|
What T-Rexes actually looked like (Courtesy Tumblr):
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
If I ever get around to making a video game I will make one of the worlds be one of the dinosaur eras but instead it's all giant chickens and ducks running around trying to beak you to death.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:quote: What is this from?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series. Except its a chicken.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:
Many fans see these creatures like professional wrestlers (note the irrational outrage over the T. rex defeat in the third film). Big birds with bright, colorful plumage would trample on their expectations of violent, masculine icons of power. As the public comes to grips with gay marriage and ancient feathered animals, the portrayal of dinosaurs as bald, toothy lizards grows more old-fashioned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Toady posted:Many fans see these creatures like professional wrestlers (note the irrational outrage over the T. rex defeat in the third film). Big birds with bright, colorful plumage would trample on their expectations of violent, masculine icons of power. As the public comes to grips with gay marriage and ancient feathered animals, the portrayal of dinosaurs as bald, toothy lizards grows more old-fashioned. Dear God don't make me agree with Toady noooooooooooooooooo
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
Toady posted:Many fans see these creatures like professional wrestlers (note the irrational outrage over the T. rex defeat in the third film). Big birds with bright, colorful plumage would trample on their expectations of violent, masculine icons of power. As the public comes to grips with gay marriage and ancient feathered animals, the portrayal of dinosaurs as bald, toothy lizards grows more old-fashioned. Bright colorful plumage is a display of masculine power. See Macho Man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Toady posted:Many fans see these creatures like professional wrestlers (note the irrational outrage over the T. rex defeat in the third film). Big birds with bright, colorful plumage would trample on their expectations of violent, masculine icons of power. As the public comes to grips with gay marriage and ancient feathered animals, the portrayal of dinosaurs as bald, toothy lizards grows more old-fashioned. Methinks you're projecting a wee bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:39
|
|
|
People think things are silly for a reason. 'Silly' is en emergent property of other things. See also: The evolution of the use of the word 'gay.'
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:People think things are silly for a reason. 'Silly' is en emergent property of other things. See also: The evolution of the use of the word 'gay.' Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I think it looks silly because aesthetically I prefer the scaly reptilian creatures of my childhood, not because I'm a closet homophobe. In other words you think it looks silly for a reason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Toady posted:Many fans see these creatures like professional wrestlers (note the irrational outrage over the T. rex defeat in the third film). Big birds with bright, colorful plumage would trample on their expectations of violent, masculine icons of power. As the public comes to grips with gay marriage and ancient feathered animals, the portrayal of dinosaurs as bald, toothy lizards grows more old-fashioned. I love your interpretation but   Bright and colorful plumage is one of the main way wrestlers make themselves stand out. Peanut President fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:So you think it looks silly because it's not how it was when you were a child?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
Who is accusing you of being homophobic? Is...is everything okay?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Toady posted:I'm certain we've had the feather discussion before. It's a moot point for this film, but dinosaurs had many variations of feathers. There's no reason a fictional T. rex must look flamboyantly homosexual (which is what fans are actually afraid of). He was responding to this.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Now I'm wondering how much popular backlash there was when bird-dinosaur imagery first started seeping out of paleontological debate and into the mainstream. I don't mean all the in-discipline debate that happened, but like if there were people similarly mad that T. rex's tail wasn't dragging properly anymore and it was all slouched over horizontally instead of standing bolt upright and so on. I really do think there's something interesting about how Jurassic Park's portrayal of modern, birdlike dinosaurs not only majorly contributed to the unseating in the public imagination of dinosaurs as big fat lizards, but has become so embedded in pop culture that it's now a significant source of traction against further updates in dinosaur imagery. I mean, it's not SURPRISING that what got remembered from the movie was 'these