As long as they use things like frogs or whatever it is to fill in the gaps, rather than, say, birds, I think they're always going to be scaly. And, honestly, whilst they may not be accurate, these are the designs for the dinos for Jurassic Park. To change them would kinda defeat who they actually are.
CrashBash wrote: As long as they use things like frogs or whatever it is to fill in the gaps, rather than, say, birds, I think they're always going to be scaly.
The JurassicWorld.com and Masrani websites say that InGen uses bird and crocodile DNA (dinosaur's most closest surviving relatives) to fill in gaps. Moreover, it says InGen has discoverd 100% of the DNA of most species. So, you can not use that to justify scaly raptors.
CrashBash wrote: these are the designs for the dinos for Jurassic Park. To change them would kinda defeat who they actually are.
No, not to change them would mean you prefer outdated fantasy dinosaurs, as unrealistic as the kangaroo-T.rex and Rhino-Iguanodon, over the real thing. Michael Crichton, the father of the Jurassic franchise, was a myth-buster not fostering myths.
BastionMonk wrote:
CrashBash wrote: these are the designs for the dinos for Jurassic Park. To change them would kinda defeat who they actually are.
No, not to change them would mean you prefer outdated fantasy dinosaurs, as unrealistic as the kangaroo-T.rex and Rhino-Iguanodon, over the real thing. Michael Crichton, the father of the Jurassic franchise, was a myth-buster not fostering myths.
You misunderstand. I never said I prefer outdated fantasy dinosaurs, so please don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying that, for the franchise, that's what they are and what they will be, and likely that will never change so there's no point expecting it to. This has nothing to do with rhinoceros Iguanodon or kangaroo T rex.
CrashBash wrote: You misunderstand. I never said [x y or z].
I see. My apologies.
CrashBash wrote: I'm saying that, for the franchise, that's what they are and what they will be,
I beg to differ. Raptors were changed in JP3, so why couldn't they be changed in JW?
As I explained, InGen had the DNA and the technology to create feathered raptors or any other theropod for Jurassic World.
BastionMonk wrote: I beg to differ. Raptors were changed in JP3, so why couldn't they be changed in JW?
As I explained, InGen had the DNA and the technology to create feathered raptors or any other theropod for Jurassic World.
Only marginally were they changed, in a way that was honestly barely noticeable. And I'd still argue that they won't go full-feathered because, again, this is just how the raptors are - the raptors are iconic to the Jurassic Park series, and changing them into the more realistic look would defeat the point of what they are.
I mean, let me put it this way. We've learnt a lot about how exposure to gamma-radiation works over the past few years, and one of the things we know for a fact it doesn't do is turn your skin green. But are you really going to complain to Marvel Comics for not changing how The Hulk looks for something more accurate, when he's been as he is for so many years?
CrashBash wrote: Only marginally were [the raptors changed in JPIII] changed, in a way that was honestly barely noticeable.
It was more than enough for the fan community to freak out until this day.
CrashBash wrote: But are you really going to complain to Marvel Comics for not changing how The Hulk looks for something more accurate,
Word of advice, when discussing hard science fiction DON'T come up with Marvel. Just don't. NOTHING in Marvel is or was ever scientifically accurate or intended as such. I don't give coprolite that the raptors in Marvel's Shanna-the-She-Devil have no feathers, because it isn't hard science fiction.
Nonetheless, I can see your point. If I'm not mistaken, this is your reasoning:
- the JP-raptors are a very iconic species in the Jurassic franchise
- the JP-raptors have a very famous look that would have been lost when given feathers
- therefore, we should stick with the JP-design
It seems that Colin Trevorrow agrees with you.
However, I do not. To me it is just another attempt to use "tradition" to stick with outdated incorrect stereotypes. Jurassic World was the start of a new trilogy. New park. New superpredator. New main characters. New direction. Why not new raptors?
I think we can only agree to disagree on this.
I was only using it as an example to explain my point. It has nothing to do with science, it has to do with movies and how iconic the characters and settings are.
But, fine, if you won't listen to Marvel, then I'll use Star Wars instead...surely with what we know about space since the original trilogy was made, everyone in the latest movie should have been wearing full space-suits. But they don't, because whilst that would have been more realistic, it just isn't Star Wars. And if talking about Star Wars is taboo to you too, then sorry, that's the best I can come up with.
Forgive me, but I am under the impression that you did not fully read my comment.
CrashBash wrote:
I was only using it as an example to explain my point. It has nothing to do with science, it has to do with movies and how iconic the characters and settings are.
I know. I recomment you to read what I wrote after "Nonetheless, I can see your point."
CrashBash wrote:
And if talking about Star Wars is taboo to you too... sorry, that's the best I can come up with.
Do not take this too personal. But yeah, Star Wars is also not hard science fiction. If you are interested, I have linked twice to the Wikipedia article about this topic.
If i am able to help this article check this link. http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Thread:64793 In my opinion, I do think that they will change to feathers, judging from my link. What do you think?