1527: "Humans"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Quercus » Tue May 26, 2015 10:36 pm UTC

For me it's the effort the creators have made that makes the difference - if I can see that they've put a degree of care and attention to detail into their world-building, then I'm willing to to forgive any number of "inaccuracies" for the sake of the narrative, and a fair few background inaccuracies as well. If the world-building is simply sloppy, then I'm much less willing to put the work into suspending disbelief.

As others have said the main thing behind this is consistency - inconsistency is simply bad for narrative. I can't stand when I get a handle on the logic of a particular fictional world and then its creators turn around and break their own rules for no good reason. The worst offender in this regard I can remember was Lost. I stopped watching that show after I realised that there was basically no consistent internal logic to it at all.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby mathmannix » Fri May 29, 2015 8:12 pm UTC

OK, I like Jurassic Park, and I am very excited about Jurassic World in a few weeks. (That's what this comic and thread are about, right?)
Quercus wrote:As others have said the main thing behind this is consistency - inconsistency is simply bad for narrative. I can't stand when I get a handle on the logic of a particular fictional world and then its creators turn around and break their own rules for no good reason.

But... the movies have already messed with consistency. Jurassic Park III is still canon, right? In that movie the dinosaurs have variegated colors on their skin, and I think rudimentary feathers or quills too. That's different from the first movie. I can accept it, just like how I accepted TOS-era Klingons as really having ridges but not being shown with it due to limitations. (I certainly didn't need it all handwaved or explained in DS9 or Enterprise!) So, similarly, I can accept that the raptors should have had feathers all along if that is what science tells us now. So show the new dinosaurs with feathers and pretend they were always there!
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Jackpot777
Posts: 328
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:19 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Jackpot777 » Fri May 29, 2015 8:40 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:OK, I like Jurassic Park, and I am very excited about Jurassic World in a few weeks. (That's what this comic and thread are about, right?)
Quercus wrote:As others have said the main thing behind this is consistency - inconsistency is simply bad for narrative. I can't stand when I get a handle on the logic of a particular fictional world and then its creators turn around and break their own rules for no good reason.

But... the movies have already messed with consistency. Jurassic Park III is still canon, right? In that movie the dinosaurs have variegated colors on their skin, and I think rudimentary feathers or quills too. That's different from the first movie. I can accept it, just like how I accepted TOS-era Klingons as really having ridges but not being shown with it due to limitations. (I certainly didn't need it all handwaved or explained in DS9 or Enterprise!) So, similarly, I can accept that the raptors should have had feathers all along if that is what science tells us now. So show the new dinosaurs with feathers and pretend they were always there!


Frog DNA, messing with the feathers.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1756
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Quercus » Fri May 29, 2015 9:00 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:OK, I like Jurassic Park, and I am very excited about Jurassic World in a few weeks. (That's what this comic and thread are about, right?)
Quercus wrote:As others have said the main thing behind this is consistency - inconsistency is simply bad for narrative. I can't stand when I get a handle on the logic of a particular fictional world and then its creators turn around and break their own rules for no good reason.

But... the movies have already messed with consistency. Jurassic Park III is still canon, right? In that movie the dinosaurs have variegated colors on their skin, and I think rudimentary feathers or quills too. That's different from the first movie. I can accept it, just like how I accepted TOS-era Klingons as really having ridges but not being shown with it due to limitations. (I certainly didn't need it all handwaved or explained in DS9 or Enterprise!) So, similarly, I can accept that the raptors should have had feathers all along if that is what science tells us now. So show the new dinosaurs with feathers and pretend they were always there!


I wasn't really specific enough there - consistency matters (to me) in things which impinge upon the story itself. Feathered dinosaurs, Klingons with/without brow ridges? Go ahead - that's cosmetic and doesn't affect the story. Also I was talking more about logical consistency, rather than temporal consistency.

