As good as the original

Their goal was to expand upon the lore of JP's intelligent raptors and cloning lab. They had a budget cut halfway through though, so the ideas were cut.

Lol

While the attempt to introduce a new biggerer and betterer dinosaur was rather awkward, a Spinosaurus would annihilate any T-Rex

In the book Ian's daughter was white.

Yeah but the other kid, who's not in the film, was still black.

The movie is FICTION the writers can make up whatever they want, yeesh

what spectrum of autism did you crawl out from

...

not surprised

you mispelled "that's kino"

...

...

I swear, you niggers are on the same level as flat earthers

Of course, how could I forget? God put those fossils in the ground as a practical joke.

I'd laugh but then I remembered that's largely the consensus here.

Why would dinos have feathers if they can't fly?

Do normies actually think that all dinosaurs had feathers, and not just a specific group of dromaeosauridae that is directly linked to birds?

pure kino

Dude normal fags don't even know what basic groups like Theropods, and sauropods are.

I hated all of the jurassic park flicks. Typical burger empty spectacle flicks.

In the book she wasn't his daughter.

ah, here we go

What exactly was wrong with that?

Was pretty good. It's one of those things that normies are told to hate for no reason, despite it being everything they are told to love in other things.

No wonder this board has gone to shit.

see

...

Pacing is all over the place and the characters are all unlikeable so we don't care when Dinosaurs attack them.

Give me Jurassic World any day.

kys

no u

So, Jurassic World?

were they black and asian?

...

Normal characters.
Wat?
Wat?
Normal protagonists

Normal people aren't dumb enough to bring Rex Cub to their home.
Dinos' lives are more valuable than humans,
All corporations are evil, all eco-terrorists are good.
Plebbits reasoning. The first JP and the third have excellent scenes where all they do is talk about hope, dreams, illusions and questions about humans activity. All the TLW had are dinos and a bunch of idiots.
look you pleb, the movie is fucking dull, preachy, pretentious piece of shit. The only scene it had any positive thought is at the end. The worldview is stupidly binary and there is no character development. Everyone have the same worldview at the end of it as the first time it begins.
There is a dead fansite JPlegacy who explained how logic could applied to certain "less logical" scenes and how what the director could be thinking. It gave up on the lost world.

Go back to reddit, kid.

Are you actually that pissed off about the fact that a lot of theropods had feathers and weren't just entirely covered in scales? If someone wants to make theropods scaly for their production that's cool I can get behind that level of creative leeway, but if you're actually pissed off about most of the species having feathers you're going to have to take that up with nature.

Reminder:
They cut this scene because big game hunters aren't allowed to be good guys.

No, the scene is unnecessary. the movie is already too long anyway.

Roland never really gave the vibe that he was evil, just the only guy on the crew who knew two fucks as to what he was doing, and even his goal of "buck only" still fit within the logical mindset of the hunt to avoid a pregnant female.

But this scene really helps put together his relationship with Ajay, but perhaps threw off the flow of the film.

Stupider things have been cut from films all because some upstairs dipshit said "shave off 30 seconds or no movie".

cringeworthy

...

It felt forced then. It still feels forced now.

Today it would be for BLM type shit. Back then it was pandering to
the rising "Black Dollar" of the 90s. Same reason they put chinks
in everything now. There was a buck in it, and Sam LJ had
already been killed in the first movie.

Didn't feel forced then, doesn't feel forced now, don't know what the fuck are you talking about.
It seems to be one of the examples when the movie is a bit too complex for you regular shiteating audience expecting nothing but dumb action and deeming dialogs as boring.

also

This is one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while here.

pics

fuck off

>(((patriarchy)))

that scene was probably cut because it's a fuck ton of dialogue from one character.
it was a bit too verbose

You have to go back

confusedanimegirl.png

sorry, all i could read was

The book it was based I believe (((they))) "suggested" to Mr Criton very strongly to put in some urban youth .

Not (((they))), (((Spielberg))). And yeah, he wanted basically another Tim and Lex. They are completely superfluous.

I wouldn't say it's as good as the original. The little nostalgia nod when Nick Van Owen sees the mural for the original park is almost an admission by the movie itself that it knows it doesn't live up to the legacy. Honestly, it's impossible to have a sequel to that movie have the same quality. You have the option of rehashing the movie, but that only worked for Jurassic World due to a difference of twelve years from the original. JP as a series would've died right there if it came out in 1997. I think all three sequels are on a similar level of decent scenes mixed with dogshit, plus they all take a different direction from the first movie with their sequel. It really depends on what elements you appreciated the most from the first movie that determines which sequel you like the best. The daughter was a forced diversity cast, much like the second book's kids. Stronk girl and rich token black kid, both in advanced courses. Unlike the first translation to a movie where the boy's book abilities were split between him and his sister, the diversity hire was the combination of both from the book. Unless I can't remember Jurassic World well, She's also the only human to kill a raptor. Worst kid in the entire series.

...

You easily can by exploring a different/mirror side of the issue, which is exactly what they did and in doing that it's easily as good as the original.

Not really, they didn't have that in 1997. You honestly think that if that was the case they would only cast one little useless girl in a movie with otherwise no blacks or minorities, instead of shoving blacks in more prominent roles, like they do now.
As for the book, kid's blackness never comes up once they move to the island, in fact you wouldn't even know he's black if not for the direct description in the beginning. There's no moral push about diversity or equality in the end etc.

God damn, you really can't stand paleontology ruining your childhood perception of dinosaurs can you?

Jurassic Park came out in 93', while Jurassic World came out in 15'. Enough time for people to be nostalgic and willing to go along with a copy+paste sequel. Even more so when even the most recent sequel before that was in 01'.

