Hacker News Reader

Comment by rsl7 | Hacker News Reader

...but the whole point of the effects in those movies is to bring the idea to life, to make the unbelievable seem real and believable. If it fails to do that, it’s not silly to discuss how and why.

View on HN

I thought movies were to make money, at least ones like the recent spat of Jurassic ones. JP, yeah, realism to a degree, BoB Horner became a household name because of it. And it was somewhat realistic for the research at the time. But nearly all the dinos should be covered in furry Emu-like feathers now if we want realism. And shaggy dirt-brown feathers aren't good looking and 'dazzle'. Maybe for some it's worth $10.50 to watch, but not for most.

When JP was filmed, the discovery of dinosaurs having feathers hadn't happened yet, and big efforts were made on providing accurate representations of what was known about the creatures. Back then scientists still thought dinosaurs were reptiles' ancestors, so the skin had to look reptile-like; personally, I think they succeeded, and a bigger success was shown in The Lost World, years after.

The new trailer for JW just came out, no feathers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn9mMeWcgoM

Yes, and the original point was that JP did a better job than JW.

The relationship between dinosaurs and birds has been observed for at least 150 years, although until the 1990s the idea was that birds were descendants of dinosaurs, not the other way around.

Still, the idea that at least some dinosaurs might have had feathers predates Jurassic Park by decades. I distinctly remember learning about this possibility in my first grade classroom, which would have been 1988 at they latest.

You are correct. The idea of dinosaurs with feathers is older than the 90s, even Dr. Alan Grant suggests this when speaking about raptors, on the other hand evidence appeared until mid 90s.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com