Jurassic World - The Park is Open - Out now

Karl wrote:I saw this the other day and thought it was great. Had a big grin on my face from start to finish.

I've heard a few people describe it as 'ridiculous' and, while they're of course entitled to their opinion, I'm not sure what they were expecting from a film about a dinosaur theme park. I would have been disappointed if it weren't a bit ridiculous, really.

People who have a genuine problem with the Jurassic films for not having feathered dinos are the worst. Incredible pedantry.

There was some line in World from Wu about them leaving out some genetically accurate aspects of Dinosaur DNA for aesthetic purposes. Pretty sure he was referring to feathers.

Just saw it. Loved it. Great, daft summer blockbuster and it did justice to the original.

Impressed.

chalkitdown wrote:There was some line in World from Wu about them leaving out some genetically accurate aspects of Dinosaur DNA for aesthetic purposes. Pretty sure he was referring to feathers.

Yeah, glad they threw in something in the actual films for people to use as a defence. Wish they'd been more literal and said "We engineered them to not have feathers" then stared into the camera and flipped a middle finger

Apart from some shitty CGI and pointless story points I really liked it.

Bryce Dallas Howard and her sweatiness mean I would've had to have given it a thumbs up anyway.

I didn't really care for any of the characters, and I was more worried when it looked like a rather sweet dino was going to bite the dust. I teared up a bit when that poor baby triceratops being lifted up by that pterodactyl. :'(

Hey guys,an angry Tiger has escaped from its zoo enclosure... Lets release the Lions that are mates with Jeff, he's taught them how to say roar in french one time.

Skippy wrote:
Karl wrote:I saw this the other day and thought it was great. Had a big grin on my face from start to finish.

I've heard a few people describe it as 'ridiculous' and, while they're of course entitled to their opinion, I'm not sure what they were expecting from a film about a dinosaur theme park. I would have been disappointed if it weren't a bit ridiculous, really.

People who have a genuine problem with the Jurassic films for not having feathered dinos are the worst. Incredible pedantry.

I agree! Especially since it's explained so well in-universe.

Karl wrote:
Skippy wrote:
Karl wrote:I saw this the other day and thought it was great. Had a big grin on my face from start to finish.

I've heard a few people describe it as 'ridiculous' and, while they're of course entitled to their opinion, I'm not sure what they were expecting from a film about a dinosaur theme park. I would have been disappointed if it weren't a bit ridiculous, really.

People who have a genuine problem with the Jurassic films for not having feathered dinos are the worst. Incredible pedantry.

I agree! Especially since it's explained so well in-universe.

Especially seen as dinosaurs having feathers is only a theory. I'm sure some did, but did they all and the fact that they were around for millions and millions of years I would guess that they went through quiet a lot of evolution in that time. Just think how much they believe humans have changed in appearance in only tens of thousands of years, let alone millions.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Especially seen as dinosaurs having feathers is only a theory. I'm sure some did, but did they all and the fact that they were around for millions and millions of years I would guess that they went through quiet a lot of evolution in that time. Just think how much they believe humans have changed in appearance in only tens of thousands of years, let alone millions.

We have a pretty good idea of which dinosaurs had feathers (I'll condense it because I posted it on the last page already):

I think the film is a bit disappointing, in truth but it's a hell lot better than the last two sequels.

The only thing I burst out laughing was one character's OTT death scene. Chris Pratt seems to be limited by the script. Not too many likeable characters. Good nods to the original film.

Other than that, it's just a plain average summer blockbuster film.

6/10

Watched it last night and was surprised just how cold it left me feeling, especially the set up of the first half an hour or so. Everything about the plot was unbelievable and cynical where the first film was ambitious and groundbreaking, deservedly sitting where it does in everyone's hearts. The whole weaponisation of dinosaurs thing was a massive leap too far. The idea of the park going more and more extreme with their exhibits despite the danger (even if the whole hybrid thing itself felt rubbish) sits better with Crichton's original book and Westworld and would have been enough.

