CORRECTIONl I apparently said the fossil pterosaur assemblages from Morocco were from Mexico! I clearly had Mexico on the brain because of how much time I spent talking about it and didn't notice during editing.
I know what it’s sapost to be Quotropitosaurus a dinosaur for this movie I know that from a MindQu video that used that name when he placed that dinosaur as number 10 in top 10 most powerful movie dinosaurs
65's dinosaurs are closer to AI generated slurpasaurs and I don't understand why the filmmakers decided to abandon the idea of accurate dinosaurs. Accurate dinosaurs like a proper T. rex was the original intention according to their leaked concept designs and early 3D models.
If all dinosaurs were to be depicted as "accurate"lmao "no such thing btw" this channel wouldnt even exist, & neither of us would be even thinking about boring ass dinosaurs. Good luck getting movie hype worked up over a obese T- rex looking at you, then slowly walking away lol. Slurpisaurs is why we are all here, not Prehistoric Planet. You paleobros keep trying to forget that, wanting a new generation to experience dinosaurs in a much lamer way than what you grew up with. So selfish smh
One could say that wider appeal made them abandon the accurate designs. But Prehistoric Planet easily showed that quality and wide appeal is achievable when portraying everything accurately.
Honestly, considering the concept art for tarpit scene originally had a Lystrosaurus and then later, a baby Ankylosaur, I doubt that the final animal is even meant to be Jakapil. It feels more like they had already filmed the scene when the victim was still an Ankylosaur, with practical effects used in certain shots, then at the last minute they reedited the scene with the supposed 'Jakapil'. Which, seeing that the movie had notoriously negative test screenings, that certainly seems to be case. On an unrelated note, it kinda sucks that they ditched the idea of setting the film during the Triassic in favor of being yet another movie set in the Cretaceous. There's nothing inherently wrong with setting a story in the Cretaceous, especially if you want to include more famous dinos in your story like T. Rex and Triceratops. But there's plenty of untapped potential in using the Triassic as the setting. Especially since the Triassic is well known for having bizarre animals like Tanystropheus and Atopodentatus; and even the earliest dinosaurs from that time would have been nearly unrecognizable compared to later species. Overall it feels like they wanted to try something new at first, but then chickened out and decided to play it safe. 😒
@@Bullboy_Adventures RickRaptor goes into more detail about this. But from what I understand, when it came to the tarpit scene specifically, the studio interpreted the negative feedback as less herbivores and more carnivores. Because carnivores are cooler/scarier (their words). But considering the original scene had a baby Ankylosaurus, (which I forgot to mention, was missing a leg), which likely had suffered the same fate as the 'Jakapil' in the final cut. It's possible the response was more towards the sudden death of an already disabled animal and less 'Oooh, meat-eaters are cooler!' It doesn't help that the 'Jakapil' looks more like a baby theropod with armour plating slapped on top.
I remember when me and my dad finished this movie we were like "Man we get it’s not a documentary, but this is complete bullshit." It feels like they didn’t want to put in the effort actually research the animals and environment and just pulled everything out of their asses. I get feathers are hard to animate, but still. Also the lack of herbivores is totally because they thought they couldn’t be scary enough. As if a 10 ton tank with horns wouldn’t make you shit yourself. Same reason as to why they made the animals so monstrous: they didn’t think they were scary enough on their own. They’re literally the kind of people to see a bear and go "It’s fluffy it’s not scary." The movie frustrates me so hard because it had that golden opportunity to not only introduce audiences to more accurate dinosaurs, but also provide some decent dinosaur media that isn’t Jurassic. It failed at both.
Correction : The armored theropod is not a jakapil , the release to the public of the creature doesn't match the movie's production , it was revealed by the movie's material that it was originally some sort of ankylosaurid but at the end they changed the design for audience complains , it probably was just a made up creature reusing the base model they had just like the supposed falosuchus who originally was a triceratops and a t rex .
Personally, I like to think of the “QuadRex” as I call it to be a sort of speculative organism. I call it “Rhedosaurus Glaurungi” which is a reference to both the Rhedosaurus from the Beast From 20,000 Fathoms and the dragon Glaurung from J. R. R Tolkien’s books. It’s a large quadrupedal crocodilian similar to Fallosuchus with a large Abelisaur-like snout. It lumbers around eating either small dinosaurs like Leptoceratops or scavenges off the kills from the much more agile Tyrannosaurus.
