Scientific Issues: Jurassic Park - Part 1

[@RoryRose_]

*Opens video with reasonable volume at 10:41 PM when everybody's trying to sleep* *C L O N I N G D I S A S T E R*

[@frogtoes3156]

XD

[@Andrew-tn8bo]

for me its 3:33 AM get on my level

[@mikab8615]

I was in public 😪😪😪

[@Minany]

Hi Im Legend better step Down, 06:01 here, boy.

[@xxbobo_monkeyxx3472]

It's 12:45pm for me.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Warning: this video was made by a pretty immature version of myself! I totally neglected to mention many of the designs were accurate at the time of the movie's release, but on now inaccurate by today's evidence. That is the main problem with this video and has been accounted for in future ones.

[@zeawezomekokkonut5392]

lel

[@kael6311]

Wow, someone admiting their own mistakes on the Internet neat

[@axpo3609]

+TREY the Explainer You do realize this movie was made in 1993 right? We didn't realize then that most non-avian dinosaurs had feathers. So it's not like Universal can come to our house and write on every Jurassic Park disc "2014-2016 edition". We have to accept the fact that we didn't have this knowledge then. I'm not being hateful or just a slight bit rude. Say you were 9 or 13 when this came out, you can't deny the fact that, that wouldn't amaze you. CGI was hard to work with back then in the 90s. And though some of us are sad about the new 4 legged Spinosaurus, to the pigeon (sorry if spelled wrong) looking Raptor, to the. (which I think looks cool. Especially the Saurian one. # SUPPORT SAURIAN) feathered Tyrannosaurus Rex, we still love Jurassic Park and appreciate it. Keep making videos, and stay awesome Trey.

[@Ezekiel_Allium]

+AXPO360 you realize that is exactly what he said in the comment you typed this on

[@axpo3609]

+Trilobite Cannibal I wrote that before watching the video. XD

[@madcat789]

The "T" in T. Rex, stands for Toad. *T. Rex begins aggressively hopping toward you.*

[@cobra4855]

lol

[@schadenfruede0675]

*AHHHHHHHHGHHH*

[@asiantom4935]

reminded me of that one cyanide and happiness animation

[@aebhosor4835]

Luckily, I call it it's original name: Manospondylus Gigas

[@matthieuleperlier251]

Or the "T" in T. Rex stands for Todd. *T. Rex begins aggressively lying to you."

[@Smokydastona]

F.R.O.G in an acronym Foreign Replacement Organism Genome

[@jamessawyer9816]

Jarin Fleck wait seriously? If so they probably should’ve mentioned it

[@NoOne-ju8fi]

James Sawyer nah

[@ljnliamcastro6488]

How about T.O.A.D stand for?

[@brodoodtv8343]

@@ljnliamcastro6488 Toads ope apple dot

[@bread5020]

frog-dinosaur hybrid?! That's why the velociraptors can jump very high!

[@Sheerspeechcraft]

"velociraptors"

[@ItsARandomDragon]

JP Velociraptor: who are you? Real velociraptor: i'm you but smaller....

[@alexfitzpatrick2509]

@@Sheerspeechcraft When the book was written Deinonychus was commonly referred to as Velociraptor Antirhopus

[@firegator6853]

@@ItsARandomDragon Real velociraptor: and way more stupid than you

[@demonking86420]

frog-dinosaur hybrid? then the chemicals in the water will turn them gay

[@Rnt911]

You forgot to mention that many people were attracted to paleontology after seeing the movie. Jack Horner said he had two students helping him before 1993 and after the film that number grew to 50. So, if now we know that much about dinossaurs, you should thank to the first classic Jurassic Park.

[@Rnt911]

Also, their behavior were nothing like reptiles, and there are references to birds all over the movie, you're just being dishonest.

[@felisasininus1784]

Randomista Give one reference to birds from the movie.

[@felisasininus1784]

The Floridian Gent Just because some running dinosaurs had bird names it doesnt mean the filmmakers even realized they had bird names! They probably just thought those bipedal lizards running looked cool. What 6 feet turkey scene? I doubt very much anyone in any JP film called any dinosaur a bird, even if they did, the point of view would have been treated with ridicule, because lizards are cooler than birbs according to JP and autistic “dinosaur” fans. Birds flying, or pterosaurs? Doesn’t matter, no JP film had ever consciously linked dinosaurs to birbs in a scientifically accurate way. Oh, probably more flimsy evidence? Despite the fact that none of the dinos in the movies is feathered? Go ahead, list them all.

[@felisasininus1784]

The Floridian Gent My anus, by 1993, velociraptors were already known to be feathered and one feet tall, scientifically my ballsack.

[@felisasininus1784]

The Floridian Gent Reference or not, the movies intentionally make dinosaurs completely reptilian, and totally not birb-like even after dozens of years of fossil evidence of feathered dinosaurs, and even preserved dino body parts with feathered encased in amber. The first JP movie maybe could be forgiven, as it was fun despite science. But all the sequels simply rub me the wrong way, the way they keep getting shittier without bringing in the real birb-like dinos. Feather doesn’t make thicc dinosaurs thinn and weak, the animals’ physique shouldn’t change, the coat should simply made them more impressive and intimidating, the same way a male lion without mane is much less scary looking than a maned lion.

[@diamondinthesky4771]

Honestly, I'm willing to argue that none of the "dinosaurs" in the movies are real dinosaurs but instead InGen just taking whatever DNA they could find, frankensteining it together, and then basically just making it resemble reconstructions of dinosaurs. You could arguably classify InGen's creations as "Fauxosaurs". It's very probable that the initial "prototypes" were more frog-like, but they just progressively modified them to be less frog like over time.

[@mircoc3507]

You can't make up arguments or plot devices for the writers tho. The Frankenstein is either there in the story or it's not. They have only Frogs.

[@TimThomason]

Grant and Sattler would've been like "WTF is that?" when confronted with Brontosaurs, instead of confirming that they looked like dinosaurs to them.

[@thoughtfuldevil6069]

This would be a better plot development than literally anything else in the series; and would support the general theme of corporate greed and nature's inherent unpredictability.

[@johnboats9075]

In the book this is basically what ingen did they created these animals and were therefore ingen property with no rights what so ever. I was proposed that they could do whatever they wanted, animal testing of cosmetics and drugs and no groups could challange them because they were strictly ingen 's property not actual animals. Plus ingen scientists tinkered a whole lot with the dna not just adding frog dna. They made them slower and dumber also i believe they tried to make them look like what people thought dinos should look like not what was accurate hammond was a showman and wanted to make money money above all else.

[@evanz2704]

That's basically how I choose to see it as well. Explains the missing feathers and general "early 1900s" dino looks. And suddenly it all makes sense! 😜

[@marioantonioanaya2541]

Using toad DNA for a dinosaur,is like using tuna fish DNA for a mammoth.

[@greminboye]

mariovsspongebob 56536 Ор юсинг беар дна фор а блобфиш

[@wormthirtyfour]

@@greminboye ор дог дна фор а мосасаурус

[@urielgonzalez2882]

Or shark dna for anomalocaris

[@anarcho-savagery2097]

IT WAS TO FILL IN THE SEQUENCE GAPS!!! THE ACTUAL DINO DNA WAS THERE JUST NOT COMPLETE.

[@GojiFan1985yt]

@@anarcho-savagery2097 You know birds are dinosaurs right? Why didn’t they use Bird DNA??

[@kbgrevolver4563]

The Dinosaurs in Jurassic Park weren't even Dinosaurs to begin with. This is explained in more detail in the books (which was before the first film). These creatures in the novel were created by scientist and were made to only look like what people thought Dinosaurs looked like. Why didn't they tell us that in the film? That's because the film is literally a simplified/condensed version of the book scripted by Michael Crichton later re-written by Maria Scotch Marmo. The movie was meant to be a Hollywood blockbuster hit. The book was meant to show the failures of running theme parks with the belief that absolutely nothing could go wrong. Those parts in the book had to be condensed or deleted when the story came full circle to being a script again. When Michael Crichton was writing Jurassic Park he wasn't just pulling all this sci-fi out of his ass. He actually consulted several scientists and paleontologists at the time. His idea about mosquitoes, amber, and dinosaur DNA had not been completely discredited at the time and was actually accepted by some scientists. At the time it was the most rational way of bringing back prehistoric animals. Why didn't they keep up with modern science with the film's sequels? That's because there would have been continuity issues. The bottom line in that Jurassic Park 100% science fiction. Neither the movie nor the novel was meant to educate people on actual Dinosaurs But they work as a good stimulant for people who really want to learn about Dinosaurs. Regardless of all the inaccuracies the film has that opposes today's science, Jurassic Park is still a great film.

[@JustLooking1996]

KBGrevolver recons are your friends

[@prismstudios001]

Ah, but the whole thing gets bit more complex when you shout Science Fiction...Sci Fi is supposed to be fiction that has ....SCIENCE! Should have just declared it fantasy, or action adventure storytelling, which it was and gotten on with it.The problem that those of us who like at least some hard science in their Sci Fi, is the fact that a LOT of the public see this as "real" science,and run with it.

[@MrCmon113]

Actually both the novel and the movie are very preachy about their biology. So it's fair to hold them to more than usual scrutiny. Also Crichton succeeds at writing extremely annoying characters. *cough* Malcom *cough*

[@Tareltonlives]

So it's a bit of a misnomer to call it a DINOSAUR movie and market it as such.

[@ghartuckt663]

HOLY FUCK STOP TO DEFEND THE MOVIE WHO DRAINED DINOSAURS...BEYOUND ITS ONLY QUOTE FACTS.

[@cunningwolf4516]

Also the movie doesn't explain it but the book does. The book list more then toads. (Also the "they cant see if you don't move" is another thing they share with the toad. Its vision had everything to do with the toad (it's explained in the book, I know this is addressing the movie but for someone like me who knows so much about lore, Because of the novel. Its eh...) in the second novel the sonora rex's CAN see you if you stand still. And that was shown in the lost world in the cliff scene. Rexy is the only rex with defective eye sight. Also the book talks about a color changing raptor, and also explains the feathers were intentionally fazed out by Wu.

[@quietone748]

Frogs, not toads. In both the book and the movie they mention frogs, not toads.

[@Amateur0Visionary]

I thought the color camoflaguing dinos were Carnotaurus Sastri? (Sp?)

[@philipwilcox6737]

Funny, just brought this point up. Should have read the comments before making a redundant comment myself!

[@ghartuckt663]

You wath the video at to the and?

[@itsboiya6948]

Yes but at the beginning of the movie when Dr Grant was talking to the kid he said : (Keep in mind that this is before Grant went to the park), That the t rexs vision was based on movement anyway. So how in the hell is rexs vision related to the frog dna , and more importantly how in the hell did the t rexs from JPTLW have perfectly good vision?!!!!

[@rogerwilco2]

I think this movie was pretty accurate in 1993. Our ideas have changed in the almost 25 years since but it was great at the time and I can still recommend it to anyone. Spielberg can tell an amazing story and John Williams' music is epic. The original Jurassic Park is a great movie even though the science behind it is outdated, as with many science fiction movies.

[@LandBeforeTime75]

RogerWilco, I’m with you buddy.

[@firegator6853]

Accurate? Yea ok so the new featherless type of chicken scientists made is not hybrid it evolved from dinosaurs....

[@Biig_Boii]

Even the skeletal structures of the dinosaurs were totally wrong. Even then we knew what their skeletons should look like and that they couldn’t pronate their hands. The movies are great but god damn they were a disgrace to paleontology as a whole.

[@nuoiptertermer4484]

@RogerWilco Spielberg can tell a great story? If Michael Crichton and David Koepp read that, they may get angry. It’s not Spielberg’s story. Crichton wrote the book and part of the movie. Koepp wrote the rest of the movie. Spielberg only directed the movie.

[@seafoamcities1117]

RogerWilco z

[@aidendelbridge7405]

Trey: the jurassic was when dinosaurs were there largest Argentinosaurus: can I have word with you in my office

[@eruditootidure2611]

For the record, the Movement-based vision is apparently addressed in the novel as being another product of Frog-Hybridization, but that's obviously no defense for the movie, since it's never explained that way.

[@rodrigobueno8652]

That don't exist in the book, in the book grant deduzes the moviment based vision in the park after the attack or something like that

[@Cancoillotteman]

The movement based-vision is not meant to be realistic, it's just a very efficient movie script ;)

[@DIEGhostfish]

Wasn't the movement based vision straight up debunked in the book?

[@thunderflare59]

That only happened because of Jack Horner's massive hate boner for the T-rex.

[@ActuallyAFungus]

no, it was established that the rex could see fine, but didn't eat them because it was full

[@wrenflower3320]

I've always kind of known Jurassic Park was inaccurate, but I never knew HOW inaccurate it was. Wow. Either way, it's still my favourite movie. It's entertaining, but not educational haha.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

Keep in mind, this is somewhat bias against it. The key word of today that this guy is forgetting about is HINDSIGHT. For it's time, this movie and the book it was based off of was cutting edge, However he is (somewhat unfairly) grading it against today's knowledge rather then the knowledge of dinosaurs back then.

[@kaiju3646]

@@themanformerlyknownascomme777 the knowledge of feathered dinosaurs were known at the time,

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

@@kaiju3646 it existed yes, but it wasn't a widely adopted academic theory

[@Braint-lr6uf]

​​@@kaiju3646meh,Archaeopteryx and Deinonychus where a proof that birds and dinosaurs were related ,but until Sinosauropteryx's discovery at 1996 there wasn't any direct proof.

