Jurassic World discussion (spoilers)

[TomWToyForum]

It's hard to believe that such a lazily made film like Jurassic World is the third highest grossing movie to date while truly great films like Mad Max: Fury Road made less than a quarter of that amount. My ultimate hope is that Jurassic World goes the same way as Avatar, a movie nobody talks about nowadays. Let's face it, Jurassic World is just as forgettable, if not more.

People have already argued about the lack of accuracy, so I don't want to go too far in-depth, but one thing that bothers me is when people say "they were never supposed to be accurate" when referring to the original, and quote that one passage from the novel from Dr. Wu.

First of all, why quote the book when Jurassic World is a sequel to the movie? Jurassic Park the book and Jurassic Park the filmare two different things. Take the character of John Hammond for instance; despicable capitalist in the novel, but lovable grandpa in the movie. You can't quote the book when Jurassic World is only 'inspired' by the Crichton novel.

And yes, while the book's dinosaurs aren't supposed to be completely accurate (so that visitors don't get bored by them doing normal animal things), they're still pretty dang close. That was the intention of the book, to make dinosaurs seem like their modern relatives (and to provide a look at the dangers of uncontrolled technology too of course). Does nobody remember the many times Crichton explicitly compared the behavior of the Velociraptors to that of birds? Does nobody remember the opening chapter establishing that 'raptor' meant 'bird of prey?'

What about the movie, which Jurassic World is actually based on? Does nobody remember Alan Grant saying "Bet you'll never look at birds the same way again" in regards to the Tyrannosaurus? Does nobody remember the dig site scene in the movie, where Alan Grant says "No wonder these guys learned how to fly" and the people with him laugh? Were we supposed to laugh at him too?

Jurassic World was never about accuracy, that was established ever since Trevorrow's "[n]o feathers" tweet years ago, but claiming that not being accurate in regards to the depiction of dinosaurs is in the same spirit as the original is completely misguided and wrong. Jurassic World fails to do that, something even the sequels managed to do by making dinosaurs caring parents in The Lost World and updating the 'raptors' in III.

Please stop trying to make it seem like Jurassic Park was never about accuracy, because that's absolute crap.

I don't know about you guys, but I personally feel that the JP theme is one of the best songs used in a movie, ever.

Nope, it's completely misused in the opening scene of Jurassic World and the rest of the soundtrack is completely forgettable.

[Tyrannosauron]

Here are some things that I enjoyed in the original Jurassic Park, that JW didn't deliver in my opinion (they are mostly things I look for in any film, really). Forget Lost World and JP3, they get lumped in the same category as JW.

-Sensible believable plot
-A sense of tension or terror
-Predatory dinosaurs depicted as living creatures (not monsters)
-Inspired directing end editing
-Memorable soundtrack
-Relationships with genuine depth
-Multidimensional interesting characters (including all the dinosaurs)
-Cutting edge special effects
-Easy to follow action

Others may think JW delivered on these, they may even think Jurassic Park didn't, but this is my opinion, not theirs

If more of these boxes were ticked I'd have enjoyed JW more. In any case, the onus isn't on me as a critic to devise a better film, just as food critics don't need to be Michelin star chefs themselves to judge an unpalatable dish, and as music critics don't need to have written a killer riff to decide they dislike a band.

While I don't agree with all the points made here--the dinos in the original struck me as very monster-ish, for example, and I rather like the score for Jurassic World--I think that overall this is very well said. I was going to respond to the earlier (and unfairly stated) comments about feminism by pointing out that treating a character as something other than a gender-stereotyped cliche ought not to be "special treatment," but then I realized that in the context of JW such treatment would be special.

With that said, I still love the T. rex and I. rex statues that come with the blu-ray gift set...

[stargatedalek]

-snip-

I must refute when you claim it was always about accuracy. You yourself said people shouldn't quote passages from the book and apply them to the movie, but you went and did exactly that to prove a different point. Yes the novel was meant to depict dinosaurs realistically, but the crew knew they weren't making scientifically accurate dinosaurs for the movie.

[TomWToyForum]

I must refute when you claim it was always about accuracy. You yourself said people shouldn't quote passages from the book and apply them to the movie, but you went and did exactly that to prove a different point. Yes the novel was meant to depict dinosaurs realistically, but the crew knew they weren't making scientifically accurate dinosaurs for the movie.

I reread my post and I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.
I was using evidence from the book to show that the book was trying to be accurate, and evidence from the movie to show that the movie was trying to be accurate. How did I use evidence from one to defend the other?

Both the novel and the movie made artistic decisions that were not based in science. Projectile venom from Dilophosaurus as well as the frill in the film are examples of this. However, what I'm trying to say is that they both tried to be accurate. Nothing will ever be 100% accurate, that's just the nature of science. But you can still try, which the people behind Jurassic World didn't do. Why would a 2015 movie about dinosaurs be less accurate by 1993 standards than a 1993 movie about dinosaurs?

[Kovu]

Just a general comment on accuracy and Jurassic Park/World...

At this point, the JP dinosaurs are not just dinosaurs/movie monsters, they are also characters. Their designs couldn't be changed to much, otherwise they would risk ruining the series' continuity. In 1993, they were more or less accurate, in 2015 they have to choose to either stick to the established characters or change everything up and break the series' continuity.

It would be like recasting a character halfway through a series. Like if they had recast Rupert Grint as Ron in the Harry Potter series* right after the Goblet of Fire film or if halfway through the Hunger Games they decided to switch out Jennifer Lawrence. The general audience would be like, "eh... that's not Ron/Katniss". I feel like the dinosaurs in JP would be the same way. A whole new Tyrannosaurus design or a whole new raptor design would've upset the continuity between films, similar to a major recasting.

*yes, I know they did that with Dumbledore, but Richard Harris passed away so they didn't really have a choice...

And I know they re-did the raptors in the third one, but they were relatively minor changes and still retained the basic JP look. If they had gone for total accuracy, they would've obviously been very different as well as unrecognizable as being the same creature from earlier films.

Just my two cents. Do with it what you will, but when making a major motion picture, there are other things that do take precedence over scientific accuracy. That doesn't mean filmmakers shouldn't strive for it, but if they don't it's not always because they don't care. There is narrative, as well as financial, considerations that need to be taken into account.

[stargatedalek]

Aah alright, I didn't know you meant the book and film as two separate points, my bad.

I wasn't referring to in-canon reasoning, I was referring to what knowledge the paleontology community already had back in 1993 during the films development, such as pronated wrists, sauropod feet/nostrils, and the shape of Tyrannosaurus head. The films crew ignored all of this in order to make their animals more menacing or distinctive (and because the certain scientist doing their checking had a well known thing for swamp sauropods).

[Halichoeres]

Because feminists (the ones complaining about her death) are whiny crybabies and want every female character to get special treatment.

I gotta say, this is pretty inflammatory, especially coming from someone who threatens to sic mods on people for posts you perceive as violating forum rules.

Just a general comment on accuracy and Jurassic Park/World...

At this point, the JP dinosaurs are not just dinosaurs/movie monsters, they are also characters. Their designs couldn't be changed to much, otherwise they would risk ruining the series' continuity. In 1993, they were more or less accurate, in 2015 they have to choose to either stick to the established characters or change everything up and break the series' continuity.

It would be like recasting a character halfway through a series. Like if they had recast Rupert Grint as Ron in the Harry Potter series* right after the Goblet of Fire film or if halfway through the Hunger Games they decided to switch out Jennifer Lawrence. The general audience would be like, "eh... that's not Ron/Katniss". I feel like the dinosaurs in JP would be the same way. A whole new Tyrannosaurus design or a whole new raptor design would've upset the continuity between films, similar to a major recasting.

*yes, I know they did that with Dumbledore, but Richard Harris passed away so they didn't really have a choice...

