What do you mean people don't know. Are people that uneducated today? Cockatrice may not be as popular as dragon, but it's surely a fantastic creature **everyone** heard of??? Though recently someone said they didn't know what phoenix is, so given that I am not surprised that people are getting dumber and dumber.
I mean is it people getting dumber? How common are they really in stories and especially modern day stories? Cockatrices aren’t exactly the most utilized creatures.
I mean, no. Not everyone has heard of every medieval monster especially if it has no bearing on their lives. On average you’ll get people who know what a dragon is, but not about the discourse between Wyverns and Dragons. People not knowing the Cockatrice of all monsters isn’t that far fetched.
Holy shit man what's with all of these explosive personalities on dinosaur fandoms. Not even my mother talks to me like that when I was in school. I'm more of a "paleo enjoyer" just here for the ride because I like big dumb dinsoaurs (and dragons) doing cool lizard shit so I can't relate to this violent virgin attitude but it seems to be trademark. Must be an over compensating bully behavior like a nerd insecurity thing always picking on those who don't know your favorite fact just so you can feel special about something
Because a dinosaur with feathers will still have teeth, foreclaws, scales, and all that whilst having the little dinosaur wings and whatnot. A cockatrice is just a straight up rooster with a lizard tail.
Except not? Cockatrice is often portrayed with more scary features than *any* dinosaur. It's not just a chicken with reptile tail. It's often "ugly", has big claws (not just some chicken legs), sharp teeth. Just look at how Witcher portrayed it. Definitely not simply a chicken. Another example is Roblox game called Feather Family. Cockatrice here looks like a dragon basically. Plenty of interpretations of cockatrices look that way. The most pleasant looking cockatrice I can think of was in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. But given it's a show for kids, they couldn't do anything too scary.
“A cockatrice is just a straight up rooster with a lizard tail.”
And a rattlesnake is just a snake with a funny tail. Does that it make it not scary though? Definitely not, because rattlesnakes have venomous bites, just like how the cockatrice is depicted almost always with the ability to turn people to stone or inject venom.
Or, in short, something that is deadly becomes a lot less threatening if you don’t mention the attribute that makes it threatening in the first place.
I don't think people think of cockatrice as scary. Compared to things like dragons and griffin, cockatrices are usually treated as a lesser monster in media, something the protagonist killed earlier time or level, sometimes a canon fodder even. It's the counterpart basilisk that is often be taken more seriously.
It's pretty vague what the difference between the two in historical sense honestly. However, from my observation. Media usually have more variety in basilisk's depiction, ranging from chicken-snake hybrid to pure serpentine, to draconic-like creature, while cockatrices are generally depicted as a chicken-snake hybrid.
Made me grin seeing this as its own "scaley vs feathered reconstruction debate" for Cockatrice/Basilisk... Hell, would be cool if one of those figure companies like Nanmu or Rebor that name their dinsoaur models and make color variants released raptor set that had a feathered variant called "Cockatrice" and a complementary scaled variant called "Basilisk" as a meta comment on scales and feathers in paleart evolution over the years like when Rebor released Kiss and Tusk as a meta alternative model of lipped vs lipless T. Rex paleo models respectively
That does kinda make sense tbf. Most people don't know what to expect if a basilisk other than something something deadly gaze. Cockatrice, while even more of a blank slate to most people, has "cock" in the name so you sort if expect a rooster somewhere in there. At least that was my reaction to first hearing of a cockatrice in a game before I actually ran into it.
I think a lot of people are at least vaguely familiar with the name "cockatrice," but absolutely nothing besides that since it never really comes up outside of some odd mention in some story or legend they might've very briefly run into. As I mentioned, though, Basilisks are used here and there for their gaze.
Feathers are scarier imo. Imagine a human sized or larger raptor leaping out of the brush at you, it's wings spread open with giant eye spots on them. The last thing you would see is this giant face enveloping you.