I hear the original cut had more herbivores like ankylosaurus and triceratops, but for whatever reason it was cut, and remains lost media. Could've at least shown that herbivores are just as dangerous as carnivorous animals. I haven't seen i dinosaur movie showing aggressive herbivores since the original king kong!
I couldn’t help, but wonder if the directors wanted to go with scientifically accurate dinosaurs, considering the amount of scientifically accurate concept art we had. But then the producers (people giving them money) budged in and said “no we need to make them more Jurassic Park otherwise we will stop funding your project”, ruining what little was there in the first place.
I would like to see you make a video discussing the on the debate wether or not theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurids and Spinosaurids, had lips or not.
@15:40 is it possible they were trying to depict a juvinile? and thats why the head is big and the spikes not pronounced? (not trying to defend bad writing but, to be fair, and at 26:30 that rex model is also heavily scared possibly from territorial skirmishes, is it possible that the lips had been removed in combat with another large predator? other than that i agree with your assesment and thats not saying im disagreeing with any of it i just find a couple points debateble for fun
The meter is the distance a photon travels in 1/299792458 of a second in a vacuum. So it's possible an alien species would use that unit. The goal has been to standardize units based on universal constants.
Nevermind, even though seconds are based on caesium's resonant frequency there other assumptions that goes into meter. I guess it is possible they would use a similarish unit of measurement but it wouldn't be one for one. Honestly out of the problems this movie has, using km is the least of them.
honestly weird as it may be to say this movie was refreshing seeing dinosaurs as monsters was almost kathartic and i'm a bit ashamed to admit that ps: that superpredator thing was truly a wtf moment i will however prefice that this is a science fiction movie that suggests humans are aliens so the dinosaurs have no reason to be realistic in fact realism would detract from the somewhat horror monster aspect these dinos have i would have hoped a large portion of the comments on this video would understand that not everything with dinosaurs in it needs to be 100% accurate to real life all the time kinda disapointed so far weird to have to explain this when all dinosaur media for 30 years has been saying the dinosaurs died out from a massive astroid impact 65 million years ago hence why the movie is named that normies which the vast majority of people are don't know dinosaurs died out 66 million years ago hell thats news to me and i've been a dino fan since i was 3
Good thing you said this was for fun, cause I literally cant stand you paleobros whineing that everything not prehistoric plant sux. Newsflash Chief, your dinosaurs are as inaccurate as the 65 ones, seeing theres no such thing as an accurate dinosaur - full stop. Also, remind me to not sit next to you in a theater when Godzilla x Kong drops lol
@@NateL1992 Ha haaah! I just now watched the whole thing, & I believe I counted at least ( 4 times ) him repeating the same line of how the paleo consultants of 65, wished to remain anonymous . lmao Sounds like he took the movie, as well as this upload, as more than a fun little diversion/joke, than what the upload started out with at the beginning
Fun fact, there are fossilized mummies, skin imprints, feather imprints, eggs, and preserved remnants of the things that color dinosaurs. We know more than just bones
When the dinosaurs look more alien than the actual aliens in the movie... I've said this in the comment section of another review, but if your dinosaurs make the ones from the Jurassic World trilogy look like they came from a documentary series, you are doing something *seriously* wrong and should never be allowed to cook again.
The people behind this movie flat-out LIED in the behind-the-scenes stuff! They completely SUBTRACT from dinosaur media! They didn't want to make a dinosaur movie, they wanted to make either a monster movie or an alien movie! And considering the fact they took their words seriously as if they actually WERE trying to make an "accurate depiction of the late Cretaceous period" is an ABSOLUTE joke! There were NO attempts made to make this movie accurate or entertaining! There is NOTHING about this movie that screams "dinosaur movie" to me because it has JUST as much to do with aliens than it does actual dinosaurs! This isn't a dinosaur movie, this is a pile of slop not even TRYING to act like it's a dinosaur movie! Jurassic World at least has ACTUAL ANIMALS in its movies! They're inaccurate but they're still animals that actually existed other than the hybrids!
