Just saying if they remade Walking With Dinosaurs with this quality of VFX and thee updated modern accuracy it could potentially be one of the greatest pieces of dinosaur media of all time
Well, I’d have thought it was obvious why Rexy doesn’t have feathers/fur, she’s not a ‘pure’ Rex, none of the cloned animals are ‘pure’, since Wu had to mix in other DNA samples to get viable genomes, that was established in the first book.
Current research that I'm aware of state that t-rex didn't have feathers. Smaller Asian tyrannosaurs had them, but skin impressions of the rex don't show any feathers or the skin structures associated with them. Maybe they had them as juveniles, but adults didn't.
@@misatokitty76 Do you have a source for this? all the research ive seen over the past few years suggest that the t-rex had "fluff" around the neck area at least
'This is a scared animal that doesn't know what's going on' is not the sort of thing you expect somebody to say about a dinosaur attacking people but he's absolutely right.
They briefly mentioned in Jurassic world that they engineered the dinosaurs to look like what they think it should look like. Aka more teeth. It was a cool way to still have the dinosaurs look like they have for years and still acknowledge they aren’t technically accurate
@@thewizardspipe4265 He was referring to 10:15 when the expert was comparing the shots of the feathery dino to the one that is loose in the present day....
Despite all of the inaccuracies and such, the prologue was honestly fantastic! There was definitely some animal/palaeontologist experts working with the film crew for this one.
Hm yes the paleontologists that never bothered to mention the grass that was there ten million years before it was supposed to evolve. Which paleontologist there came up with that horrid Giganotosaurus design?
@@lordshotgun7168 This seems like something very easy to avoid and that anyone can do simple research on. I'm sure they had paleontologists helping them, but they made it clear they wanted to have some artistic freedom.
To be fair, they seem to aknowledge the inaccuracies several times. Jurassic World, Henry Wu stated that if the DNA they found was more pure, a lot of the dinosaurs would look very different. In Jurassic Park 3, Alan Grant stated they were "theme park monsters."
Yeah. It seems that Jurassic World and (probably) Jurassic park changed the dinosaurs' DNA to make them more scary and to draw in more tourists. Well, that idea backfired.
except this is set when the real Dinos were around and since the in canon real Dinos look rather similar to the clones it mean they were not that inaccurate, making a huge contradiction in the writing
@@caelincoolz5814 no, they had to use other animals DNA so they could be complete, not because of other reasons, it is stated already in the first movie
Now I'm not saying I've seen a Giganotosaur before, but looking between the fossil rebuilds and the paleoart for Gigas, *that* sure doesn't look like a Giga. It *does* look like an Acrocanthosaurus, though, and while that's removed even further from Trex by many more millions of years, it'd be cool to see Acro get some big screen love
Thought, in very recent years, general paleontological thinking had reverted back to T-rex Not having feathers? So, possibly the prologue Rex is now inaccurate, ironically.
T.rex could very well still have feathers as it's ancestral group were feathered, but the feathers would be restricted to the top half of the body and would probably be small and spread out like elephant hair (although like elephants vary in hairy-ness, some rexes could be more fluffy than others)
@@evo_ds1946 there's no evidence of that. several of its closely related tyrannosauridswere feathered but almost no one in the t-rex size scale, and we do have several skin impressions of it showing no feathers. for now, the consensus is that we have no reason to believe it had any, at least not in adulthood.
@@gamongames Lack of evidence does not mean confirmation of it not having feathers. Evo is perfectly right in that it is possible for rex to have very small amounts of feathering, seeing as the scale impressions we have aren't all over the body.
@@AcidicGothess that initial statement shows you clearly dont know how science works. lack of evidence is the defining point. if someone wants to argue for feathers, they should produce evidence for it. thats how it works. until then, the official version is not feathers.
@@gamongames really the truth is it doesn't matter and it can be depicted either way or anywhere in between. T.rex has the ancestors for feathers, but also the size that may prevent it. Until we have further evidence to make a more solid conclusion then depictions either way are fine.
In Jurassic world movie only Henry Wu explained that these dinosaurs were not genetically pure ,they were always mixed with frog DNA so they looked quite different than prehistoric dinos
the frog DNA thing never really made sense to me, yes ik its for plot reasons, but genetically speaking crocodilians and birds are closer related, as both are archosaurs, yet even mammals are closer related to dinosaurs than dinosaurs are to amphibians :/
@@Jebiwibiwabo in the novel they used several different animal DNA to fill in gene-gaps not just frog. and they tested and retried until they got a result they were happy with- ie viable birth, looked right, and slow/docile enough to manage in a park setting (theres a part where Muldoon was complaining that even the large animals were still much to fast for him to handle in an emergency)
I’m pretty sure that it is very unlikely for a Giga to kill a Tyrannosaurus, based on the fact the Tyrannosaurus had a way stronger bite force, while also having a more muscular build than the Giga. (Still Looks Like A Great Movie Though)
This is underrated and surprised how many haven't pointed out Trex dying that easily is false. Just one bite from the Rex would've had the giga severely wounded if not critically. Rex's bite was meant to hold on while obliterating whatever is in their grip. Ntm you're correct, Rex is a much heavier and aggressive. As of now Trex is bigger than any Giga found, in length and weight too.
