I totally agree - I am just being a bit of a pedantic and grumpy bugger.

It is certainly making shitloads of money (see the movie thread on here) and who knows? The now inevitable fifth film in the series could have feathered and far more accurate dinosaurs in it.

I would like a 'giga-pod' to feature as one of the truly vast super-sauropod species would be really something to see and big herbivores are not always so placid either.

Just look at elephants and hippos.

Oh and also one of the more 'oddball' giant theropods to be in the sequel as well - Deinocheirus, Therizinosaurus or Gigantoraptor would fit the bill very nicely.

"How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds"

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20150...aurs-to-birds/

So according to Box Office Mojo 'Jurassic World' has made only $511.8 million over the weekend worldwide.

Shows what I bloody know.

A few links that may be of interest.

http://phys.org/news/2015-06-brain-a...nstructed.html

http://antediluviansalad.blogspot.co...ior-water.html

The CNN headline is: 'Jurassic World' rampages to global box office record

Ah well, let us hope that the film at least inspires young people to take an interest in all things dinosaur.

I agree 100%.

10pm, this very evening on BBC Four, we have:

Your Inner Reptile
It took more than 350 million years for the human body to take shape. Anatomist Neil Shubin reveals how our bodies are the legacy of ancient fish, reptiles and primates - the ancestors you never knew were in your family tree. Our bodies carry the anatomical legacy of animals that lived hundreds of millions of years ago...Episode 2 traces our hair, skin, teeth, jaws and sense of hearing back to reptilian ancestors - from ferocious beasts that ruled the Earth, to a little shrew-like animal that lived 195 million years ago.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05z5jhp

However, I get the distinct impression that some individuals are far more reptilian than others!

I have to catch up on this series on BBC I-Player when I can.

I have not even seen the first episode 'Your Inner Fish' yet.

Here is my review of 'Jurassic World' from the movie forum on here - 7/10 may be too generous thinking back but what the hell.

'I have seen Jurassic World now and will give a few of my thoughts.

Yes the dinosaur designs were stuck in the late 80's but I knew that as anyone who has read of all my grumbling on here will know - and at least in the film they addressed that point (although despite Jack Horner's defensive posturing in interviews that is no excuse in my opinion).

But the action was pretty good and the references to the original film were all rather clever.

As a popcorn movie it delivered and although I would have preferred a slightly different ending (don't know how to do spoiler tabs so I will leave it at that) I would give it a solid 7 out of 10.

It is what it is and with the shitloads of news on the media describing what dinosaurs actually looked like and behaved due to the publicity of the movie it will lead millions to look up the actual reality of animals for themselves.

So I might be a miserable git but credit where credit is due.

But of course, the original classic will never be beaten for the impact it made on the public consciousness about dinosaurs.'

Will we ever find the largest dinosaur?

http://svpow.com/2015/06/12/will-we-...gest-dinosaur/

Why extreme climate kept the early dinosaurs from thriving in the tropics.

http://unews.utah.edu/news_releases/...ery-explained/

Yet more on a small budget dinosaur film that has recently been released with very little fanfare.

http://www.livescience.com/51213-jur...t-reviews.html

Just for Keyser, I'm bumping this thread to say that I too rather enjoyed Jurassic World. Having been a massive fan of the first film, it was a welcome return to a popcorn summer blockbuster and went a fair way to rebooting the franchise after the mediocre sequels.

I remember many people understanding the relationship between dinos and birds for the first time from the original, and me being in awe of the raptors who up until then hadn't really been in my consciousness.

Sure the film wasn't up to date with regard to modern and recent understanding of what certain dinosaurs would look like (feathers etc), but as mentioned above they did at least address this, and for a film, that's good enough for me.

I always wondered how they would top (or at least try to top) the original bad ass T-Rex as the main villain, but in the Indominus Rex they came up with a suitably 'extra' bad ass new villain, even it if was a little OTT re what they had added by blending the DNA of so many species.

The fan favourite raptors were still there but kinda on side this time, but for me I wanted more Mosasaur!

Not really a paleontology post per se, but for now anyway, it's the best I've got!

I really recommend both Fossil Wonderlands and Your Inner Fish because they are Grade A documentaries and all credit to BBC Four for showing both series at the same time.

Well Fossil Wonderlands is a repeat so I am really glad that you have caught up with it.

BBC4 is a little gem of a channel.

A lot of very interesting recent articles.

http://theconversation.com/five-amaz...inosaurs-43142

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....r-blood-cells/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/wild_thin..._dinosaur.html

http://theconversation.com/jurassic-...ver-time-42998

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...f-deinonychus/

http://blogs.plos.org/paleo/2015/06/...leontologists/

http://pseudoplocephalus.blogspot.co...dinosaurs.html

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...ife-vr-trailer

This raptor is obviously being a total dick because the bloke has got the vet to pluck all of their feathers out!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=0&v=oE4J2WFzPeI

The film does at least make the excuse about lack of feathers. All the dinosaur are genetically modified, and therefore not accurate reproductions. Frog DNA etc, it maybe excuses the lack of feathers. They can engineer them in for the next in the franchise.

Good post - only just read it.

I wanted the final confrontation to be slightly different (and more Mosasaur in the film as well) but it was far better than I expected - apart from the truly terrible pterosaur scenes.

However I do wish they would stop trying to better old rexy with something new and more 'sexy' - you can't - it was (despite all of the recent pretenders to the throne) the most formidable terrestrial carnivore in this planet's history.

Which is why JP III and the 'Godzilla' version of the huge piscivore Spinosaurus was so universally hated by dino fans.

Anyway here is an article on Troodontid nesting site fidelity.

http://westerndigs.org/remarkable-di...reeding-sites/

I really hope so.