Even enjoyed The Lost World much more for all its flaws. Really disappointed.

Karl wrote:
Return_of_the_STAR wrote:Especially seen as dinosaurs having feathers is only a theory. I'm sure some did, but did they all and the fact that they were around for millions and millions of years I would guess that they went through quiet a lot of evolution in that time. Just think how much they believe humans have changed in appearance in only tens of thousands of years, let alone millions.

We have a pretty good idea of which dinosaurs had feathers (I'll condense it because I posted it on the last page already):

The thing is did the ones listed as having feathers always have feathers? Did they evolve to have feathers. Did some have more than others. These creatures were around for millions of years yet we've only found a few skeletal examples of each bread.a human from ten thousand years ago was covered head to toe in body hair. Apart from the Greeks very few of us are now. Look at the difference between a woolly mammoth and an elephant. If we only looked at the skeletons of each we wouldnt know that one was covered in hair and the other not. It's only because of frozen preserved mammoths that we know they were hairy.

Don't know if it's been mentioned but did anyone notice the Jinmy Buffet cameo?

I picked up on the guy trying to save his margaritas, but didn't make the connection.

One of the highlights if the movie. I had no idea who he was, though.

Return_of_the_STAR wrote:The thing is did the ones listed as having feathers always have feathers? Did they evolve to have feathers. Did some have more than others. These creatures were around for millions of years yet we've only found a few skeletal examples of each. a human from ten thousand years ago was covered head to toe in body hair. Apart from the Greeks very few of us are now. Look at the difference between a woolly mammoth and an elephant. If we only looked at the skeletons of each we wouldnt know that one was covered in hair and the other not. It's only because of frozen preserved mammoths that we know they were hairy.

Sure. There's always going to be a lot of uncertainty and the fossil record is definitely not exhaustive. While we do know that all of those species had approximately that body type, you're definitely right to say that it'll take a long time (and a lot more fossils!) to build up a better picture of what each individual species actually looked like when alive, and whether genetically similar species may have had large variations in hair or feathers (like apes and man do).

I should say (I hope you don't mind) that I think you're a little confused about time scales; a human from 10,000 years ago would be identical to a human today. Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) evolved roughly 200,000 years ago. Our 'parent' species, Homo erectus, is the 'caveman' you're probably thinking of and evolved perhaps 1.8 million years ago (they invented fire 800,000 years ago, which is pretty neat). They looked pretty similar to us. It was the pre-Homo genus, the Australopithecus, that still looked a bit like apes, and they evolved roughly 4 million years ago.

(Sorry for off-topic science chat in this thread, movie guys. I hope no-one minds!)

Actually, the the Neanderthals could be used to represent a change in a relatively short space of time; they were the last ones to precede the AMH, ~200,000 years ago - and they were still to be found around 50,000 years ago. They had a surprisingly different skull, which had little frontal capacity compared to us but a great deal more at the rear. They also had a much larger ribcage. All in all, quite a change.

More importantly, Jurassic World was pretty gooseberry fool.

@VNG: Sure. I'm under the impression that Homo sapiens neanderthalensis took around the same time to evolve from Homo sapiens (in Eurasia) as Homo sapiens sapiens did to do the same (in Africa), but you're right to point out that we have a kind of weird and interesting relationship with them. They were similar enough to us that we could interbreed, and modern humans were much greater in number; and so when modern humans began to settle outside of Africa, we appear to have subsumed the neanderthal by interbreeding. I'm not sure how that's drawn on the tree of evolution!

It has the interesting effect that most Europeans and Asians have 1-4% distinctly neanderthal DNA. The 'ginger hair' gene, for instance, is thought to be a neanderthal trait, not an originally human one.

Ah, of course, they had a parallel development, not part of a single line from HS to HSS.

Jurassic World - The Park is Open - Out now

Who is online

Affiliates