Why Should Jurassic Park Dinosaurs Be Scientifically Accurate In Movies?

Paleontology and scientific accuracy in the Jurassic Park movies is a big deal. But should these dinosaurs even be on a National Geographic level of perfect or are they more fiction with the Michael Crichton morals and themes they were based on? Is Prehistoric Planet or Dominion a more accurate portrayal of the science of the 1993 movie?
#DInosaurs #JurassicPark #NewMovies

[@NickLavic]

In the case of flashback scenes that take place over 65 million years ago, like the Dominion intro, I think it is absolutely important that paleo accuracy should be the highest priority. Whereas scenes that take place in the modern age where the dinosaurs are genetic hybrids of birds, amphibians, and reptiles, then paleo accuracy is not as important.

[@160sharp]

The common sense opinion

[@PackHunter117]

And that way you could contrast the scary clones vs the real animals that wouldn’t be killing machines all the time

[@vansnakenstein5149]

*66 million years ago

[@biosyn-ab4261]

@@vansnakenstein5149 69 million years ago*

[@fundyproductions5927]

facts

[@jamesvarela233]

It be great to get some shows maybe from the present after JWD and to tease up a new series. I don’t see how bringing a little bit of accurate dinosaurs in here would be a bad idea doesn’t have to be entirely accurate since this is about genetics. Maybe have the issue where there’s more and more new dinosaurs appearing in the wild and I like the Avian and different advances of filling the gene block, but I think you should also have genetic deficiencies. Say like with Avian genetics, the dinosaurs become more aggressive due to the Avianary traits from the genes over Amphibian dna.

[@alfredoelbombo3423]

Scientifically accurate will be difficult but we still know quite a bit about the dinosaurs. Therefore, one should avoid further shitstorms by following the following facts. Here some facts for you: T-Rex/Giga/Spino Length in m: 12.5-13.5/12.2-13.2/14-16 Weight in tons: 8.5-9.5/7.5-8/6-7.5 Bite force in pounds: 18,000/6,000/4,200 Tooth length in cm: 30/20/14 Brain in EQ (encephalization quotient) scale: 1.25-1.5/0.25-0.5/0.8-1.0--> in comparison dog 1.2/ fox 1.6/ chimpanzee 2.5 & human 7,4 In short, the Spino was the longer but at the same time the lighter while the T-Rex was the heavier and more intelligent and the Giga was neither the heavier nor the longer but the "dummiest" of the three...

[@shainewhite2781]

If people watch JURASSIC PARK, they would consider the dinosaurs inaccurate, and if they watch Walking With Dinosaurs or Prehistoric Planet, they would point out the dinosaurs in those documentaries are both inaccurate and accurate, with the latter being more realistic

[@jurassicroom7673]

In Jurassic, not really, however, I do wish newer movies like 65 would push the needle a little instead of reverting to quilled,crocodile monsters.

[@Levinewak]

Maybe the population should have been a pivotal plot point of Jurassic Park 3

[@Zach124869]

I do think a simple fix would be to have different versions like Trex mark 1 vs Trex mark 2.3

[@SewerxGator]

the dinosaurs they portray as the "original" and "genetically pure" animals should, or at the very least look extrememely different from ingen clones... which they are portrayed as being the same. "here is a flash back of what the world looked like 65 million years ago before the animals were cloned! here's what they look like!" just to give us the poorest redesigns in history, all sporting their jurassic world era models, slightly edited, and the rex has peach fuzz. The entire argument of them being cloned animals and not needing to be accurate cause they're CLONES goes COMPLETELY out the window when they showed us that in dominion. really wish they'd decanonize that whole trilogy.

[@jacoblofthus7908]

I think the better question is: Do they NEED to be accurate? An my answer would be "No". Because there are enough well-educated people out there at this point who know that this franchise is science fiction and strictly for fun/entertainment. Make of that what you will.

[@Jack-lk7wk]

For me my love of dinosaurs came from jurassic park so i personally think that they should be as acurate as possible but then again i would also like them to do a series starting fresh from 1989ish to the present day ish but thats just me

[@HeliostheEnthusiast]

As far as I'm concerned, it makes way more sense for them *not* to be scientifically accurate since we know they're hybrids and frankenstein-esque monsters. It would be cool to see actually accurate dinosaurs, but it would be absolutely necessary to preface that making those accurate dinos would be possible and something they intended to do, and why they would do it. Edit: by that, I mean the scientists and geneticists in the product (movie/book/show/etc.)

[@hunterthewerewolf]

I think more scientifically accurate dinosaurs in a Jurassic Park/Jurassic World movie, game, or any media would be icing on top of an already delicious cake.

[@InsaanInsaan173]

I would like to see a JP3 spinosaurus in future Jurassic film with upto date reconstruction

[@Snuzzled]

At the end of the day, the Jurrasic Park/World movies are monster movies. Monsters chase humans, humans escape, some humans don't. They're there to be a threat to the humans and give us all a good scare. Scientific accuracy takes a backseat to them being a good monster.

[@Brian-yt8eo]

If they are doing a new series set make a few changes and have a juvenile. Someone like grant can talk about how recent discoveries shown "xyz" then he can say something about them evolving rapidly and turning into accurate dinosaurs. Some premis like that would fall perfectly into jurrasic park. We already seen the animals can produce. Why not change slightly.

[@ianhughes1272]

No they shouldn't. The whole point most people seem to miss is that they were just amalgamations of genetics to make what people EXPECTED to see... thats why they brought in experts... to see if it could fool them then the general public wouldn't question them.

[@Lesbiwolf92]

At this point yall gunna end up with a mix of "live action" remake lion king and dinosaur, all the focus into making shit look like real life and documentary to the point the stories will die on impact.

[@Thagomizer]

If there were any justice in the world, Prehistoric Planet would have completely eclipsed Jurassic Park in cultural consciousness long ago. This series doesn't need to continue if we aren't getting any new dinosaur movies. Even the genetic story has already been played out. It's basically Frankenstein, or the Tower of Babel. You don't need to make more movies about that. The ridiculous deathgrip monopoly that this franchise has on pop culture dinosaurs absolutely has to end.

