Jurassic World: Battle at Big Rock

[Funk]

No, feathered maniraptorans was a fringe idea at the time (the first feathered non-Archaeopteryx theropod was described in 1996), basically only illustrated by Gregory S. Paul and a few others. Even those that advocated the bird-dinosaur link did not necessarily believe this amounted to feathered dinosaurs. The idea only went mainstream by around 2000 (and JP3 obviously acknowledged the idea with their semi-feathered raptors).

Granted, the JP3 raptors weren't much, but certainly better than "blue" and all those other abominations.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

Ahem, apart from the size, a lot of effort was made to make the "Velociraptors" as accurate as possible on the original film - they made sure they held the tails right, they got rid of the lizard tongues, they emphasise their warm blooded-ness. Them being called Velociraptor is because of Gregory S Paul, who controversially called Velociraptor a species of Deinonychus in his book.

[CityRaptor]

That, too, but it is a bit more complicated:
https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul
https://news.yale.edu/2015/06/18/yale-s-legacy-jurassic-world

Also they were going to be named Deinonychus at one point:
https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=10031227

The part about modifying designs to make them copyrightable ( which did not work given all the imitations out there ) could actually apply to InGen in Universe.

[Patrx]

As much fun as it always is to bring up the assorted palaeontological merits of the Jurassic films, I think we had best keep on the subject of Battle at Big Rock specifically.

[Gothmog the Baryonyx]

I love that the Allosaurus had accurately held arms for a change.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Brocc21]

I love that the Allosaurus had accurately held arms for a change.

Keeping it on big rock. I don't know if this is a good thing. Yes it's scientifically accurate, but it's also a continuity error. Unless they find an excuse for it like, the allosaurus's hands change positions as it ages.

[ITdactyl]

Keeping it on big rock. I don't know if this is a good thing. Yes it's scientifically accurate, but it's also a continuity error. Unless they find an excuse for it like, the allosaurus's hands change positions as it ages.

Continuity error?  I'd say no not necessarily.  The raptors (since JP) and the Indominus  have kept a palms down hand position at rest, but (in some shots) have the hands in the correct position during threat displays and attacks.

The problematic hand posture is prevalent (and obvious) with the toys/figures - the palms are held kangaroo style.  The problem with the movie counterparts is that they have free supination and pronation at their wrists - something they shouldn't be doing.

[Brocc21]

Keeping it on big rock. I don't know if this is a good thing. Yes it's scientifically accurate, but it's also a continuity error. Unless they find an excuse for it like, the allosaurus's hands change positions as it ages.

Continuity error?  I'd say no not necessarily.  The raptors (since JP) and the Indominus  have kept a palms down hand position at rest, but (in some shots) have the hands in the correct position during threat displays and attacks.

The problematic hand posture is prevalent (and obvious) with the toys/figures - the palms are held kangaroo style.  The problem with the movie counterparts is that they have free supination and pronation at their wrists - something they shouldn't be doing.

Correct they do move them in certain positions. But this Allosaurus seems to hold them like that naturally. And for the love of god why didn't they just cover that baby's mouth?

[ITdactyl]

And for the love of god why didn't they just cover that baby's mouth?

Oh, that's a discussion I don't want to get in to.      There seems to be a big divide in the fandom regarding that part.

[Kotori_Sonoda]

I just figured they panicked...

[HD-man]

EDIT: Never mind.

[Funk]

Gregory S. Paul was even one of the consultants on the movie, so had they really tried for accuracy they would have put some feathers somewhere. They certainly wouldn´t have called their raptors Velociraptors.

As stated above, the reason why they called them Velociraptor was because of GSP in the first place, no one else had ever proposed this scheme before, and Crichton obviously didn't get it from thin air. So yes, it may have been Crichton's choice to use that name, but he didn't invent it.

Anyhow, to get back to the accuracy of this short, the Allosaurus in both this and Fallen Kingdom don't seem to have those nasal ridges that continue in front of the lacrimal horns in actual Allosaurus skulls, hence the comments about the generic theropod head. The Ballad of Big Al Allosaurus remains the most accurate Allosaurus on screen so far:

The eye is also ridiculously far low in the eye socket in the JW animatronic head, even though we do know exactly where it would have been placed due to a preserved sclerotic ring (don't know why the image is upside down):

Plus let´s not gloss over the fact that both the Rex and the Dilo have completely wrong heads.

I wouldn't call the Tyrannosaurus head "completely wrong" by any stretch.

[Gwangi]

As a parent, perhaps the only parent in this conversation, I feel inclined to point out that an attempt to physically stop a baby from crying will only result in more severe crying. You sooth crying babies, you don't (and can't) muffle them.

[suspsy]

As a parent, perhaps the only parent in this conversation, I feel inclined to point out that an attempt to physically stop a baby from crying will only result in more severe crying. You sooth crying babies, you don't (and can't) muffle them.

That is 100% correct.

[stargatedalek]

but I swear people are so obsessed with finding ways to hate these newer movies that they invent extra reasons

Isn't exactly a tough job.

but don't go making baseless claims about accuracy in a franchise where that has never mattered anyway.

