Support NeoGAF

[Cyan]

"[T]here will be one new dinosaur created by the park’s geneticists," he says. "The gaps in her sequence were filled with DNA from other species, much like the genome in the first film was completed with frog DNA. This creation exists to fulfill a corporate mandate—they want something bigger, louder, with more teeth. And that’s what they get."

So... Darth Diabolus Rex confirmed.

 

[LumpOfCole]

Scientifically engineered dinosaur species? Chris Pratt in unknown film role?

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

And with that said, having corporate execs brainstorming "NEW AND EXCITING SCARY DINOSAURS" to be cooked up doesn't even seem that far-fetched or silly.

It would fucking happen. I have a teenager, I see how apathetic they still are to the most amazing shit. I could totally see kids going to a Jurassic Park that's been around for 10 years and only wanting to hang out at the hotel pool the entire trip.

We're apathetic about dinosaurs now.

I was at the Museum of Natural History in Paris, and they have, like, a bazillion different dinosaur species. And some fat American eating an ice cream walks in, says into his bluetooth "it's just all the same dinosaur shit", and exits.

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

They used creative license with the Dilophosaurus in the first film (it didn't spit poison or have that neck thing), so I'm OK with them splicing features into a dino as long as it doesn't look like a ridiculous mutant, which Trevorrow seems confident will not be the case. I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

They used creative license with the Dilophosaurus in the first film (it didn't spit poison or have that neck thing), so I'm OK with them splicing features into a dino as long as it doesn't look like a ridiculous mutant, which Trevorrow seems confident will not be the case. I'm cautiously optimistic.

So many people still think it spit.

 

[AndyD]

They aren’t trained, they can’t do tricks. He’s just trying to figure out the limits of the relationship between these highly intelligent creatures and human beings.

I can still imagine a semi-tamed baby dinosaur that would have given rise to the friendly rumor. Like a baby tiger or lion that is friendly when little but too dangerous as an adult animal.

There's no way they don't have a cute and cuddly type dinosaur in there, if nothing else for the plush toy sales.

 

[NR1]

I can still imagine a semi-tamed baby dinosaur that would have given rise to the friendly rumor. Like a baby tiger or lion that is friendly when little but too dangerous as an adult animal.

There's no way they don't have a cute and cuddly type dinosaur in there, if nothing else for the plush toy sales.

Yoshi ?

 

[SoldnerKei]

I understand the risks of leaving the safe zone. We’ve all been disappointed by new installments of the stories we love. But with all this talk of filmmakers “ruining our childhood”, we forget that right now is someone else’s childhood. This is their time. And I have to build something that can take them to the same place those earlier films took us. It may not happen in the same way everyone expects it to, but it’s the way I believe it needs to happen.

just because of this statement I will restrain myself of throwing shit to this movie, if it turns to be bad, well, he tried, at least he seems pretty honest in this interview

 

[MisterGrey3000]

They used creative license with the Dilophosaurus in the first film (it didn't spit poison or have that neck thing), so I'm OK with them splicing features into a dino as long as it doesn't look like a ridiculous mutant, which Trevorrow seems confident will not be the case. I'm cautiously optimistic.

lol
In my eyes, they made up for stupid junk like that by being a great film and pushing the "Dinosaur's are Bird ancestors" angle through most of the film.
Until JP1 most of the general public thought Dinosaurs were lizard ancestors who behaved and looked like Godzilla(Slow, lumbering, kangaroo/tripod stance, cold blooded, etc.)
:/
I can forgive the "no feathers" and "Darth Diabolus Rex" if the film is good.

 

[CountAntonius]

Clever girl.

 

[crops55]

Considering tech has advanced in twenty years? Yes.

Just because the tech has advanced does not mean the ability to utilize its potential has followed with it.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

So is this just a reboot or is this a real part 4?

I hate the trend of starting over again from the beginning.

Its both.

It seems to be telling the exact same story as the 1st movie in that the greed of man cannot control nature, even if they create it.
....but it's set in a world where Hammond's original park failed.

 

[Cow Mengde]

"What if, despite previous disasters, they built a new biological preserve where you could see dinosaurs walk the earth…and what if people were already kind of over it? We imagined a teenager texting his girlfriend with his back to a T-Rex behind protective glass. For us, that image captured the way much of the audience feels about the movies themselves. 'We’ve seen CG dinosaurs. What else you got?' Next year, you’ll see our answer."

Just like how people are completely over zoos, and theme parks, and all the other entertainment devices? This train of thought is so stupid.

T.rex? Meh, better go text my girlfriend. Has this man ever been in a fucking zoo? People still love the animals even though we've known about them for hundreds of years.