For example, in Lost you see humans having problems dealing with the heat, but somehow polar bears manage just fine (when in fact polar bears can't survive in tropical climates). They pull something out of their hat about genetic modification, but heat dissipation is a physical problem, and these polar bears appear physically unaltered (it doesn't matter how much you dick around with genes, if an animal has a massively thick coat, jet black extremities and a surface area to volume ratio that's as small as possible it's not going to do well on a tropical island). That's a logical inconsistency right there - heat affects humans in this fictional world, but inconsistently it doesn't have the same effect on polar bears. For a show that is all about working out concealed mysteries that's a really bad thing to do - because there's no basis on which viewers can make deductions if the basic logic of the world is so broken.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby mathmannix » Mon Jun 01, 2015 6:29 pm UTC

Jackpot777 wrote:
mathmannix wrote:OK, I like Jurassic Park, and I am very excited about Jurassic World in a few weeks. (That's what this comic and thread are about, right?)
Quercus wrote:As others have said the main thing behind this is consistency - inconsistency is simply bad for narrative. I can't stand when I get a handle on the logic of a particular fictional world and then its creators turn around and break their own rules for no good reason.

But... the movies have already messed with consistency. Jurassic Park III is still canon, right? In that movie the dinosaurs have variegated colors on their skin, and I think rudimentary feathers or quills too. That's different from the first movie. I can accept it, just like how I accepted TOS-era Klingons as really having ridges but not being shown with it due to limitations. (I certainly didn't need it all handwaved or explained in DS9 or Enterprise!) So, similarly, I can accept that the raptors should have had feathers all along if that is what science tells us now. So show the new dinosaurs with feathers and pretend they were always there!


Frog DNA, messing with the feathers.


Yeah... I just rewatched Jurassic Park (the entire trilogy was on AMC this weekend, but I just watched the first one), and having read the movie and seen the book simultaneously in my mind for the past ... (22 years? That can't possibly be right! anyway...) I get mixed up which parts were which. Mostly the book is better - because they almost always are - but the movie is what made it real, brought it to life. And I really want Hammond to die at the end for being such a fool. (Also Henry Wu, who is actually in the new movie 22 years later. Their deaths were karmic. In the first movie, apparently Wu got on the last boat out of the East Dock when the storm was coming.) But anyway, in the book they used several sources, including modern reptiles (I forget which, if it says) and yes, frogs, for the DNA. (The mystery of the frog DNA was solved when they realized that only those four species that showed signs of breeding - the Maias, the Compys, the Raptors, and... maybe hadrosaurs? had the frog DNA.) But in the movie they just mention frogs, which seems rather silly. Frogs? Why not use lizards or crocodilies at least?

OK, rambled there a bit. My point: obviously (to us now, anyway) they should have used bird DNA as their starting point. From a handwavy perspective, OK, if they had used birds then the dinos would have feathers, but they used frogs and lizards so they got scaly dinos. I accept this. I assume that the visitors get an explanation when they first enter the park that, okay, yes we know now that at least some dinosaurs had feathers. But these recreated dinosaurs were made from genetic stock first designed by InGen back in the late 80's, and it's a lot easier to build on their work then re-invent the wheelosaurus.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby operagost » Mon Jun 01, 2015 8:54 pm UTC

speising wrote:We wouldn't have profited from Randall's raptor phobia if they had shown them in their real size in JP!

Yeah, herds of aggressive long-tailed turkeys would have not been quite as dramatic.

operagost
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 6:23 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby operagost » Mon Jun 01, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
Jackpot777 wrote:
mathmannix wrote:OK, I like Jurassic Park, and I am very excited about Jurassic World in a few weeks. (That's what this comic and thread are about, right?)
Quercus wrote:As others have said the main thing behind this is consistency - inconsistency is simply bad for narrative. I can't stand when I get a handle on the logic of a particular fictional world and then its creators turn around and break their own rules for no good reason.