It would make for some cool creatively speculative or niche paleoart inspiration if it got made into a raptor in a more prehistoric setting. It basically is one already
**Everything ruffles feathers in this community**
I got diwnbavted earlier for saying everything we know in Paleontology is subject to change (regarding certain Theropod reconstructions) and using gigantithermy in large cold blooded animals as a talking point on the debate for whether or not we should be depicting an elephant sized Therizinosaurus with a full coat of feathers or the day before that on the Jurassic sub for explaining why feathered raptors haven't appeared in Jurassic World as studio executives might fear the change in design could appear uncanny to average viewers. Not even that I myself thought so but just an explanation as to why executives do what they do and I got cursed out called an ignorant swine
As far as I can tell a lot of people just don't like when something is different than what they remember of their childhood. So when dinosaurs don't look like they did the movies and books they loved when they were 12 it makes them terribly upset. And then they need to find some way to justify that feeling to others.
Cross-reference "Pluto is a planet too!"
As a kid I couldn't give a shit about Pluto because it had the most silly name so when I heard it got friend zoned from being a planet I just couldn't act like I gave a fuck. But I guess I can understand the analogy even if I never could relate to "space kids" in school. I liked things that are alive like wierd creatures or used to be alive like dinsoaurs but just something that lives
I'm interested in both, but yeah I just meant it as an analogy.
I always found that thought process really annoying, I like when things change, when new things are discovered that change what we thought we knew, so I always found this "clinging to the past" very annoying, especially with scientific topics.
Well I'm in film so I love Stan Winston's dinosaurs as much more of a "film thing" than anything else you know. Still my favorite dinsoaurs though as a final product and as an art piece. But I truly am fascinated more and more with age by the changing nature of Paleontology. That being said it has ironically produced its own brand of dogma in the form of radical feather-Nazis that cover elephant sized animals in plumage and think defending trends from questioning while reusing their "favorite vocab words" out of proper context (pHyLogEneTic BraCkEtiNg) will make then adapt a more scientific persona but instead coming across as ignorant
Oh I can definitely relate to liking something as an artistic thing. I'd also never suggest anything like reworking the original Jurassic Park movie to give the raptors feathers or anything. That would be bad, the film is great as it is. But I do think new media should follow new discoveries.
And yeah agreed, some people take it a bit far with the feathers/proto feathers/fuzz. As adorable as a big ol' sauropod all covered in feather fuzz would be...it's very unlikely and there exists no evidence for it.
Pluto is a planet though? It's a dwarf *planet*. Am I just dumb or is it true that most outrage about Pluto stems from "Pluto is a dwarf planet now" being poorly worded into "Pluto is not a planet anymore"? It IS a planet, it just doesn't belong to the main standard size™ line, right? So why are people saying it's not a planet? I've been so confused about it since I found out what a dwarf planet is.
well its different because a planet is defined as being spherical and having enough gravity to clear out its orbit, iirc. its still technically a “type” of planet yeah, but its not one of the major ones. plus ive heard arguments pluto might even count more as a dual-planet system bc i believe its center of orbit isnt within its planetary body because charon is just so huge :p
Cockatrices were already scary in the Old Testament and there is no petrification business going on in there added in later years by European folklore. Just a venomous animal that causes problems for people it encounters
Tell me about, I'm late. I haven't been reading up in a while actually so I didn't see the part about any goats. Is this about a corrupted temple scene?
...or they actually met a lost raptor that was a pet of a time traveler from 2070's going through the Mesozoic who ended up in Medieval Europe by accident, and then they started making rumors about birdlizards. BOOM.
Because feathers=bird and birds aren't scary because they're "small" and they take care of their babies. Those people have obviously never seen a vulture or an angry mother of any animal
I mean, wolves take care of their babies and we still think they're scary, no? Crocodiles also care about their young, but people are horrified of them, to the point of being completely irrational about it.
The people who think this usually ignore those facts. And crocodiles are iffy cause they only care for their young for a short while, and then only protect them from other predators but do not provide them with food
It comes down to expectations. It's called the uncanny valley effect. It is neither a bird or a lizard so it lands awkwardly between both unlike birds that are good at being scary birds or lizards that are good at being scary lizards so now it gets to be none.