The problem with having the same quality is due to having every element that makes the first one great in the sequel. I'll bring up what elements I see are crucial to JP and you can respond with what you think is right, what isn't, and what's missing.
TLW has some of these elements, but drops the ball on most of them to some extent. I'd say in the dinosaur department that it's easily the best of all the movies, great variety of dinos that all get the limelight at least for a scene or two with action scenes that compliment what makes them both interesting and horrifying. The setting is great for the jungle but poor for the theme park. I know that Site B is supposed to be the breeding ground and it was the best way to go regarding a sequel, but you have to remember the first movie has a blend of sci-fi and primal lost world. There should've been more set pieces in the ruined facilities like the light gun tie-in, 3, and Trespasser. You have the cool vehicle hunting in one of the best scenes, but then it gets tossed out for hiking in the woods. It leaned too hard in one direction. As mentioned earlier, the actual debate about the dinosaurs being animals and the "villain" being better than the protagonists is where the movie really fucks things up. The most normal main character dies in a shitty way saving Ian and his band of annoying romantic interest, diversity hire(they've been doing this for far longer, look at Will Smith's career), and ecoterrorist. Roland respects them as animals, but doesn't forget how dangerous they are. He has a down to earth attitude of a hunter proving his worth and wanting to leave afterwards, while being roped in with Ubisoft-tier businessmen. Very bad in the story department, but it's mostly good in other areas and even surpasses the original in certain elements. The story baggage is what really drags in down compared to the other sequels.

Does the fact that a lot of Pterosaurs had downy coats of pseudo fur also trigger the fuck out of you?

It WAS forced. It was so bad everyone saw how much of a botched movie it was. I would honestly say this was razzie award tier. I could see Joe Schumacher directing this pile of shit. See it again now that you are older. You have nostalgia glasses on.

The third was mediocre dont get me wrong, but it did seem like they were trying to recreate the lightning in a bottle the first did.

No it was the supporting cast and bad relationshit drama. The only person you cared about was Grant. The mercs were ok even though they were the sacrificial lambs. They should have been the supporting cast.

Wait, it was 22 years. You were right and I'm beyond retarded with my math today.

Not the same user, but you are absolutely retarded. And yes if you are trolling, i got caught in your ruse cruise.

no, kill yourself though, normie. And you are the same user.

yeah i agree with you lads
check this out new dinosaur btw, i bet if a lizardcuck saw one of these he would shit his pants on the spot, amrite? XD

My first post was rebutting JPII as razzie award tier and another post saying JP sucked because of the relatuonshit drama added. Mods can confirm my ip drama queen.

*JP3 had reationshit drama

This is original T-Rex everyone else can back off

that is the ONLY t-rex
giant turkeys are not dinosaurs

So is it just with depictions in entertainment? Or do actual fossils of theropod species with feather impressions piss you off?

I don't see how the dinosaur feather is relevant to Jurassic Park. The book and JPIII explained how they were bioengineered theme park monsters with frog DNA and were derivatives rather than actual dinosaurs. It was all about the public perception of what dinos were rather than what science had determined as true. They did contradict that a bit with pic related, but JP wrote itself a get-out-of-jail free card. Other movies don't have an excuse though.

no fam, i'm genuinelly by your side
don't you think these dinosaurs are great?

ugh, kill yourself reddit while grown ups have a conversation here.

Good post but I think you're underestimating the film's story. Now, granted, I could be somewhat projecting the second novel onto the film, seeing how they share only passing resemblance and the novel is obviously vastly superior, but I think the film stands on its own.

The Lost World is meant to be a counterpoint to the first film. It's a darker, colder film to a brighter JP, which is one of the reasons why it's not very much liked by normalfags who have this cozy warm nostalgia towards the first one and are off put by the sequel. JP1 is personified by John Hammond, who is this idealistic, naive grandfather figure in love with the idea of a park with dinosaurs, only to see that idea fall apart as man tries to mess with nature. The whole film has that dream-like idealistic fantasy grandeur, supported by Dean Cundey's warm cinematography. JP2 is almost a cynical deconstruction of that. We see Hammond sick, old and retired in the beginning of the film, dealing with bureaucratical repercussions of the first movie. Malcolm is dealing with consequences of the previous film as well. And we're introduced to this corporatism, meddling with the fantastical nature of the original, bringing it down to the mundane. The cinematography by (((Janusc Kaminsky))) is also deliberately cold, diluted. So we're confronted with this stark contrast forcing us to see the original in a different light and ruminate on it, which is a bit too much for your general shiteating audience. Then, as we move to the island, which in itself is also "site B", a corporate background as it were where cogs are showing, not the magical, polished front piece of isla Nublar, we're confronted with the similar dilemma of the original, that man should not meddle with nature. Only whereas in the original it was about man's creation - the power of science - being swallowed by nature in the sequel it's about man trying to take nature back under control, striking at it. Roland's group has descended upon Sorna with an entire army and state-of-the-art equipment. While Malcolm's group, together with the audience, takes the neutral approach, watching how two forces clash and observing the consequences. In the end it all boils down to corporate greed, which is the actual "villain" of the film, unlike Hammond's naive selfishness in the original which nonetheless still cost him his life in the novel.

So as you can see, the film has some thematically sound legs to stand on. It wasn't meant to be like the original, it wasn't meant to have the Park, quite the opposite we see the ruins of the Park as it were on Sorna, and then later in the film we see another half constructed, unfinished, unrealized park once again. As characters dwell in the woods we take in that feeling of reality and isolation unlike the carefully crafted puppeteer show of the first film. I enjoyed those scenes most of all actually.

I do not believe there was a diversity hire - one black secondary character in a movie void of a single other minority feels like a statistical probability.

You are either a moron, or you are actually trying to be funny (ie baiting) and failing miserably.

