The Jurassic Frog Fallacy DEBUNKED! Quit Blaming the FROGS!

It wasn't splicing frog or reptilian DNA that made Jurassic Park and World dinosaurs inaccurate. Time to debunk this bad take that keep showing up. #jurassicworld #dinosaurs
JP Accuracy: • Jurassic Park (1993) A...
TLW Defense: • In Defense of The Lost...
Dominion Rant: • Jurassic World: Domini...
Facebook: / redraptorwrites
Patreon: www.patreon.co...
Instagram: / redraptorwrites
Twitter: Re...

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Hey everyone! Just coming in with an addendum, a topic that wasn't mentioned in this video though after thinking about this, it is worth saying. In the Jurassic franchise, dinosaurs don't look consistent. Often their designs are changed between films and sometimes within a single film itself. Brachiosaurus changes between JP, JP3, and FK. Velociraptor changes between JP, TLW, JP3, and JW. T. rex changes between JP and TLW. And so on and so on. This has also been commonly attributed to gene editing and testing though I don't feel this is the case. IMO this just boils down to production, Universal trying to improve and improve rather than being an actual detail to follow in-universe. Here's why. The Velociraptor in JP3 looks very different than in the previous two. The labs we see in that movie may imply a new, unique batch. But then there's Alan's dream scene where he imagines a JP3 raptor before ever actually seeing one. If the designs were meant to be consistent and have meaning then shouldn't he have seen a JP1 raptor? I take it that JP3 retconned (I'm overusing that word now) their look. Previous raptor designs were replaced with the JP3 ones not only on Sorna but in character memory. Brachiosaurus sees similar treatment. Despite the JP Brachi and Fallen Kingdom pier Brachi supposedly being the same individual, they look different. The Nublar rex (often called "Rexy" or "Roberta") had subtle changes between the entries she's in. Even in just the original, the CG model and animatronic had some differences. Overall, I'd just say that the series has inconsistencies that are meant to be purely cosmetic, not really supposed to mean anything. In the JW movies the gene splicing has some cosmetic effects like in the raptor squad and the atrociraptors had some breeding going on, but for the OGs it felt to me more like they just swapped designs in and out to attempt looking cooler. The series isn't consistent in this regard so there is evidence for both sides here.

[@markcobuzzi826]

Another noteworthy example could be the Parasaurolophus in JW Dominion, versus in JW1 and JW Fallen Kingdom. The Dominion Parasaurolophus not only have different color schemes, but also a less shrink-wrapped appearance and more hoof-like front feet, which I think may be more accurate. Unless those were somehow another batch of clones that got released, separately from the Nublar ones that would have escaped the Lockwood Manor, this might only be explainable by out-universe redesigning. Needless to say, the Parasaurolophus got a more bipedal and differently colored redesign in TLW and JP3 too, versus in JP1. Not to mention how differently the JP3 Pteranodons look and act from their previous TLW counterparts.

[@rahnal21]

This is just a guess from me, but the Dream Raptor from Alan’s nightmare wasn’t meant to be a retcon, they just needed a raptor prop for that scene and it would take too much time to make a 1993 raptor variant prop from scratch, and so they reused one of the JP3 male raptor props instead. Also we never saw how aggressive and/or passive the Lost World Pteranodon variants are. Edit: By any chance could you an Accuracy review on the show Dino Dan (And it’s spin-offs, Trek’s Adventures and Dino Dana)? It doesn’t matter to me when you make, I am happy regardless of when it releases. But if you don’t want to do it at all, that’s fine, those shows are a lot work with 80+ episodes and a movie, you do what you want to do. I know it’s a live action kids meant to teach children, but it isn’t half bad for one, does have a large cast of dinosaurs and other prehistoric creatures and it’s a part my childhood nobody talks about and I was wanting to how well each entry hold up accuracy wise.

[@BabyGodzilla-lb5vw]

I think you may have missed something. In promotion for JW, Universal released the Masrani Global website with the Masrani back door search were you can find a log from Dr.W that said he tried to give Dinosaurs features in 2003. With him saying that because of reptile DNA. He couldn't give them features and mentioning a thing on sorna. Which could be either the JP3 raptors or the Spino. Idk if this is important but it is something to think about.

[@Don-ds3dy]

Ok, I'll shut up and delete all my frog comments ...

[@trabistheidio1095]

I think the JP3 raptor was just them using an already existing prop for the movie, I doubt they would've retconned the design so heavily, especially since many people were, and still are very fond of the tiger striped raptor.

[@theangrysuchomimus5163]

Kid: “We need more teeth” Nigersaurus: “It’s my time to shine”

[@alligatoreamericano3520]

Most underrated comment

[@imtyler99yearsago90]

Toxic Carnivore Fanboy: Herbivores are weak! Carnivores are stronger! Nigersaurus: ☹️😢 Triceratops, Ankylosaurus, and any other large sauropod: *Allow us to introduce ourselves*

[@god_gojiofanime_gokusolos2009]

Snails i have over 20,000 teeth

[@QuokkaCore]

The Frog DNA was *never* meant to be an excuse for inaccurate designs, it was meant to explain why the dinosaurs are breeding despite all being female. On top of that, I always disliked the frog DNA thing. Like… why not use a birds DNA? Or a Crocodile? And if you’re not gonna use an Archosaur… why not use a reptile like a lizard?

[@markcobuzzi826]

I agree with that particular criticism about the first JP film, which is otherwise a near flawless adaption for me. The TV Tropes page even addresses this and lists it as an "Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole". *I am copying and pasting that excerpt below, if you would like to read it:* "The use of frog DNA is more justified in the book, where it's indicated only a few select species have fragments of frog DNA, and the majority of the DNA used to fix up dinosaur DNA is avian or reptilian; the other justification given is that DNA only has minor genetic differences across all forms of life *(note)* with the implication that they thought they were patching missing code to parts where it wouldn't matter. The movie removes all this explanation, leaving the use of frog DNA as something of a Voodoo Shark, as you'd wonder why they didn't use DNA of an animal more closely related to dinosaurs."

[@ExtremeMadnessX]

This is also pointless because many reptiles can reproduce without needs of males, iguanas, monitor lizards and geckos. Also proved in birds, especially in condors. Message about how life finds a way would still stay the same, without convenient frog DNA.

[@Thefufflylord]

And why the T-Rex's sight was based on movement.

[@Poukko]

i think the jp3 spino had alligator/crocodile dna in it, it would explain why it was so jacked in jp3 and also how it could survive in desert like environments in camp cretaceous

[@toothandclaw4347]

Lol

[@sobekapep8320]

I headcanon that in JP, dinosaurs were reconstructed to their understanding at the time. Which is the main reason for so many innacuracies in the Ingen dinosaurs. For JW, the Masrani dinos were actually made to attract visitors, so, yeah, Wu was telling the truth for the Masrani generation. Biosyn was somewhere in between, they made a show of their work with more accurate dinosaurs compared to their precassors but they either didn't advance enough with the technology and/or just wanted to experiment on dino DNA and/or just show off to people for their "advancements", so none of the latest generation of dinos were fully accurate either.

[@SMeekerorum]

that is completely true, the frog thingy wasnt made until jurassic world

[@sobekapep8320]

@@SMeekerorum Frog DNA was an idea around since JP but people tend to exaggerate it's effects. The only effect we have seen in general is the ability to change sex and temperature manipulation but it only goes for Indominus. I am pretty sure they added other animal DNA to fill the gaps in too but like I said, their looks were intentionally that way.

[@SMeekerorum]

@@sobekapep8320 yeah i meant that, the "uhm it had frog dna so its innacurate" argument still sucks either way tbh

[@sobekapep8320]

@@SMeekerorum Yep. Frog DNA's effects are relatively minimum.

[@mrwhom2188]

The Frog DNA excuse became especially infuriating as of recent because it feels like people are using the "hurr durr it isn't natural" scapegoat not just towards accuracy criticisms but EVERY sort of criticism labelled at the JW films, even those that purely address basic shit like writing and shoddy plot elements. For all intents and purposes it's basically a stand in to the "turn off your brain and consoom the product without questions" mindset and feels like an intentional attempt to misdirect and pretend people only dislike those films for accuracy reasons, which is a load of bull. Pretty embarrassing to see that this is what the legacy of the first movie represents.

[@mrwhom2188]

You did actually read my comment right? I literally pointed out how accuracy is one of the least mattering aspects in this. I could care less about the models, even if they miraculously had a completely accurate glupshittosaurus whatefuckensis with correct wrists, top notch anatomy and feathers it wouldn't change a bad script. And that's my main point- accuracy is one thing, but not everyone who dislikes those movies (a fairly huge part of the general and critic audience) does so because of it because it's a trivial matter just as you said. Most people wouldn't be able to tell a new obscure genus they shoehorned and wouldn't care about it either, but what people DO care about is when you have aspects like terrible scripts or shoddy dialogue. You are absolutely on the money that the Dinosaurs are merely tools to advance the plot and tell the message- it was the case with JP, and it worked. But when said plot is filled with drivel like the new trilogy the tools are all you have left to parade around with. In my original comment I pointed out how people who defend these films will shield them from any criticism by intentionally misdirecting the narrative into "it's only because the Dinosaurs are innacurate" even when the discussion revolves around aspects like plot, execution or even cinematography. This is literally what you're doing here, at utterly no point in my original post I mentioned anything about the models aside from a comparison to the overall issue.

[@youlaughyouphill842]

@IapetusMC you are literally the guy OC is making fun off 💀💀

[@MungoMcGhee]

Exactly. These people that defend these garbage movies are just pundits of the highest order.

[@babahippogaming1262]

The Dominion prologue is what really hurt. It literally destroys the frog DNA argument.

[@markcobuzzi826]

The only slight exception would be that prologue’s partially feathered T-Rex, the one creature I noticed having a slightly different design from its modern clone counterparts. Otherwise, the argument falls apart unless we assume that the Oviraptor, Moros, Quetzalcoatlus, Giganotosaurus, etc. were somehow the only specific creatures to get 100% accurate clones in-universe, when every other dinosaur supposedly didn’t.

[@babahippogaming1262]

@@markcobuzzi826 yeah but giganotosaurus in real life wasn’t a apex predator. It was a pack hunter and in the original Jurassic Park, the paleontologists were looking for velociraptors in North America. Velociraptors lived in Asia.

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

@@babahippogaming1262 Pack hunt, No, Mapusaurus doing small gangs to hunt ONE prey in common and never see eachother again, Yes, Giganotosaurus hunting smaller prey and very rarely hunting a juvenile wounded sauropod, Yes.

[@babahippogaming1262]

@@FollowerOfMegatron ah I probably got confused. Those two dinosaurs were both found in South America and looked similar. Oops

[@azhdarchidae66]

@@babahippogaming1262 michael crichton made that mistake on purpose, using greg pauls theory on how deinonychus was an american species of velociraptor, V. antirrhopus. Dr wu didnt know a lot about dromaeosaurids appearently, just calling the parks clones V. mongoliensis. so until they see the "Raptors" they think theyll see small birdy animals. this gets more obvious when tim is asked what he knows about velociraptor, he answers theyre small predators, similar to deinonychus. grant then replies that "deinonychus is now considered one of the velociraptors". also in the book they dug up a juvenile Velociraptor, calling it V. antirrhopus. this species is the same one that he digs up in th movie, its roughly triangular skull gives it away, as opposed to the thinner, concave skull of the asian Velociraptor mongoliensis

[@SaurianStudios1207]

Even with the frog fallacy explained in detail, it still doesn’t excuse the franchise’s fault for influencing pop culture’s depiction of dinosaurs, which has led to the spread of misinformation and myths that the general public *STILL* believes about dinosaurs. Even as someone who loves dinosaurs (both paleontology and pop culture), I’m still ashamed of the general public only associating or viewing dinosaurs as they were in Jurassic Park, not the true animals they were.

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Very well said. The franchise has shaped an entire generation's understanding of dinosaurs unfortunately. As entertainment, I don't think Spielberg had a responsibility to be accurate, but man that would've been nice. I more blame audiences who take a Hollywood movie as scientific fact

[@SaurianStudios1207]

@@redraptorwrites6778 even the mythbusters told their audience “don’t believe everything you see in a movie.”

[@JurassicReptile]

To be fair dinosaurs have very little influence on regular peoples’ lives so of course they’re not going to have an accurate view

[@TheMightyN]

And even then Red Raptor's video is still wrong.

[@ronniepatterson2827]

Whats truly ironic about you, red raptor, & the other haters of Jurassic Park is without it, your silly comment let alone this silly upload wouldn't even be here. Go ahead, be ashamed the general public likes JP dinosaurs. Without those dinosaurs, the general public would be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrr less interested in them, & dont get me started on how many are in or are entering the paleontology field, soely because something you are ashamed of smh Why arent you guys making vids on how bad She hulk or the Rings of Power are lmao

[@seanmckelvey6618]

I actually wouldn't have an issue with the whole "tha frogs" thing if it wasn't just a way for the fans to make excuses for the people behind the scenes just not caring enough to do any real research. I also wouldn't give a damn about the animals in a hollywood science fiction series being inaccurate to the real things if said people behind the scenes didn't make stupid statements about "focusing on the science" and the pumping out the shit we get in JWD.

[@SaurianStudios1207]

19:44 actually I always see the Giganotosaurs as the closest thing to a MonsterVerse Gorosaurus. Great as a kaiju design, but NOT for a real dinosaur that actually existed.

[@manchungus3486]

@IapetusMC Attempting to ignore osteoderms, and a very inaccurate head is kind of hard.

[@ballguy8794]

True

[@TheJericho1123]

where was Gorosaurus in the Monster Verse?

[@D_megapronz]

@@TheJericho1123 no, they are not, that guy just assuming something up out from one of gojicenter theory video

[@TheJericho1123]

@@D_megapronz well, like i said, Gorosaurus is not in the Monsterverse.

[@gigalante4435]

What is considered an accurate dinosaur in this franchise so so confusing Back in jurassic park accurate dinosaurs lacked feathers But in dominion prologue some creatures were shown to have feathers, Oviraptor, Moros, Quetzalcoatlus And even Tyrannosaurus So I Guess the JP Rex is accurate in universe, but the one inaccuracy in universe is the lack of feathers So I guess in this universe, some dinosaurs possessed feathers. Idk

[@joshuaW5621]

Your theory probably is canon

[@thorodinson6625]

The only "accurate" dinosaurs are the ones created by biosyn, since their DNA is 100% pure. Ingen had to close DNA gaps with modern animal DNA.

[@robertjackson1813]

In Michael Crichton second book The Lost world the baby tyrannosaurus is described by having rust colored fluff covering it

[@M3xican_k1d_009]

The JP Dinos look like that because that’s what the movie director wants them to look like

[@josesosa3337]

Yep. Nostalgia trumps logic.

[@rextheoldsoul7558]

I view the film’s dinosaurs as accurate to their perspective universe. I understand that people wanted more anatomically correct creatures but the film makers would have had to go all the way with that idea. I’m an all or none sort. I don’t mind that the Park films, with the exception of three because of the raptors, wanted to keep continuity between the look of the creatures in the films. My problem is when the World movies want to ride the line of staying faithful to the original designs and paleo-accuracy. I think that’s where much of the confusion stems from. Either go all in or don’t. Whichever way the film makers choose, I think they should call these animals what they really are; and these ones are movie monsters. I find that really sad too. In their efforts to please everyone, they ended up confusing most. The original intention of the first few films was to portray the dinosaurs as real animals but now the general public believes that the creatures in the World films are accurate because that’s how they were marketed as.

