Creation is an act of sheer will. Next time it will be flawless...(est. 2016)
Jurassic Mainframe NewsHomeOur Discord ServerLatest imagesJurassic-PediaSearchRegisterLog in

Search found 27 matches for 3

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Happy National Avian Dino Day 2024!

Replies: 0
Views: 63

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Happy National Avian Dino Day 2024!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeSat Jan 27, 2024 12:07 am
I originally posted the following at deviantART ( ).

Quote :
Hi everybody!

I originally wasn't planning on posting anything here this month. However, while on Christmas/New Year's holiday, I visited the Trevor Zoo for the 1st times in many years ( ). In honor of National Bird Day ( ), I wanna share my mementos of said times (+ a Youtube comment) w/you.

Herman Diaz

Memento #1) The "Across The Pond: Trevor Zoo at 75" DVD (Front: ) (Back: ): Like my favorite dino museum books ( ), this DVD is not the same as visiting the zoo in person, but it IS the next best thing, maybe even better when it comes to historical behind-the-scenes stuff 😉 (E.g. This bonus feature clip: ). Furthermore, IDK if/when I'll be able to go back in person (I.e. Even if I do go back to NY on my next holiday, the weather might not be as nice).

Memento #2) The "Advice from a Hawk: Rise Above it All! Your True Nature" bookmark ( ): When I 1st saw this bookmark, not only did its illustration remind me of how beautiful the red-tailed hawk in particular is (hence the cover image), but its advice really resonated w/me, reminding me of how awesome raptors in general are (& thus, how much I wish to be more like them): As you may remember, "my favorite non-bird dinos are eudromaeosaurs in general b/c they're basically "terrestrial hawks" in terms of ecology/behavior" ( ); Similarly, my favorite birds are accipitrids in general b/c they're what I like to call the Apex of Avian Awesomeness (Put another way: ) & the golden eagle/red-tailed hawk in particular b/c it's the archetypal eagle/hawk, respectively (Eagle: ) (Hawk: ); In contrast, according to "What dinosaur are you?" (I.e. The most scientifically-accurate dino personality quiz AFAIK 😉 : ), my spirit dino is either Iguanodon or Plateosaurus, 2 very ecologically-similar genera (For more info about what I mean: ); Yes, all dinos are awesome, but some dinos are more awesome than others, especially raptors & especially compared to my spirit dino.

Youtube comment) The "Did Raptor Dinosaurs Hunt In Packs? (Paleo Myths #6)" video ( ): I was about to post this journal entry yesterday when Raptor Red Writes posted said video. While not as big a deal as Animalogic's Velociraptor video ( ), it's still very relevant to said entry, hence the inclusion of my comment. Yes, both of my favorite birds are known to hunt cooperatively at least sometimes (See Ellis et al. 1993/Tumlison 2012 & the sources cited therein for the eagle/hawk, respectively).

Again, sorry for repeating myself. I don't wanna keep doing that, especially given how much I relate to you as a non-expert reviewer of dino media. In fact, when I started this video, I was hopeful that it'd be more balanced than your previous takes on the pack-hunting eudromaeosaur hypothesis, mostly b/c you included Maxwell/Ostrom 1995. However, I was quickly disappointed by the following:

-1) Your continued over-reliance on Roach/Brinkman 2007 & Frederickson et al. 2020, which are very flawed for reasons I discuss elsewhere (See "SD: Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses" & "SD: Most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses addend"). At 1st, I thought you were trying to be neutral & present each argument as is. However, AFAICT, you only did that for those arguments against said hypothesis, seemingly ignoring/downplaying aspects of those for said hypothesis: For 1, you didn't even mention MOR 682, let alone discuss it; For another, last I checked, "the family scenario seems most likely" for the Utahraptor mega-block (See "Locked in Time: Animal Behavior Unearthed in 50 Extraordinary Fossils" & the sources cited therein); For yet another, see #3 below for Li et al. 2007.

-2) Your ignoring pack-hunting in non-Harris' birds despite my repeated references to Ellis et al. 1993 (Most recently: ). Besides those "many raptorial birds" & others, there are also corvids & shrikes (See Yosef/Yosef 2010 & the sources cited therein) & ground hornbills (See Farlow 1976 & the sources cited therein).

-3) Your Li et al. 2007 claim at ~16:30. In actuality, "it is clear that the animals were not hunting at the time" (See "At long last, Dromeosaur tracks!"). To quote Bakker, "predators don’t usually hang out in groups if they don’t hunt together. Tigers are like this — they mostly hunt alone, and you don’t see bunches of tigers lying around together. But lions are social predators. They hunt and raise their young and sleep and snore together" (See "Raptor Pack"). The "raise their young[…]together" part is especially important b/c "cooperative hunting[…]is generally related to cooperative breeding" (See "Possible social foraging behavior in the Red-backed Hawk"). Li et al. 2007 seems to agree ("The discovery of six parallel, closely spaced D. shandongensis trackways provides compelling, independent evidence for at least occasional[...]“pack” or family group[...]behavior in the track-making animals, comparable to what has been demonstrated in other dinosaurs").
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

Replies: 99
Views: 12217

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Aug 14, 2023 11:07 pm
My 102nd review for this thread is a negative 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect). Many thanks in advance.

A not-so-grand tour ( ): 2/5

Pim's Dinosaurs―The Grand Tour (henceforth Tour) was originally published in 2013 as The Bumper Book of Dinosaurs. I hadn't read the whole thing then, but based on what I had read, I interpreted it as being like the NHM's "Dino Directory" in book form (I.e. Lots of good info, but also lots of outdated paleoart). Now that I've read the whole 2nd edition of Tour, I see that I gave it too much credit. In this review, I list the 2 main reasons why that is.

1) There's a lot of weird text (1) & writing (2) throughout Tour. This is especially apparent in the Pim quote:
-1) I'm specifically referring to Pangaea (which had already split into Laurasia & Gondwana in the Jurassic), "the first spikey-skulled ceratopsians" (which had already evolved in the Jurassic), carcharodontosaurs (which were already roaming South America in the Jurassic), & maybe the part about tyrannosaurs.*
-2) I'm specifically referring to the missing commas ("In western North America tyrannosaurs[...]and on land the first flowers[...]"), the oddly-structured sentences ("The warm seas teemed with ammonites, gigantic pterosaurs flapped through the skies,[...]"), the hyperbole ("monstrous carcharodontosaurs[...]the most almighty bang..."), & maybe the part about tyrannosaurs.*

2) There's a lot of non-paleoart (1) & bad paleoart (2) throughout Tour:
-1) Less than half of the profiled dinos (I.e. 83 out of 195) are reconstructed.
-2) Many of Pastori's reconstructions are shameless rip-offs of more famous reconstructions, just plain outdated/abominable, or some combination of both. This is especially apparent in his Dromaeosaurus/Scipionyx/Deinonychus/Velociraptor (which 1st appear on the 1st inside flap & then on page 4: ): For 1, they're shameless rip-offs of Klausmeyer's Deinonychus/McCreery's baby Velociraptor/multiple JP reconstructions/Rey's 90s Velociraptor, respectively;** For another, they have mostly scaly skin &/or bunny hands; For yet another, they have very misshapen & disproportionate body parts (which makes sense given that they're mostly based on the wrong genera). Yes, they're from 1999. However, even if you ignore the fact that other paleoartists were doing better work in 1999 & earlier, that wouldn't explain why his newer reconstructions also have the above problems. The most egregious example in Tour may be his Neuquenraptor from 2008, which shamelessly rips off Sibbick's "Deinonychus portrait, front" with the addition of colors & feathers.*** Not only is Sibbick's reconstruction very well-known (E.g. See Norman's Dinosaur!), but Neuquenraptor has been known to be an unenlagiine (& thus, very different looking from eudromaeosaurs like Deinonychus) since 2005.

*In reference to "maybe", is the problem more about text or writing?: On the 1 hand (in reference to text), Pim might mean that tyrannosaurs had both unrivaled brain-power & unrivaled bite-power; If so, that's not right (I.e. Maniraptoriformes had relatively larger brains & cerebrums); On the other hand (in reference to writing), he might mean that they had an unrivaled combination of brain-power & bite-power; If so, why not simply say that?

**By "multiple JP reconstructions", I mean the T. rex head, the Velociraptor body, & the Ultimasaurus colors/patterns.

***Speaking of colors, remember what I said about the Durantes' colors (See problem #3: )? The same goes for Pastori's (E.g. Compare the front cover T. rex to any of Rey's tyrannosaurids).

Quoting Pim:
Quote :
No great extinction opens this epoch, only a geological trend that saw more chalk formed than in any other time within the last 500m years, which led a German geologist to name it the Kreidezeit or ‘chalk period’. This term was later Latinised into Cretaceous; the limestone-rich Greek island of Crete owes its name to the same derivation. And so while Pangaea dispersed further, with the southern landmass of Gondwana splitting into something approaching the arrangement we recognise from today’s atlas, the dinosaurs flourished, diversifying further into some of the most amazing forms to have inhabited Earth. The first spikey-skulled ceratopsians and bone-headed pachycephalosaurs evolved, while monstrous carcharodontosaurs roamed South America alongside the lithe and lethal abelisaurs and the immense herbivorous titanosaurs. In western North America tyrannosaurs became the most advanced meat-eaters known, blending a brain-power and bite-power both unrivalled among fellow land animals of their time. The warm seas teemed with ammonites, gigantic pterosaurs flapped through the skies, and on land the first flowers began to bloom. Mammals began their ascent, birds became established - and then it all ended with the most almighty bang... except that it didn’t end, for we remain surrounded by dinosaurs to this day. Those that survived joined the mammals, fish, reptiles, flowering plants and trees to form the template for our present array of flora and fauna. As the terrestrial dinosaurs’ world ended, the one that we recognise was just beginning.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

Replies: 99
Views: 12217

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeThu Mar 02, 2023 6:52 pm
My 97th review for this thread is a positive 1. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Mostly good, part 5 ( ): 4/5

Is Kuether's The Amazing World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Journey Through the Mesozoic Era (henceforth AW) mostly good? Yes. Is it mostly good enough for me to recommend reading it on its own? No. That said, I do recommend reading it, but in conjunction with Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved. In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why that is, besides the lack of expert consulting.

1) There are several weirds bits of text throughout AW (E.g. Contra the "Editorial Reviews" excerpt, leaf-shaped teeth are for fine chopping, not cropping; Also, Deinocheirus was a non-ornithomimid ornithomimosaur: ), especially in the introductory chapter:
-For 1, it begins with a misleading Einstein quote (See the Greenberg quote).
-For another, it's claimed that "in the Crystal Palace sculptures, dinosaurs are depicted as gigantic, lumbering, sprawling lizards"; That's not right (See the 1st Naish/Barrett quote).
-For yet another, it's claimed that "all of this research doesn't tell us how dinosaurs behaved or how they interacted with their environments or with the other animals in their ecosystems[...]For that, we need our imaginations"; Not only is that not right (See the 2nd Naish/Barrett quote), but it contradicts the previous paragraph (E.g. "We can examine isotopes stored in fossilized bones and estimate how much time an animal spent in water and what it ate. We can identify fossilized pollen grains contained in coprolites[...]and determine what plants they ate"; As you can see, this is also a good example of oddly-repetitive writing).

2) There are several weird bits of writing throughout AW (E.g. "The Pteranodons[...]"; Also, see reason #1 above).

3) Remember what I said about Kuether's Earth work (See reason #3: )? The same goes for his AW work.

Quoting Greenberg (See Art in Chemistry, Chemistry in Art):
Quote :
Albert Einstein said, “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the earth.” He saw and experienced the power of imagination. He did not mean that knowledge is unnecessary; it just does not have the scope of imagination. This is how I see it: Knowledge stirs imagination. Imagination needs knowledge as a springboard.

Quoting Naish/Barrett (See Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved): "
Quote :
The group of animals that we today call dinosaurs was first recognized scientifically during the 1840s. At this time, British anatomist Richard Owen proposed that three large fossil reptiles, all from southern England, shared features of the hip region lacking in other reptiles. The animals that possessed these unusual features were all large, and the key features that Owen regarded as important showed how their bodies and limbs were specialized to carry great weight. He essentially regarded them as 'super-reptiles'[...]as reptiles that, in contrast to the mostly small, sprawling reptiles of modern times, resembled giant mammals like elephants and rhinos. Owen named them dinosaurs, a name meaning something like 'terrible reptiles', but with 'terrible' intended to mean 'awesome'.