Lol i see. Excellent bait, masterbaiter

Yeah, do shut the fuck up and see.

what, you don't like my beautiful feather dinosaur? are you some kind of an anti-science lizardcuck?

it's almost like you don't even care that there were theropod species with scaly hides, species with feathers, and species with intermediaries. Just the thought of a single saurian depicted as anything other than completely reptilian is an issue.
Do you even like dinosaurs? You sure as shit don't seem to like paleobiology.

I want everyone who tries to discuss burger films to die.

That's some low energy baiting.

back to cuckchan you reddit parasite

Eventually everyone dies, so I guess your wish is already granted stupid.

Is this what normies think science says?

>the cinematography by (((Janusc Kaminsky))) is also deliberately cold, diluted
He's been with Spielberg from Schindler's List onwards, right? There's always been this divide in his filmography with that film fundamentally changing his attitude as a director. I agree with showing the cogs, my bitching comes from them not showing enough of that. I loved the part in JPIII where they went into the lab on the island and were looking at all the fucked up experiments. They were lucky enough TLW left that on the table for them to use, but it should've been in TLW.

I'm not saying the core of TLW is weak, but the pottery falls flat due to how it's handled. Peter works as an antagonist fucking everything up to try and exploit nature. Every scene with him performs well with how it should work. I agree with the neutrality part, but only for the beginning. Sarah Harding and Nick Van Owen are awful and don't fit the "hero" side. They interfere right afterwards and it almost costs their entire group their lives. Instead of InGen suffering due to fucking with nature, it's Harding and Owen's actions that truly cause it. Then they have to take the baby T-rex to fix the leg and are directly responsible for getting poor Eddie killed to save their asses and have to get bailed out by InGen. Harding makes an ass out of herself by attacking the joke character paleontologist for the turkey vulture issue, but helps get more people killed by wearing her blood soaked shirt. Owen helps further by taking bullets out of Roland's gun, which leads to several deaths as the T-rex chases them. Malcom works as a character, his daughter sans gymnastics pottery works, and Eddie works. Those two fuckups are what really ruin the story IMO. What complicates things is the third option of Roland. He wanted to hunt, but cared more about doing it as a hunter than being a corporate bitch. Respect for nature, but was wise to its harshness as well. More likeable than half the main characters to the point where they had to cut scenes to make him less favorable. To fix things, they should've made Nick a loose cannon on the hero side that was responsible for shit going down, getting called on it, and dying due to his meddling to compliment Roland surviving for his lack of meddling. That's some pottery that would work.

gee i wonder why

that was the least of its problems tbh

Well they aren't "heroes" per se and I like how they show real character traits like selfishness and greed. Again works well with the whole overarching theme of disillusionment from the previous film. There are no great Indiana Jones-like heroes like Grant. Only shitty and cynical people like Sarah and Ian.

That's your biggest problem tbh, go back

Because normies.

Oh wow, a thread that we already had a month ago.

oh wow double dubs wasted

I'm fine with Malcom being shitty and cynical because it was in character and worked, but I don't think it works for Harding or Owen. I would say they're considered "good guys" due to be associated with Malcom, since he's the voice of reason and knows where all this shit is going. The other two fuck up at least as bad as the InGen crew, but never get called out on it. If Malcom went into a chaos theory monologue about how Peter's group were even bigger idiots than Hammond and it was their fault the dinos went rampaging, then it would've worked. Dieter literally did nothing wrong as backup leader in that scene, which is inconsistent with how his character is a hardheaded jackass that doesn't think things through. Malcom should've had an entire scene shitting on Harding and Owen about bringing that T-rex to camp and helping get their friend killed. That gets glossed over along with their other dumb decisions. Owen making a smartass comment about taking the bullets out of Roland's gun was just as bad. IIRC, the T-rex he was aiming for was the one chasing them alongside InGen. That caused the mercs to run into the long grass while paleontologist strawman was eaten by the T-rex due to Owen taking those bullets. Harding put them in the situation to begin with by shitting on said paleontologist for the turkey vulture comment, yet not thinking an entire day about walking around dino isle in a blood soaked shirt. I'm not asking for Indiana Grant to come back (I did as a kid though). I just want characters to not act like self righteous idiots when they're portrayed as sympathetic, rational people.

This was the first movie where I really sought out the full "experience" and have always regarded it fondly, despite the constant yammerings of 4chan and the Nostalgia Critic.

Still don't really like the San Diego sequence, but casting & direction are good. I seem to recall the novel had two niglets, I think one was like an adoptive daughter, the other was an early Steve Urkel-esque wiz kid who had the idea of using chewing gum to patch the baby T-rex cast.

I liked most of it, particularly the part where the Trex is running about the city.
The parts with nigger daughter were just terrible in general though. I thought this when I first saw it when I was 10 and I still think that now after giving it a rewatch.
And no, it has nothing to do with her being a shitskin, her scenes were genuinely forced and terrible.
Good fucking god the part where she does some gymnastic shit against a couple of raptors is the single most retarded part of the entire movie.

So whether a species had feathers, scales or both, you can only be satisfied by every species being portrayed as 100% scaly?

Is Archaeopteryx allowed to have feathers?

Good, user, always think for yourself.

The novel had one niglet. neither were related to Malcolm

well geez, i don't know, what's more appealing, a giant lizard or a giant chicken?

ffs, the entirety of the daughter takes about a minute of the film, the raptor scene is literally seconds. If I hear that mentioned as "legitimate criticism" of the film again I'll have to tap the sign

So anything with feathers looks like a chicken to you?

nice try, reddit

Hoe does the amount of time she takes up make her scenes any less shit?
Do you have an actual rebuttal or are you really going to go with the retarded "the scene was only a [short length of time] just switch off your brain lol" shitpost?

The original is overrated a bit so yea idk maybe the original is better but its the only good sequel thats for sure.

bunmp

just answer my fucking question you stupid faggot
do you think a giant reptile is as striking as a giant bird?