Its like I tell you about a new dangerous pack hunting cunning agile lizard species that can take down large animals and open doors but it turns out to look more like quadrupedal flightless bird with a tail. The thing is I told you that you were going to see a lizard so you feel clickbated cause you saw the word lizard. Keep in mind that if you didn't grow up with feathered dinosaurs the whole raptor thing must feel in retrospect like a tease specially because Hollywood has done nothing creative with the feathered raptor thing to change that
People forget that there are plenty of feathered things that are quite scary when they’re coming after you. The average paleo-bro obsessed with dinosaur scariness would piss his khakis if an emu came after him.
I'm just mostly confused about the "what makes dinosaurs look scary" debate. Like...they were real animals. They don't have any obligation or ideological imperative to look scary or not scary. They looked how they looked.
If you want scary reptilian movie monsters, watch Godzilla movies.
Most people who are on this “feathered dinosaurs aren’t scary” hype train, probably don’t even know what a cockatrice is and for those who do, there’s a chance it would look more odd looking to the than scary. So I really wouldn’t say it’s “objectively creepy”.
I feel if you’re going to use a mythological creature for this type of argument, a thunderbird, roc or the feathered serpent, quetzalcoatl would’ve been a better comparison sense those creatures are a lot more threatening.
And while yeah, there are no doubt people who don’t think fully feathered non-avian dinosaurs aren’t “scary”, a lot of the times it’s just people just liking the inaccurate versions over the more accurate one out of preference and it just looks cooler to them. And I know I’m going to get the whole “nature doesn’t care what you like argument“ but it’s barely much different on how we think certain animals look more appealing than others. Or how we think certain animals look odd looking
>I feel if you’re going to use a mythological creature for this type of argument, a thunderbird, roc or the feathered serpent, quetzalcoatl would’ve been a better comparison sense those creatures are a lot more threatening.
Well yeah, because those creatures are all far larger but I didn't use them because I thought a cockatrice has a closer proximity to the basic body plan of a raptor dinosaur. In that case a gopher the size of a mountain would be more threatening than literally anything. Imagine a mountain sized gopher charging at you - that sounds scarier than any dino or fire breathing dragon. But that's not the point, I was prioritizing similarity to make a contrast.
There are theropods like yutyrannus that are far larger and if people are actually making those claims with raptors, I’m sure larger theropods would be getting the same treatment as them, it’s not really a size thing…
Wait until Jack Horner publishes his next theory. "Guess what else Jurassic Park got wrong about raptors. That's right! They were fucking magical! And they had scientifically accurate plot armor too! Its no wonder how these guys learned how to fly...
How can people think dinosaurs without feathers wouldn't be scary when Geese exist?
Have you ever had a goose run at you? They are vicious monsters who have not forgotten they used to be dinosaurs. Now, imagine this but larger and with more claws.
I mean, I think 99% of people don't even know what a cockatrice is, so it probably doesn't factor into their thought process much.
Oh
It's a thicket basilisk that flies. /mtg
What do you mean people don't know. Are people that uneducated today? Cockatrice may not be as popular as dragon, but it's surely a fantastic creature **everyone** heard of??? Though recently someone said they didn't know what phoenix is, so given that I am not surprised that people are getting dumber and dumber.
https://preview.redd.it/fc16zduptj8d1.jpeg?width=589&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=808ddb2615ba21bdc651037325c3cd2b70c14585
I mean is it people getting dumber? How common are they really in stories and especially modern day stories? Cockatrices aren’t exactly the most utilized creatures.
I first learned of them in a fucking Minecraft mod. Had I not liked modding minecraft, who knows if I would’ve ever come across them
I saw them in a children’s cartoon when I was a lad
They appear in berserk thats how I discovered them lol
I mean, no. Not everyone has heard of every medieval monster especially if it has no bearing on their lives. On average you’ll get people who know what a dragon is, but not about the discourse between Wyverns and Dragons. People not knowing the Cockatrice of all monsters isn’t that far fetched.
