefore, are the Na'vi/elves/[insert another superior species here] of Jurassic Park-verse.
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
lamna
Member Avatar


Sometimes a dinosaur is a dinosaur.
Living Fossils

Fósseis Vibos: Reserva Natural


34 MYH, 4 tonne dinosaur.
T.Neo
 
Are nipples or genitals necessary, lamna?
[flash=500,450] Video Magic! [/flash]
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Flishster
Member Avatar
Not Flisch
 *  *  *  *  *  *
Watcher In The Puddle
Jun 4 2012, 11:32 AM
Plus Nanotyranosaurus was a just a juvenile T-rex.
Nanotyrannus has a differently shaped brain. Not a juvi.

Anyways, I'll be happy with JP as long as they explain what happens more than in the third and they add mistakes like in the other ones. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
lamna
Jun 4 2012, 03:46 PM
They are not dinosaurs. They are themepark monsters made for a non-expert in the early 90's, hence why they look the way they do.

So it's ok for them not to have feathers. They are protogynous hermaphrodites and you're complaining about them not being fluffy?


Actually, it was made in the 80s. In the book it was hinted at that the geneticists that made the dinosaurs are dumber than they claim to be. Seriously, what good geneticist makes an animal have a lysine dependency? Any self-respecting biologist knows that most animals don't produce lysine to begin with.

You see, Dr. Henry Wu was an idiot, and quite frankly, I loved it when he died in the book.


Now, go see what Steven Speilberg did with the movie. Go watch the special features in the new box set. He wanted the dinosaur to act as accurately as possible in the movie. And for the time period, they did. T. rex was lone hunter and whatnot.

The dilophosaurus wasn't actually his doing. You can blame the people who made the animatronic. They went and made the Dilo itty bitty with a frill, not Steven.

JohnFaa
Jun 4 2012, 04:18 PM
lamna
Jun 4 2012, 03:46 PM
They are not dinosaurs. They are themepark monsters made for a non-expert in the early 90's, hence why they look the way they do.

So it's ok for them not to have feathers. They are protogynous hermaphrodites and you're complaining about them not being fluffy?
Because them being able to switch sexes is symbolic that sexuality of all forms is natural and, since humanity is seen as morons from the movie's point of view, it shows how far we strayed from natural goodness into our heteronormative opression.

Dinosaurs, therefore, are the Na'vi/elves/[insert another superior species here] of Jurassic Park-verse.


You're going to find yourself missing some fingers if you keep acting like a violent hipster. You don't like dinosaurs, save for falcons.

WE GET IT.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
T.Neo
Member Avatar
Translunar injection: TLI
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Lamna, it's because featherless dinosaurs are stupid. They are awful.

Posted Image

Posted Image

Look at these featherless dinosaurs. Do they look stupid? Do they look awful? Of course they do. That's because they are awful.

It should not change based on the measly status of something being extant or extinct, or within or outside the clade of Aves.

Also, it'd be interesting if they took the original Jurassic Park footage and redid it with dinosaurs possessing a semblance of accuracy. There'd still be a lot of nonsense (like gigantic velociraptors and venom-spitting dilophosaurs) but it would help... a little.

That said actual practical effects like animatronics would be more difficult to replace than CG stuff. With advanced enough technology, who knows. The real limitation is the pricetag, after all.
A hard mathematical figure provides a sort of enlightenment to one's understanding of an idea that is never matched by mere guesswork.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Carlos
Member Avatar
Adveho in me Lucifero
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Quote:
 
You're going to find yourself missing some fingers if you keep acting like a violent hipster. You don't like dinosaurs, save for falcons.

WE GET IT.


You seem to forget that only one of us has the means to travel and beat the crap out of the other...
Lemuria:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/topic/5724950/

Terra Alternativa:
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Conceptual_Evolution/forum/460637/

My Patreon:

https://www.patreon.com/Carliro

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kamidio
Member Avatar
The Game Master of the SSU:NC
 *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Actually, the T. rex in Jurassic park is till the most accurate in history, not counting the behavior.
SSU:NC - Finding a new home.
Posted Image
Quotes
WAA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply