Jurassic World- Fallen Kingdom Trailer

[amigocabal]

This is an interesting plot. This time, it is the dinosaurs that are to be rescued.

[Elheru Aran]

What trailer?

If you meant to link something, you failed.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh hell, I'll go see it. I only really like odd-number Jurassic Park movies, for some reason, but as long as they give me lots of dinosaurs to look at, I'm sold.

I do find it a bit silly that they created a fake dinosaur for the last film when there are so many real ones they could explore. I mean, sure, they used the biggest names in the first film, and Velociraptors have been thoroughly done too (and because they upped the size, they kind of precluded bringing in Deinonychus/Utahraptor in a later film).

But we've still got Seismosaurus/Argintinosaurus/etc. for something really big, and Therizinosaurus or Deinochyrus for something really strange, or Stenonychosaurs for something even smarter than a raptor, or more sea monsters for non-dinosaurs, or Giganotosaurus for a bigger-than-Tyranosaurus predator that's not Spinosaurus.

Wouldn't mind seeing Allosaurs either, since they're a personal favourite of mine. Plus... they've done big solo predator, since that's how they've portrayed T-Rex, and they've done small/mid-sized pack hunter (Velociraptor). So why not big (possible) pack hunter?

Edit: Actually, their is one very famous dinosaur I don't think they ever used, that being Brontosaurus/Appatosaurus. Which is a little odd when you think about it, since its probably the most instantly recognizable to the general public, barring maybe Tyranosaurus.

[TheFeniX]

I wonder if they actually took to heart complaints about the cinematography from the last one. I couldn't put my finger on why a lot of the suspense was lost on me, but it was the camerawork (as explained by a youtuber). The emphasis was always on the CGI, not the characters. So.... a sucky movie sucked even harder. This looks like more of the same with better camera work.

Sorry Pratt, my heart belongs only to you, but I will not see your dinosaur movie. Please make more Guardian movies.

Edit: Actually, their is one very famous dinosaur I don't think they ever used, that being Brontosaurus/Appatosaurus. Which is a little odd when you think about it, since its probably the most instantly recognizable to the general public, barring maybe Tyranosaurus.

Grant is looking at a Brontosaur when he pulls his glasses off dramatically in the first JP. Also, him and.... the little kid get sneezed on by one as they were high up in the trees.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Grant is looking at a Brontosaur when he pulls his glasses off dramatically in the first JP. Also, him and.... the little kid get sneezed on by one as they were high up in the trees.

That was a Brachiosaurus, not a Brontosaurus.

[TheFeniX]

That was a Brachiosaurus, not a Brontosaurus.

Good call what with the vertical vs horizontal.

[The Romulan Republic]

Grant is looking at a Brontosaur when he pulls his glasses off dramatically in the first JP. Also, him and.... the little kid get sneezed on by one as they were high up in the trees.

That was a Brachiosaurus, not a Brontosaurus.

Beat me to it.

Brachiosaurus has always featured prominently in JP. Which I suppose makes sense, because while Brontosaurus has more notoriety, Brachiosaurus has a more visually distinctive and dramatic appearance, and hence is more photogenic for a visual medium.

[Majin Gojira]

I do find it a bit silly that they created a fake dinosaur for the last film when there are so many real ones they could explore. I mean, sure, they used the biggest names in the first film, and Velociraptors have been thoroughly done too (and because they upped the size, they kind of precluded bringing in Deinonychus/Utahraptor in a later film).

But we've still got Seismosaurus/Argintinosaurus/etc. for something really big, and Therizinosaurus or Deinochyrus for something really strange, or Stenonychosaurs for something even smarter than a raptor, or more sea monsters for non-dinosaurs, or Giganotosaurus for a bigger-than-Tyranosaurus predator that's not Spinosaurus.

There are so many weird dinosaurs that I've always wanted to see, but honestly, I'm still annoyed how . . . dated the designs here are. After the game Saurian came out, I was hoping for the last one to show properly feathered dinosaurs. I mean, aside from Therizinosaurs, and Deinochyrus, we lose Microraptor, Gigantoraptor . . .

But no. Jurassic Park lost the "As Accurate as Possible for the time" badge with the last one. Can't have raptors with winglets for stabilizing turns and walking up walls, or a caped tyrannosaur.

But yeah, I'm still gonna go see it.

[GuppyShark]

To be fair, there are two conflicting directives with regards to the dinosaurs: Consistency with the franchise, and consistency with contemporary paleontology. I can't fault them for not wanting to have to somehow retcon the previous films' portrayals. This one in particular isn't even about 'new' dinosaurs, it seems to be about the old ones, which were clearly created sans feathers.

[LadyTevar]

The best explanation for "no Feathers" is from the Original, where they outright state that they filled in the missing DNA with lizard and amphibian DNA. The DNA for "feathered dinos" could be part of what was missing and/or modified. Therefore, Jurassic Park (trademark Hammon) Dinosaurs do not have feathers.

Problem Solved. You're welcome.

[Atia]

I seem to recall in Jurassic World they kind of sort of address the feather issue. Either BD Wong’s character or Bryce Dallas Howard character mentioned that the deliberately made the dinosaurs look like this because it’s what the public expects them to look like. Or something along those lines it has been a while since I’ve seen it.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think it's BD Wong. He says that they were deliberately made to be more dangerous and exciting, and if they'd made them accurately they would look a lot different.

It's still kind of a pity. I would have liked to see a feathered dinosaur.

As for this movie, I think I'll enjoy it even though I hated Jurassic World. It looks like a stupid good old time, a dinosaur movie rolled into a disaster movie.

[Elheru Aran]

Yup, Dr. Wu was giving the Indian CEO guy the usual 'this is why shit is fucked and it's your fault' expository monologue. "You wanted X and Y in a dinosaur, we gave it to you, don't complain that it's not what you wanted now, you're stuck with it'.

I still need to look that trailer up...

[JI_Joe84]

Yes that was Dr. Wu in Jurassic World's explanation for why they didn't do feathers.
Hammond's "dinosoars" are theme park monsters, not real dynos.
It is a shame because one of the cool things about Jarassic park was that the models were as realistic as the paleontologists could tell, so it was like "this is what a dynassour looked like" and the scary every thing goes to pot on cue part was just fluff.

[The Romulan Republic]

Actually, the first film's dinosaurs were not that accurate. Off the top of my head-

-No actual Velociraptor was that big. This one is particularly notorious. They're Deinonychus or Utahraptor in all but name.

-The Dilophosaurus spitting poison and having a neck frill is purely speculative/imaginary.

-The Tyranosaur having shitty vision is dubious as well.

[amigocabal]

Actually, the first film's dinosaurs were not that accurate. Off the top of my head-

-No actual Velociraptor was that big. This one is particularly notorious. They're Deinonychus or Utahraptor in all but name.

-The Dilophosaurus spitting poison and having a neck frill is purely speculative/imaginary.

-The Tyranosaur having shitty vision is dubious as well.

Again, explained as a side-effect of the foreign DNA.

Although, Jurassic Park III (which took place on Isla Sorna) did show dinosaurs with feather mohawks. Perhaps the feather genes were starting to reassert themselves after one or two generations.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I know its explained. I'm just contesting the previous poster's claim that the dinosaurs in the first film "were as realistic as the paleontologists could tell".

[Majin Gojira]

Oh, I know its explained. I'm just contesting the previous poster's claim that the dinosaurs in the first film "were as realistic as the paleontologists could tell".

Well, they did have consulting paleontologists on set for the first three films.

But, you have to remember the cultural impact the first JP had, and how that attempt at accuracy, far beyond what came before, changed public perception of Dinosaurs. I mean, "Raptors" weren't even a thing until this movie!

The Dinosaurs of cinema were, by and large, still stuck in the 1950s, when Deinonychus and the scientists who described him started the "Birdlike Dinosaur" train rolling back in the 70s.

Up until Jurassic Park, the most "Accurate for the time" dinosaur in alive action film was in "My Science Project" simply because it didn't drag its tail.

Yeah.

It was a light speed jump from there to Jurassic Park, and they did make an effort to be as accurate as possible, consulting paleontologists such as Robbert Bakker and Jack Horner for the first three films.

Now, there were issues. The venomous Dilophosaurus, A Brachiosaur up tro its armpits in water, Tyrannosaur Vision -- but the Raptors are a holdover from the book. Short version: Michael Crighton read a paper that proposed that Deinonychus was a species of Velociraptor. It didn't hold water, but it stuck. So, that's why they're big to begin with. The movie kept the name and inflated them further, because movies.

That's it.

For a hollywood movie, that's a very low amount. Especially when you compare it to its contemporaries and what came before it (Carnosaur, two Lost World adaptations, Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend, Planet of Dinosaurs)

Hell, there are about as many inaccuracies in the later films on a per-film basis from what I recall.

But then science moved on.

A Lot.