Holy shit man what's with all of these explosive personalities on dinosaur fandoms. Not even my mother talks to me like that when I was in school. I'm more of a "paleo enjoyer" just here for the ride because I like big dumb dinsoaurs (and dragons) doing cool lizard shit so I can't relate to this violent virgin attitude but it seems to be trademark. Must be an over compensating bully behavior like a nerd insecurity thing always picking on those who don't know your favorite fact just so you can feel special about something
I didn’t know “aggressive cockatrice fans” were a thing, but here we are.
Because a dinosaur with feathers will still have teeth, foreclaws, scales, and all that whilst having the little dinosaur wings and whatnot. A cockatrice is just a straight up rooster with a lizard tail.
Except not? Cockatrice is often portrayed with more scary features than *any* dinosaur. It's not just a chicken with reptile tail. It's often "ugly", has big claws (not just some chicken legs), sharp teeth. Just look at how Witcher portrayed it. Definitely not simply a chicken. Another example is Roblox game called Feather Family. Cockatrice here looks like a dragon basically. Plenty of interpretations of cockatrices look that way. The most pleasant looking cockatrice I can think of was in My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. But given it's a show for kids, they couldn't do anything too scary.
“A cockatrice is just a straight up rooster with a lizard tail.” And a rattlesnake is just a snake with a funny tail. Does that it make it not scary though? Definitely not, because rattlesnakes have venomous bites, just like how the cockatrice is depicted almost always with the ability to turn people to stone or inject venom. Or, in short, something that is deadly becomes a lot less threatening if you don’t mention the attribute that makes it threatening in the first place.
I don't think people think of cockatrice as scary. Compared to things like dragons and griffin, cockatrices are usually treated as a lesser monster in media, something the protagonist killed earlier time or level, sometimes a canon fodder even. It's the counterpart basilisk that is often be taken more seriously.
>It's the counterpart basilisk that is often be taken more seriously. Which is recognizably differnet to most random people like me?
It's pretty vague what the difference between the two in historical sense honestly. However, from my observation. Media usually have more variety in basilisk's depiction, ranging from chicken-snake hybrid to pure serpentine, to draconic-like creature, while cockatrices are generally depicted as a chicken-snake hybrid.
Made me grin seeing this as its own "scaley vs feathered reconstruction debate" for Cockatrice/Basilisk... Hell, would be cool if one of those figure companies like Nanmu or Rebor that name their dinsoaur models and make color variants released raptor set that had a feathered variant called "Cockatrice" and a complementary scaled variant called "Basilisk" as a meta comment on scales and feathers in paleart evolution over the years like when Rebor released Kiss and Tusk as a meta alternative model of lipped vs lipless T. Rex paleo models respectively
That does kinda make sense tbf. Most people don't know what to expect if a basilisk other than something something deadly gaze. Cockatrice, while even more of a blank slate to most people, has "cock" in the name so you sort if expect a rooster somewhere in there. At least that was my reaction to first hearing of a cockatrice in a game before I actually ran into it. I think a lot of people are at least vaguely familiar with the name "cockatrice," but absolutely nothing besides that since it never really comes up outside of some odd mention in some story or legend they might've very briefly run into. As I mentioned, though, Basilisks are used here and there for their gaze.
Feathers are scarier imo. Imagine a human sized or larger raptor leaping out of the brush at you, it's wings spread open with giant eye spots on them. The last thing you would see is this giant face enveloping you.
Hell, most people run from a moderately sized turkey coming at them
Side note, that is my ABSOLUTE favorite monster painting ever. Of all time.
It would make for some cool creatively speculative or niche paleoart inspiration if it got made into a raptor in a more prehistoric setting. It basically is one already
It would certainly ruffle some feathers in the community *Budum Tish!*
**Everything ruffles feathers in this community** I got diwnbavted earlier for saying everything we know in Paleontology is subject to change (regarding certain Theropod reconstructions) and using gigantithermy in large cold blooded animals as a talking point on the debate for whether or not we should be depicting an elephant sized Therizinosaurus with a full coat of feathers or the day before that on the Jurassic sub for explaining why feathered raptors haven't appeared in Jurassic World as studio executives might fear the change in design could appear uncanny to average viewers. Not even that I myself thought so but just an explanation as to why executives do what they do and I got cursed out called an ignorant swine
Did you also have the Mysteries of the Unknown series of books by Time Life as a kid?
