Talk:Dinosaur (film)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Contents |
[edit] Meganeura?
It might not have been a Meganeura. If it wasn't as big as Meganeura, and it wasn't living at the time that Meganeura lived, then it could have been a regular dragonfly. It may have been a Late Cretaceous species. I just don't see what the point is of classifying it as a Meganeura if we don't have any evidence either way. Was it labled as a Meganeura in the book? That's how we cleared up the "Talarurus" issue, it seems. dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Egg thief
Was it an oviraptor or a velociraptor that stole the egg?
- If I'm recalling the picture correctly, the things had beaks. Velociraptors didn't have beaks, but oviraptors did, so...
--Sparky the Seventh Chaos 01:13, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's not entirely true. It was an Oviraptor because of the head shape. Many people now reconstruct dromaeosaurs with beaks, and there's no evidence to suggest that velociraptors DIDN'T have them. dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Oviraptor.61.230.78.58 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
No, we construct dromaeosaurs with feathers, not beaks. Dora Nichov 00:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Factual accuracy and animals featured
-There were no "Sceildosaurus" (Scelidosaurus) in the film, whoever wrote that needs to check their refrences. Scelidosaurus is an early Jurassic herbivore, not from late Cretaceous. The closest I can get to what you meant was Talarurus, those two ankylosaurs from the opening scene. There weren't any Leptoceratops either. Those were Microceratops.
Also, the "Factual accuracy" section (which I renamed to fit the section better) was poorly written and had multiple grammar and spelling errors in it. Some were fine in those departments, but just needed to be rewritten to sound better. There were also a lot of unneccesary things that I just removed altogether, such as the "Struthiomimus were omnivores and would not have traveled alongside herbivores" bit. For one, being omnivorous (having a diet that consists of plants and meat) does not exclude many of todays' animals from living in the same habitat with herbivores. Two, due to the dire circumstances in the movie that caused the herd to form in the first place, it's safe to assume that many of these THINKING AND REASONING creatures (in the movie) would have been tossed into unfamiliar living and social conditions. There was also "Iguanodon could not swim," and "Ankylosaurus aren't so weak" which I removed due to the fact that we really don't know either way, therefore it's an assumption or a guess.
I wrote that you punk! Sorry!61.230.78.58 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Remember there sre inaccuracies, so about the Scelidosaurus... But I REALLY was wrong with those Microceratops, thanks! 61.230.78.58 12:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Here, look. There's an article about Scelidosaurus on Wikipedia. Would you please stop changing it? I'm tired of having to come here and change it back. It even states in the 2-disk collector's edition and the DK book, "The Essential Guide" that they were Talarurus. It's not a Scelidosaurus, it's a Talarurus.
I also expanded on the "animals featured," because it seemed vague.
By the way, living in the same habitat and traveling together aren't the same. So I'm re-adding that inaccuracy. Anyways, have you seen a mouse traveling with a rabbit or a mongoose traveling with a zebra just because they live in similar habitats. Come back and argue when you have. Dora Nichov 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
-Because these were portrayed as thinking, reasoning creatures, and not simply as animals following instinct, I think the "multi-cultural herd travel" concept is more plausable. I won't change it, however, because I've done enough here.
But it's still an inaccuracy. Anyways, everything so far has been setteled, so let's drop it. Dora Nichov 10:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
==Warning to whoever keeps un-editing this!==
Scelidosaurus was NOT an animal featured in this movie. The species in the opening scene (the two ankylosaurs squabbling) was Talarurus. If it gets changed back to Scelidosaurus again, I'm going to look up the IP of whoever is doing the un-editing and report their behavior to the Moderators and have YOUR IP ADDRESS BANNED FROM THIS SITE. What you're doing is an example of what they call "Sneaky Vandalism," (Wikipedia:Vandalism) going in after I've changed it, and after I've TOLD YOU THAT YOUR INFORMATION WAS WRONG, and changing it back.
Change it again, and I'll make sure that they ban your IP Address so you can't access the website at all!