Quoting Naish/Barrett:
Quote :
It would be wrong to imply that the fossil record is completely silent on these issues. Enormous numbers of dinosaur eggs and nests are known, revealing much about dinosaur nesting and breeding behaviour, and cases where juveniles are preserved together with adults reveal glimpses of parental behaviour. Variation present within certain dinosaur species can show us how the sexes or growth stages differed and hence what sort of social structure was present. And bite marks and injuries show where dinosaurs interacted with predators or members of their own species.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: My favorite non-NHD dino books

Replies: 0
Views: 349

Search in: The Museum   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: My favorite non-NHD dino books    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeWed Dec 07, 2022 5:42 am
I originally posted the following at deviantART ( ).

Quote :
Hi everybody,

This journal entry is the sequel to "SD: Top 4 children's natural histories of dinos" ( ). It's nothing formal, just a list of what I (as a non-expert dino fan) think are my favorite non-NHD dino books & why. Even still, I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it.

Herman Diaz

4) Tie btwn Bonner's "When Dinos Dawned" & "Dining With Dinosaurs: A Tasty Guide to Mesozoic Munching" (which I reviewed: ): If I had to pick a favorite btwn these 2 books, it would be the 2nd book. That said, I think they work best together: To quote Sampson ( ), "The web of life is composed of two distinctly different kinds of threads<those that link organisms at any given moment in time through the flow of energy (ecology), and those that link all lifeforms through deep time via genetic information and shared common ancestry (evolution). Seen from this dual and complementary perspective, the two themes are inseparable. Without evolution, our vision is severely limited to the present day and we cannot begin to fathom the blossoming of life's diversity from single-celled forebears. Without ecology, the intricate interconnections we share with the current panoply of lifeforms cannot truly be envisioned. United in a single theme, evolution and ecology provide a powerful lens through which to view life's web, forming the foundation of an integrated and underutilized perspective on nature. In short, we need dramatic increases in levels of both ecological literacy, or "ecoliteracy," and evolutionary literacy, or "evoliteracy," with this dynamic pair of concepts reinforcing each other"; That's exactly what Bonner does; These 2 books are an especially good example of evoliteracy (in reference to the 1st book) & ecoliteracy (in reference to the 2nd book) reinforcing each other.

3) Tie btwn Norell et al.'s "Discovering Dinosaurs" (which I reviewed: ) & Abramson et al.'s "Inside Dinosaurs" (which I reviewed: ): As you may remember, many of the most "lavishly illustrated, scientifically up-to-date" dino books are backed by "the world's greatest and most famous...natural history museums" ( ). As you may also remember, "the the best popular source of any dino museum next to the NHM" ( ). That's part of the reason why these 2 books are tied at #2, the other part being that they're both the best of their kinds (which is especially impressive given that, as discussed in my reviews, their kinds aren't my favorites).

2) Tie btwn Hedley's "Dinosaurs and Their Living Relatives" (which I reviewed: ) & GSPaul's "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: A Complete Illustrated Guide": These 2 books are tied at #2 for 3 main reasons:
-1) They're both great 1980s dino books on special topics. More specifically, the 1st book is a great children's introduction to cladistics, so much so that it "should be required reading for anyone who talks to laypeople about phylogeny" ( ), & the 2nd book is a great natural history of theropods (& thus, "treats [theropods] as a group of living animals, making frequent reference to today's animals as a basis for comparison": ).
-2) They're both very nostalgic in terms of paleoart. More specifically, the 1st book's paleoart is very "Jurassic Park"-esque (See reason #3 in my review) & the 2nd book's paleoart is very field guide-esque (I.e. GSPaul's "portrayals of dinosaurs [are] similar to that of naturalists in the wild, observing living animals of our own era": ).
-3) They're both outdated in ways that are hard to ignore, especially compared to #1 (E.g. For the 1st book, see the Hamilton quote; For the 2nd book, see the Naish quote).

Quoting Hamilton ( ): "So the birds are closely related to some animals that we call dinosaurs. This means that the classical idea of the dinosaurs (Dinosauria) is only tenable if the birds are included. But we cannot validate the group Saurischia and cannot establish relationships with the Ornithischia. Therefore, as Charig suggests, it may be necessary to include the crocodiles and pterosaurs which would make the Dinosauria and Archosauria synonymous. Not much future in this: the group Dinosauria seems to be taxonomically extinct."

Quoting Naish ( ): "A girl and her ornithomimid. Greg Paul said of theropods in Predatory Dinosaurs of the World that "Their stiff, perhaps feathery bodies were not what one would care to have sleep at the foot of the bed" (Paul 1988, p. 19), but maybe he was wrong. This is another of Mike Skrepnick's illustrations from his 'Would Dinosaurs Make Good Pets' project. Image: Mike Skrepnick."

1) Tie btwn Bakker's "Raptor Pack" (which I reviewed: ) & Naish's "Dinopedia: A Brief Compendium of Dinosaur Lore" (which I reviewed: ) for reasons discussed in my reviews.

Honorable Mentions) Just to clarify, I don't necessarily favor #2-4 over the following books. It's just that I've spent more time figuring out my feelings about #2-4:
-Willoughby's "Drawing and Painting Dinosaurs: Using Art and Science to Bring the Past to Life" (1 of my favorite dino art books!)
-Rey's "Extreme Dinosaurs! Part 2: The Projects" (which I reviewed: )
-Witton's "Recreating an Age of Reptiles" (1 of my favorite dino art books!)
-White's "Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game" (which I reviewed: )
-Bakker's "Dino Babies!" (which I reviewed: )
-Bakker's "Maximum Triceratops" (which I reviewed: )
-Sloan's "Feathered Dinosaurs" (which I reviewed: )
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: The Saurian Dakotaraptor could be better

Replies: 1
Views: 1682

Search in: The Museum   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: The Saurian Dakotaraptor could be better    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Oct 03, 2022 2:55 pm
I originally posted the following at deviantART ( ).

Quote :
This journal entry is a follow-up to "SD: The Saurian Dakotaraptor could be better" ( ). I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it.

Follow-up #1) On 8/24/17, I messaged Dinosaurs In The Wild on Facebook: "What kind of parental care do these Dakotaraptor have ( )? I'm guessing either subprecocial or semiprecocial, but wanna make sure. Many thanks in advance." On 12/1/17, DITW replied in a very informative way (See the DITW quote).

Follow-up #2) Based on what I've read, the brooding Deinonychus specimen (I.e. AMNH 3015) was probably an older female:
-Among living dinos, older/laying females have wider pelvic bones than males & younger/non-laying females (Lovebirds: ) (Pigeons: ) (Guineafowl: ).
-According to Erickson et al. 2007 ( ), AMNH 3015 was 13-14 years old when it died ("Life spans for small to midsized dinosaurs were 7-15 years": ) & had been reproductively active for many years.
-According to Grellet-Tinner & Makovicky 2006 ( ), AMNH 3015's pelvic canal diameter "compares well with" its egg diameter, which is what we'd expect for an older female (as opposed to a male or younger female).

Follow-up #3) Bonadonna illustrated "a mother caring for her brood" based on AMNH 3015. As you may remember, 1 of his illustrations is on the cover of "National Geographic Magazine (October, 2020) Reimagining Dinosaurs" ( ). The other is in the interior of said magazine ( ). I especially love said illustrations for showing the family life of my favorite dino from interesting perspectives (I.e. Directly above & inside the nest, respectively) in addition to the realistic colors, textures, lighting, etc.

Quoting DITW (I added the brackets for clarification): "Hi Herman, we've checked with our resident paleontologist [Darren Naish] who says:
We have found that the specific grades of parental care used for modern birds do not translate especially well to some of the non-bird dinosaurs we've been studying. Dakoraptor babies would be classed as 'subprecocial' within avian terminology, since they initially stay within the nest and are fed by the parents, even though they are able to leave it. However, they are actually able to leave the nest almost immediately and forage for themselves, making them more toward the 'superprecocial' part of the scale if they were birds. Our working hypothesis is that dromaeosaurids (and maybe some other Mesozoic theropods too) have evolved a brief bout of post-hatching parental care for reasons related to the intense predation of juveniles that happens in some faunal assemblage. In other words, while the babies have the anatomy and biology that might allow them to leave the nest and live independent lives almost immediately, a behavioural specialisation has evolved that keeps them in - or, at least, next to - the nest for their first few weeks."
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

Replies: 99
Views: 12217

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeThu Mar 03, 2022 2:24 am
My 85th review for this thread is a positive 1 for Gaffney's Dinosaurs: A Fully Illustrated, Authoritative and Easy-to-Use Guide. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

A REALLY great natural history ( ): 5/5

Gaffney's Dinosaurs: A Fully Illustrated, Authoritative and Easy-to-Use Guide (henceforth DA) is great in ways that are hard for me to describe. In some ways, it reminds me of Howard's Dinosaur Empire!. In other ways, it reminds me of Norell's The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour. In this review, I list those ways, besides the fact that all 3 books are natural histories of dinos.*

1) In terms of subject coverage & writing, DA reminds me of Howard's book. The Dino Dad Reviews quote sums up what I mean. Put another way: In reference to subject coverage, it covers "such subjects as evolution, locomotion, and feeding"; This is especially apparent in the introductory chapters (I.e. The 1st 41 pages, 8 of which show how the "characteristics of dinosaurs" evolved from those of earlier vertebrates), but also in the breaks between major dino groups; In reference to writing, remember what I said about Gaffney's DD work ( )?; The same goes for his DA work, but MUCH more so. This makes sense given DA's older kid audience. My only related gripe is that there are a few weird bits in the text (E.g. It's claimed that the Triassic began 250 MYA on page 12 & 225 MYA on page 13).

2) In terms of illustrations & organization, DA reminds me of Norell's book: For 1 (in reference to organization), it's a collection of 36 profiles with a phylogenetic format; Furthermore, it doesn't profile just any dinos, but "the best-known [dinos], those most likely to be encountered in North American museums"; For another (in reference to illustrations), remember what I said about Dawson's Ranger work (See reason #3: )?; The same goes for his DA work, but with MUCH more variety (I.e. Some of it IS very action-packed, but some of it is also very peaceful: ); Furthermore, almost every profile includes both skeletal & life reconstructions.** This makes sense given DA's association with the American Museum of Natural History. My only related gripe is that some of Dawson's DA dinos have too many claws &/or a look that's derivative of Sibbick's "Normanpedia" dinos.

*Speaking of which, it's worth mentioning that 7 of the 13 popular dino books listed in the "More Information" chapter are natural histories of dinos, 4 of which I've reviewed: 1) Waldrop/Loomis' Ranger Rick's Dinosaur Book; 2) Norman's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth ( ); 3) Stout's The New Dinosaurs/The Dinosaurs: A Fantastic New View of a Lost Era ( ); 4) Sattler's Dinosaurs of North America ( ).

**Coincidentally, the Ornitholestes life reconstructions are my favorites in both books.

Quoting Dino Dad Reviews ( ):
Quote :
The pair stops off first at The Learning Center, located in a pleasant green field that reminds me of nothing so much as C.S. Lewis’s “Wood Between the Worlds” in The Magician’s Nephew. Ronnie and Ms. Lernin often return here throughout the book when they need a break from their adventures, and to explain some of the more complicated concepts necessary to put the things they see in their proper context. Howard manages to pace these interstitials just right so that they never feels like excessive info-dumps, and since they occur at natural breaks in the story, they don’t feel like they interrupt the action too much either[...]Howard does a fantastic job explaining various concepts, even including outdated and/or alternate hypotheses about some of the creatures and ideas presented. Many of these concepts have a strong potential to bog down more casual readers in a lot of technical jargon, but as noted before, Howard deftly avoids ever giving the reader the sensation of being the victim of an excessive info-dump, managing to break the big ideas down into an easy-to-understand but never pandering format. It helps that the book maintains a very light-hearted and humorous tone throughout its run. It somehow accomplishes the feat of making a serious effort to do right by its subject material, while at the same time not taking the whole setup too seriously as a narrative.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

Replies: 99
Views: 12217

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeTue May 04, 2021 7:10 am
My 76th review for this thread is a positive 1 for DK's Where on Earth? Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Life. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a very good book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

Mostly good, part 3 ( ): 4/5

Short version: Is DK's Where on Earth? Dinosaurs and Other Prehistoric Life (henceforth Earth) mostly good? Yes. Is it mostly good enough for me to recommend reading it on its own? No. That said, I do recommend reading it, but in conjunction with Molina-Pérez/Larramendi's Dinosaur Facts and Figures series.

Long version: Read on.

Earth is mostly good, especially when it comes to having good bird's-eye views of where each species lived in its natural environment. I say that because, unlike most of my positive reviews, this 1 is mostly about the not-so-good aspects of Earth.

