Avatar

Here I Guess.

@lordlouiedor / lordlouiedor.tumblr.com

Hey, have fun

My favorite detail about Jurassic Park is that it has a baked-in justification for any and all retcons it might need to make due to paleontology advancing forwards.

Because there is not a single dinosaur that has ever appeared in Jurassic Park.

Not one. Not in the books. Not in the movies. Not ever.

"Now what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park was to create genetically engineered theme park monsters." ~Alan Grant

Grant says that in a moment of cynicism. It's part of his arc for the film. But it's not inaccurate. What Jurassic Park has, what it's always had since the very first novel, are "Mostly Dinosaurs".

"And since the DNA is so old, it's full of holes! Now, that's where our geneticists take over!" ~Mr. DNA

It's impossible to recover a fully intact gene sequence from an ancient amber mosquito. Cloning a pure dinosaur would have been completely impossible, and so the park filled in the gene sequence with whatever works. Frog. Lizard. Bird. Whatever they need to get the result they are trying to get.

Every single dinosaur is a chimeric beast made up of mostly dinosaur and a bunch of other stuff that some scientists thought would achieve the appropriate dinosaur-like result.

"Nothing in Jurassic World is natural! We have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different." ~Dr. Henry Wu

Which, from a writing perspective, is fucking genius. Because now you have a preset excuse for each and every plot hole your movie has.

Like. Why don't the raptors have feathers? Because of the chimera DNA.

Why do dilophosaurs spit venom? Because of the chimera DNA.

Why do T-Rexes have movement based vision? Oh, they don't. But Rexy does. Because of her chimera DNA.

Why is the Spinosaurus so fucking big? Because of the chimera DNA.

Why are the velociraptors mislabeled? Because Hammond's a dipshit.

Like. I've always marveled at the way Jurassic Park started out by giving itself a blanket excuse to be wrong about every single thing it ever said about the central attraction of its franchise. It's honestly beautiful, and allows the series a degree of immortality well into the era where we know better about its animals.

Avatar
grendelmenz-deactivated20200929

some sort of love poem

Avatar
grendelmenz-deactivated20200929

This is the wildest result of one of my comics becoming popular I feel rabid

was just gonna reblog this bomb ass comic again bc it's a mood but the author's addition is hilarious. this is why your english teachers taught you to find meaning in a text

let's form structures with mamas

these are hyraxes! they're not rodents or canines or anything like that. they belong to their very own order known as hyracoidea. their closest relatives are elephants and manatees, and these mamas and babies have FREAKY teeth

also important to note that the

and:

...good to know.

old comic i finally finished and turned into a quick animatic! set a few months after the Bugs Me-inator incident, once school has started. stacy hasn't interacted with perry again until now. still frames under the cut

Dressmaking in Paris, 1907.

I would like to point out what these women are wearing themselves. Because "what did WORKING women wear?!" is a refrain I hear a lot re: recreations of even the most basic historical clothing that has any visual interest at all

the lady on the far right has a brooch and a necklace! and some insertion lace on her blouse! the center-right lady in the plaid shirtwaist seems to be wearing a decorative necktie of some sort! all of them have sleeve puffs that are maybe a few years out of date, but not by much!

and these are working seamstresses! literally At Work!

working-class people have always loved beauty just as much as the rich. and found ways to incorporate it into their lives

Virginia Postrel in her book THE SUBSTANCE OF STYLE specifically points out that ornamentation is always possible no matter how limited your resources. You might not have quite enough food, but you can still put your hair in a braid more easily than you can buy a milk cow for your family. You might have to whittle your spoons yourself from a branch foraged in the wood, but you can still carve a knotwork pattern into the handle more easily than you can learn the craft of forging metal.

A thirst for beauty isn't something limited to the rich and knowledgeable. It's something that makes us human, and I worry that people who can't accept that working class or disadvantaged people from history might have appreciated and prioritised beauty and style in their lives are also failing to accept that these people were fully human. I mean think for just a moment where this trope of the filth encrusted medieval peasant came from - it wasn't from people who respected their dignity and personhood.

Cleanliness, style, and ornament are all ways that as humans we express our dignity, and attributing filth and squalor to people is a pretty common way to deny their dignity.

Yes. Of course their lives contained beauty.

"Cratchit's wife, dressed out but poorly in a twice-turned gown, but brave in ribbons which are cheap and make a goodly show for sixpence" - A Christmas Carol

This woman literally took her gown apart, turned it inside-out, and remade it into a more modern style. TWICE. And then managed to dress it up with some silk ribbons.

Where There’s a Will, There’s a War || M*A*S*H 10x17 Original Airdate: February 22, 1982 written by David Pollock, Elias Davis story editing by Karen Hall directed by Alan Alda

At some point in the past I made a post about how *good* Klinger is throughout the series and. Yeah. :) Klinger's so great. :)

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.