And I know they re-did the raptors in the third one, but they were relatively minor changes and still retained the basic JP look. If they had gone for total accuracy, they would've obviously been very different as well as unrecognizable as being the same creature from earlier films.

Just my two cents. Do with it what you will, but when making a major motion picture, there are other things that do take precedence over scientific accuracy. That doesn't mean filmmakers shouldn't strive for it, but if they don't it's not always because they don't care. There is narrative, as well as financial, considerations that need to be taken into account.

Yeah, accuracy is the least of its problems.

[TomWToyForum]

Just my two cents. Do with it what you will, but when making a major motion picture, there are other things that do take precedence over scientific accuracy. That doesn't mean filmmakers shouldn't strive for it, but if they don't it's not always because they don't care. There is narrative, as well as financial, considerations that need to be taken into account.

The film industry has financial motives driving their decisions, and unfortunately sometimes that can lead to filmmakers being forced to make decisions their not happy about.
However, I'm fairly certain Colin Trevorrow does not care about accuracy in the slightest. Simply dropping "no feathers" on Twitter and leaving it at that makes it clear.

After fourteen years since the last installment, and another eight since the last installment people look back upon fondly, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have changed. They don't feel the need to explain a change in cast with Bond, and everyone still recognizes the character as Bond whether it be Connery or Craig. The Max in Fury Road played by Tom Hardy is the same Max in the previous installments played by Mel Gibson. There's no need for explanation - times change, and actors age. And in the case of the dinosaurs - they aged too.

The difference between Jurassic World and Hunger Games or Harry Potter is that those are intended to be series, filmed back to back. While obviously Jurassic Park was set up with the prospects of sequels left open, there was no intention of Jurassic World when production on the original stopped, or even The Lost World. Jurassic Park was a singular story with no plot threads left hanging. With Hunger Games, they clearly intended to do the whole series to completion (provided the original was successful).

As I said earlier, total accuracy is unobtainable. But I feel like with some hard work they could pull off a fairly accurate, yet still familiar Velociraptor like the original. I think the creators of Primal Carnage did a great job with theirs, and the original Novaraptor is basically a Jurassic Park 'raptor.'


Is there anything preventing the creators from introducing some new dinosaur with fairly accurate feathers? If the movie is willing to concede that its monsters are just that then why can't they have a range of dinosaur depictions? Wouldn't it be neat to have a Victorian era Iguanodon tussle with a feathered tyrannosaur?

I wasn't referring to in-canon reasoning, I was referring to what knowledge the paleontology community already had back in 1993 during the films development, such as pronated wrists, sauropod feet/nostrils, and the shape of Tyrannosaurus head. The films crew ignored all of this in order to make their animals more menacing or distinctive (and because the certain scientist doing their checking had a well known thing for swamp sauropods).

It looks like we're both guilty of misreading posts then.
While some concessions are artistic in nature, like the Tyrannosaurus skull shape for that signature toothy grin or the previously mentioned Dilophosaurus, I can't for the life of me figure out why people are still stuck doing pronated wrists. It's such a minor change that I don't think many would notice (save for those like us).

I guess for me it's mostly about what's popular at the time. Jurassic Park was really accurate for what was popular while Jurassic World did nothing new, which is a damn shame because (as the huge box office success shows) it could've had a really big impact. In my opinion, sticking with something just because it's familiar is a mistake, and if there's no real reason to make something other than to make money then why bother.
To quote author Yahtzee Croshaw; "Maybe if the original creators of something don't want to continue it, then you should listen to them."


I think most of the debate comes from how people see the original film - as a dinosaur movie or as a monster movie. I can't see Jurassic World as a dinosaur movie even disregarding accuracy complaints - once you enter in literal monsters in the form of genetically modified kill-o-saurs it stops being about dinosaurs as animals and starts being about dinosaurs as monsters. I'm not even sure if I'll go to see the sequel, which will inevitably bring in more hybrids.

Yeah, accuracy is the least of its problems.

While certainly disappointing, the accuracy isn't what makes World bad - that's a job left to everything else in that movie, but I think that's been covered pretty extensively by others so I won't go into that.