1) The introductory & concluding chapters (I.e. "Rise of the dinosaurs" & "After the dinosaurs", respectively):
-While the middle chapters are mostly well-written & accurate, "Rise of the dinosaurs" has a surprisingly large amount of weird writing (E.g. See the Barker/Naish quote, which uses the word "structure" in 2 very different ways with no explanation) & contradictory text (E.g. On page 9, it's claimed that "the first forms of life evolve[d]" in the Archean Eon; Also on page 9 as well as page 10, it's claimed that they evolved in the Hadean Eon).
-As you may remember, it's annoyingly common for dino books to pointlessly feature "a few random mammoths" ( ). This is especially apparent in "After the dinosaurs". I get what Earth is trying to do, but there are better ways of doing it (E.g. 3 2-page spreads titled "Paleogene/Neogene/Quaternary world", similar to "Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous world" in "Rise of the dinosaurs", which would make space for more dinos to flesh out "the stories about them").*

2) The organization: Like most other dino atlases, each of the middle chapters focuses on a different continent; Also like most other dino atlases, said chapters are arranged in no particular order.

3) The paleoart, which is mostly that of Kuether & Pixel-shack:
-The main problem with Kuether's paleoart is that it looks too video gamey. Heck, the actual video game Saurian looks more like actual paleoart than most of Kuether's paleoart. Put another way, to quote Babbletrish (in reference to Clash of the Dinosaurs), the latter looks like it was made with "Sub-Playstation-1 CGI". This is especially apparent in his better-lit &/or more action-packed work, including all of his Earth work: "Better-lit" because, like the Jurassic World dinos, Kuether's look better in darker settings; "More action-packed" because his action poses look more like those of stiff action figures than those of real animals. That said, you can tell that he's at least trying to make his dinos look like real animals. I can't say the same about Pixel-shack's dinos.
-Remember what I said about Pixel-shack's DD work (See reason #3: )? The same goes for Pixel-shack's Earth work. This is especially apparent in the large, front-facing nightmare image of Pixel-shack's Psittacosaurus on page 108 ( ) & the small, down-facing image of their Ankylosaurus on pages 5/9/19/38: Not only is the former a shameless rip-off of Bob Nicholls' model, but its abominable smile looks like Mitch McConnell's; Not only does the latter have too many digits & claws, but it's also inconsistently armored & jawed compared to the large, up-facing image on page 39 (See pages 38-39: ); Compare that to PNSO's Sede, a more accurate Ankylosaurus from around the same time ( ).
-2 more things of note: 1) Both Kuether & Pixel-shack are really bad at feathers; In fact, to paraphrase Zuko, their feathered dinos "look like a boarcupine! [Feathers are] not that spiky!"; 2) The skeletal reconstructions in "Fossil finds" look more based on wooden skeleton puzzles than actual skeletons.

*Speaking of stories, the African ones are the least fleshed out: Only 2 of the 4 profiles are for dinos, the Late Jurassic Giraffatitan & the Late Cretaceous Spinosaurus; In other words, Africa's many Triassic & Early Jurassic dinos are almost completely ignored.

Quoting Barker/Naish:
Quote :
Dinosaurs evolved from small reptiles about 235 million years ago. Based on the shape and structure of bones in the skull, neck, arm, hip, and ankle, this family tree shows the dinosaur groups. However, with exciting discoveries continually being made, this structure may change over time.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Why I can't take Jurassic Jabber seriously

Replies: 1
Views: 499

Search in: The Museum   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Why I can't take Jurassic Jabber seriously    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeWed Feb 10, 2021 8:01 am
I originally posted the following at deviantART ( ).

Quote :
Hi everybody,

I recently reviewed Dixon's worst dino book (I.e. "If Dinosaurs Were Alive Today": ), which was the last straw "that made [me] cease taking Dougal Dixon seriously" as a source of dino info ( ). Similarly, Jurassic Jabber's recommendation of Blasing's "Dinosaurs! My First Book About Carnivores" (which I'm in the process of reviewing) was the last straw that made me cease taking JJ seriously as a source of dino info ( ). This isn't the 1st time JJ has promoted a not-so-good dino book, but it IS the most egregious example:* For 1, Blasing's book is educational non-fiction (& thus, should be held to a higher standard than the other books, which are educational fiction); For another, when I questioned/commented on JJ's recommendation (See quote #1), they either replied w/misleading/wrong/irrelevant claims or didn't reply at all (See quotes #2-3). I don't know whether JJ overlooked the many problems w/Blasing's book on purpose or by accident, but I do know that, either way, it shows that JJ shouldn't be taken seriously as a source of dino info.

*I'm specifically referring to Braun's "Could You Survive the Cretaceous Period?" ( ) & Galusha's "Cretaceous" ( ).

Herman Diaz

Quote #1 (me): "I hope you don't mind, but I have to ask: Are you recommending Blasing's new book b/c 1) he's a friend, or 2) b/c you actually think it's a good book? I really didn't wanna have to ask b/c neither answer is good: If #1, it comes off as irresponsible, similar to hiring a friend even though you know they're not right for the job; If #2, it implies that you overlooked the book's many problems; More specifically, it's full of ugly/inaccurate paleoart (E.g. Oversaturated colors, scaly-skinned coelurosaurs, etc) & misleading/wrong claims (E.g. "Did you know a Tyrannosaurus rex had an infectious bite?": ); It doesn't help that he's still promoting himself as a paleontologist even though he still hasn't published any peer-reviewed literature ( ); Put another way, he's "impersonating a professional in the field, and in the process, he is misleading the public when he talks so matter of factly about some of his subjects" ( )."

Quoting #2 (JJ): "hello. I’d like to first point out that George Blasing has never once said he was a paleontologists. But a dinosaur enthusiast who has studied and worked with doctors like Larry witmer, robert Bakker, Paul serino. He has also done countless interviews with paleontologists on his podcasts. So the information he is getting is directly from the source. It has been speculated by many paleontologists that it would be very easy for flesh to remain in between teeth of a tyrannosaur and rot. Transferring nasty bacteria to another animal with a bite. It is quite possible as some animals do this today.

George blasing travels to schools and get kids excited about dinosaurs. It’s people like him who help the future of the field. He takes what he learns and passes it on. Never once claiming any of this information is his own.

There are a lot of paleontologists who are just don’t have time to talk to kids.

So to answer your questions. I respect him for what he does for the future of paleontology. Who knows how many kids will enter the field because of him. And two, I don’t believe there is nothing that he has written that is 💯 blatantly untrue. Colors of dinosaurs is something that is bran new in the field. We are only just starting to discover the variation and saturation of feathers of the past. Even jack Horner has said there is no reason a large carnivore could not be brightly colors. I think it is unlikely that they were but it is possible.

Thank you for being involved. Healthy debates are good."

Quote #3 (me): "Many thanks for getting back to me. However, I need to correct or clarify a few things.

"I’d like to first point out that George Blasing has never once said he was a paleontologists."

Actually, he's done so many times, including on his website ("Blasing is a self taught paleontologist and animal behaviorist": ), in his new book ("Blasing is an animal behaviorist, podcast host, and paleontologist"), & in JFC ("Paleontology Expert").

"It has been speculated by many paleontologists that it would be very easy for flesh to remain in between teeth of a tyrannosaur and rot. Transferring nasty bacteria to another animal with a bite."

Based on "the dirty myth of the Komodo's bite" (which has been known to be false for many years: ).

"And two, I don’t believe there is nothing that he has written that is 💯 blatantly untrue."

The double negative notwithstanding, he's done so many times, especially in JFC (E.g. "When Mr. Blasing spouts off something patently wrong like “dromaeosaurs could breathe through their bones,” or “megalodon was the size of a jumbo jet,” the audience at home will come away accepting that as a fact": ), but also in his books (E.g. "Giganotosaurus may have been able to run over 30 [mph]"; Not according to what we actually know about similarly-sized theropods: ).

"We are only just starting to discover the variation and saturation of feathers of the past. Even jack Horner has said there is no reason a large carnivore could not be brightly colors."

I think you're confused. I didn't say anything about the likelihood of large carnivores being bright colors. I did list the new book's oversaturated (as opposed to well-saturated) colors as 1 of many examples of its ugly/inaccurate paleoart. Heck, the scaly-skinned coelurosaurs alone should've disqualified it from being recommended as an educational book. Put another way, to paraphrase Holtz, "depicting a [non-tyrannosaurid coelurosaur] without feathers...would simply be antiscientific" ( ).

1 more thing: I also didn't say anything about problems w/Blasing's intentions (which seem to be good), just w/his execution (which is very bad)."
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses.

Replies: 1
Views: 714

Search in: The Museum   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses.    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeSat May 23, 2020 5:35 am
I originally posted the following at deviantART ( ).

Quote :
This journal entry is an addendum to "SD: Top 4 most annoyingly-popular dino hypotheses" ( ). I hope that at least some of you will get something out of it.

#3 Update) I've since come around to this hypothesis, partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of Nanotyrannus (which helps to explain the seemingly adult features of Dracorex: ), & partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of Triceratops (which, like Pachycephalosaurus, became less spiky w/age: ).

#1 Update) I've since come around to this hypothesis, partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of green iguanas (See 13:00-14:30, which helps to explain baby sauropod digestion: ), & partly b/c I was told to think about it in the context of geese (See 12:00-13:30, which also helps to explain baby sauropod digestion: ).

New #3 Contender) Tie btwn 1) Spinosaurus being quadrupedal ( ), & 2) theropods not having lips (See "Fig. 3": ):
-1) Now that "Ibrahim et al. 2020b" has been published, this hypothesis isn't as annoyingly-popular (See "Posture and balance": ). However, btwn 2014-2020, it was everywhere, even in otherwise great books.* My major problem is that it's "an extraordinary claim, but [the paper] fails to provide extraordinary evidence for the proportions and center of gravity that make or break this claim" ( ).
-2) Despite the fact that we've known better since at least the "Dinosaur Renaissance" (See pages 142-145: ) & have gone through the "All Yesterdays" movement (a large part of which was un-shrink-wrapping: ), this hypothesis keeps coming back. My major problem is that it seems to rely on hand-waving/ignoring the fact that theropod oral anatomy is MUCH more like that of lipped tetrapods than lipless ones. Said anatomy it best described by Hartman ( ) & best illustrated by GSPaul (See "Archosaur Lip Anatomy", page 26: ).

*I'm specifically referring to Chuang/Yang's "THEM: Age Of Dinosaurs" ( ) & Norell's "The World of Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Tour" ("Theropods were for the most part bipedal, yet a few, such as Spinosaurus, may have been secondarily quadrupedal").

New #1 Contender) "Juvenile and adult[...Deinonychus...]likely consumed different prey" & thus didn't live in packs ( ). I have 2 major problems w/this hypothesis: 1) Its results don't really support its conclusions;* 2) It ignores A LOT of contradictory evidence.**

*Quoting Willoughby ( ): "A handful of teeth were taken from two sites, divided into a large (adult) and small (juvenile) group of 5 to 6 teeth each, and then a t-test computed for significant mean differences. Only one of the two sites showed a mean diff across size/age groups at p < .05, the other did not."

**In reference to consuming different prey:
-It ignores the "higher proportion of smaller prey items and smaller proportion of larger prey" in the diet of accipitrids "during nesting" (Golden eagles: ) (Sparrowhawks: ). Since eudromaeosaurs were basically "terrestrial hawks" in terms of ecology/behavior ( ), it makes sense that the same would've gone for them. This reminds me of how much I miss "ASK A VELOCIRAPTOR" (which summed up what we knew or could infer about real Velociraptor in a silly/fun way):
-It uses Varricchio et al. 2008 to argue that Deinonychus had Rhea-like paternal care despite the facts that 1) that paper doesn't cover any dromaeosaurids, let alone eudromaeosaurs, & 2) unlike the "more stork-like" omnivores that paper does cover, eudromaeosaurs were raptorial hypercarnivores (See the 1st Bakker quote AWA page 6 in this link: ).
-It focuses on teeth, yet ignores the fact that "juvenile teeth display the same features as those of adults, but on a smaller scale" ( ), which means "that hatchlings were feeding on prey tissue of the same general texture and consistency as that fed upon by adults" (See the 2nd Bakker quote).

Quoting Bakker (See "Raptor Red"): "Female dominance is a powerful piece of evidence that permits us to reconstruct the private lives of Cretaceous predatory dinosaurs. A family structure built around a large female is rare in meat-eating reptiles and mammals today, but it's the rule for one category of predatory species — carnivorous birds. Owls, hawks, and eagles have societies organized around female dominance, and we can think of tyrannosaurs and raptors as giant, ground-running eagles."

