Why is Jack Horner still part of the JP franchise?

Not long ago, Sickle Claw found a 4Chan leak that was about the toys. The leaker, who was pretty realible, said that Universal doesn't care about how accurate the toys are and have no clue how the dinosaurs looked like.

Considering how Jack Horner has been the dino advisior from day one, I have to ask: Why is he even still part of the franchise?

Most of his theories have been proven wrong, he admits his T. rex being a pure scavenger theory is just trolling, his anti-T. rex bias was part of the reason for that infamous scene in JP3 (Let's not get this turned into THAT topic again, please.) and most dino nerds no longer trust him.

Is he in it for the money, does Universal no longer trust him after JP3 but can't fire him for some unknown reason, are they afraid to hire a new paleontologist (Bring Back Robert Bakker) who actually respects these movies?

I just don't get why this man is still part of the franchise.

Yeah, I agree. Either find a paleontologist that is ACTUALLY a scientist and not some dino conspiracy theorist, or just abandon wanting any level of realism to modern paleontology all together (which the films may as well, they're basically already there). Find a new guy, or drop the attempt at realism

In regards to JP3 trolling, Horner did it again on his twitter with a pretty bad troll regarding the Rex/Spino fight:
https://twitter.com/dustydino/status/949781311132131329

Sickle_Claw wrote:

In regards to JP3 trolling, Horner did it again on his twitter with a pretty bad troll regarding the Rex/Spino fight:
https://twitter.com/dustydino/status/949781311132131329

Which is odd since I remember how Ty shared a link on JPL where Horner admitted that T. rex would win in real life due to how the Moroccan neotype was described. How this man isn't kicked out of the paleo community by now and is still part of the JP franchise is beyond me.

Saurillian wrote:

Yeah, I agree. Either find a paleontologist that is ACTUALLY a scientist and not some dino conspiracy theorist, or just abandon wanting any level of realism to modern paleontology all together (which the films may as well, they're basically already there). Find a new guy, or drop the attempt at realism

Did you hear about the recent crackpot theory he's peddling now? He's now saying that Triceratops didn't use it's horns as weapons. Considering how the paleo community rejected his theory about Torosaurus being a full grown version of adult male Trike's, this just seems like a bad attempt to save face.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

In regards to JP3 trolling, Horner did it again on his twitter with a pretty bad troll regarding the Rex/Spino fight:
https://twitter.com/dustydino/status/949781311132131329

He's only doing this to get a rise out of the fandom, which is kinda sh*t anyway when it comes to anything T-Rex/Spino related.

I dont think the higher ups at Universal listen to him, if anything it is the people that work on the movie, like Bayona, Colin, etc that need his advice, not the guys paying the bills

I wish they'd drop him already given his apathetic stance on a lot of issues when it came to the creature designs in JP3 especially. He's said his role was so "no angry 12 year olds attacked Spielberg" and frankly I feel with that he doesn't take his job seriously enough. The paleo community though is very fussy and get personally slighted by any kind of inaccuracy or perceived inaccuracy. So the issue on the other side of the aisle is that while Horner needs to get serious, people need to stop getting so wound up about the lack of accuracy and accept the story reasons of why the dinosaurs aren't feathered or whatever. This is where that one-off line that Wu said in JW about if they used the full genome the animals would look "a lot different" and basically explains why they look the way they look. It's kind of the same thing with InGen doing different versions of the dinosaurs to perfect the end product. InGen sees the dinosaurs as software subject to constant revision and improvement until they find an animal that is compatible to their needs.

What Horner did during the Dinosaur Renaissance back in the day with his finds on Egg Mountain and that's really what made him an expert there and more or less a household name for paleontology there for a while. His finds helped to show the dinosaurs as animals that had cared for their young and not rogues and from that he even named Maiasaura as well. So that's what he is known for in paleontology. His later work just always edged on the point of controversial or him just "trolling" the community though. Exception would be the Torosaurus/Triceratops argument where he approaches the question of dinosaur ontology and growth stages.