Fuck off with that retarded shit.

...

Just when I thought your responses couldn't be any more retarded you still find a way to surprise.

no u

I have a couple of things I've noticed thinking about the series. It seems like the first two stand out more because they have interesting and iconic vehicles that you could recognize outside the movie, while 3 and world do not. The other I noticed was the color change for logos when Jurassic World came out. It went from red/black to blue/white. Any idea for that change?

Most Dinosaurs were scaly but certain species of the Theropod group had developed feathers, these were mostly smaller species like Microraptor and Archeopteryx. Plenty of larger species of Theropods still had thick scaly hides like Carnotaurus. T-Rex might have had a downy coat in its youth, but if it did it likely shed most of it as an adult.

And yeah I do, there are plenty of giant birds in the fossil record that are plenty intimidating, even living stuff like Eagles and Condors can be intimidating.

...

nice try, schlomo

JP3 had the GOAT Raptors

Look at this fucking idiot and laugh.

It's the normies who like this movie.

"oh yeah strong independent women who endangers everyone by leading t-rexes to their camp - twice!"
"oh yeah liberal greenpeace message!"
"little niglet gymnastics - kick ass! you go girl!"
"oh man, look at the t-rex in san diego! hardcore, dude! totally badass!"

fuck off OP, you fucking faggot

you have to go back

read the thread you autistic kike

Back in kindergarten and school, the kids who were overly obsessed with dinosaurs were also overwhelmingly the most autistic and pants on head retarded ones. This thread just validates this observation. Also OP, if you wanna defend your favourite childhood flick so badly, you better come up with a better argument than "go back to reddit" and "it was the 90s, it doesn't count".

back to reddit

you're so far up your ass you're find shit nuggets from last year

if you like this shit sequel for nostalgia purposes fine, but stop pretending it's so great with a lot of pretentious writing.

You sound reddit as fuck.

Mobile users also do that newfag.

On point

Mobileposters are just as bad reddit

some of them were probably black and yes there were asian dinos

How many humans are there? How many dinos? Check mate. :^)

It's the reddit spacing autist, every single one of his posts is a waste of time to read.

embarrassing. just stop. the only thing of worth from your embarrasing posts is that I found out about that cancelled JP cartoon

which ironically, pissed me off to discover, so really you're just spewing out bad vibes here

You fools. Dinosaurs didn't even exist.

no you don't
mammals have are innately intimidated by reptiles, if you take a monkey and show it a snake it will jump away even if it never saw a snake in his life
that's why a giant lizard is outstanding while a giant turkey is ridiculous
case closed, now we can move on to more stimulating topics

nobody gives a shit about your gay science, go back jerking off to your fossiles

>>>/reddit/

reminder that feathercucks will hang too at TOTR

Do yourself a favour and stay in school, user.

you mad, feathercuck?

So this is the power of burger ignorance

...

No, actually I am rather impressed by by dedication to baiting. Not that you are any good at it, but you won’t let that stop you!

Sure you aren't, burger. Sure you aren't.

if it helps you sleep at night, sure

also, reminder that this is the ideal dinosaur movie according to feathercucks en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_Park

I think you are overestimating your trolling abilities there buddy.

Back to >>>/reddit/ and never come back

Could this post be any more reddit? Yo could try but I doubt.

sure fam, sure
now let's relax and watch some featherkino together

This meme's lost all meaning.

I thought you didn't care about "biology crap"?

...

i bet you feel so smart now, don't you

o0h wow, where did you find these awesome pictures of dinosaurs

You think anything with feathers automatically looks like a chicken, and despite me talking about wanting to see both scaly species of theropods and feathery ones in media all you do is say feathercuck over and over.
No I'm just glad I could never be as pissy and repugnant as you are about a few raptor species having feathers.

i don't know about you, but i've never seen a lizard with feathers

Jaden, is that you?

Why the fuck do you even keep citing lizards? The scales dinosaurs had were more similar to those of crocodilians and tortoises.

have you ever seen a crocodile or a toirtoise with feathers?
don't answer btw, it's irrelevant by now because:
archive.is/UJjIm

FEATHERCUCKS ON SUICIDE WATCH

...

...

Come back when you have a legit source you mouthbreeding roach.

just face it feathercuck, this is what dinosaurs looked like and your retarded giant chickens will never see the light

Then post her saying that, not your islamic creationist author, you fucking sandnigger.

why are u people arguing, its not like dinosaurs are real in the first place.

Hitler dubs confirm.
btw santa claus isn't real either

So a half dozen western paleontologists said the species Sinosauropteryx didn't have MODERN feathers, and a creationist from Kansas wants to claim they aren't any kind of feathers at all.
Are you a creationist yourself?

this is the level of argumentation of the feathercuck, everybody

they aren't feathers at all, they are collagenous fibers beneath the skin
damn, BTFO'ing you feathercucks is almost starting to get funny

If you have to trun to blogs to back up your arguments instead of scientific journals/peer-reviewed papers, chances are you are in the wrong.

Also, remember your ealier response?
Guess it is a-OK when you do it, right?

Just kinda ignoring that your own article doesn't even consider Archaeopteryx a dinosaur, wanting raptor species that had feathers to be portrayed with feathers doesn't mean I want feathers meaninglessly slapped on every theropod, and that you're the spaz spamming "Feathercuck!" Over and over.

actually it does, i bet you did not even read it you stupid nigger

lmao let me taste your delicious tears
yes because in my case it's true

The opinion of the 1 guy from Kansas is fact to you? I don't suppose you're a creationist yourself are ya?

it's enough of a fact to spull delicious feathercuck tears
i'm just not one who loves cocks so bad he wishes dinosaurs were cocks themselves

Your blog isn't sciency at all, but if you are right, you should have no problem showing us several peer-reviewed papers to prove your argument.