Quoting Bakker (See Wolberg's "Dinofest International: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored By Arizona State University", page 62): "A striking difference exists in modern communities between cold-blooded predators and hot-blooded predators. Most bird and mammal species feed their young until the youngsters are almost full size; then and only then do the young set out to hunt on their own. Consequently, the very young mammals and birds do not chose food items independently of the parents. Young lions and eagles feed on parts of carcasses from relatively large prey killed by the parents. Most snakes, lizards, and turtles do not feed the young after birth, and the new-born reptiles must find prey suitably diminutive to fit the size of the baby reptilian jaws and teeth. A single individual lizard during its lifetime usually feeds over a much wider size range of prey than a single individual weasel or hawk, because the lizard begins its life hunting independently.
Therefore, a predatory guild of three lizard species with adult weights 10g, 100g and 1000g would require a much wider range of prey size than a guild of three mammal predator species with the same adult weights. If allosaurs had a lizard-like parental behavior, then each individual allosaur would require a wide size range in prey as it grew up. The evidence of the Como lair sites strongly suggests that the dinosaur predatory guild was constructed more like that of hot-blooded carnivores than that of lizards or snakes.
This theory receives support from the shape of the baby allosaur teeth. In many cold-blooded reptilian predators today, the crown shape in the very young is quite different from the adult crown shape. For example, hatchling alligators have the same number of tooth sockets in each jaw as do the adults, but the hatchling crowns are very much sharper and more delicate. In the hatchling all the teeth are nearly the same shape, and the young gators have less differentiation of crown size and shape along the tooth row; the hatchlings lack the massive, projecting canine teeth and the very broad, acorn-shaped posterior crowns of the adults. Young gators feed extensively on water insects, and the sharp crowns are designed for such insectivorous habits. Adult gator species use their canine teeth for killing large prey, such as deer, and employ the acorn crowns to crush large water snails and turtles (Chabreck, 1971; Delaney and Abercrombie, 1986; McNease and Joanen, 1977; Web et al, 1987).
If allosaur hatchlings fed independent of adults, I would not expect the hatchling tooth crowns to be the same over-all shape as that of the adult. However, the over-all tooth crown shape in the tiniest allosaur IS identical to that of the adult (figs. 3,4). Thus it appears that hatchlings were feeding on prey tissue of the same general texture and consistency as that fed upon by adults."

**In reference to not living in packs: It ignores the best evidence for pack-hunting in Deinonychus (I.e. Shed teeth in general & MOR 682 in particular; See the Maxwell quote) despite having cited Maxwell & Ostrom 1995 ( ). In other words, Deinonychus pack-hunting probably looked something like this:

Quoting Maxwell ( ): "Nobody knows for certain what took place at the Shrine site. We do know, however, that whether hunted down and killed by a pack or simply scavenged after death, Tenontosaurus was the preferred food of Deinonychus. Approximately eighty occurrences of Tenontosaurus remains have been discovered in the Cloverly formation to date, and thirty-five include Deinonychus teeth. While Deinonychus fossils are rarely found with other possible prey animals, three or four Deinonychus teeth typically turn up wherever there are Tenontosaurus remains. And at a site discovered in the Cloverly formation in 1992, there were even more.

Laid out in its death pose at this new site was a beautifully preserved, near-complete specimen of a young Tenontosaurus. Four Deinonychus teeth were found alongside the bones; later, in the laboratory, seven more teeth were uncovered. It's possible that a few more teeth were missed in the field or unwittingly discarded during preparation because they were concealed within small lumps of rock. So we have a subadult Tenontosaurus no more than fourteen feet long (compared with a length of about twenty feet for the adult at the Shrine site), preserved with at least eleven Deinonychus teeth.

But how can we distinguish between the remains of a victim hunted down and devoured by a pack and an animal that simply died and was scavenged by a few passing Deinonychus? As is the case at the Shrine site, this Tenontosaurus was preserved where it died. After death, the desiccation of the abundant supporting tendons that line the vertebrae of the neck and tail cause these parts to coil. The tail of Tenontosaurus, which accounts for about one-third of the animal's total length, is particularly heavy with supporting tendons. In this specimen, the pronounced curvature of the tail and the neck toward each other effectively counters any claim that the bones were carried to the site by water currents. The Deinonychus teeth were found in the region of the abdomen and pelvis, suggesting that the predators lost their teeth while feeding on the viscera. Most modern carnivores begin with the areas around the anus and abdomen when they feast on freshly killed prey, and it's likely that carnivorous dinosaurs did the same.

The number of teeth indicate that more than one Deinonychus was involved with the carcass. Like all other theropod dinosaurs, Deinonychus shed and replaced teeth throughout its life. The teeth would fall out upon the animal's reaching maturity but also could be wrenched out earlier by the stress associated with the biting and tearing of flesh. Because of this, theropod teeth are very common in sediments containing dinosaur fossils. The teeth from this site vary from recently erupted to fully mature ones. Given that Deinonychus had only sixty teeth in its jaws at any one time, it's unlikely that all eleven were wrenched from the mouth of just one feeding animal. This would leave the Deinonychus toothless after five similar meals. The possibility that Deinonychus was replacing shed teeth in a few weeks or months, and therefore had the ability to sustain such dramatic tooth loss, was quashed by Greg Erickson, who, as a master's degree student at the Museum of the Rockies, worked on replacement rates of teeth in various dinosaurs and living reptiles. After CT-scanning portions of the lower jaw of Deinonychus and studying individual teeth, he came up with an estimate of 300 days for the time it took Deinonychus to replace a shed tooth with a mature one.

We know that this Tenontosaurus was not yet an adult, so it didn't die of old age. Of course, this doesn't rule out death from disease or injury and doesn't confirm that it was cut down by a pack, but it's a start. Next, we have a concentration of teeth around the abdomen and pelvis. This may indicate that the pack fed on the abdominal contents while they were still warm and moist. If, after the viscera had been consumed, the remainder of the carcass was scavenged over time by many individuals, we would expect a much more disturbed carcass and a wider scattering of teeth. Similarly, if the Tenontosaurus had been killed by a larger predator-such as the unknown owner of the three-inch-long serrated teeth that occasionally crop up in the Cloverly formation—then whatever remained of the carcass would have been strewn around the area."
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

Replies: 99
Views: 12217

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeSat Jan 04, 2020 1:46 am
My 61st review for this thread is a positive 1 for White's Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's for a great book that deserves more attention. Many thanks in advance.

1 of the best dino field guides ( ): 5/5

Short version: As far as I know, most dino time travel books aren't meant to be educational. Of those that are, I recommend reading White's Dinosaur Hunter: The Ultimate Guide to the Biggest Game (henceforth DH) in conjunction with other, more educational books (E.g. Naish/Barrett's Dinosaurs: How They Lived and Evolved).

Long version: Read on.

As far as I know, there are 2 kinds of dino field guide: 1) Those that are written like a traditional reference work (E.g. Holtz/Brett-Surman's Jurassic World Dinosaur Field Guide); 2) Those that are written like a speculative fiction book (E.g. Gee/Rey's A Field Guide to Dinosaurs: The Essential Handbook for Travelers in the Mesozoic). In this review, I list the 3 main reasons why DH is the best of the 2nd kind, besides the paleoart.*

1) The Introduction summarizes everything you need to do before going on Mesozoic safaris. My favorite parts are "So, what happens now?" & "If I pass the training/acclimatization?": For 1, said parts emphasize the extreme danger of hunting in the Mesozoic, making it clear that it's only meant for true hunters like Theodore Roosevelt & not for "shooters" like Walter Palmer ( ); For another, said parts emphasize the extreme importance of altitude acclimatization & breathing equipment, making it clear that (to paraphrase Boromir) "one does not simply walk into [the Mesozoic]". This reminds me of the "Dinosaur Safari" part of the Introduction in GSPaul's The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs.

2) After the Introduction, DH consists of 5 chapters, each of which focuses on a different Mesozoic site (1 Late Triassic, 1 Late Jurassic, 3 Late Cretaceous). The 1st part of each chapter describes the site's natural history, beginning with "Conditions"/"Geography and environment", continuing with "Licensed targets" (I.e. Top predators), & ending with "Other fauna" (I.e. Mesopredators & prey). Thus, DH is similarly in-depth to Lessem's Dinosaur Worlds (See reason #3: ). Also similarly to Lessem's book, DH is very complete: Using Holtz's Dinosaurs as a guide, the least speciose site in DH features representatives of 9 different dino groups; Compare that to the 6 different dino groups of the most speciose site in Gee/Rey's book.

3) The 2nd part of each chapter tells a day-in-the-life story of 2 previous hunters, 1 of whom gets killed or maimed. I originally wasn't expecting to like the stories as much as I did, mostly because I thought they'd all be the same. In actuality, each story depicts a different combination of personalities & circumstances. Also, each story is written in a way that reminds me of Elder/Finch's The Norton Book of Nature Writing. This is especially apparent in Chapter 4's story (I.e. "The Hide"; 1st, see the Nicci Holmes quote, which is from said story; Then, compare it to the Matthiessen quote, which is from Elder/Finch's book).

If I could, I'd give DH a 4.5/5. My only gripes are a few weird bits in the writing (E.g. "T-rexes") & a lack of maps/landscapes (which would've made it MUCH easier to understand the geographic/environmental info). However, for the purposes of this review, I'll round up to 5/5. 2 more things of note: 1) I'm not a fan of the Papo T. rex (which is a shameless rip-off of the Jurassic Park T. rex) on the cover; 2) As much as I like the Bahariya Formation (which reminds me of the Everglades), DH would've been even better if Chapter 3 focused on the Cedar Mountain Formation; For 1, none of the chapters focus on Early Cretaceous or dromaeosaur-dominated sites; For another, all but Chapter 3 focus on N.American sites; In other words, Chapter 3 could've both been uniquely interesting & helped tell a more complete/cohesive story.

*Remember what I said about Sibbick's When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth work ( )? The same goes for White's DH work, but even more so because of White's mostly-accurate comic book-style paleoart.

Quoting Nicci Holmes:
Quote :
The colony now looked like the remains of a Napoleonic battlefield, covered in adult bodies that looked like blasted fortifications, skeletons like wheel spokes, and bodies everywhere, while overhead, scavenging birds circled remorselessly. Our first day at the hide, we'd worn the rebreathers. It helped with the smell. It was the stench not just of rotten flesh but of rotten vegetation and rotten eggs. We had sat thunderstruck while trying not to puke when the wind shifted and blew the fug into the hide. Through binoculars we watched raptors, so beautiful as they went about their ugly business, wrestling baby Ceratopsians almost as large as they were out of their nests. The cries of the baby would sometimes bring an adult charging in but as it was invariably not their own nest, once the raptors had scattered it would leave and the hunters would return and continue on. These calves died slowly, the raptors lacking the killing power to put an end to the suffering with any speed. And usually one became two became three became more. These were not packs but mobs.

Quoting Matthiessen:
Quote :
A mile and a half east of the den, the pack cut off a herd of zebra and ran it in tight circles. There were foals in this herd, but the dogs had singled out a pregnant mare. When the herd scattered, they closed in, streaming along in the early light, and almost immediately she fell behind and then gave up, standing motionless as one dog seized her nose and others ripped at her pregnant belly and others piled up under her tail to get at her entrails at the anus, surging at her with such force that the flesh of her uplifted quarters quaked in the striped skin. Perhaps in shock, their quarry shares the detachment of the dogs, which attack it peaceably, ears forward, with no slightest sign of snapping or snarling. The mare seemed entirely docile, unafraid, as if she had run as she had been hunted, out of instinct, and without emotion: only rarely will a herd animal attempt to defend itself with the hooves and teeth used so effectively in battles with its own kind, though such resistance might well spare its life. The zebra still stood a full half-minute after her guts had been snatched out, then sagged down dead. Her unborn colt was dragged into the clear and snapped apart off to one side.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Jurassic World Motion Comics Series

Replies: 8
Views: 1456

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Jurassic World Motion Comics Series    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeSat Dec 14, 2019 3:59 pm

Now #3 in the series. Rex attacking the zoo and the pteranadons in the city. Interesting the pteranadons actually seem to kill someone here.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: FCM Revivial

Replies: 45
Views: 5441

Search in: JP: Operation Genesis   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: FCM Revivial    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeSat Jan 26, 2019 9:14 pm
Dinonerd343 wrote:
I have 3 questions to ask you Megaspino:

#1: Will the there still be dinosaurs from the old FCM HD mod like the Herrerasaurus and the Troodon ?

#2: Will this mod will be on moddb and will it be relased sometime in 2019 ?

#3: Will the Mamenchisaurus will be in the mod ?

The old dinosaurs will be in, no JW dinosaurs though.

I'm actually planning on putting it on Moddb once I have some more pictures since you need at least 5 pictures to post your mod and I don't want to be the guy who posts the same picture over and over to reach the limit Razz.

Mamenchi will be in the mod; it's a perfect candidate since we can edit models and animations now. This means the animations won't be so janky (the old one had very strange things happen with the neck when it bent).

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: FCM Revivial

Replies: 45
Views: 5441

Search in: JP: Operation Genesis   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: FCM Revivial    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeSat Jan 26, 2019 8:45 pm
I have 3 questions to ask you Megaspino:

#1: Will the there still be dinosaurs from the old FCM HD mod like the Herrerasaurus and the Troodon ?

