I think this is because Jurassic Park was created to tell an engaging story and revolutionize the public's perception of dinosaurs, while Jurassic world was created to cash in on nostalgia.
I agree, it wasn't scary like the first 3 movies, and was largely about Chris Pratt and his love affair. I didn't pay to see Chris, I paid to see dinosaurs GTFO
@@fossilftw No. I can see the difference in the animatronic scenes to the CGI. Its stiffer. JP just had better models for the dinosaurs, better texturing and better lighting in its scenes that made them look more realistic. JW's CGI looked bad. It to me lacked the above.
Well, to be honest you can easily excuse Jurassic World's inaccuracy with the fact that in the book they basically say "Yeah, we don't really know what Dinosaurs were like 100% but this is what we engineered them to be because this is what we think they really looked like."
rants n' rambles the only moron I see here is you needlessly insulting other people. Yes they made a mistake but is this really necessary? I think it isn't
Ghost Reportin' just one thing. In jurrasic world they said it was because they wanted them to look like that not because they didn't know better they said that they would look very different if they kept the dna intact. And also if they used avian dinosaur dna to fill in the gaps.
Theory on why JW dinos don't have feathers: They're not real dinosaurs. They're genetically modified monsters. The gene splicing could have easily fucked up the development of feathers. Or, they could have seen the feathers, decided they weren't scary enough, and removed the trait altogether.
Duesal Bladesinger well, if u watched jurassic world, the asian scientist did explain that they made the dinosaurs based on what the public wanted for jurassic world, not just for scientific accuracy
***** Harder to render yes, but not really harder to animate. They dont go through and animate feathers, they would just put them under a simulation and the computers would handle the rest. Doing this would drastically bump up render time, but the effort put in by animators would be relatively non existent
***** You must have not seen the Paddington bear movie, it had the most fluid realistic CGI hair movements I've ever seen and feathers would be much easier than thousands of hairs. Computers do all the heavy lifting anyways.
I thought this was going to be about how the film industry is making sequels of great movies rather than making original great movies, and how the great new movies of our time, the ones that explore never-before-seen settings and ideas and film techniques end up getting lost amid the name recognition. But then it was about feathered dinosaurs. Eh, I guess I still learned a few things, and it's nice to see the fossil evidence.
Graham, give me a break. That's NOT greed. That's common sense. And it's NOT the studios either. It's the people who fund the studios. The investors are always going to go with the sure thing over the shot in the dark, because THEY aren't in the business of art, they're in the business of making money. If you want to make some artsy-fartsy movie that will likely have a very small audience and probably lose money (unless perhaps you can make it on the cheap), you'd better fund it yourself. Hollywood investors are NOT in the business of giving money away to throw down an artistic "toilet". They invest in movies to make money. Pure and simple. And that is NOT "greed". It's smart investing.
Yeah, maybe not the JP franchise but some other Dinosaur thriller could use 100% accurate Dinosaurs as their "monsters" and show everyone that realistic Dinosaurs are often a lot more terrifying than the ones often depicted in pop culture, like JP. A 6 meter long hawk (Utahraptor) and a giant Trex with dirty and bloody feathers and great vision is more scary to me than a 3.5 meter long iguana (JP raptor) and a 12 meter long Godzilla with poor vision.
yeah but it wouldn't be scary if they portrayed actual velocoraptors. 3 ft tall, didn't hunt in packs and about as smart as a domestic turkey. not scary, a man could probably over power it.
Ugh... I hate to defend Jurassic World, because it's a terrible movie. But they address this in the film itself. They explain that the dinosaurs were always genetically modified to better reflect what the audience expected to see.
A6 7 No. No I would not. Admiration for the original aside, JW is poorly written, boring, ugly-looking, and stupid. And you know what? The filmmakers certainly don't want you to "put your nostalgia aside" since they take ever opportunity they can get to put in visual and auditory "homages" to moments from JP.
They acknowledge this in the movie. Doctor Wu states that if the dinosaurs hadn't been infused with frog DNA, the dinosaurs would look drastically different.
Yeats Goodwin Why they chose frog DNA when we know birds (which are theropod dinosaurs themselves) are theropod non-avian dinosaurs descendants always baffles me... Since they seemed to get the sauropods spot on with their appearance. So they can't use that DNA excuse for them.
***** Apparently frog DNA is easily hidden in other DNA and is easier to manipulate than most other types of DNA. Mind you those are just things I have heard, so don't judge me to harshly if I'm wrong.
@@MARI0LAND Yes Because Watching someone being chased by glorified lizards on steroids that make the prey alert every 0.00001 seconds isn't Funny at all.
The whole thing with Wu is totally a cop out on the part of the movie creators. Every movie after the first is killing the spirit. That movie was meant to revolutionize how people thought of dinosaurs while giving them an engaging horror story to go with it. The other movies are just milking it, and removing the feathers because it makes more money. Jurassic World is making a bit more of an effort to not make "Give us money: the movie", yet it's obvious that the creators don't want to get out of their comfort zone and make people think, unlike the first movie.
5raptorboy1 I didn't say the original movie. I said the original novel (written by Michael Crichton). In the chapter named "Version 4.4" Dr. Wu and Hammond have a similar conversation.
5raptorboy1as stated in the first film- Gaps in the DNA are filled in with other animals. I.e this ain’t no dinosaur. They never have been. They’re freakshows.
Vox and critics are completely ignoring this scene in the movie: "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth." InGen Dr. Henry Wu to CEO Simon Masrani (Jurassic Word, 2015).
+Jonathan Gumpangkum I agree, but because we allow this to happen, people will continue to get misinformed on whats a real dinosaur vs a fictional one. Thus, the war against feathered dinosaurs has started.
+Hunter Strait But you also have to consider that most people would want to see these outdated dinosaurs. Heck even I would prefer a cool looking raptor instead of the ones they showed in the video. Especially since the whole movie seemed to be just a tribute to the original movie and to make money easily by feeding off of nostalgia.
I imagine the work involved in modelling feathers in computer graphics is much more difficult and expensive than modelling a fairly flat or scaled skin.
It is. It's like a different form of hair physics. That's why most 3D animations don't give characters curly hair; because it's complicated. Feathers are the same way.
It's not like they would have to animate each and every feather when the creature is moving. I believe that it has been proven that feathers on most Dinosaurs were very hawk like and therefore were quite "glued" to the body.
"Ergo"?, watch out, we got ourselves an intellectual badass over here. And back then they didn't know what dinosaurs were made of, and you say frogs and dinosaur genes? Well frogs breath mostly through their skin and therefore their skin needs to be perpetually wet, due to the lack of any moisture in the skin of the dino's in Jurassic Park I highly doubt any of the dinosaurs in that movie would have survived, but oh well, it is a movie and an entertaining one at that.
If they really were mixed with frogs, then in reality they should also express quite a few characteristics of frogs. Like thin bumpy skin, and enlarged feet.
I may be wrong, but didn't Jurassic World cover for its scientific inaccuracies by saying that they genetically modified the dinosaurs on display to fit with the public's views?
+Davis Wojnovich You mean they wrote their way out of having to make feathered dinosaurs into the plot to fit with the public views? lol I don't really care because the movie was boring and had way worse problems than the actual dino design anyways, but still, lets be real.
Actually this is pretty realistic since fossil Dna is rarely complete (far from it) and theres currently experiments happening trying to create what technically amounts to a mammoth, by implementing Mammoth Dna into an embryonic Elephant since the species are so closely related. Also this was also the explenation used in the book, although not to explain the lack of feathers. It is mentioned that the dinosaurs technically aren't real since they're dna had to be heavily modified with that of other reptiles.
@@patrickgreenfield6481 They really should have used dna from an archosaur (crocodilian or bird) for the dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Since both groups were in the archosaur family.
