Not a fan of this, either. I've always seen it as a good thing when we can revise how we view some dinosaurs. If we wouldn't do that, we'd still think dinosaurs looked like this . And it's not as if these older reconstructions are gone now, they're still part of our cultural history, they show how our knowledge about these animals has undergone an evolution of its own. They show how artists in the past worked with the knowledge available to them, and i love this historic paleo art even though it's often inaccurate. The statues in the link, for example, they're a great example of how people reacted when they learned for the first time that giant, dragon-like lizards were something that had actually lived in England at some point in time. How they sculpted them is hillariously wrong, but it's also fascinating to see how they imagined them when you put the fossil evidence of their time next to it.
Let's look at the most prominent example were people get riled up about the mere idea of feathered dinosaurs because it clashes with a pop culture franchise they know from their childhood, the Jurassic Park franchise: When it came out, it was a largely accurate interpretation of how people's ideas about how dinosaurs looked like and behaved had just been comletely overhauled. It was made less than 20 years after the dinosaur renaissance, when new discoveries about species like Deinonychus showed that some dinosaurs weren't lumbering sacks of flesh, but agile and highly intelligent animals. It had sauropods graciously striding on land instead of being stuck in a swamp, submerged under water to carry their weight. It had T. rex running in a horizontal posture instead of dragging its tail along the ground. All of that went directly against classic depictions of these animals. And it was cool that it did that. As a dinosaur nerd kid, i loved that it wasn't like some Hammer Studios monster movie where people would just glue a spiky crest to an iguanodon to film a fighting "dinosaur", but something that matched the science at that time. It's the ultimate depiction of late 20th century dinosaurs, and as that kind of cultural artifact, it stays relevant, but it can only retain that relevance because it is also obsolete, because it is the perfect representation of an imagining of dinosaurs that has now, in itself, become historical, that has died out and is reconstructed like the dinosaurs it shows (pls don't ask me what that last sentence means, i just did a Zizek there i think).
I honestly wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park reboot with feathered raptors and a semi-aquatic Spinosaurus, but as you say, they're going for the brand recognition instead.
people get riled up about the mere idea of feathered dinosaurs because it clashes with a pop culture franchise they know from their childhood, the Jurassic Park franchise: When it came out, it was a largely accurate interpretation of how people’s ideas about how dinosaurs looked like and behaved had just been completely overhauled. It was made less than 20 years after the dinosaur renaissance, when new discoveries about species like Deinonychus showed that some dinosaurs weren’t lumbering sacks of flesh, but agile and highly intelligent animals. It had sauropods graciously striding on land instead of being stuck in a swamp, submerged underwater to carry their weight. It had T. rex running in a horizontal posture instead of dragging its tail along the ground. All of that went directly against classic depictions of these animals. And it was cool that it did that
I honestly wouldn’t mind a Jurassic Park reboot with feathered raptors and a semi-aquatic Spinosaurus, but as you say, they’re going for the brand recognition instead.
A good example of capitalism ruining something. As soon as Jurassic Park became successful (profitable) it ceased to be a piece of art showcasing what we thought were real animals and became a product that turned them into a static copyrighted image.
This is even in-universe in Jurassic World. Indomenous Rex or whatever isn't a fucking dinosaur. It's now a fictional monster, so who cares? I could watch Godzilla or some shit for things that are like dinos. If I'm watching J-Park, I expect fucking actual dinosaurs. That movie tells on itself so much that I actually enjoy it.
Yeah I don't understand how they ran out of ideas and went straight for mutant dino experiment when they've only had a handful of dinosaurs in the entire series. Aren't there like a million other carnivorous dinosaurs scientists have constructed models of? They didn't need to do the mutant thing at all, they could have just used some 'real' predator dino in its place. And they could have done the feathers too! It wouldn't be hard to make them much spookier with feathers too.
Of course the Jurrasic World movies also kind of suck because they've only had like one creepy horror-type scene (the long sequence in the second one). Most of those movies are just people running around with no sense of mystery. The other ones were good because the plot and characters were a bit more up in the air. But they want a sort of Indiana Jones type central hero that they can sell merchandise of or something.
