New Concept Art

2»

Comments

  • edited August 2011
    mannyguy1 wrote: »
    1. The one's in the movie do not have burgundy markings. In the movie those markings are greyish.
    2. Tongue shouldn't be forked.
    3. The frill in the movie is yellowish with reddish vain-like marks, the ones in the game have a different colored frill.

    Those are the discrepencies I've noticed. Overall though, telltale has done an excellent job creating dinosaurs that look JP

    Exactly! But I can't stop looking at the head, is there something different about the shape to you?
  • edited August 2011
    FPug wrote: »
    Exactly! But I can't stop looking at the head, is there something different about the shape to you?

    Yeah its a little wide horizontally. The snout seems like it needs to be a little longer. But these are just nit picks.
  • edited August 2011
    FPug wrote: »
    I love it all. But something seems off about the Dilophosaurus to me.

    I've been saying that since they showed the Dilo for the first time, but this is just my overzealous dino-nut kicking in. Too small, crest is too tall, skull has the wrong over-all shape.
  • edited August 2011
    mannyguy1 wrote: »
    Althought I'm glad for new pics. They don't really tell us anything new. I want to see gallimimus and Brachiosaurs!!

    same here
  • edited August 2011
    What's Cole MacGrath doing in a JP game?
  • edited August 2011
    I never understood that joke. Who's COle Macgrath?
  • edited August 2011
    okay, that's not very close....
  • edited August 2011
    The only resemblance is a fit white guy with buzzed hair, but I guess there aren't a ton of those in video games so everyone is just making the connection.
  • edited August 2011
    mannyguy1 wrote: »
    1. The one's in the movie do not have burgundy markings. In the movie those markings are greyish.
    2. Tongue shouldn't be forked.
    3. The frill in the movie is yellowish with reddish vain-like marks, the ones in the game have a different colored frill.

    Those are the discrepencies I've noticed. Overall though, telltale has done an excellent job creating dinosaurs that look JP

    Could this possibly be a male dilo?? We've never seen a male before so this could be one that has simply changed sex.
  • edited August 2011
    Could this possibly be a male dilo?? We've never seen a male before so this could be one that has simply changed sex.

    Thats a possibility I guess. But If you notice when miles and nima encounter the dilophosaurs there's about 4 or 5 and all of them have a these differences. Now I guess you can say they're all male or female or whatever. Its pretty clear to me, however, that they simply decided to make the animal look like that and not because of the gender, but everyone that notices will draw their own conclusions or interpretations.
  • edited August 2011
    mannyguy1 wrote: »
    Thats a possibility I guess. But If you notice when miles and nima encounter the dilophosaurs there's about 4 or 5 and all of them have a these differences. Now I guess you can say they're all male or female or whatever. Its pretty clear to me, however, that they simply decided to make the animal look like that and not because of the gender, but everyone that notices will draw their own conclusions or interpretations.
    Well I think it's interesting that telltale hinted at the dilos as being juveniles that were hatched in the park. Nima was looking around for the canister and saw some hatched dino eggshells.. Now these could be from any dinosaur (Troodon, Raptor, or Dilo) but if they are the dilo's then this would be keeping with the science. The Dilo's aren't just midgets after all. :)
  • edited August 2011
    Well I think it's interesting that telltale hinted at the dilos as being juveniles that were hatched in the park. Nima was looking around for the canister and saw some hatched dino eggshells.. Now these could be from any dinosaur (Troodon, Raptor, or Dilo) but if they are the dilo's then this would be keeping with the science. The Dilo's aren't just midgets after all. :)


    In the insiders forum telltale stated that they purposely decided to keep the dilos the size of the movie dilos. They said that it was up to us to interpret it how we wanted. They never acknowledge them as juveniles, they leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions.
  • edited August 2011
    mannyguy1 wrote: »
    In the insiders forum telltale stated that they purposely decided to keep the dilos the size of the movie dilos. They said that it was up to us to interpret it how we wanted. They never acknowledge them as juveniles, they leave it up to everyone to draw their own conclusions.
    *Exasperated sigh* Well this is my interpretation of it mannyguy. I'm just trying to make stuff fit and share my opinion.
  • edited August 2011
    *Exasperated sigh* Well this is my interpretation of it mannyguy. I'm just trying to make stuff fit and share my opinion.

