The Queen of Isla Nublar...

[PatrickT]

so who else got tears into his eyes when she finally made her appearance?

http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150715/qavaqnuj.jpg

I don´t want spoil anything from the movie...but it was so cool to see her again after all those years. I remember when i was a small boy and saw the first Jurassic Park. The moment when rexie comes out of her Paddock and makes her rooaarrr burned into my mind. I think most will agree that this was the most iconic scene of the 90th.

It is so cool, that she is still in Jurassic World. The info even says she is on Isla Nublar since 26 years and the main attraction. She even has the scars on her neck from her fight with the Raptors in the visitor center.

She looks older now but she still kicks ***.

1993:

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130528171123/jurassicpark/images/3/36/Tyrannosaurus_Rex_Escapes.jpg

2015:

http://orig14.deviantart.net/7712/f/2015/192/9/9/jurassic_world__return_of_the_queen__by_sonichedge hog2-d8xldwh.jpg

[EL Ziggy]

I tried to go see it this past weekend with my son and it was sold out! Gonna try again this weekend. I've heard only good things though.

[Brylee1233]

I loved how they incorporated Jurassic Park into this movie. This was such a great movie.

[prairiepanda]

I tried to go see it this past weekend with my son and it was sold out! Gonna try again this weekend. I've heard only good things though.

I saw it the week after its release, but I had to book my seats online a few days in advance and still ended up stuck really close to the front of the theater. I'd like to go again when things calm down so that I can get better seats and hopefully not be surrounded by screaming children. They did a great job on the movie.

[Aaron_S]

I took a bunch of clients to a private screening the second day it opened. Tremendous movie.

I really like the simple idea of dinosaurs killing people.

[PatrickT]

I saw it 3 times with my friends, parents and my sister. :D Its crazy that it is still booked out. I was there the first day it opened and the cinema opened a 2nd simultanous screening...and both cinema halls were completly booked out. I never saw something like this before. Some were applauding when Rexie finally had her great entrance.

I don´t want spiler anything, but the 2nd greatest thing next to Rexies battle against the Indominus was when Blue was going Ninja and allied with Rexie.

[RAD House]

I am glad this a good movie but I don't understand why you get so giddy over a cgi creation.

[PatrickT]

I am glad this a good movie but I don't understand why you get so giddy over a cgi creation.

Propably the same reason why people are fans of Super Mario, Bat Man, Spiderman, Tina Turner, Lady Gaga and evry other creation of the entertainment industry.

[Albert Clark]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but definitely on the to do list.

[ManSlaughter33]

I am glad this a good movie but I don't understand why you get so giddy over a cgi creation.

Me being a huge nerd, I get giddy playing video games, or when
I see certain characters in movies...Like Advent Children lol

now seeing an iconic character brought back.. and it being a dinosaur is just fanastic

[prairiepanda]

I am glad this a good movie but I don't understand why you get so giddy over a cgi creation.

Nostalgia, mostly. The Jurassic Park movies, particularly the first one, were a huge influence to me growing up. Seeing the very same T. rex, scars and all, brought back was a big deal! I would liken the feeling to seeing Leonard Nemoy reprise his role as Spock in the new Star Trek. Sure, Rexy is CG, but they easily could have used any random T. rex or even another species entirely. Instead they chose the specific T. rex that filled me with wonder as a child.

Would have been even cooler if they brought back the original giant robot T. rex with added scars rather than just pure CG, but I'm not sure what happened to that beast.

[RAD House]

The first film also was a huge part of my childhood, but that is not the film most are talking about. In the first film they portrayed the T rex as a predator with no motivation but too survive, which no matter who can agree would be accurate. Where they really started to develop the ''character'' was in the later films. It is ridiculous how they started to humanize these creatures. Even the idea of her being a protective mother is based on very little fact and was more for story than accuracy. It is some what of a tragedy what these movies became. They would have been smart to follow the books more closely. I have not seen the newest one but hope it is as good as you all say.