You're going to pick apart this sci-fi movie for not being realistic, even though it's consistent with it's own rules? Listen, many writers and analysts agree (and a Ted-ed video was done on this one that I recommend since you guys do a lot of videos commentating on movies) that part of what makes a good story and an immersive world is that each fiction story has its own set of rules that are often easier for the reader to follow than the rules of the real world. To take it to the extreme, Star Wars has clear definitions for the way light-sabers, star-ships or the force works. While we don't bat an eye when a TIE fighter buzzes through space even though the concept is impossible (space makes no sound, Ion Engines couldn't propel a ship at a decent velocity, and twin engines would not give a ship the maneuverability seen in the movies), if a force user suddenly started using the force with a magic stick like a wand or by chanting magical words then we'd be perplexed and the illusion would be broken. Why? Because the rules of the Star Wars universe clearly dictate that a TIE fighter works and we accept it, but the rules of the Star Wars universe also clearly dictate that the force is accessed using your mind (and midichlorians I suppose... *sigh*) to reach out to the force rather than using enchanted objects or magical words. To take it to the extreme, what if hobbits showed up to destroy the death star by throwing a ring down the exhaust pipe, or if Vulcans defended the Ewoks against the empire? The illusion would be completely shattered and we'd be watching a farce rather than a sci-fi story. Obviously that last example was not what you're talking about, so let's come back to something more practical: We'd also be perplexed if the new Star Wars VII movie had abandoned TIE fighters and X-Wings for being unscientific and had instead adopted a space-ship much closer to the design we see in the newer Battlestar Galactica designs that are much more scientific (because they have propulsion all around the ship at varying angles to give it manueverability). It would completely break the illusion of the previous six movies because suddenly those dogfights don't make sense and can't work. The scenario I just described is exactly what you are talking about doing. The original Jurassic Park had dinosaurs that look more like reptiles than birds. Those are the rules of this FICTIONAL world. Plausible or not, that is the story that is being told. If the story suddenly decided that given new scientific data the dinosaurs would be different, then the illusion would have been broken, viewers would have questioned why the dinosaurs in the first 3 movies were incorrect, and none of the fans would have been able to simply dive into the new story with ease. Furthermore; the rules of this world dictate that the dinosaur DNA samples were incomplete and the scientists used reptile DNA to complete the missing sequences. The dinosaurs also took on many other traits of the reptile and frog DNA that was used to complete it. This is scientifically ridiculous, but that doesn't matter because the rules don't need to be plausible; they only need to be believable and consistent. So therefore, we have a canonical reason why the dinosaurs could look closer to reptiles than birds. I'd like to propose that you just hated this movie because you want to prove that CGI makes a movie bad and can't stand that this movie indicates otherwise.
+Connor Stilwell Finally someone who understands the way media works. It's for the audience, the people, not for a science lesson. Pretty sure that a LOT less people would've come to watch the movie if the raptors looked like the ones shown in the video.
+subwayvesubscriber sadly a large majority of the audience thinks the movie is fact and attacks the scientific community for the assumption of feathered dinosaurs...so in actuality, this movie does affect the paleontology community.
T Watterson Yeah, but these kinds of people also believe in religion and feminism and whatnot. We know most of the masses are incredibly stupid and I don't bother to worry about this. Ignorant people will always be ignorant.
What are you guys talking about? Feathered dinosaurs were not a matter of discussion in the 90's. Archaeopteryx was dicovered in the late 1800's. JP's biggest crime was to use "Velociraptor" to describe what was essentially Deinonychus (and later Utahraptor).
+elmohead It especially bugged me that the movie used the term "raptor" to refer to them, seeing as that's actually the taxonomic term for birds of prey like eagles and stuff.
Krunoslav Šokić So far, it's not clear how many of them had feathers, because they're hard to detect in most rock formations. But many theropods definitely did.
***** Because there are. "many theropods" = more than one, many it would seem, most of them still unknown because feathers don't tend to last 62 million years :P
Not all, most. What we know of so far, most non-ceolosaurian theropods had no feathers and were very scaly. If those did have feathers, which is possible, then they would have small amounts of it. This is also the case with stegosaurs and ankylosaurs. Sauropods most likely did not have feathers. This video doesn't cover everything, but it does spread the word on dinosaurs having feathers
Joshua Lowrie "most non-coelosaurian theropods had no feathers and were very scaly" there is no proof for that. The only proof we have is some skin impressions, with Carnotaurus the only one found with enough to the point where we can say it had no feathers. The others are up for debate.
Ok, let's lay down the facts: First off, Jurassic World is a movie, not a documentary. Second, like it says IN THE FILM, they are genetically modified monsters, who's sole purpose of being created is to entertain guests of the park. If they were 100% dinosaur, they would look completely different, and hardly scary at all. Third, if they had given the raptors feathers in the movie, people would have flipped shit because they would look utterly stupid and completely not-terrifying. To those who complain about them being "scientifically accurate", even though we have absolutely no clue what they actually looked like, it's a film meant to entertain and make money. So stop acting like you all are these brilliant paleontologist and grow up.
Jake Hendricks *To those who complain about them being "scientifically accurate", even though we have absolutely no clue what they actually looked like, ...* Actually, we do. Maybe not exact coloring, but looking toward their descendants, birds... we can assume that non-avian dinosaurs were just as colorful. Of course, birds like Emus, Ostriches, etc. are better examples, since they represent an older group of birds known as paleognaths, which are rather bland in color. In fact, if you take a naked Emu, you basically have a tailless dinosaur. In fact, birds in general are classified as theropod dinosaurs. As for feathers, we have countless fossils that support them having feathers, just as the video explains.
DevilRaptorB How was I contradicting myself? I was referring to their coloring, we don't know what colors they were, but since we do know that birds are their descendants, we can assume or infer is a better word to use that non-avian dinosaurs were just as colorful, some were possibly as bland in color as paleognaths. The only assumption or hypothesis I made is on their coloring, everything else I said, we do know.
***** saying that dinosaurs evolved to bird in itself isn't really knowing anything , thats a belief and not a fact , you don't know it, you just think its true
You can totally make feathers scary! The bald eagle is the American embodiment of don't mess with me I fight for FREEDOM badassery! The entire vulture family is terrifying. And condors are a thing. Plus, have you heard of the Cassowary? They are the epitome of "oh hey this thing is pretty oh wait it can fuck me up"
***** Birds of prey, sure, dinos? I dunno. Generally speaking, birds don't conjure up that intimidating fear in most people the way most reptiles do. Cassowary's may in practice be very dangerous, but they look silly and wouldn't work in a movie.
***** Cassowary? the reason why reptiles is more scary is caz one singler type of deadly reptile has killed more people then the whole bird tress combined , so yaa feathers makes dinossaurs less scary , only a pussy well be afreid of something that can't kill him/her
1 2 Calm down. They had minor quills which could have come from a slight change in the DNA sequencing. Not at all the same as them supposedly evolving to have head to toe feathers and wings in the space of 14 years.
***** Except that these are different characters (with the exception of the T. rex), they are supposedly a new batch of dinosaurs made with refined techniques and more advanced technology, this movie set the perfect excuse the franchise has ever had for updating them and they wasted it.
HoveringAboveMyself Now that I've seen the movie, I don't think the story allows for that change. The entire plot is pretty much based around the owners of JP not caring about accuracy, they just want the scariest theme park monsters that will attract the most guests. It wouldn't be in line with the plot to produce feathered dinosaurs. You'll have to take it up with Steven Spielberg. Maybe in JP V!
I mean, that's interesting science facts, but the Jurassic Park canon already decided what dinosaurs looked like for the sake of the movies. It's a movie, not a scientific documentary.
Who cares if the dinosaurs are "outdated." It's a movie, dinosaurs are extinct so if you want to go by that logic, there shouldn't be any dinosaurs at all in the movie
Relaayy Sorry, I didn't have time to explain why. The fact that dinosaurs are alive makes sense in that universe but the fact that they don't look like real dinosaurs doesn't, except that their DNA is partly from frogs.
As Henri Wu said in the new movie. "They're not real dinosaurs, you ordered us to make them scary."
8 років тому+7
Imagine an alien civilization coming across chicken and bird fossils and recreating them without feathers. A chicken without feathers looks very very weird in comparison. We are doing that exact same thing to dinosaurs haha. I wish we could somehow, see how magnificent dinosaurs were, that's why I loved the first JP movie... It bringed a little glimpse to that world. This new one is terrible, and not because the dinosaurs; the plot is incredibly bad.
I think they could've made feathered dinos scary. Imagine this. Person is running and hides behind a ledge of some sort. They start to catch their breath when a feather falls on their lap, and they look up. "Clever girl"
If the public from 1993 could accept intelligent warm blooded dinosaurs over lumbering, Godzilla-like ones, then I fail to see why giving them feathers also would be such a controversy.
Lucas Erb Star Wars is not in a different universe, it is in “a galaxy far far away.” Which would suggest that it is still governed by the laws of this universe, a.k.a. spacecraft don’t make sound in space. But I digress. Attempting to be as accurate as possible was a noble goal on the part of Michael Chrighton, but continuity is a rule when it comes to film and cinema. Suddenly designing giant reptiles to look like giant avians would not only not come across to the audience in any acceptable manner, it would also ruin the effect that has been instilled into the popular psyche by the collective misunderstanding of what we all assumed dinosaurs looked like. Giant birds simply are not intense, giant reptiles on the other hand get the blood flowing. Maybe in 20 years when someone wants to reboot the franchise, we can do scary-feathery dinosaurs, but for now let’s finish the goddamn franchise on the same foot that we started. “Big lizards gonna getcha.”
I think that feathers can be used to a dinosaurs look and function in a dinosaur movie to show how feathers can effect an animal in real life as well as new looks for creatures. Without clothes a person freezes to death rapidly even in weather you would tolerate in a jacket. It isn't a slight difference, it greatly increases visual look and function of the animals. Like their voices being much deeper and lower frequency. This isn't a humming sound or no humming sound.
@@taylorphoenix8 No, he doesn't. Jurassic Park used to care about accuracy and making the dinosaurs look right, but the Jurassic World movies are the exact opposite. Literally all dinosaurs in them have several problems. Yes, the original novel and film did give many invented characteristics to dinosaurs, but were overall pretty good for the 1990s. Hammond even gets angry at Henry Wu in the book because he proposed altering the dinosaurs to make them more interesting for visitors, and Hammond wanted them to be as close to the real dinosaurs as possible.
