#that quote from jurassic park

[koiinoborii]

A man that has fleas and a few ethics violations

[claypigeonpottery]

sold

there's always a second magpie somewhere

[liselicanis]

Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. - Dr. Alan Grant, Jurassic Park III

The thing about Ramattra being unable to truly understand Mondatta's teachings, along with sentience being shoved upon him by Aurora when she decided to share her gift with all omnics, is that it goes against what he was coded to do.

A Ravager class. An omnic designed to lead others against humans.

We see a bit of it in the cutscene after the Gothenburg mission. All the omnics there have blue vision receptors while Ramattra's has remained red. And in the world Overwatch exists, red is evil.

If we were to hold that also to something a little older in media, I, Robot comes to mind. The robots there had a blue interface before it changed to red to signify that something was wrong. No longer good, now a force to be reckoned with.

But back to Ramattra.

He does regret his actions from the Omnic Crisis, which is what led him to the Shambali in the first place. Tried to devote himself to peace, and for a while it worked. For a bit.

Mondatta preached how he and all his brothers and sisters, whether they were circuitry or flesh were one underneath the Iris. This is said with benevolence, something only Mondatta could say. Not much is known of what Mondatta did before the Crisis. Was he too corrupted by Anubis? Or was he left untouched, an omnic that probably had already lived in Nepal under service of the people who lived there?

Speculation, speculation, we will never know. For now at least. What we do know is that despite all the time he spent at the monastery, Ramattra could not fully let go of what his original purpose was. It was always there, locked in a small box until one day he took note at how his people, his brothers and sisters were but a single generation.

Omnics cannot create new life while humans can. Once an omnic can no longer keep themselves up to date, what happens then? And then there is open hostility against their people too. An entire continent decided to nuke itself to get rid of an omnium. One of it's cities makes a bloodsport of hunting any poor omnic that mistakenly wanders into their midst.

It's a bitter feeling that digs itself beneath his wires and metal. How is it that humans can go on living while his people are left behind? Humans fear another crisis so almost all omniums have been shut down. Any God AI left are either quarantined or has met their end as Anubis did.

Aurora cannot provide any answers. Why curse him with sentience? Why is it that he is the only Ravager left? What is his purpose now?

Questions upon questions that no one can answer. And when he tried to find them on his own, that locked box was essentially forced back open.

It is so very easy to return to what he originally was. It will be different this time because the difference between then and now is that Ramattra has sentience. He makes the calls but now he is making mistakes. Big ones that has caused him to lose companions. Either at the hands of humans or because he himself drove them away with his mad pursuit of what he perceives to be a better life for his people.

And if they won't follow him, well, he'll force them to. No matter the cost. Whatever it takes until he breaks.

[tsibeyantiger]

You know what I love about Jurassic World? That it makes the "We won't make the same mistakes again- No, this time you're making totally new ones" quote entirely come true. Jurassic Park failed because they put dangerous animals they hardly knew anything about in a theme park setting and thought they could control them- and then, surprised pikachu face, it turned out they couldn't. But the point is, they actually learned from it. In Jurassic World, they knew more about the animals, their wants and needs, their natural behaviour, and designed the park around it. They didn't try to control the animals in situations where they couldn't, and focused on avoiding these situations and keeping everything in a setting where they actually COULD keep them under control. And it worked AMAZINGLY WELL. While Jurassic Park already failed when it was still under construction, Jurassic World opened its gates for the public. Hell, they were able to allow people to go canoeing next to sauropodes without having a single accident. The park was open for a long time and was incredibly successful. And then, they decided to create a new spectacular dinosaur just out of pure spite. They didn't know what kind of animal they were creating, and neither they cared. And then, shocker!, said animal destroyed Jurassic World because no one could predict how it would behave.

Jurassic Park is not a series about the dangers of bioengineering. It is a series about how capitalist greed turns bioengineering into a catastrophe.

[papermonkeyism]

Very sorry if you've talked about this before, but how much do you focus on/care about making the plantlife in your Dinosaur Project Thingy accurate for the time and place?

Asking both because I'm generally very curious, and because personally, every time I make it past my anxieties about not knowing enough about dinosaurs to be "allowed" to draw them, I run right up against "oh shoot, if I draw a grass in the background, people are going to kill me."

Having a cartoonier art style helps! If your style is photorealistic, the style is going to require more details that also make errors way more present and visible, but like, the way I draw trees for example you can't really tell if I'm drawing an aspen, an oak or a basswood, you know? It's just a leaf blob with a trunk in the middle. There's no identifying that.

Also, like 99% of my audience who follows my art follows it for creatures and characters, not plant life, and those more well versed on plants aren't as likely to care. At least nobody has come to bark at me because of it this far!

Considering the amount of actual, professional palaeoartists who basically use memes in their art, I think it's okay and fine for hobbyists and cartoonists to not know everything, right?

(Seriously, the amount of artists who draw theropods with no soft tissue around the jawline is wild! You know that classic look where the entire face splits along the skull all the way to the back of the jaw joint, and drawing that pink skin flap at the corner of the mouth? That's the jaw muscles. Why would a giant land apex predator not have skin protecting its jaw muscles? [Also, is that really what jaw muscles look like? A skin flap? Come on.] I've seen some Actual Professional Artists draw these giant cavities inside the cheek area of things like T. rex, that's where the muscles should be! Where do you think the legendary bite force -which this specific animal is known for- comes from? I mean, it works for animatronics, like in Jurassic Park, because it's hard to give soft tissue to robots that would hold up, but it's less of a thing for art, I think.)

I have a field guide book for Hell Creek formation that I'm gonna reference from when needed. Years ago I backed this kickstarter for a dinosaur video game, specifically so that I could get my hands on the book for this exact reason. It has plants section!

Few rules of thumb:

Trees Big. No, bigger!

No grass (if very late Cretaceous, then maybe grass? but research first!)

No flowers, unless Cretaceous. Might be worth googling "Cretaceous flowers" for specifics

When in doubt, ferns and/or conifers.