    I would be awesome though to see dilophosaur the size of the real animal! With frill and all!
  • edited September 2011
    Since Jurassic Park is so new and in it's beginnings at this point in the whole story, I like the idea that there are only younger specimens of at least one species in the park. It keeps a sense of realism in what they were trying to accomplish. Dinosaurs take a few years to reach full size, and any of the newer species in the park would still be juveniles. Perhaps Dilophosaurus is a newer species at this point in the park, and they just haven't grown up yet. That doesn't explain the eggs Nima comes across though.

    So there's that, or, Dilos were breeding too.. I suppose. But I don't think Nedry's Clearing is actually within the Dilo enclosure since the road to the docks is right there.. so how would the eggs Nima came across get there in the first place? Juveniles escaped the fences, grew up, laid more eggs with no one noticing? Unlikely. Especially so close to the docks where staff would be traveling mostly every day. For the eggs, I'm guessing they could also be raptor eggs since raptors were seen at the jeep in concept art, and by now anyone that's been paying attention knows they were breeding in the park. But even so, how they were able to lay eggs outside their electrified enclosures, then have them hatch by this point in the story, is still up in the air.

    Hopefully Spielberg will take a hint and feature them as adults in JPIV, since they've had time to grow up on Isla Sorna at least.
  • edited September 2011
    uh i dunno sorna was in operation in 1989 in the story with the first dinosaur species bred, albertasaurus brachiosaurus etc, so its possible that they were a newly bred species at that point in the parks development? in the tresspasser memoirs hammond mentions his innability to clone certian species while others thrive at birth, is it possible that these dilophosaurs were the first cloned batch of perviously un-cloneable dinosaurs? perhaps troodon belongs in this grouping as well? hence the staff having little to no knowledge of them? is this because it was an ingen project on nublar? or simply a new dinosaur rushed to the park to mature a year before the park is set to open with little time to study?
  • edited September 2011
    SWGNATE wrote: »
    uh i dunno sorna was in operation in 1989 in the story with the first dinosaur species bred, albertasaurus brachiosaurus etc, so its possible that they were a newly bred species at that point in the parks development? in the tresspasser memoirs hammond mentions his innability to clone certian species while others thrive at birth, is it possible that these dilophosaurs were the first cloned batch of perviously un-cloneable dinosaurs? perhaps troodon belongs in this grouping as well? hence the staff having little to no knowledge of them? is this because it was an ingen project on nublar? or simply a new dinosaur rushed to the park to mature a year before the park is set to open with little time to study?
    Albertasaurus... is Tresspasser canon? I thought it wasn't...
  • edited September 2011
    Trespasser can´t be considered as movie canon. There are too much differences between Trespasser and Jurassic Park movie universe! Just look at dinosaurs, shape of Isla Sorna and dates provided in Trespasser...
  • edited September 2011
    well of course the shape is gonna be off its a 1998 game lol, but i fail to see how the dates are considered innacurate if this is the only peice of media that talks about them....
  • edited September 2011
    where did the handprints on all of the windows come from in Nedry's Jeep?
  • edited September 2011
    Trespasser can´t be considered as movie canon. There are too much differences between Trespasser and Jurassic Park movie universe! Just look at dinosaurs, shape of Isla Sorna and dates provided in Trespasser...

    Canon is a meaningless word. The fact is Trespasser is the only video-game, besides JPTG now, that expands the movies and was, I believe, considered the "digital sequel" to Lost World.
  • edited September 2011
    Dr.Dino wrote: »
    Canon is a meaningless word. The fact is Trespasser is the only video-game, besides JPTG now, that expands the movies and was, I believe, considered the "digital sequel" to Lost World.
    No it isn't a meaningless word just because you are wrong.

    In the context of fan fiction, the term canon denotes the material accepted as "official", in a fictional universe's fan base. It is used in two slightly different meanings: first, "it refers to the overall set of storylines, premises, settings, and characters offered by the source media text".
    - Wikipedia article about "Canon (Fiction)"


    The timeline of Jurassic Park: Trespasser is a hybrid of the novel and movie timeline. The Isla Nublar Incident takes place in 1989 (like in the novel), while the InGen Hunters arrive at Isla Sorna in 1997 (like in the movie).
    - ParkPedia
  • edited September 2011
    In the context of fan fiction, the term canon denotes the material accepted as "official", in a fictional universe's fan base.

    Yep, more meaningless than something non-official is hard to find.
  • edited September 2011
    Dr.Dino wrote: »
    Yep, more meaningless than something non-official is hard to find.
    just gotta believe
  • edited September 2011
    No it isn't a meaningless word just because you are wrong.


    :rolleyes:
Sign in to comment in this discussion.