All those quoting the movie to explain that these are generically modified dinosaurs and not real ones still don't address the title of this video. While the movie gave a safe explanation for the featherless dinos, it is not revolutionary, unlike JP 1. We can hope for feathers only in a super realistic version of Jurassic Park. A movie which would be like Dark Knight to Batman Forever.
cubesinanutshell Whats your point? I know its been done. That doesn't disregard the fact that animating and rendering feathers cost significantly more and takes more time, especially if there are dozens, if not hundreds of dinosaurs on the screen at once.
cubesinanutshell uh, no they don't... Most of their money is loaned to them. they have to get their money back when the movie comes out, and if they spend too much money they will never make their money back. Even so, the render time for the movie would be increased dramatically. The movie Avatar took 10 years to render, granted they had more to render, but still, photo realism takes a long time to render and is expensive.
man i don't care if there's an in universe explanation for the lack of feathers, but sooner or later they're gonna have to add in feathered dinosaurs. I'd love to see them find complete dino DNA with the feathers and have the feathered ones duke it out with the featherless ones. if they're still gonna be making jp movies 5 or 10 years from now, they're gonna be a laughing stock cause hopefully by that time popular media shows dinos with feathers. also: feathers can be scary if you at least TRY. the acheroraptor from saurian is a thing of nightmares, honestly
Imagine yourself as a scientist creating dinosaurs from DNA fragments at the beginning of 90s,you figure out how most of them had feathers,you tell that to folks in suits that are in charge,that will do anything to make that kind of park reality due to fact it would bring them lot,lot I mean lot of money.You would probably get praise for your find,but you'd be told to try to make them how regular people want to see them,as a ferocious lizard like beasts,because park will impress paleontologists for sure,but paleontologists will not flock in thousands each day there,buying food,souvenirs etc.General audience would find it kind a misleading to see them in feathered form all of the sudden instead of way they are used to from old school books and pop culture.Park would get lot of attention anyway,but it would not get as much as it would get by showing something people weren't expected to see,and what they could find kind a disappointing. Also,I find it kind a funny people complaining about Velociraptors not being covered in feathers,but no one mentioning how they are size of the grown man in JP movies,or even bigger as opposed of size of turkey they were in real life. Just to add how no one is thinking (now ignoring first part of my post),that even if you'd find preserved DNA in mosquito blood,how much of it would be intact ? So in other words,you would have to improvise a lot by implementing parts of today's animals DNA in it to complete it.Meaning scientists would make actually a custom made new animals,that are only partially dinosaurs,and because of missing DNA fragments they would improvise,giving dinosaurs certain skin color,putting Triceratops three horns on its head,or making Raptors bold. Even if DNA would be completely preserved,you'd have to change dinosaurs internal organs completely with ones from today's animals,because of lower levels of oxygen in today's air than in one from time they roamed the earth,and because of different diseases and food they would consume.
Dembilaja "you'd be told to try to make them how regular people want to see them,as a ferocious lizard like beasts" This is something brought up in the book, actually. Foregoing accuracy to satisfy expectations. Because, as you say, they couldn't get 100% dino DNA.
The dinosaurs in Jurassic world or made without feathers for a reason, John Hammonds dinosaurs were poorly cloned because of the time and the resources, and masrani wanted to keep the image, although impure, which purity could never be achieved anyway,that John had created. So people, he fell in love with his creations and Mr. Masrani respected his dying wish and his love. Spoiler!! Dr. Wu explains this in the movie.
1 2 Dr. Wu says in jurassic world, that "if the dino's were pure creations, they would look very different, but you didnt want pure, you wanted scarier and more teeth."
i mean it kinda makes sense cause dinos in jurassic park and world aren't real dinosaurs they combine dino DNA with frog or other reptile DNA . The books make that more clear, and so does the new jurassic world movie.
To be fair, they accounted for it in Jurassic World by saying that the emphasis was less on making actual dinosaurs, and more something that was "cool".
Yay, a video that inderectly referenced phylogenetic systematics and bracketing in explaining why dinosaurs may or may not have been covered in feather like filaments. Well done, Vox.
If you go way back in time, about 30 years, Dr. Wu states many times in the book that the dinosaurs were created, not cloned. The movie only mentioned frog DNA, but Wu used a variety of different animals to create the dinos. He tinkered with them to make appealing "zoo exhibits" for the park. Movies can't put in all of the details from the books, so it makes sense that they cut Dr. Wu out almost entirely. I definitely recommend reading both of the original books. They're really good.
In Pixar's The Good Dinosaur, there are actually feathered dinosaurs having a major role in the scene where Arlo has to scream to get their attention so his T-Rex buddies can go and "steal" their Buffalo's back
The film is based on a theme park, kids in it would want to expect dinosaurs to look like Godzilla or whatever, not like birds. This is also explained by Doctor Wu several times (if Vox watched the films).
What are smoking. What dusty old book? A dictionary an encyclopedia. Your comment makes absolute no sense. What's that about fossilized feathers and a book? What?
***** The original book and ALL the movies are "may be/could be" and nothing else. Cloning dinosaurs is not (currently?) possible, so it's all maybe/ could be/what if?
Hey I thinking your missing the point that in the Jurassic Park movie they said that they used frog dna to finish the code of the dino dna so they are kind of mutated that's probably why they dont have feathers ya should have payed attention to the movies
I'd be willing to bet that one of the main reasons for why they didn't put feathers on the raptors in Jurassic World is because feathers (and other furry things) are a lot harder to make look real in CG. They need to movement and texture.
One thing that u forgot to mention is that the trex did not roar. It instead made a low growling sound like an alligator. Also the velociraptor was not the size of a full grown man. Instead it was about the size of a turkey
It doesn't matter if they have feathers are not, jurassic world just wasn't grounbreaking in any way. They should've just stuck with jurassic park and that's it.
JW just wasn't a very good movie to begin with. I was pretty upset by how colorless the dinosaurs seemed to be too. Besides the raptors, very little color overall, when it's quite likely dinosaurs were as colorful as our birds, and there are huge possibilities for the frill displays on the Ceratopsians. Just sayin', they could have had some fun with that.
Thank you for this video! You have good sound, good music, good graphics, and you have marked all the sources! Really nice, I do appreciate that! (Good = really really really good, but I'm finnish, and that's like the best compliment we can give) You have a one new follower :)
At one point in the movie did a scientist say something along the lines of, "If we brought these things in their true form no one would come. We had to make them as scary as possible." Perhaps that could be a reference to the dinosaurs's feathers and why they didn't have any in Jurassic World.
To all of you in the comments complaining about Vox making a really thin connection: of course they are. If you piggy-back off of something immensely successful from pop-culture (like Jurassic Park) and incorporate it into your work somehow, you instantly get way more views, and thereby way more ad revenue. It's just a marketing tactic. And if you clicked on the video just to see how they would report on Jurassic World (like I did)...well, you're proof that this marketing tactic works. It doesn't have to be a very strong or reasonable connection, just enough to make sure people watch.
Devynn Hageman close but not quite! it's marketing in the sense that we're always looking for opportunities to talk about neat science in a way that people will want to watch. it's not about ads (which i fortunately don't have to think about at all in my job) but rather just choosing a good time for an interesting story. thanks for watching and hope you found it worth your time. -Joss
Vox If that's your aim, criticizing the movie you're using to garner interest in your video isn't a good tactic. What's wrong with, "Jurassic Park is great! But did you know real dinosaurs had feathers? Let us tell you about it!" The comments wouldn't be so argumentative if you'd made a purely informational video instead of a shade-throwing one with biased information about Jurassic Park not being up to the task of using feathered dinosaurs. Look at 'Because Science' on Nerdist's youtube channel. It's based on Kyle Hill exploring the science behind science fiction in pop culture and he does it in a way that builds on the viewers excitement about the movies and shows that drew them into the video. I'm not familiar with the usual style of Vox videos, but this one had too much attitude against the film it was depicting for my taste.
I got a Jurassic World:Fallen Kingdom as before this vid. I already watched it and I reckon it's a really good movie. Sorry if this comment sounds like a Advertisement
How are you ppl in the comments actually defending this movie vox has a valid point this would have been a perfect opportunity to introduce feathers. Its like saying you would've been OK if Nolan used outdated science to make interstellar.
By god.. this is getting tiring to explain. They do not have feathers because. A) The need to have continuity, they can't have feathered raptors after having them featherless the entire saga. JP1 marked how dinosaurs would look in it. They must follow that cannon. Wich brings me to: B) People aren't ready to see realistic dinosaurs as we know them now. Imagine people seeing a feathered T-Rex acting like a giant ostrich and velociraptors of the size of a dog. There it goes cool factor. C) And I quote the movie "You never asked for realism, Jurassic Park has never been real, if it did dinosaurs would look completely different" (reffering to how DNA was mixed to create them on the first place) or something along those lines, I didn't saw the movie in english.