I'm convinced this was a script for a new Alien movie (like Ridley Scott's Alien) that some Hollywood producer left on the breakfast table while their four year old child was playing with dinosaur toys and convinced them to put their favorite toys into the movie instead. What a waste on what could have been such an incredible idea
I guarantee that if a version of 65 had dinosaur models resembling the ones from Prehistoric Planet, capturing their naturalistic wonder and potential for danger, it would have been a genuine success.
Idk, the rest of the movie besides the dinosaurs is pretty boring. Maybe it would become a cult classic among the palaeo community like Walking with Dinosaurs 2013, but I doubt more accurate dinosaurs would fix all of 65's problems.
as pointed out on a video from Dino Guy, why accurate dinosaurs are important: most people get the information about prehistory from this kind of movie, they are not interested in paleo-documentary or reading a book
Hate to defend this shitty movie but the use of “meters” is certainly non-diegetic. Meaning translated into meters for the audience it wouldn’t mean these aliens have the same measurement units in universe just like I don’t see it as a flaw that a movie in Ancient Rome has them speaking American English. It’s translated
Honestly, I still have yet to see the movie itself. But when I see that interview clip in the context of the stuff from the actual movie I’ve seen, I can’t help but think that the guy in the interview clip was talking about a different movie entirely.
Fun fact: They've actually found mammals as large as Black Bears just a few hundred-thousand years after the K-T mass extinction. No joke, look it up...
Don’t try to rationalize choices that only come from « wow,i saw something like this in walking with dinosaurs, it looked cool, let’s do a quadrupedal monster thing »
Ngl I joked about this movie being a remake to planet of the dinosaurs from 1977 i know that movie has “alien dinosaurs“ as said in the IMDb page but still and this movie had so many changes that it actually would’ve made it different then the ones we have, even rickraptor105 made a video and mentioned many stuff that weren’t in the final product. I enjoyed this video that you’ve created
@anthroposlogica9379 carnosaur ( which were accurate for the time) jurassic park (which has dinosaurs that were accurate but has been by Hollywood over time)
It’s actually a good film me and my family quite enjoyed and we’re scared of it but there some problems like the wish the theropod arrived earlier to have a dinosaur battle with the 2 T. rex and wishing there some sauropods,hardorsaurs ceratopsians and other late Cretaceous Dino’s but Dude you forgot the hadrosaur carcass and the creature that just emerged from the forest also I think T. rex seen before the raptors tried to kill mills.
Between the short-robust snout, the snaggletoothed maw, the osteoderms along the back, the theropod-like limbs, and the semi-quadrupedal gait I don't think the "Fasolasuchus" is meant to be a Rauisuchian or Sebecosuchian... I think its just Jurassic World's Indominus. If I were to go full Doylist in the explanation, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the executives and/or designers just wanted to swipe the hybrid for their flick explanations be damned. 65 really drives home to me that the people making this movie don't like dinosaurs because dinosaurs are fascinating real world animals, but because to them dinosaurs are cool movie monsters like werewolves or zombies. To them "Indominus" is just as real a dinosaur as any other... if not more real because it's been in a movie that millions of people have seen.
Probably the best accuracy review of 65 on RU-vid. Well done (and condolences for the braincells you lost watching this movie). In addition to ripping off designs from Jurassic World and King Kong, never understood the need to make the dinosaurs look so skinny. The Lagosuchus seemingly lack organs, the T. rexes look like the only thing holding their skeletons together are tendons and skin, and the Oviraptor looks like a Darkseeker from I am Legend. The filmmakers tried so hard to make them edgy and scary, that they end up looking so weak that a gust of wind would kill them.
I'm just glad I'm not the only one mad about the horrible frankensaurs in this movie. And they're not the only disappointing aspects of the film, not by a long shot
I think the quadapedal carnivore could be a reference to the Rhedosaurus from The Beast from 20, 000 Fathoms. But, this looks just be another "dinosaurs are monster" movie, which is ok, but i seriously don't view as being scientifically accurate.
It was obvious they weren't interested in any vague concept of realism when they had that weird naked dromeasaur attacking Adam Driver like it was rabid.
3:22 Translation. We wouldn't understand what they actually used for measurements so it was converted to the metric system for convenience. I don't know if that's the actual in-universe explanation but I think it makes as much sense as anything.
the only good thing that came out of 65 was the fact that fasolasuchus and jakapil finally got some level of recognition outside of the paleo community.
