Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

>no feathers
Straight into the trash

>>84833495
>the current year, still believing in the jewish (((dinosaur)))

>>84833214
>tfw RLMers thought Jurassic World was bad because their overlords told them so

wow shills already going to work a year in advance. fuck off retard

>>84833510
scale cuck is Steven Spielberg's invention.

Jurassic Park was the only good movie. The rest are cash in shit.

>>84833533
you can't even keep up with the RLM memes. Mike said he enjoyed it even more than Fury Road

>>84833510
It's now widely known that most dinosaurs had feathers. Stop holding onto what you were taught at 5, you child

>>84833495
God every retard like you needs to raped then put down.
Clearly state why they had no feathers.
Dumb faggot. I hope your family gets rich and prospers.

>>84833214
the t rex from the original 1993 film looks better

>>84833214
Are they finally gonna kill Rexy off? She's an old lady now. I don't think she last long for another showdown with another super dino.

>>84833589
>most dinosaurs
>most
you like to stir some shit huh

>>84833510
this

>>84833592
no feather's was a cop out. Jurassic world set a precedent. We're not getting dinosaur movies We're getting giant lizard movies. They deliberately obfuscate science so they can keep brand recognition.

>>84833495
>>84833547
What? Outside of phylogenetic bracketing there's literally zero evidence of feathers on rex. It is literally no less accurate to depict scaly as opposed to feathered based on what we currently know.

>>84833712
>Everybody in his family had feathers
>nuh uh he doesn't have feathers until we can prove it
No it works more like this he has feathers until we can disprove it.

File: Jurassic-World-Raptor.jpg (90KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 630x420px

remember that time they showed a raptor "animatronic" just to get the practical effects redditors to shill the movie for free and it never appeared on screen?

>>84833776
Multiple Rex specimens have preserved scale impressions on various parts of the body in places where more basal tyrannosaurids had feathers. So the loss of feathers over time has a precedent, the big question is did he lose most or all of his feathers.

File: 1499651426304.jpg (43KB, 633x369px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 633x369px

https://youtube.com/watch?v=26xOmUe3BLU

>>84833926
That vocalist is channeling Panda Bear really hardcore

>>84833495
They literally address this in the movie

File: 5467547.jpg (178KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 1280x720px

>>84833776
>>84833840
THERE IS NO ACTUAL PROOF T REX EVER HAD FEATHERS YOU LARPING SACK OF SHIT RETARDS

FEATHERS HAVE ONLY BEEN CONFIRMED ON 3 OTHER (SMALL EXTREMELY BIRD-LIKE) SPECIES AND THEY ARE DEBATABLY NOT EVEN TRUE DINOSAURS

EVERY SKIN IMPRESSION WE HAVE OF T REX (AND THERE ARE SEVERAL) SHOW PEBBLY LIZARD-LIKE SKIN WITH NO FEATHERS

>>84833495

>give me scientifically accurate dinos in my movie about bringing them back thanks to some old mosquitoe blood and then mutating them in a park with almost no workers and no protection where scientists don't know what animals, that genes were combined to create other dinos, are capable of doing.

Who gives a fuck? It looks way cooler like that.

Tyrannosaurs didn't have feathers, they had scales because they were huge animals in warm climates, like modern elephants do
Most coelosaurians however were covered in feathers despite what deluded nostalgia faggots think

I'm glad Jurassic World 2 is showing a featherless Tyrannosaurus, however I will be extremely disappointed if they cater to numale hipster redditors and have scaly raptors

>>84834078
they had scaly raptors in JW

>>84834050
those are just small feathers, checkmate

>>84834105
I know, I hope they fix this in the sequel

File: 1212.png (257KB, 363x341px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 363x341px

>>84833214
>>84833495
>>84833510
>>84833533
>>84833712
>>84833776

Guys this can all be explained in headcannon that I just thought of.
Some Dinos had feathers, to what extent that all dinos did we don't know for certain, but most people don't like the image of Dinos with Feathers. So the Scientist people when building the dinos from the DNA up choose to erase the genes that make them grow feathers to appease the park goers.
Its just like real life how people don't like the look of Dino feathers (me included), so they remove them to appease the movie goers.
Its like poetry it rhymes.

>>84833777
They shot it with practicals. The sfx guys even animated the puppet on set for the caged raptor shot, but they decided to replace it with CG dinos anyways.