[@princessmaly]

This is something I've been hammering on since basically ever. I'm not ignorant of the influence the original movie had at the time, but I think these ideas by angry scientists that the filmmakers have some sort of divinely ordained responsibility to "get it right" is horribly misguided and fundamentally misunderstands the films, treating them purely as an advertisement for paleontology rather than... y'know, movies. And yes, they can spread ideas in pop culture that are incorrect, but... how is this different from anything else? All pop culture does this, this isn't Jurassic Park's sole responsibility to solve. Stupid people are stupid, a movie isn't going to fix that. Meanwhile, for the people that the movies do inspire an interest in paleontology, they will go on to discover the truth about these animals on their own, they don't need a sci-fi monster movie to teach them. I was a kid when the original film came out, I liked it, but I never once truly believed that Dilophosaurus was a small acid spitting frilled half frog monster. Anyone who believed that is an idiot. Jurassic Park is a sci-fi action monster movie, NOT a science documentary, and you're a fool if you think otherwise. That said, I really don't appreciate your wild mischaracterization of the scientific process. The way you say everything changes all the time so nothing will ever be correct, that's literally a talking point of creationists. They say that if science keeps getting things wrong and changing its mind, it's unreliable. But that's... not true, like at all. Science is an iterative process, the better we understand things, the more refined our models become. Sometimes there are huge paradigm shifts that completely upend what we thought we knew and replace those systems with new ones, and those things are very exciting, but they are also extremely rare. In the case of extinct groups of dinosaurs, we have definitely had one of these major upheavals, not within my lifetime, but certainly within the lifetimes of boomers, and that's the dinosaur renaissance. Our modern understanding of dinosaurs as stem birds comes from that period, and it has yet to be changed in any major way. Certainly the details get sorted out, we learned about which ones had which kinds of feathers, we've sorted out the phylogeny better, you mentioned lips, that's a cool thing, and so on and so forth. But while those differences are very important to me as someone who cares a lot about these animals, a lot of ordinary people without much understanding of the specifics can look at a drawing of a tyrannosaurs from today and from the 80's and still recognize them as the same animal. There's outliers, like the spinosaurus of course, but generally we have a very good grasp on a lot of the details of these creatures appearances and lives and biology. Not a complete one, not an infallible one, not one that's immune to change as we learn more in the future, but most of the basics are pretty set in stone. The other thing is, with animals like tyrannosaurus... that's... that's the single most famous extinct animal to ever have lived on this planet in its entire history. We are OBSSESSED with it, and aside from ourselves and maybe spinosaurus there isn't a single other animal that has ever lived that we have studied more thoroughly than tyrannosaurus. So... yes, the details are going to change a lot, but that's not necessarily because people are getting things *wrong*, it's because there are so many papers being published on them all the time. And... I'm soary if you're hearing this from me for the first time, but just because a scientist writes a paper, doesn't mean their hypothesis is "canon." People are wrong. A lot. Somewhere on Earth, someone is wrong about spinosaurus every 10 seconds. So it's less that the model keeps completely changing all the time, and more that a bunch of people want to make names for themselves by trying to be famous as "that guy that caused a paradigm shift in the most famous extinct animal in our planet's entire history." And sometimes those people are morons that think tyrannosaurus was a pure scavenger, or that spinosaurus wasn't at least semi-aquatic. And like... a billion dollar multimedia franchise isn't worth updating constantly based on the crackpot ideas of a few idiots chasing clout. Soary not soary.

[@Haliwa-Saponi]

I think they should basically drip feed more accurate dinosaurs in but only to new versions of the animals keep the og dinosaurs the way they are for example if they keep rexy keep her how she is but if they introduced a new rex as well make that one more accurate but not made by ingenuity of course

[@jeffdollaz]

I love every last one of the movies and I agree with what you said about the plot of the movie they shouldn’t even be considered dinosaurs in my opinion they are just genetically modified monsters

[@jw_gojifan19]

Movies are not documentaries. You need a design that stands out. If the theme is realism, then sure, use accuracy, if not, then make a design that looks cool. Never understood why people freak out over accuracy.

[@willpoweramv]

I mean technically they should be but in my opinion, i love seeing the specific Jurassic franchise designs for each creature. The T-Rex and Raptor designs, as inaccurate as they are, are iconic Hollywood characters. Unless they want to COMPLETLEY reboot the franchise and title it as Michael Chrichton's Jurassic Park and make it one to one with the book set in the modern day then yes make them scientifically accurate. Otherwise keep them as they are. People who actually do their research on paleontology know whats reality and whats fiction. The mainstream audience wouldnt care either way.

[@thehalobrony9050]

I may give that a couple of counter arguments. Iconic characters. Absolutely, and they can continue to be that. But the t-rex and the Raptors are based on real animals that did exist. We would cry foul if a regular movie depicted a Bald Eagle as a large Bat with a lizard head. We don't seam to give dinosaur the same accuracy treatment like every other animal that exist today. I find that as a double standard. Will even the most op to date dinosaur have to change every so often? Yes. Because the alternative is to willfully disrigard a true fact about nature and its history. Sorry if i come across as angry. I had to let out some steam from earlier.

[@mr.flipstv]

Well dr.Whu explained why the dinosaur looked more reptile they look great the way they are

[@kong2499]

First of all I want to thank you for begging the video with Carter getting stepped on lmao...g'damnit

[@mrgodzillaraptors8632]

The book made the dinosaurs being monsters make sense because they effectively have no clue how they are supposed to act

[@rileyernst9086]

I think you could you could have newer more accurate versions, and then basically say that the genetic techniques have improved, so they are able tailor the animal more to get what effects that they want, and therefore tailor the animal to the modern palentological science, sort of like how art depicting dinosaurs evolves bit on a living canvas this time. Hell if you had a theme park I'd have the genetics team getting their mind blown at something like Prehistoic Planet, and getting motivated to redesigning a suit of animals to tailor to the guests expectations. Because this is what happens in real life, something new and cool comes out, people want to see it and suddenly your dull grey vacuum packed and inaccurate beasts are not cutting it anymore.

