Talk:Dinosaur! (1985 film)

Footage from the 1979 film Meteor?

It should be noted that the scene showing the approaching asteroid and subsequent explosion is identical to scenes from the 1979 film Meteor. Apparently the makers of Dinosaur! used footage from that film. --Davoniac (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

ID of dinosaurs?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the duck-billed dinosaurs being identified by name in the film. This article refers to them as Edmontosaurus but doesn't provide any source. It later states that producers asked Tippett to include Hadrosaurus (also without a source). I remember assuming based on their behavior and similarity to contemporary artwork, that they were meant to be Maiasaura. Should the text simply refer to them as "hadrosaurs"? Edmontosaurus also strikes me as a somewhat anachronistic label for the early 1980s. It seems like they'd have been more likely to go with Maiasaurua, "hadrosaur" generically, Anatosaurus, or Trachodon at that time, especially considering that the live-action Reeve sequences were filmed in the pre-renovation AMNH, which had "Brontosaurus" and multiple "Trachodon" specimens on display. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever terms the labels shown at the time at the AMNH, the documentary doesn't mention the terms that were readable on the labels. Kintaro (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, @Dinoguy2: I didn't realise we were talking about the same problem. Well, I reedited the article, so if you know well this documentary you may now think that the article presents a more accurate wording. From my point of view, now it is ok. Kintaro (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not Hadrosaurus

identified as Hadrosaurus in promotional materials, this text in the article is rubbish since it is not connected to the 1985 documentary but to a recent internet era website (this is the used source, how ridiculous). Plus, anatomically those animals visible in the show are clearly Edmontosaurus. Haven't you the will of mentioning them as Edmontosaurus, please at least leave the parts of the article that said the documentary mentions them as duck-billed. At least, the use of that latter term, in the documentary, is an objective reality. Kintaro (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I watched again Dinosaur! (yes, I do possess one copy). The term Hadrosaurus, which corresponds to the genus only, is only mentioned once, when in the documentary Christopher Reeve states that dinosaur names are fun to say. Otherwise, Reeve permanently mentions the term "duck-billed" as a synonym of "hadrosaur", which is true, at least referring to the taxon Hadrosauridae (hadrosaurids). In this Wikipedia, "hadrosaur" redirects to "Hadrosauridae" in that meaning, the very same meaning the 1985 documentary Dinosaur! refers to. Thus, we need to go back to proper statements in this article. Kintaro (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Relevant content deleted

I definitely disagree with that. Two sections in the article have been suppressed by user FunkMonk. But my point is that they are relevant for the reader and should be kept in the article. Here they are below, as they were until March the 25th, 2023 :

- QUOTATION -

Scientific terminology in Dinosaur!

The genus Brontosaurus is named as such in the documentary, although at that time (1985) the scientific consensus considered it to be synonymous with Apatosaurus. Also, at the beginning of the documentary, Christopher Reeve, who hosts the programme, mentions several dinosaur genera. Starting with Hadrosaurus, Reeve signs to the audience that dinosaur names are fun to say, but this is the only moment in Dinosaur! when the genus Hadrosaurus is mentioned as such. For the rest of the programme, including the segments referring to the specimens studied in Montana by Jack Horner (genus Maiasaura though not mentioned as such in the documentary), both Reeve and the narrator use the term "duck-billed" which refers to all hadrosaurids. Hadrosaurus, as a genus, refers to one single species and specimen found in New Jersey. The documentary Dinosaur! abundantly uses the term "duck-billed", thus referring to all hadrosaurids, not only to the genus Hadrosaurus.