Also, finally, this is just me, but it can help to set yourself a "target audience" (with quotes). Personally, I'm making my project for myself and maybe a handful of people I know IRL. I only aim for the joy of these specific bunch of friends and family. Anyone beyond that is just bonus, and while I am very glad there are great many more people who do enjoy my work, it's less important than if my friends like it. And if there's one of the extra bonus people who thinks this one plant on the background of my art ruins their enjoyment of my work and me as a person, then that's a them-problem, not a me-problem, if my friend Satu still thinks the drawing is cool.

(Honestly, knowing these specific people, I wouldn't even have to be as accurate as I am, but unfortunately I did include "myself" in my target audience, so here I am.)

[rootedinrevisions]

Cute When You're Jealous

SUMMARY: Glen misses out on an event the two of you had planned to go to together. So a friend takes you instead, but it leaves Glen feeling a little jealous.

PAIRING: Glen Powell x Reader

A/N: Thanks to the Anon who sent this request in! I tried to do something a little different with it and make Glen the jealous one instead of the reader. I hope you like it!

PROMPT: "You're really cute when you're jealous."

WARNINGS/TAGS: None. Just Fluff.

WORD COUNT: 850

TAG LIST: SEE COMMENTS

If you would like to be added to any of my Tag Lists please feel free to comment, send an ask, or send a DM and I'll be happy to get you added!

The two of you are stretched out across Glen’s couch, perfectly tangled together after the few days he was away. One of your legs is draped comfortably over his thigh, and you’re curled into his side, with your arm resting across his stomach. He’s got one arm wrapped firmly around your waist, his other hand resting over your forearm. His fingers are tracing light, soothing patterns up and down your skin—a touch that feels both intimate and grounding.

You smile up at him as you begin telling him about the Jurassic Park screening, the one he had wanted to take you to. He’s watching you closely at first, but as you start talking about the details of the night, his fingers gradually stop moving. He’s silent as you describe the T-Rex scene, his hand stilled against your arm, and you notice he’s not looking at you anymore. Instead, his gaze is fixed somewhere down near his feet, and the usual ease in his expression has gone quiet.

“Glen?” you ask softly, studying him. You can feel the slight tension in his shoulders, the subtle way his arm around you has stiffened just a bit. “Is something wrong?”

He blinks, glancing up at you with a sheepish, almost-too-casual smile. “Hmm? No, no, I’m good,” he says, brushing it off with a chuckle. But there’s a hint of something else in his tone, a little edge of restraint.

You tilt your head, giving him a look that says you’re not buying it for a second. “Okay, try that again. Because I know you, babe. Something’s definitely up.”

He tries to wave it away, running a hand through his hair, but he can’t fully hide the reluctant smile tugging at the corner of his mouth. 

“It’s really not a big deal. I just, uh…” He lets out a breath, finally looking back down at you. “I guess I just hate the idea of missing out on things with you. I was the one who planned that night, you know? And here I am, getting scooped up to New York, and then someone else gets to be there with you instead.”

You feel a warmth spread through you, and you give him a reassuring squeeze, your fingers brushing gently over his ribs. 

“So you’re saying you’re jealous,” you tease, your voice light, though your heart aches a little for him.

He scoffs, rolling his eyes like the very idea is absurd. “Jealous? Of what? That you spent a night quoting some dinosaur movie with Joe? Hardly.”

You raise an eyebrow, unable to hold back a smile as you reach up to brush a stray lock of hair from his forehead.  “Uh-huh. So, no jealousy at all?” you press gently, catching his gaze and not letting him squirm away this time. 

He shifts under your gaze, his cheeks tinged with a faint blush. 

“Maybe just a little,” he admits, reluctantly, his voice barely above a murmur. “Not in a jealous-jealous way. I trust you, and you know Joe and I get along great. I just… I don’t know. It feels weird when someone else gets that time with you, especially when I want to be the one there with you.”

“You’re really cute when you’re jealous,” you murmur, leaning up to press a soft kiss to his cheek.

He groans playfully, rolling his eyes even as his smile betrays him. 

“Oh, stop it. I am not cute right now,” he insists, though his arm tightens around your waist, pulling you closer.

But you shake your head, grinning up at him. 

“Nope, you are. And anyway, it’s not the same without you,” you say, laying your head back on his chest. “I had fun, but trust me, I’d take a cozy movie night with you any day over some big theater experience with anyone else.”

His expression softens, and he shifts his hand up to brush his fingers through your hair. 

“You mean that?” he asks, his voice carrying a vulnerable edge you don’t often hear.

You nod, meeting his gaze. “Absolutely. There’s nowhere else I’d rather be right now than right here with you. How about we make up for it and watch Jurassic Park together?”

His face lights up, and he leans down to press a gentle kiss to your lips, letting it linger. When he pulls back, his eyes are warm, his earlier hesitation melting away. 

“You’re sure?” he asks, though the grin tugging at his mouth tells you he’s already in.

“Positive. Besides,” you say, snuggling closer to him, “I’m counting on you to give me the full experience, T-Rex roars and all.”

With a chuckle, he reaches for the remote and turns on the movie. His hand returns to your arm, gently running his fingers along it again as the opening credits start to play. 

He presses another kiss to your forehead, murmuring, “Best movie night ever.”

And as the familiar music fills the room, you can feel the last of his tension ease away, leaving just the two of you, tangled up and exactly where you want to be.

[fiamat12]

Re: On-the-go w/ Baby Newts

It was brought to my attn. an additional option for distractions right now: Baby Newts (BN), w/ which I agree.

(Note: This is not in regards to an overall theory. I still believe there has been NDA obligations holding up a launch. I'm referring to the recent Jecky/ JD Mom distractions).

• #1 - People say L has all the tells, but N has hers, too. One of them is that she likes what she's interested in/ pertains to her life. She's been liking pregnancy related/ new Mom posts since last year and, ofc, all the posts about falling in love w/ your co-star 🥰.