[PatrickT]

The first film also was a huge part of my childhood, but that is not the film most are talking about. In the first film they portrayed the T rex as a predator with no motivation but too survive, which no matter who can agree would be accurate. Where they really started to develop the ''character'' was in the later films. It is ridiculous how they started to humanize these creatures. Even the idea of her being a protective mother is based on very little fact and was more for story than accuracy. It is some what of a tragedy what these movies became. They would have been smart to follow the books more closely. I have not seen the newest one but hope it is as good as you all say.

You should check your facts. It is almost absolute certain that T rex were fiercly defending their young. After all they are birds and no bird species exist that does not care for its young. And even if you claim this to be speculative we can still take the T rex Sue. The massive female that now resides in the Chicago fields museum, which was found united with two juvenile T rex. The smaller one had a living weight about 30 kg. Considering the fact that other Theropods like Troodon and Oviraptor are known to be good mothers the fossil evidence proves that T rex cared for its young. Propably even until it reached an age about 2 years.

That scientific facts aside, why would they have been smart to follow the books, which were mostly not very popular and most people don´t even know exist.

The latest movie made 1.5 billion $. They propably were smart to do exactly what they did.

[PatrickT]

Nostalgia, mostly. The Jurassic Park movies, particularly the first one, were a huge influence to me growing up. Seeing the very same T. rex, scars and all, brought back was a big deal! I would liken the feeling to seeing Leonard Nemoy reprise his role as Spock in the new Star Trek. Sure, Rexy is CG, but they easily could have used any random T. rex or even another species entirely. Instead they chose the specific T. rex that filled me with wonder as a child.

Would have been even cooler if they brought back the original giant robot T. rex with added scars rather than just pure CG, but I'm not sure what happened to that beast.

As far as i know the robot was mostly used for pretty static scenes back then. Like when she attacked the tour cars. For the dynamic scenes(when she breaks out of her paddock, eats the lawyer, chaes the Jeep, hunts the Gallilimus and fights the Raptors) they used CGI back then. Consodering the fact that all her scenes in JW were pretty dynamic i don´t think the old Robot would be able to perform this.

[prairiepanda]

The first film also was a huge part of my childhood, but that is not the film most are talking about. In the first film they portrayed the T rex as a predator with no motivation but too survive, which no matter who can agree would be accurate. Where they really started to develop the ''character'' was in the later films. It is ridiculous how they started to humanize these creatures. Even the idea of her being a protective mother is based on very little fact and was more for story than accuracy. It is some what of a tragedy what these movies became. They would have been smart to follow the books more closely. I have not seen the newest one but hope it is as good as you all say.

The creators were trying to reflect the latest discoveries of the time, among which was evidence of maternal care in T. rex. In the first film she did not have any offspring, so this information was irrelevant. I do admit that the newest movie anthropomorphized all the dinosaurs a bit, though, especially in the final battle. That didn't detract from my nostalgic feelings, though. Jurassic World was a lot less educational than the original Jurassic Park(if it was educational at all...maybe not), but with Jurassic World the greater appeal is action, which was delivered well.

[sirtalis]

This was one of my favorite movies this year :)

[RAD House]

You should check your facts. It is almost absolute certain that T rex were fiercly defending their young. After all they are birds and no bird species exist that does not care for its young. And even if you claim this to be speculative we can still take the T rex Sue. The massive female that now resides in the Chicago fields museum, which was found united with two juvenile T rex. The smaller one had a living weight about 30 kg. Considering the fact that other Theropods like Troodon and Oviraptor are known to be good mothers the fossil evidence proves that T rex cared for its young. Propably even until it reached an age about 2 years.

That scientific facts aside, why would they have been smart to follow the books, which were mostly not very popular and most people don´t even know exist.

The latest movie made 1.5 billion $. They propably were smart to do exactly what they did.

Wrong. Sue was not found with juveniles and scientist are not even sure Sue was a female. The remains are important as they are the most complete specimen found to this date. The fact is that no T. rex nests or eggs have been discovered. Also the few juveniles that have been found and they are not even sure if they are the same species or Nanotyrannus. Birds are decedents of a small, likely gregarious, species of dinosaur that was not closesly related to T. rex. Check your facts, mate.