If you look at the skull of a T.Rex, it has holes above the teeth, indicating that it had a kind of lip that could potentially close the upper and lower jaws. Human skulls have the same indicator of holes around the mouth area as well. Just food for thought.
Man this should have been the one scene they made mostly unscientific accurate. Would have been more exciting to see Rexy fight a Triceratops. It's something that would have actually happened and we've not seen it in that in these movies yet.
Maybe the newer dinosaurs are bald because they are clones made with DNA mixed in from other animals? That would be kind of a cool way of explaining that
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt Jurassic park has a reason for inaccuracies due to gene splicing, this trex Vs giga fight is sent in the past, there's no explanation.
@@Ceeckoful yes but that's for the modern day. This is supposed to be set back 65 million years ago before the scientists filled in the gaps. It's supposed to be pure 100 percent dinosaur. Wich makes this innacurate and only contradicts the past movies and books.
no. You being too dumb to differentiate reality from fiction is ruinning it for yourself. The Jurassic licence is a work of fiction, and the people working on it have every right to establish whatever they want as part of the canon. So because this isn't a documentary, they can show us whatever they want, and we have to accept it a face value. Moreover, this fight scene also bears a narrative purpose to establish the Giganotosaurus as a greater threat than the T-rex. Too bad your silly expectation weren't met by a work of fiction from a licence of the seventh art.
The lack of feathers or proto-feathers on the Jurassic World dinos is actually explained by Dr.Wu. He does say 'these aren't dinosaurs' Mutating the DNA changes everything.
@Bingo So you wouldn't call a human picking up a gun and shooting an elementary school for seemingly no reason, evil? (Which, in case you didn't know, has been happening a lot lately.)
They already explained from the very first film that the DNA was incomplete so they used frog DNA and other reptiles to make up for it, even in Jurassic World Dr. Wu pointed out that if they were able to produce a 1:1 replica of the Dinosaurs all of them would look significantly different
My best guess about why the ancient trex in this had feathers and the one in the modern day one didn’t is because they mix reptilian, amphibian and aves/raptor genetics to fill in the genetic gaps for the dinosaurs for the park. These extra genes from present day animals might have had an impact on wether the dino’s had feathers when they were bought back to life
One thing people HIGHLY overlook is that These modern day dinos were embedded with the DNA of a frog This is why they don't have their feather/fiber coating on them in modern times And also this wasn't made by accident This was made by choice by Dr Henry wu explaining in the first jurassic world movie that They didn't go for realism on the dinosaurs and just make them have more teeth to entertain guests more
10:14 - Dr. Wu addressed the lack of feathers in the first Jurassic World, essentially saying that they knew dinosaurs had feathers but the people in charge of the park told him not to give them feathers because it was cooler and would sell more tickets/merchandise. So that's why the dinosaurs in the Jurassic World trilogy don't have feathers: capitalism.
Pretty sure the dinosaurs don't have feathers because they were made using frog dna to fill in sequence gaps as explained in the first movie, so they were always hybrids and as he said the mosquitoes went from animal to animal so there is no telling what kind of DNA cocktail they had to start with
Henry Wu has already explained why they look different in the movie to how they would of looked. Genetic tampering” what we have done from the beginning nothing In Jurassic world is natural”
The fact one giant meat eating Theropod dinosaur existed 30 million years before another is beyond human comprehension. Imagine a different human species existing 30 million years ago. Dinosaur time scales are insane.
Well, it wouldn't really be a human species It'd be a different ape hominid because at that point it's no longer human or even as close to related to us
@@TyrannoKoenigsegg Says who? That depends on our definition of human. There is no set time limit for a successful species. Sharks are virtually the same as their ancestors millions of years ago because it worked. T-Rex and Giganotosuras were still theropod Dinosaurs. Far closer related to each other than either are to a Crocodile or a Turtle.
@@alexojideagu Says anyone who knows a little bit about biology? "Human" is defined as homo sapiens. Homo sapiens only exists for about 300k years. The earliest thing that could be considered "human-like" (but still very different from us) lived some 3-4 million years ago. T-Rex and giganotosaurus aren't even in the same lineage, they lived half a world apart and T-Rex is not only 30 million years younger it evolved through a separate line of therapods, one does not descend from the other. Yes they are both therapods, and so are sparrows, how much do you think a sparrow has in common with a T-Rex?
You're pulling assumptions out of your arse. There is nothing genetically stopping an animal or humans remaining almost the same for millions of years if conditions are right. Evolution isn't a destination that can be predicted or governed by time. A chicken is the closest living ancestor of a T-Rex and both are therapod dinosaurs. A "Human" has no specific definition in nature. Infact some think Chimpanzees should be categorised as a human species.
They did explain why the modern dinosaurs look different, both in the original JP and Jurassic World. In JP they said they filled in DNA gaps with frog DNA, which explains the Rex's bad vision and the lack of feathers. In Jurassic World Dr. Wu specifically says the dinosaurs were made to look cool and whatever they could do but they would look quite different if they did pure dinosaurs.
The thing that bugs me the most in the Prologue is the size of the _Quetzalcoatlus._ In reality it was "only" twice the size of _Pteranodon,_ which had a 5 meter wingspan. Yet in the prologue they are gigantic, completely dwarfing the Pteranodons.
The in movie universe reason that Rexy and some of the other dinos don't look scientificly accurate is because they are mixed with DNA of other animals. Dr. Wu even mentions this in the first Jurassic World film.
Rexy🦖 was not the Trex killed in Jurrasic park 3, 7:23 . By the end of (Jurrasic World Dominion) Rexy karmically defeats the same Giganotosaurus and is nearing the end of her life span.
Just one single thing that annoys me is that trex most likely had no feathers. Yes, they may have had feathers as a baby but they would generally lose them whilst growing up.
We have next to no idea whether or not T. rex had feathers, and even less information to suggest they would lose them with age (a feature not known in modern birds). Based upon phylogenetic bracketing we would expect a downy coat of basic protofeathers for all tyrannosaurs. The skin impressions we do have show mosaic scales, however these impressions are not from depositional environments that would preserve feathers, also feathers and scales can coexist on birds today. At the moment all we can say is we don’t really know, and that there are reasons we could argue each way for a feathered or non-feathered T. rex.
if we go with "Giganotosaurus is misnamed Acrocanthosaurus" theory, the fluff on rex made a bit more sense. As Acro are smaller than both rex and giga so that rex might be a younger individual.
They kind explained why modern trex looks how it looks, it was something bout using modern animal’s genetics with dinosaurs genes, explaining why the loss of hair/feathers.
the morden trex in the film didnt hava fethurs because the movie has explained that the dinosaurus are mixed with with other sourts of DNA so thats propably why
It looks great, BUT THEY MISSED SO MUCH POTENTIAL!! Like showing the difference between reality and our lovely genetically engineered dinosaurs. Even Dr. Wu said the differences and reason why they aren’t like their real life counterpart in JW. Could’ve educated nowadays kids with current information while also keeping the classic JP style dinosaurs! Great idea, wasted.
What's your story of how you became a paleontologist how much schooling did you need and what did you have to do to become at the level of doing it professionally??
My belief for why they made old T rex have feathers vs new t rex not was due to gene splicing or what ever its called. There DNA was mixed with modern animals which may have removed the T rex's gene for feathers for one without.
What’s he talking about? Feathers on T. rex being the way we think it looked?…absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that’s the case. In the skin impressions we have of T. rex, there hve only been scaley impressions left. Absolutely zero feathered quills or protofeathers of any type. So actually, we KNOW the trex DIDNT have feathers in the regions we have of skin imprints. So the head and spine and large parts of the torso that we’ve seen were featherless.
My thoughts about why the modern day T-Rex doesn't have feathers: In the book they explain that they changed a little bit of the dinosaurs DNA to make them grow faster and make them look more like people expect how dinosaurs were looking.
Rexy doesn’t have feathers/quills because they said in Jurassic world, because they’re DNA is mixed with other animals, like frogs, they do not look like they would have back when they were alive.
Theyve already explained why the animal wouldnt look like how it did when it actually existed back in the very first movie: frog dna. They reiterate on this in jp world, saying theyd never look exactly the same because they have to fill in those gene gaps, and thereflre, would take on traits of the animal that they used to fill the genes with.
its interesting hearing a professional in this field talk about gigo vs trex theory but afterall it is hollywood lol. my theory is they wouldve had some sort of palaeontologist helping them out with the ideas of the feathers on dinosaurs to while making this film.
Wu even states it in Jurassic World that none of the animals that he created are natural and it was explained in Jurassic Park that he had to fill in the holes to complete the code with frogs and other reptiles , plus it is a fictional story set in a fictional universe
The scene set 65 million years ago likely has the T. rex with feathers to show difference between the original one and the genetic engineered one later on showing even genetic fabrication can’t be 100% accurate 😁
I’m pretty sure the reason the dinosaurs didn’t have any feathers like it showed in the beginning, has to do with the amphibian dna that they used to fill in the gaps in the gene sequence
Sad to inform that T rex won't appear at the drive in in the actual movie or chasing some joe six pack in some supermarts or ball parks , you won't be seeing any interaction of dinosaurs with the average joes except some fishermen having their catch robbed by a mosasuar at the berring sea and but they will give you super giant locust swarms in iowa 😂
odd that he didnt point out the quetzalcoatlus' wings are way too sharp, almost triangle shaped when in reality the wings were rounded like shown in the diagram of the pterosaur's wing, along with the improperly pronated hands of the oviraptor
In the first movie, Dr. Wu does confirms that al the dinosaurs borned in the new world are not faithful to their original genetic seeds, and if they've used it with no alterations they would look really different, that explains why the dinos from the past had fur but the present ones don't, 'cause they were altered
Yeah they might have lived in different times but the world was one chunk of land 65 million years ago so dinosaurs like the t rex and velociraptor still,could have met up it would be very. Rare though
you might wanna double check that. by the cretaceous period the land masses were seperated although still very different from today. America itself was split by a huge sea in down the middle.
Just saying if they remade Walking With Dinosaurs with this quality of VFX and thee updated modern accuracy it could potentially be one of the greatest pieces of dinosaur media of all time
I've been longing for it for some time.
Dinosaur media? Media in general
Would watch that all day!
@RussiantoIndia You think the budget would surpass a movie like "Avatar"'s? (Tall blue people)
Yea
Well, I’d have thought it was obvious why Rexy doesn’t have feathers/fur, she’s not a ‘pure’ Rex, none of the cloned animals are ‘pure’, since Wu had to mix in other DNA samples to get viable genomes, that was established in the first book.
Exactly
Current research that I'm aware of state that t-rex didn't have feathers. Smaller Asian tyrannosaurs had them, but skin impressions of the rex don't show any feathers or the skin structures associated with them. Maybe they had them as juveniles, but adults didn't.
They actually talked about that in the first JW. Guess this "expert" didn't bother to watch that one.
@@misatokitty76 Do you have a source for this? all the research ive seen over the past few years suggest that the t-rex had "fluff" around the neck area at least
Skin impressions from tyrannosaurus and relatives such as tarbosaurus show it never had any feathers or fuzz of any sort
'This is a scared animal that doesn't know what's going on' is not the sort of thing you expect somebody to say about a dinosaur attacking people but he's absolutely right.
They briefly mentioned in Jurassic world that they engineered the dinosaurs to look like what they think it should look like. Aka more teeth. It was a cool way to still have the dinosaurs look like they have for years and still acknowledge they aren’t technically accurate
True when explaining their clones but this scene is suppose to be an accurate back in time shot. They made weird choices
But this scene features actual dinos from the cretaceous period
Not the clones
They even say that their are a mix bad of DNA of other creatures to fill in the gaps.
@@thewizardspipe4265 He was referring to 10:15 when the expert was comparing the shots of the feathery dino to the one that is loose in the present day....
@@thisBrian thank you that was my point
Despite all of the inaccuracies and such, the prologue was honestly fantastic! There was definitely some animal/palaeontologist experts working with the film crew for this one.
Hm yes the paleontologists that never bothered to mention the grass that was there ten million years before it was supposed to evolve.
Which paleontologist there came up with that horrid Giganotosaurus design?
They had Steve Brussatte yes :)
@@otomatonesattheendoftime2396 Well what do you expect? Movies aren't supposed to be 100% accurate after all.
@@lordshotgun7168
it'd be nice if they were even 10% accurate (sarcasm)
@@lordshotgun7168 This seems like something very easy to avoid and that anyone can do simple research on. I'm sure they had paleontologists helping them, but they made it clear they wanted to have some artistic freedom.
The camera man that recorded the intro to the prologue should make an 2h wildlife documentary.
Or camera woman?
dont think there were any cameras used for the prologue. Looks like its 100% cgi
@@pay2081 it’s a joke bud
@@pay2081 yeah especially with The alive flesh dinosaurs
@@nastyham5302 nah
To be fair, they seem to aknowledge the inaccuracies several times. Jurassic World, Henry Wu stated that if the DNA they found was more pure, a lot of the dinosaurs would look very different. In Jurassic Park 3, Alan Grant stated they were "theme park monsters."
The prologue is set in the Mesozoic so that context isn’t applicable
Yeah. It seems that Jurassic World and (probably) Jurassic park changed the dinosaurs' DNA to make them more scary and to draw in more tourists.
Well, that idea backfired.
except this is set when the real Dinos were around and since the in canon real Dinos look rather similar to the clones it mean they were not that inaccurate, making a huge contradiction in the writing
@@caelincoolz5814 no, they had to use other animals DNA so they could be complete, not because of other reasons, it is stated already in the first movie
Now I'm not saying I've seen a Giganotosaur before, but looking between the fossil rebuilds and the paleoart for Gigas, *that* sure doesn't look like a Giga. It *does* look like an Acrocanthosaurus, though, and while that's removed even further from Trex by many more millions of years, it'd be cool to see Acro get some big screen love
Doesn’t explain the armour. None of the theropods were armoured.
It doesn’t looks like Acrocsnthosaurus either. It looks like a monster that would’ve never existed
@@Lamborlobator Cause of his back you could think its a acro. But yeah it looks more like another idominus...
It mosty looks like Carcharodontosaurus.
@@VH_XXIII It’s literally just a dragon☠️
Thought, in very recent years, general paleontological thinking had reverted back to T-rex Not having feathers? So, possibly the prologue Rex is now inaccurate, ironically.
T.rex could very well still have feathers as it's ancestral group were feathered, but the feathers would be restricted to the top half of the body and would probably be small and spread out like elephant hair (although like elephants vary in hairy-ness, some rexes could be more fluffy than others)
@@evo_ds1946 there's no evidence of that.
several of its closely related tyrannosauridswere feathered but almost no one in the t-rex size scale, and we do have several skin impressions of it showing no feathers.
for now, the consensus is that we have no reason to believe it had any, at least not in adulthood.
@@gamongames Lack of evidence does not mean confirmation of it not having feathers. Evo is perfectly right in that it is possible for rex to have very small amounts of feathering, seeing as the scale impressions we have aren't all over the body.
@@AcidicGothess that initial statement shows you clearly dont know how science works.
lack of evidence is the defining point.
if someone wants to argue for feathers, they should produce evidence for it. thats how it works.
until then, the official version is not feathers.
@@gamongames really the truth is it doesn't matter and it can be depicted either way or anywhere in between. T.rex has the ancestors for feathers, but also the size that may prevent it. Until we have further evidence to make a more solid conclusion then depictions either way are fine.
In Jurassic world movie only Henry Wu explained that these dinosaurs were not genetically pure ,they were always mixed with frog DNA so they looked quite different than prehistoric dinos
In the first Jurassic park movie that was explained when they all came to the park
the frog DNA thing never really made sense to me, yes ik its for plot reasons, but genetically speaking crocodilians and birds are closer related, as both are archosaurs, yet even mammals are closer related to dinosaurs than dinosaurs are to amphibians :/
@@Jebiwibiwabo read the novel
@@Jebiwibiwabo in the novel they used several different animal DNA to fill in gene-gaps not just frog. and they tested and retried until they got a result they were happy with- ie viable birth, looked right, and slow/docile enough to manage in a park setting (theres a part where Muldoon was complaining that even the large animals were still much to fast for him to handle in an emergency)
Oviraptor, girl I'm so sorry that we thought you were a thief! You weren't actually raptoring ovis.
"No animal is evil".
Homo sapiens: Guess I'm not real.
I’m pretty sure that it is very unlikely for a Giga to kill a Tyrannosaurus, based on the fact the Tyrannosaurus had a way stronger bite force, while also having a more muscular build than the Giga. (Still Looks Like A Great Movie Though)
This is underrated and surprised how many haven't pointed out Trex dying that easily is false. Just one bite from the Rex would've had the giga severely wounded if not critically. Rex's bite was meant to hold on while obliterating whatever is in their grip.
Ntm you're correct, Rex is a much heavier and aggressive. As of now Trex is bigger than any Giga found, in length and weight too.
T-Rex in Jurassic Park is extremely nerfed and tone down since the real t Rex would be an overkill
L W: Thats just my words.
And they lived in different places..
Forget flat earth, I'm jumping on to the dinosaurs had lips train
If you look at the skull of a T.Rex, it has holes above the teeth, indicating that it had a kind of lip that could potentially close the upper and lower jaws. Human skulls have the same indicator of holes around the mouth area as well. Just food for thought.
👄
@@JRMJr99 but why would a dinosaur need lips? They don't have mammaries 0.o
NEITHER DO LIZARDS! And yet what do they have? LIPS YOU ABSOLUTE BRAINLET OF A HUMAN BEING.
@@apollyonshost reptiles have lips,its mostly to cover up the teeth so it doesn't dry up
Kinda uncomfortable seeing feathered dinosaurs combined with the wrong hand anatomy 😓
And yet they fixed the T. rex hands.
@@skepticalbadger not really, look closer
@@thelittleal1212 they did atleast make them closer to the accurate arms
@@matejajanic6932 um, maybe
@@thelittleal1212 what was wrong with the hands
Man this should have been the one scene they made mostly unscientific accurate. Would have been more exciting to see Rexy fight a Triceratops. It's something that would have actually happened and we've not seen it in that in these movies yet.
Maybe the newer dinosaurs are bald because they are clones made with DNA mixed in from other animals? That would be kind of a cool way of explaining that
That's right.
They’ve been genetically engineered that’s why they look the way they do so yes you are right
@@shreb6182 Whoosh
...it is exactly that though...that's why the female raptors were able to lay eggs in JP...nothing new
That’s literally part of the canon of the movies now.
Joe Bonsor, the destroyer of dreams 8:18
If we had a new updated Walking With Dinosaurs that is up to date it would be a dream come true
Putting a Rex and giga in the same time period ruins it.
Most of it is innacurate to begin with it would still be ruined either way
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt Jurassic park has a reason for inaccuracies due to gene splicing, this trex Vs giga fight is sent in the past, there's no explanation.
@@Ceeckoful yes but that's for the modern day. This is supposed to be set back 65 million years ago before the scientists filled in the gaps. It's supposed to be pure 100 percent dinosaur. Wich makes this innacurate and only contradicts the past movies and books.
no. You being too dumb to differentiate reality from fiction is ruinning it for yourself.
The Jurassic licence is a work of fiction, and the people working on it have every right to establish whatever they want as part of the canon. So because this isn't a documentary, they can show us whatever they want, and we have to accept it a face value.
Moreover, this fight scene also bears a narrative purpose to establish the Giganotosaurus as a greater threat than the T-rex.
Too bad your silly expectation weren't met by a work of fiction from a licence of the seventh art.
It's just a dinosaur fight get over it
The lack of feathers or proto-feathers on the Jurassic World dinos is actually explained by Dr.Wu. He does say 'these aren't dinosaurs' Mutating the DNA changes everything.
Finally someone who points out the blood inside the mosquito would be a mixture
It's not about accuracy Joe, it's about drive, it's about power.
We stay hungry we devour
@@glonkerdonker132 put in the work, put in the hours.
And take whats ours!
fluffy/feathery Trex isn't properly accurate anymore though?
7:35 actually rexy was on Isla Nublar, Jurassic Park 3 was set on Isla Sorna, so that's a different t rex.
I’m surprised he didn’t give his thoughts on the Dreadnoughtus.
As a Rex fan, that was a big *OOF* to us rex fans
WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT IN THE ANIMAL WORLD....EVERYONE IS STARVING TO DEATH...YOU GAIN A NEW POV
except herbivores
Thank you, this was informative and entertaining.
"No such thing as an evil animal"
Humans: "hold my beer"
@Bingo So you wouldn't call a human picking up a gun and shooting an elementary school for seemingly no reason, evil? (Which, in case you didn't know, has been happening a lot lately.)
@Bingo Except it’s not. You just can’t disprove my comment.
Smh of course they get the era wrong with the T Rex vs giganotosaurus even in the prologue. You had 1 job
They already explained from the very first film that the DNA was incomplete so they used frog DNA and other reptiles to make up for it, even in Jurassic World Dr. Wu pointed out that if they were able to produce a 1:1 replica of the Dinosaurs all of them would look significantly different
Giganotosaurus looked nothing like it does in Jw Dominion.
My best guess about why the ancient trex in this had feathers and the one in the modern day one didn’t is because they mix reptilian, amphibian and aves/raptor genetics to fill in the genetic gaps for the dinosaurs for the park. These extra genes from present day animals might have had an impact on wether the dino’s had feathers when they were bought back to life
One thing people HIGHLY overlook is that
These modern day dinos were embedded with the DNA of a frog
This is why they don't have their feather/fiber coating on them in modern times
And also this wasn't made by accident
This was made by choice by Dr Henry wu explaining in the first jurassic world movie that
They didn't go for realism on the dinosaurs and just make them have more teeth to entertain guests more
THANK YOU
What if.... a mosquito had its first drink and wound up in amber with the pure blood genome.
In Jurassic park, they say they mixed frog DNA with the dinosaurs. Might explain why the modern day T-Rex doesn’t have a feathery coating.
They said in one of the films that they are not true dinosaurs, they are theme park attractions design to look what they thought Dinosaur looked like
10:14 - Dr. Wu addressed the lack of feathers in the first Jurassic World, essentially saying that they knew dinosaurs had feathers but the people in charge of the park told him not to give them feathers because it was cooler and would sell more tickets/merchandise. So that's why the dinosaurs in the Jurassic World trilogy don't have feathers: capitalism.
Pretty sure the dinosaurs don't have feathers because they were made using frog dna to fill in sequence gaps as explained in the first movie, so they were always hybrids and as he said the mosquitoes went from animal to animal so there is no telling what kind of DNA cocktail they had to start with
Henry Wu has already explained why they look different in the movie to how they would of looked.
Genetic tampering” what we have done from the beginning nothing In Jurassic world is natural”
The fact one giant meat eating Theropod dinosaur existed 30 million years before another is beyond human comprehension. Imagine a different human species existing 30 million years ago. Dinosaur time scales are insane.
Well, it wouldn't really be a human species
It'd be a different ape hominid because at that point it's no longer human or even as close to related to us
@@TyrannoKoenigsegg Says who? That depends on our definition of human. There is no set time limit for a successful species. Sharks are virtually the same as their ancestors millions of years ago because it worked. T-Rex and Giganotosuras were still theropod Dinosaurs. Far closer related to each other than either are to a Crocodile or a Turtle.
@@alexojideagu Says anyone who knows a little bit about biology?
"Human" is defined as homo sapiens. Homo sapiens only exists for about 300k years. The earliest thing that could be considered "human-like" (but still very different from us) lived some 3-4 million years ago.
T-Rex and giganotosaurus aren't even in the same lineage, they lived half a world apart and T-Rex is not only 30 million years younger it evolved through a separate line of therapods, one does not descend from the other. Yes they are both therapods, and so are sparrows, how much do you think a sparrow has in common with a T-Rex?
You're pulling assumptions out of your arse. There is nothing genetically stopping an animal or humans remaining almost the same for millions of years if conditions are right. Evolution isn't a destination that can be predicted or governed by time. A chicken is the closest living ancestor of a T-Rex and both are therapod dinosaurs. A "Human" has no specific definition in nature. Infact some think Chimpanzees should be categorised as a human species.
@@BigUriel Actually “human” refers to Homo sapiens sapiens and all related Hominin species.
They did explain why the modern dinosaurs look different, both in the original JP and Jurassic World.
In JP they said they filled in DNA gaps with frog DNA, which explains the Rex's bad vision and the lack of feathers.
In Jurassic World Dr. Wu specifically says the dinosaurs were made to look cool and whatever they could do but they would look quite different if they did pure dinosaurs.
The thing that bugs me the most in the Prologue is the size of the _Quetzalcoatlus._
In reality it was "only" twice the size of _Pteranodon,_ which had a 5 meter wingspan. Yet in the prologue they are gigantic, completely dwarfing the Pteranodons.
The in movie universe reason that Rexy and some of the other dinos don't look scientificly accurate is because they are mixed with DNA of other animals. Dr. Wu even mentions this in the first Jurassic World film.
2:53 tell that to a vengeful tiger
Rexy🦖 was not the Trex killed in Jurrasic park 3, 7:23 . By the end of (Jurrasic World Dominion) Rexy karmically defeats the same Giganotosaurus and is nearing the end of her life span.
They cut all this out of the movie sadly
Just one single thing that annoys me is that trex most likely had no feathers. Yes, they may have had feathers as a baby but they would generally lose them whilst growing up.
We have next to no idea whether or not T. rex had feathers, and even less information to suggest they would lose them with age (a feature not known in modern birds). Based upon phylogenetic bracketing we would expect a downy coat of basic protofeathers for all tyrannosaurs. The skin impressions we do have show mosaic scales, however these impressions are not from depositional environments that would preserve feathers, also feathers and scales can coexist on birds today. At the moment all we can say is we don’t really know, and that there are reasons we could argue each way for a feathered or non-feathered T. rex.
@@Calumbw this guy dinosaurs
Yeah the “feathered Rex” inaccuracy bothers me too
if we go with "Giganotosaurus is misnamed Acrocanthosaurus" theory, the fluff on rex made a bit more sense. As Acro are smaller than both rex and giga so that rex might be a younger individual.
@@Mobius118 that is not a misconception. And even if it is, it still looks better than a boring scaly rex
Remake planet dinosaur / walking with dinosaurs/beast etc would be epic with today's vfx
First time I've heard of Nasutoceratoes looks like Triceratops
What about the Sue recreation? Thought they determined that T-Rex didnt actually have feathers.
The justification for no feathers on the modern day rex is probably since it's not 100% a tyrannsaur but a mutant
that is bad justification since the real thing didn't have em.
They kind explained why modern trex looks how it looks, it was something bout using modern animal’s genetics with dinosaurs genes, explaining why the loss of hair/feathers.
the morden trex in the film didnt hava fethurs because the movie has explained that the dinosaurus are mixed with with other sourts of DNA so thats propably why
Very sure Dr. Henry Wu already explained why dinosaurs in the modern day looked different from the ones 65 million years ago though.
It would be neat if they could have Jack Horner give his opinion on some of these scenes. He's the actual paleontologist Alan Grant was based on.
The next Jurassic film should start way back in the Triassic period
It’s sad that all these cool prologues aren’t in the jp dominion movie 😞
It looks great, BUT THEY MISSED SO MUCH POTENTIAL!! Like showing the difference between reality and our lovely genetically engineered dinosaurs. Even Dr. Wu said the differences and reason why they aren’t like their real life counterpart in JW. Could’ve educated nowadays kids with current information while also keeping the classic JP style dinosaurs! Great idea, wasted.
What's your story of how you became a paleontologist how much schooling did you need and what did you have to do to become at the level of doing it professionally??
Get a college degree in palaeontology
Reminder
it’s just a movie not everything has to be accurate
They didn't say it HAS to be accurate, and they are still free to point out the inaccuracies if they want
Apparently, it is now considered wrong to expect seeing dinosaurs in a movie about dinosaurs...
Reminder, trevorrow marketed the prologue as being an accurate depiction of dinosaurs to contrast with the genetically altered film versions
So did ceratopsians lose their horns and grow them back?
My belief for why they made old T rex have feathers vs new t rex not was due to gene splicing or what ever its called. There DNA was mixed with modern animals which may have removed the T rex's gene for feathers for one without.
What’s he talking about? Feathers on T. rex being the way we think it looked?…absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest that’s the case. In the skin impressions we have of T. rex, there hve only been scaley impressions left. Absolutely zero feathered quills or protofeathers of any type. So actually, we KNOW the trex DIDNT have feathers in the regions we have of skin imprints. So the head and spine and large parts of the torso that we’ve seen were featherless.
Are you a paleontologist?
Also there's no evidence for it being fearherless either so 50/50
@@riccardobalbo234 the skin impressions say otherwise :)
@@JesusGomez-ob2qt do we have a full boady skin impression of the T-rex?
My thoughts about why the modern day T-Rex doesn't have feathers: In the book they explain that they changed a little bit of the dinosaurs DNA to make them grow faster and make them look more like people expect how dinosaurs were looking.
Lies as usual
Frog dna probably removed the feather coating
is this only in theatres come june?
10:21 - the first one is a T-Rex from a period dated 66 million years ago, and the other one is a biological recreation (by the movie plot(
Mr. DNA said they used frog DNA to fill the gaps. Frogs made dinos bald.
@@dylanstankewicz850 dinos made dinos bald.
Rexy doesn’t have feathers/quills because they said in Jurassic world, because they’re DNA is mixed with other animals, like frogs, they do not look like they would have back when they were alive.
Theyve already explained why the animal wouldnt look like how it did when it actually existed back in the very first movie: frog dna. They reiterate on this in jp world, saying theyd never look exactly the same because they have to fill in those gene gaps, and thereflre, would take on traits of the animal that they used to fill the genes with.
its interesting hearing a professional in this field talk about gigo vs trex theory but afterall it is hollywood lol. my theory is they wouldve had some sort of palaeontologist helping them out with the ideas of the feathers on dinosaurs to while making this film.
Jumanji brought me here. Jack black paleontology skill
How do you explain evidence of all of them living together in harmony?? In my nephew's toy chest! Explain that!
Lol just having fun , great video Sir!
Wu even states it in Jurassic World that none of the animals that he created are natural and it was explained in Jurassic Park that he had to fill in the holes to complete the code with frogs and other reptiles , plus it is a fictional story set in a fictional universe
The scene set 65 million years ago likely has the T. rex with feathers to show difference between the original one and the genetic engineered one later on showing even genetic fabrication can’t be 100% accurate 😁
real t rexes didn't have them so....what's the excuse for it having them in this movie?
I’m pretty sure the reason the dinosaurs didn’t have any feathers like it showed in the beginning, has to do with the amphibian dna that they used to fill in the gaps in the gene sequence
The opening reminds me of the movie *Dinosaur".
Sad to inform that T rex won't appear at the drive in in the actual movie or chasing some joe six pack in some supermarts or ball parks , you won't be seeing any interaction of dinosaurs with the average joes except some fishermen having their catch robbed by a mosasuar at the berring sea and but they will give you super giant locust swarms in iowa 😂
6:30 The reason they gave the T-REX that look is because it's DNA was not mixed with anything so it was an original T-REX
cool!!
Those sauropods are Jurassic animals, too.
Dreadnoughtus is from the cretaceous.
odd that he didnt point out the quetzalcoatlus' wings are way too sharp, almost triangle shaped when in reality the wings were rounded like shown in the diagram of the pterosaur's wing, along with the improperly pronated hands of the oviraptor
Amount of babies chimping out in these comments because someone points out that this movie is a bunch of bull is hilarious.
dont mention it, cuple smoching guys. they enjoying 😂
The present day T-Rex has some amphibian DNA to fill in ‘holes’ in the sequence, so would obviously not look exactly like the initial animals did.
Didn't know Stodeh knew so much about Dinosaurs
Some supposedly different ceratops species could also be the same species just at different ages.
T-Rex wasnt absolutely covered in feathers though.
Turns out trex did not have feathers haha
where was all of this quality of dinosaur cgi in the actual movie?? how did that even happen????
In the first movie, Dr. Wu does confirms that al the dinosaurs borned in the new world are not faithful to their original genetic seeds, and if they've used it with no alterations they would look really different, that explains why the dinos from the past had fur but the present ones don't, 'cause they were altered
They have stated that the Jurassic Park/World Dinos aren't pure clones, they are a look alike hybrid mess.
Just Rember that this is in an alternate universe
Cretacius Park?
Sad they didn't go all in on the prehistoric versions and make a trex like fleshy
Yeah they might have lived in different times but the world was one chunk of land 65 million years ago so dinosaurs like the t rex and velociraptor still,could have met up it would be very. Rare though
you might wanna double check that. by the cretaceous period the land masses were seperated although still very different from today. America itself was split by a huge sea in down the middle.
The lack of feathers could be explained by the fact that these dinosaurs are actually hybrids of dino DNA and amphibian DNA spliced together in a lab.