But one great thing to come out of the success of the movie is that there are now so many articles online and in the media describing what real dinosaurs were actually like when compared to their counterparts in Jurassic World.

So now the general public will be far more aware (and accepting) of feathered dinosaurs in the future.

This is wonderful.

The Kennewick Man 'controversy' rumbles on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33170655

http://www.livescience.com/51262-ken...-american.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...n-archaeology/

Bullshit if you ask me - just how far back in time should 'respect' for our ancestors actually go?

Taken to it's logical conclusion archaeologists and palaeontologists would not be able to study any human remains or indeed any prehistoric life as we all share the same basic genetic building blocks.

Batman returns.

http://www.livescience.com/51272-pre...lking-bat.html

An interesting new study on Balaur bondoc - Dromaeosaurid or flightless bird?

https://qilong.wordpress.com/2015/06...stocky-dragon/

https://peerj.com/articles/1032/

Beautiful reconstruction by Emily Willoughby.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ueSYWdzV-N...Willoughby.jpg

The paper.

https://peerj.com/articles/1032/

Bio-engineering a 'Chickenosaurus'.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...hickenosaurus/

The great John Ostrom and his discovery of Deinonychus antirrhopus which was the beginning of the 'Dinosaur Revolution' in our understanding of these amazing animals.

http://news.yale.edu/2015/06/18/yale...jurassic-world

A nice modern reconstruction - very eagle like which is always how I imagine these predatory maniraptorans to have been.

http://orig01.deviantart.net/4ff9/f/...88-d87u3sy.jpg

Yeah, to hell with treaties and notions sovereignty, can't let these First Nations forget they are a conquered people.

It is nothing to do with colonialism but hard science.

The bloke is from almost nine millennia ago almost twice as old as the Pyramids - how far back can you trace your ancestors?

The numbers increase exponentially within a few generations so as to become absolutely meaningless.

Everyone has been a conquered people in some way throughout history - should I ask the Italians for any native Briton's skeletons back who the Roman's used as slaves?

The trouble is that the USA advocated mass genocide against the Native Americans (another bullshit term as there were human beings there before them anyway). If the Native Americans had had the superior technology they probably would have done exactly the same. Many were warrior tribes after all and incredibly brutal to more peaceful groups despite all of the PC rewriting of history.

There have always been some poor bugger under someone else's jackboot. That is what empires were all about.

As far as I am concerned any human remains over a few centuries old are worthy of research.

Science is science in my opinion.

Yep, science is science, and speaking of bullshit, did you read about the anthropologist from the Smithsonian who prematurely declared that Kennewick Man couldn't have been from the Columbia Valley because his isotopes indicated he lived on salmon, and therefore must have been costal? This, despite the fact the diaries of Lewis and Clark clearly indicate that the Columbia, before it was heavily dammed, teemed with marine life, probably including now eleven extinct salmon runs. Kind of makes me question their interest in just the science.

There are politics being played on both sides, but the evidence says that his DNA is most closely related to modern day Native Americans alive today who are fighting to preserve some semblance of their culture, and the law is on their side. Science is important, but it's not always the most important thing. I'm sure at some point in the not too distant future researchers will be able to confirm that KM in fact feasted on lamprey eel, and it will be earth-shattering, but for now I, as a Washingtonian, am siding with the Colville nation and the treaties we've made with them.

And frankly, how brutal first nations were in the past is neither here nor there as far as this discussion is concerned. I haven't rewritten any history, and you have no idea what I was taught in my Washington state school, so I'm not sure where you are going with that one.

I've watched both, but although I hate dumbed down documentaries, I found both of these just a bit too plodding at times and both would have benefited from having at least 10 minutes pruned off.

Science is always subject to change because of new evidence - that is what makes it science after all.

If you actually read my post I never accused you of anything so you have lost me there.

I was referring to the mass media in general where there have been frequently idealised depictions of historical Native American life as if to makeup for Hollywood's appalling portrayal for most of the 20th century.

I just would like this thread to be about palaeontology and not descend into an in depth political discussion.

I will say again that this bloke has been dead for nine thousand years.

Oh, I see. But aren't you the one who made it political by posting about the 'controversy' and with your commentary about the rights of the Colville being bullshit?Why do that if you aren't interested in discussing other points of view?

And I still have no idea what relevance Hollywood's depiction of Native Americans has to do with anything, but that's fine. I'll leave you to it.

I am but perhaps this is not the thread for it.

Because everything has now swung to the other extreme so as to make up for the sins of the past.

Palaeontologists and archaeologists should be allowed to study human remains over a few hundred years old from any culture as far as I am concerned. For no other reason than the advance of knowledge (also 'ancestor spirits' and 'Gods' do not exist anyway - if they do let's see some proof).

More on Balaur it appears it was indeed a secondary flightless bird.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ightless-bird/

The huge and predatory Shoebill stork is not very amused that Hollywood thinks feathered theropods cannot be menacing.

http://i.imgur.com/hOnKWdp.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/aDirHm1.jpg

An amazing bird that few have heard of - just look at that massive head!

http://i.imgur.com/lRCHgla.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/UokIEl1.jpg

A load of recent articles that may be of interest.

http://markwitton-com.blogspot.co.uk...terosaurs.html

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic....inosaurs-rise/

http://www.dw.com/en/german-lab-stag...ull/a-18529232

https://theconversation.com/dinosaur...rs-later-43413

http://www.eartharchives.org/article...-of-carnivores

http://www.eartharchives.org/article...the-south-pole

https://luisvrey.wordpress.com/2015/...s-almost-here/

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150...e-us-dinosaurs

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150...otprints-found