HOME | DD

#accurate #au #birdlike #dromaeosaur #feathered #feathers #jp #jurassic #jw #park #raptor #realistic #world #deinonychus #velociraptor
Published: 2015-06-26 13:08:04 +0000 UTC; Views: 43533; Favourites: 504; Downloads: 140
Redirect to original
Description
Jurassic World really disappointed me, so I felt like I'd correct the wildly inaccurate "raptors" to the best of my abilities. Deinonychus (or Dakotaraptor), not Velociraptor. The middle one doesn't much like our friend Owen here: she's giving him the old threat display treatment (probably hissing too). The adult male on the left is probably the most tame, so he's pretty chill. Subadult on the right is a little irked; maybe hungry, actually.Let's say in this Alternate Universe Jurassic World, they use actual bird DNA in the cloned dinosaurs (as they should); the male has osprey genes, the female has bateleur in her, and the adolescent is part harpy eagle. Much as Owen would like to train them to do tricks for the park guests, these raptors are a bit... less than cooperative. He's gotten the older ones to fetch and do simple tricks in exchange for food; there are those who think they could be trained to hunt (as in falconry), but no official plans are made in that direction as of yet. Handlers have reported signs that they may possess intelligence similar to felids or birds of prey; though these claims have not been extensively investigated, as the matter is largely irrelevant to the purposes of a zoo like Jurassic Park.
The male is Charlie; the female is Delta; the subadult is Blue.
The "Raptor" paddock is located near the pterosaur aviary on Isla Nublar, though it is only accessible to park guests with premium passes. The paddock's simulated environment is woodland, though there is a metal mesh barrier overhead preventing the specimens from climbing trees to get over the walls. Though not genetically related, these three have formed a relationship resembling a family bond or ad hoc pack arrangement; until recently, the adults instinctively protected the junior from their handlers (2 recorded incidents). Moulting their feathers annually, the adolescent Blue has yet to grow into his adult plumage; the male Charlie has changed color slightly with successive moults (the introduction of the female Delta caused him to temporarily assume vibrant gold plumage; this has since dulled).
Delta has become increasingly reclusive and hostile toward her handlers; it is suspected she has laid a clutch of eggs and is nesting somewhere in the paddock.
Related content
Comments: 439
ropen7789 In reply to ??? [2015-06-29 03:01:36 +0000 UTC]
i dont hate it, but i just wish they cared
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Melted-DryIce In reply to Arbitran [2015-08-03 20:35:35 +0000 UTC]
No, they didn't. The only Velociraptor that had bird DNA in it was Delta; she's the only one it would have made sense on. Blue had Blue-throated Monitor Lizard DNA in her ( hence her 'blue' coloration/stripe ), and Charlie had Green Iguana DNA used to fill in her DNA gaps, hence her 'green' coloration. I severely HATE this argument over why people didn't like this movie; it's so fucking nit-picky and stupid. None of the three movies before this one depicted Raptors with feathers, so why should this one all of a sudden do it? Maybe YOU should do some research before assuming all the raptors had bird DNA in them? Jesus.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YutyrannusRex In reply to Melted-DryIce [2015-12-03 18:11:54 +0000 UTC]
Bruh...JP 3 much? The raptors had proto-feathers.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Traheripteryx In reply to ??? [2015-06-27 19:49:07 +0000 UTC]
Actual dromies! ^^ I love it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Arbitran In reply to Traheripteryx [2015-06-28 23:08:21 +0000 UTC]
Thank you! That really means a lot coming from you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Boverisuchus In reply to ??? [2015-06-27 17:02:16 +0000 UTC]
Wow, someone got majorly butthurt in the comments,here...
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Traheripteryx In reply to Boverisuchus [2015-06-27 19:50:51 +0000 UTC]
LMAO and his account got deleted!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AngelBlue01 In reply to ??? [2015-06-27 13:13:50 +0000 UTC]
I refuse to see the new movie in theaters, but didn't they establish that all the Park-created dinosaurs were female? Why would they keep any post-frog-DNA-mutation males around?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
SpinoInWonderland In reply to AngelBlue01 [2015-07-17 07:15:23 +0000 UTC]
This is a more accurate AU - the JP dinosaurs being all female thing is based on a mistaken notion bout sex determination systems.
It seems that they somehow assumed dinosaurs and all other vertebrates have an XY-sex-determination system. Modern dinosaurs(birds) actually have a ZW-sex-determination system. The ZW system is also found in crocodiles and even lizards, so we can only assume that the ZW system is an ancestral trait of Sauropsida and the dinosaurs imply inherited it.