[ManSlaughter33]

Maybe T rex gave birth to live young like boas Lol

[PatrickT]

Wrong. Sue was not found with juveniles and scientist are not even sure Sue was a female. The remains are important as they are the most complete specimen found to this date. The fact is that no T. rex nests or eggs have been discovered. Also the few juveniles that have been found and they are not even sure if they are the same species or Nanotyrannus. Birds are decedents of a small, likely gregarious, species of dinosaur that was not closesly related to T. rex. Check your facts, mate.

T rex is a tyrannosaurid. Tyrannosauridae for most parts were small creatures (Guanlong for example). Birds are theropods and so are Tyrannosauridae. Not only that, there is not one archosaurus known who has no maternal feelings. Be it birds or crocodiles. The brain of T rex (as it is of all Tyrannosaurids) is birdlike and is much larger developed than that of Allosauridae.

Sue was found united with 2 juveniles by her side. Thats a simple fact. There was also one bone from an Edmontosaurus found inside Sues ribcage and that one was acid etched and was most likely part of her last meal.

Maybe you should deepen your knowledge about the topic before you offend someone to "check his facts".

[millertime89]

Am I the only one that was kind of disappointed with the movie? I dunno, it just didn't live up to my expectations I guess. I enjoyed it but nowhere near as much as I thought I would.

[RAD House]

I think you need to have a better understanding of biology and evolution before you start making statements about said fields. Yes they are both part of therapoda but this in now way means that birds are decendents of Tyrannosauridae. Therapoda is a large group of ancestrally carnivorous type dinosaurs with a tremendous amount of diversity. With in this group there is a clade Coelurosauria that both the ancestors of birds and tyrannosaurs belong to but this is where the similarities stop. Tyrannosauridae is grouped together by one major characteristic, that they possessed relatively small arms. Now do you believe that this characteristic would lead to the formation of wings? Also they were quite large and the first birds were small animals.

Show me where you found Sue was found with two offspring, because nothing I have read states this. Just to be clear you told me to check my facts first.

[sirtalis]

@millertime, i totally agree, i was expecting much more but i still really liked the movie :)

[Aaron_S]

Am I the only one that was kind of disappointed with the movie? I dunno, it just didn't live up to my expectations I guess. I enjoyed it but nowhere near as much as I thought I would.

Dinosaurs attacking people? Amazing CGI? Chris Pratt? I'm sold!

The key is low expectations.

[PatrickT]

I think you need to have a better understanding of biology and evolution before you start making statements about said fields. Yes they are both part of therapoda but this in now way means that birds are decendents of Tyrannosauridae. Therapoda is a large group of ancestrally carnivorous type dinosaurs with a tremendous amount of diversity. With in this group there is a clade Coelurosauria that both the ancestors of birds and tyrannosaurs belong to but this is where the similarities stop. Tyrannosauridae is grouped together by one major characteristic, that they possessed relatively small arms. Now do you believe that this characteristic would lead to the formation of wings? Also they were quite large and the first birds were small animals.

Show me where you found Sue was found with two offspring, because nothing I have read states this. Just to be clear you told me to check my facts first.

lol

show me a single archosaur that doesn´t show caring for its young. Before you are able to do so this topic is just a waste of time. Considering the fact that the more basal group crocodialia does care for its young and the more advanced group Theropoda (which T rex is a member from) shows they cared very well for their young.

Most Tyrannosauridae were small animals and they are not characterized by small arms. They are classified by their skullbones. Infact more tyrannosauridae had large and strong arms. You would label Abelisaurids as tyrannosaurds because Abelisurids have much shorter arms than T rex?