[tyrantqueen]

Halichoeres, I'm sorry for my comment (and to anyone else who was offended). I won't do it again in future.

[Gwangi]

After fourteen years since the last installment, and another eight since the last installment people look back upon fondly, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have changed. They don't feel the need to explain a change in cast with Bond, and everyone still recognizes the character as Bond whether it be Connery or Craig. The Max in Fury Road played by Tom Hardy is the same Max in the previous installments played by Mel Gibson. There's no need for explanation - times change, and actors age. And in the case of the dinosaurs - they aged too.

But the dinosaurs didn't age, because they're special effects. The cast changes you mention hardly compare to the dramatic changes needed to make JP dinosaurs accurate by modern standards. The various Bond actors resemble each other fairly closely with Craig being the exception because he has blonde hair. And guess what? There were a lot of outraged fans who didn't like the Craig casting choice exactly for that reason. In the case of Mad Max, Gibson obviously can't play him anymore but Tom Hardy is about as close to Gibson as you could get...and some people were still outraged over that movie because Furiosa was the actual lead character and not Max himself. So people do in fact get upset over casting changes, especially when those changes deviate from the original.

A LOT people have advocated for Idris Elba to be the next Bond, but he deviates greatly from what Bond traditionally looks like. And guess what? He hasn't been approached for the part. As it stands it looks like Damian Lewis will be the next Bond. Guess what he looks like? The larger public wants reptilian dinosaurs in their JP films, not birdy dinosaurs. I'm not saying I agree with it but that's the world we live in. At this point I'm hoping another dinosaur franchise pops up with accurate dinosaurs because that's the only way we'll get them. JP will no sooner change its dinosaurs than "Alien" it's xenomorphs, or "Halloween" it's Micheal Myers and it makes complete sense why.

[Shadowknight1]

Say what you will about the dinosaur accuracy.  Frankly, I think that NEARLY EVERY dinosaur in the film should have been created closer to 100% current scientific accuracy.  Yes, that includes the velociraptors.  Why do I say this?  These aren't old animals.  They were bred for the new park.  The only dinosaur, IMO, that should have remained the same is Rexy because she is the survivor of Isla Nublar.  She's 20-something years old and still the queen of her island.  So the T-rex should be the same design.  Unless the raptors are bred from the older DNA stores, they shouldn't have the same design, and if they were, they should've mentioned that.

[Halichoeres]

Halichoeres, I'm sorry for my comment (and to anyone else who was offended). I won't do it again in future.

Awfully big of you, thanks. Consider it forgotten.

[TomWToyForum]

But the dinosaurs didn't age, because they're special effects. The cast changes you mention hardly compare to the dramatic changes needed to make JP dinosaurs accurate by modern standards. The various Bond actors resemble each other fairly closely with Craig being the exception because he has blonde hair. And guess what? There were a lot of outraged fans who didn't like the Craig casting choice exactly for that reason. In the case of Mad Max, Gibson obviously can't play him anymore but Tom Hardy is about as close to Gibson as you could get...and some people were still outraged over that movie because Furiosa was the actual lead character and not Max himself. So people do in fact get upset over casting changes, especially when those changes deviate from the original.

Fans being mad is temporary. Making a something good is not. Does anyone still care at all about the lightsaber the new villain has in Star Wars? Does anyone still complain about blond Bond?
People may have been upset that Furiousa is the main character in Fury Road (she's not, she and Max are on-screen equals) but that'll die down and eventually Fury Road will be remembered as a classic. I think the same would go for feathers. If only someone does it well that has mass appeal people would eventually not care any more about scaly dinosaurs.

A LOT people have advocated for Idris Elba to be the next Bond, but he deviates greatly from what Bond traditionally looks like. And guess what? He hasn't been approached for the part. As it stands it looks like Damian Lewis will be the next Bond. Guess what he looks like? The larger public wants reptilian dinosaurs in their JP films, not birdy dinosaurs. I'm not saying I agree with it but that's the world we live in. At this point I'm hoping another dinosaur franchise pops up with accurate dinosaurs because that's the only way we'll get them. JP will no sooner change its dinosaurs than "Alien" it's xenomorphs, or "Halloween" it's Micheal Myers and it makes complete sense why.