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Not sure why but KZbin HATES when I use the Drake & Josh clip. It gets muted every time. Oh well

[@spinodinosaurgame8425]

Red L

[@brandontopaloglu3112]

Hey red raptor writes. I attualy have a dinosaur documentary idea. It's called mesozoic earth. It gose over the entire mesozoic era. Each season will be on every geological period, for example, season 1 is triassic, jurassic is season 2; and season 3 is Cretaceous. And every episode is all the stages in the periods. What do you think.

[@margogoralski6294]

Sorry about that.

[@hyena_fan]

@@brandontopaloglu3112 nice

[@noeltorres9175]

A KZbinr I saw said if they used frogs DNA they should look like frogs

[@thebunkerparodie6368]

The thing I dislike the most about the spinosaurus is horner overhyping it (and horner also decided to snuck in his scavenger theory too).

[@krankarvolund7771]

I've never felt like Horner was snucking in his scavenger theory. First, when I see T. rex eating a dinosaur, my first thought is that it was freshly killed, and there's nothing that contradict it, the rex is just casually eating a dinosaur, there's not obvious signes of decay or anything like that ^^' Second, a scavenger would've fled when a carnivore come to take the carcass, T. rex stood and fight to the death, not even a predator would've been that reckless XD

[@GoGojiraGo]

@@krankarvolund7771 Horner states in the behind the scenes material that the rex eating a carcass was his view of the animal that that Spniosaurus was the ultimate predator who would go after rexes for food.

[@krankarvolund7771]

@@GoGojiraGo Then he's wrong, because that's not what we see in the movie ^^ I could claim death of the author, and that each viewer can draw his own interpretation, but Horner is not even an author of the movies, he's just an advisor, so....

[@seanmckelvey6618]

@@GoGojiraGo Easily one of the stupidest things about JP3 is that you have this uber-chad Spinosaurs that is apparently roaming around the island sniffing about for T.rex piss so it can hunt and kill them. Horner had a real chip on his shoulder about people liking T.rex.

[@GoGojiraGo]

@@krankarvolund7771 Yes, he was the advisor, and they listened to his advice to make Spinosaurus the ultimate theropod and replace Tyrannosaurus, who Horner feels doesn't deserve to be liked, as the new face of the franchise. He even says the reason we first see the rex eating a carcass was because he told them to do that because of his scavenger theory.

[@pequenotamandua5712]

You know, if they added that dialogue between Wu and Hammond of the novel as a flashback in Jurassic World this could make Wu seen more interesting as an antagonist. Would be as if he felt like his talents were being wasted because he could do more than just recreate the dinosaurs as they were, so he decided to make living weapons and sell them. I suppose that was the idea but it was never clearly stablished.

[@Anthony-co4wz]

I like that you debunked this common misconception. I used to believe this misconception and now I see the truth. Also I’m curious on when will you do a retrospective on the Jurassic World trilogy especially with Dominion already released. Great video, I can’t wait to see your next accuracy review.

[@spider-soniczilla2989]

So the way I orginal thought that quote meant that the dinos were considered outdated, like they are in our own world. But Doimion shots that idea in the foot with only T-Rex being slightly inaccurate.

[@spider-soniczilla2989]

Which funny that I pretty sure that the prolog Rex is considered even more outdated then the 1993 Rex. Don't get me wrong I love all the movies, but sometimes they make stupid choices.

[@ianoliver2224]

I’d mistake Giganotosaurus with Acrocanthosaurus with that stupid hump on it’s back.

[@tylerfish2701]

Funny, considering some concept art showed that Acrocanthosaurus was supposed to be in the film, so why didn't they use that instead?

[@kade-qt1zu]

@@tylerfish2701 Because, uhhh, giga stronk.

[@tylerfish2701]

@@kade-qt1zu And that was funny.

[@thabas7578]

The thing is that the first two movies actually tried to make accurate dinos (with exceptions like the velociraptor that in the 2 wouldnt make any sense to be feathered in the movies logic) but then in all the other movies they made like 2 or 3 accurate designs per movie

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

But the skulls of the dinosaurs in the original JP are very inaccurate to the real thing.

[@seanmckelvey6618]

@@yuyaricachimuel555 Artistic license was taken because they had to come up with designs they could copyright, if they made them entirely accurate they would probably have had trouble with that. That being said, for the first 3 movies there was an ATTEMPT to make them as close to the science of the time as was feasible. The same cannot be said for the World movies.

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

@@seanmckelvey6618 huh. And I heard about Universal wanting to trademark the word Jurassic.

[@thabas7578]

@@prjoliphant7951 u saying that the anky looks accurate?

[@WeebsWithGlasses71]

@@seanmckelvey6618 THIS, when JP3 was made the now "inaccurate" Spino design was the "accurate design". Back then JP put accuracy and good plots into considerations, now tho? "Haha Mutant Dino goes rawr rawr, Accuracy go poof poof". You can't use JP Argument to correct the JW fault because JP put TONS of effort in being scientifically accurate while being fun(i mean sure, the Dilophosaurus they made is scientifically inaccurate, atleast they do keep the design accurate and only add frill for "coolness".) JW in the other hand is an attempt to emulate JP success by using only the bare bone of what makes JP fun (Cool Dino Design) without adding other factors that makes JP good (Plot, Accuracy that satisfy both parties etc.).

[@evavenh]

I agree the "DNA argument" is often lazily used to handwave inaccuracies. I must admit I kind of fell for it back when I read the first novel, but that was because I *wanted* the dinosaurs to be more scientifically accurate. It always irked me that the film's T-rex explicitly really did have poor vision in real life, so I was pleasantly surprised when the novel seemed to leave room for another explanation. Grant discovering it in the park, and being surprised by it, instead of stating it as fact... The JP vet saying the dinosaurs have good vision except for this "amphibian" system, when frog DNA had been used and had already changed stuff without the scientists knowing... Clearly I missed some details that debunk this, but casually reading it for the first time it seemed like a valid interpretation that got rid of that nonsensical inaccuracy. I was quite disappointed when I read The Lost World. I don't think its alternative explanation is convincing either. In the first novel the T-rex is described as agitated and searching/examining, angrily roaring, yet still ignoring Grant even when he's inches away. That doesn't sound like it "just wasn't interested".

[@tjarkschweizer]

Hello. I am from the future and can confirm the next trilogy will be called Jurassic universe. The Velociraptors can talk now, Rexy is a cyborg and the final villain is a time traveling Spinosaurus. The human characters are super forgettable though.

[@hyena_fan]

Please tell your kidding

[@tjarkschweizer]

@@hyena_fan I wish I was.

[@hyena_fan]

@@tjarkschweizer oh god

[@kade-qt1zu]

@@hyena_fan Tjark Schweizer, my dear Lourinhanasaurus, welcome, to Jurassic Universe.

[@hyena_fan]

@@kade-qt1zu you don't know me i think

[@margogoralski6294]

As someone who's followed the series for a long time now, this video definitely explained a lot for me. Some of these aspects in the franchise have always felt confusing or contradictory, and I'm glad to hear them clarified. I now have better grasp on the lore and what works with in canon now. The whole Frog excuse has often felt like a lame cop-out that backstabs past information and intent, along with other retcons in the later movies. Stellar work as always, Red Raptor.

[@Caulin66]

this is exactly what i keep telling people, the dominion prologue is proof that the dinosaurs of the Mesozoic in the jp universe are completely different from the real animals that actually lived in the real Mesozoic era we study the fossils of irl.

[@DonatoColangelo]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for this video. I’ve been saying the same identical things since 2015, when all the frog-DNA madness was let loose by people desperately trying to justify Trevorrow trainwrecks.

[@brianlevine871]

When it came to Dr. Wu's 'nothing in Jurassic World is real' line, I simply thought of it as a compromise regarding the outdated looks of the franchise's veteran dinosaurs (i.e. scaly raptors). By that I mean they understood how our knowledge of paleontology changed over time, but still wanted to find a way to maintain the iconic look of said dinosaurs. But even then I never tried to use that quote as an excuse to ignore legitimate criticisms towards the creatures or the "World" films. And this is coming from a long-time fan of the franchise that also liked the first JW, and to an extent "Fallen Kingdom." "Dominion" was a big disappointment, regardless of inaccuracies. And even with that in mind, there were some things I just couldn't overlook, like the low-tailed Stegosaurus and ugly new Pteranodons. Plus, some of the new creatures could've had better designs, namely the Baryonyx and Giganotosaurus.

