65 Movie

[Halichoeres]

Also, if we're going for all this pseudoscience, might as well put dinosaurs from different eras in this! While I would rather they stay accurate, and have correct designs, this is the only site I've seen complaints over accuracy (of course, we have reason to criticize the designs haha!).

I think part of the reason for that is this is the only dinosaur toy collecting community on the Internet that isn't overwhelmingly populated by JP/JW fans. There are many here, obviously, but a much lower percentage than elsewhere, I would say.

[Gwangi]

I think the number of Jurassic Park/World (and monster, sci-fi, creature feature) fans is significantly higher than the number of people interested in dinosaur science, or science in general probably. Our type of community brings these two different fandoms together because it so happens that Jurassic Park has dinosaurs in it, but in most communities that means the movie buffs will outnumber the dinosaur buffs. And then the arguing happens. I'm like a unicorn (apparently) in that I'm a science geek that also enjoys Jurassic Park and similar movies. I can enjoy them both as separate interests because to me, that's what they are. That also means that for me it's doubly fun that two of my interests (dinosaurs and movies) occasionally intersect, even if not ideally.

I still bemoan the lack of dinosaur accuracy in media, especially when a new property like this arises and and there's just zero attempt to even try. Why use real world animals, like dinosaurs, if you're going to just turn them into monsters. Dinosaurs are interesting because they were real. By monsterizing them like this it just kind of defeats the purpose of having dinosaurs in your movie at all.

[Faelrin]

I'm in a strange position as I'm a dinosaur fan before being a JP fan, but I pretty much got introduced to dinosaurs through Jurassic Park (and Land Before Time), if not toys my father got me when I was really young. So the two have been pretty intertwined interests for most of my life. I suppose having a fascination with the natural world and extant fauna and flora at a young age helped me be pretty open and accepting to the prehistoric animals being (vastly) different to the JP designs. I don't think the original JP designs were really all that bad for the time. There was some semblance of research and consultation done (before science moved on), despite some intentional artistic liberties taken with the designs (notably the Dilophosaurus, and oversized Deinonychus called the wrong name), but they could get away with it through their setting.

Now that I'm even more aware of the current evidence for these animals, it really bums me out when there isn't at least an attempt being made to research, or bring on a paleontologist consultant or two, paleoartists, etc in this day and age. Instead the designs are just uninspired copies of what came before. And despite how much I disliked the film that was Jurassic World Dominion, I will at least give them credit for attempting with some of their designs, like the Moros, Pyroraptor, Quetzalcoatlus, and Therizinosaurus, and generally treating them like animals throughout it.

[Kapitaenosavrvs]

I really thought, releasing a Movie like this outside of JW wasn't a thing anymore. The fact, that they really chose prehistoric Earth makes it awful. I am not interested in this. Not a bit, tbh. Maybe a raged a bit at the Designs when i first saw it.

[Bread]

So am I the only one who is looking forward to this?

Besides the inaccuracies, I find this movie appealing. It is different from the countless JP/JW premises. Note that I am talking about large mainstream pictures, as we have seen this adaptation in the countless Syfy crap movies.

Yes I think we can all agree that Hollywood needs to push forward the accurate depictions rather than the countless monsterous depictions. However, once I saw spaceship and science fiction weapons, I give this movie a pass for its inaccuracies. It honestly has a better excuse than JP/JW with its inaccurate depictions.

[Gwangi]

So am I the only one who is looking forward to this?

Besides the inaccuracies, I find this movie appealing. It is different from the countless JP/JW premises. Note that I am talking about large mainstream pictures, as we have seen this adaptation in the countless Syfy crap movies.

Yes I think we can all agree that Hollywood needs to push forward the accurate depictions rather than the countless monsterous depictions. However, once I saw spaceship and science fiction weapons, I give this movie a pass for its inaccuracies. It honestly has a better excuse than JP/JW with its inaccurate depictions.

I don't see how. The movie literally takes place on prehistoric Earth, these aren't meant to be cloned animals.

I wouldn't say that I'm looking forward to it, but I will watch it eventually. There's a lot to praise (as I mentioned in my first post) but the dinosaur designs drag it down.

[suspsy]

Indeed, take away the convenient cloning/frog DNA/engineered for entertainment excuse and there is no excuse whatsoever for these painfully outdated portrayals. I posted my thoughts on 65 (the exact same ones I posted here in this thread) in a JP Facebook group and of all the responses so far, not one person has actually attempted to counter my points. Instead, it's all just angry and empty personal insults. Which gave me quite a good laugh.

[Gwangi]

I'm in a strange position as I'm a dinosaur fan before being a JP fan, but I pretty much got introduced to dinosaurs through Jurassic Park (and Land Before Time), if not toys my father got me when I was really young. So the two have been pretty intertwined interests for most of my life. I suppose having a fascination with the natural world and extant fauna and flora at a young age helped me be pretty open and accepting to the prehistoric animals being (vastly) different to the JP designs. I don't think the original JP designs were really all that bad for the time. There was some semblance of research and consultation done (before science moved on), despite some intentional artistic liberties taken with the designs (notably the Dilophosaurus, and oversized Deinonychus called the wrong name), but they could get away with it through their setting.

