Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 44 of 44

Thread: T-Rex should not be able to kill Gllimiums

  1. #31
    I just don’t see the point of this change, except for paleontological accuracy. The T. rex bursting out of the trees and successfully killing the fleeing Gallimimus is one of the most iconic scenes in the franchise, removing this ability effectively takes away a part of what makes Jurassic Park special.

    Lore-wise, as well, Gallimimus was one of the three species Rexy survived on until she was recaptured for Jurassic World, and Innovation Center even goes so far to say that Gallimimus was its favourite prey. Removing this ability, will go against established Jurassic Park canon.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by Gondrasia View Post (Source)
    I just don’t see the point of this change, except for paleontological accuracy. The T. rex bursting out of the trees and successfully killing the fleeing Gallimimus is one of the most iconic scenes in the franchise, removing this ability effectively takes away a part of what makes Jurassic Park special.

    Lore-wise, as well, Gallimimus was one of the three species Rexy survived on until she was recaptured for Jurassic World, and Innovation Center even goes so far to say that Gallimimus was its favourite prey. Removing this ability, will go against established Jurassic Park canon.
    We're not talking about removing it's ability to kill Galli's in ambush attacks. But it shouldn't be possible in open terrain.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by PCMR4Life View Post (Source)
    Again you don't understand how animals hunt. You think the Gallimimus could run from the Rex forever at a constant speed? No it couldn't. The Rex was an active hunter. Meaning it's weight would not slow it down cause it was built to carry that weight and ssurvive with it.
    How do you expect a Rex to catch up to a Galli on an open plain? Like everyone is sayin', yes they can ambush. But again how stealth can we suppose such a big animal can be, without getting detected. But that's another story... Galli's are supposed to be MUCH faster, so no the Rex can't catch them in open terrain. Like I can't catch Usain Bolt. He's quicker. It's just facts...

    And alot of scientists points to the Rex being a scavenger, since it wouldn't survive a fall. And it probably couldn't move faster than 10 MPH because of it's immense weight...

    So what is it, I don't understand?

  4. #34
    Jurassic Rexy has canonically hunted these and is clocked at 32 miles an hour. Clearly, Jurassic Gallis aren't fast enough to deal with that. Considering they're also smaller and unfeathered, that's not a big leap. In a Jurassic game, canon overrules paleo.

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by MarcWP View Post (Source)
    We're not talking about removing it's ability to kill Galli's in ambush attacks. But it shouldn't be possible in open terrain.
    My previous comment was for the topic's OP, from the comments he made on this subject, he wants all of T. rex’s abilities to kill Gallimimus removed completely even going so far as to call Rexy's ambush scene “stupid”. But I digress.

    I concur that T. rex in JWE should only ambush Gallimimus and other ornithomimids, and not chase after them in the open because it goes against established Jurassic canon. Canonically, T. rex was known and shown to have a top speed just over 30 miles per hour; whereas Gallimimus was known and shown to have a top speed in excess of 40 miles per hour. Thus, ambushing the Gallimimus is T. rex's only way of successfully hunting this fast moving herbivore.

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by Gondrasia View Post (Source)
    My previous comment was for the topic's OP, from the comments he made on this subject, he wants all of T. rex’s abilities to kill Gallimimus removed completely even going so far as to call Rexy's ambush scene “stupid”. But I digress.

    I concur that T. rex in JWE should only ambush Gallimimus and other ornithomimids, and not chase after them in the open because it goes against established Jurassic canon. Canonically, T. rex was known and shown to have a top speed just over 30 miles per hour; whereas Gallimimus was known and shown to have a top speed in excess of 40 miles per hour. Thus, ambushing the Gallimimus is T. rex's only way of successfully hunting this fast moving herbivore.
    I agree.

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by MarcWP View Post (Source)
    How do you expect a Rex to catch up to a Galli on an open plain? Like everyone is sayin', yes they can ambush. But again how stealth can we suppose such a big animal can be, without getting detected. But that's another story... Galli's are supposed to be MUCH faster, so no the Rex can't catch them in open terrain. Like I can't catch Usain Bolt. He's quicker. It's just facts...

    And alot of scientists points to the Rex being a scavenger, since it wouldn't survive a fall. And it probably couldn't move faster than 10 MPH because of it's immense weight...

    So what is it, I don't understand?
    Again this is because you don't understand how animals hunt. It doesn't matter if it is an open plain. That would actually be worse cause the prey animal would have no where to hide. Why do you have this weird idea that the Rex would have to literally be neck to neck with a Gallimimus to successfully take it down? Also why do you think a Gallimimus could maintain a constant speed for any lengthy amount of time? It would eventually get tired and slow down. It might even get so tired that is just falls onto the ground. The Rex wouldn't have to keep up with it that much.

