Permanently Deleted

  • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]
    hexagon
    ·
    4 years ago

    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.

    • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      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.

      • blobjim [he/him]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        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.

      • Dirt_Owl [comrade/them, they/them]
        hexagon
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        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.

        • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          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.