Jurassic World: Dominion | June 10 2022 | 6th Most Profitable Movie of 2023

[Alex SciChannel]

1 hour ago, Bigscrubnus said:

I watched twitter for reactions and found 6 total. 5 positive and 1 negative. The negative one didn’t go into any detail but just said “it’s bad”.

 

Below is the most in depth reaction I’ve found. He said it’s his favorite of the trilogy and he loved it a lot.

 

make sure to click and read the whole thread

 

also this just got posted

 

 

Where was it screened to garner its first reactions?

[Bigscrubnus]

2 minutes ago, Alex SciChannel said:

Where was it screened to garner its first reactions?

Last night in Mexico 

[Bigscrubnus]

another encouraging in depth review!

[interiorgatordecorator]

why mexico btw?

[XXRDJisDoctorDoom]

12 minutes ago, interiorgatordecorator said:

why mexico btw?

Because it opens in Mexico and South Korea first, on June 1.

[european1992]

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CdiyIr3A2h9/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

 

This looks awesome.

[THUNDER BIRD]

I did a mistake

[Alex SciChannel]

21 minutes ago, THUNDER BIRD said:

I did a mistake

Runt row???

[THUNDER BIRD]

2 minutes ago, Alex SciChannel said:

Runt row???

I shared the clip of Giga on r/JurassicPark

 

The toxicity is off the charts, movie looks garbage because the way they are standing.

 

"The Way They Are Standing"

[Alex SciChannel]

3 minutes ago, THUNDER BIRD said:

I shared the clip of Giga on r/JurassicPark

 

The toxicity is off the charts, movie looks garbage because the way they are standing.

 

"The Way They Are Standing"

Who's saying this???

[THUNDER BIRD]

2 minutes ago, Alex SciChannel said:

Who's saying this???

Enjoy the comments

[Alex SciChannel]

2 minutes ago, THUNDER BIRD said:

Enjoy the comments

The Jurassic Park subreddit is known to be a dumpster fire anyway. What really annoys me is the paleo community on Twitter nitpicking the shit out of this film because it's "still not accurate enough" which yes they aren't 100% accurate to our current standards still, but neither was JP1 for the standards in 1993. We already knew dinos had feathers then. This is entertainment not a documentary. Just annoys me as a paleontology major that my fellow colleagues can't distinguish the two.

[THUNDER BIRD]

40 minutes ago, Alex SciChannel said:

The Jurassic Park subreddit is known to be a dumpster fire anyway. What really annoys me is the paleo community on Twitter nitpicking the shit out of this film because it's "still not accurate enough" which yes they aren't 100% accurate to our current standards still, but neither was JP1 for the standards in 1993. We already knew dinos had feathers then. This is entertainment not a documentary. Just annoys me as a paleontology major that my fellow colleagues can't distinguish the two.

Cesspool of negativity 

[Yandereprime101189]

There's never going to be 100% accuracy with how the dinosaurs are portrayed in the film. There won't ever be, we simply just do not know how they behave, everything is based on guesses and assumptions.

 

What makes them feel like real animals in the movie is how much effort the animatronics teams and animation teams put in. They study various animals and put their behaviors and mannerisms in the dinosaurs.

 

The Apple docu-miniseries that's currently airing also follow this. The dinosaurs look great and feel like actual animals, but we don't know if they actually behaved that way, it's as fictional as Jurassic Park.

 

 

 

[Brainbug]

Lmao reddit ist there to be ignored guys. No need to feed the trolls who were gonna hate on this movie in any case.

[Alex SciChannel]

8 hours ago, Yandereprime101189 said:

There's never going to be 100% accuracy with how the dinosaurs are portrayed in the film. There won't ever be, we simply just do not know how they behave, everything is based on guesses and assumptions.

 

What makes them feel like real animals in the movie is how much effort the animatronics teams and animation teams put in. They study various animals and put their behaviors and mannerisms in the dinosaurs.

 

The Apple docu-miniseries that's currently airing also follow this. The dinosaurs look great and feel like actual animals, but we don't know if they actually behaved that way, it's as fictional as Jurassic Park.

 

 

 

We do actually know certain behaviors based on evidence such as trace fossils or the presence of certain phenotypic structures that can be likened through comparative anatomy. It would be unrepresentive to say behavior is 100% guesses and assumptions. We know for instance Deinonychus likely didn't hunt in packs as the juveniles have a diet made up of smaller organisms than the adults. We know this through isotope analyses of their teeth that their diet was drastically different than the adults. And from this we can extrapolate what they ate based on which isotopes are more common and how they behaved. It is most likely the juvenile behavior of deinonychus is most likened to juvenile crocodilians. Monitored by their parents b/c there's less eggs in a dromaeosaur clutch inferring type K selection, but still being let to acquire their own food which would be small lizards or amphibians.