I know you're not supporting this but I want to say that people don't know what they want until it's in front of them, and so far people dislike feathered dinosaurs because for the past few decades we've gotten crappy paleoart making it to mainstream media. And you know what? We've had birdy dinosaurs for twenty-two years and anyone who fails to realize what the original movie established several times over.

There's several features that define these characters. Godzilla changes his look every few films and he's still recognizably Godzilla. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus is recognizably supposed to be a proto-xenomorph. I feel like the things that make Jurassic Park's 'raptors' the iconic 'raptors' could easily work with feathers - the killing claws, the intelligence, the noises and overall on-screen presence.

I don't get why people hate birds. Does their experience with them begin and end at a grocery store? I've seen people say things like "f*ck yeah America!" and show bald eagles doing awesome things but then turn around and say "Raptors with feathers? That could never be cool."


My one hope is that Jurassic World's success ushers in some new dinosaur craze and people will actually try to make something good out of it. Who knows, Pixar's giving dinosaurs a shot and they have a pretty great track record. If it's anywhere near as good as Inside Out I'll be happy (though I wish they'd have either stuck with a full pre-Renaissance theme or modern theme instead of a bizarre mixture of both).

[Gwangi]

Fans being mad is temporary. Making a something good is not. Does anyone still care at all about the lightsaber the new villain has in Star Wars? Does anyone still complain about blond Bond?
People may have been upset that Furiousa is the main character in Fury Road (she's not, she and Max are on-screen equals) but that'll die down and eventually Fury Road will be remembered as a classic. I think the same would go for feathers. If only someone does it well that has mass appeal people would eventually not care any more about scaly dinosaurs.

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but that's just how the system works. Hollywood doesn't like to take risks with it's big budget money makers. Which is why these Marvel movies are starting to stagnate and generate fatigue. Hollywood found a formula that works and they aren't deviating from it. With "Jurassic World" they resurrected a franchise that hasn't seen a movie since 2001. They don't know if the fan base is still interested so naturally they're going to generate interest anyway they can by catering to fans and incorporating as many call backs and familiar "characters" as possible. Hollywood is a money machine. They're primary goal is to get paid and JW paid off big time. And you know what? Maybe it's entirely because of the fan service it provided. The best movies of the year are seldom summer blockbusters but the highest grossing movies are. You have the public to blame for that. Creative risks and original ideas don't generate interest and thus, don't generate money.

Check this out. In 2013 the 5th highest grossing movie was "Man of Steel" with a total gross of $291,045,518 and a Rotten Tomatoes approval rating of 56%. "Grown Ups 2" had a total gross of $133,668,525 and an RT score of 7%. Meanwhile at #98, "The World's End" with a gross of $26,004,851...and an RT score of 89%. "Her" is at #100 with a gross of $25,568,251 and an RT approval rating of 94%. "Dallas Buyer's Club" was nominated for 6 Academy Awards and has an RT score of 94%. It was the 95th highest grossing movie making $27,298,285. Have you ever even heard of it? Did you go see it? When Adam Sandler poop jokes make $133,668,525 and an Academy Award winner makes $27,298,285 I can assure you that Hollywood takes notice.

Look at "Edge of Tomorrow". It was the 33rd highest grossing movie of 2014 making $100,206,256. It's a phenomenal movie with an RT score of 90%.

"Dredd" has an RT score of 78%. It was a box office failure, only making $13,414,714. The 127th highest grossing movie of the year. It was supposed to get a sequel, it's not getting one.

So maybe someone was sitting in that office the day "Jurassic World" was pitched and they said "should we update the look of the dinosaurs" but they would have been shot down. Not just by the director, it's not really his choice, but by the people financing the movie. The people that want to make their money back. Why should they give a crap about feathered dinosaurs when they're making the 4th highest grossing movie of all time? Maybe that simple change would have meant that much less money, or maybe not. It was obviously a risk they wouldn't take and you can't completely blame them when you look at what makes money these days.