But... the movies have already messed with consistency. Jurassic Park III is still canon, right? In that movie the dinosaurs have variegated colors on their skin, and I think rudimentary feathers or quills too. That's different from the first movie. I can accept it, just like how I accepted TOS-era Klingons as really having ridges but not being shown with it due to limitations. (I certainly didn't need it all handwaved or explained in DS9 or Enterprise!) So, similarly, I can accept that the raptors should have had feathers all along if that is what science tells us now. So show the new dinosaurs with feathers and pretend they were always there!


Frog DNA, messing with the feathers.


Yeah... I just rewatched Jurassic Park (the entire trilogy was on AMC this weekend, but I just watched the first one), and having read the movie and seen the book simultaneously in my mind for the past ... (22 years? That can't possibly be right! anyway...) I get mixed up which parts were which. Mostly the book is better - because they almost always are - but the movie is what made it real, brought it to life. And I really want Hammond to die at the end for being such a fool. (Also Henry Wu, who is actually in the new movie 22 years later. Their deaths were karmic. In the first movie, apparently Wu got on the last boat out of the East Dock when the storm was coming.) But anyway, in the book they used several sources, including modern reptiles (I forget which, if it says) and yes, frogs, for the DNA. (The mystery of the frog DNA was solved when they realized that only those four species that showed signs of breeding - the Maias, the Compys, the Raptors, and... maybe hadrosaurs? had the frog DNA.) But in the movie they just mention frogs, which seems rather silly. Frogs? Why not use lizards or crocodilies at least?

OK, rambled there a bit. My point: obviously (to us now, anyway) they should have used bird DNA as their starting point. From a handwavy perspective, OK, if they had used birds then the dinos would have feathers, but they used frogs and lizards so they got scaly dinos. I accept this.

I still have trouble because then they would have had to have cold blooded physiology as well. If that didn't transfer successfully somehow, then they would have needed to brood the nests and that seems ineffective without feathers.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:08 pm UTC

operagost wrote:
speising wrote:We wouldn't have profited from Randall's raptor phobia if they had shown them in their real size in JP!

Yeah, herds of aggressive long-tailed turkeys would have not been quite as dramatic.

Maybe not AS dramatic, but they still sound scary to me. Actual turkeys are kind of scary, like Canadian geese (also scary) only slightly bigger. Now give them razor-sharp teeth and claws on their wings? Heck yeah, that's scary!

EDIT: huh, I always thought Turkeys were bigger, but apparently Canada geese are bigger (Turkeys have up to a 4.7-foot wingspan, Canada geese up to a 6-foot wingspan. That... that's a lot bigger than I thought. Geese are scary!) Oh well, turkeys are still scary, I've seen them.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Angelastic
Posts: 700
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:36 am UTC
Location: .at (let's see what's through here!)
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Angelastic » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:44 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote:
operagost wrote:
speising wrote:We wouldn't have profited from Randall's raptor phobia if they had shown them in their real size in JP!

Yeah, herds of aggressive long-tailed turkeys would have not been quite as dramatic.

Maybe not AS dramatic, but they still sound scary to me. Actual turkeys are kind of scary, like Canadian geese (also scary) only slightly bigger. Now give them razor-sharp teeth and claws on their wings? Heck yeah, that's scary!

Would you rather fight 100 turkey-sized velociraptors or one Jurassic-Park-velociraptor-sized turkey?
Knight Temporal, and Archdeacon of buttermongery and ham and cheese sandwiches. Nobody sells butter except through me.
Image Smiley by yappobiscuits. Avatar by GLR, buffygirl, BlitzGirl & mscha, with cari.j.elliot's idea.
Haiku Detector
starts a trend to make way for
my robot army.

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby orthogon » Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:10 pm UTC

mathmannix wrote: Geese are scary!

Yeah, and those necks are just ... wrong.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby commodorejohn » Tue Jun 02, 2015 4:26 pm UTC

Are we talking a Velociraptor Spielbergensis-sized lean-'n'mean wild turkey, or a Jennie-O butterball?
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Wildcard
Candlestick!
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 12:42 am UTC
Location: Outside of the box

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Wildcard » Tue Jun 02, 2015 7:29 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:Would you rather fight 100 turkey-sized velociraptors or one Jurassic-Park-velociraptor-sized turkey?
The Spielberg-sized turkey, for sure.