[@NeilDegrasseTysonWithAKatana]

JP fans on their way to prove flat earth with frog dna or something:🏃🏃🏃🏃

[@jurassic_kiwi]

as a jp fan i can say that some off us are gona do that… lol

[@TheEmperorYTP]

A real flat earther would say "dinosaurs were invented by the gubmint/satan to prove evilutionism and disprove god"

[@NeilDegrasseTysonWithAKatana]

@@TheEmperorYTP yeah but frog dna tho...

[@thebunkerparodie6368]

or they just have a different perspective on something they like than you?

[@ech78928]

@@thebunkerparodie6368 So perspective equals stupidity and the failure of our species intelligence. Got it

[@ItsEnderDiego]

okay great video and a much needed one. i find the point you bring up pretty convincing and good point. and it seems like an good answer that in universe this is the acurate dinosaurs. and it hopefully will stop the debate but it did make me wonder how an jurassic park remake but with updated dinosaur designs will be.

[@velociraptor4you3291]

WELL DONE once again (👏)! You're the first KZbinr to explain this in detail as to _why_ it's a fallacy. I admit that for the longest time, *I* was a subscriber to the 'Frog DNA Fallacy,' when in-universe, it *only* ever caused sex changes (and thus, the ability to naturally reproduce) to the dinosaurs whose genomes were spliced with said DNA...nothing else. Now while I do *not* hate the "Jurassic World" trilogy as a whole...I feel I should emphasize the *'not'* part because I just came out of a heated argument with someone on Nostalgia Critic's "Jurassic World: Dominon" review was trying to _force_ me to accept that movie as _'factually'_ bad when I do NOT subscribe to looking at films that way at all...anyway, YOU sir did good at explaining the overarching *retcon* flaw that the 'World' trilogy as a whole has (👍👍).

[@markcobuzzi826]

When I revisited that scene myself via Klayton Fioriti’s video on Dr. Wu, I realized that I forgot about how Dr. Wu initially suggested that Hammond’s dinosaurs were too “real” for the park’s own good. I think I only remembered the quotes later on in the conversation, where Dr. Wu tries to backpedal and assert that the dinosaurs are still not fully real, since their prehistoric counterparts may have had differences which InGen would not be aware of. Therefore, the Mandela Effect took hold and caused me to think those lines had more weight than they did. In the conversation’s full context, Dr. Wu’s argument comes across more as someone trying to win an argument, by suddenly moving the goalpost midway. In light of Red Raptor Writes’ video, I am convinced that if the novel scene was suggesting the dinosaurs may have inaccuracies in-universe, it was rather downplayed. Otherwise, we are meant to assume that they were as accurate as possible in-universe and partially out-universe too, at least for the time. In summary, the novel brought up the idea that people like Dr. Wu were more interested in creating “genetically-engineered theme park monsters” rather than real dinosaurs, but it never actually came to much fruition in the story, due to Hammond’s demands for reality. I now think that if Jurassic World was to have such a retcon, they still could have acknowledged that reality was Hammond’s original intent, even if it is suggested that his efforts still fell a little short, in light of newer dinosaur discoveries.

[@velociraptor4you3291]

@@markcobuzzi826 Oh, that darn Mandela Effect (😄). But from what I remember from that particular novel chapter and dialogue exchange between Dr. Wu and Hammond, that *is* accurate as far as the point Wu was trying to make to Hammond, and how Hammond was insisting that what INGEN had cloned were _’real’_ dinosaurs. That’d be a retcon I could get behind as far as the ‘World’ trilogy goes (👍), yet, as Red Raptor Writes here points out, too many retcons *can* have negative consequences for both the franchise and for the viewing audience. So retcons need to be handled very carefully.

[@markcobuzzi826]

​@@velociraptor4you3291 Also on the subject of retcons, this illustrates another benefit of planning ahead, provided one does not go too far in the opposite direction. Earlier, I brought up how I too found Maisie’s apparent backstory change to be jarring in JW Dominion. Upon thinking about it further, I noticed that Maisie’s arc could have had more cohesion throughout Fallen Kingdom and Dominion, with just two changes. If Dominion’s story was more planned out ahead of time, then Fallen Kingdom could have Charlotte Lockwood’s death stated to be that genetic disease from the get-go, rather than a car crash. On Dominion’s end, it might have felt like a far less notorious retcon, if Maisie was still cloned after Charlotte Lockwood’s death, implying she was birthed by a surrogate mother. In turn, the surrogate mother could have turned out to be the scientist, who took it upon herself to craft a cure for the disease Maisie inherited.

[@velociraptor4you3291]

@@markcobuzzi826 Good changes (👍)! I do remember a car crash being mentioned in “Fallen Kingdom” as the cause of Charlotte Lockwood’s death. But who said that? I want to say it was Eli Mills. But yeah, up until “Dominion,” I was thinking Maisie was birthed into the world via a surrogate mother.

[@markcobuzzi826]

@@velociraptor4you3291 I just realized that my proposed change would then require JW Dominion to contrive a reason for Maisie’s surrogate mother to be absent as well. That way, the film could still have Dr. Wu needing Maisie herself, in order to reverse-engineer the agent which transmits new genes into already-developed creatures. So, this could still complicate things a bit from that angle. Hmm 🤔

[@Chill1332]

It is very clear that the 'frog dna' can't explain many of the dino inaccuracies. Because CLEARLY they did not have all the information to truly make some of these dinos accurate when the films were made. As you said, we see a big raptor being excavated and Alan talking about the Trex vision, ect. I don't think anyone can use it as a valid argument to say someone CANT critique the accuracy or inaccuracy of the dinos. But I DO think it is a fun retcon/headcannon.

[@Hewylewis]

I used to believe in the frog thing, myself. But nowadays, I just consider the dinos in JW to be innaccurate because they were just trying to be consistant with the previous films. Imagine if you had a six foot velociraptor in the first film, only to have a more accurate, shorter one in a later sequel. The general audience would be like...WTF?

[@flightlesslord2688]

The main reason I hate this point is its the complete opposite of Hammond's vision in the movies, and Crichtons irl vision for the book, he made it as accurate as possible for the time. And Wu and Hammond wanted to make dinosaurs as close to their fossil counterparts as possible, not monsters.

[@azhdarchidae66]

in the novel wu wants to convince hammond that making the dinosaurs less accurate is a good idea, as people wouldnt want to see fast, intelligent, birds, but rather slow, sluggish monsters they think are dinosaurs

[@flightlesslord2688]

@@azhdarchidae66 aye, but Hammond wanted them to be real, even more so in the movies of course where he isnt just an evil capitalist lol

[@azhdarchidae66]

@@flightlesslord2688 you said hammond and wu wanted real dinosaurs, but wu at least thought about less dinosaur dinosaurs

[@flightlesslord2688]

@@azhdarchidae66 ah my bad

[@theraymunator]

You're right, but Crichton did take a few artistic liberties with his dinosaurs. The Dilophosaurus is the best example of that, there is absolutely no evidence of it being able to spit venom.

[@ItsCreaidan]

The way I view it, the park stopped caring about making dinosaurs accurate. They just focused on making them cool to entertain audience members. I'm actually alright with them not making them accurate in the JP/JW series. However, I would have liked to see more accurate dinosaurs in the series.

[@razorback9999able]

Guess I'm calling for a hard Jurassic Park reboot with the same plot but with scientifically accurate dinosaurs.

[@darknessdescending6695]

That would be sweet. Someone could probably edit features on the raptors or something.

[@razorback9999able]

@@darknessdescending6695 And Velociraptors are going to be replaced as the dominant raptors.