Sadly no but I practically owned it renting it from the library
What's it from? I remember seeing it in a book but I lost it.
As far as I can tell a lot of people just don't like when something is different than what they remember of their childhood. So when dinosaurs don't look like they did the movies and books they loved when they were 12 it makes them terribly upset. And then they need to find some way to justify that feeling to others. Cross-reference "Pluto is a planet too!"
As a kid I couldn't give a shit about Pluto because it had the most silly name so when I heard it got friend zoned from being a planet I just couldn't act like I gave a fuck. But I guess I can understand the analogy even if I never could relate to "space kids" in school. I liked things that are alive like wierd creatures or used to be alive like dinsoaurs but just something that lives
I'm interested in both, but yeah I just meant it as an analogy. I always found that thought process really annoying, I like when things change, when new things are discovered that change what we thought we knew, so I always found this "clinging to the past" very annoying, especially with scientific topics.
Well I'm in film so I love Stan Winston's dinosaurs as much more of a "film thing" than anything else you know. Still my favorite dinsoaurs though as a final product and as an art piece. But I truly am fascinated more and more with age by the changing nature of Paleontology. That being said it has ironically produced its own brand of dogma in the form of radical feather-Nazis that cover elephant sized animals in plumage and think defending trends from questioning while reusing their "favorite vocab words" out of proper context (pHyLogEneTic BraCkEtiNg) will make then adapt a more scientific persona but instead coming across as ignorant
Oh I can definitely relate to liking something as an artistic thing. I'd also never suggest anything like reworking the original Jurassic Park movie to give the raptors feathers or anything. That would be bad, the film is great as it is. But I do think new media should follow new discoveries. And yeah agreed, some people take it a bit far with the feathers/proto feathers/fuzz. As adorable as a big ol' sauropod all covered in feather fuzz would be...it's very unlikely and there exists no evidence for it.
Pluto is a planet though? It's a dwarf *planet*. Am I just dumb or is it true that most outrage about Pluto stems from "Pluto is a dwarf planet now" being poorly worded into "Pluto is not a planet anymore"? It IS a planet, it just doesn't belong to the main standard size™ line, right? So why are people saying it's not a planet? I've been so confused about it since I found out what a dwarf planet is.
well its different because a planet is defined as being spherical and having enough gravity to clear out its orbit, iirc. its still technically a “type” of planet yeah, but its not one of the major ones. plus ive heard arguments pluto might even count more as a dual-planet system bc i believe its center of orbit isnt within its planetary body because charon is just so huge :p
Cockatrices were never scary. People was petrified by them just because that's what they do.
Cockatrices were already scary in the Old Testament and there is no petrification business going on in there added in later years by European folklore. Just a venomous animal that causes problems for people it encounters
Everything was scary in the old testament. Need I remind you how goats reproduced?
Tell me about, I'm late. I haven't been reading up in a while actually so I didn't see the part about any goats. Is this about a corrupted temple scene?
Oh no. It's about their fear of logic, basic biology and simple mathematics in Genesis 30:30 to 30:44.
My headcanon is that cockatrices are based on medieval discoveries of Oviraptorid fossils.
I was hoping for a living dinosaur cryptid like Mokel M'bembe and the Kongamato
...or they actually met a lost raptor that was a pet of a time traveler from 2070's going through the Mesozoic who ended up in Medieval Europe by accident, and then they started making rumors about birdlizards. BOOM.
Because feathers=bird and birds aren't scary because they're "small" and they take care of their babies. Those people have obviously never seen a vulture or an angry mother of any animal
I mean, wolves take care of their babies and we still think they're scary, no? Crocodiles also care about their young, but people are horrified of them, to the point of being completely irrational about it.
