For me, dinosaurs have never struck me as "real" looking animals. I could never really imagine them existing on our planet. But modern artwork of dinosaurs, feathers, counter-shading, they look more real than ever. I can fully imagine them being real.
true that. as he said, everything looks "scary" if you just take a skeleton and put a layer of skin on it - that doesn't mean that dinos actually looked exactly like that ^^; adding extra muscle, fat and feathers / skin flaps would make more sense in an evolutionary sense - let's not forget, those creatures lived for millions of years...
I think it helps that modern paleoart has adopted the styles and tropes used in art work for field guides. A field guide is meant to help you identify animals and plants in the wild so it tries to depict the animals in realistic situations and poses them in a way that highlights unique features that can be used for identification while also making sure the pose could and would happen in real life. Modern paleoart has definitely adopted some of those tropes and it probably both by association looks more realistic but also just serves to give you clearer views of the animals and makes the design seem less random since the artist clearly put intention into every aspect of the design.
Or do it like a porcupine... But instead of turning fur into spikes, You turn feathers into spikes! I noticed many ceratopsians are shown to have something like that on their tails, *Edit:* for example look at 7:30.
You know what's worse... a lovebird 😂 Lovebirds hate anyone that isn't their mate or friend. Even couples fight between eachother. But they're adorable
Yeah, instead of being enormous and terrifying, they're more majestic and admirable, and that's why I love this shift to feathers, which symbolises this change in perspective, they're more exciting because they're more real.
Those old scaly depictions and immagery might be a rest of 18th and 19th century rather religious thinking and debating about those fossiles of dragon-like creatures and imagined monsters. Even the term "dino saure" (ancien greek: "deinos" "sauros" reflects that as it means "Terrible/fearfully great/potent reptile".
@@echopeak5953 I personally disagree. What excites me more is simply the ancient look of the 1900s dinosaurs. Large bellowing beasts that belong to a time long past which was populated with misty swamps and harsh deserts. Though of course, this is just my opinion.
I love the new depictions. They look like actual animals, not monsters. They look like they think about their world, as simple or as complicated as those thoughts may be. Something that could even be more afraid of you than you are of it.
A 40 feet long lizard shouldn't be more scared of me than I am of it. Thinking something that monstrous actually walked this earth was and still is enough to give me the chills, no need to tone them down.
Yeah it's same with snakes. People think they are scary monsters but in reality they just want to live their own life and very often are scared of humans.
Bearded dragons, Argentine tegus, and Blue-tongued skinks are all scaly, cold-blooded reptiles, and they are cuddly, affectionate pets. Cassowarys and Emus, on the other hand, are feathered and scary as hell.
The problem is, people tend to view dinosaurs as monsters thanks to these documentaries and movies greatly exaggerating their violent tendencies. People keep forgetting that they are animals, just like the modern ones. They are most of the times very passive, and their behaviour is more complicated than just 'kill prey'.
@Darth Miseinth Yeah, it's almost as if many of the filmmakers of the documentaries don't care (or are as concerned) about educating as much as they are about entertaining audiences. Perhaps they think the casual audience wouldn't be interested by anything but gore, fights, following a convoluted story of a big cat mom struggling to raise her cubs or something random and cute. Or maybe it feels more accomplished as a filmmaker to film and show all the action you got, I dunno, reasons could be many, but at least there's content on the internet that tries to be more throughout.
@Darth Miseinth well... Technically it did evolve in part for killing, so the term is apt. But no it isn't the full story and it is really annoying. For dinosaurs we have the problem that, we don't know as much about their behaviours as modern animals. Sure the occasional fossil may tell us something, or we can infer something from resemblance to modern animals, but the one thing we can almost certainly tell is 'this ate meat' or 'this ate plants', sometimes we can even tell exactly what they ate due to coprolites. If a documentary wants to talk facts without speculation, most information will be on diet.
@Darth Miseinth ikr. Shark attacks are viewed as a commonplace threat, when really goats "attack" people more, animals are portrayed as "eat, bang, and die", etc. It just grinds my gears.
That's why Walking with Dinosaurs is so great. If you watch it, you will see violence, death and hunt, yes, but only because it is a vital part of nature. You can also see the Ornithocheirus grooming, the giant pack of Iguanodons moving, the Leaellynasaura sleeping in packs through the harsh winter and having a complicated hierarchy. Let's take a look at the Tyrannosaurus vs. Ankylosaurus fight. One blow and it's over, not only over, fatal for the mother Tyrannosaurus. a "documentary" las Jurassic Fight Club would show the Tyrannosaurus then jumping on the back of the Ankylosaurus and biting its neck, I don't know. WwD understands that they are real animals.
The point about scaly dinosaurs being scary really hit me. For a long time, and in many cases still today, dinosaurs were just monsters, big scary beasts no different than fictional dragons or the like. But they were living breathing animals once, not nightmarish beasts but a part of nature and the ecosystem. Modern art of dinosaurs definitely catches that aspect of dinosaurs much more than earlier depictions
What I want to see also is more research on the scales themselves. We know many families of Dinosaurs had scales, but often those that we find are not like lizard or crocodile scales but are their own things. I think having both scaly and feather reconstructions when we aren't certain of what the true internment was like is reasonable. I like a lot of feathered Dino depictions but it depends very much on the lineage and it seems clear that one could secondarily evolve into the other. There must have been many factors that influenced the evolution of scales and feathers, which one was ancestral to all dinosaurs is also a very interesting debate.
Want to make dinosaurs scary again have you ever seen a owl? I know I know the mononykus from prehistoric planet is like a barn owl but cute but in my opinion *owls are terrifying.* (i blame lost tapes owl man) but you see where I'm going. Imagine a owl like troodon with black soulless shiny eyes chasing you through the woods without making a sound. Yeah F that.
You know what’s weird is that David Attenborough work as much as I like his documentaries they put me to sleep for some weird reason now I don’t know why
Modern dinosaur designs are great because they actually look like animals instead of monsters. Well, usually. My biggest issue with 'vintage dinosaur' art is they just stretched skin over the bones without thinking about potential muscle, fat, etc. My favorite way to show how silly this is is by drawing modern creatures the way dinosaurs have been drawn. You get a cat that looks like a vintage dinosaur if you draw a cat this way.
With all the remakes and reboots Disney keeps putting out, I wouldn't mind one of "Dinosaur" if it took what we now know of dinosaurs today and applied it to a Fantasia-like story with voiceover narration. While I really hated the Lion King remake for its realistic talking lions, that ascetic would really work for a feature-length dinosaur documentary.
John Hallman Yeah. They could even give their Coelurosaurs feathers like they originally intended to have. They could also feature alvaresaurs and therizinosaurs like what old concept art suggested they’d use.
LOL, an owl (I don't know what species it was - it wasn't a Great Horned Owl - but it was as big as one) swooped down less than 2-3 feet from my cars' windshield. It startled the he** out of me!
My favourite part of modern dinosaur art is probably the beautiful landscapes people can create for these almost alien creatures. It creates a fantastical view for dinosaurs, and the notion that it could be at least a little bit accurate to real life makes it that much more astounding. In conclusion: dinosaurs are my aesthetic
We've recently got a bunch of humming bird feeders, and everytime I sit outside now, all I hear is hummingbirds yelling at each other, chasing each other off despite us having 4 feeders, and slapping each other with their wings.
true they can be incredibly rough to one another, be it pet or wild birds sometimes i think birds are only cute to us because we're so much bigger we'd be scared shitless of them if they were larger than us, thats for sure!
@seankyle chou Release… THE 2 METERS HIGHT AND MORE TERROR BIRDS WE HAD BEFORE THAT COULD PULL THE CRAP OUT OF SABERTOOTH TIGERS #DEATHCHICKEN AAAAAHHH
A Walking With Dinosaurs remake would be incredible to see. The original was amazing to watch, but it doesn't quite hold up anymore, with all the new art styles and theories about dinosaurs. Improvements to special (and practical) effects over the last twenty years would also take the series to a whole new level. Please make this, somebody, anybody!
This is gonna sound, like, aggressive, but a few of the comments shown at the beginning really... Get me. How is modern paleoart less creative? Old stuff look nice, yes, but the tendency to stick to earthen tones and shrinkwrapping approach to body shape are quite restrictive. The discovery of feathers and greater acknowledgement of non-bone structures that artists are free to speculate on provides a much broader sandbox and an end result of more diverse appearances. What looks better is obviously subjective but how are you going to say that it's less creative? And does the one guy lamenting that modern dinosaur depictions are less draconic than classic ones realize that both Dragons and Long weren't just big lizards themselves, that they had frills and hair and spines and stuff that feathers, if anything, bring them closer to?
Completely agree, like the fact that people think that modern dinosaurs all look like non-threatening chickens makes me laugh, and cringe, all at the same time. I personally like modern depictions much more than the old ones, with feathers, and the ones that display unique behaviors, too. Plus it's not like they all looked like chickens, like stop being a......thing, and just take the time to get a feel for the aesthetic designs of these real, once living creatures instead of taking a brief glance and immediately bashing on it because feathers make them look goofy and weird. Besides, not all dinosaurs had feathers, small theropods had them for sure, even tyrannosaurs had some partial feathering, abelisaurs are a canidate for this, too, but some theropods, esspecially the early, less derived ones, and some sauropods, don't have direct evidence of feathers, neither do most ornithiscians, but it's never too crazy to assume that some had some type of covering.