There's several features that define these characters. Godzilla changes his look every few films and he's still recognizably Godzilla. The Deacon at the end of Prometheus is recognizably supposed to be a proto-xenomorph. I feel like the things that make Jurassic Park's 'raptors' the iconic 'raptors' could easily work with feathers - the killing claws, the intelligence, the noises and overall on-screen presence.

Except in the 1998 "Godzilla" movie where they deviated too much from the classic Godzilla look and everyone hated the movie for it, in addition to other justifiable reasons.

I don't get why people hate birds. Does their experience with them begin and end at a grocery store? I've seen people say things like "f*ck yeah America!" and show bald eagles doing awesome things but then turn around and say "Raptors with feathers? That could never be cool."

People don't hate birds. Here's a cited quote from wikipedia...

"According to a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study, birdwatchers contributed $36 billion to the US economy 2006, and one fifth (20%) of all Americans are identified as birdwatchers."

"Over 55 million Americans over the age of 16 feed wild birds and spend more than $3 billion a year on bird food, and $800 million a year on bird feeders, bird baths, bird houses and other bird feeding accessories."

And birds are pretty popular as pets too. Most people just don't like to mix their birds and dinosaurs. The two interests are seldom overlapping. Pre-pubecent boys don't want to think of T. rex as a giant bird and retired suburbanites feeding pigeons don't want to think of them as dinosaurs. I know plenty of alleged dinosaur geeks who take no interest in birds. Likewise I know plenty of birders who don't give a crap about dinosaurs.

My one hope is that Jurassic World's success ushers in some new dinosaur craze and people will actually try to make something good out of it. Who knows, Pixar's giving dinosaurs a shot and they have a pretty great track record. If it's anywhere near as good as Inside Out I'll be happy (though I wish they'd have either stuck with a full pre-Renaissance theme or modern theme instead of a bizarre mixture of both).

And there's another movie that dropped the ball on making modernized dinosaurs.

[TomWToyForum]

I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying but that's just how the system works. Hollywood doesn't like to take risks with it's big budget money makers. Which is why these Marvel movies are starting to stagnate and generate fatigue. Hollywood found a formula that works and they aren't deviating from it. With "Jurassic World" they resurrected a franchise that hasn't seen a movie since 2001. They don't know if the fan base is still interested so naturally they're going to generate interest anyway they can by catering to fans and incorporating as many call backs and familiar "characters" as possible. Hollywood is a money machine. They're primary goal is to get paid and JW paid off big time. And you know what? Maybe it's entirely because of the fan service it provided. The best movies of the year are seldom summer blockbusters but the highest grossing movies are. You have the public to blame for that. Creative risks and original ideas don't generate interest and thus, don't generate money.

Oh believe me I know. I opened up this discussion with my disappointment that the 98%-scoring Fury Road made less than a quarter of World's total box office gross, when it is better as an action flick and as a film in general. I completely understand how the film industry works and that all movies (save for some art films) are made with the intention of creating money, you don't need to explain that to me. I still feel that I can express disappointment in Hollywood laziness though.

Except in the 1998 "Godzilla" movie where they deviated too much from the classic Godzilla look and everyone hated the movie for it, in addition to other justifiable reasons.

I thought it was clear that I was referring to Toho Godzilla. With the obvious exception of Tristar's Godzilla (now officially just 'Zilla') the rest of the Godzilla designs vary to several degrees. But each feature core elements that make them Godzilla.

And birds are pretty popular as pets too. Most people just don't like to mix their birds and dinosaurs. The two interests are seldom overlapping. Pre-pubecent boys don't want to think of T. rex as a giant bird and retired suburbanites feeding pigeons don't want to think of them as dinosaurs. I know plenty of alleged dinosaur geeks who take no interest in birds. Likewise I know plenty of birders who don't give a crap about dinosaurs.

