Would feathered dinosaurs work if ONLY new dinosaurs had feathers?

With all the shouting, complaining, and arguing about not having feathered dinosaurs, I've been thinking. If we have the old dinosaurs featherless but have new ones have feathers, would that work?

BTW. Here are my choices.

Anzu, Troodon, a therizinosaur, and another hybrid.

BTW. I think that Gallimimus would be the only original dinosaur that could get away with being feathered, but that's mainly because it never had any big part apart from being fast food for Rexy, literary.

Depending on what original dinosaur it is, they might actually get away with being feathered, or having huge changes to be more accurate in general. So Gallimimus, Ceratosaurus, Compsognathus, etc can definitely be changed without much complaining.

V.a.nublarensis wrote:

Depending on what original dinosaur it is, they might actually get away with being feathered, or having huge changes to be more accurate in general. So Gallimimus, Ceratosaurus, Compsognathus, etc can definitely be changed without much complaining.

Other then Ceratosaurus, which might have been too old evolutionary wise to sport feathers, I can see that first and third choices having feathers.

Feathered T.rex for chaos please.   

Just kidding, but adding feathered dinosaurs with "normal" JP dinosaurs would be cool IMO.

A rival company like BioSyn, reverse engineering their dinosaurs to be different (kind of like they wanted to do in the novels) could have feathers on their dinos.

Maybe a feathered T. rex meeting and interacting with its JP counterpart. Same with the raptors. Show what over 2 decades means to paleontology.

tigris115 wrote:

Maybe a feathered T. rex meeting and interacting with its JP counterpart. Same with the raptors. Show what over 2 decades means to paleontology.

If we do get a feathered T. rex, then it would have to be conservative via down on their backs and minor feathers on their arms. And even then, we'd have to make it a male and explain it as a from of sexual dimorphism.

I like the idea, but we have to be a bit careful so it won't alienate too many people.

Well, if T.rex had feathers, people need to acept it. It's not like nature cares about our concept of "beauty".

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Well, if T.rex had feathers, people need to acept it. It's not like nature cares about our concept of "beauty".

Here's the problem. We can't just rapidly trade a traditional T. rex for a feathered one. It takes time for change to happen. Robert Bakker didn't shove down his now widely accepted/vindicated views down the throats of anybody, and if he did, it would have taken much longer for people to have believed them. It takes time and some amount of compromises.

Nature does care about our concept of beauty to a certain degree. If it didn't then every male would wind up looking like Quasimoto.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Well, if T.rex had feathers, people need to acept it. It's not like nature cares about our concept of "beauty".

Here's the problem. We can't just rapidly trade a traditional T. rex for a feathered one. It takes time for change to happen. Robert Bakker didn't shove down his now widely accepted/vindicated views down the throats of anybody, and if he did, it would have taken much longer for people to have believed them. It takes time and some amount of compromises.

Nature does care about our concept of beauty to a certain degree. If it didn't then every male would wind up looking like Quasimoto.

We have a concept of beauty, but that doesn't mean nature does things bc we find them cool or beautiful. Nature doesn't even know we exist, and didn't create dinosaurs to look beautiful in our eyes. We didn't even exist back then. If we look the way we look is because that's usefull for us to survive natural selection, not because it's sexy and beautiful. I can agree that certain characteristcs of us help to atract partners for a relationship, but they're just there bc they are usefull characteristics first. And of course we look normal and beautifull to our eyes because we have a concept of "normal" human beings. That's why Quasimotos look ugly to us. But if we all looked like Quasimoto, we would find that "normal" to our eyes. Our species is not the center of the Universe, so Nature doesn't give a sh*t to please us or not. 

So, if dinosaurs had feathers, it's not because the society denies it that will change that. You can deny science, but the truth is there, not matter it. That's my point.


People should stop doing "Oh I don't like this/don't find this beautiful so it can't be that way. I want things that look ok to me. Science is ruining the dinosaurs." that's not how reality works. And in fact, it's the human arrogance to think that everything should look like as we please or like that ruins everything.


And I'm not saying to shove down feathered T.rexes everywhere, of course not. It's not easy to determine how the species looked like.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

So, if dinosaurs had feathers, it's not because the society denies it that will change that. You can deny science, but the truth is there, not matter it. That's my point.


People should stop doing "Oh I don't like this/don't find this beautiful so it can't be that way. I want things that look ok to me. Science is ruining the dinosaurs." that's not how reality works.

I don't disagree. But all I'm saying is that we have be careful about how we add in feathered dinosaurs, you just can't shove in new looking dinosaurs without outright uprooting much of the old. That never works. Society doesn't dent change per se, but it does deny rapid change that happens quickly and thoughtlessly. It's been like that since civilization. That is also reality.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

So, if dinosaurs had feathers, it's not because the society denies it that will change that. You can deny science, but the truth is there, not matter it. That's my point.


People should stop doing "Oh I don't like this/don't find this beautiful so it can't be that way. I want things that look ok to me. Science is ruining the dinosaurs." that's not how reality works.

I don't disagree. But all I'm saying is that we have be careful about how we add in feathered dinosaurs, you just can't shove in new looking dinosaurs without outright uprooting much of the old. That never works. Society doesn't dent change per se, but it does deny rapid change that happens quickly and thoughtlessly. It's been like that since civilization. That is also reality.

Oh of course not. I'm not a feathernazi, and I know most dinosaurs didn't actually have feathers. I'm not like some crazy dudes who start  to scream "FEATHERS" at every paleoart, adding fluflly Triceratopses and Sauropods to it. 

I'm totally in for adding feathered raptors or another dinosaur that we have enough proof of it, by the way.

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

So, if dinosaurs had feathers, it's not because the society denies it that will change that. You can deny science, but the truth is there, not matter it. That's my point.


People should stop doing "Oh I don't like this/don't find this beautiful so it can't be that way. I want things that look ok to me. Science is ruining the dinosaurs." that's not how reality works.

I don't disagree. But all I'm saying is that we have be careful about how we add in feathered dinosaurs, you just can't shove in new looking dinosaurs without outright uprooting much of the old. That never works. Society doesn't dent change per se, but it does deny rapid change that happens quickly and thoughtlessly. It's been like that since civilization. That is also reality.

Oh of course not. I'm not a feathernazi, and I know most dinosaurs didn't actually have feathers. I'm not like some crazy dudes who start  to scream "FEATHERS" at every paleoart, adding fluflly Triceratopses and Sauropods to it. 

I'm totally in for adding feathered raptors or another dinosaur that we have enough proof of it, by the way.

I am too, but as I said before we'd have to make males feathered and females unfeathered and explain it away as sexual dimorphism. Kind of like how in JP3 how the males had that odd protofeather quill spiked mohawk and the females lacked it.

That said, I still think that Gallimimus would be the only exception because, well, nobody really cares much about it to be upset.

Not to sound like I'm blowing my own trumpet, but in my book I've been integrating the idea of feathered dinosaurs into the setting of my novel. There is a catch that because it's set in the future, people's ideas of dinosaurs become very distorted and mollified; i.e. feathers meaning "less dangerous". But when the main characters encounter a T. rex, it roves to be no less dangerous than we modern paleo-fans imagine it being.

If you're wondering how this ties to JP, its like this; you can't just force feathers into the JP movies without adequate build-up, explanation and execution. If you create your own work of fiction, the rules are yours to make or break as you please. But film franchises with established rules take time to alter in order to introduce new ideas. And yes, feathered dinosaurs can be just as fascinating and terrifying as non-feathered dinosaurs, but it's execution that's key.

I think it would work best this way, yes. I wouldn't want the staples to be changed. I like the idea of feathered dinosaurs coming from BioSyn, but I think the best bet would be to introduce an all-new-to-the-franchise dinosaur. Oviraptor would probably do great in a JP movie, and its different enough from the raptors to have its own role.