Read the book. Dr Wu explains that the dinos are genetically engineered to look like public expectation of what dinosaurs should look like thanks to decades of film/media etc. Having feathers would just look silly to the public as they are not used to it yet, so they chose to make them without, to change the colours, even make the dinosaurs slower as they moved too fast in real life so they were engineered to be slower so the public could see them behind the fences. Dr Wu even talks about making miniature T Rexes to sell as pets! You gotta remember JP is all about mass consumerism, a company abusing science, technology and nature for profit. This is clearly stated in the book and the films. As Grant says in JP3 "what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less." Even though they are realistic, they are still created by artists able to shape them at their whim. This is why they made the Indominus, because the public wanted entertainment, to be scared, not real "nature".
I guess they nod to this in the movie when Henry Wu states that if they were to make authentic dinosaurs, they would look like something completely different. I guess the company thought that feathered dinosaurs would upset the kids. And I guess they want to be on the safe side. I mean. I recall when my nephew got super angry when I drew a feathered non-avian dinosaurs. "They are not supposed to have feathers!" he said (but in Swedish though).
Just because the Jurrasic World dinosaurs look outdated, it doesnt mean you judge them. Its how InGen created them with living mammals or reptiles DNA.
There is brand new research that proves the TRex did not have feathers because of its large size. It may have at one point as shown by the feathered dinosaur similar to the TRex, had feather but through evolution and natural selection they were phased out. The HUGE bodies and constant movement with their incredibly powerful legs made feathers a nuisance. The TRex in Jurassic World was correct. The raptors and other small birds were not but I thought I should explain the TRex and it's lack of feathers.
The myth that dinosaurs had feathers persists despite the complete absence of genuine dinosaur feathers. A report several years ago regarding 'protofeathers' in amber samples caused a stir but has been rejected by many in the scientific community. Some have criticized the 'protofeather hypothesis' saying the protofeather fibers could be plant material or mammal hair and not even from dinosaurs.
MORE1500 What are you talking about? Did you not see the images in the video showing dinosaur fossils with feather impressions? If you want more proof, just google "dinosaur feather impressions" and you'll get loads of results.
The actually talked about how Velociraptor was like a Bird, aside from being Oversized, too intelligent, and featherless, it is actually ahead of it's time. The other movies that did that was Jurassic Park 2, Dinosaur (2000), and Jurassic Park 3 (with quills).
Jurassic World acknowledges that in the movie. Dr. Wu says the dinosaurs were bionengineered to look “scarier”, cause if they were pure they would look different (feathers). Come on, Vox.
I feel like the comment in the movie that (SPOILER) reconnecting dinosaurs DNA with modern animals caused dinosaurs to look the different secretly dealt with the issue of dinosaurs in the movie not looking the same as we have recently covered.
I honestly think that there were likely dinosaurs that did and didn't (or had different amounts of) feathers depending on their region. Kinda like how Mammoths had fur, and elephants do not. It'd make sense. Theres no reason why a dinosaur would look exactly the same regardless of its environment on the planet. That's not how evolution works. Dinosaurs were around for 150 million years. There had to be a lot of variations of the same exact dinosaurs.
Criticizing the movie for this of all things when it's a sequel to movies that also did not feature feathered dinosaurs doesn't make sense and seems a bit silly to me at least. Of course they wouldn't - it would be an odd change to make to the existing concept in the franchise. Don't get me wrong, this movie had plenty wrong with it, but I think this easily gets a pass. Other than that, it was a good and informative video though!
Feathers not scary? Imagine a giant lizard-chicken with teeth chasing you and you will know fear.
+Mark Arandjus why do you make it sound like that has happened to you?
Will Plays Music I own a very aggressive African grey parrot. True story.
Mark Arandjus OMG! that's so funny
More comedy than horror imo
Agreed. Feathers scary. Geese😨
I think this is because Jurassic Park was created to tell an engaging story and revolutionize the public's perception of dinosaurs, while Jurassic world was created to cash in on nostalgia.
YUP BUT JURRASIC WORLD 2 LOOKS AWESOME
I agree, it wasn't scary like the first 3 movies, and was largely about Chris Pratt and his love affair. I didn't pay to see Chris, I paid to see dinosaurs GTFO
Tia D. I paid to see Chris
Unless Chris is naked, and the movie is about his taboo love affair with his raptors, I don't care.
the raptors change their look in every movie
I thought they were gonna talk about how the effects look better in Jurassic Park than in Jurassic World
Coty Lee ikr
meh jurassic park had good effects because they used animatronics and cgi
Derpasaurus lol totally not like I could tell when they used an animatronic.
@@fossilftw No. I can see the difference in the animatronic scenes to the CGI. Its stiffer. JP just had better models for the dinosaurs, better texturing and better lighting in its scenes that made them look more realistic. JW's CGI looked bad. It to me lacked the above.
Cyberdemon Mike. 10000 times better
Spoiler alert:
T-REX IS BIG BIRD
Not a bird, just closely related.
+Joshua Lowrie birds and dinos are the same
+Yippa In Da Hood Birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds
Joshua Lowrie ye
*****
Big Bird is actually played by a lady though.
Well, to be honest you can easily excuse Jurassic World's inaccuracy with the fact that in the book they basically say "Yeah, we don't really know what Dinosaurs were like 100% but this is what we engineered them to be because this is what we think they really looked like."
And that they used a mixture of DNA from reptiles and amphibians to make up for the missing spaces that the mosquito samples left them with.
imo that line was one of the best parts of the movie...finally the morons silenced.
rants n' rambles the only moron I see here is you needlessly insulting other people. Yes they made a mistake but is this really necessary? I think it isn't
Ghost Reportin' just one thing. In jurrasic world they said it was because they wanted them to look like that not because they didn't know better they said that they would look very different if they kept the dna intact. And also if they used avian dinosaur dna to fill in the gaps.
Ghost Reportin' To be exact they used a few different reptiles dna to fill gaps mostly frog
Theory on why JW dinos don't have feathers:
They're not real dinosaurs. They're genetically modified monsters. The gene splicing could have easily fucked up the development of feathers.
Or, they could have seen the feathers, decided they weren't scary enough, and removed the trait altogether.
Duesal Bladesinger well, if u watched jurassic world, the asian scientist did explain that they made the dinosaurs based on what the public wanted for jurassic world, not just for scientific accuracy
iRoCk97 Exactly. That's what it is.
Thank you for getting it Duesal Bladesinger a lot of people don't catch that.
Duesal Bladesinger henry wu even explained this in the movie!! people are too stupid
And your first theory was right, yay.
Feathers are also a lot harder to animate realistically.
***** Harder to render yes, but not really harder to animate. They dont go through and animate feathers, they would just put them under a simulation and the computers would handle the rest. Doing this would drastically bump up render time, but the effort put in by animators would be relatively non existent
***** The velociraptors in the movie weren't even close to reality. In the movie they were six feet tall, but they were actually about two feet tall.
***** You don't manually animate feathers, they're done automatically. And it's really not too much harder that what's already going on.
PissedOffGhost Actually they were more like 3ft tall. However who knows, Maybe they were actually Utahraptors? They're about that big I think.
***** You must have not seen the Paddington bear movie, it had the most fluid realistic CGI hair movements I've ever seen and feathers would be much easier than thousands of hairs. Computers do all the heavy lifting anyways.
I thought this was going to be about how the film industry is making sequels of great movies rather than making original great movies, and how the great new movies of our time, the ones that explore never-before-seen settings and ideas and film techniques end up getting lost amid the name recognition.
But then it was about feathered dinosaurs. Eh, I guess I still learned a few things, and it's nice to see the fossil evidence.
Now that's a video I'd click on, don't know if Vox is up to the task though
Graham, give me a break. That's NOT greed. That's common sense. And it's NOT the studios either. It's the people who fund the studios. The investors are always going to go with the sure thing over the shot in the dark, because THEY aren't in the business of art, they're in the business of making money.
If you want to make some artsy-fartsy movie that will likely have a very small audience and probably lose money (unless perhaps you can make it on the cheap), you'd better fund it yourself.
Hollywood investors are NOT in the business of giving money away to throw down an artistic "toilet". They invest in movies to make money. Pure and simple. And that is NOT "greed". It's smart investing.
That's what I thought too, Hollywood is now more than ever terrified with the idea of coming up with original ideas
DaaaahWhoosh The original JP was based off of the Jurassic Park book by Michael Crichton.
So much for originality.
With some effort they could have made feathered dinosaurs terrifying
Naturally they would be scary...
Yeah, maybe not the JP franchise but some other Dinosaur thriller could use 100% accurate Dinosaurs as their "monsters" and show everyone that realistic Dinosaurs are often a lot more terrifying than the ones often depicted in pop culture, like JP.
A 6 meter long hawk (Utahraptor) and a giant Trex with dirty and bloody feathers and great vision is more scary to me than a 3.5 meter long iguana (JP raptor) and a 12 meter long Godzilla with poor vision.
