FA+
Shop
434
Views
Views
4
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Dinosaur
Size 900 x 900
File Size 242.5 kB
Report this content
More from spikeheila
T. rex, often misspelled as T-Rex or Trex is a large theropod dinosaur, and the most famous and badarse.
Unfortunately, almost all people don't seem to know,or understand, how to even draw one right.
Common inaccuracies include
Dog Bodies
Human legs
Tripod stance(old)
An incredibly bendy dragon-like tail
Huge circular holes on it's face
Shrink wrapped head
Armor
completely and utterly covered in scales (i'll let that slide,as Yutyrannus is a 2012 discovery)
Pronated hands(palms down)/Broken wrists, which IS the reason people think Rex arms are completely useless
Box-head
Massively large/thick legs
Tail's base is waay to wide
And more.
There is no reason for any of that, in the year 2012. It's one of the biggest,baddest, and most commonly shown and showcased dinosaur in the entire world. And yet the only things artists know about it are seen in the above picture and this description. Their education is ONLY Jurassic park. Use REAL paleoart as references :/
News Flash
Although badarse, JP's rex looks nothing like the real thing. It is a movie monster and that's it.
That's all it was
and at this rate, all it will be.
Jurassic Park was 20 freaking years ago, grow up and move on already. it's a good movie, but not the holy grail of dinosaur information you make it out to be.
Look at Dinosaur Revolution's T.rex, and put it side by side to a JP one.
Or look at my Rex Montage
Artistic liscense is fine, you can draw monsters however you like. But you dont give a wolf,lion feet, a square head, and let it's eyes and nose get sucked into it's face, and plainly state that it's just regular wolf do you?
once again, you can say "well, no one knows what they look like"
No, just look at a damn skeletal and you'll find a huge difference :/
Harsh? Maybe, but it's still the truth in dinosaur art.
Unfortunately, almost all people don't seem to know,or understand, how to even draw one right.
Common inaccuracies include
Dog Bodies
Human legs
Tripod stance(old)
An incredibly bendy dragon-like tail
Huge circular holes on it's face
Shrink wrapped head
Armor
completely and utterly covered in scales (i'll let that slide,as Yutyrannus is a 2012 discovery)
Pronated hands(palms down)/Broken wrists, which IS the reason people think Rex arms are completely useless
Box-head
Massively large/thick legs
Tail's base is waay to wide
And more.
There is no reason for any of that, in the year 2012. It's one of the biggest,baddest, and most commonly shown and showcased dinosaur in the entire world. And yet the only things artists know about it are seen in the above picture and this description. Their education is ONLY Jurassic park. Use REAL paleoart as references :/
News Flash
Although badarse, JP's rex looks nothing like the real thing. It is a movie monster and that's it.
That's all it was
and at this rate, all it will be.
Jurassic Park was 20 freaking years ago, grow up and move on already. it's a good movie, but not the holy grail of dinosaur information you make it out to be.
Look at Dinosaur Revolution's T.rex, and put it side by side to a JP one.
Or look at my Rex Montage
Artistic liscense is fine, you can draw monsters however you like. But you dont give a wolf,lion feet, a square head, and let it's eyes and nose get sucked into it's face, and plainly state that it's just regular wolf do you?
once again, you can say "well, no one knows what they look like"
No, just look at a damn skeletal and you'll find a huge difference :/
Harsh? Maybe, but it's still the truth in dinosaur art.
Category Artwork (Digital) / Animal related (non-anthro)
Species Dinosaur
Size 900 x 900px
File Size 242.5 kB
You're doing the artistic critique equivalent of being a grammar nazi. I'd hazzard a guess that most of the people who draw cartoon dinosaurs on fur affinity aren't trying to achieve realism. Its not a goal. They're just trying to make something that they think looks good, not trying to create a historically and anatomically correct case study.
Also nobody is claiming Jurassic park was a holy grail of dinosaur information. Nobody at all. Who do you think is claiming that it is?
http://i68.servimg.com/u/f68/12/18/.....8/vlcsna11.jpg look at this! No feathers or anything! all the anatomy is all wrong! But does that make it bad, or even wrong? Nope lol.
Being inspired to draw art from what you saw in a film isn't bad. Its inspiration. Are you going to call out all the people who drew fan art inspired by "were back" and tell them that actually trexes have feathers? No. Well, you might. but you shouldn't, because thats silly.
If people are going out of their way to realistically try and recreate paleo accurate art, then I'm sure you've every right to call them lazy on their research. But if its just some dude drawing a dinosaur cause lol he wanted to, I mean give the guy a break. He can draw that shit however he wants and if he wants to draw a dinosaur with scales, a box head and a flame thrower instead of arms then that is 100% accurate and fine if he's not trying to be realistic.
It is fine : )
Also nobody is claiming Jurassic park was a holy grail of dinosaur information. Nobody at all. Who do you think is claiming that it is?
http://i68.servimg.com/u/f68/12/18/.....8/vlcsna11.jpg look at this! No feathers or anything! all the anatomy is all wrong! But does that make it bad, or even wrong? Nope lol.
