Deinonychus model needs Improvement

[Cosmo]

This model in the teaser trailer doesn't look like a Deinoncychus

It should look more like this (you can remove the feathers):

https://twitter.com/nicholasRodgers/status/944671139657388034

 

[K M Butler]

I suspect that where Jurassicverse bible and current science conflict, bible wins. Like your picture, tho'. Looks like it should be toting a red-and-white bucket captioned "Gondwanaland Fried Human - Talon-licking good!"

 

[PCMR4Life]

I don't know what the deal with the crest on it's head is. I have heard speculation about it being a hybrid. All the dinosaurs in the game will most likely be styled after the JP/JW universe dinos. So don't expect them to be scientifically accurate.

 

[loopedchris]

eeep! Sorry if this going to cause friction but Jurassic's dinosaurs are all hybrids technically as they have mixed DNA, frogs etc. While it is very much spectated what these creatures looked like, we really don't know. i personally love the red, so menacing!

 

[Cosmo]

eeep! Sorry if this going to cause friction but Jurassic's dinosaurs are all hybrids technically as they have mixed DNA, frogs etc. While it is very much spectated what these creatures looked like, we really don't know. i personally love the red, so menacing!

We do know based on the fossils and skull. Frontier didn't say that this is a hybrid dinosaur.

 

[loopedchris]

We do know based on the fossils and skull. Frontier didn't say that this is a hybrid dinosaur.

https://img00.deviantart.net/0d7a/i/2008/074/b/7/deinonychus_skull_by_nate_san.jpg

 

[LordOfTheSnackFalcons]

God I hate that scene. I hate it so much.

It tries to present the decision to not change the designs as one motivated by thematic reasons, except nowhere else in the film does the theme park monsters angle come up. It's a transparent attempt to justify a lazy and nostalgia pandering decision, that spits in the face of what the first film did for the public perception of dinosaurs.

 

[PCMR4Life]

God I hate that scene. I hate it so much.

It tries to present the decision to not change the designs as one motivated by thematic reasons, except nowhere else in the film does the theme park monsters angle come up. It's a transparent attempt to justify a lazy and nostalgia pandering decision, that spits in the face of what the first film did for the public perception of dinosaurs.

Actually in the book Wu talks with Hammond in his room about changing the Dinosaurs to make them more appealing to guests. Making them slower and less aggressive. That the actual dinosaurs frightened people. Hammond said he wanted real dinosaurs, he said that is what Wu gave him. But Wu tells Hammond that no one really knows what real dinosaurs were like so no one has any idea. That they don't even know if the animals they made are true dinosaurs. That the guests wouldn't know the difference.

Basically Wu's lines to Masrani were pretty much taken from the book, just they were changed a bit and some different lines were thrown in.

But JW was just big play on peoples nostalgia. I didn't like it that much. But going back and reading the first book I see a lot of stuff I would think is ridiculous as well. Like the baby raptors being friendly to people. I think they would have been like other animals and they would have come out of the eggs ready to bite your fingers off.

 

[LordOfTheSnackFalcons]

I'm aware, but that scene served a purpose in the books. The one in Jurassic World exists to excuse a lazy creative decision. The concepts it brings up never show up outside of that scene.

 

[Whitehair]

I suspect that where Jurassicverse bible and current science conflict, bible wins.

Yes, I'd think this is going to be the case, especially as the current science view changes as new discoveries are made (*cough* feathers *cough*).

Jurassic Park/Jurassic World are based on the available knowledge at the time the first film was made. That is the starting point of the the films, and as the game is a tie-into the films the game should start there as well.

That said I'm hoping for the ability to DNA graft feathers onto the dinosaurs to customise them a bit.

 

[Siaka]

This is all well and good, but the JP1 and 3 films do not support this, the skeletons found in the ground by the film paleontologists are obviously based on Velociraptor as it appears in the film, not deinonychus or velociraptor.

The animal pictured is larger than a human, has pronated arms, and a fabricated skull. As of the third film they have an additional lambeosaurine resonating chamber, that (In-universe) is so perfectly replicated it baffles Ingen raptors. Real Dromaeosaurs do not have these.

There is no particular reason to believe that the Jurassic Park velociraptor is an inaccurate reconstruction in-universe other than fan explanations, at least as far as I understand. The Wu quote feels almost like a weird fourth wall wink that doesn't add up, then again there's a ton of things in this franchise that don't add up without fan theories.