Exhibit A: Griffin from Witcher 3
yeah but it wouldn't be scary if they portrayed actual velocoraptors. 3 ft tall, didn't hunt in packs and about as smart as a domestic turkey. not scary, a man could probably over power it.
Eagles are smaller and lighter yet they hunt reindeers.
Ugh... I hate to defend Jurassic World, because it's a terrible movie. But they address this in the film itself. They explain that the dinosaurs were always genetically modified to better reflect what the audience expected to see.
Ughh, it's not a terrible movie.
this movie is far from terrible, it's not great, but it's easily digestible and good for entertainment and money well spent
Put up all nostalgia aside and you would like jurassic world as equally good as jurassic park.
A6 7 possibly, but I didn't like the undeveloped character arcs of the brothers from JW
A6 7 No. No I would not. Admiration for the original aside, JW is poorly written, boring, ugly-looking, and stupid. And you know what? The filmmakers certainly don't want you to "put your nostalgia aside" since they take ever opportunity they can get to put in visual and auditory "homages" to moments from JP.
They acknowledge this in the movie. Doctor Wu states that if the dinosaurs hadn't been infused with frog DNA, the dinosaurs would look drastically different.
Yeats Goodwin Why they chose frog DNA when we know birds (which are theropod dinosaurs themselves) are theropod non-avian dinosaurs descendants always baffles me...
Since they seemed to get the sauropods spot on with their appearance. So they can't use that DNA excuse for them.
Uncivilized Elk What's wrong with them? They seem to match most artistic renderings I've seen...
Well, dinosaurs are archosaurs.
***** Apparently frog DNA is easily hidden in other DNA and is easier to manipulate than most other types of DNA. Mind you those are just things I have heard, so don't judge me to harshly if I'm wrong.
ua-cam.com/video/nxigP1as9SI/v-deo.html watch at around 2:00
They didn’t just use frog dna they used frog , crocodilians, birds and extant reptiles to do so
Did you just put Whey protein powder on an animal toy?
NRG Player interesting guess, but twas simply flour
***** I am nothing like you.
***** >:(
NRG Player Some people.
Ah it was flour... when i read that I was all "NO WHEY!!!"
Clearly you've never been attacked by a cassowary.
GloomGaiGar have you personally?
GloomGaiGar that was the first animal that killed me in Far Cry 3 😂😂😂
I'm mostly attacked by cookies.
Can't think of how to make feathers scary? Watch an eagle take down a goat. A pair will attack even some wild big cats. Ever meet an angry ostrich?
Ever heard of "The Birds" ;) ? +D.E.B. B exactly!!
+D.E.B. B Only under Imminent danger.
+D.E.B. B Being chased by an angry ostrich might be scary. Watching somebody in a film being chased by an angry ostrich is still funny as hell.
+MARI0LAND ostriches will easily outrun and stomp you
@@MARI0LAND Yes Because Watching someone being chased by glorified lizards on steroids that make the prey alert every 0.00001 seconds isn't Funny at all.
The whole thing with Wu is totally a cop out on the part of the movie creators. Every movie after the first is killing the spirit. That movie was meant to revolutionize how people thought of dinosaurs while giving them an engaging horror story to go with it. The other movies are just milking it, and removing the feathers because it makes more money. Jurassic World is making a bit more of an effort to not make "Give us money: the movie", yet it's obvious that the creators don't want to get out of their comfort zone and make people think, unlike the first movie.
+5raptorboy1 How is it a cop out if that scene was pretty much in the original novel?
mjangelvortex Where in the original movie?
5raptorboy1
I didn't say the original movie. I said the original novel (written by Michael Crichton). In the chapter named "Version 4.4" Dr. Wu and Hammond have a similar conversation.
mjangelvortex Oh sorry. Though, I did address that in the other comment.
5raptorboy1as stated in the first film-
Gaps in the DNA are filled in with other animals.
I.e this ain’t no dinosaur. They never have been. They’re freakshows.
In JW the movie explains how John Hammond wanted the dinosaurs to look scary so they removed the feathers in order to do that
Hammond would never do that.
I see you read the novel, R.B. Good job : )
Dinosuars still could look scary with feathers
Which explains why Jurassic Park is located on a tropical island.
Vox and critics are completely ignoring this scene in the movie: "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth." InGen Dr. Henry Wu to CEO Simon Masrani (Jurassic Word, 2015).
+Jonathan Gumpangkum I agree, but because we allow this to happen, people will continue to get misinformed on whats a real dinosaur vs a fictional one. Thus, the war against feathered dinosaurs has started.
+Hunter Strait But you also have to consider that most people would want to see these outdated dinosaurs. Heck even I would prefer a cool looking raptor instead of the ones they showed in the video. Especially since the whole movie seemed to be just a tribute to the original movie and to make money easily by feeding off of nostalgia.
+Hunter Strait this would only be an issue if people actually go to the movies for educational material.
...this came out before the movie...
Thank You. I was looking for a comment like this.
....i thought this was gonna be about the horrible cgi in Jurassic World😂
It wasn't
+me too You dont say
Its was a meh movie overall
It wasn't horrible. A kid can't tell the difference.
It's not terrible. But it's opinion. I guess
I imagine the work involved in modelling feathers in computer graphics is much more difficult and expensive than modelling a fairly flat or scaled skin.
the CGI in this movie was really bad anyway.
It is. It's like a different form of hair physics. That's why most 3D animations don't give characters curly hair; because it's complicated. Feathers are the same way.
It's not like they would have to animate each and every feather when the creature is moving.
I believe that it has been proven that feathers on most Dinosaurs were very hawk like and therefore were quite "glued" to the body.
They had 100,000$. With that money they should be able to animate damn feathers
with a estimated budget of 150 million there is no excuse to not animate feathers
Yeah, but the whole thing of Jurassic Park was that the dinosaur genes were mixed with what, frog genes? Ergo, no feathers.
"Ergo"?, watch out, we got ourselves an intellectual badass over here. And back then they didn't know what dinosaurs were made of, and you say frogs and dinosaur genes? Well frogs breath mostly through their skin and therefore their skin needs to be perpetually wet, due to the lack of any moisture in the skin of the dino's in Jurassic Park I highly doubt any of the dinosaurs in that movie would have survived, but oh well, it is a movie and an entertaining one at that.
The genes for feathers could still be expressed regardless of how "clean" their DNA was.
If they really were mixed with frogs, then in reality they should also express quite a few characteristics of frogs. Like thin bumpy skin, and enlarged feet.
I may be wrong, but didn't Jurassic World cover for its scientific inaccuracies by saying that they genetically modified the dinosaurs on display to fit with the public's views?
+Davis Wojnovich
They did. It's just that way too many people are butthurt over Jurassic World not being 100% up-to-date.
+Davis Wojnovich You mean they wrote their way out of having to make feathered dinosaurs into the plot to fit with the public views? lol I don't really care because the movie was boring and had way worse problems than the actual dino design anyways, but still, lets be real.
Actually this is pretty realistic since fossil Dna is rarely complete (far from it) and theres currently experiments happening trying to create what technically amounts to a mammoth, by implementing Mammoth Dna into an embryonic Elephant since the species are so closely related.
Also this was also the explenation used in the book, although not to explain the lack of feathers. It is mentioned that the dinosaurs technically aren't real since they're dna had to be heavily modified with that of other reptiles.
They also say in one of the movies that any missing DNA was frog DNA
@@patrickgreenfield6481 They really should have used dna from an archosaur (crocodilian or bird) for the dinosaurs and pterosaurs. Since both groups were in the archosaur family.
I remember being a kid and going to the theater to see Jurassic Park and being blown away. It really changed cinema.
You're going to pick apart this sci-fi movie for not being realistic, even though it's consistent with it's own rules?
Listen, many writers and analysts agree (and a Ted-ed video was done on this one that I recommend since you guys do a lot of videos commentating on movies) that part of what makes a good story and an immersive world is that each fiction story has its own set of rules that are often easier for the reader to follow than the rules of the real world.
To take it to the extreme, Star Wars has clear definitions for the way light-sabers, star-ships or the force works. While we don't bat an eye when a TIE fighter buzzes through space even though the concept is impossible (space makes no sound, Ion Engines couldn't propel a ship at a decent velocity, and twin engines would not give a ship the maneuverability seen in the movies), if a force user suddenly started using the force with a magic stick like a wand or by chanting magical words then we'd be perplexed and the illusion would be broken. Why? Because the rules of the Star Wars universe clearly dictate that a TIE fighter works and we accept it, but the rules of the Star Wars universe also clearly dictate that the force is accessed using your mind (and midichlorians I suppose... *sigh*) to reach out to the force rather than using enchanted objects or magical words. To take it to the extreme, what if hobbits showed up to destroy the death star by throwing a ring down the exhaust pipe, or if Vulcans defended the Ewoks against the empire? The illusion would be completely shattered and we'd be watching a farce rather than a sci-fi story.