This a gripe I have with the second Meg movie. You could've introduced a lot of unique and interesting creatures from the fossil record like what the books did but instead gave us generic lizard/amphibian monsters and a kraken.
Whole film was a joke, too many inaccuracies to count e.g. Asteroid ground zero was likely underwater at the time of impact. My biggest problem with this film is the revelation that Adam Driver is an alien species identical to humans (unnecessarily overcomplicated and plain wrong)
Oh! The claw he finds is actually the first digital claw of a megaraptor actually. I actually own the exact replica they used in the movie, and was deeply amused to see something I own show up as a prop in a movie. And in the spirit of this video, Id like to point out that there is no evidence of megaraporans in North america, and seem to have been almost exclusively confined to the southern hemisphere, a few basal exceptions from asia aside. Oh, also checking wikipedia to double check some stuff, the exact cast in the movie and also on a shelf a couple feet from me as I type this is actually currently on the Wikipedia page for Megaraptor, if you want to see what Im talking about.
@@geoduckgeoscience4300 I honestly would have probably assumed it was a therizinosaur or maybe even a spinosaur claw before a Megaraptor myself if I didn't have the exact prop lol.
You sound like an "Erm, actually.." nerd. Me being a fellow nerd this seems super cringe. I think literally nobody looked at this movie and thought it would just be a cool romp. It's been that way since Jurassic Park. Even paleontologists don't know for sure what the animals were like.
Honestly, my biggest problem with this movie is that it feels really rushed. I feel if we had gotten at least a half hour to build chemistry between our main characters, it could have worked.
Apparently the Jakapili was originallly a baby Dicynodont, then baby ankylosaur, and the Triassic animals are relics from an earlier script where the characters landed in the Triassic. First the Triassic script, then a version with a lot of herbivores, were nixed by producers and the latter by test audiences. The movie was almost less terrible TWICE but each time there was this enslavement to Jurassic Park cliches. I wonder if the same thing happened in the Jurassic World movies and they were almost watchable until they changed late in the production.
Yeah. No. This movie reeked from beginning to end. I went in hoping for something that I’d already seen, in trailers that was going to not, in any way, hold water as being a film presented as Earth prehistory because the trailers, even trying to not show too much of the animal life, did show nonsensical renderings of things that never existed on this planet. It removed me immediately from the entire narrative of the story. This did work for the other’s who I watched it with who did not have any clear knowledge of current paleontological understanding. Some goofs were handed the keys of the CGI car and went for a joy ride created half assed monsters, not anything dinosaurian. If you have not seen it and like some accuracy in your dinoflicks and are tired of contrived by the numbers storylines, sit this one out.
I will say all of these dinosaurs particularly the rex and the largosuchus give toruk vibes in the stylisation choices. Funky teeth super super skinny and weird humpbacks.
I took it as playing with the idea of humans from a vast and ancient lost past empire and we on the planet now are the last remnants or a lost group ect. Also it was just easier to pretend its a monster movie with dinosaur-esque creatures on the planet lol
@@Xenotaris yes, but we need more evidence of proof like, for example, we now know that hadrosaurs have hooves at the front of their feet, since there was a mummified hadrosaur
I'm so happy I found your video. I can't tell you how many videos I had to go through to find this EXACT kind of video. Most are people that have no idea about dinosaurs.
Crazy how the most accurate animal in this movie isn't even a dinosaur and it has eyes where its nostrils should be. That's the kind of mistake you'd see a Paleontologist from the 1890s make.
As far as them knowing metric system, I'm just spitballing here but maybe the A.I. tech he has on hand and in the crashed craft is capable of doing plant scans and determining units of measurement based on plant topography and geographic measures.
But why would it choose the same arbitrary _metric_ (see what I did there?) As we did? Why not the whole circumferance of the planet? Why devise a whole new measurement system for every planet you visit? Honestly I'd find it more plausible it was just a 'translation,' and not actually meters. I mean on earth we've got yards, lines, meters, cubits, etc, I'm assuming space humans would naturally measure with a similar scale to us, so they were 'actually' saying some alien measurement, that was translated to meters for the audience.
![How Accurate is 65? [This Dinosaur Movie Killed My Brain]](/img/logo.svg){kind=logo}
