That makes very little sense, seeing that they have a common ancestor with birds.
I do not see how their brain would effect the look of their eyes, not to mention, their brains were not more lizard-like. Achrosaurs are in no way related to squamates, in fact, they are almost as distantly related to lizards as we are.
1. Archaeologists, do not dig up dinosaurs, palaeontologists do.
2. No, they are not related to lizards at all. Lizards are squamates, in the order squamata, tyrannosaurus rex is a dinosaur, in the order archosauria. Birds ARE dinosaurs, and are far more closely related to T.rex than any lizard.
The hypothesis that T.rex juveniles had feathers and then lost them as they grew older isn't actually based on any fossil evidence as far as I know. That hypothesis is probably based off of large mammals like elephants, but even in those animals the loss of integument isn't as excessive as what is implied to have happened in T.rex and its ilk.
Another thing to note about this hypothesis is the discrepancy in bauplans between T.rex and elephants, despite the likely similar masses. Elephants are built more like a block than T.rex were, so they have a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio than the latter. This is significant because having a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio makes it harder to lose heat and vice versa. We can actually already see this principle illustrated in rhinos and giraffes. Rhinos and giraffes can also have around the same masses, at around 1 ton. However, giraffes are still fuzzier than rhinos, which are comparatively barren of any integument barring tough skin. Giraffes, of course, can even have a ridge of extra fur along their back. This is due to the giraffe bauplan having a higher surface-area-to-volume ratio than the rhino bauplan. Giraffes are therefore able to lose heat more easily than rhinos are able to, which allows giraffes to keep far more of their fur than rhinos can. This may very well be the case with T.rex and elephantsrespectively.
This rings even more true when you take the discovery of Yutyrannus into account, along with the likelihood that the two species may have actually lived in similar climates. With all this in mind, it's quite possible that adult T.rex may have even looked like giant bears instead of the scaly behemoths that pop culture deifies.
Dinosaur documentaries tend to have far more entertainment value than educational value to be honest. Dinosaur Revolution does have some of the most accurate models that have ever been in a dinosaur documentary though. However, Dinosaur Revolution was originally intended to be a series of short fictional vignettes instead of the pseudo-documentary format it was shoehorned into by executives, so it wasn't actually meant to be taken at face value at first.
The most educational dinosaur documentary is probably Planet Dinosaur, since it at least takes the effort to show the evidence behind the CGI scenes being portrayed. However, even Planet Dinosaur has its fair share of problems, namely the portrayal of the venomous Sinornithosaurus hypothesis. That hypothesis turned out to be somewhat frail, as detailed here . However, for the most part, Planet Dinosaur is probably one of the best recent CGI dinosaur documentaries. It also came out relatively recently too, not much later after Dinosaur Revolution in fact.
It could be said that each and every dinosaur documentary, no matter how correct at the time it was published, will detoriate in accuracy; sometimes less, sometimes more rapidly. As far as Tyrannosauroids go, the recent 2011-ish batch of dinosaur documentaries had the misfortune of being released before Y. huali was described. Let's see when new ones come out, and hope that they get their facts right.
Very beautiful, I love the feathers. I know some people think that tyrannosaurids *couldn't* have had pennaceous feathers, but I read that the Sinosauropteryx specimen was reexamined, and they've concluded that its feathers were likely at least stage 3, due to the fact that the thinner fillaments are almost always at an angle to the thicker ones.
it does seem unlikely that they had pennaceous feathers. They are quite distantly related to birds, far more so then say, microraptor, which did have them. It most likely had protofeathers, though that name in this context is quite silly, since they are not the predecessors of pennaceous feathers.