I can only hope Horner has a change of heart where he gets back to business with being a scientist first and starts caring about making a perfect marriage of fact and fiction for the JP franchise again. If he can't do that then he just needs cycled out and replaced with someone else that can and will do the job or a better job than he has thus far. I doubt either of these two scenarios will happen any time soon though. Not unless there is a massive personality conflict or creative rift of some kind on Horner's end where he distances himself or even Horner drops the apathy he has towards any of this and starts doing his job. It is a missed opportunity, like a lot of what JP was in a lot of respects post-release in the early 90s.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Sickle_Claw wrote:

In regards to JP3 trolling, Horner did it again on his twitter with a pretty bad troll regarding the Rex/Spino fight:
https://twitter.com/dustydino/status/949781311132131329

Which is odd since I remember how Ty shared a link on JPL where Horner admitted that T. rex would win in real life due to how the Moroccan neotype was described. How this man isn't kicked out of the paleo community by now and is still part of the JP franchise is beyond me.

Saurillian wrote:

Yeah, I agree. Either find a paleontologist that is ACTUALLY a scientist and not some dino conspiracy theorist, or just abandon wanting any level of realism to modern paleontology all together (which the films may as well, they're basically already there). Find a new guy, or drop the attempt at realism

Did you hear about the recent crackpot theory he's peddling now? He's now saying that Triceratops didn't use it's horns as weapons. Considering how the paleo community rejected his theory about Torosaurus being a full grown version of adult male Trike's, this just seems like a bad attempt to save face.

He's always coming up with weird theories. Like how all those different kinds of Pachycephalosaurs are the same species. Dumb, plain dumb. You don't see those kinds of anatomical changes in higher animals. EVER. There is no evidence to support this, he's literally making stuff up and grasping at straws. He is the most unprofessional person in the paleontological field period

I thought I disliked Horner, I feel like I've met my equal in Saurillian here. I dislike Horner, which is a shame because I used to idolize him and Bakker when I was a kid growing up. I even bought his book "The Complete T. rex", but it seems sometime after writing it, be began hating T. rex. It's so illogical. I remember writing up a big rant post on JPLegacy after the news that Horner was retiring came out. The man is pompous, and has a flippant attitude toward science. He's bad for the franchise, and bad for paleontology period. We're talking about a man who is quoted in defending the lack of feathers in the JP/// Raptors with "Let me tell you something. You could take the skull of a grizzly bear and the skull of a panda bear and they would look virtually identical. With any of this stuff, we're guessing at what they looked like. There's been a lot of internet chatter about our dinosaurs not being technically accurate, but nobody knows what is 'technically accurate'. Your guess is as good as anybody else's." SWS was asking for his help in making their dinosaurs as accurate as possible, and he tells them that the guess of a design engineer is as good as the facts that can be provided by a doctored paleontologist's. First of all, the skull of a grizzly and the skull of a panda look NOTHING alike! Second of all, we KNEW FOR FACT in 2000, when these dinosaurs were designed for JP///, that they DIDN'T HAVE GIANT FINS STICKING OUT THE SIDE OF THEIR SNOUT! NOR DID THEY HAVE A LINE OF QUILLS ON THEIR HEADS! Jack Horner ruined the dinosaurs in JP/// with his apathy and crackpot theories about scavengerous Tyrannosaurus. Which had previously been portrayed as a predator. And he had the Spinosaurus as a monster just to make sure it was bigger and badder than the T. rex. God forbid Horner should suggest that dinosaurs act like animals. All of Spielberg's hard work of ensuring that dinosaurs were portrayed as animals out the window with one fucking movie. The man has become apathetic to the point of negligence.

TyrannosaurTJ wrote:

I wish they'd drop him already given his apathetic stance on a lot of issues when it came to the creature designs in JP3 especially. He's said his role was so "no angry 12 year olds attacked Spielberg" and frankly I feel with that he doesn't take his job seriously enough. The paleo community though is very fussy and get personally slighted by any kind of inaccuracy or perceived inaccuracy. So the issue on the other side of the aisle is that while Horner needs to get serious, people need to stop getting so wound up about the lack of accuracy and accept the story reasons of why the dinosaurs aren't feathered or whatever. This is where that one-off line that Wu said in JW about if they used the full genome the animals would look "a lot different" and basically explains why they look the way they look. It's kind of the same thing with InGen doing different versions of the dinosaurs to perfect the end product. InGen sees the dinosaurs as software subject to constant revision and improvement until they find an animal that is compatible to their needs.

What Horner did during the Dinosaur Renaissance back in the day with his finds on Egg Mountain and that's really what made him an expert there and more or less a household name for paleontology there for a while. His finds helped to show the dinosaurs as animals that had cared for their young and not rogues and from that he even named Maiasaura as well. So that's what he is known for in paleontology. His later work just always edged on the point of controversial or him just "trolling" the community though. Exception would be the Torosaurus/Triceratops argument where he approaches the question of dinosaur ontology and growth stages.

