3 ms·
This thread has really activated your almonds, huh?
by ogre_magi 9y ago
This thread has really activated your almonds, huh?
- Balgair 9y agoI mean, yeah? The Jurassic series has a special place in my heart, the films, by and large, are great monster movies. But they are just that, monster movies. Trying to say that the dinos are realistic is just crazy. Maybe, kinda, in the first one, they were, a little bit. Even then Jack Horner got a lot of flak from the community over his consultation on the films. But the evidence we have now just points to a much different creature than what we though of even a few years ago. They aren't monsters, just standard terrestrial vertebrates trying to make their way in a different world. We have so much to learn from them, about climate change, about physiology, about adaptation, etc. So trying to keep the monster and the known 'reality' separate is a big deal to me.
- prestonh 9y agoI think you are really missing the point here. The audience doesn't care whether the dinosaurs depicted are scientifically accurate, they only care whether they look like they could be accurate, and that is a big distinction. It is about matching the viewer's expectations, not reality. In JP the dinosaurs look like they could exist, whereas in JW they looked like CGI (the so-called 'uncanny valley' effect in CGI). That being said, of course JW succeeded from the perspective of the investors since it made so much money. Still, that aspect of the film is completely orthogonal to the aesthetical aspects that people here are discussing.