#2: Will this mod will be on moddb and will it be relased sometime in 2019 ?

#3: Will the Mamenchisaurus will be in the mod ?
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!

Replies: 99
Views: 12217

Search in: Dinosaur Jungles   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JD-man's Serious Dino Books/Dino-Related Reviews!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeWed Nov 14, 2018 12:42 am
My 52nd review for this thread is a negative 1 for Brooklyn's If You Were Raised by a Dinosaur. If you haven't already, I'd greatly appreciate you reading & voting "Helpful" for said review in the bolded link below. Besides wanting to make sure said review gives a good idea of what to expect, it needs all the "Helpful" votes it can get because it's outnumbered by opposing reviews (which don't give a good idea of what to expect: ). Many thanks in advance.

The worst popular baby dino book ( ): 1/5

Short version: If you want the best baby dino book for older kids, get Zoehfeld's Dinosaur Parents, Dinosaur Young: Uncovering the Mystery of Dinosaur Families & read it in conjunction with other, more recent books (E.g. Holtz's Dinosaurs in general & Chapter 36 in particular). Brooklyn's If You Were Raised by a Dinosaur (henceforth You) may be the worst. It just goes to show what a difference some expert consulting & personal research can make.

Long version: Read on.

Many popular baby dino books are OK, but not great. There are 3 main reasons for why I think that is: 1) They're mixed bags in terms of paleoart (Quoting Miller: "I bought the book expecting a more technical discussion of the animals discussed therein[...]but was surprised to find beautiful paintings of questionably-restored dinosaurs"); 2) They're confusing messes in terms of organization; 3) They fail to cover many baby dino-related subjects & those that are covered are done so in an insufficient manner (I.e. Sometimes, they simplify things to the point of being meaningless; Other times, they're just plain wrong). In this review, I focus on reasons #1 & #3 & why I think they make You the worst popular baby dino book.

1) Not only is You's paleoart very questionable, but also very ugly. More specifically, it consists of cheap-looking paper collages of anachronistic assemblages of mostly gray/green/brown animals with wonky anatomy in inappropriate environments: In reference to "anachronistic assemblages", see the cover; There's a generic rhamphorhynchid pterosaur, a Massospondylus family, an Apatosaurus family, & a T. rex family; In reference to "wonky anatomy", see "Review update 52 (It's a big 1)!" for everything wrong with the cover in terms of anatomy ( ); In reference to "inappropriate environments", the cover depicts a grassland environment despite the fact that, to quote Holtz ( ), "grasses seem to have been relatively rare in the Mesozoic, and did not form grasslands until much later. Ground cover in the later Mesozoic was a mixture of ferns and herbaceous angiosperms. So as far as we know, no dinosaur other than birds ever wandered in prairies or savannahs".

3A) In reference to "Sometimes", You's writing is overcomplicated (as opposed to oversimplified). More specifically, it's like "when Joey wrote a recommendation letter for Chandler and Monica to send to an adoption agency, but he used a thesaurus on every word to sound smart" ( ). The Brooklyn quote in "Review update 52 (It's a big 1)!" is the best example of that ( ): For 1, it's also the best example of incorrectly pluralized dino names (Seriously, "T. rexes"?); For another, it shamelessly rips off Chapter 17 of Holtz's Dinosaurs.

3B) In reference to "Other times", this is especially apparent in the Brooklyn quote below (which fails on so many levels that I need to quote the UCMP just to demonstrate): It fails to understand that Geist/Jones are 1) not dino experts, & 2) known for "publishing with a hidden agenda" ( ); It fails to understand "modern-day[...precocial...]birds and alligators", most of which DO need parental care, including most of those in Geist/Jones's study; It fails to understand Maiasaura (which, to paraphrase Anthony J. Martin, "is arguably the best understood of nesting dinosaurs, only rivaled by its neighbors in the same field area, [Troodon]"); It fails to understand that Geist/Jones's study was at least 9 years out of date at the time of You's publication.

1 more thing of note: To quote Dussart (See Biosciences on the Internet: A Student's Guide), "The speed and ease of email, plus its association with the web, mean that it is relatively easy to find and contact experts"; Thus, there's no excuse for You to not have expert consulting, especially given that some experts make a living from consultancy (E.g. Darren Naish: ); At the very least, having it would've helped prevent many of the textual fails (if not the visual ones too); In fact, said fails are so basic that they could've easily been avoided with up-to-date personal research; Unfortunately, there's very little of said research in You & it's mostly used incorrectly; In contrast, Sattler's Tyrannosaurus Rex and Its Kin: The Mesozoic Monsters shows how good a non-authoritative book can be with a lot of said research ( ).

Quoting Brooklyn:
Quote :
Not all scientists agree with the interpretation that Maiasaura babies needed parental care. Scientists Nicholas Geist and Terry Jones examined the hip and knee bones of different birds and alligators. They compared the hip bones and knee joints of Maiasaura to that of modern-day birds and alligators, which don't need parental care. The Maiasaura hips were at least as well developed as the birds', and the knee joints were no weaker than the birds' or alligators'. This might mean that Maiasaura babies did not need care from their parents as Horner believed.

Quoting the UCMP ( ):
Quote :
In their original description of embryonic remains from the Willow Creek Anticline, Horner and Weishampel (1988) cited degree of ossification of the leg bones of Maiasaura and Troodon (then thought to be Orodromeus) to indicate the level of mobility of young after hatching. Subsequently, Geist and Jones (1996) compared extant perinatal (the developmental stage immediately prior to and following hatching) birds and crocodilians to fossil dinosaur embryos and hatchlings. They found that the extent of hip bone development was more important than leg bone development for recognizing precocial versus altricial hatchlings, and that the leg bones of Maiasaura, Troodon, and other dinosaurs did not reliably indicate the mobility of a hatchling. Geist and Jones suggested that the hatchling dinosaurs studied were likely precocial upon birth, although this does not preclude the provision of extended parental care. Horner et al. (2001) countered Geist and Jones' (1996) argument after an extensive histological analysis of turtle, crocodilian, non-avian dinosaur, and bird embryonic and perinatal bones that compared bone developmental patterns and growth rates. The authors correlated ossification and growth rates with life-history strategies. Horner et al. (2001) concluded that developmental differences (including growth rates) in embryonic and perinatal dinosaur bones from the Willow Creek Anticline indicate a precocial lifestyle for Troodon and Orodromeus hatchlings and an altricial lifestyle for hadrosaur hatchlings that necessitated parental care; this work supported their original hypothesis (Horner and Weishampel 1988).
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Exploring Jurassic Park's weirdest script draft
Mr. Robustus

Replies: 4
Views: 3643

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Exploring Jurassic Park's weirdest script draft    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Aug 27, 2018 1:36 pm
So, I've recently been reading some of the Jurassic Park's scripts, and one in particular caught my attention. It's the march 1992 draft, written by Malia Scotch Marmo (apparently there was also involvement by Crichton himself), that was after the first Michael Crichton draft and before the final David Koepp drafts. There's a lot of concept art for this draft floating around the internet. It's... kind of schlocky, to be honest. There's some really silly dialogue and it reads too much like a B-movie. But I found kind of fascinating to think that this could be the Jurassic Park movie that we got, and started writing down some of the things I found interesting. You can find it here, if you're interested.

Let me get the most interesting stuff out of the way first:

- The first time a dinosaur appears on the flesh is only fairly late into the script, on the jeep tour ride itself. No "Welcome to Jurassic Park" scene here. We are actually TOLD that the Park houses living dinosaurs and how they were made waaaay before we actually see one. There isn't even a hatchling waiting for them in the hatchery or anything.
- On a similar note, Hammond himself only appears in the Visitor Center during the tour ride. Gennaro is the one that picks Alan and Ellie on the dig site.
- Remember that exciting sequence from the novel where the T. rex chases Grant and the kids on their raft through the river? Spielberg has been quoted saying that early during pre-production that it was one of the first sequences he scrapped, because it would be too complicated to recreate. Well, that sequence is present on this draft, but there's a catch: there's no T. rex. Or any other dinosaur, for that matter. Instead, it's just a whole sequence of Grant and the kids looking for a raft on the maintenance shed, finding it, and descending the river while fighting... rapids.
- Nedry isn't stealing dinosaur embryos in this version... he's stealing dinosaur EGGS (he uses a portable incubator instead of a barbasol can). And what's more, he actually makes it to the boat and delivers them! The boat's captain is in on the whole theft, and is actually waiting personally for Nedry to arrive. And the visitors witness the whole smuggling business from afar. Remember that ticking clock subplot from the novel where the visitors need to get the phones working so they can stop the boat before it reaches the mainland? This is basically an adaptation from that, with the difference being that they are trying to stop a smuggling operation instead of stopping two juvenile Velociraptors from reaching the mainland.
- As they're leaving in the rescue chopper, Hammond outright refuses to go with them, ignoring Grant's protests. Instead, he stubbornly walks back into the jungle, and his parting words to Grant is that he'll "amount to nothing", and he'll "be a bone-brusher for the rest of his life".
- After that, the group has a final face-off with the T. rex as it tries to attack the helicopter. Until then, the T. rex was totally absent from the third act. The last time we saw it was after it took down a juvenile hadrosaur.
- Finally, the most interesting aspect: remember that sick Triceratops? They never do find out what's wrong with it in the movie we got, but we know from the comic adaptation, the novel and the final script that the reason it got sick was that, whenever it swallowed gizzard stones, it swallowed some poison berries accidentally. In this draft, the protagonists also come to this conclusion... at first, that is. Later that night, after the T. rex has broke out, Ellie goes to one of the laboratories to analyse a tissue sample from the Triceratops ("Freda", as she is called here) under the microscope, and we learn that the mysterious disease is also affecting the other animals. Grant even notices the same tiny bumps on the tongue of a hadrosaur when he's making his way back to the Visitor Center with the two kids. The answer to the mystery? Ellie finds out from looking at X-Rays of the Triceratops bones that all the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park aren't adults, but instead juveniles pumped with growth hormones. The reason for this (explained by Hammond himself) is that there's a problem with the cloning process that causes the cloned dinosaurs to die very young, and the Park is on a deadline, so "Wu uses growth hormones to achieve the desired size in a short amount of time". Hammond also reveals to Ellie that the main reason he invited her and Alan over is so that, once the tour survey was over, they could help him figure out how to solve that. Naturally, they don't. Everyone just leaves and the implication is that the dinosaurs will all die out.

Characters omissions:

- Probably the biggest character omission here: there's no Ian Malcolm on this draft. Instead, his roles are given to both Grant and Gennaro. Grant is the one constantly at odds and getting into moral discussions with Hammond, and they don't see eye-to-eye. On the other hand, Gennaro is the one accompanying Grant and Sattler on the tour vehicles, and he's the one that gets injured by the T. rex and that later spends the rest of the time high on morphine. This change actually kind of works, but the script ends up missing on a good comic relief (we're basically stuck with Nedry and Lex)
- Oddly enough, there is no Dodgson here (see what I did there it's like a pun). Instead, he's replaced by a character named Bill Baker... that serves pretty much the same purpose, to a point where I was asking myself why did they even change the name. Also, he meets with Nedry on his company's headquarters instead of San Jose.

Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom déjà vu's:

- Lex rides a baby Triceratops. This was later referenced in the lawsuit-waiting-to-happen Gentle Giants scene from Jurassic World.
- This draft constantly mentions a Dilophosaurus umbrella being sold on the gift shop. While it doesn't happen on this draft, there's a concept art showing Tim and Lex using that umbrella to fend off a Raptor (here). That might have influenced the scene in Jurassic World where Gray activates a Dilo hologram to distract Delta.
- After Ellie tries to reboot energy in the generator, she runs back to the fence surrounding Hammond's quarters with a Raptor hot in pursuit. Muldoon leaves the gate half-shut for Ellie, and she rolls through it. Muldoon shuts the gate just in time before the Raptor can get inside, and the Raptor gets stuck in the bars of the gate. The scene where Owen holds off Blue, Charlie and Delta and rolls through the closing gate before they can pounce on him is reminiscent of this.
- At one point, Ellie enter Hammond's quarters, and there's a large model of the park with plastic dinosaurs. She even briefly picks up the plastic T. rex like Maisie did in an unused scene.
- The T. rex reveal is mostly done by the storm's lightning. Four movies later, Bayona would use the same visual artifice for the T. rex reveal in Fallen Kingdom's prologue.
- There's also the raptor-type dinosaur being killed in the climax by the head of a dinosaur skeleton in a display.