I can only hope Horner has a change of heart where he gets back to business with being a scientist first and starts caring about making a perfect marriage of fact and fiction for the JP franchise again. If he can't do that then he just needs cycled out and replaced with someone else that can and will do the job or a better job than he has thus far. I doubt either of these two scenarios will happen any time soon though. Not unless there is a massive personality conflict or creative rift of some kind on Horner's end where he distances himself or even Horner drops the apathy he has towards any of this and starts doing his job. It is a missed opportunity, like a lot of what JP was in a lot of respects post-release in the early 90s.

Good luck with that. He's too old and if he stopped caring when JP3 was being made, then I don't see him caring now. I get that the paleo-community is picky, but I think because of him, we won't get a compromise where most of the 'classics' will be untouched/only get slight updates while we get new dinosaurs-Anzu, Deinocheirus, Troodon, etc-with feathers. You say that the Triceratops/Torosaurus theory is the one thing that he approaches with any professionalism, but yet, considering the lack of Torosaurus fossils, counting the recent one found in Colorado, it's 5-6 I think, while as Triceratops are far more common, that theory was based on pretty dubious evidence.

CT-1138 wrote:

I thought I disliked Horner, I feel like I've met my equal in Saurillian here. I dislike Horner, which is a shame because I used to idolize him and Bakker when I was a kid growing up. I even bought his book "The Complete T. rex", but it seems sometime after writing it, be began hating T. rex. It's so illogical. I remember writing up a big rant post on JPLegacy after the news that Horner was retiring came out. The man is pompous, and has a flippant attitude toward science. He's bad for the franchise, and bad for paleontology period. We're talking about a man who is quoted in defending the lack of feathers in the JP/// Raptors with "Let me tell you something. You could take the skull of a grizzly bear and the skull of a panda bear and they would look virtually identical. With any of this stuff, we're guessing at what they looked like. There's been a lot of internet chatter about our dinosaurs not being technically accurate, but nobody knows what is 'technically accurate'. Your guess is as good as anybody else's." SWS was asking for his help in making their dinosaurs as accurate as possible, and he tells them that the guess of a design engineer is as good as the facts that can be provided by a doctored paleontologist's. First of all, the skull of a grizzly and the skull of a panda look NOTHING alike! Second of all, we KNEW FOR FACT in 2000, when these dinosaurs were designed for JP///, that they DIDN'T HAVE GIANT FINS STICKING OUT THE SIDE OF THEIR SNOUT! NOR DID THEY HAVE A LINE OF QUILLS ON THEIR HEADS! Jack Horner ruined the dinosaurs in JP/// with his apathy and crackpot theories about scavengerous Tyrannosaurus. Which had previously been portrayed as a predator. And he had the Spinosaurus as a monster just to make sure it was bigger and badder than the T. rex. God forbid Horner should suggest that dinosaurs act like animals. All of Spielberg's hard work of ensuring that dinosaurs were portrayed as animals out the window with one fucking movie. The man has become apathetic to the point of negligence.

Let's not forget how he's sat on describing Celeste and MOR-555 for years and how he botched the description of MOR-008.

I mean, how he's still with the franchise is something I don't get.

It makes no sense whatsoever. I honestly think JP should throw the dino experts out the window and just refer to animal experts. The dinosaurs aren't, and shouldn't ever be, accurate to the real things. THAT IS PART OF THE NARRATIVE. Literally, in the books it talks about creating a completely artificial ecosystem in pointing out to Hammond that they did not, and cannot ever, recreate the past. It is pointless to have ever had dino experts on staff honestly, makes much more sense to just have animal experts so that you can make the creatures behave realistically. That is FAR more important than if they look real