Obviously that last example was not what you're talking about, so let's come back to something more practical:
We'd also be perplexed if the new Star Wars VII movie had abandoned TIE fighters and X-Wings for being unscientific and had instead adopted a space-ship much closer to the design we see in the newer Battlestar Galactica designs that are much more scientific (because they have propulsion all around the ship at varying angles to give it manueverability). It would completely break the illusion of the previous six movies because suddenly those dogfights don't make sense and can't work.
The scenario I just described is exactly what you are talking about doing. The original Jurassic Park had dinosaurs that look more like reptiles than birds. Those are the rules of this FICTIONAL world. Plausible or not, that is the story that is being told. If the story suddenly decided that given new scientific data the dinosaurs would be different, then the illusion would have been broken, viewers would have questioned why the dinosaurs in the first 3 movies were incorrect, and none of the fans would have been able to simply dive into the new story with ease. Furthermore; the rules of this world dictate that the dinosaur DNA samples were incomplete and the scientists used reptile DNA to complete the missing sequences. The dinosaurs also took on many other traits of the reptile and frog DNA that was used to complete it. This is scientifically ridiculous, but that doesn't matter because the rules don't need to be plausible; they only need to be believable and consistent. So therefore, we have a canonical reason why the dinosaurs could look closer to reptiles than birds.
I'd like to propose that you just hated this movie because you want to prove that CGI makes a movie bad and can't stand that this movie indicates otherwise.
Jurassic World was fucking shit. Thank god I only downloaded it. Full of product placement and a horrible plot.
+Connor Stilwell Finally someone who understands the way media works. It's for the audience, the people, not for a science lesson. Pretty sure that a LOT less people would've come to watch the movie if the raptors looked like the ones shown in the video.
this guy gets it
+subwayvesubscriber sadly a large majority of the audience thinks the movie is fact and attacks the scientific community for the assumption of feathered dinosaurs...so in actuality, this movie does affect the paleontology community.
T Watterson Yeah, but these kinds of people also believe in religion and feminism and whatnot. We know most of the masses are incredibly stupid and I don't bother to worry about this. Ignorant people will always be ignorant.
What are you guys talking about? Feathered dinosaurs were not a matter of discussion in the 90's. Archaeopteryx was dicovered in the late 1800's. JP's biggest crime was to use "Velociraptor" to describe what was essentially Deinonychus (and later Utahraptor).
+elmohead
It especially bugged me that the movie used the term "raptor" to refer to them, seeing as that's actually the taxonomic term for birds of prey like eagles and stuff.
Jascha Bull to all ornithologists out there: sorry we unintentionally stole one of your terms.
...so basically all dinosaurs had feathers ?...:P
Krunoslav Šokić So far, it's not clear how many of them had feathers, because they're hard to detect in most rock formations. But many theropods definitely did.
*****
Because there are. "many theropods" = more than one, many it would seem, most of them still unknown because feathers don't tend to last 62 million years :P
There's good evidence.Go find Trey the Explainer's video called "Which Dinosaurs had Feathers" it's a bit long, but very informative and smart.
Not all, most. What we know of so far, most non-ceolosaurian theropods had no feathers and were very scaly. If those did have feathers, which is possible, then they would have small amounts of it. This is also the case with stegosaurs and ankylosaurs. Sauropods most likely did not have feathers. This video doesn't cover everything, but it does spread the word on dinosaurs having feathers
Joshua Lowrie "most non-coelosaurian theropods had no feathers and were very scaly" there is no proof for that. The only proof we have is some skin impressions, with Carnotaurus the only one found with enough to the point where we can say it had no feathers. The others are up for debate.
Ok, let's lay down the facts:
First off, Jurassic World is a movie, not a documentary.
Second, like it says IN THE FILM, they are genetically modified monsters, who's sole purpose of being created is to entertain guests of the park. If they were 100% dinosaur, they would look completely different, and hardly scary at all.
Third, if they had given the raptors feathers in the movie, people would have flipped shit because they would look utterly stupid and completely not-terrifying.
To those who complain about them being "scientifically accurate", even though we have absolutely no clue what they actually looked like, it's a film meant to entertain and make money. So stop acting like you all are these brilliant paleontologist and grow up.
Jake Hendricks you pretty much said it in my behalf
Jake Hendricks
*To those who complain about them being "scientifically accurate", even though we have absolutely no clue what they actually looked like, ...*
Actually, we do. Maybe not exact coloring, but looking toward their descendants, birds... we can assume that non-avian dinosaurs were just as colorful. Of course, birds like Emus, Ostriches, etc. are better examples, since they represent an older group of birds known as paleognaths, which are rather bland in color. In fact, if you take a naked Emu, you basically have a tailless dinosaur. In fact, birds in general are classified as theropod dinosaurs.
As for feathers, we have countless fossils that support them having feathers, just as the video explains.
***** why are you contradicting yourself ? assuming doesn't equal knowing
DevilRaptorB How was I contradicting myself?
I was referring to their coloring, we don't know what colors they were, but since we do know that birds are their descendants, we can assume or infer is a better word to use that non-avian dinosaurs were just as colorful, some were possibly as bland in color as paleognaths.
The only assumption or hypothesis I made is on their coloring, everything else I said, we do know.
***** saying that dinosaurs evolved to bird in itself isn't really knowing anything , thats a belief and not a fact , you don't know it, you just think its true
You can totally make feathers scary! The bald eagle is the American embodiment of don't mess with me I fight for FREEDOM badassery! The entire vulture family is terrifying. And condors are a thing. Plus, have you heard of the Cassowary? They are the epitome of "oh hey this thing is pretty oh wait it can fuck me up"
Cassowary just hate everything lol
***** Birds of prey, sure, dinos? I dunno. Generally speaking, birds don't conjure up that intimidating fear in most people the way most reptiles do. Cassowary's may in practice be very dangerous, but they look silly and wouldn't work in a movie.
iilikecereal So hard to kill in Far Cry 3. Those things won't quit.
Uncivilized Elk Pretty much. Also, try facing off against an ostrich or an eagle. Those things are fucking terrifying when they want to be.
***** Cassowary? the reason why reptiles is more scary is caz one singler type of deadly reptile has killed more people then the whole bird tress combined , so yaa feathers makes dinossaurs less scary , only a pussy well be afreid of something that can't kill him/her
"Consistency"
Pfff old people and their fear of changing stuff.
Max Đỗ It would be like a character suddenly being played by someone of a different race in the 4th installment of a franchise.
It would be like in the next Star Wars movie if Luke was just suddenly black for no reason
1 2 Calm down. They had minor quills which could have come from a slight change in the DNA sequencing. Not at all the same as them supposedly evolving to have head to toe feathers and wings in the space of 14 years.
***** Except that these are different characters (with the exception of the T. rex), they are supposedly a new batch of dinosaurs made with refined techniques and more advanced technology, this movie set the perfect excuse the franchise has ever had for updating them and they wasted it.
HoveringAboveMyself Now that I've seen the movie, I don't think the story allows for that change. The entire plot is pretty much based around the owners of JP not caring about accuracy, they just want the scariest theme park monsters that will attract the most guests. It wouldn't be in line with the plot to produce feathered dinosaurs. You'll have to take it up with Steven Spielberg. Maybe in JP V!
I mean, that's interesting science facts, but the Jurassic Park canon already decided what dinosaurs looked like for the sake of the movies. It's a movie, not a scientific documentary.
Who cares if the dinosaurs are "outdated." It's a movie, dinosaurs are extinct so if you want to go by that logic, there shouldn't be any dinosaurs at all in the movie
Relaayy Have you even watched the original Jurassic Park movie?
yes, but my point still stands, by her logic
Relaayy No, it doesn't.
cool?
Relaayy Sorry, I didn't have time to explain why. The fact that dinosaurs are alive makes sense in that universe but the fact that they don't look like real dinosaurs doesn't, except that their DNA is partly from frogs.
As Henri Wu said in the new movie.
"They're not real dinosaurs, you ordered us to make them scary."
Imagine an alien civilization coming across chicken and bird fossils and recreating them without feathers.
A chicken without feathers looks very very weird in comparison.
We are doing that exact same thing to dinosaurs haha.
I wish we could somehow, see how magnificent dinosaurs were, that's why I loved the first JP movie... It bringed a little glimpse to that world.
This new one is terrible, and not because the dinosaurs; the plot is incredibly bad.
I think they could've made feathered dinos scary. Imagine this. Person is running and hides behind a ledge of some sort. They start to catch their breath when a feather falls on their lap, and they look up. "Clever girl"
Anyone who's played the game Saurian knows feathered dinosaurs can be terrifying!
Their feathered Manospondylus gigas is the best!
If the public from 1993 could accept intelligent warm blooded dinosaurs over lumbering, Godzilla-like ones, then I fail to see why giving them feathers also would be such a controversy.
It's a fucking science fiction movie. Complaining about inaccuracies in Jurassic Park is like complaining that the tie fighters make sound in space.
Gojirex they arnt complaining so much as learning people some science while making it fun with jurasic park branding and disscusion
Gojirex 👈 this guy gets it!
Lucas Erb Star Wars is not in a different universe, it is in “a galaxy far far away.” Which would suggest that it is still governed by the laws of this universe, a.k.a. spacecraft don’t make sound in space. But I digress.