Because of it, given the same reproduction-preventing method as JP but under more realistic circumstances, the JP dinosaurs would have been all males instead. But it seems that in his AU, they have not done any measures to prevent reproduction, as he mentions eggs in the description.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Arbitran In reply to SpinoInWonderland [2015-09-28 01:37:55 +0000 UTC]
THANK YOU. Not enough people grasp this And I wouldn't say zero measures are taken to prevent reproduction: more like limit it. Standard zoo protocols, maybe slightly modified. Also, I'm a she, hehe
Just a note, haha
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EmperorsGuard In reply to ??? [2015-06-27 03:51:37 +0000 UTC]
DID YOU NOT SEE THE MOVIE!(BD WONG EXPLAINS WHY THEY DON"T HAVE FEATHERS!)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
raygungoth In reply to ??? [2015-06-26 23:11:06 +0000 UTC]
This is the favoritest thing I have ever seen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hermy-one In reply to ??? [2015-06-26 20:52:49 +0000 UTC]
I am SO GLAD they did NOT do this
Btw its just a label for an extinct animal, does it really matter?
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
tsumefan2 In reply to Hermy-one [2019-12-24 18:28:10 +0000 UTC]
actually people have been saying that dinosaurs did have feathers
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Gojira5000 In reply to Hermy-one [2015-07-08 15:06:31 +0000 UTC]
It does matter, because that label is what defines popular conception of dinosaurs for a long time. Instead of being like the first movie and revolutionizing media's perception of dinosaurs, it panders to nostalgiawhoring to the adults who liked the first movie, and completely forgeting why the first movie was so universally loved; the accuracy of the dinosaurs.
Jurassic Park was cautiously pro-science, Jurassic World is flat-out anti-science. It's ridiculous to think that in a world where real dromaeosaurs were so awesome and cool-looking that we get what amounts to derpy-ass bipedal lizards with absurd intelligence levels for a dinosaur (smarter then dolphins and apes? Really?), that are like 20+ years outdated at this point (and shit, they were even only semi-accurate to begin with!) and are for some reason considered cooler than a goddamn Velociraptor using it's wings to stabilize itself as it eats it's prey alive.
And if we're saying "oh, does that even matter?", why not make everything else about the movie inaccurate as hell? The whole "but it's just a name!" thing is missing the point we have; it's misrepresentation of real-life animals that once existed on the same world we do. Saying making them look correct is unimportant means we should just not even bother making any other prehistoric animal accurate, cuz why the fuck should we have to? It's not like people put their lives into this career only to have it brutally maimed to make it "cool" and marketable or anything, oh no.
If you think we're being unreasonably pissed off, then you honestly aren't aware of why we're so pissed at this movie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
acepredator In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-12-12 01:40:00 +0000 UTC]
Absurd intelligence levels?
Judging from modern archosaurs and the fact literally every predator is highly intelligent, they are definitely smart enough to set traps or open doors (hell, even a snake has figured out how to open doors)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gojira5000 In reply to acepredator [2015-12-14 20:21:04 +0000 UTC]
The films explicitly call them "smarter than dolphins, whales and some primates", though. We can say that they're smart enough to set traps and open doors, but then how do we explain stuff like highly-coordinated attacks, pack mentality and other such things? No archosaur hunts in packs, and even Harris hawks only hunt in pairs.
There's stretching the truth and then there's disregarding it. :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
acepredator In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-12-15 04:04:52 +0000 UTC]
Crocodiles opportunistically hunt in packs, so there's that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EmperorMinilla In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-07-15 09:47:04 +0000 UTC]
Cautiously 'pro-science'? Is that why the Diloposaurus had a frill, could spit acid, and was only the size of a small dog? Ok dude .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gojira5000 In reply to EmperorMinilla [2015-07-17 20:04:29 +0000 UTC]
Hence why I said "cautiously" pro-science; it was still plenty bad at the science, just not as bad as later films became.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-07-17 20:20:07 +0000 UTC]
'Cautiously' doesn't even come close to the correct term to describe the first film . Nothing in the first film was even close to accurate. Velociraptors didn't reach the height of a man and the T-rex didn't have sight based on movement either (of course the Diloposaurus only adds salt to the wound). 'Cautiously' doesn't come close at all because the size increase of the Velociraptors and the added frill/acid spitting ability of the Dilos was intentional by the film makers. The film makers stated that they did those on purpose to add diversity to the dinosaurs so again... cautiously? Really
? The film makers knew that what they did in the first place was inaccurate... that's anything BUT cautious.