[@kade-qt1zu]

@@razorback9999able Dakotaraptor would be a suitable replacement.

[@markcobuzzi826]

Comments like yours definitely had me pondering what it would be like, if they not only made a separate JP adaptation closer to the Crichton novel, but also incorporated more modern accuracies *(extra elaborations further down)...* I could go either way for the latter point, since a lot of the inaccurate designs have become a franchise trademark and could still be justified out-universe (by Hammond striving for accuracy and yielding dinosaurs that only deviate from their natural counterparts, in subtle ways which nobody at the time would even know). However, incorporating more updated dinosaur designs from the get-go could make a recreation of that argument between Dr. Wu and John Hammond compelling in its own way. If the cloned dinosaurs look more like our modern understandings, in a story set during a much earlier decade, it could reinforce Wu’s original point that their dinosaurs ironically might be “too accurate” for the average park guests to recognize. As an extra Easter egg, Dr. Wu could also show Hammond concept sketches of how he could make the GMO dinosaurs look a little more “familiar” to park guests. When Hammond looks at them, those sketches would look exactly like the Velociraptors, Pterosaurs, Gallimimus, and Spinosaurus from Spielberg’s JP movie trilogy. And when Dr. Wu brags about how entertainment should come first and he could even improve upon reality, there is one last sketch resembling the Indominus Rex from JW, which Hammond especially finds off-putting.

[@joshuaW5621]

This was a very interesting discussion into the Jurassic franchise. If you want these movies to be accurate, it probably would have made better sense to use bird or crocodile dna as they’re actually related to dinosaurs. Unfortunately people take these movies too seriously since most people don’t know much about dinosaurs. Even as someone who enjoys the Jurassic World movies, it doesn’t excuse the dinosaur designs evolving backwards and the “nothing is accurate” excuse feels shoehorned just to justify them not being accurate. That’s just really dumb and makes you sound like you don’t care about the pre-existing lore that was already established nearly 30 years ago.

[@markcobuzzi826]

You did a great job putting this video together, and I want to admit you proved that my memory of the JP novels was flawed in a few places. As one of those guys who both only read each novel once and overstated the "JP dinos are all genetic hybrids" lore, I appreciate you correcting me in those places. I think the one last thing you could have brought up for context is a few other quotes during the JP novel scene between Dr. Wu and John Hammond, where the former tries to suddenly move the goalpost after previously saying that InGen's dinosaurs are too "real". *In hindsight, I think these other quotes shortly after the ones you showed are what myself and others subconsciously latched onto, allowing the Mandela Effect to take over...* (I don't have my copy of the book handy, so I am transcribing what is recited in Klayton Fiority's "The Tragedy of Dr. Henry Wu - Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park" KZbin video) John Hammond: "Now look... What we have here is real dinosaurs." Dr. Wu: "Not exactly. I don't think we should kid ourselves here. The past is gone. We can never recreate it. All we've done is reconstruct the past, or at least a version of it... After all, I've already modified them to bring them to life... Why stop there? Why not create the dinosaur the visitors want to see..." John Hammand: "But Henry... But they wouldn't be real." Dr. Wu: "But they're not real now... That's what I'm trying to tell you. There isn't any reality here." *However, I want to acknowledge that upon revisiting the full scene myself, I see that even those other quotes by Dr. Wu are questionable.* In the scene's full context, he comes across more as someone desperately moving the goalpost midway to win an argument, and John Hammond continues to not buy it. *This part of the conversation is the closest the JP novel seems to get to Jurassic World's assertion, yet it still gives the impression that InGen's dinosaurs are meant to be as accurate as what is known in-universe, just with the possibility that their natural counterparts may have a few differences nobody would know about at the time.*

[@justusb.plorer8773]

8:32 Well, considering _Edmontosaurus_ could grow as big, if not bigger than the _I. rex,_ I wouldn't rule out the possibilty that it could do some serious damage, if it was treated like a proper _Edmontosurus._ Though admittedly, it wouldn't use it's teeth much.

[@IsoSobek]

Of course Edmontosaurus would grow larger than a trilobite!

[@seandewar47]

It's teeth may not of done much, but it beak certainly could if horses are any indicator for bite force.

[@dinofanaticgojifan5760]

@@seandewar47 I felt the bite force of a horse when I was 7.

[@seandewar47]

@@dinofanaticgojifan5760 now imagine a beaked lizard horse the size of a large elephant

[@dinofanaticgojifan5760]

@@seandewar47 That would hurt.

[@josesosa3337]

This still needs more views

[@kadalsaurus6232]

finally someone called this out, im tired explaining how stupid their logic about frog DNA is. thank you

[@TyrannoWright]

People do keep using frogs as an excuse in films after JP but JW already confirmed that frogs are no longer a base when breeding new dinosaurs. It's just that their DNA is simply incomplete as Wu hints to. Blue literally inherits her patterns from black-throated monitors, the herbivores are very docile and florescent with their scales due to various possible reptiles, and the indo-rex inherits much of its traits involved more than one animal; none of them involving the same damn African frog that Grant mentions the JP dinosaurs were built with.

[@shingtiong9425]

Although I agree with you on this,I think the frog DNA probably effects them a little bit not enough to consider them hybirds but a little bit different.

[@Cooliostuff]

except most of them dont even have frog dna

[@shingtiong9425]

@@Cooliostuff yes I know.I just wanna talk about the frog ones.

[@Cooliostuff]

@@shingtiong9425 That would only include velociraptor, to which in the book alan grant confirms looks accurate to what science has to say about them. Needless to say, they were meant to be 100% accurate in jp1.

[@shingtiong9425]

@@Cooliostuff And I'm not disputing that I meant in some of their biology.Their appearance and behaviour are 100 percent accurate in the jp universe but there could be some things different.

[@Zimzilla99]

Another small detail. In the telltale games Wu is painted by sorkin as cutting corners and using amphibian dna to make the animals viable and look the way they do. This was done to make the Trodon interesting because it was a “pure” dinosaur

[@theraymunator]

>the troodon from telltale's JP >accurate My fucking God they really just did not care.

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

​@@theraymunatorIt's funnier when you consider troodon was already a paleo fail at the time the game came out

[@TheArkhamNerd]

I’m a huge jp fan and my excuse for the in acuracies are it’s just a movie. It’s not the real world it’s not are world it’s the jp world.

[@redraptorwrites6778]

Exactly! It's just a movie. No need to bend backwards to try to explain away in-universe inaccuracies.

[@kennethsatria6607]

I always really liked the idea in the novel that there was already that pondering on what pop culture would accept about the reality of dinosaurs not being monsters befitting the popular depictions of the time. Its a huge shame the movies are slow to depict this because they have to play it safe and marketable

[@LeoTheYuty]

My opinion to Universal: Just stop with this shit franchise. You've made your money, now stop making garbage cash-grab sequels and start another franchise where you can write your own lore instead of piggybacking off superior movies.

[@seanmckelvey6618]

The Jurassic World movies are, for me, a perfect example of why you should be careful what you wish for. I waited for years after JP3 for a 4th movie, I followed every little bit of info I could find online, I endured all the weird rumors and leaks & despite that kept hoping for a JP4 because I was a dumb kid who loved the first 3 movies. In hindsight they should have just left the series in development hell after Crichton died.

[@6661313]

"i was 16 when that mess came out" oof, I read the first book before the FIRST movie came out lol

[@KingofTheGojiras]

Honestly this video is the best complication I've seen of the Ludacris bullshit the fans try to use to justify the dinosaurs not being accurate after the first movie.

[@stubonk6346]

I agree with this, but spino in JP III is the same in Camp Cretaceous season 4. I’m pretty sure that some of the dinosaurs in JP3 and JW had feathers in universe due because the Masarani Backdoor it said Wu tried to make feathered dinosaurs on Sorna, but that experiment failed. It’s either that or Henry Wu just wanted to add feathers to the dinosaurs.

