Jump to content

Jurassic World (Jurassic Park 4)


Guest

Recommended Posts

Was there a Ceratosaurus in JPIII?

I remember the Spynosaurus, of course, but the Ceratosuarus is a quite peculiar theropoda, with a horn above his mouth, kinda like a rhino. In what scene was he seen?

Romao, who love the chapter of the Carnotaurus in TLW novel.

Well, the guys with the hands into the dino sh**. A dinosaur comes by, sniffs and levaes. That the great scene :)

Pedantry: the Horn was not that big, i think :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all meaningless anyway because there is no set way of deciding with specifics what is more advanced.

WHAT? explain i cant understand what do you want to say :(

I mean, it's hard to say what is more advanced than something else because of many ways to judge, except when talking about really massive differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all meaningless anyway because there is no set way of deciding with specifics what is more advanced.

WHAT? explain i cant understand what do you want to say :(

I mean, it's hard to say what is more advanced than something else because of many ways to judge, except when talking about really massive differences.

No it is not. We have fossils. We know anatomy. We know taxonomy.

Sharks are very succesful animals. But they have evolved slighlty since they appeared.

Anphibians are very primitive animals. the birds ARE theropoda. Dinosaurs 'are' more evolved than anphibians.

What do you mean with advanced? I think that dinosaurs had a more complex behaviour than anphibians.

I'm not (still) sure what do you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is certain it that the sudden explosion of dinosaur spieces where the is virtually no diffenence between a new spieces and an existing spieces means that the science is no longer a science but a psuedo science. There are groups of scientist opposed to the rapid new discovery. The feel that many new dinosaurs are either juvenile or mature skeletons, and not new spieces at all.

I wonder if anyone will truely ever figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much a Dino-freak myself Luke.

I'm also a fossil collector.

I wanted to be a paleontologist, but in Portugal, the course doens't exist and it's a doomed career anyway around here.

Bring on that list :(

The ones I seem to remember ( I only saw the movie once):

Spynosaurus

Ceratosaurus

Pteranodon (not a Dinosaur, but you get the idea)

Tyranosaurus Rex

Velociraptor (although they look like a mix between and Deinonychus and a Coelophsys)

Chasmosaurus (not sure about this one, but I do seem to recall it)

Brachiosaurus (or a Ultrasaurus, perhaps, not sure)

Stegosaurus I think also

Hmmm, I don't think I remember any more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that is certain it that the sudden explosion of dinosaur spieces where the is virtually no diffenence between a new spieces and an existing spieces means that the science is no longer a science but a psuedo science.  There are groups of scientist opposed to the rapid new discovery.  The feel that many new dinosaurs are either juvenile or mature skeletons, and not new spieces at all.  

I wonder if anyone will truely ever figure it out.

Well but you are with me aobut Anphibians being less evoluted than dinosaurs, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Mamalian reptiles like the Dimetrodon and Dinosaurs evolved primordially from the Ichthyostega, right?

Mamalian reptiles and Dinosaurs became divergent groups in the Evolution, I think, but it's clear they share a common ancestor, the early amphibians like the Ichthyostega.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much a Dino-freak myself Luke.

I'm also a fossil collector.

I wanted to be a paleontologist, but in Portugal, the course doens't exist and it's a doomed career anyway around here.

Bring on that list :(  

The ones I seem to remember ( I only saw the movie once):

Spynosaurus

Ceratosaurus

Pteranodon (not a Dinosaur, but you get the idea)

Tyranosaurus Rex

Velociraptor (although they look like a mix between and Deinonychus and a Coelophsys)

Chasmosaurus (not sure about this one, but I do seem to recall it)

Brachiosaurus (or a Ultrasaurus, perhaps, not sure)

Stegosaurus I think also

Hmmm, I don't think I remember any more.

Well, You know there were Male and Female raptors, right?

You forgot :sigh::

Procompsognathus Triassicus

Ankylosaurus

Corythosaurus

Parasaurolophus

Edmontosaurus/Maiasaurus? -> Fetus

Dont recall any CHasmosaurus, i saw Triceratops

They ARE Brachiosaurus

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know Luke, I suppose that some ampibians are more advanced than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both Mamalian reptiles like the Dimetrodon and Dinosaurs evolved primordially  from the Ichthyostega, right?

Mamalian reptiles and Dinosaurs became divergent groups in the Evolution, I think, but it's clear they share a common ancestor, the early amphibians like the Ichthyostega.