[@shainewhite2781]

Thanks for the video!! See you later!! Stay safe.😊

[@DyrianLightbringer]

I've begun to question the accuracy of our knowledge of dinosaurs, considering that there are a number of modern animals whose skeletons look vastly different from the full creature.

[@ivanamcneal7942]

Yeah, Paleo accurate dinosaurs but not that accurate because it leaves the reality of cloning dinosaurs

[@Matthew_Baratheon]

I don't think they should be crazy..they should be realistic...but to me it lines up better with several themes of the novel if they aren't. Not only are the dinos not genetically pure, I also liked the idea presented that there is so little we actually know based off fossil evidence. Some species they base what knowledge they have on literally a handful of bones. I am not against the dinosaurs displaying characteriatics not discussed in paleontology but observed in modern species because in my mind anything natural could still be possible. The carnotaurs from the lost world are a great example of this. We have modern animals that can camouflage themselves..while such a feature would have no evidence in bones whatsoever. So how can we be certain it is inaccurate that dinosaur couldn't do that?

[@Matthew_Baratheon]

I also want to highlight animals like the poison dart frog and other species that consume toxic foods in order to make themselves poisonous as a detergent for predation. That adaptation would not be visible in their skeletal remains. Yet such an adaptation could help a creature like dryosaurus or microceratops survive better. They are so many evolutionary adaptations that scientists only studying bones would never be able to conclude with certainty.

[@dildojizzbaggins6969]

02:22 *also too" 04:57 *proven That's some galaxy-brain-level grammar there, bud :'D

[@Roboticus_Prime_RC]

Technically, Grant wasn't proven right about the movement vision. Remember, Rexy had just eaten. Her behavior towards the cars war more of curiosity and territory. She only chased Malcom because he ran, which triggers a chase response in nearly all predators. She lost him in the confusion of knocking down the bathroom, and Genaro got the brunt of that. Even though he wasn't running, she still saw him. I dont think there was ever once in the movies where Rexy didn't see someone right in front of her. Alan said it himself. She wanted to hunt. She wanted them to start running so she could chase them.

[@averywellsand888]

Movie grant was wrong. Book grant scoffed at the idea rexy vision was based on movement. If I remember the book correctly

[@ProbablyBees]

The first book is pretty explicit about the vision-based movement. The second book walks it back when Dodgeson tries to steal trex eggs from the nest

[@Bossbruin]

And the Raptors were just aggressive by nature.

[@wakoblank]

​@averywellsand888 you do NOT remember the book correctly

[@ScarletKnight-mq5cz]

The don’t have to be, but the T-Rex should AT LEAST have its infamous bone-crushing bite.

[@darthmalgus987]

Do you think it isn't

[@KingRudy10]

@@darthmalgus987 its not. its grossly underperforming

[@Commander_Viper]

That's because the teeth look more threatening

[@logans2976]

Agreed it got ripped off it should've won against the Spino, Indominus, and Giga

[@Real_MisterSir]

I'd say it like this: The original movies were made with the intention of bringing known Dino facts to life, while maintaining certain creative freedom regarding various anatomical features that at the time were less researched. They never went out of their way to present the dinosaurs as fully true to reality, nor as being hybrid monsters. Their focus was to simply make them believable. Even the frog dna part is explained to cause some unexpected mutations, but those mutations are minor or at the very least unintended (as the case with all females, yet some end up changing sex due to said unexpected dna mutation). But again, the intent of the originals have always been to present the dinos as believable, not some fairytale monsters. And I think this sentiment should be carried over, its what gave the movies soul and set them apart form regular sci fi monster movies.

[@Alrik.]

I always like the part of the books that discuss the raptors' "society" being messed up because they're smart creatures which severly lack the teaching by parents as opposed to less intelligent creatures surviving on instinct. Just imagine a bunch of cloned humans raised in isolation and dropped together somewhere by aliens. (Actually that might be a good plot for a scifi movie 🤔)

[@Cloudrunner62]

Kinda reminds me of the idea behind Ark.

[@nelsonminator]

​​@@Cloudrunner62 actually, a group of humans dropped on earth by aliens sounds more realistic tha the "official" story! 😂

[@seanmckelvey6618]

That's actually one of my favorite parts of the second book that I wish was touched on more in the movies. Really the whole thing about the ecosystem on Sorna not being a healthy one for a variety of reasons.

[@nickys5578]

Theybwould either start acting like rampaging chimpanzees or like horny bonobos.... probably both

[@RESOPO1]

I don't really care about scientific accuracy in my dinosaur movie, but they should behave like believable animals. That's why the old movies worked so well. They would ambush, pursue a while and then break off their chase, take the jeep chase scene, where the Rex breaks off as soon as she realizes that she can not catch up and the calories gained from hunteing her prey would be less than the amount expended by attempting to continue.

[@DevilRaptorB]

Do you mean act boring? because that's what it means to act like believable animals, you mentioned the Jeep chase which isn't believable

[@GortTheCapybara320]

bro whats the point in a movie then 💀

[@lustrazor44]

@@DevilRaptorBdid you never watch the original?….

[@lustrazor44]

@@GortTheCapybara320I guess the first movie, the highest rated of all of them and only GREAT one had no point.

[@DevilRaptorB]

@@lustrazor44 of course not, I mean I made up that whole thing about the Jeep Chase thought I could others wise lie and say I watched it before you were even born

[@FuzztasticFilms]

I basically don’t care if they’re accurate or not…but at least make the dinosaurs act like actually animals instead of man-eating destructive monsters.

[@chromey9253]

See that’s where I disagree. These dinosaurs aren’t supposed to be animals. They are genetically modified monsters Hammond created to make them appealing to the world.