[@yorecf9641]

That’s also where the “hybrid Spino” theory comes from due to a note from Wu talking about his “amalgam testing” (the feathers) and “dumping that accident on Sorna.”

[@trabistheidio1095]

Also, do keep in mind that Velociraptors were the only dinosaurs on Isla Nublar (at the time) attributed with the ability to change gender and reproduce. It was never implied any of the male dinosaurs on Isla Sorna were originally female, especially with all of the sexual dimorphism.

[@redskull378]

What about jp3?In that movie the trex saw grant despite him not moving.I saw a theory online that the trex in the 1st movie was just playing with it's food.

[@leogunnemarsson4178]

One could maybe (and even that is a stretch) claim that the hybridazation with frogs as a part meant to leave it open for slight misses back when made. But in large its a retcon that they weren't accurate.

[@lvl5dino749]

Bring out an edmontosaurus, you say? Honestly, because of Becky's Giant and X - Rex, exceeding 13 tonnes, even up to 16, yea, a large edmontosaurus would clap an I rex (If the JP franchise didn't nerf herbivores into the ground, no way an I rex would kill an apatosaurus, let alone a herd of them.)

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

I can imagine the scene with all of the apatos dead being replaced with the mashed body of the indominus

[@Theagentofchaos-r5q]

By the way on the dino tracker website it States that the sinoceratops dna is mixed with pachyrhinosaurus dna and the Dino tracker website is approved by universal. so that is cannon

[@Mrjohal12331]

They didn’t reckon stego they made two different subspecies of stego in Jp

[@stopiminmyroom4890]

I like the first 3 specifically, as they serve as time capsules for what was known about dinosaurs at the time, even though they made a lot of stylistic choices (Most of which I think were good). They even went as far as to make the behavior realistic too, I love the Gallimimus scene in JP because of just how believable it all is, even to the point where the Gallis stop running when the T-Rex has food, just like prey in real life. The world trilogy could have been a good update to push some newer paleo ideas but instead chose to go with nostalgia bait, which is just a shame.

[@thesacredlobo]

To be fair to Disney, Palpatine came back in the novels as well. So they weren't the only ones to think that was a "good" idea.

[@bradleycomics]

It really bothers me when people use this defense

[@spasebar]

Instead of jurassic world they should have called it the attack of the mutant frogs.

[@bradleycomics]

@IapetusMC I didn't know I was doing that

[@ech78928]

@IapetusMC hoping for your downfall.

[@redlinrangerstudio5331]

If theres a quote i would used, it would be the one by a KZbinr i still follow "The scientific fact about dinosaurs which we know today, Are the outdated concept of tomorrow" - Omni Viewer

[@symeou._.p2005]

Omni Viewer's opinions about scientific accuracy representation in fictional media is basically objective at this point

[@redlinrangerstudio5331]

@@symeou._.p2005 still a good quote.

[@ryanhau1073]

With the T-Rex Eyesight, the Novel version of Dr. Grant didn't know anything about T-Rex Eyesight until he observed a Living T-Rex. I like how they handled that way better than the Movies because it reminds us that if we ever see Living Dinosaurs there is a chance we would discover something new about them that even the experts didn't know before.

[@anthonyminimum]

16:32 I think I can explain why the frog fallacy people think this, because in the novel, the Rex vision thing was only a theory, not proven fact, it was only proven by Dr. Grant when he tested the theory during the Rex attack, but in the film universe, the Rex vision was established, well-proven fact, Dr. Grant in the movie doesn’t say the Rex vision thing is only a hypothesis, which means it is a proven fact in the film universe’s lore.

[@hardlyharry1147]

So the jp inaccurate aspects are due to outdated science from the time or creative choices.

[@SilverSnook7966]

Both considering the dilophosaurus

[@BigAl2-u7e]

You could say that about the entire franchise.

[@GoGojiraGo]

My two main problems with the first film (and the novel, by extenion), are: -Grant, instead of speculating about things and discovering new things, instead knows everything about the dinosaurs and is simply proven right. He states with complete confidence that T. rex had movement-based vision like he'd gone back in time and seen it, and meeting the rex in the park reinforces his statement. Same with Velociraptor and his fawning adoration of it being a super-predator ultra-coordinated pack hunter that's only barely dumber than humans. -The entire lysine thing. Animals can't produce lysine to begin with. It's called the limiting amino acid precisely for that reason. Animals have to get it from food, and they would be getting it from the wild anyway, from plants and other animals. It was nothing but Crichton trying to sound fancy, something he admitted to doing a lot in his novels.

[@theraymunator]

Grant not being a smartass in the book is one of the reasons I prefer the novel. He discovers that the T. Rex's vision is based on movement completely on accident during the paddock attack. Movie Grant kinda had that with how he states that the theory about sauropods being swamp dwellers is wrong, but the issue is that by that time everyone knew that just wasn't the case, and it feels like that statement was more for people who grew up watching Harryhausen dinosaurs.

[@mailstorminurbox]

The giganotosaurus looks like it was drawn by an edgy teen, all its missing is linkin park playing in the background -le gamingbeaver

[@TVJUNK85]

I think your biggest error here is assuming the on-screen paleontologists in 1993, 97, and 01 respectively have the same level of paleontological knowledge as modern scientists. Like, if Spinosaurus was accurate for 01, why *wouldn't* Grant recognize it? He's not from the future. And if feathers on dinosaurs weren't discovered until '00 (heck, '09 for larger Dromaeosaurids in particular), why would Grant ask for them for either the raptors or the Gallimimus?

[@JosephGlasbrenner]

8:40 Because he is a kid. And the dinosaurs he was looking at through with the binoculars in the beginning were incredibly outdated.

[@joypark3783]

I think the dominion prologue completley dismissed the theory of the frogs and stuff because the giga in the prologue is exactly the same as the one 65 million years later as well as all the other critters from the prolouge, and even though ramsey cole said that the dinos are 100% pure the pteranodon from the prolouge is almost identical to the one in jurassic world even though the dinos there are supposedly not completley pure as well as the nasutoceratops which look almost the same in the prolouge and battle at big rock and the nasuto in big rock was probably from ingen because all the biosyn dinos are in the sanctuary.

[@victorsztorc511]

Cause they're trying to persevere the nostalgia and follow what steven spielberg said about the franchise with the appearance of the dinosaurs in the franchise and to help the audience tell genus / species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals from each other redraptor

[@jackmills7758]

dominion's prologue proves how little colin cares

[@greyideasthetheliopurodon4640]

The dinosaurs mate with the opposite sex, yet the frogs have been turned gay!

[@barger5329]

They took like 3 lines and made an entire theory about it Also it’s a dang movies it’s not supposed to be accurate to real life ITS A ACTION MOVIE Edit:also I have been born in a post Jurassic world where “oh the fucking dinosaurs in Jurassic world are realistic cause frogs”

[@jasonvoorhees5180]

3:18 omg how am I so dumb that I NEVER noticed this line of dialogue before?? Has it really been that long since I’ve watched the movie start to finish? Damn

[@jarongreen5480]

I've just read the title and just imagined the aliens guy meme only it says "Frogs"

[@whoknows8101]

The giganotosaurus in dominion is looks a a pseudosuchian with steroid thats trying to look like an acrocanthosaurus

[@Gojira-ii4ru]

Jurassic Park can be innacurate, stupid, maybe even bad in some cases, but you can't knowledge that if wasn't for the movies, maybe various paleontologist that exist and works nowadays won't be discovering this

[@Gojira-ii4ru]

@Master Baiter You didn't read the commentary

[@TheEternalDeathRex]

I feel that theme park monsters line is taken out of context.I don’t think the movie itself is suggesting the dinosaurs are monsters,Just how Grant sees them after the trauma of the first movie. As for the films inaccuracies I think the later films should try to push for more scientific accuracy not to educate people but because it adds the realism and science that Micheal Crichton intended for the franchise.

[@nono9543]

See this is why I think the concept of Indominus Rex always bothered me. Like if all the animals are already hybrids then what is the point of highlighting it? They should have just made her the JP equivalent of Giga and moved on from there.