• #2 - N recently liked a post of ERK's on Scarlett J's attitude about privacy; she does refer to her children in the full article. She's also JB's costar in Jurassic Park, so N could be supporting her on that front, too. Not to get off track, but JB is adorbs doing an American accent, lol (Below***)

• #3 - "Some of the comments on ERK’s post talk about people approaching Scarlett when she’s out with her kids. I think when she’s moving around with Bub she is less ok with people approaching her and I think this is not just about the A narrative, it is maybe a shift into Mama bear mode or a different stance on selfies with fans in the new context of motherhood." @jmuz09

• #4 - N's behavior in recent history has shown that when she's alone, she doesn’t mind stopping for selfies w/ fans, thereby acknowledging that a real time posting may occur. But w/ BN she may be more guarded or, she may be changing her attitude in general.

The point is: prior, when we saw distractions, N was likely on the move w/ L (or it was NDA related), but now when we see them, it may be that she's moving around w/ BN, even locally for checks-up or just living life w/ baba in general. We love a happy, safe & secure family!

(As we've discussed, if Lukola would launch, they'd ultimately get more privacy, so maybe BN will be the driving force to do it 🙏)

***⬇️⬇️⬇️

☆ ERK's post/ quote about kids from article ⏬️

☆ Jurassic Park trailer ⏬️

☆ The full article in Instyle ⏬️

[fear-is-truth]

What do you think would happen during a movie night with the Evans? I mean in a "what would you watch?" and "what would be the general reactions to the movie?" way, not a "would you fuck on the couch?" kind of way.

⋆𐙚 ₊ the evans x movie date .ᐟ

ft. tate langdon ‧ kit walker ‧ kyle spencer ‧ james march ‧ kai anderson ‧ austin sommers ‧ luke cooper

a/n: thank you for the req !! i love movies (ty for clarifying too lol) warnings — murder mention

⟢ 𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐋𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐃𝐎𝐍.

tate would definitely pick something horror-centric, like the blair witch project, pet sematary, night of the living dead, or the exorcist.

as the movie progresses, he’d be pretty quiet, watching you more than the screen.

won’t forget to drop morbid little comments that makes him sound like a complete sociopath.

the second you show the slightest sign of fear, tate is on full alert. it’s like a switch flips. he might still tease you a little, like “don’t tell me you’re scared of that,”

if you flinch or jump, it’s his cue to wrap you up in his arms, assuring you the scary stuff isn’t real. in some kind of fucked-up way, it’s almost like he enjoys seeing you vulnerable, but only bc he wants to protect you from the scary stuff.

⟢ 𝐊𝐈𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐋𝐊𝐄𝐑.

kit would definitely lean toward the hopeful, heartwarming side of things. think shawshank redemption or green book that’s got that feel-good vibe, something that makes you believe in the good of people. he’d also want to watch something uplifting, like the pursuit of happiness or forrest gump—movies where the character fights through adversity and comes out on top.

you’d have a big bowl of popcorn to go with the movie. and a few blankets.

he would be super involved. probably a little emotional, especially with movies that tug at his heartstrings. “this part always gets me,” he’d admit, wiping his eyes discreetly if he got too caught up in the feels.

post-movie, he’d want to discuss the themes and characters. “you see how they never gave up hope? that’s the kind of message we all need.”

⟢ pre death .ᐟ 𝐊𝐘𝐋𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐑.

frat!kyle’s movie taste would likely be a mix of blockbuster sci-fi and superhero films. he likes action, adventure, the sort of movies you can quote with your friends or wear merch to.

i think he’d like franchises like star wars, indiana jones, jurassic park, the avengers, men in black etc.

lots of cuddling.

⟢ franken .ᐟ 𝐊𝐘𝐋𝐄 𝐒𝐏𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄𝐑.

something light and nostalgic like a studio ghibli movie. like ponyo or my neighbor totoro.

(because im the writer and i said so. )

he’d make it cozy with lots of blankets and snacks. the whole vibe would be super comfy. kyle would be super focused the movie, glancing over at you every now and then to make sure you’re having a good time as well.

when something cute or magical happens in the film, you’d hear his soft “aww” or “look at that,” because he gets genuinely excited.

⟢ 𝐉𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐒 𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐊 𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐂𝐇.

james wouldn’t actively seek out movies, sneering about how they lack the depth and refinement of true art forms like poetry or opera.

he’d explicitly detest hollywood, finding it gaudy and tasteless, particularly because of his ex-wife elizabeth’s infatuation with rudolph valentino.

however, if you wanted to watch something, he’d grudgingly agree, more for your sake than his own. his curiosity would be piqued by gory horror films—saw, hostel, or the texas chainsaw massacre.

as the movie progressed and the gore got more creative, his interest would visibly pique. he’d lean forward, eyes narrowing, as if studying the screen like a scholar. might even occasionally pause the movie to dissect a particularly inventive murder, speculating about the tools used or admiring the “execution” (pun intended)

the intricate methods of destruction would catch his interest. he’d remark about the “artistry” of a scene involving a particularly gruesome demise and might even murmur under his breath about how the filmmakers had some semblance of vision after all.

“ah, see how the arterial spray creates that beautiful arc on the wall?” or “the creativity in dismemberment is… admirable,”

he’d almost certainly take mental notes, planning to incorporate some of these techniques into his own macabre masterpieces.

⟢ cult leader .ᐟ 𝐊𝐀𝐈 𝐀𝐍𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐒𝐎𝐍.

kai would pick something like the social network, the matrix, fight club, or american psycho. we’re talking straight-up incel film bro material.

kai wouldn’t just watch the movie—he’d analyse the hell out of it. he’s the guy who makes watching movies an intellectual exercise but secretly just wants you to agree with him.

would definitely test you during the film, asking, “do you get it?” or “what would you do in this situation?”

the matrix? he’s mansplaining about the red pill and how people are blind sheep in the “system.” the social network? he’s cackling when eduardo gets screwed over by zuckerberg, saying, “he deserved it for being soft.” american psycho? he’d call it a critique of society.

he’d be so obnoxious during fight club, quoting lines like, “the things you own, own you,” and trying to explain to you how it applies to your life.

he’d fw tyler durden HEAVY. unironically.