Direct similarities with the novel that didn't carry over to the final script:

- Gennaro is young and athletic. Also, he plays a major role, like in the novel.
- Grant likes kids.
- Tim is older than Lex, and Lex likes baseball and is an insufferable brat.
- Nedry accompanies Grant, Sattler and Gennaro on the helicopter to the island.
- Grant and the kids are woken in the tree by a hadrosaur instead of a Brachiosaurus.
- The stampede scene involves a group of hadrosaurs, not Gallimimus (although the latter are still present here).
- Muldoon actually discovers Nedry's dead body.
- Lex makes friends with a baby Trike.
- Hammond is an asshole, and he dies (or at least it's implied) in the end.
- Both Harding and Wu stay on the island, and Wu is killed by one of the raptors.
- Muldoon survives. Yay!
- Ed Regis is here, accompanying Tim and Lex. Like in the novel, he abandons them during the T. rex breakout, and is later killed by the T. rex (only it's the adult instead of the juvenile).
- The Dilophosaurus is as big as the actual animal, like in the novel. As a bonus, they are already described as having the Chlamydosaurus-esque frill.
- Hammond mentions to Gennaro that they are gonna make a miniature pet Triceratops, like Dodgson hypothesized during the BioSyn boardroom meeting in the novel.
- Grant has his showdown with the Raptors on the hatchery here. The difference is that there's only one Raptor, instead of three. Booo.
- Lex makes friends with a juvenile Triceratops, and actually rides it, like she wanted to do in the novel.

Assorted musings:

- The opening scene is - like the first trailer - a microscopic view of a mosquito in amber being drilled for dinosaur DNA. After that, we cut to the dig site. There's no scene of a Velociraptor being unloaded into its pen.
- There's a whole scene in Gennaro's law office where he and his boss discuss his upcoming inspection of the park. It's... kind of redundant.
- Nedry is incredibly obnoxious in this. Like, much more than in the actual movie, almost like a Jar Jar Binks.
- The tour goes like this: Brachiosaurus > Gallimimus > Dilophosaurus > Triceratops > T. rex
- The "T. rex can only see movement" rule is kind of all over the place here. It's never brought up, other than Grant telling Gennaro and Tim "don't move" when the T. rex breaks out, and then when they see the T. rex attacking Ed Regis, Grant says this: "It's Regis and the Rex is after him.  But it's okay.  Regis knows the Rex can't see him.  Evidently, he can only see movement.  Regis'll be ok if he stays still".
- Ed Regis tries to appeal to the T. rex's good side. It was already silly in the novel, where he did that to a juvenile, but here he tries to do that to an adult T. rex. Also, Grant just kind of watches from a distance with the kids as Regis is comically killed off. He doesn't even try to intervene, or to shield the kids eyes.
- Apparently there are flamingos in the herbivore enclosure. John Hammond really was keen on destroying that leased island's ecosystem in every way possible.
- As aforementioned, there's a scene where Lex finds a baby Triceratops and rides it for a while like a horse. Maybe it's the cynical adult in me, but I'm glad this scene didn't make it into the final movie. The way it's described makes it sound way too whimsical and kid-friendly for my taste. On a different note, it got me wondering how the hell they expected to pull a scene like that off back in 1992.
- There's a recurring motif of mosquitoes buzzing around the characters at certain moments. After the visitors leave to resume their tour, a mosquito buzzes around the sick Triceratops before being smashed by its tail. A mosquito buzzes around Grant as he sleeps on the tree with the kids before being swatted away. Finally, on the second-to-last scene, a mosquito lands on the hand of a dying John Hammond. Poetic justice, I guess.
- Hammond has a sort of 'throne' in the Control Room from where he watches the tour ride. It sounds pretty stupid.
- Instead of an Alamosaurus, the display in the rotunda shows a Velociraptor skeleton fighting a T. rex. Strangely, this draft alludes this encounter numerous times without ever actually showing it in the flesh. There's the display in the rotunda, the climax in which Grant uses the T. rex bones to kill the final raptor, and during the early dig site scene, Ellie mentions that type of encounter (even though neither Velociraptor nor Deinonychus coexisted with T. rex). It's a wonder that it took so long for Spielberg to have the insight to include that fight in the actual movie.
- I'm not sure if Alan and Ellie are supposed to be an item in this. For the most part, it just seems like their relationship is purely platonic, but there's a part where they gaze into each other eyes for a while during the Brachiosaurus scene, and in the end, Grant puts his arm around her when they are escaping in the helicopter, and she pulls it closer.
- For some reason, there's a short scene of Muldoon and Ellie manually moving a fallen tree out of the road. That's it.
- Muldoon essentially leaves Wu for dead. Wu is running towards Hammond's quarters while being chased by a Raptor, and Muldoon closes the door on Wu's face so the Raptor won't get in. He and Ellie only hear Wu's screams from the other side. Jesus, that's really mean-spirited.
- At one point, Lex and Tim are cornered by a Raptor inside the Visitor Center's gift shop. There's a whole sequence where they defend themselves by throwing lots and lots of toys on it, and then make a run to the kitchen. It sounds really silly, almost home alone-esque.
- Muldoon is described as having a constant limp.
- Instead of a max-security fence, the raptors are enclosed in a pit whose opening is covered with wire mesh.
- There are five Raptors. There's no mention of a leader. Here's the death tally:
  Raptor #1: exploded by Muldoon's rocket launcher.
  Raptor #2: locked into freezer by Tim and Lex.
  Raptor #3: killed after eating poisoned egg.
  Raptor #4: gets electrocuted by the electrified bars of Hammond's quarters when Tim gets the power back on the Control Room.
  Raptor #5: squashed by the fallen head of the skeleton T. rex in the rotunda.
- As the main characters are getting aboard the rescue chopper, Hammond mentions they got a batch of Iguanodon eggs due to hatch on Tuesday when trying to convince them to stay. Too bad the park is already chapter 11.
- The final shot of the movie is the survivor's helicopter descending on the cargo ship that was trying to smuggle the dinosaur eggs. I'm not sure what that's supposed to imply, especially considering Grant already convinced it to turn around back to Nublar when he was with the kids on the Control Room.

Some descriptions I found funny:

- "It's A RAPTOR, lean and ferocious.  More like a cyborg than a hunter, it studies the kids from just outside the gift shop entrance. " what
- "The raptor stops gnawing, its ears perked up" what
- "The raptor licks its lips, lizard-like" what
- "The raptor is almost on the kids. Grant coughs conspicuously. The raptor whirls, studies Grant. He looks back at the children" I lost it reading this. Jesus, Grant, are you even trying?
- "The Rex paws after it, then drops down to four legs and gives the copter a final swipe with its tail". Did the writer forget the size of the T. rex's arms?

Some cheesy lines:

- "Extinct animals should stay extinct!" Gennaro, after panicking and running from the jeep. Maybe you should've waited until you're out of the T.rex earshot before screaming that.
- "You don't want to hurt Mr. Regis.  Go away.  Ed's your friend.  Back off!" Ed Regis, to a fully-grown T. rex.
- "Yo ho, I'll close this place down ..." Gennaro singing a shanty while high on morphine.
- "Oh good, 'cause I love the park!  It's more than we ever dreamed!  Those brachiosaurs are so big!  And those Spitters - (he spits) - incredible!  I only have one problem. Aren't we going to have pterodactyls? - (he frowns, smacks his forehead) - Oh, they'd fly away! (Gennaro looks off, watching the imaginary pterodactyls fly away.)" Gennaro to Hammond, while doped.
- "There's a raptor on the roof of this building.  Open that gate and you're a dead man" Ellie's succinct warning to Alan.
- "I just remembered something.  Raptors are born in large litters. There's probably more coming" Clutches, Tim. Clutches.
- "Hey you cretaceous dromaeosaur, you can't catch me.  Hey, come and get me, you flat-snouted Mongolian beast.  Hey!" Ellie's idea of an insult to a Velociraptor. And the Raptor actually gets distracted by that.
- "And then there were none" Grant's one-liner after the last Raptor is killed. Slow clap.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom SPOILER thread

Replies: 628
Views: 17615

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom SPOILER thread    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Jun 04, 2018 7:15 pm

Not to derail the thread on that subject but that game Jurassic World Evolution is not canon with the movies or is it?

Part of the reason why the petition was made was to make it clear that many fans don't want more alternative methods of trying to avoid the rematch within the films.

Keep in mind that if our goal is to cancel what JP3 established, wich is that Spinos finish T Rexes in a few seconds, having a rematch on a source that is not canon does not really change anything in the film canon. That's why we are so against more symbolic nods. It is always better to face the issue rather than pretend it is not there and hope it goes away. Because everytime a new fan watches the films, they will have the same feelings. First 2 films "Yeah T Rex is the greatest predator that ever lived and I love it for that". Film #3 "WTF T Rex was killed like nothing in under 20 seconds!?"

Although I do fully agree that Universal seems to be trying as hard as they can to avoid the issue and that it seems very unlikely that a rematch will ever happen. Wich is kinda ironic because if it were it would actually be a great selling point. Because hate it or love it, the topic get's everyone talking.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Jurassic World II Box office expectations

Replies: 28
Views: 2116

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Jurassic World II Box office expectations    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeFri Mar 23, 2018 2:22 pm
Rhedosaurus wrote:
Funny you mention the Avengers movies. I think we have to keep the possibility of Infinity War going on a rampage like Black Panther has been doing and how it might affect Fallen Kingdom.
Infinity War very well could go on a rampage like Black Panther because it is perhaps the biggest single event movie in years. Honestly when the year is all said and done, it is probably likely the Black Panther and Infinity War are #1 and #2 in some form. Unless we see another run like Jurassic World, Fallen Kingdom will probably be finishing in the #3 spot, which is still amazing since #1 and #2 are likely to each gross $650 million+ domestically.

Anyways, with all that said, I don't see Infinity War having much of an impact on Fallen Kingdom directly. There is just too much of a gap between films and that gap only got bigger when they moved Infinity War up a week. When Fallen Kingdom hits theaters(in the US) that would be Infinity War's 9th weekend. It will be a spec on the radar by mid/end of June. For example Black Panther made $26 million last weekend and that was only week 5 for that film. By the time Black Panther hits weekend 9 it is probably only making $3-4 million. Even big event films like TFA($6 million) and JW($1.9 million) were no threat to anyone 9 weeks later.

I would say the worry wildcard is maybe Solo. I don't think that movie is going to do amazing because there seems to be minimal hype and anticipation even from most Star Wars fans. But because it is Star Wars I am sure it will still make a lot of money, just no where near the levels of TFA, Rogue One and TLJ. But even then, that's the 5th weekend for that film when FK comes out.

Deadpool 2 is 6 weeks before, so again shouldn't be much concern by June 22nd. Really I think the only major threat to put a dent in it is Incredibles 2. Its a different target audience than FK, but there is only so much money to go around that weekend and that movie imo will open huge the weekend before. But if Incredibles 2 maybe only makes like $90-100 million its opening weekend, then I think it could be possible that the potential for a $190-200 million weekend for FK could be on the table.

But I think $180 million is probably a more safer and realistic prediction. At least as of right now.

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Jurassic World threatening Jurassic Park

Replies: 19
Views: 2665

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Jurassic World threatening Jurassic Park    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeTue Feb 13, 2018 11:36 pm

I know I sound crazy letting this out of my mouth: Afte reading this article which should probably be reported for criticizing a film that hasn't been released yet,

Why 'Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom' Looks Like A Terrible Idea

and seeing this video get posted on the internet...

I've got to ask this: who among these members feels the imposing threat that Jurassic World poses a threat to Jurassic Park? Granted, JW:FK isn't out until June, but apparently JW haters still do just about anything to get their emotionless monsters on a horror island back where they can milk it dry. In fact, these haters even go so far as to say "Jurassic Park should have been the only movie of it's kind, but oh no, Universal just had to make cliche sequels."

I can sort of see why after seeing the following provisos.

Rule #1: no tamed raptors. Apparently, haters want the JP raptors to stay monsters, despite the fact that if we can tame birds of prey, then these raptors are the stretch goal.

Rule #2: no guardians of the galaxy references, and their "super" Chris Pratt celebrity. I see where the haters are going here, since Owen Grady somehow outran a slow pyroclastic cloud (55 mph, but what do you expect out of a 2010's Hollywood cult?

Rule #3: no super hybrids. Apparently, haters hate the hybrids that are the mascots of Colin Trevorrow's take on the park, despite the fact that Dr. Wu's been hybridizing from the start, not to mention how regular dinosaurs get old pretty fast. Plus, don't forget how the Indoraptor has Jay Bayona fingerprints on it.

I'm just saying, haters who hate what the creators of FK are doing with JP5 shouldn't be making videos and/or posting articles about it, especially if they haven't seen the full movie it, and took notes of human kind's bad habits with modern animals.

Then again, that's just me. What do you guys think?
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Was JW too much an action movie for your taste?

Replies: 30
Views: 1776

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Was JW too much an action movie for your taste?    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeThu Apr 27, 2017 11:31 pm
"People are bored with dinosaurs" didn't exactly help.