It is quite telling that the first source you posted is a blog written by some Islamic creationist author, who doesn't even understand evolution.

it doesn't matter, you would still find a way to clutch at straws in order not to face the facts
i don't know where this irrational hatred of dinosaurs you have comes from, but i would suggest you simply walk away from it instead of trying to ruin their images purely out of spite

trips BTFO the feathercuck, nice!

Come on, don't hold out on us - show us some scientific journals, documentaries or peer-reviewed papers to show us you are right.

When we talk about some theropod species having feathers, you spaz the fuck out and blatantly pretend like we're claiming all dinosaurs have feathers. 20 bucks says you're jewish.

what's the point, you'd just keep asking for another source again and again, attempting to evade the point
i'm not falling for your tricks, feathercuck

nice try, but we all know it's the kikes that are trying to make us believe the dinochicken nonsense

it'd be interesting to see the wealth of scientific work you can find to prove your point. Not sure why are stalling tbh.

You can only find shit written by creationists, if not then the first article you posted wouldn't of been full of terms like "evolutionists" or "evolutionary paleontologists" it would have just fucking called them paleontologists.

fine, this is another article i've found just in 5 minutes of research on google
archive.is/FhSeq

in b4
MUH CREATIONISTRS
all the sources are listed at the end of the page

You do realize that for that for birds to have evolved from a group of theropod dinosaurs, at some point there would have had to been a devolopment of feathers from scales.

take some meds jesus christ

This guy knows good movies he likes potterkino

i don't care, when they started having feathers they must have been already birds
dinosaurs did not have feathers, why is it so difficult for you to accep it

What about Archaeopteryx?

why do you keep bringing this shit up? does it make you feel smart?
here, have some more food for thought, even leftcucked definitely non-creationist press like the guardian smells bullshit on the feathered dinosaur bollocks
archive.is/Yid5x

I don't know about you, but i've never seen a lizard crocodile with feathers

I've been saying it was only some theropods like raptors and not all dinosaurs this whole fucking time. You aren't even reading the articles you post.

FEATHERCUCKS BTFO

it was just to show that even mainstream press takes this feather thing with a grain of salt
those you're talking about still didn't have feathers, just think about it: why would dinosaur develop feathers before they develop the ability to fly? it makes no fucking sense at all and only a braindead feathercuck would believe that

Bump for more feathercuck tears

I like this variety of bait, so I'm going to give a tip: plenty of birds retain complex structure feathers despite having lost the ability and need for flight.

10/10 bantz

key word: lost
they developed feathers when they were flying, then they lost the ability to fly but didn't lose feathers yet
this still doesn't explain how would dinosaurs develop feathers without being able to fly according to evolutionary logic
come on feathercuck, i know you can do better than this

ULTIMATE
COOKERY

Some should make that deer flaccid with some buckshot.

The colour of dinosaur feathers identified: bris.ac.uk/news/2010/6806.html
The color of dinosaur feathers identified: phys.org/news/2010-01-dinosaur-feathers.html
Feathers, melanosomes, and the colour of dinosaurs: palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/melanosomes/
A Diverse Assemblage of Late Cretaceous Dinosaur and Bird Feathers from Canadian Amber: science.sciencemag.org/content/333/6049/1619
Dinosaurs: Fuzzy origins for feathers: nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7236/full/458293a.html

You know you never did answer if it was fine for archaeopteryx to be portrayed with feathers.

lol pathetic

>Kulindadromeus, the feathered ornithischian
>The first ever example of a plant-eating dinosaur with feathers and scales was reported from Russia in 2014. Previously only flesh-eating dinosaurs were known to have had feathers so this new find indicates that all dinosaurs could have been feathered. This has important implications for our understanding of the biology and success of dinosaurs and for the evolution of bird characters.
- palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/melanosomes/Kulindadromeus.html

Because Microraptor was an ancestor to many larger non-flying theropods and it had feathers, there now will you answer the Archaeopteryx question you've been dancing around it for a while.

>Oldest feathered dinosaur found

archeopteryx is dated long before your fossiles of supposed feathered theropods
your feathercuck fantasies make no sense

Do you consider a dinosaur, and did it have feathers?

Consider it a dinosaur*

Source: nature.com/news/2009/090925/full/news.2009.949.html

>A new feathered maniraptoran dinosaur fossil that fills a morphological gap in avian origin: dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11434-009-0009-6

archeopteryx was a transitional stage between dinosaur and bird
the fact that he was already able to fly when he developed feathers should make you think, as much as the fact that it was around before your retarded feathered dinosaurs should also make you think
but of course you will not think, your obsession with giant chicken prevents you from seeing things in a rational way

>Exceptionally preserved juvenile megalosauroid theropod dinosaur with filamentous integument from the Late Jurassic of Germany
- pnas.org/content/109/29/11746

You're the one who thinks having feathers makes something look like it's a chicken.

stop it

>Bird-like dinosaur forces rethink
- news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4337888.stm

You posted a blogpost written by a creationist sandnigger, and then an article you didn't even read.

irrelevant, the sources were there
what makes you think that

This

>Feather Quill Knobs in the Dinosaur Velociraptor
- science.sciencemag.org/content/317/5845/1721

...

Talking about dinosaurs is fun, arguing with strangers over the internet is also fun.

that's not true, as we see here you were actually saying that a lot of dinosaurs had feathers, and i showed you even the mainstream press disagrees on that
also, if that's your position you would also have to explain to me why this post, which depicts a t-rex and a triceratop having feathers, spawning this whole conversation, isn't utterly fucking retarded

At least it's a change of pace instead of the same old copypasta bullshit.

BTFO'ing feathercucks is super fun

...