The guy who first discovered Utahraptor (I'm terrible at names, I've looked up his name several times and still can't remember it) described what he thought it would look like to be the target of his discovery, and honestly its terrifying. He theorized that it had feathers complete with eye spots that would leap out from the underbrush and latch on their target with their arms while the legs kick as fast as a cat could, exerting hundreds of pounds of force. Now I don't know about you, but if an eagle with teeth the size of a polar bear, I'd frankly shit myself
i though the video was about him being bored about feathered dinos xd yeah, they were animals, not monsters... we have crazy things going on in the animal kingdom... in every kingdom to be fair, so... just imagining how was it at that time... wow
Feathers on dinosaurs, in some cases, actually make them more intimidating to me. It makes some of them look smarter and more fit, hence, more threatening. On the flip side, some dinosaur art of baby dinos are super adorable. In all, I like the many ways dinosaurs have been depicted since the 80's. So with or without feathers, they can look pretty menacing.
Could you imagine stumbling across a large raptor and it starts puffing and widening its feathers out in a threatening display while gaping its mouth wide open? That's terrifying.
yeah! like what do these guys have against eagles and I guess raptors as a whole? I thought eagles looked pretty intimidating enough without the extra size.
Also creepy in some cases. Imagine a animal like a dakota raptor or utah raptor. They're large, like the size of a lion or larger, and were probably just as dangerous, but might've just looked like harmless big birds.
I think the point you nailed was the fact that modern depictions eliminate a "status quo". You can look at the old lizard like depictions of the early 1900s and a T-rex always looked the same. Then you have the Jurassic Park era where every T-Rex has looked like the one from '95 since then. Now we are at this age of scientific discovery where we know a lot about the dinosaurs we study but using that knowledge it opens up the can of worms of how little we know. I can say "T-rex had feathers" and I know it "should have fat somewhere" but we don't know any of that information. It might have only had a few feathers like an Ostrich, or fully covered like a chicken. Could have had an elephant style trunk or a camel style hump of soft tissue that was wiped clean of the remains over millions of years. I can take any dinosaur and using probable cause and evidence from modern day, make ridiculous alien style monsters. A triceratops could have had large bits of flesh from its nose to its frill and the "horns" it was popular for could just be internal supports like a whale's skull. In many ways, the new age of science has also seemed to lead to the age of misinformation and opens up the flood gates to radical ideas with nothing to say "no that is definitely wrong". Its why people run back to their Jurassic Park depictions. A scary dilophosaurus with a frill that spits venom and has no feathers, has no real evidence for it, but at the same time, there isn't a lot of evidence that could disprove it "couldn't". People like definitive stances when it comes to scientific discoveries and I think its why the public has been so hesitant to accept the new age of dinosaur depictions. If everyone came together and said "This is definitively what a T-rex looks like, make your games/toys/movies using this style" people would be fine. But with no baseline people resort back to what they are familiar with and what was cool, aka, Jurassic Park.
T. rex is one of those ones that changes constantly because we have so many remains. I think that currently, it's thought T. rex was born with a full feather coating and then lost it all as it grew, replaced with thick hide and some crocodile-esque scales- based on skin impressions from other Tyrannosaurs. But we'll never really know for sure! It's wonderful! I mean, look at Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus- first they were thought to be turtles, then carnivorous theropods, then ornithomimids, and they turned out to be something wayyy weirder!
dude, I photograph birds for a living and let me tell you. They are vicious beasts through and through, most are just tiny and we don't pay attention to their crimes.
I think this comes from the fact that modern non-avian reptiles seems not that diverse and unfortunetly there are a lot of stereotypes surrounding them. But if look at mesosoic period, well it turns out that boudry between what we commonly think as "bird" and "reptile" is EXTRELY fluid and that prehistoric reptiles were incredibly diverse. It is interesting to me that from all this reptiles the only which survived were seemingly simmilar to each other... and also the birds which were completly different from the rest of survivor reptiles.
There are actual preserved melanosomes in the feathers of dinosaur fossils that scientists can analyze under a microscope and compare to modern ones. They have the full color scheme and patterns for a few species, giving us a glimpse at what they actually looked like as far as color goes. I hope paleontologists make more discoveries in the future about other aspects of dinosaurs' appearance. I get excited thinking about how cool they might end up looking.
In my opinion, adding feathers to the dinosaurs actually makes them more intimidating and terrifying. A giant lizard is definitely intimidating but it doesn’t click in your mind as something that could exist, but we already have giant birds, so the feathers just make the sight hit much closer to home than scales.
D'Angelo We also have plenty of giant reptiles on earth today. Gators, Crocs, Komodo Dragons, and Iguanas. I do like both feathered and non feathered dinosaur depictions, but to say that a fully scaled dinosaurs is something that doesn’t seem like something that did exist is a bit daft. Their were still a number of dinosaurs that lacked or had very little to no feathers such as Carnotaurus or most of the sauropods.
Depend,if the feathers were given to a trex or allosaurus than its not only lame but also suck.however,put the feathers on yutyrannus or utahraptor than it will be fitting.
@@nugrahapalin7481 But Chinese dragons had feathers or fur and the famous Feathered Serpent deity of central america was given feathers as the name suggests. European dragons are really the only ones that a scaley and that's without a doubt inspired by the Bible.
I love that last image of the dromaeosaur looking at those flying pterosaurs. It’s almost as if it’s thinking “soon my descendants will outcompete and destroy you. But not yet...”
Its all fun and games making fun of the feathered rex for being too cuddly or not intimating/scary.. *Until you realize feathers dont change the fact it has a bite force of seven tons.*
I don't understand why people are so mad about new varieties of dinosaurs. Look at how diverse the species of earth are just today and now imagine what dinosaurs looked like across hundreds of millions of years. There's space for both the old and new designs across all that time. The bird ones might be more accurate with current science but that doesn't mean every single dinosaur looked like that.
absolutely. we have only discovered a tiny fraction of the animals of the past. almost everything one can imagine, as long as its rooted in biological reality, may well have evolved. theres almost unlimited scope for imagination. different species of t-rex for example, may have looked very different, like lions, tigers and leopards look very different. its almost certain closely related species would have evolved to look very different
Retro paleoart is an important reminder of how far we've come to understand dinosaurs. I don't look down upon it. Rather, it inspires me to keep seeking the truth.
"Birds are generally thought of as timid, friendly, and a minor nuisance at most" Golden eagles which throw goats off cliffs to kill them: "Timid? I'll show you TIMID-"
They were monsters then. The art showed them as so disconnected from modern animals, that it had a fantastical, whimsical tone. Nowadays, dinosaur art depicts them as closer to animals we've become used to.
With off hand experience with chickens and other fowls, I really could picture what the smaller raptors would be like if you snagged them and held them upside down. A flurry of fluttering feathers and talons.
Birds are actually pretty scary if you think about them in large scale. Their hyper speed twitchy movement, their hard beaks and sharp claws, really could do some damage on humans if the scale was magnafied.
Finally someone with a brain. It's almost as if there is a coalition of people defending outdated science. No one owns a dinosaur or how it looks. They simply just were, and the scientifically supported look of a dinosaur will always be the most realistic depiction until new evidence takes its place.
That's just “Dinosaur” fans vs people interested in the study of ancient extinct animals. To the fans, dinosaurs may as well be a fictional creation that exists to entertain them. A paleontologist is a scientist and as such should have no bias in the outcome of their research and reconstructions.
People getting mad over the appearance of a prehistoric animal be it scientifically accurate or not is absolute nonsense, it doesn’t take away from how magnificent and diverse these creatures were, these aren’t fantasy comic book monsters, listen to science people.
@@lShadowdark seems like a thing that was done back then too, though. Just look at the Dinosaur Renaissance that took place in the 60s through the 80s and look at the dinosaurs we got in movies *at the same time*.
@@lShadowdark This sounds more like a stereotype than what actually happens. Who exactly is drawing “10 foot chickens” and calling them a T-Rex other than as a joke?
It's explained in jurassic park that the dinos are innacurate because they have other DNA mixed in to fill the gaps, such as frogs for most and blue specifically has monitor lizard
It doesn't actually make sense tho bcs frogs would completely fuck up the genome in ways that it doesn't in movie and the innacuracies in the movies would just not be caused by frog DNA. No problem with movies taking artistic liberties but just say it how it is
@@Mezworld The Trex is literally the most accurate dinosaur in the whole jurassic park franchise. Pick a different one, the Trex did not have feathers.
Invalid. In the Jurassic world dominion prologue, they still got the dinosaurs wrong. The giganotosaurus isn't even in the right place. So this argument can't be used anyway. Before you say anything, you can't just vomit feathers on a dinosaur and call it accurate. That's not how it works.