 

[Timeaisis]

Is Spielberg attached to this movie at all? Like, executive producer or something at least?

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

^Executive Producer. He was heavily involved with the script approval as well as casting.

I'm guessing he had a bit to do with location scouting as well, since he was in Hawaii a few times for it.

I like this whole paragraph. I like he said that.

Agreed.

Just like how people are completely over zoos, and theme parks, and all the other entertainment devices? This train of thought is so stupid.

T.rex? Meh, better go text my girlfriend. Has this man ever been in a fucking zoo? People still love the animals even though we've known about them for hundreds of years.

I see people bored at zoos all the time.

I agree that the concept of someone bored of Dinosaurs is a little hard to swallow, but think of it this way- they want more publicity, more daily visitors, etc. More like a theme park rather than a zoo, they are thinking of new ways to attract & entertain guests while keeping them coming back for more.

 

[evilromero]

Sounds great. Even closer to the plot of West World than the original JP.

In my eyes, they made up for stupid junk like that by being a great film and pushing the "Dinosaur's are Bird ancestors" angle through most of the film.
Until JP1 most of the general public thought Dinosaurs were lizard ancestors who behaved and looked like Godzilla(Slow, lumbering, kangaroo/tripod stance, cold blooded, etc.)
:/
I can forgive the "no feathers" and "Darth Diabolus Rex" if the film is good.

I thought only some predatory dinosaurs were feathered. Others, such as the herbivores, are still classified as large reptiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense to just put feathers on everything.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Sounds great. Even closer to the plot of West World than the original JP.



I thought only some predatory dinosaurs were feathered. Others, such as the herbivores, are still classified as large reptiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense to just put feathers on everything.

All dinosaurs are large reptiles. Feathers are the defining factor in where an animal is a reptile or not.

 

[mjc]

What if Chris Pratt plays the son of the raptor hunter from the first movie?

 

[Ravijn]

 

[happypup]

So many people still think it spit.

There is a possibility they could spit black tar acid junk (absence of evidence and so on), but it would be one of the biggest coincidences ever. Certainly they took liberties with the Dinosaurs in the book and film, but they always did so within the gaps of our understanding. The no feathers thing bugs me (canon be damned), the hybrid dinosaur less so, but, this article went a long way in settling my doubts.

 

[Vyer]

That breakdown doesn't actually sound that bad, but whether or not they pull it off....

 

[Mdk7]

So D-Rex is confirmed, and my whole enthusiasm around the project is pretty much dead at this point.

 

[Opinionatedfish]

I will wait to see trailers. Ah. Who am I kidding. I will watch this film in theaters.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

I thought only some predatory dinosaurs were feathered. Others, such as the herbivores, are still classified as large reptiles. Correct me if I'm wrong. If that were the case, it wouldn't make sense to just put feathers on everything.

We don't know if the sauropods and ornithischians had insulation of any kind(no evidence), but most therapods(herbivore or carnivore) are assumed to have had feathers(some at different stages of their life cycle)
They're all classified as large reptiles, but pretty much all of them are related to birds. Some(therapods)more closely than others.

 

[happypup]

We don't know if the sauropods and ornithischians had insulation of any kind(no evidence), but most therapods(herbivore or carnivore) are assumed to have had feathers(some at different stages of their life cycle)
They're all classified as large reptiles, but pretty much all of them are related to birds. Some(therapods)more closely than others.

The ceratopsians seem to have had some quill like integument features, but these don't seem to be closely related to feathers.

this fossil imprint clearly shows barbs of some type from the tail of a Psittacosaurus.

this to me looks like a specialization of a more general structure, and I would not be surprised if other ceratopsids had a simplified 'coat' of these on their body.

They are not feathers though, and portrayals of Triceratops looking like a peacock are wrong.

Another thing, reptile could mean many different things depending on what is considered the first reptile. We tend to think of the classifications in old terms that fail to describe the relationships between the animals. Do we consider all animals that have an amnion reptiles? if that were the case than we would be reptiles. Do we consider only those animals with the physiologically primitive reptile skin type reptiles, then birds and mammals would not be included and the grouping would be paraphyletic. Do we consider only diapsids to be reptiles, then birds are included and turtles are not. Do we consider all amnions except the synapsids reptiles, then the mammal like reptiles were never reptiles. I feel very strongly that we either need to adapt the old terms to be consistent monophyletic classifiers, or to remove them altogether from our vocabulary.