How is pretending there were never any feathered theropods BTFO?

if by "trolling" you mean humiliating with superior arguments they can't refute then yes, it's very lulzy

>Dinosaurs show their true colours for the first time
- theguardian.com/science/2010/jan/27/fossil-hunters-dinosaur-true-colours

try harder sparky.

it said most of them were completely scaly
unfortunately they too had to cuck out to the feather frenzy, but still it's much different than what you intellectually dishonest feathercucks are trying to make us believe

underageb& as fuck

...

It said most dinosaurs as a whole were scaly, it said many THEROPOD species had feathers.

wasn't the t-rex irl the size of a fucking chicken or turkey, with larger ones being rare? or am i just thinking of velociraptors?

You're thinking of velociraptors, but there were species of Tyrannosaurus smaller than T-Rex.

And there were raptor species that were rather large, but velociraptor as a species was like friggin housecat size.

which still makes no sense, but you still have to explain how is this image not retarded

feathered dinosaurs are a farc-

lies

dr grant says it himself in the first fucking movie you moron

i don't recall him mentioning feathers, nigger

Feathers on Triceratops is pretty dumb, and became a thing because a relative species was discovered to have quil like structures. I don't know why that T-rex bugs you though, doesn't look like a chicken to me.

i don't know, maybe i'm just not a brainwashed faggot
then the problem is within you, my friend, not within me

what more could you ask for

Everything with feathers looks like a chicken to you, does everything with scales look like a lizard?

jp3 is another movie
we're talking about jp here and i don't recall any giant turkey chasing people

Does every bird look like a chicken to you?

fine, let's say they are giant turkeys, or giant ostrich
you seem to be awfully triggered by chickens for someone who loves feathered animals so much

kys you waste of space dumb shit

news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/feathered-dinosaur-tail-amber-theropod-myanmar-burma-cretaceous/

...

Why are they lies?

DELET THIS, FEATHERCUCK

if the Jurassic Park franchise wants to get back to its fucking horror roots then they need to implement feathered raptors. These look fucking terrifying, even the small ones, imagine a pack of them chasing you and tearing you apart, eating you alive.

use the internet those two pictures and more exist as proof for the first time that dinosaurs had feathers

oh boy look at you trying, you're almost cute

we've already been talking about it this whole thread, it makes no sense for dinosaurs to develop feathers before they're able to fly, and many paleontologists analyzed the supposed "feathered" fossils and concluded that those weren't actual feathers, end of story, feathercucks can go back crying to their mommys and jacking off to cocks

...

wow no argument start arguing ANYTIME

nice cherrypicking but it is universally agreed upon that raptor means bird of prey and that they evolved into birds, their movements are birdlike

you are FAKE NEWS
you are ANTI SCIENCE
you are ANTI COMMON SENSE
you are a SHITPOSTER

Can you reference any other than that Kansas University fucker from your sandnigger creationist blog?

...

oh my, this bad boy is making me shit my pants

you're right fam, you're right, those turkeys are terrifying
lol feathercuck

the paleontologists he cited

Yea they are

they wouldn't, how are they supposed to be able to move with agility through the vegetation with all that shit hanging from their hands and head and tail?
the more you post this shit the more fucking ridiculous it gets

Say the line, nigger.

lol, it looks like they put an actual raptor's head on a turkey to make it look menacing
and they still failed

wouldn't expect any better from a feathercuck

because they were made to

...

yes, that's why they didn't have retarded feathers despite the fantasies of chicken lovers

you would shit yourself

Just to be clear, if Archaeopteryx was in a movie and if a character refered to it as a dinosaur, would you start yelling "FEATHERCUCK!" at the screen?

he definitely would

see

many different artistic renditions exist

I'm willing to bet he mutters it in his sleep every night too.

Go home scalefags

i wouldn't be surprised if he tears up in the shower when he starts thinking about it, and uses the shower to muffle his whimpers.

F-feathercuck!

maybe if you took away the chicken part

again with your archeoptaryx? why are you so obsessed with it? are you so desperate to see feather on lizards you jack off to the only link we know of between dinos and birds?

and none of them is able to render them in a non-laughable way lol
i can't wait for the day when some retarded hollywood producer will fall for your shit and make a dinochicken movie and watch it flop because nobody will take it seriously

wow, the thickness is almost appalling

lol

These are both good

the head of the first one from 1993 is obviously werid but if you combined the two and gave it a head like the second one it would look great.

Butthurt? We're having a blast, m8

BTW, have you found some more (Islamist) creationist blogs you could link us to?

...

the only good part is the head of the first, because it's the only part they didn't turn into a giant fucking bird

...

Listen here, I'm an expert. The dinosaurs shown in the films aren't true representations, they had to fill in the genetic gaps and literally created monsters that resembled dinosaurs, not dinosaurs.

Turns out actual feathered dinosaurs look like monsters.

pick one

It looks natural though, do you know how raptors move? Look at the picture of it at the beach, literally exactly what nature intended. It looks right.

Not a fucking giant lizard.

in fact she's telling you not to go to the cinema to see that shit

oxymoron

spielberg's dinos didn't have feathers

it looks natural for a chicken, not for a dinosaur

Not to mention they mixed up the names too - the velociraptor looks nothing like the ones in the films, they just thought the name sounded cooler, so they went with that instead.

yet they were still more accurate than the giant chicken you would have put in it

...

no shit you retard, that was the point i was making. you either pick the false or the true thing.

are all liberals this retarded?

[citation, not a creationist blog, needed]

They were based on what was known about dinosaurs at the time.
Science doesn't care about you aesthetics and chilhood feels.

indeed i pick the true thing, that is actual reptile dinosaurs

Listen, if the best source you could find to prove your argument is a (creationist) blog, you are grasping at straws.

Alright guys I'm one of the posters who has been trying to show you that raptors probably had feathers.