Attempting to be as accurate as possible was a noble goal on the part of Michael Chrighton, but continuity is a rule when it comes to film and cinema. Suddenly designing giant reptiles to look like giant avians would not only not come across to the audience in any acceptable manner, it would also ruin the effect that has been instilled into the popular psyche by the collective misunderstanding of what we all assumed dinosaurs looked like. Giant birds simply are not intense, giant reptiles on the other hand get the blood flowing. Maybe in 20 years when someone wants to reboot the franchise, we can do scary-feathery dinosaurs, but for now let’s finish the goddamn franchise on the same foot that we started. “Big lizards gonna getcha.”
I think that feathers can be used to a dinosaurs look and function in a dinosaur movie to show how feathers can effect an animal in real life as well as new looks for creatures. Without clothes a person freezes to death rapidly even in weather you would tolerate in a jacket. It isn't a slight difference, it greatly increases visual look and function of the animals. Like their voices being much deeper and lower frequency. This isn't a humming sound or no humming sound.
@@taylorphoenix8 No, he doesn't. Jurassic Park used to care about accuracy and making the dinosaurs look right, but the Jurassic World movies are the exact opposite. Literally all dinosaurs in them have several problems.
Yes, the original novel and film did give many invented characteristics to dinosaurs, but were overall pretty good for the 1990s. Hammond even gets angry at Henry Wu in the book because he proposed altering the dinosaurs to make them more interesting for visitors, and Hammond wanted them to be as close to the real dinosaurs as possible.
All those quoting the movie to explain that these are generically modified dinosaurs and not real ones still don't address the title of this video.
While the movie gave a safe explanation for the featherless dinos, it is not revolutionary, unlike JP 1.
We can hope for feathers only in a super realistic version of Jurassic Park. A movie which would be like Dark Knight to Batman Forever.
Jurassic World is a science fiction film, not a documentary
MrSwadloon Without a bit of science is it really scifi or just fantasy?
HoveringAboveMyself Only, it does have a bit of science.
+Qazi Sadid There's a good amount of science in Jurassic world
then they shouldn't call them dinosaurs
Jochem Witteveen Yes they should be called dinosaurs
Jurassic world actually addressed this very thing in the movie. the main scientist admitted on screen that he makes monsters for entertainment.
this video made me realize that i dont give a shit about feathers
or... Just imagine how difficult it is to render realistic feathers in a CGI movie. It would have drastically increased the render times.
GamerFollower its bean done though
cubesinanutshell Whats your point? I know its been done. That doesn't disregard the fact that animating and rendering feathers cost significantly more and takes more time, especially if there are dozens, if not hundreds of dinosaurs on the screen at once.
GamerFollower dude they have millions of dollars
cubesinanutshell uh, no they don't... Most of their money is loaned to them. they have to get their money back when the movie comes out, and if they spend too much money they will never make their money back.
Even so, the render time for the movie would be increased dramatically. The movie Avatar took 10 years to render, granted they had more to render, but still, photo realism takes a long time to render and is expensive.
GamerFollower DUDE ITS FUCKING JURASSIC PARK. IT COULD HAVE BEAN DONE WITH SOCK PUPPETS AND WOULD HAVE MAD TENS OF MILLIONS.
I thought this video will be a rant about how bad jurassic world was in terms of theatrical elements, not the actual dinosaur design accuracy.
man i don't care if there's an in universe explanation for the lack of feathers, but sooner or later they're gonna have to add in feathered dinosaurs. I'd love to see them find complete dino DNA with the feathers and have the feathered ones duke it out with the featherless ones. if they're still gonna be making jp movies 5 or 10 years from now, they're gonna be a laughing stock cause hopefully by that time popular media shows dinos with feathers.
also: feathers can be scary if you at least TRY. the acheroraptor from saurian is a thing of nightmares, honestly
I just _love_ when she says: »But you have to assume they also just weren't up for the task of making feathers…into something scary.«
Feathers are pretty terrifying once you've been attacked by a hawk or eagle.
Imagine yourself as a scientist creating dinosaurs from DNA fragments at the beginning of 90s,you figure out how most of them had feathers,you tell that to folks in suits that are in charge,that will do anything to make that kind of park reality due to fact it would bring them lot,lot I mean lot of money.You would probably get praise for your find,but you'd be told to try to make them how regular people want to see them,as a ferocious lizard like beasts,because park will impress paleontologists for sure,but paleontologists will not flock in thousands each day there,buying food,souvenirs etc.General audience would find it kind a misleading to see them in feathered form all of the sudden instead of way they are used to from old school books and pop culture.Park would get lot of attention anyway,but it would not get as much as it would get by showing something people weren't expected to see,and what they could find kind a disappointing.
Also,I find it kind a funny people complaining about Velociraptors not being covered in feathers,but no one mentioning how they are size of the grown man in JP movies,or even bigger as opposed of size of turkey they were in real life.
Just to add how no one is thinking (now ignoring first part of my post),that even if you'd find preserved DNA in mosquito blood,how much of it would be intact ? So in other words,you would have to improvise a lot by implementing parts of today's animals DNA in it to complete it.Meaning scientists would make actually a custom made new animals,that are only partially dinosaurs,and because of missing DNA fragments they would improvise,giving dinosaurs certain skin color,putting Triceratops three horns on its head,or making Raptors bold.
Even if DNA would be completely preserved,you'd have to change dinosaurs internal organs completely with ones from today's animals,because of lower levels of oxygen in today's air than in one from time they roamed the earth,and because of different diseases and food they would consume.
Dembilaja "you'd be told to try to make them how regular people want to see them,as a ferocious lizard like beasts"
This is something brought up in the book, actually. Foregoing accuracy to satisfy expectations. Because, as you say, they couldn't get 100% dino DNA.
***** Really ? Unfortunately I've never had chance to read original book.
Dembilaja
It's a cracking good book.
Dembilaja It is not true that "most" dinosaurs had feathers.
Gene Bivins
It is not known, since feathers have not often been preserved. However, evidence suggests that feathers were pretty ubiquitous.
They explained this in the movie... They're all hybrids
I'd be pretty damn afraid of a dinosaur that was chasing me regardless of whether it had feathers or not.
The dinosaurs in Jurassic world or made without feathers for a reason, John Hammonds dinosaurs were poorly cloned because of the time and the resources, and masrani wanted to keep the image, although impure, which purity could never be achieved anyway,that John had created. So people, he fell in love with his creations and Mr. Masrani respected his dying wish and his love.
Spoiler!! Dr. Wu explains this in the movie.
1 2 In what way?
1 2 Dr. Wu says in jurassic world, that "if the dino's were pure creations, they would look very different, but you didnt want pure, you wanted scarier and more teeth."
1 2 study abit more and then come discuss Jurassic world with me, because what you are saying is uninformed... partially.
1 2 right, you don't deserve anymore of my time.
i mean it kinda makes sense cause dinos in jurassic park and world aren't real dinosaurs they combine dino DNA with frog or other reptile DNA . The books make that more clear, and so does the new jurassic world movie.
The one scientist in the movie said that the dinosaurs they created were inaccurate
Well, they said that they were going for "awesome" and "frightening" rather than accurate, and yeah feathers aren't very scary.
+Verbally Inescapable ('Tales') *cough*Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, Eagles, Cassowaries(they have killed people)*cough*
To be fair, they accounted for it in Jurassic World by saying that the emphasis was less on making actual dinosaurs, and more something that was "cool".
Yay, a video that inderectly referenced phylogenetic systematics and bracketing in explaining why dinosaurs may or may not have been covered in feather like filaments. Well done, Vox.
Great, now I want to fly on a raptor.
If you go way back in time, about 30 years, Dr. Wu states many times in the book that the dinosaurs were created, not cloned. The movie only mentioned frog DNA, but Wu used a variety of different animals to create the dinos. He tinkered with them to make appealing "zoo exhibits" for the park. Movies can't put in all of the details from the books, so it makes sense that they cut Dr. Wu out almost entirely. I definitely recommend reading both of the original books. They're really good.
My favorite line that I think the director used was "we didn't make the dinosaurs accurate because this is a science fiction movie not a documentary"
In Pixar's The Good Dinosaur, there are actually feathered dinosaurs having a major role in the scene where Arlo has to scream to get their attention so his T-Rex buddies can go and "steal" their Buffalo's back
This is what I do at 5 in the morning 😕
alright Hollywood, I want a fluffy T-rex now.
CGI=Can't Get Ideas.
The film is based on a theme park, kids in it would want to expect dinosaurs to look like Godzilla or whatever, not like birds. This is also explained by Doctor Wu several times (if Vox watched the films).
all the examples you gave fall into the may be/could be territory, not enough for people to make a movie with
***** yes because a fossilize dinosaur with a feathers isn't enough proof but we can believe what a old dusty book says
What are smoking. What dusty old book? A dictionary an encyclopedia. Your comment makes absolute no sense. What's that about fossilized feathers and a book? What?
Proof of what now?
