Posted 3 weeks ago

cute-noise-factory:

Walking with Dinosaurs 2013

CGI & Scales appreciation <3

Once again, lovely visuals.

Posted 2 months ago
I don't know if this has any truth to it, but from what I heard the decision to add dialogue to Walking With Dinosaurs was made well after the majority of the film was already completed. Which doesn't justify it by any means, but if that's true than at least their initial intentions were good, I guess?
Anonymous asked

Yeah. I legitimately feel bad for the design teams that slaved away with the intention of making a great movie that actually felt like a film worthy of bearing the Walking With Dinosaurs name. The dinosaurs looked pretty great and up to date with the current information that we have for them (Except for integument, of course), and they look good, more importantly. The backdrops look good too! It’s just a shame that what I initially thought would be a good film ended in a trainwreck. 

Posted 3 months ago
Posted 3 months ago

palaeofail:

No question today, as I’m rather booked for the holidays.

Merry Christmas.

Posted 3 months ago

rhamphotheca:

Primeval Predators

These scientifically accurate toys are based on the half-billion-year-old fossils of the Burgess Shale from the Canadian Rockies of British Columbia. The ancestors of all animal groups appeared in the greatest evolutionary explosion of all time – the Big Bang of evolution – 500 million years ago. The best view we have of these first animal communities on Earth exists in the Burgess Shale fossils first discovered on Mt. Stephen in 1886. In 1975, Dr. Desmond Collins led the first ROM expedition to the Burgess Shale. He returned for 18 seasons and discovered new Burgess Shale fossil sites and collected many thousands of unique and bizarre fossils…

(find out more: Royal Ontario Museum)

* thanks to CrankyDinosaur for letting us know about this.

Finally, scientifically accurate prehistoric animal toyyys!

Here’s what I had as a child.

I really want those Primeval Predators things.

By the way, that box of old dinosaur/dragon/kaiju things is indeed labelled realistic dinosaurs. 

Posted 3 months ago

This concludes my coverage of this wonderful film about dinosaurs. But first, an actual personal note about why I don’t like this movie.

As a child, I never understood the concept of talking animals. I always wanted the animals depicted to stay true to the subject matter of their natural counterparts. When I watched Walking With Dinosaurs for the first time a long time ago, I was so taken with how well the narration meshed with the action taking place around the prehistoric animals because, for the most part, the actions of the animals spoke for themselves, and the narrator spoke on very general terms to talk to us about the evolutionary history of one species or to announce where an individual was going. The fact that people are talking over the actions of the dinosaurs and narrating everything the dinosaurs are doingis just cumbersome and redundant. Watching a Pachyrhinosaurus struggling on the ice and hearing the dinosaur’s voice or inner monologue or whatever say “I’m struggling on the ice!” is just completely jarring and distracts from the point of the narrative. It’s also stupid because it, like many forms of dinosaur media directed to kids, talks down to children by assuming that they absolutely need poop jokes and constant narration for them to be interesting. If you’re a child and you’re interested in dinosaurs, chances are you’ll be interested in watching a movie mostly because it has dinosaurs in it, with a narrator whose job is not to be blatantly obvious about what’s happening and/or make slightly raunchy jokes, but to actually provide exposition that enriches and enhances the movie to make it more understandable and, thus, easier to follow for a child. That’s the purpose that the narrator served in the original WWD, which, despite its scientific inaccuracies, was a masterful program in comparison to this childish charade of a film.

I haven’t seen it, but I’ve seen many clips, and it’s enough to tell me how bad it is. Thank you. 

Posted 3 months ago

Edmontosaurus’s cock’s comb and the Soft-Tissue Debate

In a war waged by All Yesterdays and many ardent fans of paleoart and prehistory, it’s being boldly stated that the presence of soft-tissue display organs and integument in dinosaurs was far more prevalent than previously thought. Gone are the shrink-wrapped dinosaurs of yester-year, and in their place are flamboyant dinosaurs covered in feathers, fat, and fiery colors. Recently, these depictions have gained a lot of traction, and a new discovery in paleontology makes the idea that a skeleton doesn’t present the complete image of an animal even more apparent to the few nay-sayers of the paleontology community that are left. 