>>84834050
Maybe you should actually read my post before you call me a retard. I said a scaly depiction is just as accurate at the moment but in no way settled. But you're way off on the amount of feathered dinosaurs. There are multiple specimens found with feathers just within the tyrannosaur family.

>>84834128
They fucking explain why they don't have feathers in the first fucking movie.

>>84834128
Only numale retro hipsters in their 30s dislike feathered maniraptorans therizinosaurids and ornithomimosaurids

Dinos actually had nappy, tight, curly hair.

>>84834050

>feathers have only been confirmed on 3 dinosaurs

load of shit, many different specimens show some kind of feathery integument

> AND THEY ARE DEBATABLY NOT EVEN TRUE DINOSAURS

also not true, where are you getting this science?

also, large tyrannosaurs ancestral to T. rex have been preserved with feathers

>what is Yutyrannus huali

>>84834165
Oh, they do? What's the explanation then? Its been damn near forever since I've seen the original.

>>84834050

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yutyrannus

>>84834154
>multiple specimens found with feathers just within the tyrannosaur family
Why lie? This is 100% false. There are ZERO feather impressions. All we have is paleontologists claiming they have found "evidence" they "MAY" have had feathers.

If you children were not 10 you would know this is how the science/university game works. Claim evidence for X to get more funding/notoriety/job ops. Dinosaur research is the worst for this. "Rewrite the history books for fame and big bucks".

e.g. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/tyrannosaurus-rex-skin-fossils-feathers-scales-science/

It makes ZERO sense for a large animal like a tyrannosaur to have feathers in that climate to begin with. It's retarded. Like someone above mentioned, look into why elephants have lost their hair.

File: hmm.gif (2MB, 202x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 202x360px

>>84834211
>many different specimens show some kind of feathery integument
nice source

leave rex alone

File: 1491182798832.jpg (1MB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1365px

>>84834368
Read my post >>84834078 again
Even though Tyrannosaurus was scaly and featherless like how Elephants are hairless, it doesn't change the fact that most other Coelosaurians were covered in feathers, and the fossil evidence virtually proves this beyond doubt

>>84834050

Read the 2017 paper on this, the Wyrex skin impressions only cover areas that are usually featherless on coelurosaur dinosaurs, and even on some modern paleognath birds like ratites. Tyrannosaurus was a giant coelurosaur almost 40 feet long, and we have minute skin impressions of the foot, underbelly and underside of the tail. Imagine if you found a fossil skin impression of an ostriches foot, would you, in the knowledge that all other birds have extensive feathers, reconstruct it as featherless? Likewise, knowing that most coelurosaurs whose integument has been preserved well enough for a holistic representation of their life appearance to be available have shown to have feathers, even as far back as the most basal groups. Why would you then reconstruct Tyrannosaurus as totally featherless just because the Wyrex specimen has scales on its feet, underbelly and undertail, exactly where we'd expect it to be featherless? The argument that large coelurosaurs descended from small, definitely feathered forms would lose their feathers just as elephants lost their hair is also flawed, as proto feathers and feathers are very different from mammalian hair, both biologically and functionally. A feather is simply a scale that took tens of millions of years to change structure, so the likelihood of proto-feathers obviously present in Yutyrannus huali et al. reverting back to hard scales by the late Cretaceous is unlikely. Not growing feathers would mean having no integument whatsoever, just bare skin, like a plucked chicken. On the other hand, mammalian hair emerges through the skin from subcutaneous keratin deposits, meaning that 'hairlessness' is just a matter of coding for this to not occur as strongly. Also reminder that elephants and humans have just as evenly distributed body hair as, say, mammoths and chimpanzees, but our hairs are much smaller, thinner and almost transparent.

Why was the pacing so off in World? Why even have the kids?

Why did the Raptor get along with the T Rex?

>>84834225
The dinos don't have complete DNA from the fossils they find so they fill in the gaps with amphibian DNA.
And then in Jurassic World they touch on it again when someone asks the dino engineer why they don't have feathers and he says the public expect scales etc...

>>84834078

feathers don't just keep an animal warm. they're incredibly more complex than mammalian hair when it comes to aiding thermoregulation. they can be just as effective as a cooling mechanism as they can be a heating mechanism. why do you think the largest, heaviest, most terrestrially active bird in the world, the ostrich, has one of the thickest layers of massive feathers despite living in some of the hottest environments on earth?

feathers =/= mammalian hair.

