|
James Aronis wrote-
Definitely more accurate physical models. Especially regarding skull shape
and overall animal size (I know they'll never do this). Or, if size is so
critical to the success of the movie, at least have the main characters mention
something about InGen's genetic manipulation of the original dinosaur DNA that
selected for greater size and ferocity. At least that would lend "some kind of
scientific credibility" to the appearance and behavior of the animals in the
movies. The film should also be up-to-date with the latest paleontological
finds, irrespective of story continuity. As far as the 'raptors' are concerned,
drop the genus name _Velociraptor_ in favor of _Utahraptor_. The raptors in the
movies are way too big even for _Deinonychus_ to be accurate. Feathering them by
rendering the models at minimum, with some down would be nice. They may exclude
the often proposed arm feathers, since that is still in high speculation.
I strongly disagree. As JP3 was on Isla
Sorna, the small changes to the raptors can be explained as the result of a
different breeding stock or something. However, making them realistically
feathery in JP4 would be a horrible idea. Being scientifically inaccurate
is one thing, but being internally consistant is much more important to a
science fiction film. The models should be kept very similar, any
differences from the actual taxa should be explained as genetic errors or
perhaps unknown, but related, species. Grant could easily comment on
this. Although Utahraptor and Achillobator are the proper size,
internal consistancy again makes it better to keep referring to them as
Velociraptors, albeit mutated ones. Also, we have no assurance Utahraptor
looked more similar to the JP3 raptors than Velociraptor does, Achillobator
certainly doesn't.
The greatest inaccuracies with regards to the pterosaurs (I refrain from
calling them _Pteranodon_) in JP3 was their bloodlust. More so than the lack of
integument and the apparent incredible load carrying capacity. IMNSHO, they
should have used _Quetzalcoatlus_ for the part. It would have been a far better
choice and the potential strength this animal should have possessed is greater
as well.
I disagree again. The greatest inaccuracy was
the load carrying capacity. Morphology can be explained by any number of
factors, defying physics can not. If they had to have the pterosaurs lift
the kid, Quetzelcoatlus may have been able to (anyone out there have an estimate
for the load capacity of a large azhdarchid?), but I think Dsungaripterus or
Tupuxuara would have been cooler choices. A great way to explain the
aggressiveness and make even medium-sized pterosaurs dangerous would be to have
the group of people fall down from the bird-cage roof onto a pedestal high above
the ground with the pterosaurs' nest. The pedestal could only be six feet
across or something and rather impossible to climb down, so the swooping
pterosaurs protecting their young would be an actual threat, as the humans could
easily lose their balance and fall off.
Mickey Mortimer
|