This finding concerns Edmontosaurus regalis. This highly successful hadrosaur was an extremely common sight near the end of the Mesozoic era, and creatures like it roamed from Mexico to Mongolia at the time. I wouldn’t ordinarily do a post on it (though I did to a post on its relative Shantungosaurus) because, well… it just looks kind of drab. It’s one of the crestless hadrosaurs, animals far less cool and flamboyant than Parasaurolophus and its posse. Or was it?

This compelling new find suggests that Edmontosaurus did have enough street cred to sport a crest like its more hip relatives. Unearthed from the Red Willow river in Canada, the new specimen preserves the remains of a crest made of skin. It wasn’t hollow or made of bone, and thus cannot have served as the kind of sound system that the aforementioned Parasaurolophus may have used with its own crest. Edmontosaurus’s skull adornment has been likened to the crest of a rooster, and may have been used for sexual signaling in a similar fashion. 

I think it’s kind of ridiculous that this is considered such a big deal, though. It seems inevitable to me now that we’d find these sorts of display structures in dinosaurs, which are known to implement ornaments like frills, horns and crests in sexual selection. We all knew that it was going to happen sometime, so it just doesn’t seem to be that huge of a deal to me.

Still, it changes Edmontosaurus’s overall look greatly. The crest does a stupendous job of demonstrating that, no matter how much we may think we know a dinosaur based on skeletal remains, we can never truly know it the way its contemporaries did. And with that, I end this belated update.

Posted 3 months ago

NARRATOR: And so, having found the real truth about dinosaur integument, the young blogger went to jump off of a very high building, not quite content with the way things were.

Posted 3 months ago

Oh, in case you didn’t know.

They also put current pop music in the walking with dinosaurs 3d film with the voiceovers.

Good. I’m glad.

Posted 3 months ago
For anon.. dinosaurs are defined not by a set of traits, but by descent. Basically, if an animal descended from the animal defined to be the dinosaur ancestor, it's a dinosaur. That ancestor is defined as the most recent common ancestor of Triceratops and modern birds. Anything not descended from that ancestor, such as pterosaurs, crocodilians, and dimetrodon, is not a dinosaur. All dinosaurs do share certain traits, but it's not how the word is defined.
kororaa asked

lostbeasts:

yup!!! weird how it’s just Triceratops though, unless there’s a reason for that

I think I might know why Triceratops is used to mark that place in phylogeny. I’m going to tentatively say that it’s because Triceratops is a very well-known, derived ornithischian from the end of the Mesozoic, and we thus have a lot of data on it all while knowing that it was very advanced.

Posted 4 months ago

Wow, a couple of reblogs and I already feel like a sellout.

Here’s what’s next on this blog. 

  1. The finale to the fossil Pokemon series 
  2. A post about the feeding habits of Gastornis, which will also be a Cenozoic post.
  3. A post about the soft-tissues of Edmontosaurus, and the crest that it was found to have.
Posted 4 months ago

palaeofail:

Ladies and gentlemen, conservapedia!

I really, really need to do a post on  Ropen. I hope you all think that’s a good idea. Now that I think about it, Ropen also sounds like the name of a Godzilla monster.

But seriously, look at this crap.

Posted 4 months ago
lostbeasts:

you sure about that

I&#8217;m going to have to say that I&#8217;m not sure that I&#8217;ll believe that I&#8217;m there either. Look, you messed it up. Let me present to you Zanabazarjunior&#8217;s guide to not making a shoddy (dinosaur/prehistoric animal/animal) movie. Sponsored by Coca Cola. Freshness in a can.
Make sure everything is scientifically accurate.
Make a convincing plot.
Don&#8217;t ever, under any circumstance, give any dinosaurs individual f***ing voICEOVERS COME ON GUYS WAS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO NOT GOOF LIKE THAT? IT UTTERLY RUINS THE MOVIE&#8217;S IMMERSION AND MAKES IT SO MUCH LESS CONVINCING THAT IT&#8217;S APPALLING. APPARENTLY, THIS IS ONLY FOR THE AMERICAN VERSION. WHY DO WE NEED THIS? I DON&#8217;T KNOW. BUT IT RUINS THE MOVIE COMPLETELY AND I&#8217;M NOT GOING TO GO SEE IT THANK YOU YOU&#8217;RE WELCOME GOODBYETHISHASBEENANORIGINALZANABAZARJUNIORPOSTSPONSOREDBYCOCACOLAFRESHNESSNOWDIABETESLATER.
Have a good opening sequence.

lostbeasts:

you sure about that

I’m going to have to say that I’m not sure that I’ll believe that I’m there either. Look, you messed it up. Let me present to you Zanabazarjunior’s guide to not making a shoddy (dinosaur/prehistoric animal/animal) movie. Sponsored by Coca Cola. Freshness in a can.