Amen :(

I really don't know Luke, I suppose that some ampibians are more advanced than others.

Of course. I spoke about comparing amphibians with dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could I forget the Procompsognathus?

And the Ankylosaurus of course.

And now I recall seeing all those Duck-face dinosaurus (Corythosaurus, Parasaurolophus and Maiasaura - I think this Dinosaur's name ends with saura and not saurus).

No Stegosauroids in there, were there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much a Dino-freak myself Luke.

I'm also a fossil collector.

I wanted to be a paleontologist, but in Portugal, the course doens't exist and it's a doomed career anyway around here.

Same here.

Have you seen the drawings of Raul Martin? They are very JP influenced (AKA VERY GOOD LOL )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree dinosaurs evoled from early amphibians. But they didn't evolve from modern day amphibians, who survived whichever cataclysm or event that killed dinosaurs, allowing the other species to evolve. Also, because of the mix with the frog, these JP dinosaurs already changed sex spontaneously to allow procreation.

So, I think it's possible to use the argument of the artificial procedure to create the JP dinosaurs as a story plot in which these dinosarus are particularty capable of rapid evolution and spreading.

As for the rumors about the story, are many. One of them is about JPIV being a prequel, which I think it's a good idea to restore the fascination for these creatures that we got in JP1.

But it seems the audience wants to see these animals in the mainland. So I think they'll come up with a story in which the dinosaurs begin populating the continent, stressing the fact that Humans and Dinosaurs are not meant to live together, because both are dominant species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How could I forget the Procompsognathus?

And the Ankylosaurus of course.

And now I recall seeing all those Duck-face dinosaurus (Corythosaurus, Parasaurolophus and Maiasaura - I think this Dinosaur's name ends with saura and not saurus).

No Stegosauroids in there, were there?

Stegosaurus-> yes

Maiasaura mmmm yep :oops: i forgot, really i recently read JP and TLW and i got the idea that Maiasaura was plural or something. Thanks ofr pointing :(

Maiasaura were 'alive' or only the fetus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree dinosaurs evoled from early amphibians. But they didn't evolve from modern day amphibians, who survived whichever cataclysm or event that killed dinosaurs, allowing the other species to evolve. Also, because of the mix with the frog, these JP dinosaurs already changed sex spontaneously to allow procreation.

So, I think it's possible to use the argument of the artificial procedure to create the JP dinosaurs as a story plot in which these dinosarus are particularty capable of rapid evolution and spreading.

.

I now they evolved from early amphibians, but that they survived does mean anything (by the way, birds ARE evolved dinosaurs), in fact it is still a mistery why Dinosaur, flying and water prehistoric reptiles did extinct and other reptiles as crocodiles and turttles, for example, didnt.

Anyways, using amphibians as an example of quick evolution animal would be not used, since amphibians have not changed very much since they appeared...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some crocodiles like the Deinosuchus or the Proteosuchus, or turtles like the Archeleon did become extinct at the same time as the dinosaurs.

BUt it's possible, however, is that the Dinosaurs of Order Ornitshia didn't become extinct, but rather evolved into birds. Dinosaurs form Order Saurichia must've become completly extinct, since they left no trace of possible subsequent evolutions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUt it's possible, however, is that the Dinosaurs of Order Ornitshia didn't become extinct, but rather evolved into birds. Dinosaurs form Order Saurichia must've become completly extinct, since they left no trace of possible subsequent evolutions.

Read closely Merkel :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Luke, I missed that part :(

Anyway I think it is important to point out that not all kinds of dinosaurs may have evolved into birds, just species from Order Ornitishia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Luke, I missed that part :)  

Anyway I think it is important to point out that not all kinds of dinosaurs may have evolved into birds, just species from Order Ornitishia.

:(

The group ornitischia is the one extict. Birds come from Theropoda, who are Saurischia. It odd but its true. I also thought that until i realised it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right, Luke. Don't know how I mixed I was. Indeed theropada are saurichia.  

Romao, feeling dumb.

Dont worry :(

Luke who cant understand why birds came from saurischia and not ornitischia. Maybe birds have a saurian pelvis afterall? I'll look for it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all meaningless anyway because there is no set way of deciding with specifics what is more advanced.

WHAT? explain i cant understand what do you want to say :)

I mean, it's hard to say what is more advanced than something else because of many ways to judge, except when talking about really massive differences.

No it is not. We have fossils. We know anatomy. We know taxonomy.