All of that aside it is because of this it does make sense that deinonychus in the franchise would have a radically different skull than the ones we have IRL.

The JP franchise has a completely different paleontology. Alan Grant correctly describes velociraptor hunting patters and Tyrannosaurus eyesight before knowing that there are live dinosaurs on Isla Nublar. Neither of these are corroborated in real life. While the book might have had these as impacts of the Frog DNA the films adapted it into the world's history.

TLDR: I can buy that deinonychus looks like that in the JP lore, but frog DNA is probably not the reason. Frog DNA, in the films, was only used to explain breeding, and the idea that it affected their physical appearance was defied by the films themselves until JW

Side note: Yes, most accurate depictions of dinosaurs are "speculative", but considerably less so than any depiction that actively defies the bones, such as the Deinonychus we have here. It's understandable why people would be annoyed that the Jurassic World deinonychus doesn't even share a skeleton with its real-life counterpart, they might wonder why it's even called a deinonychus.

I actually kind of like the lizard chicken

 

[Whitehair]

This model in the teaser trailer doesn't look like a Deinoncychus

I've picked a couple more pictures from that site you linked. Maybe you could say which of the two images you provided, and the two here is accurate? What does a Deinonychus actually look like?

 

[LordOfTheSnackFalcons]

The lower one is definitely wrong. I's heavily scaled and has pronated hands.

Personally this reconstruction of Wikipedia captures my understanding of Deinonychus pretty well.

 

[PCMR4Life]

Jurassic Park dinosaurs aren't exactly real dinosaurs. The books and movies are science fiction. We can't clone dinosaurs either. A few games have scientifically accurate dinosaurs in them with feathers. Well as scientifically accurate as you can expect to get with just bones. Basically it's a lot of guess work and speculation. No one really knows anything about them. Which makes it easy to make them whatever you want. You want big feathered chickens with teeth? Go ahead. You want scary scaly monsters? Do it.

I am not a fan of feathered dinosaurs. As kid I grew up with dinosaurs that didn't have feathers. Everyone wants to cover the T-Rex in feathers though it mostly likely didn't have feathers or at the most very little. But there is a game on Steam that has the darned thing covered in fur/feathers. I believe they call the fur looking feathers proto-feathers. I don't care for it. Scientifically accurate or not I don't like it. I most certainly don't want feathered dinos in my JP/JW games. Part of JWE to me would be nostalgia and feathered raptors of a T-Rex would totally ruin that. That's not what I saw in the movies as a kid.

I am also not completely sold on the whole idea that birds are just dinosaurs/dinosaurs evolved into birds. I don't think sharing a few characteristics with another animal means they are exactly the same or modern versions are just evolved forms of animals in the past. To me dinosaurs don't look a lot like birds. I also don't think they all had feathers, from what I have read only some had them. I believe the ones that shared some avian characteristics.

 

[Ca$hback]

Deinonychus was my favorite dinosaur growing up, years before JP even came out and I hate to see the chicken version of it.
In the children's encyclopedia I had they were portrayed much like the raptors in JP. Smart pack hunters that jump-kick with their main claws. I always thought it was dumb that they didn't just use deinonychus but velociraptor sounds more marketable and I can understand it now, grown up. Now they use deinonychus anyway .
Anyway, the Utahraptor is my choice of cavalry.

 

[loopedchris]

EDIT: 'When I worked on Triceratops back in the 90's, this is exactly what I thought Triceratops probably did look like but it's been a long time, it's been 25 years. That is completely wrong' - Jack Horner on Jurassic's Triceratops - Jack worked on the Jurassic movies as a person giving information on dinosaurs! It shows how new information appears all the time!

Watch the videeeeoooooooo!! <3

-----

I personally can't wait to see these in game! As for them looking like the real deal, I think we have to remember that Jurassic isn't exactly 100% realistic. The traits of the real ones might follow Raptors (that is, Jurassic's raptors) too closely and therefore they have been made to represent something different? After hearing Jack Horner in the speech I have linked below. Dinosaurs would look much different in the Jurassic universe than real life.

[video=youtube;RsrDeGnqWeY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsrDeGnqWeY[/video]

 

[PCMR4Life]

I watched a video The Gaming Beaver did where he interviewed a dev team member. He said the Dinosaurs can be tweaked. That they can changed and made to look different. Not hybrids like mixing two animals together. But changes in the way they look. That frill might possibly be one the changes you can make.