 

And for the record. No the Apple series is less fictional than Jurassic Park. That show is pretty spot on for the knowledge we have of these animals. My point is they communicate different things so it's more important for one to be accurate than the other.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Alex SciChannel

[Brainbug]

6 minutes ago, Alex SciChannel said:

We do actually know certain behaviors based on evidence such as trace fossils or the presence of certain phenotypic structures that can be likened through comparative anatomy. It would be unrepresentive to say behavior is 100% guesses and assumptions. We know for instance Deinonychus likely didn't hunt in packs as the juveniles have a diet made up of smaller organisms than the adults. We know this through isotope analyses of their teeth that their diet was drastically different than the adults. And from this we can extrapolate what they ate based on which isotopes are more common and how they behaved. It is most likely the juvenile behavior of deinonychus is most likened to juvenile crocodilians. Monitored by their parents b/c there's less eggs in a dromaeosaur clutch inferring type K selection, but still being let to acquire their own food which would be small lizards or amphibians.

 

And for the record. No the Apple series is less fictional than Jurassic Park. That show is pretty spot on for the knowledge we have of these animals. My point is they communicate different things so it's more important for one to be accurate than the other.

 

One is a TV show that actually promotes itself with beeing as accurate as possible.

 

The other is a Hollywood blockbuster with genetically designed theme park monsters.

[Alex SciChannel]

22 minutes ago, Brainbug the Dinosaur said:

 

One is a TV show that actually promotes itself with beeing as accurate as possible.

 

The other is a Hollywood blockbuster with genetically designed theme park monsters.

One is a documentary. With David flippin Attenborough. The other is Jurassic Park.

[Yandereprime101189]

43 minutes ago, Alex SciChannel said:

We do actually know certain behaviors based on evidence such as trace fossils or the presence of certain phenotypic structures that can be likened through comparative anatomy. It would be unrepresentive to say behavior is 100% guesses and assumptions. We know for instance Deinonychus likely didn't hunt in packs as the juveniles have a diet made up of smaller organisms than the adults. We know this through isotope analyses of their teeth that their diet was drastically different than the adults. And from this we can extrapolate what they ate based on which isotopes are more common and how they behaved. It is most likely the juvenile behavior of deinonychus is most likened to juvenile crocodilians. Monitored by their parents b/c there's less eggs in a dromaeosaur clutch inferring type K selection, but still being let to acquire their own food which would be small lizards or amphibians.

 

And for the record. No the Apple series is less fictional than Jurassic Park. That show is pretty spot on for the knowledge we have of these animals. My point is they communicate different things so it's more important for one to be accurate than the other.

 

We still only have their fossils. We haven't actually seen them out in the wild. Every behavior of a dinosaur in a documentary - from Walking with Dinosaurs to Prehistoric Planet is based on hypothesis (as well as inspiration of real life similar animals) and not 100% certainty, because 10 years from now many scientists will have changed their mind and gone in a different direction.

 

[Alex SciChannel]

36 minutes ago, Yandereprime101189 said:

 

We still only have their fossils. We haven't actually seen them out in the wild. Every behavior of a dinosaur in a documentary - from Walking with Dinosaurs to Prehistoric Planet is based on hypothesis (as well as inspiration of real life similar animals) and not 100% certainty, because 10 years from now many scientists will have changed their mind and gone in a different direction.

 

It's mostly based on theory. Hypothesis is an educated predisposition. And you can actually gauge more from an animals lifestyle with their fossils than you think. Morphology is a complex field of study and as I've explained before with the isotope analyses can be very useful in paleoecological analyses. Of course we have a lot more to learn and nothing is 100% certain but it isn't garunteed that the conclusions we have arrived at are going away. For example feathers, we know for a fact some theropod dinosaurs had feathers through direct evidence. The room for development is how they formed evolution wise and the different ways that could've occurred. Some things will change in the future through either finding new discoveries or revaluations. But a lot of what we already know won't change as much as we know that the consensus on the Earth being round isn't changing. 

 

Also look up trace fossils as they are direct evidence of animal behavior on the environment. Such as tracks and body impressions on the sediment. It isn't simply body fossils we have but impressions and different methods of preservation. We sometimes even get dinosaur mummies that preserve fossilized skin so we know what their scales were shaped like on different parts of the body. And even rarer those scales preserve remnants of pigmentation so we know which regions that we posses were pigmented for certain animals. Due to the rarity there is a lot of room for expansion here. We even have a sizable record of dinosaur eggs and embryos so we have a good understanding of at least certain parts of their embryonic development and through seeing how their nests are arranged we can conclude different brooding behaviors as well. We know a lot more than you think. Obviously not close to everything but a lot to extrapolate from and for it to be a mischaracterization to say it's all guesses b/c it's not. Other wise no papers could ever get published on paleontology and many professors I know wouldn't have gotten their PhDs.