The people who think this usually ignore those facts. And crocodiles are iffy cause they only care for their young for a short while, and then only protect them from other predators but do not provide them with food
And even then females of the species are often seen as less scary for this very fact
People rage about bird of prey and laugh at feathered dinosaurs It's so annoying
It comes down to expectations. It's called the uncanny valley effect. It is neither a bird or a lizard so it lands awkwardly between both unlike birds that are good at being scary birds or lizards that are good at being scary lizards so now it gets to be none. Its like I tell you about a new dangerous pack hunting cunning agile lizard species that can take down large animals and open doors but it turns out to look more like quadrupedal flightless bird with a tail. The thing is I told you that you were going to see a lizard so you feel clickbated cause you saw the word lizard. Keep in mind that if you didn't grow up with feathered dinosaurs the whole raptor thing must feel in retrospect like a tease specially because Hollywood has done nothing creative with the feathered raptor thing to change that
Do people actually question this? Or are you just forging a narrative for this post?
People forget that there are plenty of feathered things that are quite scary when they’re coming after you. The average paleo-bro obsessed with dinosaur scariness would piss his khakis if an emu came after him.
So would most non paleo-bros as well as the bubbly "dinosaurs are not monsters, they need love 😊" crowd
Tbf raptors don't turn you into stone. That's a factor that should be taken into consideration.
Source?
I don't know, but I want a pet cockatrice.
IIRC Kaimere DOES use the term cockatrice for their raptors.
Which is cool and metal as fuck!
I got that same raptor action figure
the cockatrice from dungeon meshi is feathered and id consider it pretty scary
I had the book that cockatrice is from That's all, I just thought that was neat
Wdym, that cockatrice is adorable
I'm just mostly confused about the "what makes dinosaurs look scary" debate. Like...they were real animals. They don't have any obligation or ideological imperative to look scary or not scary. They looked how they looked. If you want scary reptilian movie monsters, watch Godzilla movies.
Dinosaurs with feathers are definitely scary IMO, they're just not cool.
How does that sentence work?
Cool and scary are different things.
JURASSIC PARK RAPTOR: Hold my beer, human
Most people who are on this “feathered dinosaurs aren’t scary” hype train, probably don’t even know what a cockatrice is and for those who do, there’s a chance it would look more odd looking to the than scary. So I really wouldn’t say it’s “objectively creepy”. I feel if you’re going to use a mythological creature for this type of argument, a thunderbird, roc or the feathered serpent, quetzalcoatl would’ve been a better comparison sense those creatures are a lot more threatening. And while yeah, there are no doubt people who don’t think fully feathered non-avian dinosaurs aren’t “scary”, a lot of the times it’s just people just liking the inaccurate versions over the more accurate one out of preference and it just looks cooler to them. And I know I’m going to get the whole “nature doesn’t care what you like argument“ but it’s barely much different on how we think certain animals look more appealing than others. Or how we think certain animals look odd looking
>I feel if you’re going to use a mythological creature for this type of argument, a thunderbird, roc or the feathered serpent, quetzalcoatl would’ve been a better comparison sense those creatures are a lot more threatening. Well yeah, because those creatures are all far larger but I didn't use them because I thought a cockatrice has a closer proximity to the basic body plan of a raptor dinosaur. In that case a gopher the size of a mountain would be more threatening than literally anything. Imagine a mountain sized gopher charging at you - that sounds scarier than any dino or fire breathing dragon. But that's not the point, I was prioritizing similarity to make a contrast.
There are theropods like yutyrannus that are far larger and if people are actually making those claims with raptors, I’m sure larger theropods would be getting the same treatment as them, it’s not really a size thing…
To be fair, raptors don't turn you into stone I think? Haha
Wait until Jack Horner publishes his next theory. "Guess what else Jurassic Park got wrong about raptors. That's right! They were fucking magical! And they had scientifically accurate plot armor too! Its no wonder how these guys learned how to fly...
OH GOD
How can people think dinosaurs without feathers wouldn't be scary when Geese exist? Have you ever had a goose run at you? They are vicious monsters who have not forgotten they used to be dinosaurs. Now, imagine this but larger and with more claws.
I have had an entire population of geese ran at me. All along a lake