As someone who also grew up with old dinosaur art being the status quo I highly, highly prefer the modern takes. I loved dinosaurs to death back then, don't get me wrong, but I always found the depictions unsatisfactory. Truth be told, most artist back then had zero clue how to do dinosaur anatomy so a lot of them seem to have just decided to wing it and do whatever. That's all fine and well, but I'm a sucker for anatomy, something as insignificant as a weirdly flexible tail can completely ruin an art piece for me. Ever since I was a kid I've wanted to see dinosaurs as real as possible, as if I'm watching a photograph, and old dinosaur art doesn't have that feel. It feels like drawings of mythical beasts, which to me seems like yet another barrier placed between me and seeing a dinosaur for real. Modern dinosaur interpretations often don't evoke that feeling, in fact a lot of them have such good anatomy, such believable posing that they look a lot more real to me even if it's a simple piece drawn with pencils and crayons, and has little to no background imagery. Modern depictions feel alive, you feel like you're looking at a real animal even if the reconstruction isn't 100% accurate (and how can it be?).
I think it helps that modern paleoart has adopted many of the tropes used in both field guides and nature documentaries to make the dinosaurs feel more real and not like characters in a comic book. Extinct animals are now depicted in the kind of pose you would expect to see them if you could somehow go on a nature hike 70 million years ago and the backgrounds are filled with plants and animals we knew were alive at the time.
Gaaraape we can from a telescope more than 66 million light years away. Maybe that’s the only way to solve the whole “was spinosaurus bipedal or not” argument at this point
Scientists are now developing methods to detect what kind of pigments dinosaurs had so we have a better idea of what colors and patterns dinosaurs actually were.
Looking through the comments I feel like I'm one of the few that prefers the middle way, being that creatures such as T-Rex being completely covered in feathers would seem really impractical, seeing as it would have a great difficulty trying to preen all places. Smaller Dinosaurus, such as Dromeosaurs, I can see being covered in eagle-like feathers. Heck, my favorite artwork of a Dakotaraptor is one in the scheme of a Spanish Eagle. Do I need my dinosaurus to be scaly and scary? no. Do I need all of them to be covered in feathers or have strange bodyparts? no. Reptiles still co-exist with mammals in the world we live in, and they don't look like one another. As such I feel like the same could be said for Dinosaurs.
Finally Someone who thinks like me, look at t rex for example most people think its complety scaly or complety feathered but what if they were neither, like we have no skin impression on the back,shoulders, side of the stomach,neck and top of the head, thats like half the animal yet people claim that its complety scaly, what if it had a cape or protofeathers,or were more like us aka having reduced size feathers, we know of two tyrannorosauroids that had feathers one is yutyrannus and the other one is like the founding species of the glade. Dromeosauroids on the other hand, were mostly complety feathered we have a lot of evidence to support this.like skin impression on various species showing feather covering all over the body, Dromeosaurs or raptors Is most likely the ancestor of bird. Then they are dinosaurs that have very little probability of having feathers like sauropods or stegosaurs
i mean yeah we basically know now that the adult trex probably only had a thin covering of feather-like structures on its back and probably would have had mostly bare skin because of its size
I personally love modern dinosaur artwork, mostly because it's much better reconstruction wise compared to old dinosaur artwork. The thing I don't like is when people decide to simply put feathers on every dinosaur in the book. Not all dinosaurs had feathers, just take carnotourus (sorry if I misspelled that). It was proven to have scales and most likely didn't have many feathers, if any.
I agree. I love my floofs but some dinos like carnotaurus didn't have any feathers (but that doesn't bar them from fun colors and skin flaps and keratin sheaths on their horns etc. so there's still lots of speculative fun to be had)
We need a new Dinosaur movie (I don't think a Jurassic Park movie can do it, too caught up in the past), that brings the modern understanding of Dinosaurs to the public eye
Well that isn't Jurassic Park's fault, they need to keep to continuity, unless there is a whole story arc in the film about making the Dinosaurs more accurate
I'm surprised there was no mention of the cassowary... "the world's most dangerous bird" which looks like it could fit into the new style of dino-drawings.
Viewing the vintage stuff as more of a fantasy because of the lack of knowledge of the subject gives that allure to me. I love the modern stuff as an adult because of the attention to how things were back then, in any way they could have been. Also feathers are amazing on dinosaurs.
The thing that I don’t like is the idea that having feathers automatically makes it uncool. I’ve seen so many terrifying interpretations of feathered dinosaurs that it makes me mad when someone feathers take away the possibility of a scary dinosaurs.
I'm glad you made the point about Dinosaurs being represented less like monsters, and more like animals in modern paleo art. For me, that's what I love about them. My favorite dinosaur is Allosaurus, and to me as interesting as it would be to see them hunt, what I would really like to do is see them do everything else. How they interacted with other Allosaurus', how they slept, how they groomed themselves, all of that. To me the most fascinating thing about Dinosaurs is that they were animals with their own unique sets of behaviors, that we will never be 100% certain on.
I grew up in the 60’s, 70’s.....sort of... and latched on to dinosaurs as early as I can remember. I loved the tail draggers as much as the more recent conceptualizations. As a boy, I had always thought that the image of plodding, slow witted animals was incorrect and was pleased when my mind’s eye view of a more bird like animal was presented in Adrian Desmond’s ‘The Hot Blooded Dinosaurs’. The book reconfirmed what I’d always intuited. I can appreciate a Neave Parker print as much as a John Gurche. Charles Knight’s paintings will never lose their luster of a very exciting take on earlier life just as Doug Henderson’s work captures an environment that just so happens to be inhabited by some amazing and fascinating animals. I have my books full of tail draggers on the same shelf as Don Gluts seven volume Dinosaur Encyclopedia, Dinosaurs: A concise Natural History, everything Greg Paul has written and many others. There’s much that has been brought to light, corrected, etc. There’s still a lot of interpretation and inference that occurs. Some might be on target, some, not so much. That’s okay. Some questions may never get answered. But, one thing’s for sure, dinosaurs will never get old. They’re too damn fun.
This right here! I am not a dino person, they don't really hold my interest that much. But this video and the vintage one before it, they make me want to try my hand at dino art, and they give me that renewed interest in reading up on dinosaurs
this is why prehistoric planet released in 2022 is just so fucking good. its honestly one of the best depictions of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures
One of my favorite parts of modern dinosaur art is how diverse it all feels. Modern dinos all feel like separate species of animals, while vintage dinosaur art is just a bunch of lizards slightly rearranged.
It's amazing how so much media exposure of dinosaurs looking and acting like monsters made people eventually come to hate the idea of animals looking and acting like animals. Especially treating their appearance as if they were fictional characters that you could criticize for not being "well designed or not be scary".
There's a meme in the online art community that has an artist placing a small cake (their work) next to a larger, more elaborate cake (someone else's work), and they lament/assume that no one will enjoy their little cake. Later, another person comes up, holding two forks, and rejoices, "Oh boy! Two cakes!!" ...I think that's how I feel about "both sides", I'm just happy to be a part of it! Art and science will always be linked together, and it's important to allow both areas of study to flourish. Also, who isn't excited about New Dinosaurs? Don't be a boomer. Live a little. Have some imagination. Life is too short to die on that grumpy old hill yk
The free range of depictions is really what I think draws in so many people to draw dinosaurs. It's open to interpretation because there's simply no feasible way of knowing exactly what they looked like with so little remaining of the time frames. This video was great, man. Informative, emotional, and to the point. Seeing all the different depictions was also really interesting.
I’ve always loved both the classic and modern dinosaur artwork, to me the golden age of Dino art never ended. I like your introspective take on this controversy. People have their own likes & dislikes, and ideas about what is considered good or bad.
Not going to lie, as a kid, I did draw dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals killing things a little too much. Now, I'm actually taking the time to draw dinosaurs and other prehistoric mammals doing other things. For example, I recently did a drawing of a Nanuqsaurus, a tyrannosaur that lived in the Arctic, 69.1 million years ago, completing a nest. Also, I did a drawing of a gorgonopsid called Inostrancevia with its infants, in response to how a lot of paleoart seems to heavily depict gorgonopsids hunting pareiasaurs, like Scutosaurus. The drawings that depict animals that are hunting things have points to them, such as a drawing I made of Velociraptor fighting Protoceratops, in reference to the iconic Fighting Dinosaurs fossil from Mongolia.
I'm in a similar boat to you, I really enjoy old dinosaur art and modern. There are a couple of things I dislike with said art of either periods, but thats just things I generally dislike with animal art (such as making things look unreasonably evil or spiky).
I’ve always loved dinosaurs and get kinda shocked on how angry people get with some of the new depictions. It’s not like you’re not allowed to have your own perception of a prehistoric creature. We’re likely *NEVER* gonna know 100% what these creatures look like. It’s weird how mean people can be in arguing what version of a creature is universally better.
We know some dinos had feathers. We know some had skin and scales. We even know some had hair-like structures. And most interesting of all, we've actually found fossils of "in progress" evolution of feathers dinos. The thing is that since organic materials don't fossilize as well (and typically take like, roundabout ways to it), there's a CRAPLOAD of things that still are within the realm of very, very possible AND plausible. It's also surprising to me that people will think dinosaurs are violent killing machines constantly eating each other, but then also turn up their nose at the idea that a dino could have fat stores of any kind.