Now that I'm even more aware of the current evidence for these animals, it really bums me out when there isn't at least an attempt being made to research, or bring on a paleontologist consultant or two, paleoartists, etc in this day and age. Instead the designs are just uninspired copies of what came before. And despite how much I disliked the film that was Jurassic World Dominion, I will at least give them credit for attempting with some of their designs, like the Moros, Pyroraptor, Quetzalcoatlus, and Therizinosaurus, and generally treating them like animals throughout it.

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

[Lynx]

I feel like I've seen this movie before, just with a lower budget and poor CGI

[Gwangi]

I feel like I've seen this movie before, just with a lower budget and poor CGI

I feel like I've seen it before, in stop motion.

[Crackington]

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

Weren't Harryhausen's Valley of Gwangi and One Million Years BC dinosaurs pretty accurate for the 1960s though? I understand that Arthur Hayward from the London Natural History Museum had input into their designs (he designed the Invicta models in the next decade).

The film plots may be considered kitsch nowadays, but the dinosaurs would have been cutting edge back then.

[Carnoking]

I know I said I found the designs and concept a bit generic in the OP but I will  certainly be buying a ticket. There's a strong team of sci-if/horror storytellers behind it and if anything I want to see this film turn a profit if only to show Hollywood that dinosaurs are a viable source for entertainment outside of Jurassic. If that happens, I think it's only a matter of time before the right creative team comes along and gets them right on the big screen.

[Carnoking]

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

Weren't Harryhausen's Valley of Gwangi and One Million Years BC dinosaurs pretty accurate for the 1960s though? I understand that Arthur Hayward from the London Natural History Museum had input into their designs (he designed the Invicta models in the next decade).

The film plots may be considered kitsch nowadays, but the dinosaurs would have been cutting edge back then.

Harryhausen's dinosaurs were fantastic for the time, and it would be truly tragic if those films and his work were dismissed solely due to their age.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I feel like I've seen this movie before, just with a lower budget and poor CGI

I feel like I've seen it before, in stop motion.

Honestly if the dinosaurs were that good I'd be ok with it. Just hire Phil Tippet, the fact that he's on the film alone would mean views from that fanbase.

[Gwangi]

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

Weren't Harryhausen's Valley of Gwangi and One Million Years BC dinosaurs pretty accurate for the 1960s though? I understand that Arthur Hayward from the London Natural History Museum had input into their designs (he designed the Invicta models in the next decade).

The film plots may be considered kitsch nowadays, but the dinosaurs would have been cutting edge back then.

If any of Harryhausen's dinosaurs were accurate I think they were accurate mostly by default. They followed the paleo-art of their time by Knight and co. because that's all there really was to follow. You couldn't make retro dinosaurs when the concept didn't exist yet. One Million Years B.C. has many glaring inaccuracies, aside from the obvious one that is the plot. Everything is oversized, the pterosaurs have bat wings, etc. The Valley of Gwangi also had bat-wing pterosaurs. Harryhausen was a master of his craft, and I adore his work, but accuracy was not his goal. I kind of hate to make the comparison but he was kind of like Papo. Inaccurate but lifelike. 

[Gwangi]

I feel like I've seen this movie before, just with a lower budget and poor CGI

I feel like I've seen it before, in stop motion.

Honestly if the dinosaurs were that good I'd be ok with it. Just hire Phil Tippet, the fact that he's on the film alone would mean views from that fanbase.

The dinosaurs in Planet of Dinosaurs are it's only saving grace. I would love to see a modern stop-motion dinosaur movie from Phil Tippet. Turn Prehistoric Beast into a full length movie, update the dinosaurs, no narration. 

[Fembrogon]

I still like A Quiet Place a lot (haven't seen the 2nd, though), so I want to be optimistic about this film. The innacurate - and frankly generic - dinosaur designs are a real shame; but if the film still accomplishes a good story I can be more forgiving. Bad designs or not, more successful dino movies might encourage future projects, which means more opportunities for better dinosaurs.

[GojiraGuy1954]

I'm in a strange position as I'm a dinosaur fan before being a JP fan, but I pretty much got introduced to dinosaurs through Jurassic Park (and Land Before Time), if not toys my father got me when I was really young. So the two have been pretty intertwined interests for most of my life. I suppose having a fascination with the natural world and extant fauna and flora at a young age helped me be pretty open and accepting to the prehistoric animals being (vastly) different to the JP designs. I don't think the original JP designs were really all that bad for the time. There was some semblance of research and consultation done (before science moved on), despite some intentional artistic liberties taken with the designs (notably the Dilophosaurus, and oversized Deinonychus called the wrong name), but they could get away with it through their setting.