>>84833589
Actually, the science has never supported "most" dinosaurs having feathers, it only supported raptor-families *potentially* having feathers, but more likely having "proto-feathers" like quills, etc.

There has never been any evidence than any herbivorous dinosaurs had feathers and actually within the last few months scientists have stated with some certainty that T-Rex didn't have feathers as an adult and probably didn't as babies, either.

We have examples and imprints of dinosaur skin, none of it supports feathers on these carnivores. Also, large animals need to regulate heat and any type of insulation prevents that. Remember Earth was much hotter back then, so think Elephant rather than wooly mammoth.

>>84834402

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-avian_dinosaur_species_preserved_with_evidence_of_feathers

That's almost 45 different species, and even more actual individual specimens. You fucking retard.

>>84834314
>wiki
>"filament-like feathers"
grow up

Can we hope for practicalskino this time?

Wait what, they're already making a sequel?

File: REEEEEE.gif (930KB, 220x165px) Image search: [Google]

930KB, 220x165px

>>84834568
>none of it supports feathers on these carnivores.
REEEE BUT BILL NYE TOLD ME DIFFERENT

>>84834368
I'm not trying to argue that T-rex had feathers you utter fucking moron. I already brought up the rex scale impressions in the thread already. I don't care if you want to claim some kind of feather conspiracy for the other tyrannosaurids, I really don't. Calling me a child in the middle of your outburst while I have zero emotional investment in this.

>>84834584

What? Yes, it says it has feathers. Are you retarded?

>>84834368
>It makes ZERO sense for a large animal like a tyrannosaur to have feathers in that climate to begin with. It's retarded. Like someone above mentioned, look into why elephants have lost their hair.

Feathers keep you cool as well.

File: 67689.gif (1MB, 218x218px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 218x218px

>>84834475
>no evidence for feathers
>therefore that means it had feathers

>>84834568

>There has never been any evidence than any herbivorous dinosaurs had feathers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianyulong
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulindadromeus

Not true feathers, but advanced quills and proto-feather-like integument.

>the last few months scientists have stated with some certainty that T-Rex didn't have feathers as an adult and probably didn't as babies, either.

Have you actually read the Bell et al. paper? Here is a link http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/13/6/20170092

It does not state that 'T-Rex didn't have feathers as an adult and probably didn't as babies, either.'

File: reddit.jpg (80KB, 723x731px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 723x731px

>>84834570
"evidence"

>>84834568

>Remember Earth was much hotter back then, so think Elephant rather than wooly mammoth.

The fact that you think this is somehow a compelling argument proves you have painfully scant knowledge of both palaeontology and vertebrate biology.

fuck feather scientist cucks

>>84833495
I want this meme to die.

>>84834690

do you ever fucking read anything or do you just constantly assume you're right? jesus christ you must be insufferable to be around

>>84834665

>find bird skeleton
>every other bird has feathers
>I wonder if this bird also had feathers?

>>84834665

an almost laughably basic understanding of the way phylogeny works

>>84834665

Nice reading comprehension you mong.

>>84833214
Who gives a shit about dinosaurs. I wanna see some Mommy tig ol biddies.

>>84834568
>There has never been any evidence than any herbivorous dinosaurs had feathers
I thought most of herbivorous dinos were sauropods which is completely different from bird-like therapodas.

File: 1498791582423.jpg (222KB, 698x524px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 698x524px

today I will remind them

https://youtube.com/watch?v=R6GiNQvugn0

>t-rex isn't standing upright
Straight into the trash

>>84834475
You left out skin impressions on the neck and legs going all the way up to the illium, also skeletal evidence of scales on the face.

File: jew.jpg (13KB, 219x230px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 219x230px

>>84834827
shut it down

>>84834145
don't care. they said they had it and didn't show it, only that shitty sauropod puppet made the cut

>>84834806
>no thiccposting
>fruitcakes arguing over feathers like a bunch of faggots
Finally a voice of reason

>>84833582
And here I was thinking that his taste couldn't be more garbage

>>84834819

>were sauropods which is completely different from bird-like therapodas

Well they're both saurischians (lizard-hipped) according to most cladistic analyses.

