i like both styles personally, cus we can never really know if all raptors were covered with feathers and just how much, but maybe Jurassic Park is like a little bookmark in our history of dinosaur knowledge, where we can look back at the first advanced raptor design that wasn't fully accurate as it is now, its still part of popular culture
The classic design can never be bested, and man this looks GOOD you really know how to draw a raptor!!! You even made me like the new raptor and that's quite a hard thing to do!!
They seem more fitting for Walking With Dinosaurs.. XD Not JP, I'm happy with experimentation with the Spino killing off T-Rex that's passable but I don't see a good reason to have changed the raptors... I mean they already weren't scientifically correct at all size-wise anyways so why try to give them feathers to seem more scientifically correct.
JasonDaManBondFeatured By OwnerJul 15, 2011Student Traditional Artist
well,these could be real "velociraptor",because in the days where Jurassic Park came out,they found a new type of velociraptor in Montana.Of course,if I remember,it was either a deinonychus or a Utahraptor,which are about the same size as the raptors in the movies.but in those days,one of these two was called a velociraptor.so in other words,what we have in the movies are somewhat scientifically correct raptors. and if not,well we can blame the batracian DNA they used to clone the dinosaurs(even though I don't see how frog's DNA can alter a dinosaur size,but hey!we may never know) sorry if some of my sentences were sounding weird still have a few issues with my english,especially with descriptions,which i'm already not very good in french.
Thanks. I think I remember reading somewhere in JP those were no velociraptors but Deinonychus. Crichton made a mistake 'cause he read a paper by paleontologist Gregory Paul. in it he said Deinos were just a bigger Velociraptor species, and not a different genre. Thus the mistake. Later Deinonycchus was confirmed as a diferent animal. Anyway, the hands are wrong too.