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

I thought I disliked Horner, I feel like I've met my equal in Saurillian here. I dislike Horner, which is a shame because I used to idolize him and Bakker when I was a kid growing up. I even bought his book "The Complete T. rex", but it seems sometime after writing it, be began hating T. rex. It's so illogical. I remember writing up a big rant post on JPLegacy after the news that Horner was retiring came out. The man is pompous, and has a flippant attitude toward science. He's bad for the franchise, and bad for paleontology period. We're talking about a man who is quoted in defending the lack of feathers in the JP/// Raptors with "Let me tell you something. You could take the skull of a grizzly bear and the skull of a panda bear and they would look virtually identical. With any of this stuff, we're guessing at what they looked like. There's been a lot of internet chatter about our dinosaurs not being technically accurate, but nobody knows what is 'technically accurate'. Your guess is as good as anybody else's." SWS was asking for his help in making their dinosaurs as accurate as possible, and he tells them that the guess of a design engineer is as good as the facts that can be provided by a doctored paleontologist's. First of all, the skull of a grizzly and the skull of a panda look NOTHING alike! Second of all, we KNEW FOR FACT in 2000, when these dinosaurs were designed for JP///, that they DIDN'T HAVE GIANT FINS STICKING OUT THE SIDE OF THEIR SNOUT! NOR DID THEY HAVE A LINE OF QUILLS ON THEIR HEADS! Jack Horner ruined the dinosaurs in JP/// with his apathy and crackpot theories about scavengerous Tyrannosaurus. Which had previously been portrayed as a predator. And he had the Spinosaurus as a monster just to make sure it was bigger and badder than the T. rex. God forbid Horner should suggest that dinosaurs act like animals. All of Spielberg's hard work of ensuring that dinosaurs were portrayed as animals out the window with one fucking movie. The man has become apathetic to the point of negligence.

Let's not forget how he's sat on describing Celeste and MOR-555 for years and how he botched the description of MOR-008.

I mean, how he's still with the franchise is something I don't get.

Oh yeah, and that had been the second part of my rant. His Chickensaurus vanity project! He's had years to to actual scientific work with real fossils, and he continues to spend time and money to turn an extant dinosaur into some abomination that vaguely resemble something from the Mesozoic.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Good luck with that. He's too old and if he stopped caring when JP3 was being made, then I don't see him caring now. I get that the paleo-community is picky, but I think because of him, we won't get a compromise where most of the 'classics' will be untouched/only get slight updates while we get new dinosaurs-Anzu, Deinocheirus, Troodon, etc-with feathers. You say that the Triceratops/Torosaurus theory is the one thing that he approaches with any professionalism, but yet, considering the lack of Torosaurus fossils, counting the recent one found in Colorado, it's 5-6 I think, while as Triceratops are far more common, that theory was based on pretty dubious evidence.

He did approach it rather seriously with the notion of counting the growth rings of the animal and looking for evidence. There is some merit in the plasticity of the animals aging and the shapes of their skulls growing and changing, as to whether it was as drastic with the Triceratops/Torosaurus deal I think it mostly refuted by Andrew Farke and a couple others that spend more time with Ceratopsians. As for the Pachycephalosaurus = Stygimoloch = Dracorex I haven't seen anything too damning against it in a while, but I admit I follow more about theropods because that's what interests me. So the whole Tyrannosaurus = Nanotyrannus thing, which Horner's research does support, is more on my radar than the other stuff. Though there are other supports with that being the finding of Jane by Burpee Museum in Rockford, IL and a couple other little details here and there from Thomas Carr. I do need to poke in on that because it was still a "we can't entirely state for certain, but we are sure mostly they are the same animal." Outside of that, I really do feel Horner's science'ing skills are more miss than hit a lot of the time. As to whether or not he will get better or improve in any marginal way is another matter entirely. His apathy for stuff is basically what is kicking his own ass at this point.

CT-1138 wrote:

Oh yeah, and that had been the second part of my rant. His Chickensaurus vanity project! He's had years to to actual scientific work with real fossils, and he continues to spend time and money to turn an extant dinosaur into some abomination that vaguely resemble something from the Mesozoic.

I had a friend that was an evolutionary biologist and she said that after she read the book she realized just how bad the science was with what he was saying. Basically some parts are right, but Horner has a lot of misconceptions and assumptions and that's really never good. I would be curious to see what others in the field have to say about the whole thing.

TyrannosaurTJ wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Good luck with that. He's too old and if he stopped caring when JP3 was being made, then I don't see him caring now. I get that the paleo-community is picky, but I think because of him, we won't get a compromise where most of the 'classics' will be untouched/only get slight updates while we get new dinosaurs-Anzu, Deinocheirus, Troodon, etc-with feathers. You say that the Triceratops/Torosaurus theory is the one thing that he approaches with any professionalism, but yet, considering the lack of Torosaurus fossils, counting the recent one found in Colorado, it's 5-6 I think, while as Triceratops are far more common, that theory was based on pretty dubious evidence.