dinosaurs look badass and that makes this movie cool' rather than 'these representations of dinosaurs are significantly more realistic-seeming than past portrayals and that makes this movie cool,' but it's still sort of funny in an ironic 'old king is dead long live the new king' kind of way. Speaking of which... Toady posted:Many fans see these creatures like professional wrestlers (note the irrational outrage over the T. rex defeat in the third film). Big birds with bright, colorful plumage would trample on their expectations of violent, masculine icons of power. As the public comes to grips with gay marriage and ancient feathered animals, the portrayal of dinosaurs as bald, toothy lizards grows more old-fashioned. Drakyn fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Who is accusing you of being homophobic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Who reads "fans are afraid of a different-looking dinosaur" (which as we've seen, they are) as "fans are all homophobic, secretly" ?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Hbomberguy posted:Who reads "fans are afraid of a different-looking dinosaur" (which as we've seen, they are) as "fans are all homophobic, secretly" ?! I just quoted the post, his specific opinion is that fans don't want the dinosaurs to look flamboyantly gay.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:I love your interpretation but what if he was a dinosaur
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I think it looks silly because aesthetically I prefer the scaly reptilian creatures of my childhood, not because I'm a closet homophobe. The only "aura" surrounding T. rex is a kind of nostalgia for the good old days of "feudal" capitalism, when companies were identified with individual "giants" (like Spielberg himself) who were capable of great evil and great good. The raptors, by contrast, represent the new stage of postmodern capitalism, of "downsizing," flexibility, rapid strike forces, teamwork, adaptability, steep learning curves, and (not incidentally) gender confusion. From the opening scene of Jurassic Park, the raptors are presented as "clever girls" who are "figuring things out" and hatching plots (along with unauthorized eggs) to prepare for their eventual takeover. The male hysteria and anxiety about impotence that shadow [Bringing Up Baby] are on full display in Jurassic Park. -WJT Mitchell, "The Last Dinosaur Book" Contemporary, postmodern dinosaurs are multicolored, striped, spotted, and festooned with gay plumage, as befits an age of multiculturalism and sexual multiplicity. The modern (1900-1960) dinosaur was a uniform, monotonous gray-green color that served to unite perfectly the savage, organic, reptilian skin and the modern armored military vehicle. The lean, mean fighting machine had to be green because war is a state of nature, and camouflage is a natural adaptation. -WJT Mitchell, "The Last Dinosaur Book" SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The only "aura" surrounding T. rex is a kind of nostalgia for the good old days of "feudal" capitalism, when companies were identified with individual "giants" (like Spielberg himself) who were capable of great evil and great good. The raptors, by contrast, represent the new stage of postmodern capitalism, of "downsizing," flexibility, rapid strike forces, teamwork, adaptability, steep learning curves, and (not incidentally) gender confusion. From the opening scene of Jurassic Park, the raptors are presented as "clever girls" who are "figuring things out" and hatching plots (along with unauthorized eggs) to prepare for their eventual takeover. The male hysteria and anxiety about impotence that shadow [Bringing Up Baby] are on full display in Jurassic Park. How is the book as a whole?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:what if he was a dinosaur Funny you mention that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbFcqh3pCk8
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:I love your interpretation but 80s American glam was a reclamation of masculinity from the wispy androgyny of 70s UK glam, but in the 90s when many fans saw Jurassic Park, masculinity had been reclaimed again by gritty anti-heroes visiting us from the desert of the real. Hulk Hogan re-emerged as a street-wise heel in a black costume--fans didn't want a hair metal dinosaur. The question fans should ask themselves is why it it's important to them to censor the natural plumage of dinosaurs in popular media. Like the 70s dinosaur renaissance, which was resisted by the public because it challenged human assumptions of superiority over nature's plodding failures, the need for dinosaurs to remain sleek, bald predatory killers is rooted in anxiety over challenges to the conventional imagery of power. Bright feathers would look gay and scandalous on my prehistoric bird toy, scarred by removable flesh panels in battles with other titans on my imaginary island of natural selection, where those in power have the largest muscles and the sharpest teeth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:I love your interpretation but Those are some remarkably outdated pictures though. 
ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
That's an interesting thesis for cultural level resistance to change. However applying it on an individual level to individual people's aesthetic preferences is kinda dickish. Like personally I like both looks and would prefer sort of a sliding scale of plumage based on where the dino originated from and its heat needs for the environment. Teh only thing i can't stand is when they make the feathers all dull greys and browns. If it's a feathered dino it should be full on peacocking, and most scaly ones should at least have interesting colors, preferably bright primary and secondary ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
The understanding of what the raptors represent is key to Pratt's characterization. As a raptor trainer, he is not an anticapitalist by any means. His 'rebelliousness' is that of new breed of liberal capitalist who values exactly that sort of openness, collaboration, flexibility, creativity, and so-on as a way to generate profits while also being 'socially responsible'. His conflict with Bryce Dallas-Howard (who is, apparently, not Jessica Chastain) in that short clip has already clearly set up the main conflict of the film, where she will be associated with the i-rex. The battle of the domesticated raptors versus the freakishly altered rex is already overly familiar. It's the basic conflict between Iron Man and Iron Monger in the very first Marvel film - a battle over which management style will determine the future of the corporation. Going back further, this is the basic conflict in the original Tron. Iron Monger and Sark are clumsy, immoral 'giants' fighting small teams of liberal do-gooder hackers. In Jurassic Park, Nedry's hacking - on behalf of a rival corporation - is precisely what unleashes the dinosaurs that ruin Hammond's dream. The raptors display their intelligence by testing the fences for weaknesses. They cravenly kill eachother to survive. They can open doors...  Nedry defies the authority of the sign, which has been rendered impotent. "It is not enough to say that the birds [in Hitchcock's The Birds] are part of the natural set-up of reality. It is rather as if a foreign dimension intrudes, that literally tears apart reality. We humans are not naturally born into reality. In order for us to act as normal people who interact with other people who live in the space of social reality, many things should happen. Like, we should be properly installed within the symbolic order and so on. When this our proper dwelling within a symbolic space is disturbed, reality disintegrates."  It's a recurring theme. "At first, we even don’t perceive it as a bird - as if some stain appeared within the frame. When a fantasy object, something imagined, an object from inner space, enters our ordinary realty, the texture of reality is twisted, distorted. This is how desire inscribes itself into reality: by distorting it. Desire is a wound of reality. The art of cinema consists in arousing desire, to play with desire. But, at the same time, keeping it at a safe distance, domesticating it, rendering it palpable." -Zizek, "The Pervert's Guide to Cinema" It's Ellie and the children's 'good hacking' that contains the raptors - the women and children restore the power, lock the doors, reassert boundaries and so-on. But what if we lose the anticapitalist point? What happens if we simply reject Nedry's 'impure' greed and not the capitalist system itself? As satirized in the original Robocop (the ED-209 is, of course, a robotic tyrannosaur), what we are seeing in Jurassic World is a pseudo-opposition between the good and bad capitalists. The only hope is in the hints that the conflict will eventually transition to the 'old park', where we will see the re-emergence of the undomesticated raptors and original, scarred t-rex. These will, naturally, serve as counterpoints to the 'unnaturally' domesticated raptors and 'unnaturally' mutated i-rex - and also serve as representations of Pratt and Howards' character growth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:
The signs have the last laugh though: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
And then he falls as if he slipped on a banana peel including the sound effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Loads of new posts in the JP thread, I wonder what's been released....
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:And then he falls as if he slipped on a banana peel including the sound effect. Don't gently caress with signs!