1. behavior evolution of birds
2. anotomy of birds, osteology of tailbones, hips, feet, like birds
3. evolved into birds
_____
4. hur theres no way they could have had feathers or hair

I LOVE the raptors in Jurassic Park, The Lost World and JPIII

I am not saying that they aren't good, I am not saying they should be whipped from existence.

If Speilberg isn't going to do another film in the franchise and save the series, the only way to possible save the series is to spice it up and to include something different.

Aren't we supposed to be open to different things in films? Politically you get all upset about different idea, you complain that films are devoid of any energy or anything new, yet you don't want to see feathered raptors, from the raptor family?

they were based on what dinosaurs actually looked like before some retarded scientist tried to rewrite biology to make us believe that dinosaurs were actually giant turkeys
you drank the kool-aid too hard, kid

reminder that one of the concepts for the last 2 jp movies involved human-dino hybrids.

just let that sink in.

oh, the irony

yet nobody has been able to explain to me thus far why would dinosaurs develop feathers before they develop the ability to fly
rather, feathercucks have been avoiding the question and posting pictures of chicken trying to convince me that they look intimidating

Wow it's almost like the """"""""""""""bird""""""""""""""" on the right is an ancestor 65 million years later from the one on the left, bred to be eaten deliciously.

then why are you trying so desperately to turn them into retarded-looking chickens

We get it, you loved the look of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park when you were a kid, and you don't want that to change.

this isn't an "ancestor" this is a fucking chicken, period

i don't want it to change because there's no reason for it to change, much less into some retarded bird that would be good only for a parody movie like

They don't look like chickens to me, at the size of raptors in Jurassic Park which are actually the size of Deinonychus they would look cool, if it was even bigger and they just had one of the raptors be a huge Utahraptor with feather and still normal JP raptors it would be cool, if done right which is better than what are are gonna get with shit like this
is the extend of the creation of hollywood

...

hey, i'm not going to defend hollywood's retarded ideas, but it would still better than a parody-tier movie with giant chickens running around chasing people which pretends to be serious, wouldn't it?

guess we should make them thar paleontologist stop researching all them dinosaurs then - we know all that we need about them now.

2000AD's FLESH from the '70s had a human/dinosaur hybrid occur due to a fault in the time travel portal - the story also featured a sub spieces of hairy t-rex as well.

...

They also hinted at it near the end of JW
It's coming

The velociraptor was small and the microraptor was smaller, they replaced one of the bigger raptors names or dioneychus with velociraptor
It's funny they haven't used utahraptor yet, since it was even bigger than the velociraptors are portrayed as being, they could have them without compromising the velociraptor name and addresses the height and actual names.

we just need them to stop trying to make us believe in prehistoric chickens, that's all

...

Making human-dino hybrids in a Jurassic Park movie is the worst idea in the long, sad history of bad ideas.

Certain theropod species having raptors somehow means all dinosaurs are turned into giant chickens, wanna run your reasoning on that one by us again?

having feathers*

Now this is just being retarded

Hey feather-triggered user, would you rather see them do the human-dino hybrid thing in the next Jurassic park installment than see a single species depicted with feathers?

What about a new Alien story set in the Cretaceous period with a t-rex/xenomorph hybrid?

i don't need to because they didn't, and even if they did we wouldn't need to show them in a movie because they would look ridiculous and thus ruin it

i already said it, yes

These all look retarded as shit. I hope you featherfags realize that, no matter how correct the science may be, no mainstream audience would take this trash seriously.

stop samefagging

The nigger daughter was the worst character in the entire franchise.

Are you mad that there's more than one person who disagrees with you?

nigger, we stopped talking about that a long time ago
this thread is all about feathers now

What about that kid in 3, who survived on the island on his own for weeks (maybe even a month?)?

at least he wasn't a feathered "dinosaur"

And at least he wasn't a fucking retard who can't get over the fact that his childhood view of dinosaurs were not correct.

Insolation/display, why are you acting like it went from scales to fullblown flight feathers right off the bat?

Well, he did link us to two creationist blogs earlier, so it might be that his grasp of evolution is flawed at best.

You retard, Utahraptor was *discovered* in 1993. That drawing is much more recent. Nobody portrayed dinosaurs with feathers in 1993.

t-they developed them only to show them off!
is this really the best you can come up with?

stop samefagging

>Mike Benton, Professor of Palaeontology at the University of Bristol, said, “Our research provides extraordinary insights into the origin of feathers. In particular, it helps to resolve a long-standing debate about the original function of feathers – whether they were used for flight, insulation, or display. We now know that feathers came before wings, so feathers did not originate as flight structures.
- bris.ac.uk/news/2010/6806.html

Stop trolling.

intredasting

So it just went from scales to fully developed flight feathers eh? And flight is the only thing birds use feathers for right?

yes but all of that happened only after dinosaurs turned into birds

So Microraptor and Archaeopteryx were birds and just birds?

...

yes

Daily reminder that featherfags and leftist degenerates have a suspiciously large overlap.

How will paleontologists ever recover?

...

saw no feathers in there, faggot

There was no mention of dinosaurs having feathers in that film. The idea that dinosaurs had feathers wasn't even a thing until like '97.

hence raptors having feathers in JP3, which came out in 2001.

but jp3 a shit

Pay Attention this is the focus point of the scene

for you

it's still leagues above jurassic world

i pay as much attention as i can, but i still see no feather

We've all seen Jurassic Park nigger. Bird-like =/= covered in feathers. Again, nobody thought dinosaurs had feathers in 1993.

that's because there's bones and the dinosaurs in jurassic park are theme park monsters

this. the scales were played up because it added to the thrill of the film.

ok but i still see no feather, nigger

If you think Dr. Alan Grant would have been a scalefag and not accepted that raptors possibly had feathers based on what he has said you're wrong.

of course he would, he was an actual paleontologist and not a stupid feathercuck sack of shit

Yes and it works great, it just it time to recognize that they were played up

...