He did approach it rather seriously with the notion of counting the growth rings of the animal and looking for evidence. There is some merit in the plasticity of the animals aging and the shapes of their skulls growing and changing, as to whether it was as drastic with the Triceratops/Torosaurus deal I think it mostly refuted by Andrew Farke and a couple others that spend more time with Ceratopsians. As for the Pachycephalosaurus = Stygimoloch = Dracorex I haven't seen anything too damning against it in a while, but I admit I follow more about theropods because that's what interests me. So the whole Tyrannosaurus = Nanotyrannus thing, which Horner's research does support, is more on my radar than the other stuff. Though there are other supports with that being the finding of Jane by Burpee Museum in Rockford, IL and a couple other little details here and there from Thomas Carr. I do need to poke in on that because it was still a "we can't entirely state for certain, but we are sure mostly they are the same animal." Outside of that, I really do feel Horner's science'ing skills are more miss than hit a lot of the time. As to whether or not he will get better or improve in any marginal way is another matter entirely. His apathy for stuff is basically what is kicking his own ass at this point.

CT-1138 wrote:

Oh yeah, and that had been the second part of my rant. His Chickensaurus vanity project! He's had years to to actual scientific work with real fossils, and he continues to spend time and money to turn an extant dinosaur into some abomination that vaguely resemble something from the Mesozoic.

I had a friend that was an evolutionary biologist and she said that after she read the book she realized just how bad the science was with what he was saying. Basically some parts are right, but Horner has a lot of misconceptions and assumptions and that's really never good. I would be curious to see what others in the field have to say about the whole thing.

At this point, they probably think that Horner is part mad scientist, part semi-conspiracy theorist, and part court jester.

I think the only time there was a very good cooperation between scientists and filmmakers in the JP saga was the first film. There, if you read the credits, you can see not only Horner was an advisor, and many different ideas were thrown into the mix. I think Horner's input to the JW saga is so much smaller compared with the first 3 movies.

As for paleontological advice, as a dinosaur paleontologist myself, I think being faithful to reality is always more positive than negative, and the more life-like the dinosaurs are, the better.

However, I don't think un-accurate dinosaurs make a movie bad. Accurate dinosaurs will make a good movie better, but they won't save a bad movie from being bad (Ahem... Walking With Dinosaurs the movie... ahem...).

Anyway, I think there are better people now to advise on the paleontology of the movies and the results would be far better in my opinion.

Saurillian wrote:

Like how all those different kinds of Pachycephalosaurs are the same species. Dumb, plain dumb. You don't see those kinds of anatomical changes in higher animals. EVER.

Ahem... They do, I'm afraid.

See this:







Although I am not 100% with Horner on his lumping of all the Upper Cretaceous Pachys, what I think he tries is to do is to raise an important question: not every single new fossil has to be a new species.

rickraptor wrote:

I think the only time there was a very good cooperation between scientists and filmmakers in the JP saga was the first film. There, if you read the credits, you can see not only Horner was an advisor, and many different ideas were thrown into the mix. I think Horner's input to the JW saga is so much smaller compared with the first 3 movies.

As for paleontological advice, as a dinosaur paleontologist myself, I think being faithful to reality is always more positive than negative, and the more life-like the dinosaurs are, the better.

However, I don't think un-accurate dinosaurs make a movie bad. Accurate dinosaurs will make a good movie better, but they won't save a bad movie from being bad (Ahem... Walking With Dinosaurs the movie... ahem...).

Anyway, I think there are better people now to advise on the paleontology of the movies and the results would be far better in my opinion.

Don't forget TLW. I considered the dinosaurs to be more accurate in that movie then in the first one.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

In regards to JP3 trolling, Horner did it again on his twitter with a pretty bad troll regarding the Rex/Spino fight:
https://twitter.com/dustydino/status/949781311132131329

If it's a bad troll, then why the butthurt fanboys are getting hurt with it? They did what Horner wanted. He trolled all of them.

I actually find it a nice troll, because fanboys are falling for it if you look at the comments lmao.

And I'm sorry guys, but is it too bad that I'm dying laughing at this?

Jack only got what he wanted, troll T.rex fans bad. And they basically bit the troll's trap.