⟢ 𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐍 𝐒𝐎𝐌𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐒.

the three-time tony award winner would gravitate toward films that scream high art—think something like the seventh seal by ingmar bergman or 8½ by fellini—stuff that almost feel like a performance or a commentary on cinema itself.

old-school classics, like citizen kane or the godfather—the ones that’ve stood the test of time. they’ve got that “cinematic art” thing that makes him feel like he’s part of some exclusive club.

if it’s a more recent flick, though, it’s gotta have substance. i think he’d enjoy black swan because it’s dark, intense, and shows true artistic struggle.

he’d admire the actors, the cinematography, whatever gives off that “artsy” vibe. if it’s too mainstream or shallow, though, forget about it. he’s not wasting his time on that.

even during the movie, he’d find ways to bring up the “black pill”. “this is why creative people—real artists—need something more than just hard work. black pill, that’s the real key to unlocking that next level of creativity.”

⟢ 𝐋𝐔𝐊𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐑.

luke would still call citizen kane his favourite movie, but not in a pretentious film snob way—he’s genuinely proud of himself for loving a “classic.” he’d talk about how his grandpa introduced it to him as a kid, and how it gave him the revelation that movies could be more than just entertainment.

his other favourite is the boondock saints, which he doesn’t try to justify with highbrow reasoning.

during movie nights, luke would occasionally point out a few obscure behind-the-scenes facts only because he couldn’t help himself, but otherwise let you watch in peace.

would 100% use the “resting his arm and casually drapes around your shoulder” tactic.

[a-dinosaur-a-day]

yes, I only did JP the original, because the minute you go beyond that you invite controversy,

[seriousfic]

I want to be part of a non-fandom fandom.

It's like there's this migratory fandom that looks at every story through the same lens--literal slash goggles--and turns every character into the same archetypes and makes the same "incorrect quotes" joke about every dynamic and I just... I want not that.

I'd love to hear someone's big headcanon about James Bond's childhood or a meta analysis on Batman thinks about Dick vs. Tim vs. Jason or just some cool behind-the-scenes story from the filming of Indiana Jones.

But at best, you have to wade through a sea of "what if the hero and his [male best friend]/[male arch-enemy]/[male biological brother] were gay and had sex"? If you go into the James Bond tag, a ton of it is mean girl mockery, weird trans headcanons, and chatting about other characters played by Daniel Craig--nothing to do with James Bond. Not even George Lazenby!

It's like if someone grouped together a real Hollywood movie and its porn parody and said that the audience is the same, so you get some people watching Jurassic Park and talking about how the cinematic dinosaurs compare to what paleontologists believe they were like and also there are some people talk about how hot it was when a guy came on Jenna Jameson's chest. What are we doing in the same room, people? We are not here for the same things.

[chaos0pikachu]

So I wrote a bit about the film making of The Sign already but I wanted to dive a bit more into the VFX aspects b/c the show is - justifiably imo - getting a lot of praise for their work.

So I'm going to quote this video by VFX artists that I think sums up why, overall, the CGI works in The Sign:

"It's very interesting with a smaller budget Jurassic Park was crunched into choosing their VFX shots very very wisely and they didn't hold shots for longer than they needed to."

(I recommend watching the entire video, there's a lot of great discussion and education on how VFX is done in film. They're not simply "reacting" but talking about the techniques used in the film making itself.)

This is partly what The Sign is doing really well, they're not lingering on any shots, they're using their budget well by picking the most impactful moments to include more expensive and complicated CG effects.

What I love about smaller or mid-budget films is you can tell when the crew had to get truly inventive, creative, and purposeful when choosing how to portray a specific effect or action in a scene. Jaws is one of my favorite examples of this; Jaws cost 9 million (about 51 million adjusted to inflation) in 1975, and the shark animatronics (there were 3 pieces) was difficult to work with. This led to Spielberg and the crew switching things up and going for that shark POV that's now really famous.

It wasn't an accident, but it wasn't 100% planned or originally intentional, there was an issue, and the crew reworked things within their budget so they could still accomplish their creative goals.

The iconic first scene of the t-rex in Jurassic Park is a combination of an animatronic and CGI. In the video above they talk specifically about how this was filmed, and how setting the scene at night, with a singular main light source, and covered in water, really helped make the t-rex look "real". And why that scene holds up really well even today.

The Sign has used moments of CGI very sparingly which works within the story yes by building up tension within the narrative mystery, but also in the film making. They're not overwhelming the audience with it, whilst also using real sets and props to blend in with those scenes AND using a lot of the CGI in specific spaces.

The scene in ep01 where Phaya meets the Naga for the first time is a good example; the water is dark, there's only a singular light source (above) and there's a general lack of background. With only one light source, the VFX artists don't have to worry about shading every inch of the Naga to photorealistic standards, the image doesn't have to be insanely sharp b/c the water adds a layer of blur to everything, and since it's already a mystical creature the audience already has a higher suspension of disbelief anyway making us more forgiving to the fact this is not a "real" creature.

Compare this mythical creature with the dragons from Game of Thrones:

I want to first say I do think the special effects of GOT were really good, the VFX team's work is to be appreciated. But see how there's more light sources required for these dragons? They're just not just within a limited area, they're outdoors in the open which requires more math (literally) on where the light will bounce and reflect, plus all the disparities in texture on the dragons themselves. See how parts of their wings are more noticeably red then others?

Game of Thrones was a show with millions upon millions in it's budget, so they can indulge, The Sign doesn't, so they have to be smart. And they are!

Another standout scene so far in the series as far as filmmaking goes for me is from episode05.

If you look closely you can see the edges around Phaya are a bit blurred out and rewatching the scene you can see an image of him is almost transposed over the actor as well. It gives it a pseudo 3D effect, which helps blend the actor into the fake background which makes it less obvious it's, well, fake.

Then there's the Big Moment, the reveal of our Garuda:

I'm partially not convinced this was 100% CGI I'm wondering if they used a bit of claymation or maybe a miniature or something (maybe a puppet?). The weight of the movement and body feel like something more close to the use of a puppet or animatronic than straight CGI. (If you want to read more about miniatures in film I recommend this article on Godzilla 1954!)

But what I find smart about this shot is that the focus of the camera is on the Garuda, Phaya is much smaller and lower in the frame. I say this is smart because being distance from Phaya allows for the Garuda and the background to take up more space in the frame and contrast less with the real elements, ie Phaya's real human body. It also makes the Garuda more imposing, dominating the frame at a higher angle, and gives a sense of largeness in comparison to Phaya's smaller human self.