[@mikefarina9743]

​@@chromey9253agreed

[@FuzztasticFilms]

@@chromey9253 I get Wht your saying…But they can’t get rid of there natural instincts

[@dereklopez9060]

Which is one of the problems I have with the JW movies is the portrayal of the Dinosaurs. They acted more like Heroes and Villains that only kill bad guys while the good guy's walk away scot free. While in the JP movies, The Dinosaurs were at least portrayed like wild animals and have some amount of instincts in them. And it doesn't matter if you're a good guy or a bad guy, the Dinosaurs will still attack. Even the Herbivores can attack if necessary.

[@ImGoat1995]

​@Derek Lopez do you not remember Jurassic World movies? Hundreds of innocent people were attacked in that first movie during the Pterosaurs scene. Fallen Kingdom is a sort of exception given the setting but the good guys are attacked and hunted the whole time during the Isla nublar rescue mission. Dominion has several pedestrian kills on screen as well. Some guy just riding by on a moped just gets chomped down by an allosaur.

[@_boogatti_]

It’s a complicated dilemma, but when they claim to be presenting accurate designs with the newer creatures (i.e JW Domion) and not deliver, that’s when we have a problem. It would’ve been great to see the classic designs for the animals already cloned by Ingen, but then juxtapose them with the true-to-form Biosyn animals (which are claimed to be genetically pure) Introduce the younger generation to what we currently know about how prehistoric animals look with the new animals, while maintaining consistency by not changing what we already have.

[@Real_MisterSir]

I love how they try to pander to realism, yet they accidentally make a prologue with Rex and Giga who were separated by 30 million years. Or in other words, Rex was closer to the first great near-extinction of mammals, than it was to Giga. Oh and also they were split on two separate continents with thousands of miles in between. But hey, they wanted a giga to kill a rex for movie reasons so realism capitulates to shallow plot once more.

[@_boogatti_]

@@Real_MisterSir which is unfortunate, because they had the opportunity to show yknow, up to date designs without messing with the designs of future counterparts (save the animals Biosyn clones). But yep, gotta perpetuate some sort of grudge that transcends time between two apex predators that never crossed paths to make an excuse for the climactic battle that happens in the future, and also to make another excuse to have another big bad villain dinosaur. Why? It’s “symbolic” ,’(

[@160sharp]

@@Real_MisterSir finding out about that was frusterating, like why are they sharing a scene together in the past lol

[@marianomarcelochapa8730]

It’s a really complicated argument I don’t want Jurassic park to break its continuity with genetics, but at the same time I don’t want designs like Baryonyx, FK Allosaurus, or giganotosaurus to appear again. Every other dinosaur in series seems alright to me

[@_boogatti_]

@@marianomarcelochapa8730 that’s the reason why I advocate for making only the newer animals they introduce accurate, and then keeping the older designs of the animals that already existed on Nublar and Sorna to keep up with continuity and appease practically everyone.

[@yissibiiyte]

I think Dominion had the right idea to mix the two. Keep the legacy dinos as people know them but introduce new dinosaurs which are more accurate.

[@mikefarina9743]

Definitly, i love how they still gave the accurate dinos a good ol' JP twist

[@deinsilverdrac8695]

No it was awfull. Not only they put 138484 New specie that were only here as backgrounds green plants. But the design are mostly ugly and boring as fuck. Gigano Atrociraptor Pyroraptor All look like vomited bad game low price dino action figurine. While therizinisaurus was close to being good if the neck and head were more accurate. And iguanodon, oviraptor and carnotaurus, parasaurolophus were good. Same for quetzalcoaltus Heck even the dreadnoughtus and allosaurus look decent i suppose. But their design aesthetic clash with the other, there's no coherence between them. But again thats the worst movie of the franchise.

[@Levinewak]

I think your being a little to hard though I would agree the inclusion of Atrociraptor and Pyroraptor was unnecessary I think your being too hard on the Giganotosaurus design

[@deinsilverdrac8695]

@@Levinewak Pyroraptor design was half decent half horrible (head especially). And yes both raptors were ugly and useless. But nope, if it wasn't for the baryonyx, gigano have one of if not the worst design of all. They took away the head shape and chin which made giganotosaurus recognisable. They put ugly useless edgy spike and scutes like a fucking mutant crododilian with giant osteoderm. And his jaws look awfull, his constant grin like a cartoon villain, every time he is on screen the caption of his roar could translate to "do you want to know how i got these scars ?" The spiked hump on the back, the jagged teeth. He look worse and more Fake than the indominus rex for Fuck sake. And they could've done a good design. JPOG acrocanthosaurus and carcharodontosaurus were better than this CGI kaiju wannabe. They did a good quetzalcoaltus design. A good iguanodon design A decent oviraptor design A mediocre but still decent therizinisaurus design So they could've done way better than this monstruous fallout radioactive edgy croc rippof

[@ashprice1123]

@@deinsilverdrac8695 if you ignore scientific accuracy, the giga is pretty badass

[@ichthyovenator3351]

My take is imo accurate dinosaurs are always the best, if they are written correctly. Paleontology always moves on but since dinosaur cloning is also evolving in these movies, they could have dinosaurs be more and more accurate while keeping the genetic experimental aspect. Like biosyn dinosaurs should’ve been accurate, not only because they said they would be and completely lied, but it would’ve made sense to the story. I just hate how stale the jurassic franchise’s designs have become. Every herbivore barring the theri and ouranosaurus is either brownish, greenish or grayish. And for me personally, accurate dinosaurs will always be what I consider best simply because the closer we are to real dinosaurs, the better. Also genetic shenanigans can't adequately explain broken wrists because that's not how their bones worked.

[@catpoke9557]

I guess if every dinosaur's wrist DNA is derived from some kind of mammal it could make sense

[@bradenhoefert2109]

The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were very scientifically accurate for 1993. Some of the depictions were cutting-edge science. One of the (many) failings of the Jurassic World trilogy was making the dinosaurs less accurate. Jurassic World has the perfect excuse to present updated, more realistic, dinosaur designs, and they passed it up in favor of more monstrous-looking designs.

[@catpoke9557]

The JP designs were definitely never perfect, not even close, but at least they didn't give their theropods the god-awful crocodile teeth they keep giving them in JW!! I can't get over the giga's teeth!!