All aboard the ego train! Woo-woo! dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit: Nov. 22, 06 Man, I'm sorry. I acted like an ass when I could have been civil. Sorry about that, Wikipeoples.'
Who are you?! The god of Wikipedia?! Don't talk so big. Fine, they're Talarurus, whatever. You're not "warning", you're "threatening". It's different. 61.230.78.244 08:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just a guy who wants this page free of blatant misinformation. I just can't understand why you kept changing it back when it was so obviously wrong. But whatever. It's over, you said you'd stop, let's drop it.
Why is it obviously wrong? Dora Nichov 06:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
- Why is it obviously wrong? Because Scelidosaurus didn't have a tail club like Talarurus, and Talarurus is identified in the book. Jerkov 18:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, thank you.
OK. But you don't even see the tail of the ankylosaurs. Still, I believe you. Dora Nichov 09:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
sfFu! Lue3378 03:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Dora Nichov 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Go back to /b/, Lue-ser. Rofl. Dipstikk 16:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Stiil don't get it. Dora Nichov 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! So there, Mr. Know-It-All who thinks he's the God Of Wikipedia! Dora Nichov 13:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- has any one noticed bruton looks bigger and stronger than kron yet he takes orders like a servant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.186.34.222 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] HELLO, PEOPLE! THIS IS A KIDIES MOVIE!
As I scrolled down to make a point about the content of this article, I notcied some people talking about inaccuracies. Please, go to a nerd club. I'm a dinosaur expernt or dinosaur nerd myself but this is a kidies movie. Who cares if there were no Lemurs around!
Secondly, what the hell is wrong with the editors of the following:
"Aladar, which is only complicated by Aladar's sexual attraction to Neera, Kron's sister"
I removed the word sexual. We can't have that word on a website like this. Shame on whoever wrote that. And don't give me any of that "oh kids see the word sexual and sex all the time" because some good parents can atleast protect their parent when they can.
And what sexual attraction? What demented pervert wrote sexual on an article about a Disney Movie?68.6.230.65 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, we can , and do have the word sexual on a site like this. There is nothing wrong with the word, it is in no way harmful to children and, even if it were, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. However, there is no evidence of any sexual attraction in this movie, so yes, the word should be removed. A simple piece of vandalism, I expect. risk 15:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. And the inaccuracies? We don't want people to take things seriously. Dora Nichov 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- We can have the word sexual yes. But God forbid if Disney ever intended there to be sexual attraction in a kids movie! 68.6.230.65 02:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I just don't think the word "sexual" was necessary. Knowing Disney, Aladar's attraction was most likely intended to be innocent love, not lust. It could have lead up to that with the egg, but I think it's a stretch to say that it was full-on lust. dipstikk 08:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
"As I scrolled down to make a point about the content of this article, I notcied (noticed) some people talking about inaccuracies. Please, go to a nerd club (Please, go to a shutting-up club.). I'm a dinosaur expernt (expert, no kidding.) or dinosaur nerd myself but this is a kidies (kiddie's? kiddies?) movie. Who cares if there were no Lemurs around!(?)"
- I'd say you're the last person to be telling us how to run this page, Mister "Expernt." Who cares about the lemurs? We care. We care so much, that it hurts. The "inaccuracies" portion of this article was to make sure that people who don't know a dinosaur from a gecko don't take it seriously (as Dora said), then go and, say, write a book report about it, get an F, and blame us for it.
- Or something. Either that, or we just wanted to be nosey nerdies and spray our pretentious know-it-all-isms all over the place, just to stroke our egos. One of those, probably.
- You needs to take yo'self a chill pill, buckaroo. It's not worth getting all militant over others not being as blithe about the movie as you.
Agree~! 13:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Why is Alexander listed with the Day after Tomorrow? It's a different type of inaccurate
[edit] Success?
I have no idea about how much people liked this movie, but is there any way the Box Office section could be expanded? i.e. how much money was spent during production . . . critical reception, etc., etc.Therequiembellishere 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dinosaurmovieposter.jpg
Image:Dinosaurmovieposter.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