 

[lupinko]

Real dinosaurs? Jurassic park was at pains to point out the dinosaurs weren't actually real.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G5PQAI8nWYQ

 

[Dead]

That interview is setting off red flags off for me.

He's saying too many good things and addressing too many criticisms. It's too perfect.

It reminds me of McG pre Terminator Salvation trying to convince the world his movie was the Terminator sequel everyone had been waiting for.

 

[bengraven]

So D-Rex is confirmed, and my whole enthusiasm around the project is pretty much dead at this point.

I'm mostly okay with it, because of the poor idea, it wasn't the worst - and like he said in the interview, it was in the books in a way.

Wu is in the film and Wu was the one to suggest making more marketable dinosaurs. Maybe slow them down a bit he mentions, but I can see him being like "let's make them rad".

As long as there's no trained dinosaurs, I'm all right. Especially a trained T-rex. T-rex has to eat a person in this film or I won't leave happily.

So much to bold.

I feel better after reading this, but also really guilty.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

The ceratopsians seem to have had some quill like integument features, but these don't seem to be closely related to feathers.

this fossil imprint clearly shows barbs of some type from the tail of a Psittacosaurus.

this to me looks like a specialization of a more general structure, and I would not be surprised if other ceratopsids had a simplified 'coat' of these on their body.

They are not feathers though, and portrayals of Triceratops looking like a peacock are wrong.

Oh you're right, I forgot all about Ceratopsid quills. My bad.
Man, I wish there was some way to see these animals in the flesh.
I imagine if we could a lot of our depictions would fall into the uncanny valley. lol

 

[happypup]

Oh you're right, I forgot all about Ceratopsid quills. My bad.
Man, I wish there was some way to see these animals in the flesh.
I imagine if we could a lot of our depictions would fall into the uncanny valley. lol

I have wanted that since I was 3 years old. We have birds though, they are awesome descendants, and who knows, perhaps some small remote group of small non avian dinosaurs are still out there (one can dream).

 

[A_Gorilla]

After reading the plot explanation, I'm kinda okay with the D-Rex concept now, ESPECIALLY since it is exactly the kind of thing moronic executives would conceive in a bid to increase profits.

Just please, don't make it look like any of the Dinos here:

http://www.jptoys.com/toy-database/chaos-effect/dinosaurs/index.htm

 

[sc0la]

After reading the plot explanation, I'm kinda okay with the D-Rex concept now, ESPECIALLY since it is exactly the kind of thing moronic executives would conceive in a bid to increase profits.

Just please, don't make it look like any of the Dinos here:

http://www.jptoys.com/toy-database/chaos-effect/dinosaurs/index.htm

Allegedly it will look like Masiakasaurus knopfleri but with color changing skin. My guess is you will see bright colors on it at some point as a display tactic, but I doubt they will be neon

 

[MisterGrey3000]

I have wanted that since I was 3 years old. We have birds though, they are awesome descendants, and who knows, perhaps some small remote group of small non avian dinosaurs are still out there (one can dream).

If only my friend, if only.

Also yeah, that's one of the reasons why I"m so fascinated by birds.
They've been here since the Jurassic for crying out loud!
Their evolutionary history is incredibly fascinating, and their diversity is awe inspiring.
I never got over that moment when I stared at a bird and said,"Huh, I'm basically looking at a modern theropod Dinosaur. They're still with us. I wonder how similarly they behaved? Etc etc etc."
It's great stuff, I love dinosaurs! <3

 

[sc0la]

I should note if the dino does look like Masiakasaurus Knopfleri and the song "money for nothing" isn't in the movie it will be a huge missed opportunity.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

Allegedly it will look like Masiakasaurus knopfleri but with color changing skin. My guess is you will see bright colors on it at some point as a display tactic, but I doubt they will be neon

I suspect this may be a peak at it..

 

[happypup]

If only my friend, if only.

Also yeah, that's one of the reasons why I"m so fascinated by birds.
They've been here since the Jurassic for crying out loud!
Their evolutionary history is incredibly fascinating, and their diversity is awe inspiring.
I never got over that moment when I stared at a bird and said,"Huh, I'm basically looking at a modern theropod Dinosaur. They're still with us. I wonder how similarly they behaved? Etc etc etc."
It's great stuff, I love dinosaurs! <3

It really struck me when I was working at a vertebrate museum for my university skinning and stuffing birds for scientific collection. There I was holding a little dinosaur in my hand. I would like to think the theropods had a great deal of their great great ... great grandchildren's elegance.

To weave this back into the topic, that is why I want to see feathers on my dinosaurs.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

I've said before and I will say it again, without feathers we cannot have Microraptors, aka natures X-Wing:

And that in itself is a damn shame.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

^^^
So cool!