[@YEY0806]

Except wasn't that the point of JW? I mean the indominus was created simply because audiences were bored with the "normal" dinosaurs and so wanted to make a hybrid that would increase attendance, leading Wu to explain that none of the dinosaurs are accurate because that's what people want.

[@RavenclawFtW3295]

I think what could work is that the dinosaurs could have started as scientifically inaccurate in some ways for the sake of action and horror. Then, as the series progressed, the animals could gradually get more scientifically accurate. That could be explained by having InGen discover some of the genes that were missing from their original DNA samples. Then, they could also see the dinosaurs get more fearsome in some ways, and more docile in others. That could make it come to light what InGen was purposefully changing about the animals for the sake of the wow factor. That could explain why the T. Rex, and Brachiosaurus were bigger than they were in real life.

[@francissemyon7971]

The T. rex is not intended to be bigger than irl, the life size animatronics weighed exactly like Sue.

[@RavenclawFtW3295]

@@francissemyon7971 You're right the animatronics weighed the same as a real T. Rex. The difference is in size. Real life T. Rexes were around a maximum of 13 feet tall at the hip. Rexy is a little bit bigger. Somewhere between 13 and 18 feet tall. Some sources say she's 13 feet tall, some say 16 feet, and a fandom site says 18 feet.

[@francissemyon7971]

@@RavenclawFtW3295 Well, all the JP/JW theropods have legs and tail a bit too long, but basically they're not that oversized, or rather they're proportionel relatively and comparatively 90's like, especially looking at some Giga/Rex charts back then.

[@KingofKran]

The old movies dont need to be - but if they are going to do something new with the franchise, showing the audience unearthly, unexpectedly realistic dinosaurs could be the key. Eg. Using the realistic, deep, crocodilian sounds of the Trex,.making the protagonists unable to tell where its coming from,.. or using dark feathered raptors stalking the characters in the darkness.., or making the giant herbivores like Dreadnoughtus violent and territorial... Those could take the franchise back to its horror roots like the first JP did when they showed dinosaurs more realistic than those from 80s movies, and shocked audiences everywhere.

[@NathanSpies]

I would love to see a documentary type series that serves as a prequel to Jurassic World that takes place after Jurassic Park 1. It could follow what the dinosaurs did between the events of JP1 & JW1

[@josephosley3308]

That’s gonna be the next movie.. a requel to Jurassic Park

[@Breviparopus]

​@@josephosley3308 not confirmed

[@ryanangeli5897]

Maybe a movie about what happened on Isla Sorna during the events of Jurassic Park? The worker’s village, the embryonics lab, the secret creation of the Spinosaurus, and how the hurricane hit and everyone had to abandon the island? That’s a gold mine that’s just waiting to be dug up.

[@TrexTamer]

For me, I want to have the Jurassic Park series kept at a stylistic middle ground. While the dinosaurs from the films from the 90s an early 2000s stay the same, the ones in the Jurassic World trilogy would be a blend of modern science and the classic Jurassic Park style, with biosyn’s clones being seemingly accurate, but actually more monstrous than Hammond’s or Masrani’s dinosaurs (basically how they are in the dominion) To me, it makes perfect narrative sense as Jurassic Park is where it all begins, Jurassic World is under the idea of progress, which means more scientifically, accurate dinosaurs, as technology has increased, and BIOSYN, being the main antagonist of the series, has created more twisted versions of the dinosaurs for profitization. Even in the prologue, if the dinosaurs for more accurate, modern science, and still keeping a Jurassic Park style it would be less of a insult to paleontology as these dinosaurs would be close enough to modern science yet simultaneously close enough to the stylized modern day ones to where it would make sense the transition from creature to clone from a design standpoint

[@brandonfleischhacker2799]

I personally feel anything that was created by ingen or early biosin should have the classic look from the franchise while anything made by late biosin or other companies they should make them look more accurate. This will serve to both satisfy their written story as well as paleontologists. It will also seve to help viewers identify the companies that made the creature.

[@awesomeproductions7755]

I'd say go for a good balance of both. Keep the current dinosaurs the way they are, but make any new dinosaurs as scientifically accurate as possible unless there's some valid lore reason for them to look different.

[@deinsilverdrac8695]

In all the franchise The only dinosaurs that was not accurate but it was explained and even usefull to the theme and narrative of the story. Was the dilophosaurus. And the two hybrid from jw and jwfk, because they're hybrids. Every other inacuraccy is just crap. And i am talking about thing they should've known at the Time. Unlike spino design from jp3 in 2001 where it was mostly accurate except maybe some head shape issue. Meaning jw saga had no excuse for most of his crappy design. And they could've easily found one. Just say that those are hybrid make to look more appealing to the public unlike the one in JP saga. That would be thematic, and even be in Dr Wu character, God complex that want to be better than nature. In the book he wanted to make dino less accurate for the public. They had the excuse hand over them on a silver plate, and they didn't use it. And they were the one who created the idea with the indominus and the public being bored of dinosaurs and the Park making all they can to create New more appealing attractions. Which would've even be a critique on the Hollywood industry itself and about the movie itself. Being a bland shadow of what the franchise and industry was before. It was right under their noses and an idiot Like me could've done a better job than their directors, artist direction, design conception team and whole scenarist team of this fucking multi millions dollar movie.

[@tvvistedv3nom26]

They won’t make them accurate the giga is proof, it’s was said to have a 100% complete genome meaning no dna used from other animals to fill in the gaps so it’s 100% accurate to that universe but it’s completely inaccurate to what a giga would be irl for us since it’s bulkier than the trex and it for some reason lived in North America with the trex in the film during the prehistoric scene but it only lived in South America. It’s sci-fi and they’re gonna take their creative liberties as long as they don’t try and say it’s a documentary then they don’t have to be accurate

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

@@tvvistedv3nom26 honestly though, that argument that the Jurassic universe is just an alternate universe is such a dumb last resort. Face it, the people behind these films never truly gave a shit about dinosaurs. They’ll pull things out of their ass to justify bland creative/artistic decisions because they think that’s all the public wants.