Being inspired to draw art from what you saw in a film isn't bad. Its inspiration. Are you going to call out all the people who drew fan art inspired by "were back" and tell them that actually trexes have feathers? No. Well, you might. but you shouldn't, because thats silly.
If people are going out of their way to realistically try and recreate paleo accurate art, then I'm sure you've every right to call them lazy on their research. But if its just some dude drawing a dinosaur cause lol he wanted to, I mean give the guy a break. He can draw that shit however he wants and if he wants to draw a dinosaur with scales, a box head and a flame thrower instead of arms then that is 100% accurate and fine if he's not trying to be realistic.
It is fine : )
Having something super stylized just to be super stylized is completely different than drawing something completely wrong, and not thinking it's right.
Fanart for things like We're Back is completely different, that's something that came out 20 years ago with a set style. All the dinosaurs don't look anything like dinosaurs, on purpose. Inspiration and fanart is completely different.
But people keep drawing this awful non-dinosaur,dinosaurs, and thinking that they ARE dinosaurs. You don't draw a lizard like a wolf,and say it's a lizard , you don't draw a dolphin like a shark,and say it's a dolphin, unless it's just another drawing.
example:
It's the people that would honestly think and stand by things like 'A dolphin is a fish', and some younger artists may think "wow, that looks really cool, dolphins have gills and their tail fin is vertical!"
But this 'style' shouldn't be constant. Not every piece of art SHOULD just be JP-dinosaurs, it's not even that it's the style, they are usually too ignorant to know better, like with Dog Bodied dromaeosaurs(and general theropods). DOG BODIES. People look up to big name artists, and they decide to have a dinosaur's penis in their ribs/ on their pubic bone, or give a dinosaur a dog-body, simply because they are too lazy to even look at a reference.
Fanart for things like We're Back is completely different, that's something that came out 20 years ago with a set style. All the dinosaurs don't look anything like dinosaurs, on purpose. Inspiration and fanart is completely different.
But people keep drawing this awful non-dinosaur,dinosaurs, and thinking that they ARE dinosaurs. You don't draw a lizard like a wolf,and say it's a lizard , you don't draw a dolphin like a shark,and say it's a dolphin, unless it's just another drawing.
example:
It's the people that would honestly think and stand by things like 'A dolphin is a fish', and some younger artists may think "wow, that looks really cool, dolphins have gills and their tail fin is vertical!"
But this 'style' shouldn't be constant. Not every piece of art SHOULD just be JP-dinosaurs, it's not even that it's the style, they are usually too ignorant to know better, like with Dog Bodied dromaeosaurs(and general theropods). DOG BODIES. People look up to big name artists, and they decide to have a dinosaur's penis in their ribs/ on their pubic bone, or give a dinosaur a dog-body, simply because they are too lazy to even look at a reference.
How can someone claim that they are drawing a species, like a spinosaurus for example, and it looks barely anything like a spinosaurus, and is blatantly obvious they just ripped off JP3, rather than look at real reconstructions of a spinosaurus, or of other spinosaurs.
It's not that i hate stylized dinosaurs, no. I'm all for stylizing animals alive or dead. It's just that people don't know what is stylized and what isn't. Alot of people honestly believe the list of inaccuracies are how a Rex(and other dinosaurs I'll draw later) looks, and it's not even me whining about integument either.
Is the pic meant to be an example of wrong or right?
I sorta agree with you if they're drawing for realism but most people are just drawing for the heck of it and draw in a style.
My anatomy in drawings sux hard but mainly cause I can't draw as well as I'd like.
A lot of this is guess work.
colours, stance, hell even much of the bone structure has been called into question at least once.
I read a research paper irl that claimed all dinosaur reconstructions were as much as 20% undersize.
There's no creature we can go find and look at for reference so it's probably okay to allow a little artistic license
I sorta agree with you if they're drawing for realism but most people are just drawing for the heck of it and draw in a style.
My anatomy in drawings sux hard but mainly cause I can't draw as well as I'd like.
A lot of this is guess work.
colours, stance, hell even much of the bone structure has been called into question at least once.
I read a research paper irl that claimed all dinosaur reconstructions were as much as 20% undersize.
There's no creature we can go find and look at for reference so it's probably okay to allow a little artistic license
Learning anatomy and being bad at it, at first, is part of the learning process, and is fine, but when a person deliberatly draws something that doesn't even resemble anything like the real animal, is when it gets ridiculous.
People know multiple dinosaurs' colors now, as well as stance from trackways seen around the world(and by figuring out how the skeleton is put together)
People can have an artistic license to their monsters, but need to realize that most of the time, they aren't dinosaurs, but just monsters in pop culture.
However, at this rate, the normal public won't understand this for another 40 years I guess.
People know multiple dinosaurs' colors now, as well as stance from trackways seen around the world(and by figuring out how the skeleton is put together)
People can have an artistic license to their monsters, but need to realize that most of the time, they aren't dinosaurs, but just monsters in pop culture.
