'Terrible Writing Advice' recently made a video discussing/satirizing how dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures are portrayed in media, (but tbh the advice can be applied to ANY movie monster). However, it got me thinking of how these stories changed overtime, and the main criticisms are:
>>What is the point of adding in a dinosaur if it can be replaced with any other monster.
is forever updating, and what was once fact will be turned into fantasy.
>>As with all hobbies/fandoms bickering is constant, and the writer must not be intimidated into pleasing everyone.
(The video in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aj-CbU33Hk )
I would love it if you guys give your own ideas of how these creatures could be portrayed in a more original light, and the nostalgia of your favorite media. Thank you all and have a wonderful day!
>I would love it if you guys give your own ideas of how these creatures could be portrayed in a more original light
>High budget TV show
>Jurassic Park-esque setting, but with a more benevolent company/benefactor where cloned dinosaurs are brought back to life
>The show would focus on the day-to-day operations of the Park.
>Scientists and animal behaviorists working together to ensure a good balance of entertainment/profitability/science
>Each episode would focus on a problem in the park:
>"Tarbosaurus is stressed out and refuses to eat!"
>"Can you apply modern-day medicine to previously extinct animals? How does their physiology differ from extant creatures? (speculative episode)"
>"How to deal with giant sauropods (specifically their very large poops) in a zoo setting."
>"Triceratops matriarch has fallen in love with our male zookeeper AGAIN and it's a problem."
Shit, you can even do this with the Jurassic Park brand. But the movies insist on doing "run from the dinos" premise for the nth time.
There is a manga called Dinosaur Sanctuary with this exact premise but it's barely translated and from what I see it's still using outdated depictions.
Imagine better call Saul but at the park even using igen, you could have a whole arc about ShootaH! Shoot tah! incident
I want that so fucking bad.
Thanks fren. I'll check it out!
That sounds like Prehistoric Park to me
Cool 3D model video showing the progression of T-Rexs (and the like) across film history.
FAVORITES?
For me...
> Original JP
> Vastatosaurus rex (kong 05)
> Gwangi
gap
> Allosaurus (one million years bc - not in video)
> Exact pic related Carnosaur animatronic
> Planet of Dinosaurs TRex
Horror movies inextricably linking sex and gore are exactly why humans will be exterminated.
Dinosaur War Aizenborg 1977 Does it best
Soi dinosaurs go against all evidence we have about them.
Look at almost any dinosaur skeleton.
These animals' bones are always broken/healed, scratched, fractures, damaged. Animals today don't sustain those kind of injuries and survive unless it's a crocodile (webm of that one getting his leg bit off).
Dinosaurs were constantly fighting with one another, often to the death.
Why do you think sauropods were 100 feet long? Why did triceratops have 5-foot long horns? Why the FUCK did Ankylosaurus have 2-foot thick steel armor and have a mace for a tail?
They had to fend off the most savage predators of all fucking time. If you're getting attacked by a T-Rex, it's a deathmatch. Getting swarmed by raptors? You're fucking fucked. Not to mention battles between predators for territory or a carcass or whatever. Rex skeletons often have bites right down to the bone from other rexes but they survived.
Dinosaurs weren't posturing and hooting and bluffing and doing gay shit modern animals do to avoid fights, they were shredding each other to the bone. But that makes sense considering how birds and crocodilians can easily survive lacerations or even loss of limbs or being impaled and surviving when that would be fatal to an elephant or something.
Most dinosaurs were evidently very ornery animals like a hippopotamus or wolverine or something and can afford to get physical more often if the situation calls for it.
Going off on a tangent sauropods don't get enough credit for how dangerous and destructive they could be.
Imagine a 100-ton animal with the temperament of a rhino and a lighting-fast 360-degree weapon that can cut trees in half in the blink of an eye. Sauropods especially the big ones were pure power. Scary.
tl;dr dinosaurs have been portrayed in media perfectly fine for the most part, not those movies with alligators with horns taped to their heads but the original Lost World, OH/Jackson Kong, Jurassic Park, even something like Dinosaurus have been fine.