[@penda4054]

I think theres more scare factors for adult audiences when you have accurate dinosaurs due to them resembling birds. When you have something that looks familiar but is still alien has a lot of horror elements that can be explored IMO. Scaly lizards with teeth aren't convincing and don't scare me in my later age. A bear mauling scene will scare me 10x more than a JP velociraptor maulling scene

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

@@penda4054 after so many years of having the same image of dinosaurs in most major movies, that’s also another factor as to why it’s not scary anymore.

[@t_hetty1758]

It depends on the situation. If they are spliced with other dna and it’s kind of the point that they aren’t then no but if they state that a Dino made is 100% accurate then obviously yesz

[@deinsilverdrac8695]

But thats bullshit. Nowhere on the saga the dino were showed as being not representative of their extinct cousin. Even with frog dna they are supposed to look like the real animal. In the book dr Wu Say they are too perfect and should make them less accurate, slower, simpler for the public. Which is immediatly rejected by Hammond. Jw tried and failed to use this excuse to well excuse his mediocre design. But the last movie went full on bad action figurine design. And even when they had the opportunity to show real dinosaurs 66 million years ago to use the excuse and show the difference and alteration with modern cloned one. They fail, Not only on a chronological, logical, paleontological, cinematographical point of view But they keep the same fucking designs. The ugly as Fuck gigano Rhino body on nasutoceratops Ugly anorexic demonic crestless pteranodon Even the rex have the same head shape, same starved body and same broken wrist They just added a light fuzz of feather. Which is not even more accurate but less accurate.

[@azhdarchidae66]

@@deinsilverdrac8695 actually most of the dinos, including the rex, had correct wrist posture in dominion

[@deinsilverdrac8695]

@@azhdarchidae66 And thats their only quality. And a lot of other even new species don't have that either.

[@azhdarchidae66]

@@deinsilverdrac8695 interestingly its the main wrong thing about the oviraptor design

[@deinsilverdrac8695]

@@azhdarchidae66 Yes i know That and the wrong kind of plumage. But thats better than Allosaurus, giganotosaurus, baryonyx, atrociraptor, pyroraptor. Because at least he look like an oviraptor. We are this low, Some dino don't look like what they're supposed to be and if it wasn't for the movie to tell us we wouldn't know. I mean if they didn't stop the hybrid idea, and that i showed you the gigano, You probably wouldn't recognise lt as being a gigano. If you want to do that kind of design do a Ark survival evolved or Turok movie, not a jurassic World/Park.

[@Impartial_Sojourner]

The Dominion Para opens the door for more accurate variations of existing animals, but honestly? I like the mix of accuracy for some and movie monster for others

[@civilpython]

I say let JP have it's own fictional version of artistically stylized semi-accurate dinos. The franchise should live within it's own containments. I feel the same with a lot of films and even games today, you put too much time and energy into making things too real and the fun can be sucked right out of it. We watch movies to get away for a few hours, not be reminded of our realities.

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

I dunno, real dinosaurs seem very awesome, and Prehistoric Planet has proven you can make some truly awesome moments with accurate dinosaurs (look especially how Season 2 plays out. It’s even more action oriented than the first season, it’s all realistic, but still exciting to watch)

[@thorodinson6625]

​@@yuyaricachimuel555the purpose is still educational content, which jurassic world has never bothered to do.

[@JPOG7TV]

@@thorodinson6625which is funny since Jurassic Park attempted to teach people dinos even though some info is wrong. It tried while JW couldn’t care less

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

@@thorodinson6625 except when they decide to spit out random dinosaur facts upon first encounter with a dinosaur (not all the time of course but you know it was there a lot.).

[@daishaw9133]

We should consider the films of the JP franchise is something of entertainment purposes, if scientific accuracy were to go into full play as time goes on, it’s boring, people won’t buy anything

[@kajjeletam7957]

As a paleonerd, I very much appreciate accurate depictions. I do, however, agree with every point you make concerning the Jurassic franchise and I feel like everyone who still feels the need to complain about the inaccuracies (whilst also completely ignoring all the things it got right) should see this video. Great stuff as always Klayton!

[@Jamezy316]

Well there are specific reasons they don't look historically accurate in JP, it wasn't for fun. Its explained in the movie, and its common sense. Since they found parts of Dino DNA in mosquitos, they had to fill the gaps in the DNA with other animals... which is why they don't look historically accurate. As Dr. Wu explains in Jurassic World - "We are doing what we have done, from the beginning. Nothing in jurassic world is natural, we have always filled the gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. If their DNA was pure many of them would look quite different, but you didn't ask for reality you asked for more teeth."

[@rhedosaurus2251]

I'm of two minds here. On the one hand, I'm a compromise person. IE. If they kept most of the 'old guard' as is for continuity-The JP3 Spinosaurus would be the exception-but made all the new dinosaurs as accurate as possible, then it would have been accepted as a reasonable position by all sides. On the other hand, if all the movies that came after The Lost World were actually good, then the paleo-debate wouldn't happen.

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

Compromising is the reason we can’t have nice things…. But I agree that the previously existing dinosaurs can stay as they are while any newly made dinosaurs can be truer to real life.

[@XenoRaptor-98765]

To be fair that the dinosaurs clones in Jurassic park are a combination of both dna that both ancient and fragmented and the dna of frogs and other animals to fill in the missing gaps. And last but least its based of limited knowledge about dinosaurs.

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

And then in Dominion they made their dinosaurs “100% pure” without any gaps to be filled by other animals.

[@southparkstanmarshofficial]

Not a popular opinion but I prefer dinosaurs without feathers

[@CountTentacula]

So do I. They went from being reptilian monsters from an uncharted past to being sissified giant tweety birds.

[@zuitsuit80]

I think the sauropods would have much darker skin on their backs, necks and heads because those areas would be heavily exposed to the sun. Maybe a protective green moss (like sloths) since they probably didn’t move fast or enter deep waters. I agree about the “shrink wrap” theory. Look at the skeletons of modern animals and they don’t look exactly like the animal itself. Real animals have extra bulk and areas of cartilage, extra skin features or plumage and extra fat. I actually like the Dilophasaurus frill for that reason. It’s fun to imagine some extra stuff that fossils didn’t preserve.

[@robrice7246]

I mentioned that Jon Favreau & Bryce Dallas Howard have worked together before on The Mandalorian, if they incorporated his work & experience from Prehistoric Planet (including his involvement in their podcast and members of the PP team being included), this may work with future clones (both og's & newer versions) going forward. If they're doing prequels, it would make more sense to utilize science and paleo-anatomy that was accurate back then (any current biology & behavior would be considered as speculation).

[@JPOG7TV]

I would love to see him tackle Jurassic. He seems more respectful that Colin ever was

[@ethandoyle4978]

I was never really bothered by how accurate the dinosaurs were , I always thought they helped out with getting fans aware of them and also inspire future paleontologists. And I think that for the future of the franchise have new dinosaur designs with small scientific accuracy’s down by either biosyn or a new company would be a great idea and a win / win for JP and paleontology fans.

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

Problem is in dominion they finally said the dinosaurs are true to life, accurate, which is completely wrong. If anything, the possibility of accurate dinosaurs is still there, it’s not like anything established prior needs a sudden design change…

[@lustrazor44]

Um. They were accurate when the first movies came out.

[@DoomRulz]

There's literally no reason to not have totally accurate dinosaurs in a JW/JP film. For all of Dominion's faults, their inclusion of feathered dinosaurs (not perfect in the least, but!) was a step in the right direction and guess what? They didn't ruin the film like so many ignorant awesomebros like to pretend. The Jurassic films have always influenced how pop culture views dinosaurs and I really think it's high-time that the films caught up to the science.

[@theechovelociraptor3887]

Really guys? Really? Can't we accept each media as its own?

[@ingen2d]

YO KLAYTON! I am animating scenes from the Jurassic Novels and I would love for you to voice Dr. Malcolm!

[@SantosKaijuB2024]

i would like to see the Jurassic designs for the dinosaurs unchanged from scratch cuz they're cool! thanks for the video Klayton :)

[@alault-cook4072]

The books represented the Dino’s as monsters in dinosaur skin

[@garypfeiffer3489]

I've always wanted to explore this subject! Nowadays I also want to explore native life on Isla Nublar: why, what creatures were there before &/during the time Jurassic Park was built. What Neches did they fill in comparison to other animals elsewhere? How did the 1st white men on the island react to the very sight of these animals. What would they do with Ingen's dinosaurs when they were brought from Site B?

[@Hazard-xv7vn]

If you go for complete scientific accuracy you also would have to somehow factor in the oxygen level and temperature differences there were those several millions of years ago. I just don't see how you could do that. I just want a good jurassic park movie maybe with a little more accuracy but not 100%. Maybe we could get movies based off the dinosaurs from the ocean. Or maybe from the ice age. Maybe see a titanboa.

[@dr.penguin7934]

I personally don't care much for accuracy but I do think Colin saying they'd be accurate in interviews leading up to Dominion was dumb and made the accuracy complaints justified for that.

[@187mrsmith]

The 1st 2 will forever be the best to cause they're the most accurate Like the rv scene where the t rexs defend there territory cus of there injured baby an push the rv off the cliff cus t rexs can't have competitors in its main stay of area

[@superzilla784]

There was one KZbinr who was breaking down the JP dinosaurs compared to real life dinosaurs. no, not the usual, "It's just Hollywood trying to make movie monsters because they don't think real dinosaurs are interesting enough" he was talking about the genetic material used to make these clones. one of my favorite videos was Triceratops. DNA from elephants and rhinos may have likely been major sources to bring Triceratops back to life. however, the recreation of the T-Rex was heavily theorized. crocodile DNA may have been used to give T-Rex its protruding teeth. As much as I love scientifically accurate dinosaurs, Ingen's clones are very interesting because of their mutations from the DNA of modern animals in their genes. such as the famous chameleon Carnotaurus. or the dinosaurs changing their gender thanks to frog DNA. our tampering has given dinosaurs extra abilities and it's fun to watch them grow from that. It makes me want to see Ingen's clones meet real dinosaurs even more. how would a real dinosaur and a heavily modified clone interact?

[@jimmyp.6180]

The cut to the T. Rex escape when you mentioned extinction, the very part of the book, where Malcolm utters, "I think that extinct animals should be left extinct, do you get that feeling now?", was obviously deliberate. Good editing choice.

[@Eyes_of_Oryx]

#Асмр #Россия #кража #грех #война #импрессия #подделка #патетика Все хэштеги должны быть только на русском языке! 🇷🇺💥‼️

[@maozilla9149]

but there people that hate Scientifically Accurate Dinosaurs for some reason

[@redfireeverstar2651]

Dinosaur is dinosaur, whether Frankensteined together or peleo accurate I want to ride it into the sunset

[@solidSnake4580]

If people actually think about it the T. rex in Jurassic Park really doesn’t seem that far off from being scientifically accurate. But if I had to say I think JP shouldn’t be all scientifically accurate since Im sure the movies do explain there isn’t enough DNA to have a pure looking Dinosaur and in my honest opinion I think people saying JP isn’t scientifically accurate because people don’t know for sure either how dinosaurs actually looked or behaved, the only things we have that gives us a clue how they looked in in their skin impressions. Even to me Paleontology is mostly guess work which makes me appreciate the novels even more telling us that you don’t know anything about dinosaurs and they can be unpredictable.

[@DragonFae16]

I think it would be fun if in a JP movie, they had a BioSyn scientist calling Dr Wu and his team ametures for using frog DNA and say that BioSyn is using bird DNA. That'd be an easy explainer for why their dinosaurs look different.