Its fine when it's something obviously fictional like Indomenous rex or Godzilla but when it's a misrepresentation of a real animal to the point that people reject what the real animal actually is, then it's shitty.
I also kinda liked that self-aware aspect of Jurassic World too. Now if only anything else about it was good.
I got nothing against dinosaur-y monsters. Just keep em out of a franchise about dang dinosaurs. And yeah, they should be realistic, it's not like they became less scary.
Not a fan of this, either. I've always seen it as a good thing when we can revise how we view some dinosaurs. If we wouldn't do that, we'd still think dinosaurs looked like this . And it's not as if these older reconstructions are gone now, they're still part of our cultural history, they show how our knowledge about these animals has undergone an evolution of its own. They show how artists in the past worked with the knowledge available to them, and i love this historic paleo art even though it's often inaccurate. The statues in the link, for example, they're a great example of how people reacted when they learned for the first time that giant, dragon-like lizards were something that had actually lived in England at some point in time. How they sculpted them is hillariously wrong, but it's also fascinating to see how they imagined them when you put the fossil evidence of their time next to it.
Let's look at the most prominent example were people get riled up about the mere idea of feathered dinosaurs because it clashes with a pop culture franchise they know from their childhood, the Jurassic Park franchise: When it came out, it was a largely accurate interpretation of how people's ideas about how dinosaurs looked like and behaved had just been comletely overhauled. It was made less than 20 years after the dinosaur renaissance, when new discoveries about species like Deinonychus showed that some dinosaurs weren't lumbering sacks of flesh, but agile and highly intelligent animals. It had sauropods graciously striding on land instead of being stuck in a swamp, submerged under water to carry their weight. It had T. rex running in a horizontal posture instead of dragging its tail along the ground. All of that went directly against classic depictions of these animals. And it was cool that it did that. As a dinosaur nerd kid, i loved that it wasn't like some Hammer Studios monster movie where people would just glue a spiky crest to an iguanodon to film a fighting "dinosaur", but something that matched the science at that time. It's the ultimate depiction of late 20th century dinosaurs, and as that kind of cultural artifact, it stays relevant, but it can only retain that relevance because it is also obsolete, because it is the perfect representation of an imagining of dinosaurs that has now, in itself, become historical, that has died out and is reconstructed like the dinosaurs it shows (pls don't ask me what that last sentence means, i just did a Zizek there i think).
I honestly wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park reboot with feathered raptors and a semi-aquatic Spinosaurus, but as you say, they're going for the brand recognition instead.
A good example of capitalism ruining something. As soon as Jurassic Park became successful (profitable) it ceased to be a piece of art showcasing what we thought were real animals and became a product that turned them into a static copyrighted image.
This is even in-universe in Jurassic World. Indomenous Rex or whatever isn't a fucking dinosaur. It's now a fictional monster, so who cares? I could watch Godzilla or some shit for things that are like dinos. If I'm watching J-Park, I expect fucking actual dinosaurs. That movie tells on itself so much that I actually enjoy it.
Yeah I don't understand how they ran out of ideas and went straight for mutant dino experiment when they've only had a handful of dinosaurs in the entire series. Aren't there like a million other carnivorous dinosaurs scientists have constructed models of? They didn't need to do the mutant thing at all, they could have just used some 'real' predator dino in its place. And they could have done the feathers too! It wouldn't be hard to make them much spookier with feathers too.
Of course the Jurrasic World movies also kind of suck because they've only had like one creepy horror-type scene (the long sequence in the second one). Most of those movies are just people running around with no sense of mystery. The other ones were good because the plot and characters were a bit more up in the air. But they want a sort of Indiana Jones type central hero that they can sell merchandise of or something.
Its fine when it's something obviously fictional like Indomenous rex or Godzilla but when it's a misrepresentation of a real animal to the point that people reject what the real animal actually is, then it's shitty.
I also kinda liked that self-aware aspect of Jurassic World too. Now if only anything else about it was good.
I got nothing against dinosaur-y monsters. Just keep em out of a franchise about dang dinosaurs. And yeah, they should be realistic, it's not like they became less scary.
deleted by creator