Everything about this post is wrong. Dinosaur bones are no more or less fractured than bones of modern animals and their defensive adaptations aren't just similar, they're earily identical to other living or recent species. Centrosaurs are very much like Black Rhinos, Triceratops are nearly identical to Jackson's Chameleons, Ankylosaurs are nearly identical to Glyptodonts. Animals escape predators all the fucking time. Most hunts are failures and we have the healed bone from attacked dinosaurs to prove they often survived them. There is zero evidence any raptor hunted in packs. There's actually more indications that if anything did it was the large Theropods, not the small ones.
>Dinosaurs weren't posturing and hooting and bluffing and doing gay shit modern animals do to avoid fights, they were shredding each other to the bone.
Alright, you can give up this countersignalling shill act now. It's fucking annoying.
everything about this post is wrong and has been debunked. leading experts in the field disagree. dinosaurs lived in a constant battle royale and got into deathmatches daily. this is why theropods evolved feathers. the flashy colors confused their dumber opponents into thinking that they were gay and therefore harmless.
>Dinosaur bones are no more or less fractured than bones of modern animals
it's rare to find a death assemblage of dinosaurs for statistical purposes
when we do, we find that fractures are about 10,000 times more common than in modern animals.
there fractures may be artifacts of taphonomy though (bioturbation). Hard to know for sure since they happened after death.
injuries in life are only about 1000 times more common in dinosaurs than modern analogs
>when we do, we find that fractures are about 10,000 times more common than in modern animals.
I would like to see you prove this.
>there fractures may be artifacts of taphonomy though (bioturbation). Hard to know for sure since they happened after death.
A lot of them yes, and it's already been established multiple times that paleontologists don't know the difference between pathology and taphonomy - twice in Edmontosaurus alone ("dewlap", "cockscomb").
I should say anatomy/pathology vs taphonomy.
>I would like to see you prove this.
hold your breath and wait
>it's already been established
even if you're right,
2 mistakes don't outweigh 2,000,000 accuracies
you stupid cocksucker
That's two mistakes FOR ONE GENUS.
>That's two mistakes FOR ONE GENUS.
it's also two mistakes FOR ONE THOUSAND GENERA
Fuck I hate you for being so stupid.
You're literally brain damaged. I'm convinced. I don't think you're capable of extrapolation or abstraction.
I'm right
if you got 2 mistakes for one genus
and you got 2 mistakes for 1000 genera
there's nothing to extrapolate except you're an idiot and a liar.
>Dinosaur bones are no more or less fractured than bones of modern animals
Yes they are. All modern prey animals are some variation of a deer. A zebra doesn't get its leg bitten down to the bone by a hyena and survive it's fucked. A lion losing half of its bottom jaw and it's fucked. Animals that lived after dinosaurs are inherently less combative and vicious except a few like I said like hippos. If a lion is scratching a zebra bone, that zebra is already dead. Not like a triceratops getting its leg crunched by a T-Rex and somehow walking it off. Doesn't happen today.
If you didn't know, birds and crocodilians have a special adaptation that constricts their blood vessels and diverts blood away from a wound. Look at that webm of the crocodile getting its leg bitten off, does not bleed.
We don't find ancient horse skeletons that feature a bite wound that shattered their shoulder that they miraculously survived from. Dinosaurs were literally built for battle.
And I wouldn't compare a glyptodon to an ank/stegosaur. Glyptodons had a leathery albeit extremely tough hide like an armadillo, as the worst thing they'd ever encounter would be a big cat. Throw glyptodons back into the cretaceous and they'd be fucking fucked, a raptor kick would probably go right through that "armor". That said, I doubt many animals attacked glyptodon, they definitely had no natural enemies like a rhino. Triceratops and stegosaurus were getting fucking preyed on regularly.
And it's more common that not for a given dinosaur bone to have severe skeletal injuries that show the animal survived and healed.
>All modern prey animals are some variation of a deer
This post is far too retarded to bother reading past this point.
No idea why you're so mad. Everything I said is completely true and verifiable with a quick search.