However, at this rate, the normal public won't understand this for another 40 years I guess.
We think we know.
Pigmentation changes after death and over time.
Reconstructions can be wrong. Look at the original iguanadon reconstruction.
While there are some that are blatantly wrong, and I agree those can be annoying, the stretched skin over the face and the scales all over are not entirely wrong. -It's often over exaggerated with the stretched skin and Yutyrannus is not only a new discovery but is an ancestor of, not actually the same species of the classic T. Rex.
T-Rex is also not entirely wrong. T' Rex could also technically be used. Its a bit pedantic to pick on such tiny details.
Art is fun :P
Pigmentation changes after death and over time.
Reconstructions can be wrong. Look at the original iguanadon reconstruction.
While there are some that are blatantly wrong, and I agree those can be annoying, the stretched skin over the face and the scales all over are not entirely wrong. -It's often over exaggerated with the stretched skin and Yutyrannus is not only a new discovery but is an ancestor of, not actually the same species of the classic T. Rex.
T-Rex is also not entirely wrong. T' Rex could also technically be used. Its a bit pedantic to pick on such tiny details.
Art is fun :P
Pigmentation may change,but not as much as you think, and not as much for the kind of fossilization that occurs for the ones we have colors for (microraptor,anchiornis,sinornithosaurus)
Reconstructions back then were wrong,because people were very stupid back then,and we patched together skeletons of other animals,and filled in gaps with what we thought we knew, even then however, people painted and drew those dinosaurs very very accuratly,to the skeletals they made.
If almost off of basal tyrannosaurus have feathers, and there is no real reason to lose them(feathers are incredible insulation afterall) then there is no reason for T. rex to not be feathered. Dilong, Guanlong,and now the giant Yutyrannus all have feathers,and are all tyrannosaurs
Just the other day they have even found feathers in a european megalosaurid, this is the first time feathers have been found in a non- coelurosaurian theropod. Though feather-like integument has also been found on the basal ceratpsian Psittacosaurus, in the form of quills :3
T-rex and T'Rex ARE wrong tho. Just like C-Familiaris would be wrong,instead of C. familiaris , and C-Lupus would be wrong,instead of C. lupus
Reconstructions back then were wrong,because people were very stupid back then,and we patched together skeletons of other animals,and filled in gaps with what we thought we knew, even then however, people painted and drew those dinosaurs very very accuratly,to the skeletals they made.
If almost off of basal tyrannosaurus have feathers, and there is no real reason to lose them(feathers are incredible insulation afterall) then there is no reason for T. rex to not be feathered. Dilong, Guanlong,and now the giant Yutyrannus all have feathers,and are all tyrannosaurs
Just the other day they have even found feathers in a european megalosaurid, this is the first time feathers have been found in a non- coelurosaurian theropod. Though feather-like integument has also been found on the basal ceratpsian Psittacosaurus, in the form of quills :3
T-rex and T'Rex ARE wrong tho. Just like C-Familiaris would be wrong,instead of C. familiaris , and C-Lupus would be wrong,instead of C. lupus
Blacks and reds don't tend to change much and are what are most commonly found. And I wasn't saying we didn't know what they probably looked like, I was pointing out that it's PROBABLY what they look like.
They don't live today, thus nothing is certain about them.
Saying people were stupid is a bit of an overstatement. what they were was inexperienced.
And again, I wasn't saying that T. Rex didn't have feathers. I was saying it's not certain it did. I understand about the recent discoveries (and frankly think feathered dinosaurs are cooler than they used to look) I'm just saying it's not been proven T. Rex had feathers -yet- though it may well be soon enough.
Even then, if people prefer the look of the featherless one it shouldn't be a problem if they draw it without feathers as long as they acknowledge that it's an inaccurate drawing.
I also know that T. Rex is correct and why it's correct but T-Rex and Trex have become more cultural nicknames than correct scientific names.
They don't live today, thus nothing is certain about them.
Saying people were stupid is a bit of an overstatement. what they were was inexperienced.
And again, I wasn't saying that T. Rex didn't have feathers. I was saying it's not certain it did. I understand about the recent discoveries (and frankly think feathered dinosaurs are cooler than they used to look) I'm just saying it's not been proven T. Rex had feathers -yet- though it may well be soon enough.
Even then, if people prefer the look of the featherless one it shouldn't be a problem if they draw it without feathers as long as they acknowledge that it's an inaccurate drawing.
I also know that T. Rex is correct and why it's correct but T-Rex and Trex have become more cultural nicknames than correct scientific names.
The big issue is that people don't know that it's an inaccurate drawing. They see a JP rex,and think that it's the real deal, that is a rex for most people. If they then look at Dino Revolution's rex,they either don't notice a difference or complain that it doesnt look like a rex and the sort. Same with raptors,brachiosaurs,stegosaurs,etc. And thats what I'm actually getting at and why I'm making an Edu-Comic that barely anyone will look at.
Comments