And we have even found dinosaurs with both scales and feathers, sometimes on top of one another And imo the problem with a lot of people is that they don't consider dinosaurs as animals that existed a long time ago but more like monsters, cool giant monsters to kill in videogames and books and movies and because of this anything that makes then less "cool" gets instantly dismised
I used to like dinosaurs as a kid because I thought they were cool. Now I like dinosaurs because there's so much room for interpretation when it comes to their appearance and I think that's exciting.
I feel like the way we depict dinosaurs will never truly be one hundred percent accurate, but we’re getting closer and closer. It’s kind of like that thing where you walk forward half the distance between you and your destination, then walk half the new distance again, then again, and again, each time getting a little closer, but never truly reaching it. It’s sad that we’ll never truly see real (non-avian) dinosaurs, but, in my opinion, we’re already much closer than we were even just a decade ago. Each step we take, whether it’s from quadrupedal lizards to kangaroo crocodiles, or from swamp-dwelling behemoths to active predators, or from alien-like reptiles to more familiar creatures, each step we take is important. That’s why I still really respect the old paleoart, especially from the Dinosaur Renaissance. It is outdated now, but we wouldn’t be where we are today if not for the popularization of movies and media like Jurassic Park. Moral of the story is… Respect the scaly wrist-breaking monstrosities, but anyone who says birds aren’t scary can just try and offend a cassowary. Just do it. You’ll see. :)
I love how the team for Monster Hunter World took inspiration for the design of Anjanath from these new depictions of dinosaurs. It's still recognizably reptilian-like, but it has fur on its back and it's got those skin things (like the dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park) that pop out on the sides as well as small spikes on its tail. It's just a fun mish-mash of various ideas that come together to make a really unique design.
That's what I've come to love about all of the monsters in Monster Hunter. They're all so varied in their shapes and sizes, especially in World, and they all feel so real and part of the environment.
In my life, I have found that birds are vicious little bastards, and reptiles are surprisingly cuddly and gentle. I'd be _substantially_ less frightened of a scaly dinosaur than of a feathered one.
This was basically the message of Jurassic Park. All of Jurassic Park's scary dinosaurs, T-rex, raptor, dilophosaurus, are scary because they move like cunning CG emus. All of its not-scary dinosaurs, triceratops, brachiosaurus, loaf around like iguanas. If Jurassic Park is your childhood dinosaurs, your whole mental model of what makes a scary dinosaur scary is probably just that it moves like a bird.
Hoopsanddinoman: Makes video defending vintage dino art and worries that people wont agree with him. [Everyone liked that] Also hoops: Makes video defending modern dino art and worries that people wont agree with him. [Everyone liked that]
The modern understanding of dinosaurs and the recent artistic interpretation is amazing to me! I grew up in the 60’s and as a kid I couldn’t get enough of the old stop motion dinos. But as our understanding has increased, those old depictions seem naive and almost wilfully ignore basic anatomy. I love the modern depictions but I still have a soft spot for the fantastic creatures of my childhood!!!
Now imagine an big ostrich chasing you, the feathers tingling up, looking at you eye to eye with it's fast slender legs being, way more faster than an komodo dragon. With long shrap claws, and powerful kicks and able to break your bones and an strong beak.
“Like Pelicans eating live pigeons” Excuse me, they do what? Also great vid man. Me personally I love the idea of dinosaurs being portrayed as just normal animals. Feathered dinosaurs too are badass and beautiful, with Deinocheirus being my favorite dinosaur.
I used to have an aversion to these new dinosaur designs. I eventually grew to appreciate them and their exotic uniqueness, the colors and the feathers, give them a whole new feel of ancient long lost exotic beasts, something i learned to appreciate in the very same animals welive with today
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Reply to this comment to submit video responses
(Here's what I mean by that: ua-cam.com/video/KOHMgFxju1g/v-deo.html )
For me, dinosaurs have never struck me as "real" looking animals. I could never really imagine them existing on our planet. But modern artwork of dinosaurs, feathers, counter-shading, they look more real than ever. I can fully imagine them being real.
true that. as he said, everything looks "scary" if you just take a skeleton and put a layer of skin on it - that doesn't mean that dinos actually looked exactly like that ^^;
adding extra muscle, fat and feathers / skin flaps would make more sense in an evolutionary sense - let's not forget, those creatures lived for millions of years...
timothy1701 yea the feathers and the new art makes me feel like they are real breathing animals
that’s exactly how I feel!
Also I can't accept the statement that they were dull colored like most of the artist depict them there can be a huge variety of colors in them
I think it helps that modern paleoart has adopted the styles and tropes used in art work for field guides. A field guide is meant to help you identify animals and plants in the wild so it tries to depict the animals in realistic situations and poses them in a way that highlights unique features that can be used for identification while also making sure the pose could and would happen in real life. Modern paleoart has definitely adopted some of those tropes and it probably both by association looks more realistic but also just serves to give you clearer views of the animals and makes the design seem less random since the artist clearly put intention into every aspect of the design.
If you wanna make feathered dinos look scary, just cover them in blood from a fresh kill and make the feathers unkempt from the chase.
Or pull a cassowary and give ‘‘em string like feathers and/or a fleshy neck
Or just take inspiration from real life animals with feathers.
Vultures and Owls can both look pretty scary in the right framing.
Or do it like a porcupine...
But instead of turning fur into spikes,
You turn feathers into spikes!
I noticed many ceratopsians are shown to
have something like that on their tails,
*Edit:* for example look at 7:30.
Even modern birds look scary without the blood, the shoebill is an example
Use the old feathers and tar prank on em
People who think birds are timid and peaceful clearly has never encounter a pissed off turkey
You know what's worse... a lovebird 😂
Lovebirds hate anyone that isn't their mate or friend. Even couples fight between eachother. But they're adorable
/ geese
Do they even know about the cassowary?
Did ppl forget harpy eagles and phillipine eagles they eat monkeys and goats and deer they are true raptors
Lol people who say that will run when a chicken is chasing them
It’s also because we see them as animals now instead of great monsters which the vintage stuff was trying to depict.
Yeah, instead of being enormous and terrifying, they're more majestic and admirable, and that's why I love this shift to feathers, which symbolises this change in perspective, they're more exciting because they're more real.
Those old scaly depictions and immagery might be a rest of 18th and 19th century rather religious thinking and debating about those fossiles of dragon-like creatures and imagined monsters. Even the term "dino saure" (ancien greek: "deinos" "sauros" reflects that as it means "Terrible/fearfully great/potent reptile".
They've always been animals. They have existed, they have walked this very earth. But some animals are scary.
@@echopeak5953
I personally disagree. What excites me more is simply the ancient look of the 1900s dinosaurs. Large bellowing beasts that belong to a time long past which was populated with misty swamps and harsh deserts. Though of course, this is just my opinion.
Echo Peak yea and there more spiritual and seen as harmless creatures
I love the new depictions. They look like actual animals, not monsters. They look like they think about their world, as simple or as complicated as those thoughts may be. Something that could even be more afraid of you than you are of it.
A 40 feet long lizard shouldn't be more scared of me than I am of it.
Thinking something that monstrous actually walked this earth was and still is enough to give me the chills, no need to tone them down.
I personally prefer the old depictions. But I can't deny those are great pros to the new paleoart.
Yeah it's same with snakes. People think they are scary monsters but in reality they just want to live their own life and very often are scared of humans.
Yes!! This is exactly my feeling too
But the old dinosaurs looked like lizards...
Bearded dragons, Argentine tegus, and Blue-tongued skinks are all scaly, cold-blooded reptiles, and they are cuddly, affectionate pets. Cassowarys and Emus, on the other hand, are feathered and scary as hell.
True, some reptiles are actually quite friendly amd some birds are actually terrifying
@@IamPatrickStar Well birds are also reptiles.
The problem is, people tend to view dinosaurs as monsters thanks to these documentaries and movies greatly exaggerating their violent tendencies. People keep forgetting that they are animals, just like the modern ones. They are most of the times very passive, and their behaviour is more complicated than just 'kill prey'.
@Darth Miseinth Yeah, it's almost as if many of the filmmakers of the documentaries don't care (or are as concerned) about educating as much as they are about entertaining audiences. Perhaps they think the casual audience wouldn't be interested by anything but gore, fights, following a convoluted story of a big cat mom struggling to raise her cubs or something random and cute. Or maybe it feels more accomplished as a filmmaker to film and show all the action you got, I dunno, reasons could be many, but at least there's content on the internet that tries to be more throughout.
@Darth Miseinth well... Technically it did evolve in part for killing, so the term is apt. But no it isn't the full story and it is really annoying.
For dinosaurs we have the problem that, we don't know as much about their behaviours as modern animals. Sure the occasional fossil may tell us something, or we can infer something from resemblance to modern animals, but the one thing we can almost certainly tell is 'this ate meat' or 'this ate plants', sometimes we can even tell exactly what they ate due to coprolites. If a documentary wants to talk facts without speculation, most information will be on diet.
@Darth Miseinth alligators are fucking chill most of the time
@Darth Miseinth ikr. Shark attacks are viewed as a commonplace threat, when really goats "attack" people more, animals are portrayed as "eat, bang, and die", etc.
It just grinds my gears.