Best example is the skeleton of Big Al. Any one of crippling injuries that animal survived from would fell anything alive today except a crocodile. But look at any given triceratops bone. Odds are it has a bite wound from a T-Rex or raptor claw on it (that show signs of healing indicating the animal survived the encounter).
bot literally copies my post from last night
thanks bot
You literally have schizophrenia.
you're a bot
post hand and timestamp
Wut?
There's really no way to include dinosaurs in a human drama without going either
1. Time travel shenanigans
2. Secret part of the world where they never went extinct
3. Man brings them back with science
You sadly hit-the-nail-on-the-head, but what about alien dinosaurs? Maybe their should be story about fossil hunters on mars!
I'm running an RPG where the party is hunting dinosaurs. I sort of had to make it up on the spot because some retard torpedoed my previous campaign, and not in an amusing or interesting way, and I just threw the idea out there to fill up the session with character creation.
The dinosaurs aren't going to be realistic or accurate though, because they were summoned by a mad sorcerer who wanted to make dinosaurs because they were cool.
It will never make feathergays and paelopseuds not seethe that old media that depicts dinosaurs as giant bloodthirsty monsters will still always be 1000x more accurate than nufag dinosaur illustrations.
According to phylogenetic bracketing turkey waddles were plausible and present on every theropod, just not sauropods. T Rex even had one.
T. rex had 3, bigot.
Hey guys OP here!
Although it's foolish of me to add (probable) gasoline into the fire, but I'm just happy to see these responses are a good example of this common dichotomy. The fact is that we don't know how these creatures actually looked like, however this opens up the endless possibilities of creative designs. IMO the T.rex's of both 'Jurassic Park' and 'Barney' have the right to exist, because they were created in a way to help cater to their target audience. But, I would be really pissed if the designs were swapped between the franchises, while expecting the same results, (although that will be a good trolling project).
In short: If the designs don't fit the context, it's a shit design.
>The fact is that we don't know how these creatures actually looked like
Actually, WE FUCKING DO. That's why this issue is so fucking obnoxious. We have an excellent idea of what most dinosaurs looked like. The only thing we don't really know are the colors. We even know what kind of skin covering most groups had. And big surprise, it was scales.
And for the archaeopteryx, and a pretty large group of theropods that survived to this day, it was feathers.
T-Rex was not in that group of theropods. Unless you really want to say it pulled the biggest evolutionary asspull in history and had every single one of its feathers degenerate or evolve into something that looked suHispaniciously like primordial scales. As overly eager phylogenetics fags would have you believe by the same flawed logic retards use to guess how theropods looked like by comparing them to crocodiles.
>inb4 china faked a composite fossil so they could have faked feather impressions. how? i dont know
>BUT - although america has faked composite fossils and identified a pig tooth as a new hominid, i totally believe all western fossil finds!
>And for the archaeopteryx
Yes.
>a pretty large group of theropods
No.
>theropods that survived to this day
There are no Theropods today. You mean birds.
>A pretty large group of theropods
Yes. We have fossil evidence for theropods with feathers from all across the fucking world. Pretty much all mid-jurassic coelurosaurians. A pretty large group of theropods. We have some theropod relatives that have feathers. We also have theropods that did not have feathers - including many coelurosaurians! Rather they had the same scales as everyone else. What does this imply? It implies that feathers evolved with coelurosaurians but were not basal to the whole group and evolved independently in their relatives because they are just fucking useful. However no feathers for sauropods, or carnosaurs. We also know that the evolution of a basic proto-feather is pretty trivial and requires few mutations compared to something like say, a grasping appendage, and that VERY FEW but distinct other species had individually evolved primitive down-like feathers, such as psittacosaurus, and we have never discovered anything past stage 1 of feather evolution outside of theropods and only stage 2/3 are even theoretically possible.
What does this imply
1: If any tyrannosaurs evolved feathers they were evolved independently and feathers likely aren't even basal to maniraptora. A maniraptoran does not necessarily need to have feathers and definitely not highly developed ones.
2: Paraves onwards had all sorts of increasingly well developed feathers.
3: Most dinosaurs did not have anything resembling a feather.
