Hey, mate (or the female equivalent if you're a girl) :-). Thanks for the interesting discussion you created about non-psychopath pure evil villains. Now, as a fellow dinosaur enthusiastic, here are the topics:
1. Are you also into Jurassic Park? If you do, we have a lot to talk about :-). Share theories, figure out things and all. Have a favorite hero/villain?
2. I have an upcoming dinosaurs story. Would you like to hear about it? And do you write stories of your own, with or without dinosaurs?
1. Just a couple of JP-related questions and i promise i'll try not to talk about it too much:
A. As we know, Indoraptor was extremely intelligent. Before the movie came out, i asked myself if a creature who's build from raptor and Indominus-Rex would be able to talk with humans. Do you think he could, if only he wasn't a dinosaur Cujo and actually got raised properly?
B. Any speculations about Wu's human accomplice in JW3? I've heard about the "Extinction Now" group. Their leader might be an extremist. Like Hoskins. Hopefully more sympathetic than that. Do you see "Extinction Now" as Wu's accomplices, or someone more diabolical?
C. Some weird people on the internet think Masie was a prototype for Indoraptor. Do you think they say it because she's likely part raptor as well, or just because Indoraptor is just tragic enough to sympathetic? On a personal note: Indoraptor is the only JP villain who ever earned my sympathy, mainly because he was the only JP villain who never betrayed anyone and suffered more than most of the characters in the franchise.
D. Some people say Spino-Rex is more powerful than I-Rex. They use many arguements (i can answer to each and every argument), but the only legit one is that Spino-Rex was destructive in meta-level (the animatronic alone destroyed the t-rex animatronic for real and injured Tea Leoni for real), not to mention ruined Isla Sorna and having a part of the franchise's 14 years coma. I personally hold it against him. Do you also hold it against him, or in his favor? For the record: Most people, me included, know I-Rex is stronger. Just asking if the only legit case Spino-Rex have is for his favor, or for his insult.
E. Any speculation about Wu's death? No hybrid will kill anybody anymore and Rexy is too merciful, so personally i hope Blue will kill him, similar to how the raptors killed him in the novel. Owen/a bad human can kill Wu as well. Stabbing Wu to death, shooting him, you name it. As long as Wu's death will be more agonizing than Lockwood's and Mills', i can take everything.
2. Know Yuval Noah Harari? So he's a very smart historian and futurolog (like an historian, but future-oriented) who talks about many things, included how mankind evolved from another african ape to the dominant life form.
D. In real life spinosaur was arguably more powerful than T rex possibly because of the longer forelimbs. So I would say a combo of the two genra would be more powerful than a regular T rex.
E. Not sure actually.
2. No, however it is thought we evolved from Australopithecus sediba who in turn gave rise to H. habilis/rudolfensis, H. ergaster/erectus, H. heidelbergensis aka Archaic Homo sapien/early Neanderthal. Personally I think H. habilis/rudolfensis/georgicus and maybe ergaster were not Homo (human).
1. Thanks. I'll try to not mention JP too often. Parts B, C and E are nicely summarized. The sad part is that hard core JP fans weren't informative about it. You did you best. Part A's question is based on the fact Indoraptor (sometimes i call him I-Black for short) is a hybrid of Indominus rex and a regular JP raptor (actually featherless deinonychus). Indominus-Rex could talk with raptors due to being partly raptor herself. I know none of the hybrids were partly human, but it make sense if some of them would. I just wondered if a very intelligent dinosaur, who can talk with other species, would be able to talk with humans as well. Part D's question is based on the fact Spino-Rex deviding many JP fans. This creature killed the t-rex so easily because it was a hybrid. The basic genome was spinosaurus, with most likely t-rex and suchomimus in it. The real creature was less-powerfully built and shorter than a real t-rex. Not to mention t-rexes most likely hunted in pairs/groups. I dont wanna be a spinosaur, not even Spino-Rex, who bump into more than one t-rex.
2. Sounds interesting. Ergaster does make sense as not specifically human, but why does the dexterous man ain't "Homo"? Dexterity is part of what separates man from beast. I know the main separation is the ability to pass on information and creating a big common myth (money is an example of such myth. Important, but doesnt exist in the literal sense of the word), but still.