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/cooldinofacts/images/8/86/Dilong-M.Shiraishi.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20121106214515

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Dilong_paradoxus_size_01.jpg/220px-Dilong_paradoxus_size_01.jpg

Guanlong was another tyrannosaurid which was far smaller than a human beeing.

http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22200000/Guanlong-dinosaurs-22232167-325-322.jpg

As for Birds. They most likely developed from Maniraptora which a simply another group of the Coelurosauria. They are formed by the following subgroups:

†Sciurumimus



†Tugulusaurus



†Zuolong


Tyrannoraptora

†Tyrannosauroidea


†Sinocalliopteryx




†Compsognathidae



†Ornitholestidae


Maniraptoriformes

†Ornithomimosauria



Maniraptora

We know that Troodon layed two eggs per day and when the nest was full started breeding. Same counts for Oviraptoridae.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5YGuRw4kkbg/VTFOpCyt7LI/AAAAAAAABTQ/a6bHW-9WIBk/s1600/Norell%2Bet%2Bal%2B1999.JPG

Considering the fact that even dinosaurs like Maiasaura, who was extremly far from T rex in the cladistic showed the typical care for their young that all archosaurs show it would be highly unlikely that T rex would be the only archosaur that did not care for its young.

As for Sue and the two juveniles. I have the german article and doubt you understand it, so you should switch to her close relative Albertosaurus, who was found in large family groups. Since no other predators were found within those groups we know it was not simply a predator trap. It were highly intelligent and social creatures.

You have shown clearly to not understand this subject. That you believed Tyrannosaurids are grouped together because small arms made me laugh.

Well let me help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosauroidea

[RAD House]

I can not read German, but I can pretty readily use translators. Also as Sue was not found in Germany or by a German I doubt the accuracy of your source. Everything you post proves my point that birds did not descend from tyrannosaurs. They share a common ancestor that was a small dinosaur, but that is all you can say as birds fill an entirely different niche than a giant predator. I am not sure how you read that Wikipedia article but I think you should look again, or maybe find a translated version. Even if you based the T. rex on its closest related extant creatures you would get a creature much more similar to the first movie than you would the character that was developed. Comparing a distantly related dinosaur as proof that all dinosaurs were motherly is like comparing cats and dogs, cladistically. I will make this simple for you. There is no viable proof that any tyranoid was motherly to the extent they did in the movie.

[prairiepanda]

Am I the only one that was kind of disappointed with the movie? I dunno, it just didn't live up to my expectations I guess. I enjoyed it but nowhere near as much as I thought I would.

I went in expecting some horrible series-destroying sequel, so I was pleasantly surprised and liked it quite a lot. It's all about the expectations you went in with. If you were expecting the wonder and awe of the first movie, well...maybe you haven't seen many movie sequels? I've learned to expect very little from sequels, so when they turn out like this I'm quite happy :p


Amazing CGI?
That one's a bit of a stretch...I'll grant them some leniency because they had a huge amount of CGI that they had to do compared to some other movies, but for such a high budget movie with a great box office forecast? I wouldn't call it "amazing". Good, yes, but not amazing. Saw a lot of lazy texturing and frequent use of motion blur to excuse the use of fewer frames per second on moving objects. I did expect better CGI.

[Aaron_S]

I went in expecting some horrible series-destroying sequel, so I was pleasantly surprised and liked it quite a lot. It's all about the expectations you went in with. If you were expecting the wonder and awe of the first movie, well...maybe you haven't seen many movie sequels? I've learned to expect very little from sequels, so when they turn out like this I'm quite happy :p



That one's a bit of a stretch...I'll grant them some leniency because they had a huge amount of CGI that they had to do compared to some other movies, but for such a high budget movie with a great box office forecast? I wouldn't call it "amazing". Good, yes, but not amazing. Saw a lot of lazy texturing and frequent use of motion blur to excuse the use of fewer frames per second on moving objects. I did expect better CGI.

It's a movie. Not an essay. No reason to dissect it as such.