Now that I'm even more aware of the current evidence for these animals, it really bums me out when there isn't at least an attempt being made to research, or bring on a paleontologist consultant or two, paleoartists, etc in this day and age. Instead the designs are just uninspired copies of what came before. And despite how much I disliked the film that was Jurassic World Dominion, I will at least give them credit for attempting with some of their designs, like the Moros, Pyroraptor, Quetzalcoatlus, and Therizinosaurus, and generally treating them like animals throughout it.

No, they weren't that bad for their time. In fact, they were revolutionary. No film had ever even remotely tried to accurately depict dinosaurs on screen before Jurassic Park. I was 9 when Jurassic Park came out and I remember well the hype among scientific circles. Jurassic Park was going all in on the dinosaur renaissance. The last big dinosaur movie before JP was The Land Before Time. It came out only 5 years earlier and even that film has dinosaur designs and behaviors largely stuck in the 1950's.

If frill Dilo wasnt in JP then it would be considered light spec in internet paleo circles

[Crackington]

If any of Harryhausen's dinosaurs were accurate I think they were accurate mostly by default. They followed the paleo-art of their time by Knight and co. because that's all there really was to follow. You couldn't make retro dinosaurs when the concept didn't exist yet. One Million Years B.C. has many glaring inaccuracies, aside from the obvious one that is the plot. Everything is oversized, the pterosaurs have bat wings, etc. The Valley of Gwangi also had bat-wing pterosaurs. Harryhausen was a master of his craft, and I adore his work, but accuracy was not his goal. I kind of hate to make the comparison but he was kind of like Papo. Inaccurate but lifelike. 

Ha ha, I like the Papo comparison @Gwangi 

Just to continue a little debate if I may though, isn't there a danger, respectfully, that you are looking at Harryhausen's work through too much of a 2020s prism?

I mean back then he had no easy access to information, no internet and certainly nothing at the click of a finger. His books and indeed his daughter's recent book are clear that he did his research and made connections with the London Natural History Museum. This included collaboration with Arthur Hayward it's chief model maker.

Gwangi (the Allosaurus, not you  ), may be in the old style kangaroo pose, but he nonetheless has his tail off the ground in the movie. And this is for a reason, because Harryhausen listened to the experts who told him that no tail drag marks were found between theropod footprints.

He was influenced by Charles Knight, yes also made clear in the books, but he was also looking at more recent paleo art by Burian and Neave Parker, both of whom worked closely with leading paleontologists of the day.

I think there is a strong case for saying those dinos were cutting edge in the 1960s. They certainly weren't retro then.

[Gwangi]

If any of Harryhausen's dinosaurs were accurate I think they were accurate mostly by default. They followed the paleo-art of their time by Knight and co. because that's all there really was to follow. You couldn't make retro dinosaurs when the concept didn't exist yet. One Million Years B.C. has many glaring inaccuracies, aside from the obvious one that is the plot. Everything is oversized, the pterosaurs have bat wings, etc. The Valley of Gwangi also had bat-wing pterosaurs. Harryhausen was a master of his craft, and I adore his work, but accuracy was not his goal. I kind of hate to make the comparison but he was kind of like Papo. Inaccurate but lifelike. 

Ha ha, I like the Papo comparison @Gwangi 

Just to continue a little debate if I may though, isn't there a danger, respectfully, that you are looking at Harryhausen's work through too much of a 2020s prism?

I mean back then he had no easy access to information, no internet and certainly nothing at the click of a finger. His books and indeed his daughter's recent book are clear that he did his research and made connections with the London Natural History Museum. This included collaboration with Arthur Hayward it's chief model maker.

Gwangi (the Allosaurus, not you  ), may be in the old style kangaroo pose, but he nonetheless has his tail off the ground in the movie. And this is for a reason, because Harryhausen listened to the experts who told him that no tail drag marks were found between theropod footprints.

He was influenced by Charles Knight, yes also made clear in the books, but he was also looking at more recent paleo art by Burian and Neave Parker, both of whom worked closely with leading paleontologists of the day.

I think there is a strong case for saying those dinos were cutting edge in the 1960s. They certainly weren't retro then.

I don't think I'm looking at his work through a 2020's prism. Information is easier to access now but he certainly had resources back then, you mentioned them yourself. He was aware of the artistic liberties he took, like upscaling his dinosaurs and giving pterosaurs bat wings. I recall him saying in an interview that Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus were basically the same thing, just different sizes. Which explains the ambiguity regarding what species Gwangi is supposed to represent. To Harryhausen it didn't matter because the two were essentially the same, even though the science of the 1960's knew otherwise. Harryhausen had an eye for biomechanics, lifelike movements and expressions, musculature and the like, and I think that is why his creations hold up so well. They look alive even if inaccurate. And I believe his research was mostly focused on getting those aspects right. I don't think he cared much for the particulars beyond that. Like the bat-winged pterosaurs and gigantic Ceratosaurus. He definitely knew that it was wrong, but it looked cool, and he was a showman.

I mean, the fact that, as you say... "his daughter's recent book are clear that he did his research and made connections with the London Natural History Museum. This included collaboration with Arthur Hayward it's chief model maker" but he still took the liberties he took should indicate that accuracy was not his chief concern.