1. If we assume Ergaster isn't a true human, if only because he's more like a super-intelligent ape, then the first human must've been Erectus. From here, the question i'm interested to deal with is how would mankind deal with more than one human species. Homo floresiensis could be like the hobbits we know from fantasy settings, in a sense that they might've become merchants and lawyer. Neanderthals won't do too well in this scenario. We know how Homo Sapience behave between one another, so the neanderthals will make the black slaves look like Queen Elizabeth. Also, Yuval Noah Harari said that maybe some neanderthals were raped by Spiences for asserting sick domination. I'm glad i ain't a neanderthal.
2. I have several theories about mankind evolution. Tell me what you think:
A. The first criminal was a burgler, who also became the first killer for not being caught stealing. The second criminal used to work with the first, until he decided that catching his former accomplice will grant him respect as a "savior" in the community's eyes. That's how the first cop came to be. You know how many cops and criminals think alike. And how much blury the lines can be.
B. If you believe in god, i respect it, but i don't. I'm an atheist, with many agnostic friends. As someone who believe that god was created in man's image vs vice versa, i believe that the first person who invented god wasn't just power-hungry. He had a severe womb envy. That led him to create a man who can create life. Creating life is a feminine ability. So, in order to deal with his womb envy, he came up with a man with the feminine power of creation. It works just fine for many people all over the world. For many reasons.
C. Mammoths and other giant creatures were hunted for food and fur. Over-hunting and diseases aside, that was half-tolorable. The biggest problem for the megafauna came when people began to hunt for showoff and show each individual strength. Hunting a diprotodon each year is hard enough due to this creature's slow breeding rate. One baby less from past year is all it takes to make the creature go extinct step by step. But hunting for sport and showing strength. That's a death sentence to most living beings.
3. Non-prehistoric mankind topic: I neglected to notice, but you seems to like horror movies as well. I have a taste for this genre, so here we have another thing to talk about. Now, which was the latest horror film you happened to see?
I'm ok with horror films. The reason why I visit articles of 13 ghosts is because that is the first horror film I ever saw, and I barely recall it (musta went to sleep). It is also the last horror film I saw, and I like how the guy from Monk was in it. Also, the Great Child sticks out to me since I had a handicapped neighbor similar to him named Lawrence or Jojo. So I am disgusted by the poor treatment Harold Shelburne recieved.
I think Erectus could be the "Adam and Eve", and Neanderthal man was on par with modern man.
Maybe neanderthalers were H. sapiens, who knows for sure?
1. I dont remember "the Great Child" so much. Is that the movie with the teenager who faked disability for having Naomi Wats to himself?
2. I dont think neanderthals were spaiens. They were another species of humans, which were raped by H. Sapience as part of their power struggles. The neanderthals were on par with modern man. One thing playing against them, however, is that they weren't as efficient at passing information. That's what made a squad of 50 inferior than a sapience 50 men squad. Also, i'm not sure how human Lucy is. Depends if you see australopithecus as human.
1. The "Great Child" is a movie character from the film Thir13en Ghosts. In that film, one ghost that is trapped in the glass house is a mentally disabled circus freak nicknamed the "Great Child".
2. That is because Neanderthals were hermits and introverts, maybe aspies. They were similar to the Aboriginies pre-colonialism, since they lived in small groups so information was passed less. Otherwise they would've sped cultural evolution far quicker and the Neolithic would have probably been a couple hundred thousand years ago. Who knows how far advanced Homo would be now if that was the case.
1. Fun fact (i'll see the movie eventually. Between college assignments): Matthew Lillard, who played the assistant, also played Stu Macher. His "Thir13en Ghosts" characters will be better, but you gotta give Matthew the credit for risking his neck for a dull character and still made the said character memorable due to his acting levels. Happen to see "Scooby Do"? If you didn't, try to watch Scream and then Scooby Do. I did the mistake of watching "Scooby Do" before "Scream", and now I can't take any serial killer played by Matthew as intimidating. Even seeing him playing a serious serial killer in "Criminal Minds" didn't changed it.
2. Make sense with hermits and introverts, but sure about aspies? I mean, a whole race of Asperger's? More likely that some were, most were not, just like with us. If the scenario you described would be real, it's also possible that the 2 types of human (3 with the hobbits) would form a special united front to mend the aspies on both sides. It could be like in fantasy settings, with many races are part of mankind (humans, elves, dwarves, hobbits/gnomes and so on).