However, there was an analysis earlier this year that resurrected Ornithoscelida as a clade that includes both theropods and 'traditional' Ornithischians (bird hipped dinosaurs, includes Triceratops, Stegosaurus, Iguanodon, Ankylosaurus, basically any herbivorous dinosaur that isn't a sauropod), and then places sauropods on their own in Saurischia. It really shook things around as far as I can tell.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-11 at 06.08.04.png (134KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 1280x800px

>>84834866

On Wyrex? I don't think so.

>>84833926

Great taste

>>84834892

i genuinely would rather talk about Bryce Datass Howard and her thiccness but dinosaurs cause my autism to kick in really bad

>>84834944
Being paleontologist seems exiting nowadays, i wish i haven't give up on my dream of becoming one.

>>84835001
No, between all the specimens with scale impressions. Also note that wyrex was not full grown and I assume the picture has failed to scale the patches to the one in the picture.

Who fucking cares about the accuracy of the T. rex in these movies? It's not like the Stan Winston rex EVER looked anything like a real Tyrannosaurus. The proportions are all over the place, the head is comically large, the musculature is all retarded and the evil brow ridge is completely fabricated.
But it's genetically engineered theme park monster, as is stated CONSTANTLY in the franchise, so expecting it to appear to be realistic is just sperg behaviour. Every autistic dinoblogger got mad in the run-up to Jurassic World that there were no feathers, not understanding that the animals in the movie would just be carbon copies of those in the original, just as the plot and characters were just boring retreads, somehow made less interesting and 3-dimensional than those in a 20 year-old blockbuster. Because modern audiences don't want anything new, different, interesting or envelope-pushing. They want the same stuff they remember from their childhood, focus-grouped into unrecognisable bland nostalgia-core garbage that presses all the right buttons for autistic 29 year old Millennials who can't fucking grow up and stop obsessing over the movies they watched when they were 8 years old. It's the same shit with Star Wars, Power Rangers and every other remake, reboot or reimagining. Even capeshit is the same concept, except the dead horse it's beating is the comics nerds obsessed over when they were younger, rather than the movies or TV shows. Hollywood and the majority of mainstream US entertainment is obviously creatively bankrupt. It's been heading that way for a while, but it's really cracked it in the last 5 or so years. Anyone with half a brain can see this. I feel bad for the 8 year olds of today, raised on the soulless, used-up, second-hand media and properties of a previous generation.

Also the dinosaurs looked way more fake than in the original, which came out in the early 90s, so that's embarrassing.

>>84835289
only turbo autismos want the dinos to have feathers

>>84835310
>>84835289
the real autism is taking all that dinosaur info as gospel and believing it 100%

>>84835310

I want NEW media and NEW franchises to tell NEW stories about NEW dinosaurs (not just Tyrannosaurus for the millionth time) and to depict them in an updated and scientifically modern style, but everything is still in the shadow of the original Jurassic Park film, which, itself, was the 1993 equivalent of what I want now. It updated dinosaur depictions for the era, post-Dinosaur Renaissance, doing away with sluggish, swamp-living tail-draggers that stand like kangaroos. But dinosaur science has moved on since 1993. Even without my dino-autism, modern moviemakers don't seem to get that what made Jurassic Park so popular wasn't just the way the dinosaurs looked, whether they were scaly or the T. rex had that weird elephant roar or the Velociraptors were 6-ft long with cat-eyes, but rather the sheer quality of the film-making, the entertaining characters, the engrossing plot and the novel ideas and concepts. This is why the original is a classic, and endlessly aping it in cashgrab after cashgrab is, as with any franchise currently having its corpse raped for money by Hollywood, is not daring or creative.

>>84835365

I'm not telling other people what to think mate, I'm just stating the facts as best I know them from the research I personally have done, which is backed by peer-reviewed science. I guess you can do that thing where you accuse (((science))) of being a Jewish conspiracy but that's essentially a trump card because it allows you to remove yourself from any kind of actual debate doesn't it lad.