***** The original book and ALL the movies are "may be/could be" and nothing else. Cloning dinosaurs is not (currently?) possible, so it's all maybe/ could be/what if?
Hey I thinking your missing the point that in the Jurassic Park movie they said that they used frog dna to finish the code of the dino dna so they are kind of mutated that's probably why they dont have feathers ya should have payed attention to the movies
Looks like someone didn't watch the movie before making a video.
Yeah...because it wasn't out when they posed the video...
exactly, the movie was out, it was all explained in it, what's your point?
Penske Material The movie was NOT out yet, I mean.
mrplcole were you being sarcastic or not?
Penske Material Not.
I'd be willing to bet that one of the main reasons for why they didn't put feathers on the raptors in Jurassic World is because feathers (and other furry things) are a lot harder to make look real in CG. They need to movement and texture.
In simple terms, this is a BAD video by Vox
0:55 No, the first feathered dinosaur discovered was Archeaopteryx in 1861. That's hardly an obscure fact.
Hey, Vox: It's just a movie. Deal with it.
No feathers is why I didn't go see the movie. And the stupid "Let's make a mutant, super-intelligent, giant dinosaur" thing.
One thing that u forgot to mention is that the trex did not roar. It instead made a low growling sound like an alligator. Also the velociraptor was not the size of a full grown man. Instead it was about the size of a turkey
It’s just a move not a documentary honeslty it’s not that big of a deal
It doesn't matter if they have feathers are not, jurassic world just wasn't grounbreaking in any way. They should've just stuck with jurassic park and that's it.
Vox- "The dinosaurs pictured in jurrassic world are out of date."
Any person with common sense- "Aren't all dinosaurs out of date?"
JW just wasn't a very good movie to begin with. I was pretty upset by how colorless the dinosaurs seemed to be too. Besides the raptors, very little color overall, when it's quite likely dinosaurs were as colorful as our birds, and there are huge possibilities for the frill displays on the Ceratopsians. Just sayin', they could have had some fun with that.
I read somewhere they mention why dinosaurs don't look like how they are thought to look like. In the movie it has to do with marketing.
I thought this was going to be a CGI Vs. practical effects debate.
Thank you for this video! You have good sound, good music, good graphics, and you have marked all the sources! Really nice, I do appreciate that!
(Good = really really really good, but I'm finnish, and that's like the best compliment we can give)
You have a one new follower :)
At one point in the movie did a scientist say something along the lines of, "If we brought these things in their true form no one would come. We had to make them as scary as possible." Perhaps that could be a reference to the dinosaurs's feathers and why they didn't have any in Jurassic World.
This narrator and I would be best friends (or lovers). She has the best videos hands down for Vox.
To all of you in the comments complaining about Vox making a really thin connection: of course they are. If you piggy-back off of something immensely successful from pop-culture (like Jurassic Park) and incorporate it into your work somehow, you instantly get way more views, and thereby way more ad revenue. It's just a marketing tactic. And if you clicked on the video just to see how they would report on Jurassic World (like I did)...well, you're proof that this marketing tactic works. It doesn't have to be a very strong or reasonable connection, just enough to make sure people watch.
Devynn Hageman close but not quite! it's marketing in the sense that we're always looking for opportunities to talk about neat science in a way that people will want to watch. it's not about ads (which i fortunately don't have to think about at all in my job) but rather just choosing a good time for an interesting story. thanks for watching and hope you found it worth your time. -Joss
Vox If that's your aim, criticizing the movie you're using to garner interest in your video isn't a good tactic. What's wrong with, "Jurassic Park is great! But did you know real dinosaurs had feathers? Let us tell you about it!" The comments wouldn't be so argumentative if you'd made a purely informational video instead of a shade-throwing one with biased information about Jurassic Park not being up to the task of using feathered dinosaurs.
Look at 'Because Science' on Nerdist's youtube channel. It's based on Kyle Hill exploring the science behind science fiction in pop culture and he does it in a way that builds on the viewers excitement about the movies and shows that drew them into the video. I'm not familiar with the usual style of Vox videos, but this one had too much attitude against the film it was depicting for my taste.
I got a Jurassic World:Fallen Kingdom as before this vid. I already watched it and I reckon it's a really good movie.
Sorry if this comment sounds like a Advertisement
Still a decent movie
How are you ppl in the comments actually defending this movie vox has a valid point this would have been a perfect opportunity to introduce feathers. Its like saying you would've been OK if Nolan used outdated science to make interstellar.
It's revealed in the new movie that the dinosaurs are not the original animal. They modified them to make them look more appealing to the audience.
By god.. this is getting tiring to explain.
They do not have feathers because.
A) The need to have continuity, they can't have feathered raptors after having them featherless the entire saga. JP1 marked how dinosaurs would look in it. They must follow that cannon. Wich brings me to:
B) People aren't ready to see realistic dinosaurs as we know them now. Imagine people seeing a feathered T-Rex acting like a giant ostrich and velociraptors of the size of a dog. There it goes cool factor.
C) And I quote the movie "You never asked for realism, Jurassic Park has never been real, if it did dinosaurs would look completely different" (reffering to how DNA was mixed to create them on the first place) or something along those lines, I didn't saw the movie in english.
You call them dinosaurs. I call them *fluffy chickens!*
Read the book. Dr Wu explains that the dinos are genetically engineered to look like public expectation of what dinosaurs should look like thanks to decades of film/media etc. Having feathers would just look silly to the public as they are not used to it yet, so they chose to make them without, to change the colours, even make the dinosaurs slower as they moved too fast in real life so they were engineered to be slower so the public could see them behind the fences. Dr Wu even talks about making miniature T Rexes to sell as pets! You gotta remember JP is all about mass consumerism, a company abusing science, technology and nature for profit. This is clearly stated in the book and the films. As Grant says in JP3 "what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less."
Even though they are realistic, they are still created by artists able to shape them at their whim. This is why they made the Indominus, because the public wanted entertainment, to be scared, not real "nature".
I guess they nod to this in the movie when Henry Wu states that if they were to make authentic dinosaurs, they would look like something completely different. I guess the company thought that feathered dinosaurs would upset the kids. And I guess they want to be on the safe side. I mean. I recall when my nephew got super angry when I drew a feathered non-avian dinosaurs. "They are not supposed to have feathers!" he said (but in Swedish though).
Just because the Jurrasic World dinosaurs look outdated, it doesnt mean you judge them. Its how InGen created them with living mammals or reptiles DNA.
There is brand new research that proves the TRex did not have feathers because of its large size. It may have at one point as shown by the feathered dinosaur similar to the TRex, had feather but through evolution and natural selection they were phased out. The
HUGE bodies and constant movement with their incredibly powerful legs made feathers a nuisance. The TRex in Jurassic World was correct. The raptors and other small birds were not but I thought I should explain the TRex and it's lack of feathers.
The thing that you completely ignored is that they were genetically modified to look "cooler" Dr. Wu even said that the dinos are not natural.
The "Raptor" has wings, but it can,t fly only half glide because how small the wingspan is.
The myth that dinosaurs had feathers persists despite the complete absence of genuine dinosaur feathers. A report several years ago regarding 'protofeathers' in amber samples caused a stir but has been rejected by many in the scientific community.
Some have criticized the 'protofeather hypothesis' saying the protofeather fibers could be plant material or mammal hair and not even from dinosaurs.
MORE1500 What are you talking about? Did you not see the images in the video showing dinosaur fossils with feather impressions? If you want more proof, just google "dinosaur feather impressions" and you'll get loads of results.
The actually talked about how Velociraptor was like a Bird, aside from being Oversized, too intelligent, and featherless, it is actually ahead of it's time.
The other movies that did that was Jurassic Park 2, Dinosaur (2000), and Jurassic Park 3 (with quills).
I just watched the original Jurassic Park last night. Was actually pretty impressed with the CGI given how old it is.
Thank you! I've been saying this since the 1st reel I watched.
Jurassic World acknowledges that in the movie. Dr. Wu says the dinosaurs were bionengineered to look “scarier”, cause if they were pure they would look different (feathers). Come on, Vox.
I feel like the comment in the movie that (SPOILER) reconnecting dinosaurs DNA with modern animals caused dinosaurs to look the different secretly dealt with the issue of dinosaurs in the movie not looking the same as we have recently covered.
I honestly think that there were likely dinosaurs that did and didn't (or had different amounts of) feathers depending on their region. Kinda like how Mammoths had fur, and elephants do not. It'd make sense. Theres no reason why a dinosaur would look exactly the same regardless of its environment on the planet. That's not how evolution works. Dinosaurs were around for 150 million years. There had to be a lot of variations of the same exact dinosaurs.
Criticizing the movie for this of all things when it's a sequel to movies that also did not feature feathered dinosaurs doesn't make sense and seems a bit silly to me at least. Of course they wouldn't - it would be an odd change to make to the existing concept in the franchise. Don't get me wrong, this movie had plenty wrong with it, but I think this easily gets a pass. Other than that, it was a good and informative video though!
So basically a super scary death walker T-Rex is now an over sized carnivouris chicken