DAKOTARAPTOR LIVES!

[Tyto_Theropod]

I've heard people referring to it as a reboot, but you're probably right. Mea culpa, my brain isn't working today - I was kept awake last night by a loud party in the flat next door.

[Gwangi]

There is always going to be tons of controversy in paleontology, but I feel like more and more people are understanding that there are feathers with recently published discoveries.  (i.e. Zhenyuanlong, Dakotaraptor, not to mention feathery paleoart becoming more prominent to the public.)  Jurassic Park revolutionized how people view dinosaurs, now we need a movie just as good with feathers on all of the dinosaurs to change public opinion.

Seconded, and this was the primary reason why I boycotted Jurassic World. Not only did the raptors and Tyrannosaur lack feathers, there were also the tail-dragging herbivores that were, IMO, very sloppily modelled and looked like zombies. For all the dinosaurs, the models in the first three movies looked so much better, which is frankly a disgrace given how much CGI has come on since the release of JPIII.  Anyway, rant over. I feel this thread is showing signs of becoming a war zone.

Here's my Dakotaraptor: http://dinotoyblog.com/forum/index.php?topic=3295.0

*Coughcoughshamelessself-promotioncoughcough*

I wasn't a fan of the dinosaur designs for "Jurassic World" either but I cannot fathom how anyone could claim the CGI was worse than that used for JP3. JP3 had some of the worst CGI I've ever seen in a big budget movie. Even in 2001 when I went and saw it I though it looked like crap. While JP and TLW stand up remarkably well, the CGI in "Jurassic World" is better. Did you see "Jurassic World"?

I very deliberately didn't see the movie (I do know the basic plot), but I did watch the trailers and some other clips, so I don't see how watching the full movie would change my opinion on the CGI. Also, I think you misunderstood me - I meant that the CGI in the first two movies was good for its time - remember they were filmed in the '90s? Also, I never said that the CGI in JPIII was good, only that CGI techniques have improved since its release in 2001.

I don't mean to be ratty in saying this, and I apologise if it came across that way - I was just making clear my point of view on this. Anyhow, CGI aside, I think the real point I was trying to make was that some of the dinosaurs in JW would have been out-of-date even when the first film came out: it's as if the designs are moving backwards. Perhaps if JP is still going in the 2020s we'll have Crystal Palace Iguanodons?

Back on topic (sort of, still related to Jurassic Park), it amuses me that back when they were making the first film and setting down the now-iconic designs, they made the raptors bigger so they'd be more impressive. Then the same year the film is released, Utahraptor is named! Now they've rebooted the franchise and... deja vu much? 

Fair enough. I did just notice that you specified that the models looked better, and not the CGI itself. And with that I can agree, mostly. That flabby JP3 Brachiosaurus will forever haunt my memory.

But I did notice that you stated the herbivores in "Jurassic World" were tail draggers and they were not tail draggers. Some of the tails may have been slung low in particular scenes but I don't think that qualifies. I would urge you to watch the movie, if only so then you can actually see it in its entirety and be better equipped to debate it. Or maybe you'll actually like it, but I personally don't think you will.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I generally avoid Jurassic Park/World discussions because I tend to have unique opinions about the franchise that most people within this group do not quite sympathize with however...a few things that somewhat support Gwangi and what he has stated....one of the reasons that seeing the movie is somewhat different than a few clips or trailers is simply that the plot and "movement"of the movie goes fairly fast, despite its being a longer production. You really do not tend to get caught up in any bad dinosaur art or sitting analyzing each one for accuracy because the plot, and action are distracting you from that. I honestly liked and enjoyed the movie and will watch it again soon.
   Regarding the herbivores themselves....I also disagree. I felt some of the most well done dinosaur scenes in the movie were the ones with the grouping of Ankylosaurus for instance. They arent all badly done

[Tyto_Theropod]

Well, I guess that's me outgunned. I'd better just graciously admit defeat, and I'm sorry if I came across as yelling at anyone - that wasn't my intention. As I say, I was very tired yesterday and I kind of regret those posts now. Anyway, am I the only one who thinks it's high time we got this thread back on topic?

[tyrantqueen]

Well, I guess that's me outgunned. I'd better just graciously admit defeat, and I'm sorry if I came across as yelling at anyone - that wasn't my intention. As I say, I was very tired yesterday and I kind of regret those posts now. Anyway, am I the only one who thinks it's high time we got this thread back on topic?