>>84835549

>peer-reviewed science

(((science)))

>>84833214
Oh shit I looked at it the wrong way and thought it was some kind of retarded turtle.

hey guys just so you know dinosaurs are for homos, just thought you should know that fellas

File: raptor.jpg (2MB, 1978x1404px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1978x1404px

>>84835491
>I want NEW media and NEW franchises to tell NEW stories about NEW dinosaurs (not just Tyrannosaurus for the millionth time) and to depict them in an updated and scientifically modern style
say no more fäm

File: dakotaraptor_by_fredthedinosaurman-d9kbotr.jpg (272KB, 1280x829px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 1280x829px

>>84835975

god the designs in that film were disgusting

File: dinosaur_sunset___the_good_dinosaur_fan_art_by_fredthedinosaurman-d9h6a5p.jpg (214KB, 1600x440px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1600x440px

>>84836088

Yeah they were trash

File: tmp_8142-ay_leaellynasaura854876141.jpg (772KB, 1732x2597px) Image search: [Google]

772KB, 1732x2597px

Dinosaurs had feathers. Deal with it shitlords!

>>84835663

but all the dinos in JP are female

>>84837015
Life always finds a way

>he hasn't watched dino autismKino's video on it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM5JN__15-g

File: tmp_8142-jurass-park-4-world-jeff-goldblum204755395.jpg (127KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 720x480px

>>84837031
Not...

>Life...uh...finds...a way.

>>84837082
Haha rawwr haar hahah

File: judd_hirsch-600x402.jpg (40KB, 600x402px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 600x402px

>>84837082
Dats my David . He saved the woild you know.

>>84834710

Dont worry its on its breathing its final breaths. Only idiots with 30 iq still defends it since they think it makes them marginal and cool.

>>84833214
daily reminder that Jurassic Park is impossible because DNA degrades to almost literally nothing no matter how well preserved it is after about 5-6 million years

>>84834202
WE

>>84837185
>impossible because DNA degrades to almost literally nothing

Except that's not true because you analyze DNA in sequence not from one individual.

They sequenced the Neanderthal genome using many samples to create a single DNA profile. Absolutely nothing stopping the same process in other fossils. Especially when they've found some rare examples with a lot of preserved material.

>>84837339
Neanderthals are hell of a lot younger then 5-6 million years though, you saplet.

File: confirmed for autism.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

this thread is autistic as fuck

>>84837339
>Neandedrthal
>older than 5-6 million years
HAHAHAHAHA
>YOU

>>84833214
>on her way to San Diego

>>84837401
what the fuck is she doing?

>fun fact: she went to my high school and dated my old manager

File: 1498349915577.jpg (33KB, 348x383px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 348x383px

>>84834050
>Autist having a melt down because his childhood nostalgia got shat on

>>84834475
You conveniently forgot the Daspletosaur neck impressions and a few from the thorax. I'm sorry that scaly Rex hurts your feelings, but rex probably didn't have feathers. Get over it.

>>84837053
Trey is a biased faggot whose only argumen its "YOU CANT PROVE THEY DIDNT!!"

>>84833576
Tell us something we don't know.

>>84833599
Stan Winston wasn't dead then.

File: 1446519623321.png (378KB, 900x702px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 900x702px

>arguing or caring about the traits of fictional, genetically modified dino-like creatures literally born in a lab
This reminds me of those threads where people sperg out over the Simpsons no longer being canon, or Superman killing people.
Its not real. None of its real. You're literally getting worked up over fiction.

>>84837639
>uses evidence to suggest they had feathers and not scales

Hes not exactly being agnostic about this.
Listen dude I get that you feel really strongly about this but the evidence just isn't there.

File: 1492883825321.gif (1MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 500x281px

>>84835056
same here

>>84837951
I don't give a fuck either way. My two favorite depictions of Tyrannosaurus are feathered. I just can't fucking stand these paleontological equivalents of hipsters flying in the face of science to justify there "fluffy XDD" dinosaurs.
>uses evidence to suggest they had feathers and not scales
But there is no evidence. Not a single shred of evidence in any of the several hundred individuals representing tyrannosauridae that any of them had feathers


Here's a blogpost by a paleontologist/ artist whose admittedly biased for feathers and he forces himself to admit the probability that they did not.

>>84837535
hope you watched them fuck.

>>84837951
4chan's being a jew about spam. Google "Mark Witton Revenge of the Scaly Tyrannosaur"

>>84837185
>but watching animu is fine

File: IMG_4632.jpg (3MB, 2816x2112px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2816x2112px

>>84834440

Elephants are not hairless

File: 51f+cNHRVOL._SY445_QL70_.jpg (26KB, 318x445px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 318x445px

Dino porn kino when?