So the dinosaurs became more inaccurate. The most prominent problems being the pronated hands, recontructions include more skin and body fat rather than having them be shrink-wrapped to the skeletons, and a general lack of feathers.

Big visual leaps in the later category, as much as the raising of the tail and warm-blooded behavior was before.

And we didn't get that. We got movie monsters instead.

But, yeah, it's just paleo-nerd griping. It's not like there's a pair of successful kickstarter campaigns that I could point to which demonstrate clearly that there is not only a market for realistic dinosaurs, but they can look pretty damn cool too.

[The Romulan Republic]

Oh, I know its explained. I'm just contesting the previous poster's claim that the dinosaurs in the first film "were as realistic as the paleontologists could tell".

Well, they did have consulting paleontologists on set for the first three films.

But, you have to remember the cultural impact the first JP had, and how that attempt at accuracy, far beyond what came before, changed public perception of Dinosaurs. I mean, "Raptors" weren't even a thing until this movie!

The Dinosaurs of cinema were, by and large, still stuck in the 1950s, when Deinonychus and the scientists who described him started the "Birdlike Dinosaur" train rolling back in the 70s.

Up until Jurassic Park, the most "Accurate for the time" dinosaur in alive action film was in "My Science Project" simply because it didn't drag its tail.

Yeah.

It was a light speed jump from there to Jurassic Park, and they did make an effort to be as accurate as possible, consulting paleontologists such as Robbert Bakker and Jack Horner for the first three films.

Oh, I know.

I was a dinosaur nut as a teenager. I read Bakker's books (The Dinosaur Heresies is still one of my favourite books), and speaking of science projects, I used the warm-blooded dinosaur debate, and Bakker's work in particular, as the basis of a school science fair project in middle school.

And yeah, I'll concede that Jurassic Park was good for its time, relatively-speaking. But as you acknowledge, it still had some rather glaring examples of inaccurate, or at least speculative, science, even for its day.

Now, there were issues. The venomous Dilophosaurus, A Brachiosaur up tro its armpits in water, Tyrannosaur Vision -- but the Raptors are a holdover from the book. Short version: Michael Crighton read a paper that proposed that Deinonychus was a species of Velociraptor. It didn't hold water, but it stuck. So, that's why they're big to begin with. The movie kept the name and inflated them further, because movies.

That's it.

For a hollywood movie, that's a very low amount. Especially when you compare it to its contemporaries and what came before it (Carnosaur, two Lost World adaptations, Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend, Planet of Dinosaurs)

Hell, there are about as many inaccuracies in the later films on a per-film basis from what I recall.

Good for Hollywood SF? Yeah, sure. But if you're looking for scientific accuracy, that's a low bar.

Though in fairness reg. the Brachiosaurs and water, they made a point of the Brachiosaur moving on land, and there's no reason they couldn't have gone wading from time to time- they just didn't need to, or prefer it over land habitats.

But then science moved on.

A Lot.

So the dinosaurs became more inaccurate. The most prominent problems being the pronated hands, recontructions include more skin and body fat rather than having them be shrink-wrapped to the skeletons, and a general lack of feathers.

Big visual leaps in the later category, as much as the raising of the tail and warm-blooded behavior was before.

And we didn't get that. We got movie monsters instead.

But, yeah, it's just paleo-nerd griping. It's not like there's a pair of successful kickstarter campaigns that I could point to which demonstrate clearly that there is not only a market for realistic dinosaurs, but they can look pretty damn cool too.

Yeah, pretty much. Though I guess there's the whole "continuity with the preceding films" thing.

Though speaking of more realistic dinosaur depictions, and Robert Bakker, I do cherish a probably hopeless fantasy that someday, someone will manage to adapt Raptor Red into a film.

Though I daresay anything written more than five years ago on dinosaurs will need to be updated, to keep pace with the field. Dinosaur science moves quickly, and I'm sure a lot of my own knowledge of it is out of date.

[Guardsman Bass]

I think in the Jurassic Park novel, the "T-Rex vision" wasn't something it supposedly had before it became extinct. It was just a weird side-effect of splicing in amphibian DNA as part of recreating dinosaurs. There was also a pretty cool Harry Wu segment where he tries to explain to Hammond basically what he did to the Indian CEO in Jurassic World - "none of this is natural", we're not so much recreating dinosaurs as reconstructing them how we think they were with modifications to make them grow faster, etc.

I'm not annoyed that they went with the Jurassic Park dinosaurs for most of it. I just wish they'd had a few feathered dinosaurs thrown in there. It would have been really cool.