Since the Garuda is against an already fake background there is no need for a "light source". Notice how the Garuda has no shadows or light reflections, unlike the Naga from before (or the t-rex)? This makes less work for the VFX team b/c now they don't have to math out where all the bits of shadow, light, and color textures would come from, everything is flat and singular.

Keeping the Garuda at a distance as well, means we're not looking at or for the details of their feathers, or body. We see there is texture to them, but it doesn't need to look photorealistic b/c of that distance in the frame.

Contrast it with Simba from Lion King 2019, or Detective Pikachu:

Again, I think both look very good, but they need to because the audience is so close to the characters in frame. If Pikachu or Simba didn't have this level of care and detail put in when the audience is literally right in their faces everyone would notice how fake they look and complain (I mean I still complained about Lion King but b/c it was a bad and visually boring film but the VFX team did a great job).

We know this because Ant Man Quantumania didn't put the same care and effect in and it looked horrible. Everyone clowned Modak, and fair, but it wasn't just him that looked bad. Entire set pieces look clearly fake, like why is Ant Man suddenly in Zanarkand??

In the second image, look at Scott and Cassie's clothes, you can see the light on their clothes (especially Cassie's) isn't the same as what's happening in their surrounding environment (which is a lot jfc). It's also just poor film making because the frame of both shots is cluttered to the god damn BRIM with STUFF our eyes aren't sure what to focus on. There's a lack of perspective and weight given to the scenes (compare these wide shots to Jurassic Park when our protagonists see the dinosaurs in an open field for the first time, there's a sense of WONDER). So our human characters get completely lost in the frame and feel overwhelmed entirely. They also stick out because the CGI isn't fully well rendered.

Possibly my biggest chaotic take to date, I prefer the CGI in The Sign to Ant Man 3 there I fucking said it. Ugliest MCU movie to date I said what I said.

There is at least care going into The Sign, there's thought, there's creativity, there's a sense of passion. I can forgive that the Garuda isn't photorealistic because it doesn't need to be, it needs to be visibly believable within the world it's set in and it does. The show has been very smart about when to employ it's special effects, and how to film them. It's taken care. It has more in common with films like Godzilla Minus One which had a budget of 15 million and looks phenomenal, way better than Godzilla vs Kong or what we've seen from Godzilla x Kong (which I am looking forward to b/c I'm godzilla trash).

anyway watch the sign it's gucci

[demi-shoggoth]

2024 Reading Log, pt 2

006. Gardening Can Be Murder by Marta McDowell. I honestly thought that this book was going to be about something else. With the subtitle “how poisonous plants, sinister shovels and grim gardens have inspired mystery writers”, I thought it was going to be about, you know, that. True crime themed to gardens, discussions of poisonous plants, that sort of thing. The book is actually about the mystery books that have gardening as a theme. And while the author’s dedication to not spoiling anything (seriously, anything, even 150 year old stories like The Moonstone or “Rappacini’s Daughter”) is admirable in its own way, this leaves the book feeling like endless buildup without any payoff. Big fans of murder mysteries might enjoy this—especially the last chapter, which interviews writers about their gardens—but I found it more boring than anything else, and finished it only because it was very short.

007. Antimony, Gold and Jupiter’s Wolf by Peter Wothers. This book is about how the elements got their names, and most of it deals with the early modern period, as alchemy transitioned to chemistry and then into the 19th century, when chemistry was a real science, but things like atomic theory were not yet understood. The book goes into fascinating detail, and has a lot of quotes from primary sources, as scientists then were just like scientists now, that is, opinionated and bickering with each other over their preferred explanations. And names! Many of the splits between elements and their symbols (like Na for sodium) are due to compromise attempts to appease two different factions with their preferred names. A book covering arcane minutia of history always has the risk of feeling like a slog, but this is a fast and fun read.

008. Doctor Dhrolin’s Dictionary of Dinosaurs by Nathan T Barling and Michael O’Sullivan, illustrations by Mark P Witton. This book is an odd concept, but one that I was immediately on board with—a D&D book written by paleontologists with the intention of bringing accurate and interesting stats for prehistoric reptiles to the game. The fact that it’s mostly illustrated by Mark Witton definitely clinched my backing that Kickstarter. And this book is a lot of fun. So much so, that I read it all in a single sitting. I don’t know how accurate the stats are (like, a Hatzegopteryx has a higher CR than titanosaurs or T. rexes), but they seem like they’d be fun in play, and the writing does a good job of combining fantasy fun with actual education. Even for someone not running a 5e game, the stuff on how to run animals as not killing machines, and the mutation tables, could be useful. There are multiple types of playable dinosaurs, all of which seem like they’d work well at the table and avoid typical stereotypes, and a lot of in-jokes and pop culture references (like the cursed staff of unspared expense, which looks like Hammond’s cane in the Jurassic Park movie).

009. Romaine Wasn’t Built in a Day by Judith Tschann. I’m a sucker for books about etymology. And this one, on food etymology, is a pretty breezy read. I had fun with it, and it even busted some misconceptions that I had, etymologically speaking. Like, there’s no evidence that “bloody” as an explicative originated from “God’s blood”? Wild. Etymology books tend to be written in a sort of stream-of-consciousness style, where talking about one word may lead down a garden path to the next one. The book also has a couple of little matching quizzes, which is something I haven’t seen in a book since like the 90s.

010. The Lives of Octopuses and their Relatives by Danna Staaf. I was previously a little disappointed in The Lives of Beetles, another book in this series, but I knew I liked Staaf, who wrote the excellent book Squid Empire about cephalopod evolution and paleontology. I’m pleased to report that this book is also excellent. Staaf takes the “lives” part seriously, and the book is arranged by ecology, looking at different marine habitats, the challenges that they pose to living things, and the cephalopods that live there. Cuttlefish get slightly short shrift in this book compared to squids and octopuses, but that’s about the biggest complaint I had. I like how the species profiles cover more obscure taxa, and information about the best studied (like Pacific giant octopus and Humboldt squid) is kept to the chapters.

[excessively-english-jd]

On Woolly Mammoth De-Extinction

So. My thoughts on mammoth de-extinction.

