the star of jurassic park, the velociraptor, actually looked like this. Velociraptor, facts and photos indeed, the representation in film and literature of sharks, bats, wolves etc., create an image far from reality. should films try to represent reality, or should they rely on archetypes already created?
I feel like JP is a special case since it's a continuing franchise over a couple of decades, spanning when we knew less about dinos to when we know more. Maybe it doesn't *need* to maintain the fantastical dinosaur designs, but it can't hurt. The flipside is something like Jaws which supposedly contributed to the over-hunting of great white sharks after that film came out.
I don’t think anybody really “knows” what dinosaurs are supposed to look like. It’s all educated guesswork, at best.
Well…yes and no. Since they used lizard DNA to fill in the gaps they weren’t quite the real thing anyway plus it’s only a movie(s).
Deinonychus were featured prominently in the novels Jurassic Park and The Lost World by Michael Crichton and the film adaptations, directed by Steven Spielberg. However, Crichton ultimately chose to use the name Velociraptor for these dinosaurs, rather than Deinonychus. Crichton had met with John Ostrom (Yales’s Peabody Museum. Ostrom discovered Deinonychus in 1964) several times during the writing process to discuss details of the possible range of behaviors and life appearance of Deinonychus. Crichton at one point apologetically told Ostrom that he had decided to use the name Velociraptor in place of Deinonychus for his book, because he felt the former name was "more dramatic". Despite this, according to Ostrom, Crichton stated that the Velociraptor of the novel was based on Deinonychus in almost every detail, and that only the name had been changed
I think it is pretty common knowledge that movie studios tend not to let the truth get in the way of a good story. I usually let it slide if the picture is entertaining and the facts are relatively minor. What I have a problem with is when they completely change the character of real people, either for better or worse.
The Buddy Holly Story, the entire movie is basically historically inaccurate. What saves it are the live music performances by Gary Busey and the rest of the cast, the music was performed live and are thrilling and electrifying.
The Buddy Holly Story is largely fictional. About the only thing in it that is true is Buddy playing music, getting married and dying in a plane crash.
I thought the same thing as a kid watching the 1976 remake (and the bad breath) and even Jackson’s remake.
'The Buddy Holly Story' could be the poster child for this thread. I pray someday there will be a movie which is an accurate depiction of this pioneering rock n roller but there won't be.
well, they have a pretty good idea based on fossils and can determine character by diet, location etc
that makes sense, however, one would assume if they used the real name it would have the same effect- would not a dinosaur by another name not be as scary?
Which is educated guesswork. A fossil is just rock in the shape of bones they replaced in the earth. You can’t pull DNA from it, but you can determine things like gait and diet. What can’t be determined is what kind of skin they had, hair, fur, feathers, or scales, whether they were warm or cold blooded, etc. You can make comparisons to modern day animals, but millions and millions of years have passed with a ton of gaps in evolution that haven’t been filled in. Lots of changes have taken place that we are unaware of. So no, nobody really knows for sure.
That’s not exactly accurate. Depending on the fossil feathers may be preserved. There’s also amber, which has preserved some dino feathers. That said I think introducing the hyper realism concept to the Jurassic Park movies doesn’t make sense. I assume that visually feathers would make the dinosaurs look less scary, not to mention more difficult to animate. Not much upside adding realism to a film series that threw that aside long ago.
Did the feather come from a dinosaur or a bird? I think people conflate all fossils with dinosaurs. They weren’t all the same thing. Even if an archaeopteryx had feathers that doesn’t mean that a brontosaurus or stegosaurus had them, too. They were as different to each other as a cow is to a cat is to an alligator is to a fish.
I’d say there’s a least a reasonable compelling argument to be made based on a number of discoveries including fossils and amber. I’ll leave it there.
People at restaurants not eating their food or leaving restaurants quickly without eating (or paying). Parking spots in front of destinations. Not saying hello or goodbye or generally acting naturally while on the telephone. Poor, young people living in NYC in 1300 sq ft apartments.