I would say that the wink wink references/fanservice are item number {#}3{/#} on my top 5 reasons why I despise this film.

1) It's a lazy rehash-remake-reboot premise plot
2) Awful plastic effects and decor
3) Fanservice references
4) Canon continuity errors
5) Logic of the park

There is no chance really that JP5 could be worse than it, because to achieve that it'd have to not only be direct remake of TLW, but also generally gargantuan piece of crap of epic proportions. I think the reliance on even slightly more animatronics alone will quarantee it getting past, even if the rest doesn't work. But of course I hope it does.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: What would it take from JP5...

Replies: 25
Views: 2558

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: What would it take from JP5...    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeWed Mar 15, 2017 4:49 pm
Well, from my perspective, it is impossible to overtake JP in the {#}1{/#} spot, and that goes for any flick in the world. There is absolutely no question about that. It is in the league of it's own.

So right at the start the highest possible position for JP5 to achieve is {#}2{/#}. Now, given that I don't really love TLW, in fact not even think of it as great film but merely as "alright", you'd think such feat to not that difficult of a task at all. And in a way, it isn't. What you just need is a good solid sit through that I enjoy and that I can see enjoying years later. However, TLW even with it's faults, at least has all the excuses of being the very first sequel. JP5 does not have the same liberties. So even if the new film would have flawless execution in every other area of film making, be it in cinematography and characters and action and effects and whatever else, if the old "island dinosaur escape" and other very much rehashed theme lines from the 90's are there again in any meaningful form, it will rank immediately below the {#}2{/#} spot. I do not appreciate seeing the same thing over and over again - something needs to happen finally to break off the generic formula chains. That is the benchmark of reaching number {#}2{/#}. On top of that almost all of the aspects that made me hate JW would have to be removed and turned into workable solutions, including technical aspects which means making it look like a film and not video game. And from everything I've seen of the production and rumored premise so far, it strongly suggests that there needs to be a miracle to reach this level. I suppose it's still possible, it's not really asking *that much*, but I'm not believing in it.

Now, spot {#}3{/#} is the hot seat. This is the realistic best chance as far as I'm concerned, and I said the same for JW when the new park premise was leaked for the first time. To beat JP3, but still rank below TLW, I merely need a competent film. There can be semi-serious flaws in places, but not so much that one can make giant list of them. What you need first off is decent coherent plot and themes that actually move the series ahead as whole and have some sort of meaning, even if it's minor. On top of that, likeable characters, proper animatronics, no in-your-face fanservice, and canon/continuum of TLW/JP3 should not be totally ignored again. The Nublar return would have to be only a very minor part.

For {#}4{/#}, the requirements really aren't that high. Just something generic that resembles somewhat/barely passable product there or thereabouts. I don't know what else to add there.

Finally to be in the last position {#}5{/#} would require it to be total and utter garbage. It's yet unclear to me how this could be managed to be achieved.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: The Overall Disney Thread

Replies: 291
Views: 11073

Search in: General Film Discussion   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: The Overall Disney Thread    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeTue Aug 16, 2016 2:47 pm
Finding Dory Crosses the $900 Million Mark

Quote :

Disney•Pixar’s Finding Dory crossed the $900 million mark globally yesterday, becoming the fourth Walt Disney Studios release to reach the threshold this year. The third-highest grossing Pixar release of all time, Finding Dory has surpassed the original $871 million gross of its 2003 prequel Finding Nemo and is approaching that film’s $936 million lifetime gross.

Finding Dory opened June 17 with $135 million in the US and Canada, the biggest debut ever for an animated film and the #3 opening of 2016 overall. The film is already the #1 domestic release of the year and the #7 domestic release of all time with $476.9 million. Its international gross is $423.5 million with upcoming releases in Italy, Germany, and other territories.

Finding Dory is the 16th Disney release to reach $900 million and joins Captain America: Civil War ($1.15B), Zootopia ($1.02B) and The Jungle Book ($949M) among the studio’s 2016 releases, with the four ranking as the top four industry releases of the year worldwide.

Finding Dory picks up six months after the first movie, with Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) living a quiet life among the clown fishes. After going with Nemo on a class trip to see manta rays migrate back home, her home sickness leads the forgetful Dory on a quest to find where she came from. The film features returning favorites Marlin, Nemo and the Tank Gang. Set in part along the California coastline, the story also welcomes a host of new characters, including a few who will prove to be a very important part of Dory’s life, such as her parents.

Findng Nemo helmer Andrew Stanton (John Carter) returns to the directors chair for the animated film, which features the voices of Ellen DeGeneres, Albert Brooks, Ed O’Neill, Kaitlin Olson, Ty Burrell, Michael Sheen, Eugene Levy and Diane Keaton.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Multiskinning tutorial by Docszoo

Replies: 1
Views: 2084

Search in: JP: Operation Genesis   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Multiskinning tutorial by Docszoo    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Aug 15, 2016 10:59 am
Another one from Modding Genesis.

Docszoo wrote:
If you allready know how to put skins in game, skip down to the big bold letters.
SUGGESTED TOOLS: HxD, ConvertCCT, and DDS Converter 2.

Now, as you all may know, multiple skinning can prove to be difficult, even if you follow all of ERC's Multi-skinning tutorial. One of the things that most frustrated me was when I would continually add blank skins so that I could put a new skin in-game, and the skin would show up blank (or white). This tutorial gives you an alternate route to receiving the correct skin types.

Warning: This, like all multi-skinning, gets rid of the dead skins. In other words, the dead skin will look white.

To start out, you must know the basics of how the TML is set up. There are about 19 parts in an unmodded TML file:

    The HeaderThe # of skins(usually labled 06)The 3rd dinosaurs dead skin header](usually labled 05)The 3rd Dinosaur's Dead Skin ThreadThe 3rd dinosaurs live skin header (usually labled 04)The 3rs Dinosaur's Live Skin ThreadThe 2nd dinosaurs dead skin header(usually labled 03)The 2nd dinosaurs dead skin threadThe 2nd dinosaurs live skin header(usually labled 02)The 2nd dinosaurs live skin threadThe 1st dinosaurs dead skin header(usually labled 01)The 1st dinosaurs dead skin threadThe 1st dinosaurs live skin header(usually labled 00)The 1st dinosaurs live skin threadNumber of listed dinosaur names(usually 03)Dinosaur 1's NameDinosaur 2's NameDinosaur 3's NameFooter.

Here it is, in picture form. Notice that there are not just 3 types of dinosaurs, but 7 skins. This one has been modyfied. Use your best judgement on unmodified ones.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe NegaHeader
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_Live_Skin_3
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_dead_header_3
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_dead_skin_3
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_live_header_2
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_live_skin_2
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_dead_header_2
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_dead_skin_2
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_live_header_1
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_live_skin_1
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_dead_header_1
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofDino_dead_skin_1
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofNew_Dino_header_data
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe CopyofNew_dino_skin
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Negafooter

All the colored parts are the important parts of what you mess with. Also, if you take care to notice, everything is color coded to match the sections at the top. Colors were matched to the best of my ability, but you should excuse my colorblindness if it is messed up. As you have probably known, the tml is extremly long. In the pictures above, I have shortened it so as to show the important parts, and what the different sections look like. Between all the headers, you will see a list of ÿÿ's as you quickly go down the list. Notice how they are the same in each skin thread (the same colums), but has different position on different skins. Use this when scrolling through the skins code to find the important parts.

Once you have figured out there is actually very little data to truly mess with, putting skins in-game becomes easy, and multiple skins becomes understandable.

So, you wanna new skin for a new dinosaur huh? Well, you must do some things first.
On the 3 dinosaur names, you must make the dead skin seperate from the live skin. You do this by copying the existing name, and paste it under it. Instead of having just the dino's short name, insert a 2 after the name. Make sure you do not ADD a 2, but replace the end with a 2. This means instead of having two period after the dinos name, you have a -2. If you have 4 periods after a dino’s name, it will have a -2 and the two period. For example, a modyfied Morrison B tml should look like this:


*do not copy that: it has the wrong amount of periods. Remember, the data goes by 4's.*
Also, if you notice, all the names have 4 periods before each name begins. You MUST remember to make them either four periods from the start, or eight. All of them must be constant. I have told people this countless of times, and it is one of the most common mistakes people make.

You got this far, but the tml STILL does not work. That is because you need to change the Number of listed dinosaur names(usually 03) to a 06. In the image, it is in a black box. change it from 03 to 06.

Now, the tml should be ready for multi skinning.

Ok, so you got this skin that you put into the dds converter. You open it in the hex editor (in a new tab, and it is JUST the DDS), and you see the letters DDS at the very start of the long coding. This is the start of the skin THREAD. Everything before this:


is the header data. [Look at the blue parts of the picture] Since this part is missing from your newly developed DDS, you must locate it’s corresponding dinosaur’s header data from the tml. It must be from the live skin (if you are making a live skin). So, go and find that part. Do find it easiest, what I like to do is to go to SEARCH > FIND. Type in "DDS". It will bring you to the first one, which happens to be the dinosaur 3's dead skin, right next to the header data of the TML. Use the next button. You will find another “DDS” set of letters. This is dinosaur 3’s live skin. If this is your model, copy the header data, and paste it before the DDS on your new skin’s DDS. If dinosaur 3 is not the dinosaur you want, keep searching for the live skin of that model (use the list provided). Once the header is found and inserted (not deleting any data of the DDS), copy your WHOLE DDS data set (right click > Select all), and paste it before the dead dino’s skin header. There. You have just learned the hardest part about multiple skinning.

Now, for the finishing touches. As you know, the list of dinosaur threads is backwards from the dinosaur lists at the footer. So, placing the skin before skin "05" means this skin is skin "06". This is the number your replace the 05 with. Then, go down to the footer, and copy that live skins name (the 4 dots before, the name, and dots after it, and the line below that) and paste it without replacing other data as the last skin on that list. For example, it should look like this:

    ....Brach...........................Brach-2......................Camara.......................Camara-2..................Diloph......................Diloph-2............... ....Diplo.......................

So, be it a new dinosaur, or a new skin for an old dinosaur, replace the name with the new one (do not erase anything; you must keep the same amount of periods). So, lets say your new dino's name is Diplo, short for Diplodicus. You notice that Camara and Diplo does not have the same amount of Letters. Since you must keep the same amount of data, find the number of extra letters in the original skin name (which in the example is 1 extra letter in camara). Copy and INSERT one period after the end of the new name. You have the name of your new skin. However, that is not all.

Remember when you put a 2 after every skin? There was a number changed in the amount of listed skin (from 03 to 06). To cope with the new skin, replace that 06 with an 07 at the header area of the tml. Do the same for that total number of skins (from 06 to 07) at the footer right before the dino list. These are both black squares on the picture.

Ok, one more step, and then you are done with adding the new skin. Copy and replace the following data with the old footer (find the first number , which comes 4 periods (or 00's) after the first letter of the last skin):

03 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 01 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 01 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 02 00 00 00 03 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 03 00 00 00 04 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 04 00 00 00 05 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 05 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 06 00 00 00

ERC somehow made this work. Don't ask me how she did, but this will always be needed for any multi-skin, no matter the number. This set happens to be for 7 skins.

This seems all good and dandy, but what if you want to add more than just 7 skins? Well, besides the number totals, the only thing needed to be changed (or in this case, added) is the footer.

There is a simple way of determining what do do. Look at the following from the previous footer:

05 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 05 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 03 00 01 00 06 00 00 00

Notice a pattern? Well, you better. It begins with 05, and three 00's. Then, an 03 00 01 00. Then it repeats the first part. Now, look at the remainder. The only difference is a 6 rather than a 5. There is the secret to making 7+ skins on one tml. However, when you get to 10 skins, you do not put the total as a 1-0. You put it as a 0A for 10 skins, and a 0B for eleven skins.

Once you pasted that in, you are done with the tml. Add all the NWT, INI, and INX files with the new skin's info, and add the new skin's data to the eng.txt in the GUI. Open the game, and test him out.


So, you open the game, all excited to see your new creation. You put in a hatchery, flip through the dinosaur's, and you find this blank (white) model where your new dinosaur is suppose to go. Just so you know, this happens to EVERYBODY. ERC suggests adding new blank skins to get this to work. Personally, it helps only every now and then. What I do is something a little different.

The skin listing: It shows the order of the skins backwords, according to the placement of the dds skin information. However, the dead skins, once added a 2 to every one, are not non-existant. The game does not properly recongize them. This can be looked at in two ways:

1. I can't see the zomby looking body any more, oh noes...
2. Hey, since these slots are now dead, maybe re-ordering the skins will make my new one come alive!!!

Personally, I don't care much for that "living dead" cheat. Who cares about dead skins when you can have new live ones!