There is literally no argument against this that is not a retarded racist conspiracy theory.
>There are no theropods today
Birds are theropods retard.
theropods independently evolving feathers over and over again would be like aquatic animals evolving fins over and over again
oh wait
These are not analogous in the slightest. Evolving fins multiple times is like evolving wings multiple times. They're totally different structures every time. I assure you, there is very little in common between an Ichthyosaur fin, Fish fin and Penguin flipper other then overall shape and function. Feathers are a very specific kind of structure. It's more like saying hair evolved multiple times. Amazing how nobody is claiming that, even though that has more scientific backing since more things could be referred to as "hairs" than feathers. But that's because there is no gayry and drama attached to the evolution of mammals. Odd how it's like the entirety of views on the subject is based on how much of a trend-hopping chud you are.
Cladism is wrong. Get help.
No and no. Birds aren't reptiles. Sorry clade-chud.
you're wasting your time
this schizo lives in a world where "glowies" insist the first dinosaurs had feathers and that scales evolved from feathers. yes, i am being serious. he also thinks "china" expertly faked every single fossil that chinese researchers were even involved with, no exceptions.
>Yes. We have fossil evidence for theropods with feathers from all across the fucking world
We really don't. Something like 98% of "feathered" dinosaurs come from china specifically. Outside of china we have TWO feathered dinosaurs: the original Archaeopteryx from Germany (which may or may not consist of multiple species) and Ornithomimus edmontonicus from western North America. There is also a possibly entirely fake fossil from South America that isn't even officially described because it's paper got retracted. That is LITERALLY it. Every single other instance is inference and pretend. If you think I'm wrong, look it up.
>Pretty much all mid-jurassic coelurosaurians
Ornithomimus is latest Cretaceous.
>A pretty large group of theropods
It very much is not. The number of "suspected" feathered dinosaurs is enormous, but so is my 6 foot long dick.
>We have some theropod relatives that have feathers
No you don't. The only non-theropods that supposedly have feathers are Kulinidadromeus, which may be fake and doesn't have anything resembling feathers anyway and Tianyulong which is almost certainly fake, bot Ornithischians.
>We also have theropods that did not have feathers
Yeah it's called the majority of Theropods that ever existed. Every major lineage of large, carnivorous Theropod has proven scales, as well as every other non-theropod lineage: Thyreophorans, Hadrosaurs, Ceratopsians, Sauropods. All scales.
>It implies that feathers evolved with coelurosaurians but were not basal to the whole group
The first logical thing you've said so far.
>and evolved independently in their relatives
Feathers only evolved once. In a small set of Theropods.
>we also know that the evolution of a basic proto-feather is pretty trivial
No you don't. And it can't be that fucking easy because it's only happened once in the history of the world. If you want to say "fluffy covering", that's evolved multiple times: in plants, insects, mammals, Pterosaurs and birds all independently. But they're not the same structures.
>and requires few mutations
You have no fucking clue what mutations brought about feathers in animals that have been extinct for 150 million years. This is one of the worst cases of "A paper said it, I believe it, that settles it!" in the field right now.
>and that VERY FEW but distinct other species had individually evolved primitive down-like feathers
No.
>such as psittacosaurus
Psittacosaurus doesn't have down OR feathers of any other kind. Even if you accept that its spines are real, which they're probably not.
>A maniraptoran does not necessarily need to have feathers and definitely not highly developed ones.
Now that doesn't make any fucking sense. The entire purpose of the fake clade "Maniraptora" is feathergayry.
>Most dinosaurs did not have anything resembling a feather.
Honestly, considering how much gayry you devoted to this post and your beliefs on dinosaurs, I'm amazed you could admit this.
>There is literally no argument against this that is not a retarded racist conspiracy theory.
Oh no, he called me racist!! Well, then I guess neck balloons and T. rex peach fuzz is real! YASSS KWEEEN!!!
>Birds are theropods retard.
Only to a cladist infant that can't distinguish between mother and child.
Cladism is 100% correct. Only dumb shit creationists hate it.