Anyway, serious now, I have mixed feelings about Horner. I think he forces a lot of crazy theories without scientific proof like the Torosaurus and Stygimoloch ones and appears to hate Tyrannosaurus to the point of killing it in a movie, but I really like his project of Chickensaurus and I think aside of his hate of Tyrannosaurus, he seems just to not get into the overhype train most paleontologists unfotunatelly do with this species. I admire paleontologists that escape the equation and don't care if they'll get excluded from "cool boys" group just because they have different views. That's something I hate, fanboyism on a science field, and paleontology have this, a lot. Not only that but also "ego game" with know and respectable palentologists, they seem to be very closed minded to new things and exagerate on stuff.

rickraptor wrote:

I think the only time there was a very good cooperation between scientists and filmmakers in the JP saga was the first film. There, if you read the credits, you can see not only Horner was an advisor, and many different ideas were thrown into the mix. I think Horner's input to the JW saga is so much smaller compared with the first 3 movies.

As for paleontological advice, as a dinosaur paleontologist myself, I think being faithful to reality is always more positive than negative, and the more life-like the dinosaurs are, the better.

However, I don't think un-accurate dinosaurs make a movie bad. Accurate dinosaurs will make a good movie better, but they won't save a bad movie from being bad (Ahem... Walking With Dinosaurs the movie... ahem...).

Anyway, I think there are better people now to advise on the paleontology of the movies and the results would be far better in my opinion.

Saurillian wrote:

Like how all those different kinds of Pachycephalosaurs are the same species. Dumb, plain dumb. You don't see those kinds of anatomical changes in higher animals. EVER.

Ahem... They do, I'm afraid.

See this:







Although I am not 100% with Horner on his lumping of all the Upper Cretaceous Pachys, what I think he tries is to do is to raise an important question: not every single new fossil has to be a new species.

To be fair, those are fetuses that are still in development. I highly doubt the Stygimoloch is a fetus.

TyrannosaurTJ wrote:

I had a friend that was an evolutionary biologist and she said that after she read the book she realized just how bad the science was with what he was saying. Basically some parts are right, but Horner has a lot of misconceptions and assumptions and that's really never good. I would be curious to see what others in the field have to say about the whole thing.

I have a contact with a geology student that wants to probably be a paleontologist, he loves Coelurosaurs and Maniraptorians and he's all in for Horner's project, he actually has pretty cool concepts for it and think in the future we'll get to make those things with retro-enginering.

I feel most are against it because of ethics. Like mammonths and other creatures clonned. A lot of scientists are against it.

Horner doesn't do much. Proof of that? The guy is against the very existence of Stygimoloch (as its own genus that is) and this is one of the main new dinos in the movie.

and yes, it's true. These days they do what they want when choosing and designing the dinosaurs. Metriacanthosaurus was booted out of the movie in favor of Allosaurus and when Horner was asked about that he said " I don't even know what dinosaur that is".

Pachyrhinosaurus was altered beyong recognition because Universal wanted it to be 'more exotic and flashy' and Horner didn't care.

He doesn't care, they don't care. At this point (and from now on) they will do what they want.

Saurillian wrote:

To be fair, those are fetuses that are still in development. I highly doubt the Stygimoloch is a fetus.

Fair enough.

How about these juvenile and adult cassowaries?

They are about the same size, yet look at how different the skulls are


http://www.rainforesthideaway.com/capetribulation/cassowary-7.jpg

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Anyway, serious now, I have mixed feelings about Horner. I think he forces a lot of crazy theories without scientific proof like the Torosaurus and Stygimoloch ones and appears to hate Tyrannosaurus to the point of killing it in a movie, but I really like his project of Chickensaurus and I think aside of his hate of Tyrannosaurus, he seems just to not get into the overhype train most paleontologists unfotunatelly do with this species. I admire paleontologists that escape the equation and don't care if they'll get excluded from "cool boys" group just because they have different views. That's something I hate, fanboyism on a science field, and paleontology have this, a lot. Not only that but also "ego game" with know and respectable palentologists, they seem to be very closed minded to new things and exagerate on stuff.

It's one thing to have different views, but it's another thing to have such views based on dubious evidence and Horner has done a LOT of it. Not only that, but he has been quite unprofessional over the years.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Anyway, serious now, I have mixed feelings about Horner. I think he forces a lot of crazy theories without scientific proof like the Torosaurus and Stygimoloch ones and appears to hate Tyrannosaurus to the point of killing it in a movie, but I really like his project of Chickensaurus and I think aside of his hate of Tyrannosaurus, he seems just to not get into the overhype train most paleontologists unfotunatelly do with this species. I admire paleontologists that escape the equation and don't care if they'll get excluded from "cool boys" group just because they have different views. That's something I hate, fanboyism on a science field, and paleontology have this, a lot. Not only that but also "ego game" with know and respectable palentologists, they seem to be very closed minded to new things and exagerate on stuff.

It's one thing to have different views, but it's another thing to have such views based on dubious evidence and Horner has done a LOT of it. Not only that, but he has been quite unprofessional over the years.

That's why I said I don't like his theories, specially because he has no scientific evidence to support them. And yeah, he said "T.rex was a scavenger" to troll people, but it wasn't cool, as someone who is a notable paleontologist...

I am sorry for not being more optimistic but when you read things like that you can not help but to wonder if anybody on Universal does really care about the Jurassic franchise?

It seems like only Steven Spielberg in the 1990s and maybe Colin Trevorrow are the only people that actually care about it. it. Almost everybody else related to the franchise just seems to see it as just another paycheck and just another standard average popcorn flick to make money and nothing more.

Maybe Universal did care about the franchise but that was back in 1993 and 1997 when it was a breakthrough, something new, a pop culture phenomenom. But now it is very clear that it is just another cash cow for them.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I am sorry for not being more optimistic but when you read things like that you can not help but to wonder if anybody on Universal does really care about the Jurassic franchise?

It seems like only Steven Spielberg in the 1990´s and maybe Colin Trevorrow are the only people that actually care about what´s done with it. Almost everybody else related to the franchise just seems to see it as just another paycheck and just another standard average popcorn flick to make money and nothing more.

Maybe Universal did care about the franchise but that was back in 1993 and 1997 when it was a breakthrough, something new, a pop culture phenomenom. But now it is very clear that it is just another cash cow for them.

Not only that, but given how Trevorrow is still new and a bit green, that means that he has no real power-or very little at that-and that it's far easier for Universal to push him around.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I am sorry for not being more optimistic but when you read things like that you can not help but to wonder if anybody on Universal does really care about the Jurassic franchise?

It seems like only Steven Spielberg in the 1990´s and maybe Colin Trevorrow are the only people that actually care about what´s done with it. Almost everybody else related to the franchise just seems to see it as just another paycheck and just another standard average popcorn flick to make money and nothing more.

Maybe Universal did care about the franchise but that was back in 1993 and 1997 when it was a breakthrough, something new, a pop culture phenomenom. But now it is very clear that it is just another cash cow for them.

Do you, or indeed does anyone else here, feel that this is the same for J.A. Bayona, or even Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard? That they are also just in it for the money and are just pretending to be enthused in their work for the audience? Does any here truly feel that there is neither passion nor even basic professionalism from them or the other cast or crew members behind the scenes or in front of the cameras?

At most, I would agree with the common consensus here that Universal's management has been to a much lower standard than the likes of the MCU or even Warner Bros' MonsterVerse, and that for years it was this albatross of a production that unexpectedly became the fourth highest grossing film of all time. And I would agree that Spielberg has basically rescinded leadership of the franchise to Colin after giving him enough support as executive producer to not put out another Jurassic Park III, putting the future films in a more tenuous position.

I honestly think the reputation of the new Jurassic trilogy as just a hollow cash grab (an ironic enough statement when I look to other prolific franchises and genres that shall remain unmentioned) has been foisted upon the films like some kind of second coming of Michael Bay. I am not saying they are above criticism or critique or cannot be regarded as bad films if enough people feel strongly enough about it, but it pisses me off when people call this one of the "worst" movie franchises out there. If you want to compare it to the likes of say the Transformers franchise, the Ice Age sequels, Resident Evil, Paranormal Activity, or the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean sequels as prime examples of where there is not nearly as much reverence or care for what the people are working on being shown.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I am sorry for not being more optimistic but when you read things like that you can not help but to wonder if anybody on Universal does really care about the Jurassic franchise?

It seems like only Steven Spielberg in the 1990´s and maybe Colin Trevorrow are the only people that actually care about what´s done with it. Almost everybody else related to the franchise just seems to see it as just another paycheck and just another standard average popcorn flick to make money and nothing more.

Maybe Universal did care about the franchise but that was back in 1993 and 1997 when it was a breakthrough, something new, a pop culture phenomenom. But now it is very clear that it is just another cash cow for them.

Do you, or indeed does anyone else here, feel that this is the same for J.A. Bayona, or even Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard? That they are also just in it for the money and are just pretending to be enthused in their work for the audience? Does any here truly feel that there is neither passion nor even basic professionalism from them or the other cast or crew members behind the scenes or in front of the cameras?

At most, I would agree with the common consensus here that Universal's management has been to a much lower standard than the likes of the MCU or even Warner Bros' MonsterVerse, and that for years it was this albatross of a production that unexpectedly became the fourth highest grossing film of all time. And I would agree that Spielberg has basically rescinded leadership of the franchise to Colin after giving him enough support as executive producer to not put out another Jurassic Park III, putting the future films in a more tenuous position.

I honestly think the reputation of the new Jurassic trilogy as just a hollow cash grab (an ironic enough statement when I look to other prolific franchises and genres that shall remain unmentioned) has been foisted upon the films like some kind of second coming of Michael Bay. I am not saying they are above criticism or critique or cannot be regarded as bad films if enough people feel strongly enough about it, but it pisses me off when people call this one of the "worst" movie franchises out there. If you want to compare it to the likes of say the Transformers franchise, the Ice Age sequels, Resident Evil, Paranormal Activity, or the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean sequels as prime examples of where there is not nearly as much reverence or care for what the people are working on being shown.

I think the 3 people you mentioned do care, but Pratt couldn't wield much say so during the making of this movie via Infinity War, BDR isn't quite an A-lister and being a mother, has more important things, and we now know that Bayona was largely wasted. As for Trevorrow, he also cares, but I don't think he totally gets it, via implying that the Sorna movies weren't canon via a month before JW came out. And then there's the fact that his newness makes it easier for Universal to push around.

We needed a more powerful figure to serve as the JP version of Kevin Feige. One that Universal couldn't shove around and got the entire franchise.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I am sorry for not being more optimistic but when you read things like that you can not help but to wonder if anybody on Universal does really care about the Jurassic franchise?

It seems like only Steven Spielberg in the 1990´s and maybe Colin Trevorrow are the only people that actually care about what´s done with it. Almost everybody else related to the franchise just seems to see it as just another paycheck and just another standard average popcorn flick to make money and nothing more.

Maybe Universal did care about the franchise but that was back in 1993 and 1997 when it was a breakthrough, something new, a pop culture phenomenom. But now it is very clear that it is just another cash cow for them.

Do you, or indeed does anyone else here, feel that this is the same for J.A. Bayona, or even Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard? That they are also just in it for the money and are just pretending to be enthused in their work for the audience? Does any here truly feel that there is neither passion nor even basic professionalism from them or the other cast or crew members behind the scenes or in front of the cameras?

At most, I would agree with the common consensus here that Universal's management has been to a much lower standard than the likes of the MCU or even Warner Bros' MonsterVerse, and that for years it was this albatross of a production that unexpectedly became the fourth highest grossing film of all time. And I would agree that Spielberg has basically rescinded leadership of the franchise to Colin after giving him enough support as executive producer to not put out another Jurassic Park III, putting the future films in a more tenuous position.

I honestly think the reputation of the new Jurassic trilogy as just a hollow cash grab (an ironic enough statement when I look to other prolific franchises and genres that shall remain unmentioned) has been foisted upon the films like some kind of second coming of Michael Bay. I am not saying they are above criticism or critique or cannot be regarded as bad films if enough people feel strongly enough about it, but it pisses me off when people call this one of the "worst" movie franchises out there. If you want to compare it to the likes of say the Transformers franchise, the Ice Age sequels, Resident Evil, Paranormal Activity, or the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean sequels as prime examples of where there is not nearly as much reverence or care for what the people are working on being shown.

When I say Universal I am talking about, executive producers, writers, directors and the people behind the camera who have the real power in the franchise. Actors have little to no power about the direction a franchise takes.

Yeah, probably Chris Pratt, and Bryce and the rest of the actors try to do their best but they have no say in what is canon and the very clear making up as they go that they have done with some issues.

All everyone else involved with the franchise seem to know is the internet myth that everybody loves the nostalgia of JP but nobody has ever cared for TLW or JP3.

I read that writer Dereck Connolly was not familiar with the movies before working on JW. And even though Colin seems like a very nice guy with the fans on twitter he said that he wanted to put the other 2 sequels to the sidelines while working on JW.

I get a similar vibe from Frank Marshall and JA Bayona. I am not saying that they are bad people, just that I have seen nothing so far in them that would make me believe that they actually know a lot about the details of the franchise. They give a vibe of being more of a general moviegoer and very casual fan than a hardcore fan of the franchise.