Recommended Posts

But basically - crocodiles can be and have been trained. Crocodiles are the closest living thing to a dinosaur - therefore, you can make the assumption that dinosaurs could be trained.

 

Just because you don't like the storyline doesn't mean its implausible. (Assuming that you suspend the disbelief of dinosaurs existing).

Closest living thing does not equal dinosaur, so again conjecture. The fact of the matter is, there's no scientific basis for either of our opinions and I chose to believe differently than you.

Guys, it's a movie. Who cares about reality and the real animal kingdom when it comes to Jurrasic Park (world, whatever). They make ###### up for the movies all the time that can or cannot happen in reality. If you can believe you can tame almost any animal as it is, why would a raptor be any different really? Just because they were walking killing machines doesn't matter in the end really. Also, tamed raptors. Come on that's pretty cool if you think about it, they could do some really neat stuff in the movie (probably won't though).

 

As long as they don't have lasers attached or rocket launchers!

Closest living thing does not equal dinosaur, so again conjecture. The fact of the matter is, there's no scientific basis for either of our opinions and I chose to believe differently than you.

 

There IS scientific basis, you just choose to ignore it. Once again, point out an animal with the cognitive ability to understand a human that has not been trained. 

 

Are you going to somehow say that an elephant is some kind of super-genius and therefore smarter than dinosaurs?

 

Do you know why they got the name 'velociraptor'? Because the original discovery was of them with a lot of eggs between them, leading the scientist to believe they had stole them. They were wrong - the pack was actually in a formation around the eggs, trying to protect them. They were as smart as most animals today - probably not primates, but something like an elephant, for sure.

Guys, it's a movie. Who cares about reality and the real animal kingdom when it comes to Jurrasic Park (world, whatever). They make ###### up for the movies all the time that can or cannot happen in reality. If you can believe you can tame almost any animal as it is, why would a raptor be any different really? Just because they were walking killing machines doesn't matter in the end really. Also, tamed raptors. Come on that's pretty cool if you think about it, they could do some really neat stuff in the movie (probably won't though).

 

As long as they don't have lasers attached or rocket launchers!

 

I'm not worried about it being a movie. I'm just saying that it WOULD be possible, because they've TRAINED (not tamed - thats different) everything else. And from the trailer, these are not tamed - he was still scared of them. 

Uh...

 

I agree with him, crocs are the only animals on this planet that changed very little compared to the dinosaur period. See this:

One way in which prehistoric crocodiles were indeed more impressive than their terrestrial relatives was their ability, as a group, to survive the K/T Extinction Event that wiped the dinosaurs off the face of the earth 65 million years ago (why this is so remains a mystery, though it may be an important clue that no plus-sized crocodiles survived the meteor impact). Today's crocodiles and alligators are little changed from their prehistoric ancestors, a telling clue that these reptiles were (and remain) extremely well adapted to their environment. (See this article for theories about why crocodiles survived into the Cenozoic Era.)

http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/typesofdinosaurs/a/crocodilians.htm

I watched the trailer for this over the weekend...and well...I didn't think it'd be that bad! I always knew it was not going to get anywhere near the original in terms of awesomeness, but the trailer makes it look super cheesy!

 

I'll still be going to see it though...

  • Like 1

It's weird how nostalgia boosts old movies to some mythical level of greatness in our minds.  Don't get me wrong, I like the original, but it's not this great masterpiece some of you make it sound like it is.   The only noteworthy thing about the original was it's cutting edge use of giant animatronics, the story isn't any different from what this new movie is using, heck it's pretty much almost the same with the only exception being they went a little too far with the gene splicing and now they have a very smart dinosaur out there eating people. 

 

The plot between the two movies is pretty much 90% the same, if not more.

It's weird how nostalgia boosts old movies to some mythical level of greatness in our minds.  Don't get me wrong, I like the original, but it's not this great masterpiece some of you make it sound like it is.   The only noteworthy thing about the original was it's cutting edge use of giant animatronics, the story isn't any different from what this new movie is using, heck it's pretty much almost the same with the only exception being they went a little too far with the gene splicing and now they have a very smart dinosaur out there eating people. 

 

The plot between the two movies is pretty much 90% the same, if not more.

 

It is like nostalgia about ex girlfriends .. when you think back she sound nice with noteworthy aspects.. but in reality she was probably a gene spliced T-Rex.

  • Like 1
  • 3 weeks later...

This whole PG-13 fad in Hollywood is really killing movies that should otherwise be rated R IMO. 

It's all about the money. Bumping up the rating to R would mean less tickets sold because anyone under the age of 18 wouldn't be allowed to watch it in theatres (or they'd need to be accompanied by a parent, depending on the country). Parents are less likely to bring their kids along to an R-rated movie.

Man pg 13 is going to suck so bad some of those scenes in that extended spot won't even be in the movie. (notice it doesn't have a rating)

 

This whole PG-13 fad in Hollywood is really killing movies that should otherwise be rated R IMO. 

 

The other JP movies were all PG-13.

 

To be rated R a movie needs one of:

 

The F-word

Tobacco use

Hard drugs

Nudity

Graphic violence

 

None of those really apply to JP movies. There is a big difference between violence and graphic violence - and JP doesn't need graphic violence.

The other JP movies were all PG-13.

 

To be rated R a movie needs one of:

 

The F-word

Tobacco use

Hard drugs

Nudity

Graphic violence

 

None of those really apply to JP movies. There is a big difference between violence and graphic violence - and JP doesn't need graphic violence.

It doesn't need it, but it would be greatly improved if it had it. Look at crocodiles or any other big reptiles eating prey and tell me something a lot larger doing the same would not make the film better.

It doesn't need it, but it would be greatly improved if it had it. Look at crocodiles or any other big reptiles eating prey and tell me something a lot larger doing the same would not make the film better.

 

Uh, it can show violence at PG-13. It just can't show graphic violence - such as horror movie type stuff. 

 

And no, showing gore for the sake of gore doesn't make anything better.

Uh, it can show violence at PG-13. It just can't show graphic violence - such as horror movie type stuff. 

 

And no, showing gore for the sake of gore doesn't make anything better.

 

How can you not show gore in a movie about dinosaurs attacking and eating people of all things?

 

The rating system in the US is crazy, action movie full of people getting shot, things blowing up, and overall chaos, PG-13, sure, bring the kids, no problem!   Show a bit more blood, for the sake of some realism, or heaven forbid a semi-nude women/man, and it's suddenly, "omg think of the children!".

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!