Sharks are very succesful animals. But they have evolved slighlty since they appeared.

Anphibians are very primitive animals. the birds ARE theropoda. Dinosaurs 'are' more evolved than anphibians.

What do you mean with advanced? I think that dinosaurs had a more complex behaviour than anphibians.

I'm not (still) sure what do you mean.

Well, you said it yourself, what do you mean with advanced? That's exactly what I mean, there are different ways of judging how advanced something is. Dinosaurs might have more complex behaviour... yet they aren't as adapted to water. It's better to say that dinosaurs are better adapted for land than amphibians or reptiles. Evolution isn't about advancement, it's about survival and finding new places and ways to survive.

One thing that is certain it that the sudden explosion of dinosaur spieces where the is virtually no diffenence between a new spieces and an existing spieces means that the science is no longer a science but a psuedo science. There are groups of scientist opposed to the rapid new discovery. The feel that many new dinosaurs are either juvenile or mature skeletons, and not new spieces at all

What new dinosaurs?

So, I think it's possible to use the argument of the artificial procedure to create the JP dinosaurs as a story plot in which these dinosarus are particularty capable of rapid evolution and spreading.

Ahh, perhaps they can breed easily, but one very important factor is how fast they mature.

But it seems the audience wants to see these animals in the mainland. So I think they'll come up with a story in which the dinosaurs begin populating the continent, stressing the fact that Humans and Dinosaurs are not meant to live together, because both are dominant species.

Meant to live together? They were only ever 'meant' to survive. It doesn't make any sense at all to say they weren't meant to live together, because dinosaurs or people were never really meant to exist even, it's just a by product of a natural law.

Anyways, using amphibians as an example of quick evolution animal would be not used, since amphibians have not changed very much since they appeared...

Which only suggests that they are well 'designed' for how they live. If you change how they live, they will evolve quickly. That's what punctuated equilibrium is all about.

Some crocodiles like the Deinosuchus or the Proteosuchus, or turtles like the Archeleon did become extinct at the same time as the dinosaurs.

Crocodiles have the advantage of living in water supplies, giving them a much more easy to find and consistant food supply than other predators. When you have a large amount of animals dieing out, it makes perfect sense that the crocodiles would be one of the last animals to do so and with less food supply makes perfect sense that they would grow smaller as smaller animal needs less food. Which can be more important than the strength size gives. Especially when food is harder to get.

BUt it's possible, however, is that the Dinosaurs of Order Ornitshia didn't become extinct, but rather evolved into birds. Dinosaurs form Order Saurichia must've become completly extinct, since they left no trace of possible subsequent evolutions.

Well, there is a problem there, because it's really not that simple. When something evolves into something else, it usually does it in a certain location, you still have other areas with the original species. Now the new species that the old one evolved to, birds, might not be in competition with the old species. So a new species will not nessarily replace an old species. Considering that a bird is unlikely to be serious competition to it's relative, you still have to explain why the dinosaur is extinct, evolving into a bird won't cut it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belive the evolution from Dinosaur into Bird may have ocurred a little before the mass extinction at the end of the Cretaceous. Therefore, this primitive birds, having their body covered by feathers, could've survived more easily the harsh climate changes that aparently did happen and the end of this period.

The truth is, birds and dinosaurs didn't coexist for very long, maybe they even didn't coexist at all. BUt primitive forms of Saurean birds did coexist with dinosaurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Birds DID coexist with dinosaurs. See for example Iberomesornis Romerali. Hespeornis and orthers.

Amphibians may have not changed form not because they are better adapted than others, but becasue of comptent. they are well as they are, so why evolve. That does not mean they are intelligent or more advanced.

I'll continue tomorrow, ROTFLMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amphibians may have not changed form not because they are better adapted than others, but becasue of comptent. they are well as they are, so why evolve.

That's the same thing, and that's what I said. If you are well adapted you don't need to change.

That does not mean they are intelligent or more advanced.

They are different, how advanced they are is difficult to quantify unless they are obviously more advanced. For example, you can say a mac and a pc are different, but it's hard to say which is more advanced. And note that evolution isn't about advancing but adapting and survival, so it doesn't follow that just because something evolved from something else it will be more advanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look Neanderthal men and Cro-Magnon men are difficult to say who were more advanded. Because they are very similar like PC and MAC. YOu cannoy say the same with amphibians and dinosaurs. they are not that close related.