No need to apologise, you seemed pretty polite to me

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I dint think you were rude at all, and you definitely are not outgunned. You have every right to your opinion and thoughts as well. I just hoped to share some different perspectives...besides, its a once a year annual event when Gwangi and I agree on something Jurassic/Park/World related, and cause for celebration.

[Gwangi]

Yeah, no worries. Everyone has a right to their opinion and a right to share it and discuss it. I didn't take anything you said as inflammatory or mean spirited.

[PaleoMatt]

I feel like I'm being spammed with notifications from this thread so I'll join in.

I want a Baby Dakotaraptor.

That was a lie.

I want two.

Maybe three.

four?

[CityRaptor]

You want four?  Dakotaraptor Squad!

Also is this just me or are there many pics of Dakotaraptor killing other Dinosaurs?

[suspsy]

I wonder if Dakotaraptor/Utahraptor/Austroraptor represent the maximum dromaeosaurid size, or if there is an even larger animal waiting to be discovered?

[PaleoMatt]

I think there won't be anything much bigger due to the niches being filled in with Acrocanthosaurus and Tyrannosaurus

[Plasticbeast95]

I wonder if Dakotaraptor/Utahraptor/Austroraptor represent the maximum dromaeosaurid size, or if there is an even larger animal waiting to be discovered?

Perhaps an even older Dromeosaur?

[allosaurusrock]

Older dromaeosaur sounds good to me. I also think they could get a bit bigger. And smaller. Wouldn't it be awesome if someone found a feathery baby dinosaur fossil? SOO CUTE.

[CityRaptor]

I think there won't be anything much bigger due to the niches being filled in with Acrocanthosaurus and Tyrannosaurus

As mentioned in another thread, so far there is no proof that Utahraptor and Acrocanthosaurus co-existed.

[Dinoguy2]

I think there won't be anything much bigger due to the niches being filled in with Acrocanthosaurus and Tyrannosaurus

As mentioned in another thread, so far there is no proof that Utahraptor and Acrocanthosaurus co-existed.

The fact that they did not co-exist but seem to be separated in time and/or space kind of implies they occupied the same niche. The absence of allosauroids in the time period between the extinction of Allosaurus and the appearance of Acrocanthosaurus may have opened up the big carnivore niche, allowing small dromeosaurs to evolve large sizes and become Utahraptor. Utah raptor disappears right as Acrocanthosaurs appears in the area, and carcharodontosaurids dominate the ecosystem until the extinction of Siats, right before tyrannosaurids evolve.

If only we weren't missing 20 million years worth of rocks from between the Morrison and Cedar Mountain formations...

[Tyto_Theropod]

Very interesting point, Dinoguy2. What with this and the new death assemblage (although of course it would be naive to assume it was overwhelming evidence of a social group - it could have been a predator trap or a feeding frenzy for all we know), it sort of gives me an image of Utahraptor as a Cretaceous lion. Of course I could be completely wrong, but I suppose we'll never know. That's why I love dinosaurs. They're so different that we can only imagine what life must have been like all those millions of years ago.

[sauroid]

Emily Willoughby's article on Dakotaraptor
http://www.gotscience.org/2015/11/30/dakotaraptor-giant-raptor-straight-out-of-hell-creek/
her art is beautiful, but i just find that particular rendition of Dakotaraptor a little out of proportion (head too big for the body) compared to her other painting of the same animal (the one posted by Yutyrannus).

[allosaurusrock]

Emily Willoughby's article on Dakotaraptor
http://www.gotscience.org/2015/11/30/dakotaraptor-giant-raptor-straight-out-of-hell-creek/
her art is beautiful, but i just find that particular rendition of Dakotaraptor a little out of proportion (head too big for the body) compared to her other painting of the same animal (the one posted by Yutyrannus).

I believe that may just be her style, as there are many artists who just draw large heads. That, or it is an artistic mistake the often happens when drawing, especially as I think she was using a computer. 

[SBell]

They might need to wait a little longer to make a toy of this 'species':

https://peerj.com/preprints/1570/

Unless it's a dinosaur-trionychid hybrid, which sounds like something we might see in the Jurassic World sets!

[stargatedalek]

I thought there was a partial skull associated with the remains, or am I mistaking with Utahraptor? Even if many elements of the holotype are a chimera don't we still have evidence of a giant dromaeosaur?