That's why Walking with Dinosaurs is so great. If you watch it, you will see violence, death and hunt, yes, but only because it is a vital part of nature. You can also see the Ornithocheirus grooming, the giant pack of Iguanodons moving, the Leaellynasaura sleeping in packs through the harsh winter and having a complicated hierarchy. Let's take a look at the Tyrannosaurus vs. Ankylosaurus fight. One blow and it's over, not only over, fatal for the mother Tyrannosaurus. a "documentary" las Jurassic Fight Club would show the Tyrannosaurus then jumping on the back of the Ankylosaurus and biting its neck, I don't know. WwD understands that they are real animals.
Some peeps seem to forget dinosaurs were animals not monsters
Moster hunter time
To all who claim feathered dinosaurs aren’t scary, I have a question for you all.
Have you ever been confronted by an agitated Goose before?
Dude even Chickens in full defense mode instead of running away is intimidating.
There's a video where you can see a pelican swallowing a pigeon whole
Or a parenting "BulBul" I don't know what it's called in English they really makes blind the one who intrude their nest
I still have childhood nightmares
Here in brazil we have the quero-quero an man that shit is scary and will attack you
Talks about reptiles as creepy and unnerving, shows a cute lizard getting petted
9:14 for peeps to rewatch 🦎
The point about scaly dinosaurs being scary really hit me. For a long time, and in many cases still today, dinosaurs were just monsters, big scary beasts no different than fictional dragons or the like. But they were living breathing animals once, not nightmarish beasts but a part of nature and the ecosystem. Modern art of dinosaurs definitely catches that aspect of dinosaurs much more than earlier depictions
What I want to see also is more research on the scales themselves. We know many families of Dinosaurs had scales, but often those that we find are not like lizard or crocodile scales but are their own things. I think having both scaly and feather reconstructions when we aren't certain of what the true internment was like is reasonable. I like a lot of feathered Dino depictions but it depends very much on the lineage and it seems clear that one could secondarily evolve into the other. There must have been many factors that influenced the evolution of scales and feathers, which one was ancestral to all dinosaurs is also a very interesting debate.
Want to make dinosaurs scary again have you ever seen a owl? I know I know the mononykus from prehistoric planet is like a barn owl but cute but in my opinion *owls are terrifying.* (i blame lost tapes owl man) but you see where I'm going.
Imagine a owl like troodon with black soulless shiny eyes chasing you through the woods without making a sound. Yeah F that.
Mononykus literraly has a black abyss void thing in its eyes you bet its scary
Link?
Thankfully Troodon doesn’t exist anymore, one nightmare down
true thats terefying
yeah I suck at spelling
"If they're not killing each other they're boring"
*[Laughs in David Attenborough]*
"Space is boring and a vast empty void"
*[Laughs in Carl Sagan]*
You know what’s weird is that David Attenborough work as much as I like his documentaries they put me to sleep for some weird reason now I don’t know why
😂
wtf where do i find wholesome dino art
Check out:
Serpinilius (Gabriel Ugueto)
Mark Witton
John Conway
Joshcua Knuppe
Emily Willoughby
CM Koseman
Deviant Art I think.
There's some cool stuff in the book "All Yesterdays".
tumblr
I don't know
Modern dinosaur designs are great because they actually look like animals instead of monsters. Well, usually. My biggest issue with 'vintage dinosaur' art is they just stretched skin over the bones without thinking about potential muscle, fat, etc. My favorite way to show how silly this is is by drawing modern creatures the way dinosaurs have been drawn. You get a cat that looks like a vintage dinosaur if you draw a cat this way.
With all the remakes and reboots Disney keeps putting out, I wouldn't mind one of "Dinosaur" if it took what we now know of dinosaurs today and applied it to a Fantasia-like story with voiceover narration. While I really hated the Lion King remake for its realistic talking lions, that ascetic would really work for a feature-length dinosaur documentary.
John Hallman Yeah. They could even give their Coelurosaurs feathers like they originally intended to have. They could also feature alvaresaurs and therizinosaurs like what old concept art suggested they’d use.
logan cintron the fact that their old concept art would’ve even looked up to date in today’s standards tho. Truly a missed opportunity
"Birds are cuddly" said nobody who ever saw a filthy, blood-smeared vulture or a shrieking barn owl with luminous red eyes in the night.
When you see that at night you should nope the fuck away from it as quickly and carefully as you can
Thoughtful Devil yeah birds of prey are amazingly powerful and terrifying predators
LOL, an owl (I don't know what species it was - it wasn't a Great Horned Owl - but it was as big as one) swooped down less than 2-3 feet from my cars' windshield. It startled the he** out of me!
Or a cassowary, those things will disembowel you and dance in your blood.
Still cute
just imagine any dinosaur with a goose's tongue..... instantly horrifying
a W H A T??
And Spinosaurus is a P E N G U I N / C R O C
why why you sid that?!
My favourite part of modern dinosaur art is probably the beautiful landscapes people can create for these almost alien creatures. It creates a fantastical view for dinosaurs, and the notion that it could be at least a little bit accurate to real life makes it that much more astounding.
In conclusion: dinosaurs are my aesthetic
It's true. Birds are enormous pricks. Even the tiny ones.
Especially the tiny ones
Explains why someone threw a giant rock at the earth, to try and kill all birds with one stone.
We've recently got a bunch of humming bird feeders, and everytime I sit outside now, all I hear is hummingbirds yelling at each other, chasing each other off despite us having 4 feeders, and slapping each other with their wings.
true
they can be incredibly rough to one another, be it pet or wild birds
sometimes i think birds are only cute to us because we're so much bigger
we'd be scared shitless of them if they were larger than us, thats for sure!
Oh in my experience, the tiny ones are the biggest assholes of them all
General public seeing a bald eagle: So majestic and badass!
General public seeing a feathered dino: Urgh it looks like a chicken I hate it.
The algorithm has become surprisingly good at recommending interesting content. Thoroughly enjoyed the video!
Until it disapproves of something you've watched, then it resets your account purging your liked & favs lists...
Yeah, I just found a pretty good channel
The algorithm is a rabbit hole to Epstein island
Please check out Trey the Explainer, and for you big brains out there Cm Koseman. (Also google All tomorrows)
11:36 this is a traced art work. Original painting was done by Jordan K. Walker.
There's a bunch of scary paleoart with feathers, I think dinos are actually more terrifying with feathers
Debatable on people's tastes tho
Feathered dinosaurs look so stupid to me, I rather continue thinking of them as having scales and reptilian (and yes I'm aware birds are reptiles to)
"Oh, feathered dinos are cuddly timid and cute"
ENTER THE FLIGHTLESS BIRDS.
@seankyle chou Everybody gangsta until a ostrich drop kicks you.
@seankyle chou Release… THE 2 METERS HIGHT AND MORE TERROR BIRDS WE HAD BEFORE THAT COULD PULL THE CRAP OUT OF SABERTOOTH TIGERS #DEATHCHICKEN AAAAAHHH
The idea of a Gorgosaurus attracting a mate with intricate structures constructed of bones is super metal and I love it
It's plausible. Females can judge how fit and how skilled the males are in hunting based on how many bones and how intricate the structures is
A Walking With Dinosaurs remake would be incredible to see. The original was amazing to watch, but it doesn't quite hold up anymore, with all the new art styles and theories about dinosaurs. Improvements to special (and practical) effects over the last twenty years would also take the series to a whole new level. Please make this, somebody, anybody!
bUt iT'd bE All sOulLeSs cGi
@@zqfmgb4335 How could CGI Be Souless?
This is gonna sound, like, aggressive, but a few of the comments shown at the beginning really... Get me. How is modern paleoart less creative? Old stuff look nice, yes, but the tendency to stick to earthen tones and shrinkwrapping approach to body shape are quite restrictive. The discovery of feathers and greater acknowledgement of non-bone structures that artists are free to speculate on provides a much broader sandbox and an end result of more diverse appearances. What looks better is obviously subjective but how are you going to say that it's less creative?
And does the one guy lamenting that modern dinosaur depictions are less draconic than classic ones realize that both Dragons and Long weren't just big lizards themselves, that they had frills and hair and spines and stuff that feathers, if anything, bring them closer to?
Completely agree, like the fact that people think that modern dinosaurs all look like non-threatening chickens makes me laugh, and cringe, all at the same time. I personally like modern depictions much more than the old ones, with feathers, and the ones that display unique behaviors, too. Plus it's not like they all looked like chickens, like stop being a......thing, and just take the time to get a feel for the aesthetic designs of these real, once living creatures instead of taking a brief glance and immediately bashing on it because feathers make them look goofy and weird. Besides, not all dinosaurs had feathers, small theropods had them for sure, even tyrannosaurs had some partial feathering, abelisaurs are a canidate for this, too, but some theropods, esspecially the early, less derived ones, and some sauropods, don't have direct evidence of feathers, neither do most ornithiscians, but it's never too crazy to assume that some had some type of covering.
I love modern depictions because they look like real animals. I've never thought the older stuff looked like animals, more like fantasy creatures.
Same.
True
Dinosaurs will always be cool. No matter how many changes they go through, they will always be fantastic to me.