Look, with your statement, you could also say that Bacteria are the most advanded being in this world. They were the first to rise and they still exist. OK they can be adaptable, but i would not think about them as advanded.

And furthermore, amphibia are not very well on our time. The ammount of them now is propestrous (ridiculous?) compared to the era when they rised. They were let down by reptiles. Having to lay your eggs in the water is not an asset. It makes you to live near water, or at least condition yourself to water.

I think that the extinction of dinosaurs was because: meteor + evolving to birds and maybe + a great vulcan.

With advanced i understand complex-well adapted-intelligent

Amphibian have not changed, yes, not becasue of well adaptation, but as i said comptent. THey have sticked themselves to the water while other animals can live in the air, water, earth...

Well Evolution is very complex thing , and not understood very well ,still, today.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YOu cannoy say the same with amphibians and dinosaurs. they are not that close related.

But I don't really see how Dinosaurs are that much more advanced. The main difference is variety and the fact that they are land creatures.

Look, with your statement, you could also say that Bacteria are the most advanded being in this world. They were the first to rise and they still exist. OK they can be adaptable, but i would not think about them as advanded.

But I would not.

And furthermore, amphibia are not very well on our time. The ammount of them now is propestrous (ridiculous?) compared to the era when they rised. They were let down by reptiles. Having to lay your eggs in the water is not an asset. It makes you to live near water, or at least condition yourself to water.

Actually, it is an asset if no one else is doing it even with draw backs. It's a niche to full. Fulling a new niche is the whole point in advancement to begin with.

With advanced i understand complex-well adapted-intelligent

Infact, in some ways amphibians because of their land and water nature are more complex. Dinosaurs are a point change to a modification of amphibian for land only.

Amphibian have not changed, yes, not becasue of well adaptation, but as i said comptent. THey have sticked themselves to the water while other animals can live in the air, water, earth...

That's just absurd. They full a niche and are extremely good at it. They have reached what is possible with the amphibian design and niche and don't need to improve. That's good adaption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, suddently everyone is a scholar in paleontology. Everyone seems so sure about everything.

Funny, because a few years ago, paleotologists assured Spielberg that dinosarus where hot-blooded, not cold-blooded like it was originally thought. He did the movie like that, then later they changed their minds, they were cold-blooded, again.

And they keep changing their minds about everything we've been taught in school. So, is there a point in defending and arguing theories here? I just like dinosarus. They seem to have been wonderful creatures. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, it is an asset if no one else is doing it even with draw backs. It's a niche to full. Fulling a new niche is the whole point in advancement to begin with

The fact is that reptiels fullfilled a new niche, the land and Turltles and crocodiles STILL live in the water, what is the niche.

But I would not.

Why? they live in all kinds of niches, even extreme ones. Furthermore they have been here since the creation of life.

That's just absurd. They full a niche and are extremely good at it. They have reached what is possible with the amphibian design and niche and don't need to improve. That's good adaption

Fish are better that them on water, and land anilas are better than them too in land.

It ,anyway, can be good adaptation, not advancement.

Funny, because a few years ago, paleotologists assured Spielberg that dinosarus where hot-blooded, not cold-blooded like it was originally thought. He did the movie like that, then later they changed their minds, they were cold-blooded, again.

As far as i'm concerned they are still Warm-blooded....

If there is a abiologist or Paleontologist out there, enter the discussion and tell us if we are making big mistakes ROTFLMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hollywood Reporter recently sat down with Jurassic Park and Lost World star Jeff Goldblum to talk about him about his latest project Igby Goes Down, where he also slipped out some hints about his character returning in the fourth Jurassic Park.

Hollywood Reporter: Sam Neill has already hinted that there is a good chance he'll be returning in Jurassic Park 4, can you give us the same hint?

Jeff Goldblum: "I will say that, like Sam, I do have a very good chance to be returning in JP4. I hope I do, it was great working with Steven in the last two and I would love to do it again."

HR: What has been happening in regards to the stage of the film?

JG: :Well, the film is still in the drawing board stage and Steven and Mr. Moehan are busy writing the script prepping it to make sure it is perfect."

HR: You have seen a small amount of the script, what was your reaction to it?

JG: " I was literally left speechless. Of the small part I saw I couldn't believe it, I didn't think it was possible to top the other three films, but believe me, it sure as heck looks like it will. It takes a more sci-fi approach with some science thrown in to make it more enjoyable. "

HR: What about the dinosaurs?