So in later films, you want the science to be accurate despite the fact that it was inaccurate in the first place? That right there sir would have contributed to something we call "continuity error" and it would have made even less sense than the already inaccurate dinosaurs that we have. In other words, that would have created a massive plot hole.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Mikealosaurus In reply to EmperorMinilla [2017-04-21 01:26:50 +0000 UTC]
LordGojira Ummm... The first film was accurate, they based the velociraptor height on a species of North American dromaeosaur which was going to be a species under the genus velociraptor, but it turns out the animal was a separate genus altogether
We did not even know what Tyrannosaurus's eyesight was like until after the first film was released
Your right about dilo.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Mikealosaurus [2017-04-21 05:05:29 +0000 UTC]
Really? Because Steven Spielberg said otherwise. He stated that the raptors were made larger ON PURPOSE for the sake of entertainment. He stated that they knew that they weren't that large but they took that leap anyway to give the protagonists greater threats. It's even stated that shortly before the release of Jurassic Park, the Utahraptor was discovered which the film makers then joked about. It was already COMMON knowledge among the creators of Jurassic Park that the Velociraptor was a small creature.
True, they didn't know about the eyesight for sure until after the film. That being said, the T-rex definitely couldn't run 60 mph yet in the film, it nearly reaches a jeep at top speed...
So... I stand by what I said: the film WASN'T accurate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mikealosaurus In reply to EmperorMinilla [2017-04-21 21:55:33 +0000 UTC]
The Rex never reached 60 mph, It was around 32 mph and the jeep was going about 40 mph
The raptors were based off another species, as I stated
All the designs and behaviors of the animals (except Dilo) were as accurate as possible for the time
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Mikealosaurus [2017-04-21 22:08:58 +0000 UTC]
"While the consulting paleontologists did not have a consensus on the dinosaur's movement, particularly regarding its running capabilities, animator Steve Williams decided to "throw physics out the window and create a T. rex that moved at sixty miles per hour even though its hollow bones would have busted if it ran that fast".[53] The major reason was the T. rex chasing a Jeep, a scene that took two months to finish.[54] "
"The creature's depiction is not based on the actual dinosaur genus in question, which itself was significantly smaller. Shortly[56] before Jurassic Park's theatre release, the similar Utahraptor was discovered, though was proven bigger in appearance than the film's raptors; this prompted Stan Winston to joke, "We made it, then they discovered it."
Yeah, they DID know how small Velociraptors were, they just didn't care and they based its design on other genus for creative licensing. That's it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mikealosaurus In reply to EmperorMinilla [2017-04-22 02:13:36 +0000 UTC]
I know the filmmakers knew velociraptor was small, I was referring to when Michael wrote the novel
I was referring to more of the designs of the animals rather than there size or speed
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Mikealosaurus [2017-04-22 05:09:39 +0000 UTC]
And I was referring to accuracy in the broader spectrum.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mikealosaurus In reply to EmperorMinilla [2017-04-22 05:27:19 +0000 UTC]
I see what your saying
I also agree with you that JW and its sequels DO NOT have to be 100% accurate, canon comes first, then accuracy
Plus, people act like all the dinos in JW are inaccurate, Triceratops, stegosaurus, Apatosaurus look pretty good to me
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Mikealosaurus [2017-04-22 21:07:17 +0000 UTC]
EXACTLY my point. I don't give a shit about how accurate or inaccurate a film is... but when you ESTABLISH a canon, you better FOLLOW it otherwise your stories get fucked up. The idiots around here don't seem to understand that as they're more concerned with "OMG DA DINOZ HAV NOO FETHURZ". If we took the advice of these people, the Jurassic Park franchise would end up being the equivalent to the Highlander franchise: a series of films that have NO consistency because the makers are never happy with what they have in the established universe and because of this... only the original Highlander film is any good (the rest are pieces of shit that make no sense). Jurassic Park 3 was almost guilty of this when they decided to change the designs of the raptors... which makes no sense story-wise because now, you have a huge plot hole with raptors that look nothing like they did 10 years ago (unless they're a sub-species of some sort). I'm glad they ignored that in Jurassic World as they decided to stick closer to their roots. On top of all this, everyone here seems to bitch about the scaly designs as being inaccurate... has ANYONE here noticed that Jurassic Park's plot was NEVER realistic? Of all the things to bitch about... innacurate dinosaur skin... way to get your priorities straight, never mind the fact that almost everything else in the franchise is illogical.
Sorry if I'm going on a rant here, but I guess you get the point. Appreciated, no hard feelings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Mikealosaurus In reply to EmperorMinilla [2017-04-26 00:36:42 +0000 UTC]
I agree 100%, canon should be a franchise's bible
Use it or pay the price.
You seem like a pretty cool dude, no hard feelings.
Hopefully, the "ACCURACY" Nazi regime will fall
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Mikealosaurus [2017-04-26 15:10:07 +0000 UTC]
As long as Jurassic World continues to earn a shit-ton of cash, I suppose that this dino-nazi regime will stay down.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gojira5000 In reply to EmperorMinilla [2015-07-17 20:48:23 +0000 UTC]
Then why'd they even feel the need to try and explain in the third movie that they were inaccurate?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
EmperorMinilla In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-07-17 21:00:24 +0000 UTC]
Is that really a question? It's so that the audience could understand why their dinosaurs were and are inaccurate (and so that paleo-fags could stop complaining about why there are no feathered dinosaurs) because the script writers can't just rewrite the previous films and make the dinosaurs accurate all of a sudden as doing that wouldn't make any sense for the story.