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:And then he falls as if he slipped on a banana peel including the sound effect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The understanding of what the raptors represent is key to Pratt's characterization. As a raptor trainer, he is not an anticapitalist by any means. His 'rebelliousness' is that of new breed of liberal capitalist who values exactly that sort of openness, collaboration, flexibility, creativity, and so-on as a way to generate profits while also being 'socially responsible'. His conflict with Bryce Dallas-Howard (who is, apparently, not Jessica Chastain) in that short clip has already clearly set up the main conflict of the film, where she will be associated with the i-rex.   Pratt's shirt is the same color as the raptors, and like the raptors he's clearly more in tune with nature. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:That sound effect was always super silly. In actuality it's likely the tow line he's holding from the winch rapidly unreeling, right? I think so yeah but growing up I only ever thought of it as that cartoon sound, hehe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
PresidentBeard posted:That's an interesting thesis for cultural level resistance to change. However applying it on an individual level to individual people's aesthetic preferences is kinda dickish. Like personally I like both looks and would prefer sort of a sliding scale of plumage based on where the dino originated from and its heat needs for the environment. Teh only thing i can't stand is when they make the feathers all dull greys and browns. If it's a feathered dino it should be full on peacocking, and most scaly ones should at least have interesting colors, preferably bright primary and secondary ones. I think it's possible to give dinosaurs feathers and still have them look cool and scary. I understand the frustrations a lot of dinosaur enthusiasts have expressed. I mean, yeah, it's basically a Hollywood monster movie, and obviously they need to take some major artistic liberties just for the premise itself to work. But feathered dinosaurs are actually cool and scientifically accurate, so it feels like they missed a great opportunity to totally change the way the average person thinks about dinosaurs, just like the first Jurassic Park did. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
Jurassic Park dinosaurs as movie monsters are like they are in the park. They're movie monsters. Attractions in the theme park of cinema, and historically featherless. If like to see maybe another franchise tackle feathered dinosaurs, or a JP film that addresses it, but in the films they're custom made monsters for kids so it's thematically best to have them featherless. And I say that as a big fan of feathered Dino's JP style dinosaurs don't got no feathers, and if they did the parks would probably fail because people have weird stupid babby hang ups on feathered dinosaurs. It's very fitting to have them all naked in the films.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
The problem with that is that you'll need to wait until JP has completely left the cultural headspace if you want to change how people see dinosaurs. When it comes to dinosaurs, we're still in a post-JP world. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
I feel like I've missed something here, I know certain dinosaur fossils have been discovered with feather impressions, but has T Rex and other dinosaurs? Did no previous T Rex fossil indicate feathers or has every paleontologist missed it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
nexus6 posted:I feel like I've missed something here, I know certain dinosaur fossils have been discovered with feather impressions, but has T Rex and other dinosaurs? Did no previous T Rex fossil indicate feathers or has every paleontologist missed it? I don't know the specifics, but a lot of fossils have been found with imprints of varying clarity. If I remember correctly, something like a T. rex may have only been covered in a fuzz while something like a velociraptor, would likely have been covered in true feathers. How we view dinosaurs has changed recently, with a lot of what we knew previously being debated due to what's called the shrink wrapped dinosaur syndrome. Basically, if you take any skeleton and stretch skin over it like was done in the past for artists reconstructions, it's going to be very different from what the creature actually looked like. So now people are starting to think about more than the bones, similar to what we've been doing for extinct mammals for a long time. It's harder with dinosaurs, as it's not there are any left, but it's been happening. One of the big changes has been feathers being a more universal trait, or at least some kind of feather-like covering. A lot of it is still guess work, with only a few really well preserved specimens. This goes into more detail on it for those interested: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2014/09/01/changing-life-appearance-of-dinosaurs/
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
While my understanding of fossils is limited, fossils aren't totally accurate replications of the source (not all fossils are complete when we get to them, there can be some wear over the many many millennia, etc.), and scientists have imaginations they use to fill in information - similar mistakes have been made in archaeology where ancient tribespeople buried with their weapons have been misidentified as male simply because the scientists assumed males did all the fighting all the time everywhere and later, more accurate methods have disproved these hypotheses. WJT Mitchell makes an excellent point about our conception of dinosaurs in some ways mirroring our ideas of what a 'killing machine' would look like in actual warfare at the time. In terms of concrete evidence, I believe the current situation is that various tyrannosauroids (yes that's right they have a whole superfamily named after them) have been found to have them, so it is highly plausible that the Rex had some somewhere as well. I mean our conception of Dinosaurs have seriously changed so much it's astounding. Even the name Dinosaur is wrong, because they aren't even lizards or reptiles. The history of the study of Dinosaurs is fascinating purely because of how many things about them we got wrong. Dinosaurs are almost literally more about the human imagination than reality, or at least used to be. Hbomberguy fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2015 00:39
|
|