[@kaiju3646]

@@Braint-lr6uf Godamn this is an old thread

[@amazinglyidiotic8607]

While the movie is VERY inacurate, the movie was made quite some time ago and new studies outdate these animals.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

very true, this video was made by a pretty immature version of myself

[@coolkid3193]

Not to inaccurate the Trex was accurate for atime

[@lolloblue9646]

I believe TV Tropes calls it "Science Marches On"

[@rex90pawprint]

I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure dinos were found to have feathers (mostly raptors) before Jp was made

[@allisonworf-anderson7347]

@@TREYtheExplainer why would you say that dinosaurs shouldn't exist in fist place if they didn't then there be no park dude

[@schadenfruede0675]

*”You didn’t ask for the actual thing, you asked for more teeth”* -Dr Henry wu So they don’t claim to be scientifically accurate

[@justsomemothmanwithinterne7921]

Finally! Someone said it! Thanks.

[@schadenfruede0675]

Just some mothman with internet access *just doin my job ;)*

[@radcoon1610]

Where is this from?

[@aydensalerno8489]

@@radcoon1610 It's from Jurassic World

[@radcoon1610]

So since that one in the replies told me it's from jurassic world, all of this goes down the drain since he was obviously talking about the I-REX. But since that shoots a plot hole into your statement we'll ignore that won't we?

[@AaronDuck]

the worst part is... VELOCIRAPTORS LOOK SOO AWESOME WITH FEATHERS

[@luke769animations]

I know right?

[@Xoro2203]

@@luke769animations Yeah🦕

[@VincentGonzalezVeg]

i used to fear that the veloceraptors would peek through my open blinds, with feathers it could hide the light from everything before ending me

[@tannerlawley8435]

RobotHorseAaron They really don’t.

[@firegator6853]

I mean yea who doesnt like hawks? Imagine a hawk with the features velociraptor had

[@dhesyca4471]

Some of this was addressed in the book. Example, the book said that "Jurassic Park" was easier to pronounce than "Cretaceous Park" while acknowledging that most of the dinosaurs were from the Cretaceous period.

[@blablubb4553]

In the German version it was actually called "Dino Park", and thus the whole problem did not even present itself.

[@Hugo-yz1vb]

Then Camp Cretaceous arrived and made that part look like shit

[@Tur610]

Jurassic Park Awesomeness: 10/10 Jurassic Park Accuracy: -5/10

[@primalreversion7034]

“They wanted more teeth.”

[@sticktheok]

accurate

[@radcoon1610]

@@primalreversion7034 what is this supposed to mean

[@theluckyone9658]

@@radcoon1610 They said What the people like Simon Masrani, and john Hammond wanted.

[@10gamer64]

*based of todays knowledge, it was accurate when made.

[@nullexe]

Don’t think I wouldn’t notice the gravity falls theme playing in the background

[@kaidentocher6552]

So that was the sudden hit of Nastalga I felt

[@paleoleft]

and the little inferno music

[@xuanluu4873]

So where is the theme?

[@asiantom4935]

and papers please

[@refrigatoreqtv1578]

@@asiantom4935 exactly

[@henriquepaes923]

The dinosaurs don't get a free pass for being scaly because they are tad hybrids, but because the movie was made WAY before feathers were accepted among scientists as being the norm for dinosaurs. Paleontologists got to the feather consensus in 2007.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

That does not excuse the errors. The errors are still errors. It doesn't matter if they had the information or not, it's still inaccurate

[@henriquepaes923]

So if 100 years from now we discover that all dinosaurs had trunks, all illustrations made by the best paleoartists, reconstructions made by paleontologists, etcetera, will be wrong and stupid because they were supposed to get it right careless if they had information or not?

[@TREYtheExplainer]

No, I'm just saying they made a mistake. I'm not getting angry at them for it nor am I blaming anybody for it; I am simply addressing them

[@TREYtheExplainer]

henrique paes I will go over this in another video: called why do we need to address Jurassic park's inaccuracies

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Are you subscribed?

[@Conefed]

It's important to note that when Jurassic Park 1 first came out, everywhere else depicted dinosaurs as tail draggers. Jurassic Park was the first to show dinosaurs as agile and believable

[@thisisastrobbery363]

Disney's Fantasia has joined the chat:

[@Dracovenatrix]

True

[@StepBackHistory]

I get the point of not promoting scientific inaccuracies in film, but given the themes of the novel / movie I actually kinda like it. Hear me out! The dinosaurs are transgenic hybrids, heavily engineered into zoo animals. What do they do with this marvel of bioengineering? Make a theme park. So they make them look inaccurate, but more like monsters that people will pay to go see. (Almost the same reason the dinosaurs look the way they do in the film lol) and its a metacommentary on style vs. substance when trying to educate, amaze, and make profit all at once. Like, they're not accurate dinosaurs, they're what an old billionaire trying to start a theme park wants dinosaurs to be. I mean its actually because Michael Crichton was a hack who got way too optimistic about the field of cloining in the late 80s, but hey.

[@StepBackHistory]

+Step Back History Actually it would have served the plot of the movie better imo if Allen Grant complained about these very issues. All kinda pointing to the main theme of the movie which is: We best be careful when screwing around with the source code of life, and doing it for the wrong reasons will get us in trouble. There's a bit more of this in the book where some small dinosaurs puncture the illusion of control and get on the mainland and start screwing up the ecosystem.

[@qaboos4]

While I find exposing the inacuracies thing fun,i agree the heart of this film is the message: dont fuck with nature

[@timothymclean]

The book _very_ briefly touches on something tangentially related...but ends up going in completely the wrong direction. Dr. Wu suggests making the dinosaurs more sluggish, both for security concerns and to make the dinosaurs more like the then-popular image of dinosaurs. But Hammond wants dinosaurs as real as possible, with the implication being that those dinosaurs (while hardly perfect) are reasonably close approximations.

[@nahiro-chan6925]

Ayyy Tristan

[@jonpilledsingledad]

Isn't calling Crichton a hack a little harsh? Jurassic Park was written not too long after DNA was finally mapped. If you asked scientists at that moment they'd probably have little arguments against it. Just because he's working in a realm of fiction based upon science that wasn't even developed then doesn't mean he's making all this shit up.

[@TobeWilsonNetwork]

13:31 The Toadasaur tadpole is unbelievably cute, the adult form is viscerally terrifying.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

The purpose of this video: I love sciencey movies and enjoy them and do not want to take the fun out of them, but the movies still need to be somewhat accurate, so that the audience does not confuse movies inaccuracies with actual science

[@thedingochannel4488]

TREY the Explainer i have to raise a flag sir TREY the Explainer . the science of 93 when this film was released did indeed state that dinosaurs where not featherd. the featherd dinosaur hypothosis was not granted theory states due to evidence till long after jurassic park was released

[@deltagreen8276]

I was gonna say basically the same thing.