Let's start at the beginning. What is de-extinction? It's basically what it says on the tin: bringing a species back from extinction. De-extinction has been a popular topic for decades, particularly since the release of 1993's blockbuster Jurassic Park which famously featured the concept. Since then, a lot of research has gone into the science around the theory.

There are a few proposed methods to facilitate de-extinction: cloning, genome editing, and selective breeding. Of these cloning is the most widely talked about, and also the only method which would result in a 'pure' de-extinction instead of a hybrid species, which can be important to distinguish depending on the goals for any given de-extinction project. However, each most certainly has limitations. Cloning often results in a lot of health problems [1] - even Dolly the Sheep, arguably the most successfully cloned animal, died prematurely due to health issues tied to her clone status. While cloning is an older technology and has a bit more history behind it, it still isn't particularly successful. Genome editing is a relatively newer technology, with a lot of trial still needing to be done. Currently, although there have been leaps in synthetic biology, and an array of genome editing and genome recreation has been done, this has mostly been in the realm of bacteria and viruses, which have far simpler genomes than more complex animals such as mammals [2]. Finally, selective breeding may have some successes, but requires a lot of chance and a lot of time. So overall, de-extinction is a science in its infancy, and currently has very few real, tangible successes.

So why do we want de-extinction? There are a lot of reasons.

In a world where we are increasingly aware of our impact on the planet, there is a desire to 'fix' our mistakes. Many species, like the dodo or the Tasmanian tiger, have gone extinct directly due to human threat or due to unnatural pressures introduced by humans. There is a societal guilt felt here, which some people may want to rectify. This is a theoretically noble intention, but ultimately tends to place emotive reasoning over logic and practicality.

Reviving extinct species could also potentially help to revive extinct ecosystems and environments. This is one of the biggest arguments being used by Colossal for resurrecting the mammoth [3] - an aim to also resurrect the mammoth steppe ecosystem. We'll revisit this. The theory here is to recreate a natural balance that has been lost, similar to proposed reintroduction programmes. A success story in terms of restoring ecological balance would be the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone [4] - keystone species such as apex predators or large megafauna can influence a whole environment including animal populations, flora assemblies, and even soil properties. With extant species this absolutely is a good path forward, although it does require careful management - with extinct species this becomes a little more difficult. In a joyous occasion, I get to quote Ellie Sattler: "the question is, how much can you know about an extinct ecosystem? And therefore how can you ever assume you can control it?". How can we be sure our actions will have the outcome we want? It's a delicate balance.

Yet another facet is the possibility of learning more about the species we de-extinct. This is why dinosaurs come into this conversation so often despite the (sad) fact that it's not realistic. When you have an animal that has been extinct for so long that there's no living memory of it, little or no historical record of it, no bodies and no closely related or similar species, natural human curiosity runs wild. What did it look like? Sound like? What colour was it, how big was it, how fast? What was it like to co-exist with? The older a species is, the further removed it is, the more this curiosity is raised. Sure, the Yangtze River Dolphin is extinct, but we remember that being around. Sure, a passenger pigeon is extinct, but we have paintings and accounts, we have modern pigeons. Now a dinosaur? Sure birds exist, but they're so far removed from Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops that they just don't compare. There's huge differences and we want to learn about them. But here there will always be the question of: how much is real, and how much is created? How can we know how much a recreation is the same as the original? The question of nature and nurture has to come in here - whether we're enacting some form of Forbidden Experiment [5] on extinct species and how that will affect what we might or might not learn.

To once more return to Jurassic Park (sorry), I feel there's one more possibility to acknowledge: profit. In our current capitalist society, de-extinction is expensive. It takes time, resources, manpower, and equipment. This is not cheap and of course, anyone investing in it is going to want to see returns. Of course, a lot of scientists will be in it for passion, for knowledge, for advancements. And perhaps generating profits will be for good cause - like a zoo charges entry to fund its conservation projects, a de-extinction project could charge fees to fund further research and additional applications. De-extinction could be like the panda - a public facing, popular and charming money machine to fund smaller, less appealing projects, creating a funnel into other projects [6]. However, there is also the possibility that knowledge gets hoarded with a price on its head, and it could be that interest shifts more to increased revenue rather than ecological betterment. I won't harp on this point, but I think it's worth acknowledging.

This brings us back around to mammoths and the specific efforts to bring them back from extinction. How do these considerations apply to this project?

Cloning was once, I believe, proposed for mammoth de-extinction. The problem to my memory is a lack of intact mammoth cells. Without a well preserved cell with genetic material to transfer into an egg cell, a clone cannot be created. However, a complete mammoth genome has been sequenced - in fact, several have been, and there's quite a few papers published [7]. That means we know the full genetic code of the mammoth. Colossal, the main company working on mammoth de-extinction, is going in this direction: using genome editing to, one day, create a hybrid elephant with mammoth traits encoded into its DNA [3]. Immediately, I want to point this out - this will be a hybrid animal, with mammoth-like traits. There is a question here as to whether this is actually de-extinction, or actually a kind of artificial evolution. The animal might look superficially like a mammoth, but is it a mammoth? Can we learn anything about mammoths by observing this animal? Will this give us a glimpse into the past? I'm going to keep referring to this hypothetical animal as a mammoth just for clarity's sake here, but this point should stand.

This leads into another concern - will this animal behave like a mammoth? Obviously, there are no extant mammoths, so how will a baby mammoth learn to be... a mammoth? Elephants are complex social animals, who pass on knowledge. In Africa, it is known that elephant matriarchs can be instrumental in teaching younger generations about locations and foods that can be important during exceptional droughts [8]. We don't know how much nature and nurture affect us, let alone other species - did mammoth matriarchs teach their youngsters where the grazing was best in the thick of winter? Did a young mammoth learn what food could or could not be eaten by watching their herd? Will a mammoth, 4000 years separated from the last generation of mammoths, act the same way? Eat the same food? Follow the same migration patterns? Will the surrogate elephant family be able to cater to the social needs of a young mammoth, or is there some unique mammoth behaviour or instinct that we aren't aware of, which an elephant herd will not provide?