But apart from the Dilophosaurus, they did attempt to make the dinosaurs accurate in the first three films.

I mean no personal offense when I say this, but I've gotten very tired of arguing with people who think they know everything about this franchise because they watched a few "fun facts" Youtube videos. If anyone wants me to actually get sources for my points please ask, but I'm not going to go through through the trouble of replying to any more "nuh-uh cause a children's dinosaur encyclopedia I once read said THIS!" type comments.

I've read both books several times, and been actively seeking out any additional behind the scenes and expanded universe content from this franchise for almost two decades. There are a lot of very common trends people fall into when trying to address this franchise critically and many of them are contradicted by the source material.

No, feathered maniraptorans was a fringe idea at the time (the first feathered non-Archaeopteryx theropod was described in 1996), basically only illustrated by Gregory S. Paul and a few others. Even those that advocated the bird-dinosaur link did not necessarily believe this amounted to feathered dinosaurs. The idea only went mainstream by around 2000 (and JP3 obviously acknowledged the idea with their semi-feathered raptors).

Granted, the JP3 raptors weren't much, but certainly better than "blue" and all those other abominations.

While it certainly wasn't a mainstream public idea like it is now, feathered dinosaurs was far from a fringe concept in 1993. It wasn't even really a fringe concept in 1893. The scientific consensus on the bird-dinosaur relationship flip flopped several times (damned Drepanosaurs!), but for a long time now a solid chunk of people have been to varying degrees convinced by it, and in being so were acutely aware that some dinosaurs, somewhere along the timetable of events, had feathers.

People besides just Gregory Paul have been arguing in favor of feathered dromaeosaurs since the 1970s. Again, public perception does not represent perception of people who were aware of the science. A really important thing to note when discussing pre-2000's paleo-art is that there wasn't the vast community driven resource there is now, nor was there as much expectation for life reconstructions, even those accompanying actual scientific papers, to represent the most likely interpretation of the animal. A lot of paleo-art was intended to function as diagrams for how the bones would look with connecting tissue more than intending to show the live animal.

Effects people have explained away the JP3 raptors as an accuracy retcon, but I don't really buy it. Nothing besides the infamous dream sequence would suggest they were a retcon, and if they were intended as a more accurate retcon it was a rather sad attempt at half measures. If it was meant to be a retcon it got un-retconed anyway so the intentions are now irrelevant.

We've gotten a new raptor design in every single film, it's tradition by this point. That's the takeaway I like to pull from the JP3 raptors.

I happen to love Blue's design, and love or hate the direction the new films have taken the franchise I think it's fair to hold up Blue as a great example of how to characterize an animal believably.

No, feathered maniraptorans was a fringe idea at the time (the first feathered non-Archaeopteryx theropod was described in 1996), basically only illustrated by Gregory S. Paul and a few others. Even those that advocated the bird-dinosaur link did not necessarily believe this amounted to feathered dinosaurs. The idea only went mainstream by around 2000 (and JP3 obviously acknowledged the idea with their semi-feathered raptors).

Granted, the JP3 raptors weren't much, but certainly better than "blue" and all those other abominations.

Yet dinosaurs being closely related to birds only really caught on in the mainstream due to Jurassic Park. Gregory S. Paul was even one of the consultants on the movie, so had they really tried for accuracy they would have put some feathers somewhere. They certainly wouldn´t have called their raptors Velociraptors.

Ahem, apart from the size, a lot of effort was made to make the "Velociraptors" as accurate as possible on the original film - they made sure they held the tails right, they got rid of the lizard tongues, they emphasise their warm blooded-ness. Them being called Velociraptor is because of Gregory S Paul, who controversially called Velociraptor a species of Deinonychus in his book.

That, too, but it is a bit more complicated:
https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Gregory_S._Paul
https://news.yale.edu/2015/06/18/yale-s-legacy-jurassic-world

Also they were going to be named Deinonychus at one point:
https://www.icollector.com/item.aspx?i=10031227

The part about modifying designs to make them copyrightable ( which did not work given all the imitations out there ) could actually apply to InGen in Universe.

Ahem, apart from the size, a lot of effort was made to make the "Velociraptors" as accurate as possible on the original film - they made sure they held the tails right, they got rid of the lizard tongues, they emphasise their warm blooded-ness. Them being called Velociraptor is because of Gregory S Paul, who controversially called Velociraptor a species of Deinonychus in his book.

Well, Crichton called them Velociraptors because he preferred that name, yet he was fully aware that they were Deinonychus. Had they truly tried to go as accurate as possible, they simply would´ve changed the name just to be on the safe side. They always chose the more dramatic option, though. That´s why they gave the Dilophosaurus his unlikely features and why they chose to give the Rex bad eyesight. Plus let´s not gloss over the fact that both the Rex and the Dilo have completely wrong heads. This new Allosaurus is just as accurate as the Jurassic Park theropods have always been.

I'm sorry in advance because I know this will look aggressive, but....

I've heard this exact, EXACT same argument hundreds of times over. I swear I've heard this so often it's taken years off my life.