[@DarkstarPrime13]

And I'm also going to add my two cents in that I think the book states that that is how the public eye known dinosaurs as. And since the book was written in 1990, they really didn't have much to go off of in terms of feathers, just like what Dallas said. So what they seen in the movies was just what they knew what the dinosaurs looked like for that time. Now it is kinda sad they didn't introduce that into the new film. I would have loved to see feathered dinosaurs walk around since science has improved so much. (Though I still think that the animation is so head of its time. I will give props to that.)

[@Skud0rz]

Great vid, thanks. Gravity annoyed me way more as a film that claimed to be scientifically accurate but was not. Never let the truth get in the way of a good story I guess :-)

[@Ahalaya]

This was a very interesting video, though I could argue a some of the more nitpicking bits from a fiction/creative perspective, with a little time period-accurate information for both the book and the movie. With fiction related to real-world information, you can't hold them to modern standards. It would be like reading Tom Sawyer and criticizing the racist elements-- something that was completely understandable for the time in which it was both set and written. Still, it's always nice to see someone sharing some real knowledge on the Internet.

[@GrabSomeSeat]

You're looking at this in hindsight. The dinosaurs were accurate with what was known at the time.

[@stardino9475]

Well feathers where discovered in 1990

[@pyroparagon8945]

StarDino it wasn't accepted till about 2000

[@zm_azathoth8797]

The Phenomenal One still Jurassic world don't have feather dinosaur

[@daltonhill5110]

They probably don't want to confuse their audiences.

[@theferretman2157]

StarDino not on raptors though.

[@dragonstar2387]

While I agree with all these inaccuracies, this film was as accurate as it got at the time. Nobody knew that most theropods had feathers, the "Velociraptor," as it's called in the film, had been confirmed by Michael Crichton himself that the raptor was Deinonychus in every aspect except in name. In addition, the cloning process in Jurassic Park hadn't been disproved, and even had scientists backing it up. So while we all see this film as just as inaccurate as other films, it was as scientifically accurate as it got back in the day.

[@firegator6853]

Featherless dinosaurs are not the only inaccurate thing here

[@jimbratton7467]

Deinychus had feathers too

[@liliananativi1548]

yea

[@wetube6513]

But it made people think that all dinosaurs were scaly vicious reptiles which battled eachother to the death until the asteroid hit earth.

[@HerohammerStudios]

Dinosaurs aren't toads.

[@kristym8641]

I appreciate Jurassic Park because they tried to make it accurate from what they knew at the time while still being entertaining. And more people should read the book it is based on as it is really good. I've read most of Michael Crichton's other books, and they are brilliant. What KILLS me is how the movie franchise has refused to evolve with scientific breakthroughs and at least include feathers on dinosaurs. Its depictions are outdated by decades now. They could easily explain using more complete DNA and it would work and kids these days would see feathered dinos and love them. But it has become a political issue, with the director of Jurassic World asserting "no feathers" in his movie. It wouldn't matter as much if these films didn't define dinosaurs in our culture, but if Michael Crichton was alive today, I don't think he would want his dinos to be bald anymore. In my opinion, feathers make dinosaurs so much more interesting. Think of the color combinations, patterns, iridescence, different shapes and sizes. They could flare them out, ruffle them and display more body language.

[@kevinaugustsson2202]

Many good points! they did however remove the scene which the tongue flicking velociraptor due to scientific inaccuracy which should have been mentioned

[@meatcomputers]

Is it weird that I think T rex looks way better WITH feathers?

[@ralfhagen3025]

Well, I don't claim to be a psychic, but I think for its prey its looks were preeety unimportant... :-P

[@Riceball01]

For me, it depends on the exact depiction, just like how some depictions of the classic naked Rex look better than others.

[@triumphanttreebark3091]

I love the feather design because of Saurian

[@chancegivens6856]

The Kraken I think that they look awesome with feathers

[@mayomaster1134]

No, I do too!

[@whyarepeoplesubscribedtome]

Jurassic park sounds cooler. (Also just realized that I’m wearing a Jurassic park t-shirt).

[@Tareltonlives]

Poor poor allosaurus

[@starlight0313]

Tareltonlives well, at least he got a cameo in fallen kingdom and battle at big rock

[@masterofdoinit6697]

4:55 Though this dino didn't physically appear in the first movie, Herrerasaurus was part of the tourist brochure's list of dinosaurs cloned for the park. And Herrerasaurus was from the Triassic. So the most accurate name should be Mesozoic Park.

[@DangerVille]

3:23 - But... But War of the Worlds didnt have any 'Grey Aliens'... The Martians were larger than bears, were gelatinous beasts with writhing tentacles and disk shaped eyes. They looked more like this - www.lesedwards.com/imagebank/9/7/6/976137.jpg However War Of The Worlds did pretty much change the worlds perception on what Aliens could truly be in that respect.

[@YoBadMama]

I remember when I was a little kid, I was devastated to find out that dinosaurs were more like birds than lizards. Now that I'm older, it makes them really fascinating. They aren't anything like what's around nowadays, and are an amalgamation of a bunch of traits that we recognize, but are so bizarre to imagine together. It really makes you realize how alien our own planet can be to ourselves.

[@VolvagiasBlaze]

Here´s the thing, a lot of the problems found in JP are modern. some of the species in the movies (velociraptor, etc) weren't given feathers because it wasn't until years later that it was proven that all raptor species had feathers and they used velociraptors because they hadn't found a raptor species as bid as they wanted them to be in the movie until they discovered the Utah raptor during the movies post production.

[@ErnestoCifer]

I will always gatekeep people who negatively view the fact that most of not all dinosaurs had feathers. I adored these creatures ever since I can remember myself, and the more discoveries are made about them, the more excited I gotten. I remember reading about how we could learn about the colour of their feathers or the pigment of their skins and getting flooded with awe and amazement

[@oscarstainton]