Here we come to ethical questions about quality of life. Keeping elephants in isolation is agreed to be cruel and damaging - a social animal needs access to its social group. Perhaps a solution to this mammoth problem is simply to create a lot of mammoths, which seems to be the intent - but that still leaves a lot of infant mammoths with no adult mammoths. There is that possibility that a surrogate elephant family cannot provide this necessary socialisation. Can they even provide the right nutritional demands? Will elephant milk properly sustain a baby mammoth? Additionally, the current proposal is to have the surrogate mother be an African elephant, as they are larger and more able to potentially carry a mammoth baby. But African elephants live in savannahs on an equatorial continent. That will not be a suitable habitat for young mammoths, but is the Arctic circle a particularly suitable place to house African elephants? Are these species able to cohabit for the decade or so it takes for a young elephant or theoretical mammoth to truly mature? The world is very different than it was 4000 years ago when the last mammoths roamed; is the climate still suitable for mammoths and the flora they ate? Have the air quality and UV radiation levels changed too much? Are there new diseases that a mammoth may not be capable of fighting off? Basically, is the modern world truly capable of supporting a theoretical population of mammoths in a way that allows them to be healthy, happy, and without suffering? I don't know the answers to these, I haven't researched enough into specifics, but these are just some examples of the questions I would have.

The theory of this project is to reintroduce the mammoths to Siberia, where they will facilitate a return of the mammoth steppe habitat. As a large megafauna animal, it's thought that they are a keystone species in allowing this habitat to exist, by clearing plains, trampling certain vegetation, and packing snow and ice. The aim is for the mammoths to clear areas of Siberian forest and allow the steppe to reform. There's two problems I have here: one species does not an ecosystem make. What about other coexisting species that might have contributed? Woolly rhinos? Deer, bison? What about predator species like the cave lion or sabre cats? Hell, Neanderthal humans were part of this ecosystem, do we know that they didn't contribute to maintaining the steppe? In Australia some habitats are suffering because Aboriginal land management is no longer being used - the same thing has happened in parts of North America where Native peoples have been driven off their land and not been allowed to continue maintaining it [9]. Humans are part of their ecosystems. Is a mammoth really going to be enough to revive this habitat? Second: what about the species who already live there? It's not like Siberian forests are empty. Have you ever heard of the Siberian tiger? They're an endangered species, and one of their major threats is a loss of habitat due to deforestation, particularly in the Russian Far East. Other animals live in this ecosystem, like bears, and deer, and moose. Are we going to enact extinction on these animals, just to bring back the mammoth? This ecosystem has evolved. In the absence of mammoths and the steppe habitat, forests have taken over, populated with new animals that evolved to fit into the niches left open. This is, at the end of the day, a natural process on Earth. Something ends, and something else takes over.

Now why do we want the mammoth steppe back? Because, the theory is, it could help tackle the climate crisis. Mammoth-packed ice and snow would thaw slower in summer months. Large open plains covered in snow increase the albedo of the Earth, reflecting more light and heat away. It is thought that mammoth steppes were a carbon sink, which would hold carbon and reduce the amount of it going back into the atmosphere contributing to the greenhouse effect. This is a great theory, but as mentioned, there are problems with it. The mammoth steppe was, at the height of the mammoth, a massive ecosystem that stretched across most of Eurasia and into North America. Where the hell are we going to put all of that now? Those areas are inhabited, either by humans or by other species. Sure a small reserve could be made, but will that small reserve actually have a noticeable impact on the climate? What's the game plan for if it turns out to do nothing, or very little?

Also, surely, there are easier, more efficient, more proven, and less expensive ways of tackling climate change. Why not invest this money into overhauling infrastructure to be more eco-friendly? Solar power, wind power, green land management, reforestation, low-carbon alternatives? Putting caps on industrial power use and source, abolishing fossil fuels, enforcing use of sustainable materials? There are bigger and better impacts to be made elsewhere, and maybe those should be focused on first. We are in the middle of a climate crisis. Our world is warming faster than ever, and not enough is being done to reverse or prevent this. But we also live on a warming Earth as the planet recovers from an ice age - in its time, it will continue to get warmer and warmer. This is a natural cycle which is seen throughout (geological) history. Does it not seem cruel to bring these animals into a world not suited for them, when it is currently only set to get worse? Is it ethical to bring them back from the purpose of 'fixing' this? Especially when it will take so much time to see the theoretical benefits - this isn't going to be achieved overnight - and could lead to suffering in the meantime.

So, ultimately, I have several reservations about mammoth de-extinction. I've probably missed things out here, or not explained with full clarity. I have based this mostly on my own pre-existing knowledge and basic surface research, and this isn't my specialty, so perhaps some of this isn't as relevant as I think. I've also just rambled for several thousand words, so forgive me for errors. But, to summarise:

Will a created mammoth act the same as a true mammoth? Can we guarantee that a mammoth in the modern day will act how we hope it will?

Can a mammoth be cared for adequately? Can its physical, spatial, environmental, nutritional and socio-emotional needs be met?

Is it cruel to create a mammoth when it will be unique and alone, isolated from it's own kind? Will infant mammoths suffer for the lack of adult mammoth care?

Are current climatic and environmental conditions correct to sustain mammoths? Could damage be done to them if it is not?

Is there space for a mammoth population? Are there large enough areas with the correct conditions?

Are we sacrificing extant species and environments for the sake of reviving the mammoth? Is that justifiable in a climate of rapid biodiversity loss?

Could these resources be better applied? Should we advance this project while the climate crisis is still so severe?

Is it ethical to create an animal for the purpose of theoretical climate control? What are the consequences if we do not see the benefits we hope for?

Could this technology be misused, or restricted for the sake of greed, power or influence? How are we guaranteeing that the benefits will be shared and used well?

Is there anything we can learn from resurrecting the mammoth? Will a modern mammoth really tell us anything about mammoth behaviour, biology, or ecology?

Is this even going to really be a mammoth? Is this truly de-extinction?