I'm still directly talking about this scene

if your retarded ass was the little kid and called him a feathercuck he would have done the same exact thing as he did in the movie

i agree

also scalefags btfo

...

The first feathered dinosaur wasn't discovered until 1996 you fucking revisionist clowns.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinosauropteryx

...

...

All I'm saying is the theory as framed in the discussion there is accurate AND it actually lines up still with feathered theory

You have the same position on them that creationists have.

cucks like you are the reason hillary was nominated.

>he believes any garbage the (((scientific community))) feeds him
It wasn't Hillary that was anti-global warming gibs.

see

better creationist than feathercuck

...

...

woe is me

Pretty much what I'd expect from someone who can't stop calling anything with feathers a chicken.

makes sense tbh

Ooh! I better haul my ass off to the burnward ASAP after that sick burn.

dude, you literally admitted you want giant chickens here

i have some feathers can help cool down that burn, user.

was thinking precisely that tbh

Jack Horner wants to genetically recreate dinosaurs from chicken DNA.

yeah, based chienosaurus

Remind me again, are you arguing that dinosaurs should never be portrayed with feathers because you think it could never look cool, or that no species of dinosaur had feathers at all?

both

You think everyone arguing with you is all one guy don't you?

so you don't agree with paleontologist john r. homer?

...

Is the only fucking difference (that matters to you) between a theropod dinosaur and a bird whether or not it has feathers?

Yeah, who cares if the guy speaking is a renowned scientist and authority in the field of palaeontology, right? TED Talks, amirite?

No worthwhile human has ever done a TED talk besides sam hyde.

I agree that Avians are descended from dinosaurs, and that bio engineering a psuedo dinosaur from any species of bird is feasible.

phew! guess you dodged that bullet, huh? who cares about an actual scentist when you've got maymays and a strong opinion?

Isn't Jack Horner the guy who insisted that T. rex was a scavenger and was completely btfo? "renowned scientist," sure.

Makes you think

...

Nope.
>Horner himself has claimed that he never published the scavenger hypothesis in the peer reviewed scientific literature

only birds have feathers, feathercuck

right, so you agree you want to see chicken instead of dinosaurs
enjoy your chickenosaurus

PLOT TWIST: He is the author of 90% of the posts in this thread and has been arguing with himself all the time.

...

this isn't advanced autism, user. we have nothing to worry about.

Not seeing a whole lot of peer-reviewed articles here, user.

>While this theory has been widely discussed by the popular press, it has never been a major research focus for Dr. Horner. Horner himself has claimed that he never published the scavenger hypothesis in the peer reviewed scientific literature, and that he used it mainly as a tool to teach a popular audience, particularly children, the dangers of making assumptions in science (such as assuming T. rex was a hunter) without using evidence.[13]

Also you never provided a source for that quote.

So what you're saying is that you've in no way negated my original point?

If there was a dino film where every species had scales except for 1 or 2 things like Microraptor and characters called them dinosaurs, would this piss you off? and if so how is that not just you being petty?

No, that would be what you are writing.

>Novella, S. "Interview with Jack Horner." The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. 14-OCT-2011. Accessed 24-OCT-2011, media.libsyn.com/media/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-10-14.mp3

...

i'm getting tired of repeating this
dinosaurs don't have feathers
period

Do you have any sources that isn't creationist blogs to back up that claim?

...

.

It is a fucking interview with the man himself, so you can hear exactly what his opinion on the topic is, you meme-spouting retard

So you get tired of repeating that like 2 or 3 times, but spamming "Feathercuck!" and "Giant chicken" over 6 million times never gets boring for you?

Is this before or after he was btfo?

That's an article from The Guardian - show us the primary sources.

i get tired precisely because of pointless ansers like this
ywan, feathercucks are so boring

You should read what you link to dumbass.

don't you ever get tired?

i did

Of your non-sources that actually disprove what you are claiming?
Only slightly.

Which is why you someone who thinks there were no dinosaurs with feathers, cited an article that states there were many theropod dinosaur species with feathers as a source supporting your position that no dinosaurs had feathers?

>Fossilized melanosomes and the colour of Cretaceous dinosaurs and birds
>Here we report that melanosomes (colour-bearing organelles) are not only preserved in the pennaceous feathers of early birds, but also in an identical manner in integumentary filaments of non-avian dinosaurs, thus refuting recent claims13, 14, 15, 16 that the filaments are partially decayed dermal collagen fibres.
- nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7284/abs/nature08740.html

>The colour of dinosaur feathers identified
- bris.ac.uk/news/2010/6806.html

well actually i guess you're right, shifting the goalpost is not that much of an effort
no wonder it appeals so much to simple minded people

it says loud and clear that most dinosaur did not have even one feather, which already disproves retarded pictures like this
and which made you cuck back to the "i-it's not like ALL of them were chickens, only a few theropod were p-please don't call me a feathercuck again"

Speaking of moving the goal posts…

Yeah naw you're arguing that no dinosaurs had feathers remember?
So how do you resolve this part

Just going to keep pretending this was not part of the article you posted huh?

well no, i don't agree with the article entirely, but that alone already disproves much of the delusions of the feathercucks

But we haven't been claiming all dinosaurs had feathers, we've been claiming certain theropods did. You're claiming no dinosaurs ever had feathers, you're article doesn't even conflict with anything we've said, it only conflicts with your own statements. Why would you use it in the first place?

This thread really lit up

ok now which thread was more autistic

this one

or

indiana jones "trilogy"

because it was shit like this youtube.com/watch?v=0Nz8YrCC9X8 that made the movie. The human element was more important than the dinosaurs ever were.

not just non-stop action it has to be grounded serious. not just muh action muh dinos muh
extremely non-grounded science.