I'm not saying appreciation of both is mandatory, I'm just confused as to how feathered raptors are awesome as birds of prey but feathered 'raptors' are stupid as dinosaurs.


I understand the way the world works, I understand that movies are meant to make money and people are less inclined to see films with fully feathered dinosaurs. That being said, I think it's perfectly fair to express disappointment - nothing will ever change if people just sit back and accept the problems in the world as inevitable. I'm simply lamenting the fact that Hollywood is lazy and not willing to try something seriously new.

[stargatedalek]

While I'd love to have a new film try and tackle scientifically accurate dinosaurs, I'm not going to be expecting anything like that from a Jurassic Park film, those designs have simply become to iconic to change successfully to any major degree.

[Gwangi]

Oh believe me I know. I opened up this discussion with my disappointment that the 98%-scoring Fury Road made less than a quarter of World's total box office gross, when it is better as an action flick and as a film in general. I completely understand how the film industry works and that all movies (save for some art films) are made with the intention of creating money, you don't need to explain that to me. I still feel that I can express disappointment in Hollywood laziness though.

Yes but you're trying to tell me that simply giving the dinosaurs feathers isn't a big deal and Hollywood should have went for it. I'm trying to show you why they didn't and that it's our fault as the movie going public, not theirs. It's not laziness on their part, it's a smart business choice. We're all disappointed that the dinosaurs aren't updated.

I thought it was clear that I was referring to Toho Godzilla. With the obvious exception of Tristar's Godzilla (now officially just 'Zilla') the rest of the Godzilla designs vary to several degrees. But each feature core elements that make them Godzilla.

How would that be clear? And why bring up Godzilla's changing appearance and NOT bring up the fact that the one that deviates the most is also the one hated the most? And no iteration of Godzilla exists that can compare to basically turning a bipedal reptile into a bird.

I'm not saying appreciation of both is mandatory, I'm just confused as to how feathered raptors are awesome as birds of prey but feathered 'raptors' are stupid as dinosaurs.

Because actual raptors as impressive as they are don't pose any real threat to humans. You can stand outside and admire the grace, beauty and hunting prowess of an eagle, hawk or owl but you also know you're probably safe and none of them will send chills down your spine like running into something like a crocodile, Komodo dragon or giant snake. Humans have an innate fear of large reptiles, not birds. Thus, dinosaurs are scarier if they resemble something we already fear. 

I understand the way the world works, I understand that movies are meant to make money and people are less inclined to see films with fully feathered dinosaurs. That being said, I think it's perfectly fair to express disappointment - nothing will ever change if people just sit back and accept the problems in the world as inevitable. I'm simply lamenting the fact that Hollywood is lazy and not willing to try something seriously new.

This is not the fault of Hollywood, they're a business making money. This is the fault of the person that paid for a ticket to see "Grown Ups 2" instead of "The World's End" or "Transformers 4" instead of "Edge of Tomorrow", or "Jurassic World" instead of "Mad Max: Fury Road". You say you get how the world works but when you call Hollywood lazy you're missing the entire point I'm trying to make. They're not lazy, this is our fault. Whenever you go see a movie, you're voting with your money for the kind of movies you want to see.

[Patrx]

While I'd love to have a new film try and tackle scientifically accurate dinosaurs, I'm not going to be expecting anything like that from a Jurassic Park film, those designs have simply become to iconic to change successfully to any major degree.

Y'know, somehow JW's raptors really /do/ look different from their previous designs, though I'm still unable to pinpoint exactly how. They're... boxier, maybe? The mouths are wider? I don't know. The unused animatronics look like the old raptors with new colors, but their CGI counterparts simply don't.

[stargatedalek]

They definitely do differ, I think they are bulkier in stature in general and not just the head.

[TomWToyForum]

How would that be clear? And why bring up Godzilla's changing appearance and NOT bring up the fact that the one that deviates the most is also the one hated the most? And no iteration of Godzilla exists that can compare to basically turning a bipedal reptile into a bird.