  1. Make sure everything is scientifically accurate.
  2. Make a convincing plot.
  3. Don’t ever, under any circumstance, give any dinosaurs individual f***ing voICEOVERS COME ON GUYS WAS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO NOT GOOF LIKE THAT? IT UTTERLY RUINS THE MOVIE’S IMMERSION AND MAKES IT SO MUCH LESS CONVINCING THAT IT’S APPALLING. APPARENTLY, THIS IS ONLY FOR THE AMERICAN VERSION. WHY DO WE NEED THIS? I DON’T KNOW. BUT IT RUINS THE MOVIE COMPLETELY AND I’M NOT GOING TO GO SEE IT THANK YOU YOU’RE WELCOME GOODBYETHISHASBEENANORIGINALZANABAZARJUNIORPOSTSPONSOREDBYCOCACOLAFRESHNESSNOWDIABETESLATER.
  4. Have a good opening sequence.
Posted 4 months ago

Well, my fossil Pokemon series is almost at its end, stopping by the Kalos region to critique the latest pair of fossil Pokemon. After all of my critical reviews of the newer fossils, I hope that the Kalos region’s prehistoric pals are more interesting and less redundant than the Unova fossils. 

First up is Tyrunt. This little Pokemon is clearly based on the infamous Tyrannosaurus rex, which I understand entirely. Frankly, I was wondering when the folks over at GameFreak would cash the hefty check of making a Tyrannosaurus Pokemon besides Tyranitar, which isn’t really a straight T.rex but rather a mixture of different dinosaur species. Overall, Tyrunt seems to handle the inspiration rather well, and, in a rather awesome twist, is a Rock/Dragon type. This gives it darn good typing compared to past fossils like Kabutops and Bastiodon, with no double weaknesses in sight. Tyrunt then evolves into the regal Tyrantrum, a very well-designed Pokemon with a legitimately cool look that supports the ego that this Pokemon supposedly had in the ancient times. I approve of Tyrantrum because it shows how well Pokemon can take on cliches and still make them look awesome. Sure, it steps on Tyranitar’s toes a little bit, but both Pokemon are still very different in ways that I comprehend and appreciate.

The other fossil, Amauraaims for a girlier aesthetic than the badass Tyrantrum, and I have to say that I favor Amaura’s evolutionary line. Face it, Ice-types need more love, and an Ice-type fossil like this is very cool. A Dragon-type is awesome, but there are too many Dragon-types to keep up with this generation, what with the Goodras and the Noiverns and the Zygardes. It evolves into Aurorus, a Rock/Ice type with diamond-like structures on her sides. Her design is meant to evoke the aurora borealis in general, and by merging the aurora borealis design with the neck spines of the sauropod Amargasaurus, Aurorus creates a unique feel that hasn’t been achieved by any other fossil Pokemon, by which I mean that it doesn’t look tough. Sure, Rock/Ice gives this Pokemon double weaknesses to Fighting and Steel-types, but that gives smart trainers more room to think of cores to put Aurorus in.

Overall, I’m happy with the fossil Pokemon this generation. They function like the “2 dinosaurs” fossils of Diamond and Pearl, but they’re saurischians with unique typing instead of ornithischians without unique typing. Though Tyrantrum seems redundant because Tyranitar exists, it’s unique and cool (but not as cool as Aurorus). This is a thumbs up compared to the older fossils, and I can’t wait to see what fossil Pokemon will exist in Generation 7.

Posted 4 months ago

More News

It seems like the dinosaur discoveries just keep flowing in, which is good news for you guys. I’ll be finishing that Pokemon fossil series soon as well. In the meantime, feel free to message me about things you want to see covered!