I don't want to sound like I'm against acknowledging the scientific inaccuracies of Jurassic Park, but would you be prepared to allow some sort of leeway based on the fact that Jurassic Park (both the novel and the book) was a product of the 90s (not 1800s)? It should be pointed out that feathered dinosaurs was still just a theory back then, therefore the depictions of the dinosaurs were going to be dated no matter what. Crichton described the appearances of the dinos in his novel, introduced the use of amphibian DNA to allow the animals to breed, and the film takes cues from the book. Compare the dinosaur designs in a film like The Land Before Time to the ones in Jurassic Park, the ones in The Land Before Time are very much 80's designs. Jurassic Park broke the stereotype of dinosaurs as slow, stupid, swamp dwelling behemoths and put them don the eventual path of streamlined, graceful if still fearsome animals. If you're going to blame someone or something, at least acknowledge the book the film is based on. The 2000s certainly saw an explosion of evidence for most theropods being feathered, and that's really when the image of the feathered dromeosaur really took to the skies. By 2015, I think the idea of a feathered T.rex needs time to become accepted. Say what you will about Jack Horner and his position as "advisor" for the films, but he did curb some of the more outlandish ideas. The snake tongue was removed at his request, and wanted to promote the idea of birdlike features in dinosaurs, as seen when Grant and Ellie study the raptor skeleton in Montana. Heck, the film ends with a shot of some pelicans flying into the sunset, a gentle reminder that not all dinosaurs went extinct and are still around us today as birds, more real than the creatures on the island. That's not to say he couldn't have done more, but then again, it was early days. I don't find your raking one of my favorite films over the coals entertaining, funny or even insightful, its just painful and makes me tired. As I grew up and learned more on dinosaurs by reading New Scientist magazines and web articles, I understood that dinosaurs were far more birdlike than reptilian, to say nothing of the notion of resurrecting them from DNA found in amber. I don't want to sound like I'm insulting you or your work, coming to the video was pretty much an accident, but I just want you to know. Are the dinosaurs in the JP series inaccurate? Yes. Should there be a new standard set for 21st century dinosaurs? Definitely. Will it come from sucking all the fun out of what is by all accounts a well loved movie that inspired a generation of dinosaur fanatics. Not in 65 million years.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

yes i love the movies and yes i enjoy them and do not want to take the fun out of them, but the movies still need to be somewhat accurate, so that the audience does not confuse movies dinosaurs with real ones

[@Gradyolson]

TREY the Explainer You missed a big thing in his ending statement sir. Many Dinosaur fans and fanatics that grew up interested in the creatures learned about the inaccuracies accepted them and moved on. Hell many museums with failing paleontology departments got renewed funding and interest because of Jurassic Park and yes its inaccurate and yes lazy joe nobody wont bother learning anymore than what he saw in the movies, but dammit the few who did want to know more, who sought it out and craved it, people like me... We still love the movies, except the third one, and are fucking excited for the new one. You could give the movie some slack and credit for its faults instead of tearing into it like it actively tried to insult your intelligence.

[@cryptozoologistinvestigato6964]

TREY the Explainer if I become a film director ill make a more accurate remake

[@picklev5064]

cryptozoologist investigator what ever you do, don’t change the raptors, I’m not completely sure on all the facts, but it was explained in the book how the velociraptor is technically still a velociraptor but a different species of it. It went somewhere along those lines and they chose to call it velociraptor since it’s easier to pronounce for the kids and families that would go to the park, while still maintaining the correct name. I.E. it’s easier to just say cat than feline and no mater the species we still quickly refer to Siamese, Himalayan, and Persian cats as just cats.

[@verde7595]

Pickle V The Deinonychus was classified as a Velociraptor at the time, even having the term "Velociraptor" in its official taxonomic classification; and the Deinonychus was what the movie used as its Velociraptor. Yeah, they were 4-7 feet tall and looked almost dead-on what the movie put out, except for the pronated hands and lack of a feathered mane.

[@grant9589]

I understand where you're coming from, I am well aware of the feathered dinosaurs, but Jurassic Park was released around 1993, based on a novel that was being written around 1989 and published by 1990. It's not accurate now, _but it was at the time._ Also, the only dinosaur species featured on the film that we now can _confirm_ would have feathers would be the "Velociraptors". We have almost entirely featherless skin-impressions of Tyrannosaurus, which makes sense, because like elephants, Tyrannosaurs were probably too big to need a lot of fuzz to keep their body temperatures stable, and we don't know if Triceratops had quills, we only know that Psittacosaurus had quills. Yes, like I said, the so-called Achillobator-sized, Deinonychus-shaped, "Velociraptors" definitely had feathers, but those were the only dinosaurs from the movie that that we can safely say most definitly should have them, and back then, it was hotly debated whether or not they had any.

[@Osfacae]

Not saying scientific inaccuracies should be ignored, but in the early 90's when this first film was made, the common scientific theories labeled dinosaurs as being closely related to birds, but the feathers theory didn't really become a big deal for at least a decade. At the time of release, Jurassic Park actually furthered scientific discovery, and moved the "Dinosaurs were closely related to birds" theory in to the larger public eye. Also pointing out, there aren't many carnivorous dinosaurs that were larger and scarier than the T. Rex, which still has the most powerful estimated bite force of any land animal.

[@azerimohamed7489]

23:27 "D-long.. Heh"

[@winnerthecoolguy2009]

"Hahaha funny joke"

[@jaygon8656]

How can you have a scientifically inaccurate alien? We don't know what any look like right now, so its all technically fair game

[@rogerwilco2]

Yeah, maybe they all look like ET.

[@sapulamchandyman6816]

Jaygon! Trey made a fantastic video on explaining this, just search it up

[@radiumpaint]

It is unlikely that an alien will be humanoid , it is possible but unlikely.

[@firegator6853]

I mean you are right the universe is ENDLESS so every single thought about what aliens look like is maybe possible but they will not look like us because there is more possibility to get eaten by one ant than the same evolution history happened on earth is happening on another planet even if it did there is big possibility dinosaurs never extinct or existed so if they existed they maybe would evolve to look like weird beaked animals and of curse birds

[@stevenstone8248]

Watch Jurassic world, Dr. Henry Wu States that if these dinosaurs were ACTUALLY Dinosaurs, they would look much different. It is the fact that they had to supplement the DNA with other creatures, that could explain the feathurless appearence. And at the time the Movie was made the Idea of feathered dinosaurs was not Wideley accepted, and wasn't widely accepted until the mid to LATE 1990's, the only Feathered Dinosaur at that time was Avimimus portentosus. Which was only "Inferred."

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Wulf Inaka This video was made several months before Jurassic World was even announced

[@stevenstone8248]

That was only part of my argument. You missed the whole, Widely accepted part. Which is why the dinosaurs are more Reptilian, in JP VS say more modern representations. Also, Why they kept the representations up until the 3rd movie where they added quills to the raptors, because again, larger therapods were not accepted as feathered.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Wulf Inaka This video was made several months before Jurassic World was even announced

[@stevenstone8248]

Okay, So now all you are going to do is repeat yourself? Which shows how much you ACTUALLY know. And proves that this video is just an attempt to get the fan base riled up and that you really have no understanding of the paleontology field.

[@SeraAmane95]

Wulf Inaka oh god you're ignorant. the guy says that he made this before Jurassic World even announced. Is there any part of that sentence you didn't understand? you're wasting your energy trying to convince people that already watch the movie.

[@williamhites7336]

Dinosaurs with feathers look badass. I don't get why people can't see how cool a T-rex would look with a plume of colorful feathers around its neck and tail.

[@danielguerrero2575]

1:18 Don't you mean: *F E A T H E R L E S S B I P E D*

[@10gamer64]

Humans: Are bipeds but have no feathers

[@NoNo-sy7hn]

@@10gamer64 it's a sam o nella joke

[@NoNo-sy7hn]

Sam o nella joke?

[@usedtissuepaper42]

* violin theme starts playing *

[@capacamaru]

Jurassic Park was the best sounding name. Pass. Dino DNA? Fail. Toads? A lot of the information given in the movie is 'as presented to the public'. Much like the 'labs' on the ride, a lot of the information provided is not only simplified for the general public, but also may be deliberately obfuscating, or outright false, to protect InGen's 'trade secrets'. Pass. Feathers? The first film was produced and released before a lot of the important discoveries of feathered dinosaurs in the 90s. Pass.

[@kyle857]

They did use frog DNA in the books along with others.

[@jackleo4435]

9600GTMAN What was that dino? Velociraptor? T.rex? No

[@violetdawn7036]

9600GTMAN a what dinosaurs though? A micro raptor? Or some other thing that was completely unrelated to those shown in the movie?

[@This_birb_is_annoying...]

Archaeopteryx was found in 1861

[@aquin3066]

Aren't the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park genetically altered to look like what people thought they looked like and appeal more to the public? Don't remember where that came from, but it is interesting. Also, excuse any grammar and/or ortography issue. English is not my first lenguage and I get things mixed up sometimes.

[@kittycatguyperson7704]

The only issue with this comment in you misspelled "language".

[@aquin3066]

+ᴷᶦᵗᵗʸᶜᵃᵗᴳᵘʸᴾᵉʳˢᵒᶰ -- Sorry. "Lenguaje" is my word for "Language" so you see how easy it is to mess up.

[@kittycatguyperson7704]

Yeah....

[@kittycatguyperson7704]

That's Spanish, right?

[@aquin3066]

+ᴷᶦᵗᵗʸᶜᵃᵗᴳᵘʸᴾᵉʳˢᵒᶰ -- Heh, heh. Yes.

[@MrMarinus18]

That toy that you showed is actually one of my most precious figures. Bought by my mom when I left home.

[@fabiob7261]

in this rare video we can observe a wild trey in his natural environment. we can notice a good knowledge of biology and science, sadly this is compensated by the comolete lack of comprehension of the concepts of suspension of disbelief or a premise.

[@themanformerlyknownascomme777]

Not to mention that a wild trey wouldn't know what hindsight was even if Trey headbutted it

[@blkgardner]

There were no fossils of feathered dinosaurs until the mid 1990's, after Jurassic Park was released. Outdated scientific knowledge is not the same of "scientific inaccuracy," that latter concept presupposes that the producers of the film had reasonable access to scientific knowledge, but chose to ignore it.

[@mjangelvortex]

+blkgardner You are very much correct. The first non-avian dinosaur discovered with feathers, Sinornithsaurus, was discovered in 1996. The first Jurassic Park novel was released in 1990 while the first film was released in 1993. The third Jurassic Park film and Jurassic World have less of an excuse though. But I'm assuming they kept them that way for continuity purposes.

[@jurassicjuan]

Could you perhaps make a revamped version? Also when were feathered dinosaurs first depicted, cause I am pretty sure they weren't depicted during the early 1990's.

[@v_raptor2218]

JurassicJuan they were it just wasn’t well known because the internet wasn’t that developed by then

[@chrispyfriedchicken9648]

Technically I think the biggest issue with the trex is the skull should be slightly more smoothe, the arms should be facing inward, and the bones should not be outlined through the skin of a healthy rex

[@moth8569]

I think its just to tell us that the jp descriptions of dinos arent accurate in this time period and that people need to realise that dinos didnt actually look like that

[@onithesamurai3059]

At the begging hte kid said thats the size of a 6 foot turkey

[@MewsOvercast]

@@chrispyfriedchicken9648 and the Rex should be more bulky, with a thicker body and neck

[@lunatrap1504]

You let out something, the most important use for feathers would be for insulation, for warming eggs and babies :)

[@TREYtheExplainer]

+Luna Trap You are very true, feathers do a great job as insulators ;)

[@lunatrap1504]

TREY the Explainer :) yes, its even more important than flight from the evolutionary point of view, since it sllows more offspring, btw, i love your videos, i hate when i hear people say "look at that lizard, is pretty much a small dinosarus"

[@TREYtheExplainer]

Luna Trap Thank you! and me too XD

[@dylansearcy3966]

+Luna Trap why do some people say that dinosaurs aren't real? Just asking, not hating on dinosaurs. I heard some people say dinosaurs arent real.

[@TehRossyy]

They could be religious? Not sure lol

[@seiyuokamihimura5082]

I would definitely argue a t-rex covered in bright colored feathers is far more threatening than a giant lizard.

[@gadielgonzalez2755]

This man is a gift to humanity, and this channel needs more subscribers.

[@TREYtheExplainer]

^^ thanks man!

[@witabif]

a q: i thought they didn't discover feathered dinosaurs until the late nineties? which would explain why the feathers aren't present in the first movie. JUST the first though

[@TerraViking]

Walking with Dinos4Life she is still right iin the late 90s they doscovered that most of the dinosaurs should have had feathers because of some fossiels they found than thill than they thought that sinornithosaurus whas the only one but it was thill around 2002 they though of that almost all dinosaurs could have had feathers so u guys are both right and wrong

[@witabif]

so it would have effected all the films in some way. thanks for the replies!

[@reese2247]

They did know that dinosaurs were avian, so they tried to make them bird like.

[@witabif]

Reese Miller i remember that from the making of, but i didn't think they would have had feathered raptors and tyrannosauruses before the third movie b/c they didn't know about that

[@tomaskurjan8681]

Frankie Patterson You are 100% correct. The creator of this video does a good job but seems to not have a great grasp of the timeline of paleontological discoveries and consensus. The 1993 movie was based on Crichton's 1990 novel which largely used Gregory Paul's 1988 book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World as the basis for portraying the dinosaurs. While in the late 80's there was an emerging understanding that birds emerged from certain dinosaur lineages, and a few species were proposed by some researchers to possibly have feathers, there was no clear consensus that many, if not all, theropod dino's had some form of "feathers" until huge findings in the mid to late 1990's.

[@shannonreid4888]

Just a note from 2018 there was actually some evidence found that scientists might have been wrong about feathered trexs. Your still right about the smaller dinos like rapters and stuff. (Speaking as some one with no great atatchment to the franchise)

[@tanglekelp1857]

Ok but that accurate toad-dinosaur hybrid is actually extremely creepy and I would've loved if they made it more like that

[@philipheng3876]

PAPERS PLEASE THEME!!!!!

[@ohyeahgamer3736]

The Eraser o yes

[@badugm5035]

In defence of Jurassic Park it is much much more accurate than other dinosaur movies released around the same time.

[@bobby6715]

I had a kids book from the 80's on dinosaurs. It was one my dad had as a kid (I was born in 01) and it literally laughed and joked that there was no way a feathered dinosaur existed. Oh, how times change

[@kookster2208]

Unpopular opinion: dinosaurs look wayyyy cooler with feathers than they do with scales.

[@Algeriawindows69]

This is a popular opinion Cuz......... I have the...... Same............. Opinion ...?

[@aaronaltman8065]

One thing you are forgetting is that the books and movies were based on the most scientifically accurate data of dinosaurs *at the time*. In the early 90s the feathered dinosaurs had not been found yet, raptors were thought to be scaled down relatives of allosaurs and it was still not confirmed that the asteroid impact was what drove the dinosaurs to extinction, as well as other things that had yet to be confirmed at the time. The big problem is how outdated it all is and the franchise's refusal to update the science or create a plot device as to why they are scientifically inaccurate. I will give the original Jurassic Park this though, we have yet to animate anything as well as the dinosaurs in that movie. I look at modern movies with animated dinosaurs and just sigh with disappointment. We had this shit down in '93, what happened!?

[@NinjaStar650]

They did not say that they exclusively use frog DNA and the dinosaurs dont have feathers because Dr.Wu states that the dinosaur's appearances were altered to fit the public's perception of dinosaurs. The name Jurassic Park was given as a catchy title and doesn't nessicarily reflect the period in which the dinosaurs featured are from. Also, Cretaceous Park is just as inaccurate as dimorphodon, brachiosaurus s, compsagnathus and dilophisaurus are featured. Rant over.

[@nashiruu9027]

U realize he also said mezesoic park :/

[@michaelskywalker3089]

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park lacked feathers for two reasons: 1. It was much easier to render high resolution animations of dinosaurs without feathers or complex scaling. It was more important to depict the general shape and behaviour of dinosaurs rather the exact dimensions and anatomical characteristics. 2 In the early 1990's the feathering of dinosaurs was controversial and more so with respect to a key character in the film namely Tyrannosaurus rex. Nevertheless, they could have tried harder to be more accurate in their depiction. However, every dinosaur depicted is essentially artificial having been a combination of toad and residual dinosaur DNA. In my opinion although it is just science fiction and fantastical, the fictional company INGEN would have done certain advanced genetic engineering techniques much more complex and advanced then they indicate in their public information video. For instance, if they were missing complex bone structures, especially related to the diapsid nature of real dinosaurs they would have had to alter vertebrate species dna to accomplish that or use avian skull derived alleles. Is it plausible? No, but if we consider the public information depicted as intentionally deceptive with regards to the advanced genetic engineering that they would have to do [i.e. virtually all of the DNA would not correspond to the species but would emulate the intended characteristics and morphology [ontogeny?] of an assumed model of what the species would be.

[@thoughtfuldevil6069]

The first Jurassic Park film was very forward-thinking and heavily accurate for the time it was made. Remember, most people still thought of Dinosaurs as swamp-bound, sluggish, outdated monstrosities. This is the move that introduced avian, Renaissance-era dinosaurs to a new audience. They even anticipated the criticism, with that "Six-foot Turkey" kid. Given that it was also a groundbreaking achievement in special effects, it only makes sense that its dinosaurs would go on to become iconic. As a piece of creature-design, the Velociraptors are pure genius; sinister glares, winding necks, and high-pitched shrieks all come together to make one of the most impactful movie monsters ever. I didn't care for any of the other movies, but the OG JP came closest to accuracy, and was clearly a love letter to paleontology.

[@PiousMoltar]

There's so much potential for an awesome and ACCURATE dinosaur movie. I wonder if we'll ever get one...

[@Tareltonlives]

Unfortunately, JP was so good and JW was so popular that nobody wants to break the mold. That's what film producers do-they see a really successful film, then copy it over and over again. Hence all the reboots, spinoffs, etc. That's why Terminator, Halloween, Alien, and Star Wars have so many films even when the story itself has already been told and most of the new stories are garbage.

[@Raccon_Detective.]

@@Tareltonlives Agreed thier afraid to be thier own thing JP is a very good example of this.

[@wetube6513]

Cassowarys are already terrifying enough, now imagine a huge feathered dromeosaur the size of a polar bear. That would make for an amazing horror film.

[@ryaquaza3offical]

Another reason to hate war, besides it destroying the only known spinosaurus fossil at the time, it also gave popularity to a theropod which honestly isn't that great compared to other Saurian super predators

[@hypercumstone44]

Ryaquaza 1 you are everywhere

[@chromatech0146]

@@gmkfan257*you're

[@gmkfan257]

Chromatech 01 Who cares if I used the wrong “your”? This isn’t English class, this is KZbin.

[@blueproductions3905]

People at my school WILL NEVER let go of the featherless dinosaurs, even though I keep telling them otherwise

[@therealjezzyc6209]

They look cooler you have to admit. I know that featherless is now more fiction than fact, but I still like to pretend the dinos were giant reptilian beings.

[@blueproductions3905]

+I comment on videos to me feathers are a lot cooler, probably because I have 2 birds, 1 eagle and 1 owl, and I study birds

[@yxngpr0ph3t70]

+TheGamingDakotaRaptor I play Games How the hell do u have an owl. It's illegal to own one without 2 permits and yet still u have to prove yourself in the court to be able to care and give it its needs ( especially since it's an endangered species )

[@yxngpr0ph3t70]

+Sound Stranger owls are ENDANGERED nowhere in the world ( besides iraq and iran even though it's way too hot to keep an owl there) are they legal

[@hotuorbit]

I know how you feel. Nobody at my school would believe me when I told them Velociraptor was only three feet tall.

[@dashy9482]

"What John Hammond and Ingen did in jurrasic park is create theme park monsters, nothing more. And nothing less"

[@AsgarnianAle]

It's kinda basically the theme of the original novel.

[@crisdes7260]

T-Rex didnt become popular because it was 'american'. it became most popular because it was the first of the massive predators discovered.

[@da_dang_dog]

Love that “Papers, Please” theme.

[@flames2089]

Was scouring the comments for this lol. Love that shit

[@lightningtoothless5976]

Jurassic Park sounds better than Cretaceous Park or Triassic Park. How did they know?

[@troutdude123]

3:40 *GRAVITY FALLS THEME SONG*

[@mukket]

That was pretty harsh what you said about Steven Spielberg Edit: this comment was dumb, it wasn’t that harsh.

[@SenshiNico]

Why so many dislikes? This video is so interesting.

[@viktor5569]

Because people aren't happy with the truth

[@endmeplz8983]

Cuz they're jealous about this guy being smart

[@SenshiNico]

Valen Warden That a good reason. FMA its also good.

[@UnaPinata]

Because dudebros 'don't want you to ruin their view on dinos'.

[@Monolopho]

Because it has many inaccuracies and misleadings that make it seem as though Jurassic Park was some evil corporate movie set on making dinosaurs inaccurate to the public, when in fact it was extremely accurate for the time (it is of course very inaccurate now). This coupled with the blatant plagiarism in the second part and I think we have a reason. At least that's my reason, many of them are probably people that don't like Trey crapping on their favorite movie. I'm not exactly fond of Trey, especially due to these two videos and his constant hate campaign of sorts against Jurassic Park for getting stuff wrong they couldn't have known about.

[@mann_man8556]

My personal theory as to why the animals in Jurassic Park are inaccurate is because in the movie Mr.DNA explained that there were missing pieces of DNA in the amber so they had to fill it in. So that’s why I think they look and behave the way they do.Also I think that Ingen also purposely added some DNA to make the animals in the park to be more appealing like how the T.Rex roars for example.

[@tristamitchl707]

It may be inaccurate but back then it was correct because we learned in the 2000s that dinosaurs were feathered, so you shouldn’t be so angry at it because it’s not fully accurate

[@jamesmtob1562]

I love jarassic park but I accept the inaccuracies

[@captainsnookinc2118]

It would be dope to see actual dinosaur frog hybrids being used in the movie

[@GreebleClown]

My theory about the road DNA problem: the intro lecture lied to protect trade secrets. In hindsight from recent films, maybe they used a bit of toad DNA to ensure they could adapt to the tropical climate (as not all of the dinosaurs seen lived in humid jungle biomes) but they also filled in missing sections with other animals, either for other adaptations or for cosmetic reasons.

[@Anakunus]

You know, that is actually a pretty sound reasoning and could explain why all the "dinosaurs" in the film look so much like lizards instead of actual dinosaurs - if they were all small or middle sized. However, it would be impossible to create anything as big as the Tyrannosaurus rex or Apatosaurus using only the DNA of animal species of modern age; thus, that theory falls flat as well.

[@jennifergustafsson3384]

In the novels they also adress t-rexes eyesight. It is based on movement like many frogspecies and it is cause of the frog dna. However in the movies they never care to explain this so they wrote is so that the paleotologist says this is a fact, this is also why Velociraptor is so large, apperantly Utahraptor (a raptor of that actuall size), did not sound as scary so they used the name velociraptors instead to describe them.

[@reecemcilwrick]

I'm pretty sure in Jurassic World they said that dinosaur where make to look like what people thought they looked like? To don't let people down and make then more appealing, if you know what I mean? If you where going to the park to see a huge dinosaurs, thinking it was scaly and stuff and then went to the park and saw a creature like a bird... Yeah don't many people would go back.

[@mattschultz3748]

However, in the beginning, Claire said that "we have learned more about dinosaurs through a decade of genetics that a century of digging up bones". Apparently she hadn't talked to Dr. Wu recently. :)

[@jennnettingham8982]

Dr. Grant, my dear Dr. Satler, welcome . . .to Mesozoic Park. Sounds good

[@joeleder]

The dinosaurs in JP are best described by Dr. Grant in JP 3. "Nothing more than genetically engineered theme park monsters." So given that they needed frog dna and from what I'm assuming various other genomes to fill in the corrupt dino genomes, it's fair to postulate that these inaccuracies are due solely from the dinosaurs in JP not being completely authentic versions of real dinosaurs.

[@bluefury105]

Ok, this movie was made back in 1993, so no one knew that dinosaurs had feathers.

[@NoNo-sy7hn]

Multiple dinosaurs had been discovered to have feathers before the movie came out like pteranodon feathers were discovered in 1973

[@bossomeawsomegamerzillla9904]

I think trex looks cool in feather

[@KVirello]

"scientifically inaccurate aliens" How can you possibly know that!

[@Gaarafan007]

Many commentors point out that the film was relatively accurate for it's time, and even you mention this in your comment from a year ago. However, it should be noted that the existance of feathered dinosaurs was in fact emerging at the time, but most people had never heard of it when the movie came out. The lizard like dinosaurs of the movies were what the public could relate to. The lizard tongue from the preproduction footage was immediately shot down by the paleontologist consultant they had on staff. The third film did in fact reference feathers by giving it's raptors quills, but I think Dr. Grant said it best: "Dinosaurs lived sixty five million years ago. What is left of them is fossilized in the rocks, and it is in the rock that real scientists make real discoveries. Now what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less." Steven Spielberg and his team created recognizable movie monsters based on the theme park monsters from the novel. The book states that there have been multiple versions of the dinosaurs and Dr. Wu wanted to introduce a new version which was slower and less scary than what they had, but Hammond said no. It's entirely possible, despite no mentions in the book or movie, that earlier versions had feathers or more amphibian characteristics, but later versions were modified to look more like the public's perceptions of dinosaurs.

[@mattschultz3748]

We now know it was *66* million year ago.

[@georgewazoski4623]

no you are wrong its t rex not horse are you blind.

[@chrispyfriedchicken9648]

3:48 I love that when you cut to "inaccurate scaly dinosaurs" it shows dimetrodon, trex, stegosaurus, and allosaurus. All 4 of which are examples of animals that would have been scaly when they were alive

[@althealligator1467]

Uh, no, you totally forgot that dinosaurs *DID* exist in the Triassic period, just take herrerasaurus, duh!...

[@abbydesigns5949]

I FOUND OUT THAT A T REX FEMER WAS DESTROYED AND HAD SOFT TISUE

[@theedittingjoke]

Movie : T-rex is from the Jurassic Me : NOT SCIENTIFICALLY POSSIBLE!

[@TheWolf-oc6ib]

We also got to look at it as a Hollywood film that was made during the time when the t-rex was considered scaled. Heck, the raptors in JP3 had quills on them as some sort of feathering.

[@F150fx2sporT]

Just because of that Peter Griffin Jurassic Park theme I’m giving it a like lol

[@opajohann]

You probably mentioned this already, but all of 'Dolly's' 'mother's ' were still the same species, just slightly different breeds of same species...

[@cormacb2326]

0:48 You like quantum physics! How?! When?! Why have I never even remotely seen this in you videos!

[@Unknown-sg4tv]

Jurassic park Rules 1. Follow Rules. 2. Only clone plant eating dinosaur's. 3. Make sure that plant eating dinosaur's have lots of space. 4. Make sure there's lots of tree's and plant's.

[@Synthose1]

To be honest, the novel is more accurate

[@Synthose1]

Also they use birds and reptiles for the buffer DNA in that one. The lack of feathers was due to the time, because I don’t think Sinosauropteryx was discovered yet. It’s the other movies who are to blame

[@admiralcat3809]

The only thing accurate in JP is the posture of the so called "dinosaurs"

[@gogomonkey6341]

I would be extremely upset if Thylacines are not cloned within my lifetime

[@10gamer64]

Same

[@Mygybigboy]

It may be innacurate, but it's the design we love