    That stuff about the Tyrannosaur being a scavenger was pushed by Jack Horner. He says a lot of stuff that makes no sense. As far as it not being able to survive a fall while running? That's also nonsense. I guess you believe it's head would explode like a melon when it hit the ground as well?

    The Rex was an active hunter. It had good eye sight, some even believe it's eye sight was comparable to an eagle or falcon. It had binocular vision as well which is a huge help. It also most likely had a good sense of smell and hearing as well. The sense of smell is important cause it would help it track down prey. Combined with the eye sight and the T-Rex was a literal hunting and killing machine.

    I think I heard some where that Rex teeth have been found broken off in the skeletons of other Dinosaurs it would have hunted.

    Of course I don't think the T-Rex would have been above scavenging or stealing a kill from another predator, maybe even a younger T-Rex. This happens with modern day predator animals. But that doesn't mean the Rex didn't actively hunt for food. Like others have pointed out, it probably would have went after the lame and sick like modern animals do.

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by PCMR4Life View Post (Source)
    Again this is because you don't understand how animals hunt. It doesn't matter if it is an open plain. That would actually be worse cause the prey animal would have no where to hide. Why do you have this weird idea that the Rex would have to literally be neck to neck with a Gallimimus to successfully take it down? Also why do you think a Gallimimus could maintain a constant speed for any lengthy amount of time? It would eventually get tired and slow down. It might even get so tired that is just falls onto the ground. The Rex wouldn't have to keep up with it that much.

    That stuff about the Tyrannosaur being a scavenger was pushed by Jack Horner. He says a lot of stuff that makes no sense. As far as it not being able to survive a fall while running? That's also nonsense. I guess you believe it's head would explode like a melon when it hit the ground as well?

    The Rex was an active hunter. It had good eye sight, some even believe it's eye sight was comparable to an eagle or falcon. It had binocular vision as well which is a huge help. It also most likely had a good sense of smell and hearing as well. The sense of smell is important cause it would help it track down prey. Combined with the eye sight and the T-Rex was a literal hunting and killing machine.

    I think I heard some where that Rex teeth have been found broken off in the skeletons of other Dinosaurs it would have hunted.

    Of course I don't think the T-Rex would have been above scavenging or stealing a kill from another predator, maybe even a younger T-Rex. This happens with modern day predator animals. But that doesn't mean the Rex didn't actively hunt for food. Like others have pointed out, it probably would have went after the lame and sick like modern animals do.
    Of course it has to be neck to neck to take it down? It's not like it has a lasso it can throw to capture the Galli's. Haha. It needs to be in it's jaws. We can agree on that much, so yes it has to be neck and neck with it to eat it. That's how animals hunt. I'm not saying a Galli could maintain its top speed forever, but it would have a hell of a head start... And everytime it would sense the Rex, they would probably run. Like animals do today in Africa and so on... And it just needed one burst of speed, then the Rex would be far behind. It wouldn't have to exhaust itself until it fell over. If that was the case, the species wouldn't have survived.

    If I was running full speed and had my hands tied behind my back, and I fell, I would be seriously injured. That's common sense. I would probably break some ribs or worse, something would happen to my head, for taking the fall. How's that different with a Rex? It's further from the ground and weighs alot more. The damage to the animal would be undeniable. Would it die? Who knows, but it would get injured.

    And please stop speaking about the Rex, like we know any facts about it. Everything is theory. You have no clue, if it was an active hunter. The theory about the good eyesight is well known, but in the franchise Rexy can't see anything. haha. So it would be even HARDER to hunt a Galli.

    And what does teeth have to do with anything? It could also break a tooth while eating a carcass. Like sharks and such does today.

    I agree that it would go for the sick or old. Every living thing in this universe likes to take the easy road when possible.

  9. #39
    In his efforts to push his scavenger theory Jack Horner tried his hardest to convince us that Rex was the Inspector Clouseau of the prehistoric world who couldn't do anything without tripping and falling to his death in a hilarious fashion. Pretty much all of the other paleontologists disagreed with him though, and argued that Rex, while slow, was still faster than his primary prey and would be able to use ambush tactics regardless. I do think that Horner has changed his mind since then, but I might be wrong about that.