>durr man aint no monkey all fossils are fake this homo-need genus was created to make sex with horses legal damn satanists
creationists are usually in favor of fucking farm animals
so is most of Wauf
no coincidence.
No idea why you're injecting your creepy trans kids pedo politics into this discussion about dinosaurs. Your statement isn't even wrong, but God is a philosophical conundrum and I've never met another human being on Earth that doesnt believe in fucking dinosaurs or whatever you're insisting, theist or otherwise. Also wtf are you talking about? You want to make sex with kids legal. Swallow a gun barrel already and shut up.
moron
Tell us more about how you can see the feathers on T. rex.
Mormons unironically don't believe in Dinosaurs. Multiple mormon little shits have thrown irreplaceable fossils off cliffs in public lands.
This is the first Im hearing of this ever. Sounds like the random dumb meme of Christians thinking the world is 3000 years old and that the bible says that or something (we don't/it doesn't).
It's literally that. They think dinosaur fossils are lies from the devil.
I'm sure plenty of that too.
Cladism is fucking stupid. You think you're so fucking brilliant for saying "non-avian dinosaur" the time but you don't actually believe in cladism. If you did, you would say shit like "non-human sarcopterygian" or "non-penguin craniate", but you don't, do you? Nope. Because it's all just performance art.
>t's literally that. They think dinosaur fossils are lies from the devil.
I don't think so. There are psychos in all walks of life but I guarantee any given Mormon doesn't disbelieve dinosaurs. That's like some flat Earth/space is fake madness.
It's happened multiple times. Enough that the park issued warnings. I can't find the details online though. You know how the internet is these days. garden gnomegle is nothing but ads and everything else is partially functional.
Don't defend mormons on my board, sub-intellectual.
That's not a far cry from thinking feathered theropods are chinese fakes. In fact, they use the same reasoning as the anti-feather chud.
QRD on what you guys are arguing about so maybe I can chime in?
we're talking about how mormons think they'll have their own planet to rule after death.
>Multiple mormon little shits have thrown irreplaceable fossils off cliffs in public lands.
even more have tried to sell them on ebay and gone to federal pound me in the ass prison
mormons believe in $$$
T Rex doesn't have feathers but also cladism is correct.
>You want to make sex with kids legal
No, just dogs.
>There are no Theropods today. You mean birds.
idiot
Birds are theropods. They're fucking dinosaurs.
Why would dinosaurs, in a primarily very hot and humid environment, have feathers and not just be like the equally ancient alligators or snakes today
This question is a red herring, needs to stop being asked and is middle school tier understanding of evolution and biology. Dinosaurs don't have feathers not because they don't need them but because they're fucking reptiles and they inherited scales from their reptilian ancestors.
Relevance? RELEVANCE?
Do you think the massive heat-generating giant animals of today, elephants, rhinos, hippos, have no inherited the gene to create fur, or flippers and fish scales for that matter?
Do you not think humans have evolved? Because I can guarantee you, our monkey ancestors were not nearly hairless.
Pachyderms have hair.
Plenty of theropods had feathers. ONLY theropods. Oh sorry I forgot jaguars, lion, and coyotes were fucking bald.
'Dino Crisis' is a game that is close to my heart, not only because of the badass designs of the dinosaurs, but also the narrative potential it might of had. In the story, there was a discovery of a new energy source called "3rd energy", (that's basically a time warping anti-matter), that teleported dinosaurs from the cretaceous into our timeline. However, the game could of aged better IMO if they added the element of "mutation" that they used in 'Dino Stalker', to explain why the dinosaurs looked more reptilian, and why Therizinosaurus is a carnivorous pain in the ass.
Another shitty dinosaur thread.
You don't need this many threads for animals that don't currently exist and are completely irrelevant to most peoples lives.
Another shitty opinion.
Non-avian dinosaurs lived on our planet during 160 million years, they were even more numerous that they already are in the fossil record, the earth is a dinosaur planet, cope.
Just say Dinosaurs. Birds aren't Dinosaurs because cladistics is chud nonsense.
Still more irrelevant than ants are to the average persons life.