Feathers in JW3?

https://twitter.com/JurassicWorldES/status/1064521762191405057

From this interview, Jack Horner said he had talked with Colin Trevorrow and thinks there is good chance to see feathered dinosaurs.

Do you think there will be feathered dinosaurs in Jurassic World 3? And do you think it would be a good or bad idea to have them in the movie in the first place?

To me, it's too little, too late. Here's what I mean by that.

By adding feathered dinosaurs in now, it's just going to feel quite shoehorned. It's not unlike how making Blue and her sister's feathered since the first JW would be shoehorning it in. This new JP/JW trilogy would have been better off gradually introducing feathered dinosaurs.

JW: Feathered Gallimimus. Since nobody really cares about Gallimimus compared to the other dinosaurs, it would have been the only original dinosaur of the franchise you could have got away with making feathered. An alternative would have been to add in an Oviraptor or a relative that would have been feathered.


JW:FK: You would have added in a few more new dinosaurs that are feathered: Deinocheirus, Theriznosaurus, the tyrannosaur Yutrannus, and even a male raptor that made feathered and yet somehow escaped and evaded the Masrani/Ingen people.

JW3/JP6: You could have added in even more new feathered dinosaurs.


Adding in feathered dinosaurs now just seems too late to count for much.

Not only that, but here's something else. Considering how Jack Horner isn't much of a dinosaur expert nowdays, why should we trust him to make feathered dinosaurs anyways? He still pushes his long discredited mindset of T. rex being a weakling killer (old, sick, etc.) that prefers to scavenge. Heck, he even dismissed hard evidence that it did hunt. It's 80% into this article. He also sticks to his Torosaurus=Full grown bull Triceratops theory, which was also dismissed. He's recent said that Triceratops didn't use its horns for defense, which is also bullcrap.

In other words, Horner has been wrong so many times and I'm supposed to believe that he's going make feathered dinosaurs accurate? Sorry, I can't do that.

From what he said in the interview, it sounded like he talked with Colin and that there's a will (by Colin) to add feathers in JW3, more than Horner asking for them.

Yeah, it would not be enough prepared maybe, but apparently the story might require feathers only now, and wouldn't make sense to add them in previous movies. Like, now there will be many more companies making dinosaurs, aside from InGen (who just wanted to impress visitors, so no feathers). It would make sense that some companies would try to re-create them in a more paleo-accurate ways.

owenpratt wrote:

From what he said in the interview, it sounded like he talked with Colin and that there's a will (by Colin) to add feathers in JW3, more than Horner asking for them.

Yeah, it would not be enough prepared maybe, but apparently the story might require feathers only now,  and wouldn't make sense to add them in previous movies. Like, now there will be many more companies making dinosaurs, aside from InGen (who just wanted to impress visitors, so no feathers). It would make sense that some companies would try to re-create them in a more paleo-accurate ways.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that it wouldn't make since to add them in previous movies, yet before that, you admitted that adding them now wouldn't be as prepared. You can't have it both ways here. Not only that, but you're going to have a lot of people asking "Why didn't they add in feathered dinosaurs sooner in the first JW movie?" Sorry, but adding in feathered dinosaurs is one of those things that needs a proper preparation time. You just can't shoehorn things all of a sudden. Remember how JP3 tried that with the Spinosaurus? CRASH!

Rhedosaurus wrote:

owenpratt wrote:

From what he said in the interview, it sounded like he talked with Colin and that there's a will (by Colin) to add feathers in JW3, more than Horner asking for them.

Yeah, it would not be enough prepared maybe, but apparently the story might require feathers only now,  and wouldn't make sense to add them in previous movies. Like, now there will be many more companies making dinosaurs, aside from InGen (who just wanted to impress visitors, so no feathers). It would make sense that some companies would try to re-create them in a more paleo-accurate ways.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that it wouldn't make since to add them in previous movies, yet before that, you admitted that adding them now wouldn't be as prepared. You can't have it both ways here. Not only that, but you're going to have a lot of people asking "Why didn't they add in feathered dinosaurs sooner in the first JW movie?" Sorry, but adding in feathered dinosaurs is one of those things that needs a proper preparation time. You just can't shoehorn things all of a sudden. Remember how JP3 tried that with the Spinosaurus? CRASH!