I'm just going to start with this because I don't want to go too off topic but I feel like the reasons people were/are still upset, while obviously having to do with the radical redesign, is also largely in part due to the fact that it was an American bastardization of a Japanese property. It was insulting towards a long-standing and respected film series. That's why I don't feel it counts. 

Because actual raptors as impressive as they are don't pose any real threat to humans. You can stand outside and admire the grace, beauty and hunting prowess of an eagle, hawk or owl but you also know you're probably safe and none of them will send chills down your spine like running into something like a crocodile, Komodo dragon or giant snake. Humans have an innate fear of large reptiles, not birds. Thus, dinosaurs are scarier if they resemble something we already fear.

You have a point about the fear but I was more talking about 'coolness,' though I didn't make that clear. While Jurassic Park wanted to make the raptors scary in both design and usage, by emphasizing more serpentine elements (though fortunately cutting the tongue-flicking) and leaving their scenes until the very end in a very tense finale, I think Jurassic World wanted the raptors to be 'cool' and not 'scary' - the motorcycle scene is just about as 'dudebro' as you can get. Things are scarier the less you see of them, so utilizing the raptors in plain view the whole time tells me that they're just going for 'cool.' Eagles are 'cool,' so why do I constantly see people saying how uncool feathered raptors would be?

-As an aside, I don't want to get all pretentious and act like things designed to be 'awesome' can't be good, considering that this whole time I've been praising a movie that features a man playing on a flamethrower electric guitar and that's totally fantastic.

This is not the fault of Hollywood, they're a business making money. This is the fault of the person that paid for a ticket to see "Grown Ups 2" instead of "The World's End" or "Transformers 4" instead of "Edge of Tomorrow", or "Jurassic World" instead of "Mad Max: Fury Road". You say you get how the world works but when you call Hollywood lazy you're missing the entire point I'm trying to make. They're not lazy, this is our fault. Whenever you go see a movie, you're voting with your money for the kind of movies you want to see.

I consider it laziness because they do make films like The World's End, Edge of Tomorrow, and Mad Max: Fury Road, but then barely advertise them and put all of their attention on advertising films like Jurassic World. Good advertising is the only reason I can think of for its huge success, since praise for it wasn't as good as several other films and it didn't have the same "you gotta see this" aspect that Jurassic Park and Avatar had.

Expecting failure and advertising to match only generates more failure. Fury Road's success had to do mostly with the praise it got from critics. Imagine how much more it would've made if they'd matched the advertising budget of other movies.

Am I being overly idyllic? Without a doubt. But as someone who doesn't go to see Transformers or Grown-Ups 2, what else can I do but remain optimistic?
There are signs things may be changing - movies like Fant4stic and Pixels have been critical and commercial failures, and Fury Road's overwhelming positive reception made news. As you yourself mentioned, the Marvel movies aren't making as much now as they have before. Times are changing, and maybe Hollywood will too.
Of course this is ignoring that Jurassic World is the third highest grossing movie in history, so the industry is going to focus more on replicating that than anything else.

Quick Edit: Totally forgot to mention you saying my argument is that adding feathers would not be a big deal. I think that it may ruffle some feathers in the public (intentional joke), it could be pretty easily embraced if done well. But I'm also super biased. I can't imagine a Velociraptor without feathers because, to me, the World raptors are dinosaurs as much as Hawkins' Megalosaurus. Simply survivors of our collective lost lost worlds. I'm thinking of things in a long-term perspective, and I have a really hard time believing that we'll still be seeing featherless raptors in another thirty years (unless there's some major change in paleontological thinking).

They definitely do differ, I think they are bulkier in stature in general and not just the head.

Is it just me, or did the raptors feel rougher in World? Maybe it was just me seeing it on a bigger screen but I noticed that they looked 'bumpier' than their Park counterparts. I could be totally wrong though.

I do agree that they feel bulkier/boxier, and I think that was in an attempt to make them 'cooler' and more powerful instead of slender and sinister.