Now I do want to just mention that there are some potential benefits. Primarily, the technology being developed for this project is wonderful, and could be used for many applications. Colossal does, it seems, have plans to implement their technology for the conservation of elephants. I do think that de-extinction could have its place - but I personally think we should first focus on near-extinct or recently extinct species, lost within the past 100 or so years, to minimise some of the risks above and to prevent further loss of biodiversity on our planet. I think that the choice of mammoths is purely one of iconism and publicity, but technically that can be useful in conservation, so long as resulting resources are then properly redistributed.

To finish off, here are some articles and papers which cover the topic:

"Meet the ‘woolly mouse’: why scientists doubt it’s a big step towards recreating mammoths", Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00684-1

"A mammoth undertaking: harnessing insight from functional ecology to shape de-extinction priority setting", D. J. McCauley et al: https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.12728

And the sources I cited:

1 - Cloning Fact Sheet, National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/Cloning-Fact-Sheet

2 - Synthetic Biology, National Human Genome Research Institute, https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Synthetic-Biology

3 - Mammoth project page, Colossal Laboratories and Biosciences, https://colossal.com/mammoth/

4 - "Trophic cascades in Yellowstone: The first 15 years after wolf reintroduction", W. J. Ripple & R. L. Beschta, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320711004046

5 - Language Deprivation Experiments, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_deprivation_experiments

6 - Flagship Species, Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagship_species

7 - "Complete genomes reveal signatures of demographic and genetic declines in the woolly mammoth", E. Palkopoulou et al, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25913407/

8 - "Elephant Memories May Hold Key To Survival", ScienceDaily, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080811200337.htm

9 - "Traditional ecological knowledge and restoration practice", R. Senos et al, https://research.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/50696

[twelvebooksstuff]

Jurassic Park Daily: Chapter-Malcolm

Here’s some thoughts on the most recent chapter!

This is one of our last character introductions, and honestly, it’s a pretty fun one! We have finally met the mathematician we’ve heard about in previous chapters, and who we’ve already read the work of at the start of each iteration (and see his models/drawings, too).

While he’s clearly intelligent and passionate, he also thinks he’s the funniest and most attractive person in the room which is kind of a bizarre/unique characterization. Whether or not the other characters agree with Malcolm’s self assessment is up for debate.

I must admit that I both admire Gennaro for his ability to ask great questions and actually listen to answers, it’s also find it funny that he didn’t read the report from Malcolm beforehand. He just went with inviting him and asked questions later, which isn’t necessarily a bad strategy per se but it’s funny to think about.

I enjoy Book!Malcolm, and so while his spiels might get long I am still very engaged! And while it’s edgy I do actually like the the lines “���But you must admit, these are nontrivial issues. We live in a world of frightful givens. It is given that you will behave like this, given that you will care about that. No one thinks about the givens. Isn’t it amazing? In the information society, nobody thinks. We expected to banish paper, but we actually banished thought.”” It would be even easier for Malcolm to defend the unknown as opportunity, possibility and excitement, and defend his point that way. But he doesn’t, he instead goes for the equal but opposite “the givens are what is really scary, because people often don’t question them” which is just as much of a powerful statement while also bringing an unconventional perspective. Definitely sets him up well!

And honestly I think it is so crazy this quote was written before social media. Like, it feels so applicable to the misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and the relentless ads, we’ve seen on social media that I would have though that’s what it was referring to if I didn’t know better LOL

Onw final thing I’ll say is his line at the end of “Jurassic Park is an accident waiting to happen” feels so obvious it’s almost an understatement. Like, you don’t need mathematical models to know that (although it doesn’t hurt) this park is a safety issue problem that’s just layers of safety issues one on top of another. But it also makes Malcolm relatable since the reader has begun to see this already.

And, tragically, NOT all of the characters in the story see this seemingly obvious outcome coming.

[autism-criminal]

I’m rereading Jurassic Park so it’s time to start my favorite series again !

quotes from Jurassic Park I love (part 3)

“And were the dinosaurs in fact attacking us?” “Yes.” “They would kill us and eat us if they could?” Malcolm said. “I think so.” “The reason I ask,” Malcolm said, “is that I’m told large predators such as lions and tigers are not born man-eaters. Isn’t that true? These animals must learn somewhere along the way that human beings are easy to kill. Only afterward do they become man-killers.” “Yes, I believe that’s true,” Grant said. “Well, these dinosaurs must be even more reluctant than lions and tigers. After all, they come from a time before human beings—or even large mammals—existed at all. God knows what they think when they see us. So I wonder: have they learned, somewhere along the line, that humans are easy to kill?” The group fell silent as they walked. “In any case,” Malcolm said, “I shall be extremely interested to see the control room now.”

Jurassic Park, Third Iteration [Control]

[killersnas]

omg can i ask stuff?? do u have a favorite: videogame pass time food color dessert movie anime novel trope (ex lovers to enemies) musical snack place you go to clear your head type of cat catchphrase / thing you like to say a lot quote

or yk anything u wanna talk abt or share? :>

Ouuu okay long list here we go!!

My favorite videogame might have to be call of duty. Simple, fun, ykyk

Pass time I annoy the gang. Either do pranks or just talk to them until they get annoyed.

I LOVE spicy food. Griot is pretty good, got to try that when boss asked me if I wanted something special or whatever

My favorite color is probably purple. Purple or emerald green specifically.

I’m actually not a huge dessert guy! But when I do want something, a stolen sweet from one of the other guys is my go to. Tastes better when it’s stolen

I don’t watch movies often, but Jurassic park and all those were awesome!! Dinosaurs are cool as hell. I wish they added some feathers though to them, some dinosaurs had some fluff and weren’t just scales.

Favorite anime.. I don’t watch many, so I’ll just go with something sort of popular that’s good, like Demon Slayer. Their animations are so sick.

Novel trope? Maybe forbidden love, or uh.. redemption.

I honestly don’t know any musicals I’m ngl so I don’t have anything for that one

I like crunchy snacks. Crackers or peanuts.

I like to go see color when I need to chill out for a while. I also like seeing him in general, but he’s awesome. If I can’t, I like to go out in the woods outside the castle and wander for a while. If I’m needed boss just finds me and drags me back or whatever.

Long hair calico kitties! They’re so pretty and FLUFFY

Sssomething I say a lot? “Suck it” probably HAHA

‘Twas fun thinking of answers for these…….