[PatrickT]

I can not read German, but I can pretty readily use translators. Also as Sue was not found in Germany or by a German I doubt the accuracy of your source. Everything you post proves my point that birds did not descend from tyrannosaurs. They share a common ancestor that was a small dinosaur, but that is all you can say as birds fill an entirely different niche than a giant predator. I am not sure how you read that Wikipedia article but I think you should look again, or maybe find a translated version. Even if you based the T. rex on its closest related extant creatures you would get a creature much more similar to the first movie than you would the character that was developed. Comparing a distantly related dinosaur as proof that all dinosaurs were motherly is like comparing cats and dogs, cladistically. I will make this simple for you. There is no viable proof that any tyranoid was motherly to the extent they did in the movie.

You doubt the accurancy of an scientific article because it is german? racism much? I doubt that you know anything about that topic at all since you made so many wrong assumptions that i stopped counting. Best was the "short arms" comment about tyrannosauridae. :D Whats next? You claim all fish are reptiles because they have scales? Excuse me but i assume thats meant in a comical way?

That said you should propably read some articles written after 1953. Your imagination about those animals seems to remain in the 50th where it was believed that they were sluggish, stupid and slow reptiles.

I'm happy that i could teach you something. Be open for science. You will see it is amazing.

P.s. i still wait for any archosaur that does not care for its young. :) You seem to avoid that. Also how an animal with a brain almost 100 similar to that of birds, with evry relative showing maternal care should behave like a sluggish, stupid reptile when evrything imdicates just a massive bird. And please tell me who told you tyrannosaurs are classified by their small arms. :D

[RAD House]

I doubt the article because it is so far detached from the source. Not to mention being German is not your race so I could not be considered racist. There are only two branches of Archosaurs still extant and neither of them is directly related to the Tyrannosaurs. Neither of these branches even closely resembles the ecological niche or tremendous proportions that the T. rex embodied. Not only this but these branches are a hundred or so million years removed from the creature we speak of. If you were truly as smart as you think you are then I should not have to explain all of these points several times in asinine amounts detail. I get the feeling you have not read much at all beyond Wikipedia and even then seem to not fully grasp it. Kiddo, I have a lot from many people on here but you are not one of them.

[Aaron_S]

For a bunch of long dead creatures there sure is a lot of fact about them...

[SnoopySnake]

For a bunch of long dead creatures there sure is a lot of fact about them...

LOL right...

[RAD House]

For a bunch of long dead creatures there sure is a lot of fact about them...

I agree with your sarcasm, that is why I said the film made way too much based on conjecture. If you want to make a monster movie than I am all for it, but sell it as such.

[sirtalis]

I've always read that sue was found alone, when i was 12ish i read a ton about her and from what i remember, she was found alone. I also always thought/read that the important part of her discovery was the completeness of her fossilized skeleton.

[PatrickT]

I doubt the article because it is so far detached from the source. Not to mention being German is not your race so I could not be considered racist. There are only two branches of Archosaurs still extant and neither of them is directly related to the Tyrannosaurs. Neither of these branches even closely resembles the ecological niche or tremendous proportions that the T. rex embodied. Not only this but these branches are a hundred or so million years removed from the creature we speak of. If you were truly as smart as you think you are then I should not have to explain all of these points several times in asinine amounts detail. I get the feeling you have not read much at all beyond Wikipedia and even then seem to not fully grasp it. Kiddo, I have a lot from many people on here but you are not one of them.


lol Tyrannosaurds are theropods, so are birds. T rex is closer related to birds than crocodiles. That said i won´t discuss this topic any further with someone who knows as much about science as Kim Kardashian knows about old sumerian.

That said i was the one brining facts, you brought up some nonsense and bullshit. case closed.

[RAD House]

Oh man this is too easy, so I will leave it before I get myself in trouble. All I will say is that that I hope they reverted to their original portrayal for this movie, but I am sure they did not. I will most likely wait till it comes out on blue ray to see it.

[PatrickT]

Oh man this is too easy, so I will leave it before I get myself in trouble. All I will say is that that I hope they reverted to their original portrayal for this movie, but I am sure they did not. I will most likely wait till it comes out on blue ray to see it.

Its not like they need your money. They already made 1.5 billion.

[Jrich]

Sh*t just got real.

[millertime89]

Watch your language guys or we'll lock this thread.