    Anyway, we of course don't know for sure if Rex preferred active hunting or scavenging, but healed bite marks from a Rex have been found on both a Triceratops and on a duckbill, so in at least those two instances a Rex did attack live prey. They're also known to have fought each other, so the assumption that they wouldn't do anything risky doesn't hold water.

  10. #40
    Originally Posted by PCMR4Life View Post (Source)
    Again this is because you don't understand how animals hunt. It doesn't matter if it is an open plain. That would actually be worse cause the prey animal would have no where to hide. Why do you have this weird idea that the Rex would have to literally be neck to neck with a Gallimimus to successfully take it down? Also why do you think a Gallimimus could maintain a constant speed for any lengthy amount of time? It would eventually get tired and slow down. It might even get so tired that is just falls onto the ground. The Rex wouldn't have to keep up with it that much.

    ....

    The Rex was an active hunter. It had good eye sight, some even believe it's eye sight was comparable to an eagle or falcon. It had binocular vision as well which is a huge help. It also most likely had a good sense of smell and hearing as well. The sense of smell is important cause it would help it track down prey. Combined with the eye sight and the T-Rex was a literal hunting and killing machine.

    .....
    Are you suggesting that the T-Rex, as an active hunter, have strategic planning to pin down the Galli? Taking environmental factors (natural barriers etc) into account to its advantage? And that the hunting system takes time as that is part of the plan? The advanced tracking systems are built to make strategic planning possible?

    If so, please keep going, Iím interested to learn more about these! I do believe animals are not pure instinct followers which do not have any level of intelligence whatsoever. They do understand their environment well enough to live in it. Of course, that is only my very limited experience with animals, Iím always being criticized for over-estimating their intelligence level.

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by Prehistoric Pirate View Post (Source)
    In his efforts to push his scavenger theory Jack Horner tried his hardest to convince us that Rex was the Inspector Clouseau of the prehistoric world who couldn't do anything without tripping and falling to his death in a hilarious fashion. Pretty much all of the other paleontologists disagreed with him though, and argued that Rex, while slow, was still faster than his primary prey and would be able to use ambush tactics regardless. I do think that Horner has changed his mind since then, but I might be wrong about that.

    Anyway, we of course don't know for sure if Rex preferred active hunting or scavenging, but healed bite marks from a Rex have been found on both a Triceratops and on a duckbill, so in at least those two instances a Rex did attack live prey. They're also known to have fought each other, so the assumption that they wouldn't do anything risky doesn't hold water.
    No one said they wouldn't do anything risky. All life involves risk from time to time... Every living thing just tries to avoid it the best they can. Animals included. I'm under the assumption that Rex would attack living prey. But I just doubt their capability to catch fast (presumably) dinosaurs, since it would make much more sense for it to hunt bigger and slower animals... A Galli would be nothing but a snack for a Rex. I doubt it would be worth the trouble, considering how much food an animal of that size, would have to consume.

    I know it's an iconic scene in the movie, but if you zoom out and think about it, it doesn't make much sense. Like it or not.

  12. #42
    Originally Posted by JohnMiller1132 View Post (Source)
    Are you suggesting that the T-Rex, as an active hunter, have strategic planning to pin down the Galli? Taking environmental factors (natural barriers etc) into account to its advantage? And that the hunting system takes time as that is part of the plan? The advanced tracking systems are built to make strategic planning possible?

    If so, please keep going, I’m interested to learn more about these! I do believe animals are not pure instinct followers which do not have any level of intelligence whatsoever. They do understand their environment well enough to live in it. Of course, that is only my very limited experience with animals, I’m always being criticized for over-estimating their intelligence level.
    Animals are more intelligent than some humans, in my eyes. Haha. I'm with you on that one!

  13. #43
    Originally Posted by MarcWP View Post (Source)
    Animals are more intelligent than some humans, in my eyes. Haha. I'm with you on that one!
    Oops, no mate. I’m afraid I may side with PCMR4Life on this one if he can provide evidence of such strategic planning capabilities / endurance ability (physical and mental) in a prolonged hunting.

    On the other hand, if such a strategic capability is possible, I also wonder what the plans are on the prey side. It is an interesting discussion.

  14. #44
    Originally Posted by JohnMiller1132 View Post (Source)
    Oops, no mate. I’m afraid I may side with PCMR4Life on this one if he can provide evidence of such strategic planning capabilities / endurance ability (physical and mental) in a prolonged hunting.

    On the other hand, if such a strategic capability is possible, I also wonder what the plans are on the prey side. It is an interesting discussion.
    Yes, but no evidence of this matter exists, since the animals are extinct. So the whole conversation would be nothing but theories and no facts.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123