Indeed
The guy who first discovered Utahraptor (I'm terrible at names, I've looked up his name several times and still can't remember it) described what he thought it would look like to be the target of his discovery, and honestly its terrifying. He theorized that it had feathers complete with eye spots that would leap out from the underbrush and latch on their target with their arms while the legs kick as fast as a cat could, exerting hundreds of pounds of force. Now I don't know about you, but if an eagle with teeth the size of a polar bear, I'd frankly shit myself
That’s not terrifying, that’s a cassowary.
His name is James "Jim" Kirkland.
TheSilversepiroth :0
Knowing how much damage a simple cat can do, Id rather die than have to live in a world with those.
I think Australia still has some kicking around. Look up the cassowary.
You really think you can just sneak that Prehistoric Park music in there without me noticing?
Old art: nostalgic
New art: if feels like a real animal
I appreciate the use of the old-school UA-cam layout for the screenshots near the beginning
Likely a userstyle.
The fact that people are still fighting about feathers since like 10 years ago in the internet 😂😂
4:20, I have waited for someone to show that dinosaurs are beautiful creatures and not constant fighting, so thank you
I cant even
@@bendover2684 ?
@@bendover2684 why you can't even?
i though the video was about him being bored about feathered dinos xd
yeah, they were animals, not monsters... we have crazy things going on in the animal kingdom... in every kingdom to be fair, so... just imagining how was it at that time... wow
Feathers on dinosaurs, in some cases, actually make them more intimidating to me. It makes some of them look smarter and more fit, hence, more threatening.
On the flip side, some dinosaur art of baby dinos are super adorable. In all, I like the many ways dinosaurs have been depicted since the 80's. So with or without feathers, they can look pretty menacing.
Could you imagine stumbling across a large raptor and it starts puffing and widening its feathers out in a threatening display while gaping its mouth wide open? That's terrifying.
yeah! like what do these guys have against eagles and I guess raptors as a whole? I thought eagles looked pretty intimidating enough without the extra size.
Also creepy in some cases. Imagine a animal like a dakota raptor or utah raptor. They're large, like the size of a lion or larger, and were probably just as dangerous, but might've just looked like harmless big birds.
Just gonna this image here of one of the cutest things I've ever seen in my life.
twitter.com/eawilloughby/status/1167991214857183232
I think the point you nailed was the fact that modern depictions eliminate a "status quo". You can look at the old lizard like depictions of the early 1900s and a T-rex always looked the same. Then you have the Jurassic Park era where every T-Rex has looked like the one from '95 since then. Now we are at this age of scientific discovery where we know a lot about the dinosaurs we study but using that knowledge it opens up the can of worms of how little we know. I can say "T-rex had feathers" and I know it "should have fat somewhere" but we don't know any of that information. It might have only had a few feathers like an Ostrich, or fully covered like a chicken. Could have had an elephant style trunk or a camel style hump of soft tissue that was wiped clean of the remains over millions of years. I can take any dinosaur and using probable cause and evidence from modern day, make ridiculous alien style monsters. A triceratops could have had large bits of flesh from its nose to its frill and the "horns" it was popular for could just be internal supports like a whale's skull. In many ways, the new age of science has also seemed to lead to the age of misinformation and opens up the flood gates to radical ideas with nothing to say "no that is definitely wrong". Its why people run back to their Jurassic Park depictions. A scary dilophosaurus with a frill that spits venom and has no feathers, has no real evidence for it, but at the same time, there isn't a lot of evidence that could disprove it "couldn't". People like definitive stances when it comes to scientific discoveries and I think its why the public has been so hesitant to accept the new age of dinosaur depictions. If everyone came together and said "This is definitively what a T-rex looks like, make your games/toys/movies using this style" people would be fine. But with no baseline people resort back to what they are familiar with and what was cool, aka, Jurassic Park.
Someone should make a depiction on what a whale looks like using just it's skeleton. I'm sure the result would be wild!
T. rex is one of those ones that changes constantly because we have so many remains. I think that currently, it's thought T. rex was born with a full feather coating and then lost it all as it grew, replaced with thick hide and some crocodile-esque scales- based on skin impressions from other Tyrannosaurs. But we'll never really know for sure! It's wonderful! I mean, look at Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus- first they were thought to be turtles, then carnivorous theropods, then ornithomimids, and they turned out to be something wayyy weirder!
General Public: Birds are timid, friendly and a minor nuisance
Cassowary: *AIGHT, WHO'S GIZZARD NEEDS A CLAWIN?*
dude, I photograph birds for a living and let me tell you. They are vicious beasts through and through, most are just tiny and we don't pay attention to their crimes.
I think this comes from the fact that modern non-avian reptiles seems not that diverse and unfortunetly there are a lot of stereotypes surrounding them. But if look at mesosoic period, well it turns out that boudry between what we commonly think as "bird" and "reptile" is EXTRELY fluid and that prehistoric reptiles were incredibly diverse.
It is interesting to me that from all this reptiles the only which survived were seemingly simmilar to each other... and also the birds which were completly different from the rest of survivor reptiles.
There are actual preserved melanosomes in the feathers of dinosaur fossils that scientists can analyze under a microscope and compare to modern ones. They have the full color scheme and patterns for a few species, giving us a glimpse at what they actually looked like as far as color goes. I hope paleontologists make more discoveries in the future about other aspects of dinosaurs' appearance. I get excited thinking about how cool they might end up looking.
In my opinion, adding feathers to the dinosaurs actually makes them more intimidating and terrifying. A giant lizard is definitely intimidating but it doesn’t click in your mind as something that could exist, but we already have giant birds, so the feathers just make the sight hit much closer to home than scales.
D'Angelo We also have plenty of giant reptiles on earth today. Gators, Crocs, Komodo Dragons, and Iguanas. I do like both feathered and non feathered dinosaur depictions, but to say that a fully scaled dinosaurs is something that doesn’t seem like something that did exist is a bit daft. Their were still a number of dinosaurs that lacked or had very little to no feathers such as Carnotaurus or most of the sauropods.
Giant chicken is not half as scary as a monstrous lizard. The widespread myth of dragon all over the world is not without it's reason.
Depend,if the feathers were given to a trex or allosaurus than its not only lame but also suck.however,put the feathers on yutyrannus or utahraptor than it will be fitting.
@@nugrahapalin7481 But Chinese dragons had feathers or fur and the famous Feathered Serpent deity of central america was given feathers as the name suggests. European dragons are really the only ones that a scaley and that's without a doubt inspired by the Bible.
I love that last image of the dromaeosaur looking at those flying pterosaurs. It’s almost as if it’s thinking “soon my descendants will outcompete and destroy you. But not yet...”
"scales feel rough" uhm hello have u ever touched a snake? they are so smooth
They are but most people, especially "feATHERs ArEn'T SCarY" plebians don't realize that. He's talking about people's perceptions, not reality.
That's just the slime :^)
Snakes are meant to be smooth so that they can move around on the ground think more of a crocodile they are quite rough and scaly.
You ever touch a rattlesnake? Lots of snakes and lizards have rough scales.
Geebrowtar13 yes on a snake, but have you ever felt a crocodile? They're rough and ragged. It all depends on the animal.
"Bowerbirds builds structures out of sticks and plants and then surround them with colored berries and flowers"
NEVER FORGET OUR BROTHER RON
I accept both vintage AND modern styles of dinosaurs
Its all fun and games making fun of the feathered rex for being too cuddly or not intimating/scary..
*Until you realize feathers dont change the fact it has a bite force of seven tons.*
Be it with feathers or not, i want dinosaurs to be depicted as what they are, animals and not just killing machines.
Remember that everyone accepts eagles as a badass symbol of courage and strength, this alone disproves the idea that feathers make something weak.
Perfectly balanced, as all thing should be.
👍
Dinosaurs: All your arguments of feathers and no feathers, and where did that being you? Back to me.
I don't understand why people are so mad about new varieties of dinosaurs.
Look at how diverse the species of earth are just today and now imagine what dinosaurs looked like across hundreds of millions of years. There's space for both the old and new designs across all that time.
The bird ones might be more accurate with current science but that doesn't mean every single dinosaur looked like that.
absolutely. we have only discovered a tiny fraction of the animals of the past. almost everything one can imagine, as long as its rooted in biological reality, may well have evolved. theres almost unlimited scope for imagination. different species of t-rex for example, may have looked very different, like lions, tigers and leopards look very different. its almost certain closely related species would have evolved to look very different
A new video on dinosaur art from this channel??
I see that as an absolute win!
me to
I enjoy both style of dinosaurs, each has their unique appeal.
Retro paleoart is an important reminder of how far we've come to understand dinosaurs. I don't look down upon it. Rather, it inspires me to keep seeking the truth.
"Birds are generally thought of as timid, friendly, and a minor nuisance at most"
Golden eagles which throw goats off cliffs to kill them: "Timid? I'll show you TIMID-"
Cassowary enters the chat
*ratites have entered the chat.*
For real, emus won a war against HUMANS in Australia. Doesn't quite seem "timid" to me either.
Australia, after losing to the emus: wot m8
Australian birds
They were monsters then. The art showed them as so disconnected from modern animals, that it had a fantastical, whimsical tone. Nowadays, dinosaur art depicts them as closer to animals we've become used to.