It really struck me when I was working at a vertebrate museum for my university skinning and stuffing birds for scientific collection. There I was holding a little dinosaur in my hand. I would like to think the theropods had a great deal of their great great ... great grandchildren's elegance.

To weave this back into the topic, that is why I want to see feathers on my dinosaurs.

Hahaha
Same here. The non-avian Dinosaur's connection to birds is incredibly fascinating, and motivates me to continue studying the evolutionary history of paleo animals in general.
This movie would have been the perfect chance to introduce the general public to feathered therapods and motivate people to learn more about ancient animals, but I guess they really didn't want to mess with the JP brand.
Giant chimp-like velociraptors are too important to mess with.
:/

 

[Galang]

Eh...sounds good to me to be honest.

 

[happypup]

^^^
So cool!



Hahaha
Same here. The non-avian Dinosaur's connection to birds is incredibly fascinating, and motivates me to continue studying the evolutionary history of paleo animals in general.
This movie would have been the perfect chance to introduce the general public to feathered therapods and motivate people to learn more about ancient animals, but I guess they really didn't want to mess with the JP brand.
Giant chimp-like velociraptors are too important to mess with.
:/

I have accepted that the film legacy for JP won't be that, It was not as big of a risk in the first film, as Crichton had a best seller getting people excited about fast, smart, and scaly dinosaurs, and the film delivered on that promise, now to go back and reintroduce the dino's in the first film with feathers would be like changing the lead actor in a franchise. Still though, they could introduce new dinosaurs with the fascinating integument features dicovered in the Mongolian and northern china dig sites like one of the microraptors, the Psittacosaurus mongoliensis or the Yutyrannus huali.

 

[lazorexplosion]

For us, that image captured the way much of the audience feels about the movies themselves. &#8220;We&#8217;ve seen CG dinosaurs. What else you got?&#8221; Next year, you&#8217;ll see our answer.

Interesting characters, engaging plot in a grounded sci-fi setting with fascinating massive extinct animals? Those things are pretty timeless.

Oh you're going with a CG mutant dinosaur? That's what else you got? Oh.

It's annoying how that statement is almost self-aware enough to make a useful revelation but he is totally oblivious to it. "We&#8217;ve seen CG dinosaurs. What else you got?" What else do we have? Hmmm, how about discoveries about dinosaurs that paint their appearances in a totally new light? We haven't seen that on film. That would be cool, and attention grabbing and also scientifically grounded. But you're going with CG monster dinosaurs instead? Oh for Christ's sake.

 

[Cow Mengde]

Oh you're right, I forgot all about Ceratopsid quills. My bad.
Man, I wish there was some way to see these animals in the flesh.
I imagine if we could a lot of our depictions would fall into the uncanny valley. lol

But then you'll have your back against the glass texting your girlfriend if you get to see the dinosaurs in the flesh.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

I have accepted that the film legacy for JP won't be that, It was not as big of a risk in the first film, as Crichton had a best seller getting people excited about fast, smart, and scaly dinosaurs, and the film delivered on that promise, now to go back and reintroduce the dino's in the first film with feathers would be like changing the lead actor in a franchise. Still though, they could introduce new dinosaurs with the fascinating integument features dicovered in the Mongolian and northern china dig sites like one of the microraptors, the Psittacosaurus mongoliensis or the Yutyrannus huali.

I guess I'm just going to have to do the same thing hahaha.
I agree that they could at least show off some new feathered dinos that we've never seen in JP before, but I think they want the dinos to have a "consistent" look. So I'm not going to get my hopes up.

But then you'll have your back against the glass texting your girlfriend if you get to see the dinosaurs in the flesh.

lol

 

[Kyleripman]

Interesting characters, engaging plot in a grounded sci-fi setting with fascinating massive extinct animals? Those things are pretty timeless.

Oh you're going with a CG mutant dinosaur? That's what else you got? Oh.

It's annoying how that statement is almost self-aware enough to make a useful revelation but he is totally oblivious to it. "We’ve seen CG dinosaurs. What else you got?" What else do we have? Hmmm, how about discoveries about dinosaurs that paint their appearances in a totally new light? We haven't seen that on film. That would be cool, and attention grabbing and also scientifically grounded. But you're going with CG monster dinosaurs instead? Oh for Christ's sake.

Thank you. Couldn't agree more. I posted a link in the other thread with the number of known dinosaur species (over 1000). They could have easily chosen one we hadn't seen before and given it whatever behavioral or physical traits (i.e., camouflage) they intend to put on their mutant.