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

It was going to be a fictional dino called malusaurus, But they wanted to make it hybrid because the writers though "EDGY PSYCHO MONSTER COOL"

[@nono9543]

@@FollowerOfMegatron If that is true then that gets me extra mad. Because Paleontology has enough missing branches that you could have totally made up an entirely new species of sauropod to be the big bad in your new dinosaur movie. The fact that you resorted to the hybrids because you didn't have confidence is embarrassing. Ugh!

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

@@nono9543 Ikr

[@hassansyed4135]

I used to have a lizard once, and whenever I feed it locust, it doesn’t aknowledge it until the locust moves in which he eats it. I think that’s where they got the idea from, where trex was like a lizard which doesn’t recognise food until it moves which is why Grant tells them to don’t move. Could be a stretch but I’m basing it on experience. Still inaccurate as always.

[@austroliantoraptor_4914]

I'm going, to be honest; I find this debate quite dumb. Now as much as I love both Jurassic Park and the real Dinosaurs in our world, really I don't care at all if a movie doesn't interpret them right; Besides, even if Hollywood was to make an accurate and realistic Jurassic movie, the people wouldn't simply care or drop out, because what makes Jurassic Park and the franchise unique, is the idea behind it and probably the dinosaur style and behavior, and while I don't like how some articles and Paleontologists keep nitpicking on the name Jurassic Park in order to gain audience, I believe the main problem with Jurassic Park is the information, the novel was first published in 1990, many studies we have today weren't conducted, and the author was limited to what he could do to represent these animals, most of which he compared to real life animals, one prime example being in the second book "The Lost World" where the Parasaurolophus had their particular areas to defecate and urinate, like Rhinoceros and Elephants, and the frog DNA is just one of the genes put in the animals, there could have been bird DNA, crocodile DNA, basically anything, and the reason why I believe this is the mutations caused by the frog DNA can apply for others, like maybe the Dilophosaurus only has the frills due to frilled-lizard DNA. My point is that Jurassic Park gets unnecessary hate about the accuracy aspect; if we're talking about Jurassic World, sure, since Dr Wu says the Dinosaurs are all mutated to look what people expect them to be, but dinosaurs like Rexy are an exception since if it were to suddenly change the look of it to more realistic, it would get the fanbase angry as fuck. I hope we end this debate once and for all and realize each has its difference. Jurassic Park will always be like it has been, and in real life, too; If you want something more focused on the realism side but with sci-fi at the same time, read the novels. EDIT: Not mentioning that in the Novel they also say bird DNA, not just frog.

[@thechameleons7868]

I think that the only dinosaur where the frog fallacy applies may be Dilophosaurus due to one of the facts in Jurassic World the Game

[@darkestphotog]

Hi. I also recall the raptors had adult puppeteers inside the props. Having them Utahraptor-sized allowed this. In the later movies, the raptor models shrank to Deinonychus size. My opinion is that the dinos' appearance were retained for the most after science marched on because of marketing. Once released, they didn't care to alter those basic forms and images. (then change the toys, clothing, and other retail plus all the media)

[@markcobuzzi826]

To say my last thought about the topic, I think a happier medium between the two camps could have been reached, if I had a time machine and could suggest one subtle scene rewrite for the first JP, the first JW, and the extra Dominion Prologue each: *1.) The first Jurassic Park film’s Mr. DNA scene -* In keeping with the novel lore, from what I have reviewed in plot summaries, the animated educational video could show not only frogs being used to fill in the gaps, but also a monitor lizard, crocodile, ostrich, and hawk. Those could more plausibly explain certain differences in hindsight, like the raptors being covered in traditional scales rather than feathers. *2.) The argument between Dr. Wu and Simon Masrani -* I would characterize Masrani more as someone who only reluctantly went along with the Indominus Rex plan to satisfy the top investors. When he has finally had enough, Masrani calls out the whole scheme for going against Hammond’s desire to make guests appreciate real dinosaurs. Dr. Wu acknowledges that Hammond did set out to give visitors the real deal and thought he succeeded, because of how accurate InGen’s dinosaurs were for the time. Because they looked so perfectly like their counterparts from the Dinosaur Renaissance, it was not known until the JW era that the genomes were still not quite pure enough to give 100% accurate dinosaurs. That way, Dr. Wu can have his excuse that nothing in Jurassic World was ever fully natural, while the writing still respects the fact that Jurassic Park’s dinosaurs were intended to be mostly as accurate as possible for the time, both in-universe and partially out-universe. *3.) JW Dominion’s Cretaceous Prologue -* That whole flashback would be split into segments with occasional subtitles appearing, which start further back in the Cretaceous and gradually count down to more recent times. After the 66 million year mark, it suddenly flashes forward to “0 Years Ago” and shows Rexy fleeing the chopper. This would communicate to audiences that there is some time jumping across the Cretaceous flashback, and the dinosaurs could be shown in an order that better reflects it. Plus, more dinosaurs besides the T-Rex would be given a noticeably different design from their modern cloned counterparts. In particular, the Giganotosaurus could appear in its natural habitat with a more natural design, compared to the more crazy kaiju-like design of BioSyn’s Giga.

[@kade-qt1zu]

Wow. You're a better director for Jurassic Park then Colin.

[@droidcommanderthespinosaur689]

So, the frog explanation in Jurassic World made sense, somewhat at least, until that goddamn prologue dropped where everything looked just like the standard JP/JW designs, at that point I realized, they aren’t scared of accuracy, they actively don’t give a single crap about it. As much as I love some more crazy dinosaur designs, like some of the Ark designs. But, I know they’re nowhere near the actual animals. But in ark they acknowledge this by saying all animals are heavily modified to the point where most of them are sub-species and even then some of the newer designs have unpronated hands, lips, feathers and so on and so forth. JP on the other hand never explains, or tries to retcon it to „oh we heavily modified it to look like the designs that were current representations of what we thought they looked like.“ Just say, Oh velociraptor is actually deinonychus and in the JP universe the deinonychus is velociraptor theory was wildly excepted. Now, to excuse Colin, apparently he had to try really hard to get feathered dinosaurs into the movies at all, so the fact that pyroraptor looks overly scary is most likely not his decision, personally if I really wanted accurate dinosaurs I’d fight a little harder just to get rid of those goofy, snarly faces. Now moving to another point, I liked hybrids, why? Because they allowed more tame dinosaur designs people could get their scary movie monster dinosaur, while paleo fans could get some nice accurate designs like we saw on the JW website from 2014. Or so I thought when it was said. Until that super-gator of a Baryonyx. I absolutely loved the original JP trilogy, JW was okay, JWFK was horrendous, Dominion? I wouldn’t even classify it as a movie, it just feels like a blueprint for a generic action movie. They shouldn’t have made a sequel, even though I love JWE2, and most other games than were made due to Jurassic World. The franchise would probably be in a better place without JW, FK and JWD. Edit: I have thought about my last statement in this comment and come to the conclusion: The franchise would be in a better place if the JW trilogy had better writing, less dinosaur species (specifically dinosaurs appearing out of nowhere for example every dinosaur that isn’t the giga, Rex and Blue.) and characters actually getting hurt, like in JP, TLW, JPIII and JW1, yes this means that more than just bad guys die.

[@treyrex5987]

You had me agreeing with you, until you said "the franchise would probably be in a better place without the Jurassic World trilogy." Highly disagree. After JP3, the franchise would have either had been completely barren with little installments to continue the series or just be straight up dead and I don't know about you but I'd rather have a franchise continue with some rotten eggs in it's basket to then learn from rather than be completely dead with no hope of coming back. I agree with everything else you said though. Just not that idea.

[@kade-qt1zu]

How do you feel about Camp Cretaceous?

[@droidcommanderthespinosaur689]

@@kade-qt1zu let’s just say, I find a lot of it’s concepts in season 4 and 5 very very silly, before those two seasons, I think the shows pretty good.