Inconsistencies

All six species of dinosaurs shown in the special effects sequences are presented as contemporary to each other. The documentary provides the audience with valuable data but doesn't situate those species in their respective geologic time scale periods. The dinosaurs featured alongside each other in overlapping sequences are duck-billed dinosaurs (which are hadrosaurids), Struthiomimus, Deinonychus, Tyrannosaurus, Monoclonius and even Brontosaurus. That latter first appears in a separated sequence but is later shown during the KT event. This situates all those animals as contemporary species during the extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous period, which is inconsistent. In reality, Brontosaurus belongs to the Jurassic period and only Struthiomimus, Tyrannosaurus and some hadrosaur species were contemporaries at the end of the Cretaceous period, the remains of them having been found in geological layers of the Hell Creek Formation. Deinonychus fossils have been found only in Early Cretaceous rocks, and Monoclonius, which is now considered a synonym of Centrosaurus, belongs to an earlier age of the Late Cretaceous period.

- END OF QUOTATION -

So the above is for the deleted content. That both sections are relevant for the reader simply as per their content, in the meaning of the documentary as related to the scientific knowledge in the mid 1980s, this is self-explanatory and doesn't require sources. Exactly the same as a "plot" section in a film article. The "inconsistencies" section is verifiable as per the linked articles in the section itself. If quotations need to be added they could be added, but the deletion of the section rather than a quotation request, simply is a bad faith proceeding. I went to FunkMonk's talk page and started a discussion. User Jens Lallensack added himself to the discussion to bring support to FunkMonk. On the one hand, both users are leaving sections in the article which aren't showing sourced quotations, but on the other hand they still want to maintain suppressed the two mentioned sections. Other than their personal [potentially biased] views, I see no reason why for this suppression. They argue with source requirement but in my understanding they are gaming the system. Both sections should be restored. Now, to any one wanting to participate in the present discussion: please do not state things like Anyway, let's end the discussion here, for this is very rude and authoritarian. Thank you in advance. Kintaro (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Yet again, it is WP:unsourced WP:synth. You have already been explained why at length by two editors, give it a rest. FunkMonk (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I have trouble seeing the relevance of a lot of these details.

Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus distinction is not really important either especially as the two are considered separate now, and Brontosaurus being Apatosaurus was not a very widespread idea culturally, even though it was weakly consensus scientifically.

Duck-billed is never used exclusively for Hadrosaurus, the mentioning of the genus once would not give the logical leap that Hadrosaurus was the only duck-billed dinosaur.

The entire first sentences of the Inconsistencies section can be cut as it is SYNTH, though text from "Brontosaurus belongs to the Jurassic" and onwards can be included and cited.

Summary: None of the "Scientific Terminology" should be reinstated, and it is arguable that less than half of "Inconsistencies" should be brought back. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Both removed sections do not seem to have inline citations, unless they were removed for clarity here. If they did not have inline citations their (temporary) removal is justified. The scientific terminology section could probably be removed even if it had citations, the only two things it mentions being apatosaurus/brontosaurus then being the same animal (which would fit better under inconsistencies) and four sentences to say that they used the term "duck-billed dinosaur". In short, I do not see how this could be considered bad faith or gaming the system.

(As a sidenote, expressing that it would be best to end a discussion is not rude and authoritarian at all, simply a way to prevent both parties from wasting time on a discussion thats going nowhere) The Morrison Man (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Has any reliable source linked these complaints about dinosaur accuracy with the film? Red Fiona (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Nobody complains of anything directly related to the documentary. When I'll have the time I'll put enough sources together so that the two sections can be restored. Kind regards. Kintaro (talk) 07:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

@Kintaro, for WP-purposes, you need WP:FILMHIST sources. Any "Inconsistencies" etc content should be a summary of stuff in the film WP:RS bothered to notice and said was wrong. Don't use sources that are not about the film. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the removed text, as written this appears to me as too much detail for a WP-article, apart from being unsourced. Stuff like "The documentary provides the audience with valuable data" is comment by a Wikipedian and shouldn't be there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You took it out of context. "The documentary provides the audience with valuable data", that part of the sentence makes sense only because of the remaining part... which is "but doesn't situate those species in their respective geologic time scale periods". The meaning of the sentence depends on the sentence as a whole, not on that part that you isolated. Have a nice day Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Kintaro (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Full sentence, it's still WP-editor's comment/reaction on the film. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh, yes, sure. Kintaro (talk) 08:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)