Er...I mean, the "clever girl" raptor-sized turkey.

But if you reduced the number to maybe 10, I'd have to think it over more.
There's no such thing as a funny sig.

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1415
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby mathmannix » Wed Jun 03, 2015 4:59 pm UTC

Angelastic wrote:
mathmannix wrote:
operagost wrote:
speising wrote:We wouldn't have profited from Randall's raptor phobia if they had shown them in their real size in JP!

Yeah, herds of aggressive long-tailed turkeys would have not been quite as dramatic.

Maybe not AS dramatic, but they still sound scary to me. Actual turkeys are kind of scary, like Canadian geese (also scary) only slightly bigger. Now give them razor-sharp teeth and claws on their wings? Heck yeah, that's scary!

Would you rather fight 100 turkey-sized velociraptors or one Jurassic-Park-velociraptor-sized turkey?

Me? Definitely one bird versus a flock. I'd rather fight one Spielberg-sized turkey than 100 sparrows! You wouldn't be able to protect your eyes against such an onslaught...
As far as a number of turkey-sized velociraptors versus one Utahraptor-sized turkey, it would probably be down to two or three before I'd prefer the smaller ones...
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

Plutarch
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:29 am UTC
Location: London, UK

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby Plutarch » Thu Jun 04, 2015 6:34 pm UTC

Plutarch wrote:Might these large dinosaurs have had such small, primitive feathers that they looked like reptiles anyway? In the same sort of way that humans are covered in hair, but you can't really see most of it?


'Most dinosaurs scaly not feathered' - http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/most-dinosaurs-were-probably-scaly-not-feathered

esmeyny
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 10:28 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby esmeyny » Sat Jan 02, 2016 8:01 am UTC

I cannot agree with the intended sarcasm of the mouse-over text. Bald animals *are* usually a lot cooler when it comes to horror movie value.

Point in case: Some bald bears in a German zoo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -vets.html

User avatar
ShuRugal
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:19 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby ShuRugal » Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:33 pm UTC

Al-pocalypse wrote: The fact that since the original film the fossil evidence has shown that Velociraptors were actually feathered "bird type" dinosaurs, instead of the scaled "lizard type". However, the film-makers have insisted on keeping them as the scaled "lizard type" in the movie as they look "cooler" than "bird type" raptors would.


Well, if you want to go that far into it, Velociraptors were also the size of turkeys.

Utahraptor and Austroraptor (whos' sizes the movie 'velociraptors' are more in line with) should also be feathered, however.

SuicideJunkie
Posts: 340
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby SuicideJunkie » Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

operagost wrote:I still have trouble because then they would have had to have cold blooded physiology as well. If that didn't transfer successfully somehow, then they would have needed to brood the nests and that seems ineffective without feathers.

That is a feature, not a bug.
As long as the dinosaurs don't figure out how to use the incubators in the science lab, they're more likely to die off if they get loose.

hppavilion1
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 1:00 am UTC

Re: 1527: "Humans"

Postby hppavilion1 » Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:34 am UTC

If you add &butiwouldratherbereading=somethingmorehistoricallyaccurate to the end of a Dinosaur Comic's URL, you get an alternative view where all the dinosaurs have feathers (there are other modes too- for example, you can make T. Rex less naked with somethingwheretrexwearsmore, I believe, and- yes- you can read it as if it were xkcd; I've been hunting for a lookup of all DC easter eggs, but couldn't find one). I read all dinosaur comics exclusively in this mode (it makes me feel good about myself).

I was sad to see that this specific comic doesn't have something like that (perhaps a bonus comic in DC style, but with XKCD characters that reflect the description here?)

Anyway, (a) some people have a new favorite way to read DC and (b) Randall- if he ever reads this- has more pointless work to do.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Soupspoon, yappobiscuits and 38 guests