If you are using HxD, you will notice that there are tabs in the top near the menu bar. Click file, and press new. You will go to a screen which you see no data. It should look like this:

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Ex1

Click your tml file. Go to LIVE-Skin-Header #3. Copy EVERYTHING before this skin's number
to the number of your DEAD-Skin-Header #3.

Go to your new tab, right click and press paste insert. All of the letters should look red.

When you are still on that new tab, click File > Save as. The name should be Untitled 1. Erase that and lable it DEAD _______(put the dinosaur's name there). There, now you will allways have a backup of this dinosaur's skin.

Go back to the tml, right click on your highlighted part. Press cut. This will make it easier on you when you are trying to copy and paste everything out of the tml. I call this dissecting the tml.

Press File > New. Again, you should see a new tab. This should be called "Untitled 3".

This time, go to DEAD-Skin-Header #2, and copy everything before this skin's number, until you reach the LIVE-Skin-Header #3. Copy all that, and paste it into the newest tab. Press File > Save as, and call it LIVE_______(put the dinosaur's name there). Go back to the tml and cut the highlighted part.

Do this for EVERY SINGLE skin.

Once done, your original tml should look like this, with ALL the skins as tabs.

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe NewPicture10

With tmls, the dead skin usually comes before every live skin. For this example, since Dilpo is fairly far off from it's dead counterpart, you will need to reange the tml. Open a new tab. Copy the original header data and total # of skins from the original tml and paste them onto the new tab.

Now Go ahead and copy/ paste the first tml (the LIVE-BRACH) as it would normally occur. The number of it does not need to be changed. Do the same for it's dead skin. This number does not need to be changed either.

Copy and paste the new dino's tml. On it's header, it should say "06". Put a 2 instead of the 6. Remember this order.

Copy and paste the live skin of this dino next (in other words, above this new skin). Rename it 03 instead of 02, because the new skin is taking up that slot.

Do this for EVERY skin, renaming and pasting above.

Once done doing this, go to the original tml and copy/ paste the footer onto the bottom of your new tml. However, this order has been switched. Instead of:


it should look like:


Once this is done, open up the game. Look at where you put the dinosaur. If it is still white, move the dinosaur to a different spot, using the same procedure.

If it worked, and every other skin came up correctly, you have succeeded.

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe SimJP2008-07-0622-49-58-50
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: The Ghostbusters Thread

Replies: 209
Views: 10683

Search in: General Film Discussion   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: The Ghostbusters Thread    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeWed Aug 03, 2016 2:56 pm
#3 is odd considering there was an article out the other day talking about a sequel coming down the pipeline.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JPP Builds A Park (INTERACTIVE)

Replies: 131
Views: 7006

Search in: Fanwork Hub   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JPP Builds A Park (INTERACTIVE)    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Jun 20, 2016 6:45 pm
Poll #3 is closed, and we have finalized the location; a fictional location somewhere in Florida.

So here is where we should head next:
1. What will our park's name be?
2. Should the prehistoric animals in our park be accurate or to JP-like?
3. How many species should we have?

And anyone interested in making maps should give it a shot. Focus only on the general shape and geology, none of the actual park yet. Then we'll vote on the best ones and eventually make a cohesive official map.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JPP Builds A Park (INTERACTIVE)

Replies: 131
Views: 7006

Search in: Fanwork Hub   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JPP Builds A Park (INTERACTIVE)    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Jun 20, 2016 12:42 pm
Poll #3 is now up. This'll be the last poll I'll do regarding the location for awhile because we should start talking about other aspects like the park's name and its species. But once we get a a map going, we'll be discussing the details of it pretty in-depth.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: JP3 Spinosaurus vs. Idominus rex

Replies: 12
Views: 1709

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: JP3 Spinosaurus vs. Idominus rex    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeMon Jun 13, 2016 1:01 am
We got a thread debating how well Rexy goes up against the Indominus, so I figured, since the other Tyrannosaurs from TLW and JP3 would only do very comparable than the Queen of Nublar against the hybrid; why not call in the other super predator on the block? It's the Untameable Terror to Nublar vs. the Pharaoh of Sorna!

Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Dce0d04dad184d4c38340957532102e5

Now let's assume the fight is set up exactly the same way as in JW's climax, only instead of Rexy we get Spiny charging out of Paddock 9 and crashing through a Tyrannosaurus skeleton because we're in an AU that JP3 was considered a classic because of plot convenience playhouse. And then, Spiny confronts and charges the Indominus.

The conditions beforehand are identical, as is passage of time. The Indominus is already injured from the fights with other dinosaurs, Owen, ACU, and the InGen mercs; but still in seemingly good condition. We're also assuming it won't be using its smarts or camouflage ability any more than it did in canon. Spiny is in peak form, but not exactly the same way we saw it fourteen years ago. It would be older than we saw it in JP3, thus a tid bit larger and aged, but not as past its prime as Rexy might have been. We'll say its 48 feet long, 18 feet at the head, and 9 tons. So size wise it's pretty much around the same size as the I.rex and thus a bit larger than Rexy; however not by any significant degree.

There are some changes however that will occur due to changing one combatant from Rexy to Spiny. For one, the Spinosaurus fights a bit differently. It wouldn't be using its jaws quite as heavily as Rexy did for obvious reasons. Now this is both a favorable and unfavorable change for our sail-back. It means Spiny wouldn't be able to land those big chomps that Rexy was able to dish out, as its jaws aren't as powerful. It could still headbutt, grasp, and grapple with its mouth; but not bite as hard. On the plus side, this means the I.rex's biggest advantage against Rexy, her claws, wouldn't be as lopsided as the Spinosaurus has just as strong a set it isn't shy about using. It also means the Indominus wouldn't be able to negate Spiny's attacks quite as well as she did Rexy's via restraining Rexy's neck or jaws. If she did that here, it would leave her open for Spiny to slash at her.

Spiny weighing a bit more is also a bit of a trade-off change. On one hand, it means that colliding with the Indominus means the force be in its favor more so than it was Rexy's. It also means tossing Spiny through the storefront would be a bit more difficult as well as any shoves Spiny gives her would have more momentum behind them. However, it could also mean Spiny would be a bit less agile in the fight.

Now let's have them fight. For the outcome I'll put five outcomes in the poll based on how well the Spinosaurus does.

Outcome #1 - The Spinosaurus beats down the Indominus alone
This is the most optimal outcome for Spiny. Here he/she/it manages to not only go head to head against the hybrid, but overpowers it without need of a second wind. This could end either like the film, with the Spinosaurus lasting long and damaging the Indominus enough to shove her into the Mosasaur pool, or would the Spinosaurus mauling the Indominus to death either via slashing or breaking its neck like it did the JP3 Tyrannosaurus.

Outcome #2 - The Spinosaurus beats the Indominus with help from Blue
Basically the movie outcome. Spiny loses in the first round but gets a reprieve thanks to Blue long enough to catch its second wind and fight again. Like #1, this can either end way it did in the movie with the Mosasaur or Blue and Spiny kill the I.rex personally.

Outcome #3 - The Spinosaurus can at least hold it off; but still loses solo
Bad ending. The Spinosaurus just can't deal or tank the same damage Rexy could and gets killed by the Indominus as it fights it alone, before Blue can show up to help.

Outcome #4 - The Spinosaurus loses even with Blue's help
Worst ending. Even with Blue's help, Spiny just can't go the distance and loses to the Indominus soundly.

And before anyone says so, no I really don't think it matters that the Tyrannosaurus rex the Spinosaurus fought in the third film was a couple of feet smaller than the ones from TLW and JP/JW. That fight was pretty much a curbstomp in Spiny's favor given as nothing the Tyrannosaurus threw at it did much more than stall it. I've restrained from saying this on JPL to avoid sparking a flame-war, but I think it needs be said. Just because the Spinosaurus soundly trounced a "sub-adult" (it really wasn't, subadult would be more like 25-32 feet, not 37), doesn't mean it now auto-loses to a slightly larger adult. It's like saying you could lift a 100lb weight easily, but suddenly a 115lb weight would break your spine. IMNO, it's probably most accurate and easiest just to say the Jurassic Park universe Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus are just very comparable at adult age and either one of them could kill the other.
Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Forum_10Topic: Mystery of the 8(?) Male T. rex maquettes!

Replies: 0
Views: 6489

Search in: Film Universe   Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe EmptySubject: Mystery of the 8(?) Male T. rex maquettes!    Topics tagged under 3 on Jurassic Mainframe Icon_minitimeTue Jun 07, 2016 9:35 pm
Quote :
Although the T-rex had been sculpted and molded for the first movie--making the resculpting of the character unnecessary--some additional sculpture work was required to create a male version that would be distinguishable from the female. "Even though the male would have different coloring", explained effects supervisor Shane Mahan, "we were concerned that, under certain lighting conditions it would be very hard to tell the two rexes apart. So, on the computer, I started manipulating photographs of the original T-rex. I did a series of eight different head shapes, all of which were submitted to Steven for approval.

Spielberg approved a male T-rex head that had an added neck wattle, a more prominent brow bone, and a battle scarred face. "There is a lot of science now to support the idea that carnivores like the T-rexes would have been really scarred up," Mahan Said, "with broken arms and legs and teeth knocked out. It makes sense, because they would have been battling each other for food all the time. In this film, the animals were in a more natural, wild , environment, rather than the safe containment of the man-made park, and that wpuld mean scarred bodies. Between the battle scars, the extended brow line, and the neck wattle, the male was a really distinctive animal." ... (Duncan, The Making of The Lost World: Jurassic Park)


...Shane Mahan produced eight male head designs by digitally manipulating photographic images of the original T-rex, then translated the approved concept into three dimensions, sculpting scars, neck wattle, and a pronounced brow ridge directly onto a replica of the original head of the original head for molding and the running of the new skins. John Rosengrant designed the paint scheme for the male T-rex on a maquette and then executed the paint job on the full-size character with some help from Trevor Hensley. ... (Duncan, The Winston Effect)

So, there's the story of the origin to our beloved big, mean, green machine that shredded up a Mercedes and stomped all over San Diego. BUT, I think there's a piece missing to this story, a piece that's hinted at between both stories. Both state that Shane Mahan came up with 8 head designs, and The Winston Effect adds a vital clue where it states that the final approved concept was transferred to 3D. I think that it's quite possible that more than just the approved concept made it to the sculpting table, and that it's very well possible that all 8 had been sculpted in maquette form. I've compiled the 3 maquettes that I know of below listed by potential order of conception.

Maquette #1)
-Description: A sort of beigish green color, no neck wattle, no scars, only has the pronounced brow ridge. Maquette was not approved by Spielberg.

Maquette #2)
-Description: ?
-Image(s): ?

Maquette #3)
-Description: ?
-Image(s): ?

Maquette #4)
-Description: ?
-Image(s): ?

Maquette #5)
-Description: ?
-Image(s): ?

Maquette #6)
-Description: The color scheme is closer to the finalized maquette, yet the wattle is not fully there. The striping pattern is also more broken. The right arm, also may have been broken as indicated by the odd posture.
-Image(s): Partially painted image:

Bronzed #6 Macquette)
-Description: Retooled from the original #6 maquette by Jim Charmatz, the sculpt was changed to an even more dynamic pose from the original, opening the mouth more, and altering the feet a bit. One individual that came from a collector in China had a friend repaint the bronze into more lifelike colors, as seen below in the images section. This particular maquette currently resides in the collection of forum member Jerassic.
Painted Copy-
Images of the original bronze version-
The bronze maquette currently resides in the collection of Mr. John Lanzendorf, a renowned dinosaur art collector living in Chicago, Illinois-

Maquette #7)
-Description: This one is the closest to the final approved maquette. It features all the details of the final maquette with slight differences. The neck wattle is slightly smaller than that of the final maquette, and the colors are slightly more vibrant. This maquette is most easily differentiated from the final by the arms, the left of which having a different posing. This maquette was not approved by Spielberg.

Maquette #8)
-Description: This was the finalized maquette, using a distinctive stone base. The neck wattle on this model is the largest, and being that this was the chosen maquette, it's possible to speculate that Spielberg had been interested in seeing a T. rex with a large wattle under it's neck. This maquette was used on set as well as by ILM, who scanned the model into the computer in order to create the CGI representation of the animal. This maquette was approved by Spielberg and is the closest visual we have of the TLW Buck other than the animatronic pre-repaint for JP///. This maquette is in fact the TLW Male T. rex. In props terms, this would be referred to as the "hero" maquette; the primary maquette used for production purposes, including being recasted for JP///. This maquette was further used in promotional and merchandising material for TLW, JP///, and beyond.

The problem, however, is that this leaves us with possibly five unaccounted for maquettes for the male alone, not counting the female maquette for TLW and the bronze recast(s-?) of maquette 2, 3, 4, or 5. I say possibly, because I discussed this with someone who talked to one of the SWS sculptors who worked on them, and he remembers there only be 2.
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
Jump to: