Jurassic World

[TheDreamMaster]

We know this won't happen




Unfortunately

Rumors around Twitter are saying John Krasinski is up for a main role.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Smirky Scientist # 1

 

[Thundarr]

The main question I have is where would you get megalodon DNA? Or any aquatic animal for that matter? I doubt there were sea-mosquitoes and I don't know of any way to extract DNA from fossilized teeth.

That said, I really wish the Meg movie would get off the ground. Steve Alten has been promising a movie adaptation of his book for like a decade now.

They found a megalodon carcas frozen in the heart of a million year old iceburg? Whether or not the possibility of that happening is factual, it at least makes as much sense as cloning dinosaurs by mixing their damaged DNA with South American frogs which can spontaneously change gender.

 

[Teelie]

DNA from a frozen corpse is about as effective as DNA from a dinosaur's blood taken from an insect in amber. The DNA would be fractured and damaged by the freezing process just as bad, if not worse unless very precise conditions are met.

That and megalodons weren't cold water sharks and would've stayed in the tropical zone. But being a movie they can always fudge the details like they did with Jurassic Park.

 

[Thundarr]

DNA from a frozen corpse is about as effective as DNA from a dinosaur's blood taken from an insect in amber. The DNA would be fractured and damaged by the freezing process just as bad, if not worse unless very precise conditions are met.

That and megalodons weren't cold water sharks and would've stayed in the tropical zone. But being a movie they can always fudge the details like they did with Jurassic Park.

However megaladons have more in common with modern day great whites than the T-rex has with a modern day frog. Same can be said for mastadons and modern day elephants, or smiladons and modern day lions. So at least in a somewhat superficial way, it makes more sense to clone these species than velociraptors or triceratops.

As for the likelihood of finding a megaladon frozen in the heart of an iceberg? We don't truly know anything about the swimming habits of these ancient creatures. We can speculate by observing modern day sharks, but in the end of the day that's all it is, speculation and guesswork. We can guess and speculate as to how much of the planet was frozen during The Ice Age, but in the end that's all it is, speculation and guesswork.

This is why I am always ammused by people spouting "scientific fact" about dinosaurs on threads like these. Like how "a spinosaurus could never beat a t-rex in a fight because the spinosaurus' skeleton was too frail to allow it to beat the t-rex". Really? You know this how exactly? Doc Brown loan you his Delorian? You hit 88 miles per hour and go back in time to research living dinosaurs first hand? No you didn't. You learned everything from books, books written by people who guess at what dinosaurs were like and wrote down their opinions. It's just as likely that the t-rex was a scavenger as it is that the t-rex was a hunter. Point is until we master time travel and can observe them in person, we may never know the truth.

 

[Teelie]

Then I take it you are an total expert on prehistory and back so you can invalidate everything everyone with a doctorate in it has said and studied for decades. You know, those people whose "opinions" are based on science, not wish-washy hopeful thinking.

 

[Thundarr]

Then I take it you are an total expert on prehistory and back so you can invalidate everything everyone with a doctorate in it has said and studied for decades. You know, those people whose "opinions" are based on science, not wish-washy hopeful thinking.

First, I hope you didn't take my last post as an attack on you. When I wrote "You", I meant the "Universal You", not "You Personally".

Second, I have no problems with science. I believe in science. I believe carbon dating to be fairly accurate and reliable (unlike many Christians who insist that it's flawed because it contradicts The Bible). However I am realistic enough to understand the limitations of science. Carbon dating fossils might tell us how long ago a creature lived. The areas of the world where we find them can suggest the type of climate they preferred. Studying their modern descendents can suggest their behavior patters. But unless we can study live specimens, all we can do is extrapolate theories based on the clues left behind.

Take the T-Rex for example. For decades it has been assumed that the T-Rex was a predator, a hunter. There is certainly evidence to back this theory up. Its size, binocular vision, the size and shape of its teeth, etc. There's little doubt that the T-Rex was a meat eater. But more recently it has been suggested that the T-Rex was in fact a scavenger. That it only ate the dead, the sick, and the injured. And there is convincing evidence in favour of this theory as well. If you look at the T-Rex's forelimbs, they are ill suited for hunting. The T-Rex would have to lean in and attack with its bite only, as its limbs are useless for grasping its prey. That is a very inefficient design for a hunter when compared to the Spinosaurus and the various breeds of Raptors. Which interpretation of the evidence is correct? I don't know. Purists say that the original interpretation that the T-Rex was the dominant hunter of its day is the way to go. Others say that the T-Rex was just a giant scavenger. I say that unless we can see a T-Rex take down a charging triceratops with our own eyes, live and in colour and not a CGI recreation, then we can never know for sure.

 

[Teelie]

Must... stop... frothing... at... mouth...!

Nah, I didn't take it personally and I'm not offended. A lot of what we do know keeps getting changed, I'll give you that.

Dinosaurs went from slow, lumbering cold-blooded morons who couldn't do much more than stumble around like zombies to fast, adept and in at least some cases highly intelligent animals with more social and parental care than previous generations of paleontologists imagined possible but that's all been built on knowledge and information gained over countless decades of research and a slow acceptance that dinosaurs weren't just big, dumb lizards. Now we have feathers!

The theory T-Rex was a scavenger is controversial though it's been mostly settled that the fore-limbs were far more powerful than anyone gave them credit for. They were actually capable of grasping and holding prey while the jaws did the hard work. It's been established they were active hunters with both that and the findings of at least one hadrosaur tail with healed bones including the broken tooth of a tyrannosaur inside it indicating it attacked and nearly killed it. You wouldn't find a healed wound on a dead animal afterall and if it were sick it would have had to recover from both the illness and being attacked so that makes scavenging unlikely.

Though not a paleontologist, I do like my dinosaurs.

 

[Spider-Who?]

This is why I am always ammused by people spouting "scientific fact" about dinosaurs on threads like these. Like how "a spinosaurus could never beat a t-rex in a fight because the spinosaurus' skeleton was too frail to allow it to beat the t-rex". Really? You know this how exactly? Doc Brown loan you his Delorian? You hit 88 miles per hour and go back in time to research living dinosaurs first hand? No you didn't. You learned everything from books, books written by people who guess at what dinosaurs were like and wrote down their opinions.

I think any paleontologist reading this paragraph would be insulted to see their work trivialized to such a degree.

Yes, much of what we know is theory, but a theory is HARDLY a "guess". It's a stance based on, and supported by countless tests, studies, and analysis. For instance, we KNOW that a Spinosaur could not survive the bite to the neck shown in JP3 because countless scientists have analyzed Rex skulls to see how and where muscles joined, analyzed the mechanics of the skull, jaws, and teeth, this coupled with all other knowledge born from studying the Rex anatomy and basic biology and physics gives scientists a damn good idea as to the strength of a t Rex bite: 30,000-60,000 newtons. They're also able to do similar analysis with the rest of the body, and studies have only validated the findings: the t Rex had the most powerful bite of any land animal, and it's teeth, skull, neck...it's entire body was designed to take advantage of that fact: without any hyperbole, the Rex was built to literally destroy whatever it bit. Again, that is hardly a guess. And as technology improves and more information is learned, these findings have only been validated more, or INCREASED. We also know that the rex had binocular vision while the spinosaur did not, which is obviously a huge advantage when you're in a face to face match.This knowdledge, coupled with the same supported-by-evidence knowledge of Spinosaurus being a slender boned (comparied to rex any way) less active dinosaur with a much less damaging bite and a thinner, weaker neck lends a heck of a lot of credence to the Rex v. Spino debate.

Could a spinosaur defeat a Rex? Anythings possible I suppose, but pound for pound, point by point, one would be a fool to ever bet against the tyrannosaur in that scenario.

Yes, there are plenty of biological and situational variables that we don't know or can't consider, but based on the proven knowledge we have and comparing it the fight we saw in the film, when the Rex got its jaws around the spinosaur's neck, we should have seen a nearly headless Spino drop to the ground. At the VERY least, it would have countless blood vessels punctured and, muscles destroyed, and crushed vertebrae and trachea...at the absolute minimum it would have immediately bled out and suffocated. That's not guesses, that's applying scientific knowledge (established by analysis and verifiable evidence) to the actions depicted in the movie.

It's just as likely that the t-rex was a scavenger as it is that the t-rex was a hunter. Point is until we master time travel and can observe them in person, we may never know the truth.

Yes, nothing beats the seeing the real thing, but I think that you misunderstand or at least underestimate the amount of knowledge we are able to discover from the fossil record...there's a difference between knowing a dinosaurs actual behavior, and knowing what they're capable of.

like I mentioned before, advancements in research technology has allowed us to gain an unprecedented amount of knowdledge about dinosaur biology. Sure, some things we are unable to know for certain without actually seeing the organism, like the predator/scavenger debate you mention, but we ARE able to know what each dinosaur is capable of to an ever increasing degree, which points us in the right direction in terms of their behavior. There is also supplemental evidence that allows us to get a clearer picture on behavior (ie: many Rex fossils show evidence of healed wounds and broken bones, and there's hadrosaur fossils found with broken rex teeth and massive wounds that had begun to heal before death...both scenarios suggest an active predatory life style in one degree or another.

In short, to use you're term "guess"...scientists may make EDUCATED guesses (supported by biological evidence) about dinosaur behavior since action is very rarely something that can be fossilized; but what an animal is physically capable of (speed, strength, ability, sensory abilities etc) can, and is actively studied and understood to an astonishing degree.

 

[Doctor Jones]

So I like dinosaurs that don't have feathers and eat people.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

 

[chaseter]

This page needs to become extinct.

 

[Victarion]

If the pseudoscience sounds as good as it did in JP1, we'll all be fine.

 

[Teelie]

This page needs to become extinct.

Other than your post the only one on this page was a thumbs up.

I get what you mean though. The previous page went slightly off topic on the science/pseudo-science of dinosaurs.

As long as they can make a reasonable b.s. for where they got the DNA I don't think it matters how real it could actually be.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Legendary-Pictures-May-Co-Finance-Dracula-Jurassic-Park-4-39225.html

Legendary founder Thomas Tull is also cautiously interested in taking on the semi-reboot Jurassic Park 4, a film that would not be out of place in Legendary’s clutches. They’re currently still locked in with Warner Bros. for the Godzilla reboot, and nothing goes better with fire-breathing lizards than modern-day dinosaurs. Before they decide on whether or not they want to co-finance Jurassic Park 4, however,Tull is waiting to see a finalized script, along with other elements of the project.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Other than your post the only one on this page was a thumbs up.

I get what you mean though. The previous page went slightly off topic on the science/pseudo-science of dinosaurs.

As long as they can make a reasonable b.s. for where they got the DNA I don't think it matters how real it could actually be.

Agreed, I just want a good story, with good looking effects an some awesome dinosaur action.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

"semi-reboot" huh?

 

[Octoberist]

Like how Fast 5 was a semi-reboot.

 

[Teelie]

"semi-reboot" huh?

I read that too. I also read there was not a written script yet either so they haven't pinned down all of the details.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

Nothing negative can come if Legendary becomes involved, it just means more funding for the picture.

 

[GremlinZilla89]

Am I the only one really, really excited about this movie? The talent so far is very promising.

Jurassic Park was the Star Wars of my generation. A whole generation of film buffs grew up on the film. It still holds the same magic now that it did when I was 5 seeing it with my dad at the theater.

The love and support for the film is still incredibly strong among fans and the fact it's getting another installment from people who seem to really give a crap about making a good film is totally encouraging.

As much as I love Star Wars, I'm more excited about JP4 than the new Star Wars.

 

[Iceman]

The original Jurassic Park is still my no.1 all time cinema experience.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Same

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

It is in the top 10 of the best cinematic experiences of my entire life so far that's for sure.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

Everyone, go look up the trailer to a crappy film called "Area 407 Part 2". Not only is it hilariously bad, it literally steals footage from The Lost World. I'd post a link, but it says s*** in the trailer and shows some gore, so I don't want the mods on me for it.

Also, zombies vs. dinosaurs.