StalePangolin This is it. This is an excellent explanation.
With off hand experience with chickens and other fowls, I really could picture what the smaller raptors would be like if you snagged them and held them upside down. A flurry of fluttering feathers and talons.
Birds are actually pretty scary if you think about them in large scale. Their hyper speed twitchy movement, their hard beaks and sharp claws, really could do some damage on humans if the scale was magnafied.
What's weird is how people say "i like the old ones" as if dinosaurs were cartoon characters. Nobody gets to choose what stays "canon"
Exactly they are living creatures they don't care if you like them or not they were how they were not different canons
@@cantthinkofaname5046 my favorite preference of human is stone age
Finally someone with a brain. It's almost as if there is a coalition of people defending outdated science. No one owns a dinosaur or how it looks. They simply just were, and the scientifically supported look of a dinosaur will always be the most realistic depiction until new evidence takes its place.
That's just “Dinosaur” fans vs people interested in the study of ancient extinct animals. To the fans, dinosaurs may as well be a fictional creation that exists to entertain them. A paleontologist is a scientist and as such should have no bias in the outcome of their research and reconstructions.
exactly. science does not care bout ur feelings, yall. deal with it😂
People getting mad over the appearance of a prehistoric animal be it scientifically accurate or not is absolute nonsense, it doesn’t take away from how magnificent and diverse these creatures were, these aren’t fantasy comic book monsters, listen to science people.
The thing is that artists most of the times say "screw science" and just makes a 10 foot chicken and call it a T-rex
@@lShadowdark seems like a thing that was done back then too, though.
Just look at the Dinosaur Renaissance that took place in the 60s through the 80s and look at the dinosaurs we got in movies *at the same time*.
@@lShadowdark This sounds more like a stereotype than what actually happens. Who exactly is drawing “10 foot chickens” and calling them a T-Rex other than as a joke?
It's explained in jurassic park that the dinos are innacurate because they have other DNA mixed in to fill the gaps, such as frogs for most and blue specifically has monitor lizard
It doesn't actually make sense tho bcs frogs would completely fuck up the genome in ways that it doesn't in movie and the innacuracies in the movies would just not be caused by frog DNA. No problem with movies taking artistic liberties but just say it how it is
I don’t get why everyone ignores this to say “they’re inaccurate!!!!!!!!”
@@ein_blinde_Nashorn Because they still call it a Trex in the films and act like its a trex instead of 'weird frog monster'
@@Mezworld The Trex is literally the most accurate dinosaur in the whole jurassic park franchise.
Pick a different one, the Trex did not have feathers.
Invalid. In the Jurassic world dominion prologue, they still got the dinosaurs wrong. The giganotosaurus isn't even in the right place. So this argument can't be used anyway. Before you say anything, you can't just vomit feathers on a dinosaur and call it accurate. That's not how it works.
As someone who also grew up with old dinosaur art being the status quo I highly, highly prefer the modern takes. I loved dinosaurs to death back then, don't get me wrong, but I always found the depictions unsatisfactory. Truth be told, most artist back then had zero clue how to do dinosaur anatomy so a lot of them seem to have just decided to wing it and do whatever. That's all fine and well, but I'm a sucker for anatomy, something as insignificant as a weirdly flexible tail can completely ruin an art piece for me. Ever since I was a kid I've wanted to see dinosaurs as real as possible, as if I'm watching a photograph, and old dinosaur art doesn't have that feel. It feels like drawings of mythical beasts, which to me seems like yet another barrier placed between me and seeing a dinosaur for real. Modern dinosaur interpretations often don't evoke that feeling, in fact a lot of them have such good anatomy, such believable posing that they look a lot more real to me even if it's a simple piece drawn with pencils and crayons, and has little to no background imagery. Modern depictions feel alive, you feel like you're looking at a real animal even if the reconstruction isn't 100% accurate (and how can it be?).
True true
I think it helps that modern paleoart has adopted many of the tropes used in both field guides and nature documentaries to make the dinosaurs feel more real and not like characters in a comic book. Extinct animals are now depicted in the kind of pose you would expect to see them if you could somehow go on a nature hike 70 million years ago and the backgrounds are filled with plants and animals we knew were alive at the time.
Just the thought that we won't really be able to definitely know how dinosaurs actually looked like gives me anxiety
Gaaraape we can from a telescope more than 66 million light years away. Maybe that’s the only way to solve the whole “was spinosaurus bipedal or not” argument at this point
Scientists are now developing methods to detect what kind of pigments dinosaurs had so we have a better idea of what colors and patterns dinosaurs actually were.
Most animals have camouflage to fit into their enviromenIt so is it not better to look at a species enviroment?
Neat video!
I'm glad to see that my not-at-all serious Spinosaurus and the cringe-worthy drawings I did as a teenager are still making the rounds.
Rodrigo Vega which picture was it?
*Me crying because I’ll never know what dinosaurs truly looked like*
*pats your back*
At least we know almost exactly how psittacosaurus looked like😆
Hey, Sinosauropteryx and Psittacosaurus are pretty well-understood
Looking through the comments I feel like I'm one of the few that prefers the middle way, being that creatures such as T-Rex being completely covered in feathers would seem really impractical, seeing as it would have a great difficulty trying to preen all places. Smaller Dinosaurus, such as Dromeosaurs, I can see being covered in eagle-like feathers. Heck, my favorite artwork of a Dakotaraptor is one in the scheme of a Spanish Eagle. Do I need my dinosaurus to be scaly and scary? no. Do I need all of them to be covered in feathers or have strange bodyparts? no.
Reptiles still co-exist with mammals in the world we live in, and they don't look like one another. As such I feel like the same could be said for Dinosaurs.
Finally Someone who thinks like me, look at t rex for example most people think its complety scaly or complety feathered but what if they were neither, like we have no skin impression on the back,shoulders, side of the stomach,neck and top of the head, thats like half the animal yet people claim that its complety scaly, what if it had a cape or protofeathers,or were more like us aka having reduced size feathers, we know of two tyrannorosauroids that had feathers one is yutyrannus and the other one is like the founding species of the glade. Dromeosauroids on the other hand, were mostly complety feathered we have a lot of evidence to support this.like skin impression on various species showing feather covering all over the body, Dromeosaurs or raptors Is most likely the ancestor of bird. Then they are dinosaurs that have very little probability of having feathers like sauropods or stegosaurs
i mean yeah we basically know now that the adult trex probably only had a thin covering of feather-like structures on its back and probably would have had mostly bare skin because of its size
Just fangirled seeing the Dinosaurs in the Wild Tyrannosaurus at 5.10 again. I worked on that.
I went to it I got the toy trex from it!
I personally love modern dinosaur artwork, mostly because it's much better reconstruction wise compared to old dinosaur artwork. The thing I don't like is when people decide to simply put feathers on every dinosaur in the book. Not all dinosaurs had feathers, just take carnotourus (sorry if I misspelled that). It was proven to have scales and most likely didn't have many feathers, if any.
I agree. I love my floofs but some dinos like carnotaurus didn't have any feathers (but that doesn't bar them from fun colors and skin flaps and keratin sheaths on their horns etc. so there's still lots of speculative fun to be had)
I tottaly agree with you (yeah, you misspelled Carnotaurus)
yeah, yeah, probably... most certanly, not all dinos needed feathers
We need a new Dinosaur movie (I don't think a Jurassic Park movie can do it, too caught up in the past), that brings the modern understanding of Dinosaurs to the public eye
Well that isn't Jurassic Park's fault, they need to keep to continuity, unless there is a whole story arc in the film about making the Dinosaurs more accurate
Indeed.
As a huge dino fan, I really enjoyed this video. It's a very wholesome take on the 'evolution' of dino theories, art, and facts.
I'm surprised there was no mention of the cassowary... "the world's most dangerous bird" which looks like it could fit into the new style of dino-drawings.
I love both old and new dinosaur art. It's very interesting to see what paleo artists can come up with!
Viewing the vintage stuff as more of a fantasy because of the lack of knowledge of the subject gives that allure to me. I love the modern stuff as an adult because of the attention to how things were back then, in any way they could have been.
Also feathers are amazing on dinosaurs.
As a kid who both watched jurassic park and had a grandpa that had an Emu farm. I can tell you that yes feathered dinosaurs can be terrifying.
The thing that I don’t like is the idea that having feathers automatically makes it uncool. I’ve seen so many terrifying interpretations of feathered dinosaurs that it makes me mad when someone feathers take away the possibility of a scary dinosaurs.
I'm glad you made the point about Dinosaurs being represented less like monsters, and more like animals in modern paleo art. For me, that's what I love about them. My favorite dinosaur is Allosaurus, and to me as interesting as it would be to see them hunt, what I would really like to do is see them do everything else. How they interacted with other Allosaurus', how they slept, how they groomed themselves, all of that. To me the most fascinating thing about Dinosaurs is that they were animals with their own unique sets of behaviors, that we will never be 100% certain on.
"Birds are timid and friendly"
*Looks at the Canada Goose giving me the death stare outside my screen door*
I grew up in the 60’s, 70’s.....sort of...
and latched on to dinosaurs as early as I can remember.