I didn't contradict myself.

There are two different perspectives:
1) The general audience's perspective, who might not be prepared to see feathered dinosaurs in the new Jurassic movie (although, let's clarify, I mean just a few feathered dinosaurs, and not just ALL the dinosaurs being feathered all of a sudden, now THAT would be totally insane).

BUT

The audience might end up accepting it if well contextualized and with a sense in the story.

2) The story perspective: as I explained before, there are good reasons for the filmmakers to add feathers just now, because the story may require them just NOW. If this is explained well in JW3, the audience will understand it, find the feathers's addition having an actual purpose, and they will eventually like it.

Also, JP3 isn't that good of an example. It didn't "fail" because it tried to introduce new things. It failed because it had a weak story, some annoying characters, and it didn't manage to compare with the two predecessors at all. Also, those "new things" were just put there randomly.
Introducing a Spinosaurus just because filmmakers needed something else than a T-Rex to sell tickets, or adding little plumange to the Raptors just to make the paleo-experts happier but without a sense in the story (and breaking the aesthetic and also logical continuity of the series), now that's a bad thing. People wasn't prepared AND there was no convincing justification behind those choices.

If JW3 introduces feathers, of course I wouldn't want the feathered dinosaurs to randomly appear without an explanation, aside from giving new aesthetic dinos and making paleo-experts happier.
If they introduces feathers explaining the reasons behind that (and given what we know about the FK ending and Trevorrow's interviews, we do know it can make sense into the story, for the same reasons I already explained in the previous posts), then the audience will accept it.

Radical change isn't necessary a negative thing. It's what you do with that change, those choices, that qualify the movie (and consequentially the audience's reaction). I guess the audience wasn't prepared to know that Vader was Luke's father. They really weren't prepared. But in the bigger story it did make sense, and people still love that twist.
Talking more Jurassic, the Maisie's twist was shocking, but it did make sense in the bigger story. It wasn't prepared because there was no human-cloning talk EVER before Fallen Kingdom (at least in the movies), yet it does make sense to happen, and many people liked the twist (not everybody, but Empire Strikes Back had mixed reactions as well when it came out. Not comparing the actual quality of the two movies, but still, it's an example).
The feathers thing was not prepared neither, because we never EVER see feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic movies (Except for some quills on raptor's heads), but it would make sense to clone dinosaurs with feathers, and there was talk in the movie about how the InGen's dinosaurs are not 100% accurate, and that now the genetic power is in the hands of other companies, so who knows what they're going to do.

On an aestethic level, I repeat, I don't think they would make 100% of the dinosaurs on screen to be feathered. Not even the 50%, imo. There will be like 30% feathered, and 70% scaly, maybe for the purpose of not changing things too drastically. But to have feathers, it would make sense and, if well-handled, the audience will be surprised but will not refuse that kind of change. "Change", a word that has been repeated more than a few times in FK, especially at the end. The filmmakers clearly want to take a new direction, and we'll see if people will embrace that or not. Depends on the quality of the movie, even more than on how much changes there will be, compared to what we're used to see in a Jurassic movie.

owenpratt wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

owenpratt wrote:

From what he said in the interview, it sounded like he talked with Colin and that there's a will (by Colin) to add feathers in JW3, more than Horner asking for them.

Yeah, it would not be enough prepared maybe, but apparently the story might require feathers only now,  and wouldn't make sense to add them in previous movies. Like, now there will be many more companies making dinosaurs, aside from InGen (who just wanted to impress visitors, so no feathers). It would make sense that some companies would try to re-create them in a more paleo-accurate ways.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that it wouldn't make since to add them in previous movies, yet before that, you admitted that adding them now wouldn't be as prepared. You can't have it both ways here. Not only that, but you're going to have a lot of people asking "Why didn't they add in feathered dinosaurs sooner in the first JW movie?" Sorry, but adding in feathered dinosaurs is one of those things that needs a proper preparation time. You just can't shoehorn things all of a sudden. Remember how JP3 tried that with the Spinosaurus? CRASH!

I didn't contradict myself.

There are two different perspectives:
1) The general audience's perspective, who might not be prepared to see feathered dinosaurs in the new Jurassic movie (although, let's clarify, I mean just a few feathered dinosaurs, and not just ALL the dinosaurs being feathered all of a sudden, now THAT would be totally insane).

BUT

The audience might end up accepting it if well contextualized and with a sense in the story.

2) The story perspective: as I explained before, there are good reasons for the filmmakers to add feathers just now, because the story may require them just NOW. If this is explained well in JW3, the audience will understand it, find the feathers's addition having an actual purpose, and they will eventually like it.

Also, JP3 isn't that good of an example. It didn't "fail" because it tried to introduce new things. It failed because it had a weak story, some annoying characters, and it didn't manage to compare with the two predecessors at all. Also, those "new things" were just put there randomly.
Introducing a Spinosaurus just because filmmakers needed something else than a T-Rex to sell tickets, or adding little plumange to the Raptors just to make the paleo-experts happier but without a sense in the story (and breaking the aesthetic and also logical continuity of the series), now that's a bad thing. People wasn't prepared AND there was no convincing justification behind those choices.

If JW3 introduces feathers, of course I wouldn't want the feathered dinosaurs to randomly appear without an explanation, aside from giving new aesthetic dinos and making paleo-experts happier.
If they introduces feathers explaining the reasons behind that (and given what we know about the FK ending and Trevorrow's interviews, we do know it can make sense into the story, for the same reasons I already explained in the previous posts), then the audience will accept it.

Radical change isn't necessary a negative thing. It's what you do with that change, those choices, that qualify the movie (and consequentially the audience's reaction). I guess the audience wasn't prepared to know that Vader was Luke's father. They really weren't prepared. But in the bigger story it did make sense, and people still love that twist.
Talking more Jurassic, the Maisie's twist was shocking, but it did make sense in the bigger story. It wasn't prepared because there was no human-cloning talk EVER before Fallen Kingdom (at least in the movies), yet it does make sense to happen, and many people liked the twist (not everybody, but Empire Strikes Back had mixed reactions as well when it came out. Not comparing the actual quality of the two movies, but still, it's an example).
The feathers thing was not prepared neither, because we never EVER see feathered dinosaurs in the Jurassic movies (Except for some quills on raptor's heads), but it would make sense to clone dinosaurs with feathers, and there was talk in the movie about how the InGen's dinosaurs are not 100% accurate, and that now the genetic power is in the hands of other companies, so who knows what they're going to do.

On an aestethic level, I repeat, I don't think they would make 100% of the dinosaurs on screen to be feathered. Not even the 50%, imo. There will be like 30% feathered, and 70% scaly, maybe for the purpose of not changing things too drastically. But to have feathers, it would make sense and, if well-handled, the audience will be surprised but will not refuse that kind of change. "Change", a word that has been repeated more than a few times in FK, especially at the end. The filmmakers clearly want to take a new direction, and we'll see if people will embrace that or not. Depends on the quality of the movie, even more than on how much changes there will be, compared to what we're used to see in a Jurassic movie.

1. I was comparing shoehorning feathered dinosaurs in the JP franchise now to how JP3 shoehorned the Spinosaurus down our throats. I was not comparing feathered dinosaurs to JP3 outright. I made that perfectly clear in my last post. so you are either putting words in my mouth that I never said or you somehow never got what I was saying.

2. Comparing JW:FK to The Empire Strikes Back is a logical fallacy. Back then, Star Wars was still quite new. If was still very much ready for a sudden twist that nobody expected. Now, the JP franchise is 25 years old. It's far more established now then what Star Wars was back then. A massive radical twist now is not in the cards. Not only that, but Empire Strikes Back is, and always will be considered as one of the greatest movies of all time. JW:FK is nowhere near as good.

3. Also, the twist about Maisie being a clone wasn't that surprising considering how the dinosaurs were cloned before her, so adding a human clone was a sensible option. Not only that, but remember the dino/human hybrids that were talked about in the past and are not quite dead yet? Don't think all those didn't contribute to that 'twist' in some form.

4. Adding feathered dinosaurs without any explanation is quite possible, considering how the last movie never really explained why they weren't originally planned to go to Sorna instead.

5. You say that change is good, but more often then not, gradual change is far better then just throwing in new things.

6. We still have the issue of Jack Horner being in charge. If he's been so lazy as far as paleontology is concerned, then we can't trust him to make accurate feathered dinosaurs now.

Okay, I won't even answer since I think you either didn't read well my points (?) or you just want to go against any kind of positive argument for JW/FK/JW3 for the sake of it

Also, you have a very aggressive kind of debating/arguing, I noticed (not only from this thread, but many others). I see you created a FB group for those ones who are concerned where this franchise is headed. I'd give you an advice to try being more relaxed and less hateful in your argumentations, so you might get more than the actual 2 followers you have on that group

This discussion got immediately heated, for no reason.

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

This discussion got immediately heated, for no reason.

Yeah, it often happens recently, not only in this thread.
My intent in creating this thread was and still is making a civilized and calm discussion about the eventuality of feathers in JW3.
I've been told by some usual posters here that they don't come to this forum anymore because of the heat brought in now almost every thread in recent times. Hopefully there will be measures taken to solve this problem.

owenpratt wrote:

Okay, I won't even answer since I think you either didn't read well my points (?) or you just want to go against any kind of positive argument for JW/FK/JW3 for the sake of it

Also, you have a very aggressive kind of debating/arguing, I noticed (not only from this thread, but many others). I see you created a FB group for those ones who are concerned where this franchise is headed. I'd give you an advice to try being more relaxed and less hateful in your argumentations, so you might get more than the actual 2 followers you have on that group

I am not being aggressive at all. All I do is to when debating is to challenge others with hard facts. I am not being argumentative at all. If that was the case, then I would have used inappropriate language or something along those lines. And if you had even bothered to read my group transcript and posts, then you would find out that I have said nothing of the sort at all.

If anything else, you seemed to use that to dodge my issues/try and hide the fact that you have a hard time trying to counter what I am saying.

I think Owen and Claire should have feathers pasted on them in JW3, so does that count?

Robotpo wrote:

I think Owen and Claire should have feathers pasted on them in JW3, so does that count?

Only if they are being chased by normal geese or a grumpy rooster.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

owenpratt wrote:

Okay, I won't even answer since I think you either didn't read well my points (?) or you just want to go against any kind of positive argument for JW/FK/JW3 for the sake of it

Also, you have a very aggressive kind of debating/arguing, I noticed (not only from this thread, but many others). I see you created a FB group for those ones who are concerned where this franchise is headed. I'd give you an advice to try being more relaxed and less hateful in your argumentations, so you might get more than the actual 2 followers you have on that group

I am not being aggressive at all. All I do is to when debating is to challenge others with hard facts.  I am not being argumentative at all. If that was the case, then I would have used inappropriate language or something along those lines. And if you had even bothered to read my group transcript and posts, then you would find out that I have said nothing of the sort at all.

If anything else, you seemed to use that to dodge my issues/try and hide the fact that you have a hard time trying to counter what I am saying.

You actually made a very long post, but no likes there. I guess you just abandoned it?

Also, see? You don't use curse words but you still subtly provoke (3 times in 3 posts). I did too in my last post, I admit, but just to answer to the provocation.

1) I wasn't neither. Really, read my post again, I won't copy-paste what I said already.

2) So after more a particular number of sequels, plot twists are not contemplated anymore? Only in the first chapters? Also, I clearly stated that I didn't mean to compare the quality of the two movies.

3) But at least it's not a too sudden twist/change. Also, many people liked the twist and were quite shocked the first time.

4) This is just a presumption based on things that don't have to do with the feathers matter, but just on your lack of faith in JW3 (we got that it will be awful, okay). The fact they didn't mention the idea of Sorna as the sanctuary (thing that may have actually many good reasons behind it) doesn't mean they won't explain the eventual feathers.

5) I agree and that's why a sudden change might work only if well explained.

6) I was talking just about the presence of feathers, not necessarily how accurate they will be. My point was "Colin said that to Horner, so probably there are gonna be feathers".

So your assumptions / provocation about me not knowing how to answer you were wrong

Just a reminder guys. Discourse and discussion are obviously great and encouraged, but let's not let it get too terribly personal.

Cheers

Constantly getting heated and taking discussions way too seriously is unhealthy for the forum, especially with it lacking activity as is. This thread will be locked.