This exact thing has had people bickering back and forth since the first movie came out. And yet if anyone had actually read the books they would have noticed that Wu specifically refers to the animals in the park as V. mongoliensis. Meanwhile Grant was digging up Deinonychus (Crichton even made the conscious choice to call then V. antirrhopus to avoid confusion).

The live raptors in this franchise have been very decidedly Velociraptor since the very beginning.

Debate over. The animals in the films are not intended to represent Deinonychus. And even if they were every single inaccuracy we apply to them as Velociraptor would still apply.

Plus let´s not gloss over the fact that both the Rex and the Dilo have completely wrong heads. This new Allosaurus is just as accurate as the Jurassic Park theropods have always been.

Also, this. Very, very much this. ^

Keeping it on big rock. I don't know if this is a good thing. Yes it's scientifically accurate, but it's also a continuity error. Unless they find an excuse for it like, the allosaurus's hands change positions as it ages.

Continuity error?  I'd say no not necessarily.  The raptors (since JP) and the Indominus  have kept a palms down hand position at rest, but (in some shots) have the hands in the correct position during threat displays and attacks.

The problematic hand posture is prevalent (and obvious) with the toys/figures - the palms are held kangaroo style.  The problem with the movie counterparts is that they have free supination and pronation at their wrists - something they shouldn't be doing.

Their wrists move like human wrists (or, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe also traditional reptile wrists?), and they always have. Plus there actually is a dinosaur whose wrists change position as it ages, so given these are canonically hybrid monsters, who knows

As a parent, perhaps the only parent in this conversation, I feel inclined to point out that an attempt to physically stop a baby from crying will only result in more severe crying. You sooth crying babies, you don't (and can't) muffle them.

That is 100% correct.

This is something that genuinely interests me and I'd like to hear more about it. I've always been bothered by the crying baby trope and wondered why no one placed a finger in the babies mouth or covered their mouth or anything, and then calmed them after danger had passed.


On to the actual short itself, I loved it. Kids have always been hit or miss in Jurassic, but I think there were a lot of really clever ideas at play here. Why would random people know what Nasutoceratops is? Because they've been in the news for having a baby, I thought that was a clever setup. The scene with the baby Nasutoceratops where the father is talking like he forgot to fast-forward a scene in a documentary was great. And the ending where they parodied viral clips of animals had me in stitches, though I agree the Mosasaur felt entirely out of place there (and it's effects looked noticeably worse than the others).

[Funk]

I mean no personal offense when I say this, but I've gotten very tired of arguing with people who think they know everything about this franchise because they watched a few "fun facts" Youtube videos. I've read both books several times...

I read the books, the making of books, as well as watched the making of films. I also read the Gregory S. Paul and Robert Bakker books that influenced Crichton when he wrote JP (Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, Dinosaur Heresies). So well, let's just get that baseless ad hominem attack out of the way.

feathered dinosaurs was far from a fringe concept in 1993. It wasn't even really a fringe concept in 1893.

Nope, you are clearly confusing the "birds are dinosaurs" with the "dinosaurs were feathered" argument. The two are related, but separate, and one wasn't necessarily dependent on the other; birds were long thought to be related to dinosaurs, but even those who argued this did not necessarily imagine any dinosaurs as feathered. The first feathered dinosaurs were illustrated in the 1970s and 1980s. If you have any references to feathered dinosaurs prior to this, please show them.

Meanwhile Grant was digging up Deinonychus (Crichton even made the conscious choice to call then V. antirrhopus to avoid confusion).

Again, Crichton would hardly have used that name if it wasn't for GSP, whether he made a conscious choice or not. The idea of large Velociraptor simply didn't exist before.

Also, this. Very, very much this. ^

Again, very little is wrong with the Tyrannosaurus head. It basically boils down to subtle proportions (and those "horns" which were actually illustrated even before the film), but the overall shape is pretty close.

Have a look at GSP's 1980s skeletal which undoubtedly informed the film version (his skeletals are even featured in the movie):

And the animatronic, basically only differing by the horns above the eyes, which are not that far off from the skeletal anyway (Tyrannosaurus did have some bumps there, just behind and in front of the eye rather than above).

To stay on track, the Nasutoceratops seemed pretty accurate, though it was hard to get a glimpse of the feet, which were probably of the elephantine variety. The frill also seems a bit long from those concept images.

[Halichoeres]

As a parent, perhaps the only parent in this conversation, I feel inclined to point out that an attempt to physically stop a baby from crying will only result in more severe crying. You sooth crying babies, you don't (and can't) muffle them.

That is 100% correct.

Sounds like you guys aren't trying hard enough. Like, babies' teeth aren't even sharp.

[suspsy]

As a parent, perhaps the only parent in this conversation, I feel inclined to point out that an attempt to physically stop a baby from crying will only result in more severe crying. You sooth crying babies, you don't (and can't) muffle them.

That is 100% correct.

Sounds like you guys aren't trying hard enough. Like, babies' teeth aren't even sharp.

My wife would seriously knock you out cold if you said that in front of her.