I loved the tail draggers as much as the more recent conceptualizations.
As a boy, I had always thought that the image of plodding, slow witted animals was incorrect and was pleased when my mind’s eye view of a more bird like animal was presented in Adrian Desmond’s ‘The Hot Blooded Dinosaurs’.
The book reconfirmed what I’d always intuited.
I can appreciate a Neave Parker print as much as a John Gurche.
Charles Knight’s paintings will never lose their luster of a very exciting take on earlier life just as Doug Henderson’s work captures an environment that just so happens to be inhabited by some amazing and fascinating animals.
I have my books full of tail draggers on the same shelf as Don Gluts seven volume Dinosaur Encyclopedia, Dinosaurs: A concise Natural History, everything Greg Paul has written and many others.
There’s much that has been brought to light, corrected, etc.
There’s still a lot of interpretation and inference that occurs.
Some might be on target, some, not so much.
That’s okay.
Some questions may never get answered.
But, one thing’s for sure, dinosaurs will never get old.
They’re too damn fun.
this video sparked my imagination and made me weirdly giddy about something i almost never think about
Same man. It's pretty inspirational.
This right here! I am not a dino person, they don't really hold my interest that much. But this video and the vintage one before it, they make me want to try my hand at dino art, and they give me that renewed interest in reading up on dinosaurs
this is why prehistoric planet released in 2022 is just so fucking good.
its honestly one of the best depictions of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures
it went out of its way to show dinosaurs doing things other than fighting like eating salt and trying to fuck
One of my favorite parts of modern dinosaur art is how diverse it all feels. Modern dinos all feel like separate species of animals, while vintage dinosaur art is just a bunch of lizards slightly rearranged.
This!!
It's amazing how so much media exposure of dinosaurs looking and acting like monsters made people eventually come to hate the idea of animals looking and acting like animals. Especially treating their appearance as if they were fictional characters that you could criticize for not being "well designed or not be scary".
There's a meme in the online art community that has an artist placing a small cake (their work) next to a larger, more elaborate cake (someone else's work), and they lament/assume that no one will enjoy their little cake. Later, another person comes up, holding two forks, and rejoices, "Oh boy! Two cakes!!" ...I think that's how I feel about "both sides", I'm just happy to be a part of it! Art and science will always be linked together, and it's important to allow both areas of study to flourish. Also, who isn't excited about New Dinosaurs? Don't be a boomer. Live a little. Have some imagination. Life is too short to die on that grumpy old hill yk
The free range of depictions is really what I think draws in so many people to draw dinosaurs. It's open to interpretation because there's simply no feasible way of knowing exactly what they looked like with so little remaining of the time frames. This video was great, man. Informative, emotional, and to the point. Seeing all the different depictions was also really interesting.
I’ve always loved both the classic and modern dinosaur artwork, to me the golden age of Dino art never ended. I like your introspective take on this controversy. People have their own likes & dislikes, and ideas about what is considered good or bad.
Not going to lie, as a kid, I did draw dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals killing things a little too much. Now, I'm actually taking the time to draw dinosaurs and other prehistoric mammals doing other things. For example, I recently did a drawing of a Nanuqsaurus, a tyrannosaur that lived in the Arctic, 69.1 million years ago, completing a nest. Also, I did a drawing of a gorgonopsid called Inostrancevia with its infants, in response to how a lot of paleoart seems to heavily depict gorgonopsids hunting pareiasaurs, like Scutosaurus. The drawings that depict animals that are hunting things have points to them, such as a drawing I made of Velociraptor fighting Protoceratops, in reference to the iconic Fighting Dinosaurs fossil from Mongolia.
5:15 - 5:27
"Herbivores are now being shown as interesting in their own right"
*shows lizard skunk projectile shitting*
I'm in a similar boat to you, I really enjoy old dinosaur art and modern. There are a couple of things I dislike with said art of either periods, but thats just things I generally dislike with animal art (such as making things look unreasonably evil or spiky).
I love your videos, I can’t stop watching them! Looking forward to your next video! :)
I’ve always loved dinosaurs and get kinda shocked on how angry people get with some of the new depictions.
It’s not like you’re not allowed to have your own perception of a prehistoric creature. We’re likely *NEVER* gonna know 100% what these creatures look like.
It’s weird how mean people can be in arguing what version of a creature is universally better.
We know some dinos had feathers. We know some had skin and scales. We even know some had hair-like structures. And most interesting of all, we've actually found fossils of "in progress" evolution of feathers dinos. The thing is that since organic materials don't fossilize as well (and typically take like, roundabout ways to it), there's a CRAPLOAD of things that still are within the realm of very, very possible AND plausible.
It's also surprising to me that people will think dinosaurs are violent killing machines constantly eating each other, but then also turn up their nose at the idea that a dino could have fat stores of any kind.
And we have even found dinosaurs with both scales and feathers, sometimes on top of one another
And imo the problem with a lot of people is that they don't consider dinosaurs as animals that existed a long time ago but more like monsters, cool giant monsters to kill in videogames and books and movies and because of this anything that makes then less "cool" gets instantly dismised
I used to like dinosaurs as a kid because I thought they were cool. Now I like dinosaurs because there's so much room for interpretation when it comes to their appearance and I think that's exciting.
I feel like the way we depict dinosaurs will never truly be one hundred percent accurate, but we’re getting closer and closer. It’s kind of like that thing where you walk forward half the distance between you and your destination, then walk half the new distance again, then again, and again, each time getting a little closer, but never truly reaching it. It’s sad that we’ll never truly see real (non-avian) dinosaurs, but, in my opinion, we’re already much closer than we were even just a decade ago. Each step we take, whether it’s from quadrupedal lizards to kangaroo crocodiles, or from swamp-dwelling behemoths to active predators, or from alien-like reptiles to more familiar creatures, each step we take is important.
That’s why I still really respect the old paleoart, especially from the Dinosaur Renaissance. It is outdated now, but we wouldn’t be where we are today if not for the popularization of movies and media like Jurassic Park.
Moral of the story is…
Respect the scaly wrist-breaking monstrosities, but anyone who says birds aren’t scary can just try and offend a cassowary. Just do it. You’ll see. :)
I love how the team for Monster Hunter World took inspiration for the design of Anjanath from these new depictions of dinosaurs. It's still recognizably reptilian-like, but it has fur on its back and it's got those skin things (like the dilophosaurus in Jurassic Park) that pop out on the sides as well as small spikes on its tail. It's just a fun mish-mash of various ideas that come together to make a really unique design.
That's what I've come to love about all of the monsters in Monster Hunter. They're all so varied in their shapes and sizes, especially in World, and they all feel so real and part of the environment.
also that weird nose thing it has.
And no one tell that it isn't scary, becouse it has feathers.
In my life, I have found that birds are vicious little bastards, and reptiles are surprisingly cuddly and gentle.
I'd be _substantially_ less frightened of a scaly dinosaur than of a feathered one.
This was basically the message of Jurassic Park. All of Jurassic Park's scary dinosaurs, T-rex, raptor, dilophosaurus, are scary because they move like cunning CG emus. All of its not-scary dinosaurs, triceratops, brachiosaurus, loaf around like iguanas. If Jurassic Park is your childhood dinosaurs, your whole mental model of what makes a scary dinosaur scary is probably just that it moves like a bird.
i mean.. Tuatara's are cute as Kakapoes?
Lol
Hoopsanddinoman: Makes video defending vintage dino art and worries that people wont agree with him.
[Everyone liked that]
Also hoops: Makes video defending modern dino art and worries that people wont agree with him.
[Everyone liked that]
What kills me is that.... Well science doesn't stop for opinion. What it was doesn't care about how people want it if it's not what it is.
So why do people just have a baby-fit and stomp and scream about it when it's not their say.
@@beanoptodon well, throughout history, those who had a fit are those who reject science.
The modern understanding of dinosaurs and the recent artistic interpretation is amazing to me! I grew up in the 60’s and as a kid I couldn’t get enough of the old stop motion dinos. But as our understanding has increased, those old depictions seem naive and almost wilfully ignore basic anatomy.
I love the modern depictions but I still have a soft spot for the fantastic creatures of my childhood!!!
Have you ever been chased by a rooster or have a stand off with a cassowary or shoebill, it’s unnerving regardless on if it has feathers or not
now think if a Komodo Dragon is chasing you...
Now imagine an big ostrich chasing you, the feathers tingling up, looking at you eye to eye with it's fast slender legs being, way more faster than an komodo dragon. With long shrap claws, and powerful kicks and able to break your bones and an strong beak.
@@lShadowdark duh but that doesn’t take the danger away from those birds mentioned
“Like Pelicans eating live pigeons”
Excuse me, they do what?
Also great vid man. Me personally I love the idea of dinosaurs being portrayed as just normal animals. Feathered dinosaurs too are badass and beautiful, with Deinocheirus being my favorite dinosaur.
I used to have an aversion to these new dinosaur designs. I eventually grew to appreciate them and their exotic uniqueness, the colors and the feathers, give them a whole new feel of ancient long lost exotic beasts, something i learned to appreciate in the very same animals welive with today
Character development lmao