Make sense yet?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Gojira5000 In reply to EmperorMinilla [2015-07-19 16:30:59 +0000 UTC]
Retconning is a thing that exists, you know. Just put an explanation like "Oh, we found more of the genetic code, so they're closer to how they actually looked in their time." in the movie somewhere; we'd be happy and the canon would remain untouched. We're not asking the whole damn series to get retconned into feathering dinosaurs, we're asking for the new movies in the series to try harder to be reasonable SCIENCE fiction. Note the SCIENCE part. 20+ year old science being repurpotrated is not good for the growrh of palaeontology as a field. It'd be like if a movie slapped a lion with large teeth in and called it a Smilodon; it's a misrepresentation of real animals that actually existed, and the scientists that study them for a living have to deal with the consequenses.
Dinosaurs are actual things that once existed, not fictional creatures like Xenomorphs; so it's logical for people who study them for a living to get slightly irritated when media perpetrates things that we began dropping in 1999; we even have direct fossil evidence that Velociraptor had wings on it's arms; and, due to phylogenetic bracketing, so did Deinonychus and most likely all other dromaeosaurs. We're pretty confident that they also ate prey by pinning it to the ground and eating it alive, which is a lot scarier than what we see in Jurassic World. There's also the possibility of juvenile Deinonychus being able to fly, though that's not known for sure at this point. Meanwhile, Jurassic World's "Velociraptors" are the same old lizard-faced monsters that are way too intelligent for their own good; real dromaeosaurs were likely less intelligent than your average ostrich, cassowary or emu, not smarter than dolphins. Hell, Troodon, the smartest non-avian dinosaur, was still rather dull-minded. There's so many neat things we've found about the Mesozoic world since 1993 that it's a shame that nobody wants to try and create another Dinosaur Media Revolution and show off these new discoveries in an actually good movie.
There's a difference between maintaining canon and nostalgiawhoring; Jurassic World rather blatantly is banking on nostalgia for the original movie. It has new elements, but it's pretty heavily loaded with fanservice that newcomers won't get. It's too focused on playing to the fans and not enough on making itself a standalone movie instead of a auxillary piece to the first movie, which is what JW feels like to me. I haven't had the chance to actually see it myself yet, but from what I've heard it's really just filler untill the climax. Again, haven't seen it for myself, so I can't judge it's quality as a film; but I can criticize it for blatantly playing on people's nostalgia bones and missing the idea that it could be revolutionary to iunstead ride the nostalgia gravy train.
Also, we tend to prefer going by "palaeo-enthusiasts", not a slur for homosexual people, thanks.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
EmperorMinilla In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-07-19 18:01:59 +0000 UTC]
"We're asking for the new movies in the series to try harder to be reasonable SCIENCE fiction. Note the SCIENCE part."
In that case, someone should just make another dinosaur film altogether that has nothing to do with Jurassic Park that actually portrays dinosaurs the way they 'should' be. Hell, I'd pay to see it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
EmperorMinilla In reply to Gojira5000 [2015-07-19 17:40:56 +0000 UTC]
From what you're typing here, it just seems to me that you're thinking way too hard about this. Dinosaurs did exist, that much is true and all these films are inaccurate as fuck towards the poor extinct bastards. However, DNA has a half life of 521 years so even with the 'mosquito' explanation, none of Jurassic Park should be happening AT ALL because it's completely impossible and you're trying to bring accuracy into this film franchise; a franchise that has a premise that's completely nonsensical and impossible... so if anything, the dinosaurs are pretty fucked up for a good reason .
How good Jurassic World is of a film however is up to the viewer but you haven't seen it yet so there really isn't much to talk about there.
"Also, we tend to prefer going by "palaeo-enthusiasts", not a slur for homosexual people, thanks."
Definition of Fag: "An extremely annoying, inconsiderate person most commonly associated with Harley riders." Nice try
And no, if anyone just decides to hate on Jurassic Park just because its dinosaurs aren't 'accurate' then I think plaeo-fag is a suiting term. If anyone is going into these films with a shred of hope in finding 'accuracy' then that person deserves to be disappointed .
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
finback In reply to Hermy-one [2015-06-28 03:41:12 +0000 UTC]
"Btw its just a label for an extinct animal, does it really matter?"
Please choose one:
a) I don't want to live on this planet anymore
b)Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure
c) HERESY
d) but why not Zoidberg?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev | | Next =>