[@DefinitelyNotPedro]

Doesn't the prologue for JWD show us how the dinosaurs were in the past in universe? Hm, they seem ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ONES IN THE MOVIES, maybe they had frog DNA in the Cretaceous too 🤔

[@markcobuzzi826]

Yeah. As I brought up somewhere else, the partially feathered T. rex is the only dinosaur I noticed having a slightly different design, compared to its modern cloned counterpart. All the other ones looked identical to me. At first, I even thought that the Oviraptor, Quetzalcoatlus, and Moros were examples of JW Dominion contrasting the natural dinosaurs with the modern clones. But once I saw them appearing in the rest of JW Dominion after the prologue, I noticed that their modern clones looked identical too.

[@possumposting8962]

Me just trying to enjoy my childhood whimsical franchise: 🥺

[@jacktheomnithere2127]

20:07 Dominion is why i now believe the Jurassic saga is an alternate Earth (it's my head-canon. i am by no means right).

[@speedracer2008]

8:17 I never interpreted it to mean tooth count, but more bringing another theropod into the fight to deal with Indominus rex.

[@dr.archaeopteryx5512]

Love that Dominion utterly destroyed this moronic-ass argument. Probably the only good thing to come out of the movie. Jurassic Park always felt like one of those series to me where the new entries retcon design choices into the last. In JP3, Raptors always looked like that. Probably down to lacking quality control in the sequels if we're being honest, but oh well, it helps give each of the initial three movies gain their own identity and design language (the Dinosaur Revolution era paleoart inspiration focus of JP, the more wild and feral, perhaps toy inspired look of JPTLW, and the sleek and distinct look of JP///). That's actually a massive fault of the JW era designs. They too do the "retcon design" thing, most visible in Blue and Buttercup between JW and JWFK, but their designs also have no consistency in language. JW gets closest, with most animals having a weird lumpy "Dinosaur revolution third rate artist who still wants to draw the dinosaurs with droopy tails and potbellies" look, but then Indominus, Mosasaurus and Pteranodon, three of the most prominent animals in the movie, just blatantly buck the trend, being "Early 2000s awesomebro game side Theropod", "Primevalified Knight painting" and "Resident Evil zombiebird" respectively. Fallen Kingdom onwards (including Camp Cretaceous) sleekens most of the dinosaurs back up to late 2000s documentary, and adds in weird choice like the almost-accurate Carnotaurus, the rhinoceratops, Dinogator and a Xenomorph knockoff Rausuchian. Finally Dominion comes in with the ugly shortfaced gremlins, the old "How not to draw your dinosaur" deviantart meme, Dinosaur Planet esque "There was an honest attempt here" designs, the Giganotosaurus who looks more like a Primeval design than the actual Primeval Giganotosaurus; and finally Nasutoceratops and Atrociraptor being the first time any sequel seems to have actually tried and then arguably succeeded at matching the first movies style. Add in CCs "We copied a random piece of 2000s paleoart" and Chaos Theories "Time to copy Fallen Kingdoms homework but change it up slightly" approaches and the Jurassic World era is just a fucking mess, not at all helped by the fact that many of the Jurassic World and all the Fallen Kingdom designs get grandfathered into the later entries despite how it just makes the designs even more incoherent. Idk. I grew up with Prehistoric Park first and watched the Jurassic Park trilogy in my teens way back when the closest thing to Jurassic World we had was "rumors say they wanna make a Jurassic Park 4 that takes place on the mainland" articles. I guess I will never see a Prehistoric Park season 2, but if Jurassic Park is any indication, that might be a monkey paw worthy wish anyways. ...Not that PP aged perfectly either, of course.

[@espinas5981]

whats my take on the Frog Fallacy? Its a 90s horror movie flick why the hell would I care if it's accurate or not?

[@ramonsanchez6903]

19 Sequels got erased we have the Original Sequel Game on Play Station 2 the Ark The Isle and the Jurassic World Game

[@sizzybubbles]

Thank you so much for making this informative video! I get so tired of repeating myself to these JurassicBros and their "frog DNA"... this way I can just link them to this (not that they'd watch it lol).

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

Their attention span is too low to hear a person talking for over 30 seconds

[@josesosa3337]

This needs more views.

[@hubertop1247]

Honestly it is fine if they wanted to retcon a bit with the frog DNA, it makes sense for the most part that dinosaurs DNA wasnt pure, but just so they would give us more accurate dinosaurs in return. Instead they made designs even less accurate and excused it with frog DNA. Feathered raptors would have been so welcome in Jurassic World

[@walterbanegas1365]

Now that I think of it, why did they put the Spinosaurus in a desert in Camp Cretacious when the animal itself is supposed to be a semi-aquatic creature? Souldn't it be in a swampy or humid enviroment? You know, somewhere were it can thrive?

[@SomeKindOfDodo]

No the boss of the foundation said to put it in the desert to see how it deals with the heat.

[@DragonFae16]

You know, all they had to do is have someone say a line like 'These dinosaurs are accurate to what we currently know about dinosaurs.' So any inaccuracies would have been waved away as the scientists aiming for the wrong animal. Even back when I saw the first Jurassic Park, the use of frog DNA to patch the holes in the dinosaur genomes never made sense to me. I didn't know that birds were dinosaurs at the time, but even so, I was like 'Why didn't they use croc or reptile DNA? Those are much closer to dinosaurs than frogs'. Even the ability for an all-female colony to start breeding could be solved by using lizard DNA. There are not only some lizard species like morning geckos all female and reproduce by closing themselves, there are a number of species that are able to produce offspring through parthenogenesis (virgin birth) and those offspring are always male.

[@pigzard01]

It should also be noted that universal deliberately makes changes to their dinos to trademark them as their own design. That means we can always expect an inaccuracy should they decide to add more movies/series from existing and future prehistoric creatures from their franchise.

[@theraymunator]

I still don't understand how the fuck can you copyright a depiction of a fucking animal. At least it's not as bad as when Disney was making Coco and they tried to trademark Day of the Dead

[@pigzard01]

@@theraymunator Same way how Disney trademarks the look of their Disney princesses.

[@Dan-zz8mz]

9:26 it is still accurate if you don´t think about tunisian neotype, at that time the spinosaurus was only known egypt specimen which probably mostly still looks like that

[@thegoose1484]

Really enjoying these vids

[@dackpetersen7573]

I always figured Grant was just a really bad paleontologist, because he names a giant dromeosaur, Velociraptor. Same thing with the T-rex vision part.

[@joshuaW5621]

Well he’s better than Jack Horner.

[@tjarkschweizer]

In that case he would have had a reputation for being a bad paleontologist. And that would have discouraged Hammond from consulting him. After all, he was looking for experts.

[@dackpetersen7573]

@@tjarkschweizer I mean Spielberg consulted Horner and Crichton consulted Gregory S. Paul. Paul by the way was the one who mistakenly thought Deinonychus was a velociraptorine. So Hammond could have choose Grant because he was a famous controversial Paleontologist

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

@@dackpetersen7573 On a technical level he would be one of the best paleontolgists in the world, If the lore was not RetConed out of existences.

[@alang.bandala8863]

I have always wondered why Crichton chose frogs? There are ducks and crocodiles, even monitor lizards that can reproduce in the same way. Why didn't he choose them?

[@markcobuzzi826]

In case you did come upon my comment from elsewhere and would like to read it, I am copying+pasting a post from TV Tropes, which clarifies the “Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole”: "The use of frog DNA is more justified in the book, where it's indicated only a few select species have fragments of frog DNA, and the majority of the DNA used to fix up dinosaur DNA is avian or reptilian; the other justification given is that DNA only has minor genetic differences across all forms of life (note) with the implication that they thought they were patching missing code to parts where it wouldn't matter. The movie removes all this explanation, leaving the use of frog DNA as something of a Voodoo Shark, as you'd wonder why they didn't use DNA of an animal more closely related to dinosaurs."

[@FollowerOfMegatron]

Frog

[@phillipbloy4436]

You Right