JG: "Of course there'll be dinosaurs. Steven has told me that my old nemesis, the T-rex (he laughs at the injury his character sustained in the first film), wil be back, possibly along with the Dilophosaur, that venom spitting one and get this, maybe even a water dino, a Mososaur, or something like that."

HR: Has any other actor from the other JP films signed on to JP4?

JG: "Not as of now, Universal wants Vince Vaughn (Nick Van Owen) to return in this film and Cameron Thor might even be amongst the cast."

Nevertheless cast is still a rumour. BUt sounds cool ROTFLMAO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know wether this is true or not, but I'm really getting excited about this one. I really am.

Prisioner of Azkaban, Episode III, Indy 4 and Jurassic Park 4...looks like a lot fo good chances of great movies and fantastic JW scores.

A Mososaurus ROTFLMAO Man, I can't wait to see that one. Maybe they could even make a Dunkelosteus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prisioner of Azkaban, Episode III, Indy 4 and Jurassic Park 4...looks like a lot fo good chances of great movies and fantastic JW scores.

Oh, my God. I haven't thought of that. So many good movies so close, all scored by Williams. If he needs help transcribing notes, I'll help, but he has to do all of them!

CharlesK - starving for good movies with great scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always loved Alan Grant and Ian Malcom.

Alan Grant representeded evrything I wanted to be when i was a little boy and Malcom was hilarious in the first movie (top-notch casting) and is a fascinating character in the book. Those are the 2 characters I wish the most that will be in JPIV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More news:

Crichton and Jurassic Park IV:

 

In this week's issue of Entertainment Weekly Jurassic Park and newly released Prey author Michael Crichton said, "Steven [spielberg] called me up a few days ago to tell me that a JP4 is definitely in the works."  

Does this mean we are getting closer to hearing an official announcement from Universal? Sure sounds like it!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Personally, I would have loved a JW-score in JP3, which was, IMO, an ok film, but with an mediocre, way too sentimental score - bordering on tasteless, in fact.

But how do you all feel about the prospect of JW scoring the pretty much upcoming Jurassic Park 4?

--Pelzter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,  

But how do you all feel about the prospect of JW scoring the pretty much upcoming Jurassic Park 4?

.

It's a great opportunity to write even more cues like Chase Through Coruscant and Anderton's Great Escape(which is Ludlows Demise anyways).

I want Indy4,Potter3 and ep3,but I dunno about another JP,I listen to about 1/4 th of TLW album.

K.M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Love Williams' JP music.

However, I didn't care at all for JP3, movie or music... EXCEPT ONE EXCEPTION:

COOPER'S LAST STAND (film version, never heard the album version) is an AMAZING cue!!!! The rest of the music, I can't get into.

BTW, sorry for not posting much guys (and handful of girls). I am VERY busy with work. :music:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

,  

But how do you all feel about the prospect of JW scoring the pretty much upcoming Jurassic Park 4?

.

It's a great opportunity to write even more cues like Chase Through Coruscant and Anderton's Great Escape(which is Ludlows Demise anyways).

I want Indy4,Potter3 and ep3,but I dunno about another JP,I listen to about 1/4 th of TLW album.

K.M.

:?

KM! DAMMIT! :music:

I love all the tracks you mentioned, and The Lost World is one of my favorite scores of all time!!!! AARGH!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to strike down any rumors of Spielberg directing JP4- He has stated in the past year that he would never direct any sequel to an exsisting franchise, with the exception of Indiana Jones (because he has so much fun doing those).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to strike down any rumors of Spielberg directing JP4- He has stated in the past year that he would never direct any sequel to an exsisting franchise, with the exception of Indiana Jones (because he has so much fun doing those).

I thought I read a comment directly from Spielberg's mouth where it said that they found an unbelievable script that he wished they had done BEFORE they did 3 because if they had, then he would have done it.

I'd HOPE that he'd direct it, because I loved the 1st 2 JPs, while the 3rd one was absolutely terrible, IMO (with the exception of that one Don Davis cue that I mentioned earlier).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also read that about the JP4 script- that doesn't mean Spielberg will direct, just that there will actualy be another JP movie, cos after 3, that was by no means certain.

I loved one, didn't like two at all except for Pete Postletwaithe's wonderful performance and absolutly hated 3.

The score for the first is a modern classic, the second is absolutely fantastic, but I don't see how people could like the third one. I also don't see how JW gave his seal of approvel to Davis' score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.