[@nathanong]

I'm about a year away from getting a PhD in paleontology, and while I can't speak for the entire field, I thought I'd offer up some thoughts: 1) at least as it pertains to my work, scientific inaccuracy in JP *does* make my job harder. For example, when I'm trying to study how turtles responded to the changing climate at the end of the Cretaceous, its frustrating when everyone just wants to know if T. rex would win in a fight with spinosaurus, or where our museum's indominus skeleton is. When you devote your life to studying something that you care deeply about, it also just sucks to see some Hollywood writer use it as a prop for sloppy writing. My personal dissapointment might not justify a franchise-wide "religious devotion to accuracy" as you call it, but I'd encourage you to just try to see where I'm coming from. 2) I think that the phenotypic accuracy of JP dinosaurs is kind of over discussed- there's clear explanations in the text as to why their appearance diverges from a pure specimen (frog DNA). I do not, however, have any patience for unrealistic/anthropomorphized behavior. Obviously behavior is super variable and hard to observe from the fossil record, but I think JP needs to at least put forth a /reasonable hypothesis/ for behavior, like All Yesterdays did. That's why the spitting dilophosuaurs doesn't bother me so much- it's behavior that we see in the modern world, even if there are no osteological correlates for it. And I think its an interesting detail from the book that the geneticists had no idea that it could spit until after the animal was hatched- really highlights how much theyre playing with fire. I think there's support in Chriton's book for the importance of behavior- both Alan Grant and Henry Woo are scientists, but unlike Woo, Grant understands that these are complex animals that aren't going to do what humans want them to do, and that's why he's the protagonist of the book. Grant is based on Horner and Bakker, who really made a name for themselves by pointing out peoples pre-existing assumptions about dinosaurs, and offering more naturalistic (if controversial) interpretations of scant evidence. So anyway, when writers force an indominus rex to speak velociraptor or an indoraptor to chase a girl through a mansion, it shows me that theres a fundamental misunderstanding of what made the book so great. It shows me that these writers don't see these animals as animals doing whatever they need to survive, but as cartoon villains that can be written to do whatever the plot needs them to do, which is disappointing. 3) in the same vein, I know you don't like the Dominion locusts for aesthetic reasons, but I think that it actually exemplifies the ethos of Chriton's source material from a conceptual perspective. Look at modern invasive species- it's not charismatic specialist megafauna like tigers and bears, it's things like pythons, sea urchins, mosquitos. The best invasive species are usually generalist, omnivorous, quickly reproducing, good at evading humans. I think you could make the case that compsagnathus or a small pterosaur should take the place of those locusts for a more JP vibe, but the logic of the locust's inclusion is sound. 4) you say that JP is "more frankenstien than National Geographic," but i dont know if either are great examples- if i were to write my own JP sequel that was entertaining, scientifically accurate, and true to Chriton's vision, id probabky write a "Tiger King with Prehistoric Planet Dinosaurs" type of story. Animals are just doing their thing- living off of instinct in an environment that is unnatural/stressful to them, and the tension comes from humans who have the hubris of thinking that they can control them when they cant. Honestly, Jurassic World Evolution basically does this- and for that reason its probably my favorite entry into the franchise. 5) I know that historically there have been inaccuracies in the JP franchise since the beginning, but like- is there any reason that /has/ to be the case? I feel like Prehistoric Planet demonstrated that you can have very rigorous science coexisting with compelling story telling when writers are invested in both. Ive never felt that level of investment in either from the Jurassic Park writers, and my criticism of the franchise comes from the hope that these writers work harder to deliver compelling stories.

[@good7bad13]

Honestly? No. We are too far into the franchise. Plus I'm really sick and tired of "BuT iTs NoT aCcUrAte" can we just enjoy the fact we have a dinosaur movie? Dino's are Dino's. Unless they're slurpasaurs as long as we can tell it's a T Rex or Triceratops I think we're good.

[@MoonDevoured]

I personally have no issue with dinos vs dinos but I'm still shocked that to this day there have been no triceratops vs carnivore fight yet. When I was a kid that was like an iconic battle scenario. That said, I loved the Indominus Rex vs Ankylosaurus fight. we need more things like that

[@geckoraptor9397]

I like the jp designs but the problem is thats how the public sees dinosaurs they think its cool always angry reptiles and not beutiful animals wich arent only roaring all the time.....

[@kavehthephantomboy]

That's public problem when they can't understand a film from a documentary because even you look at the first movie you have the dilophosaurus and in the JW they say this creatures are not pure like how we still have some stupid people think the spinosaurus is king of the dinosaurs because of JP3.

[@geckoraptor9397]

@@kavehthephantomboy my point Is that people dont know what dinosaurs look like So when they make a video for example And there is something about dinosaurs they show jw raptors

[@geckoraptor9397]

@@kavehthephantomboy also if you asked them whats the biggest dinosaur they would say Brontosaurus And stuff like that wich makes no sense

[@ernesthegmann699]

I'm reminded of the conversation Wu had with Hammond in the novel and Masrani in the movies. "Nothing in Jurrasic Park is real. In fact, if they were real, they'd look quite different." Leave them alone so they fit into that mold

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

What about the Cretaceous prologue in Dominion?

[@ernesthegmann699]

@yuyaricachimuel555 that takes place 75 MYA so it has nothing to do with JP aside from the DNA. Besides if the look of the Dinosaurs is the biggest problem you have Yikes...

[@ernesthegmann699]

Prolonge issues: Tyrannosaurus and Giganotasurus would never encounter one another... North America and South America are not connected... Quetzocotlus lived along the Gulf Coast of the USA... Nasutoceratops lived along the Texas - Arizona Region... Dreadnoughtus was from Argentina. Heck, Prehistoric Planet shows Dreadnoughtus. Trust me those freaky neck bellows are weird

[@yuyaricachimuel555]

@@ernesthegmann699 the T. rex with feathers is just the JW rexy model with feathers glued on :P The point is, the prologue just completely contradicts the arguments for the genetic dinosaurs. :/

[@ernesthegmann699]

Jurassic Park doesn't actually have Dinosaurs. They are actually Hybrids or Chimeras at worst Mutations.

[@tenimeartstudios]

Movies don't get HUMAN BEINGS biologically correct, I'd rather someone have to poop in the middle of an action movie than have some boring, lame-looking giant chicken growling at protagonists, lol. Heck, movies don't get LAWS correct (for example, you're not limited to "one phone call" when you get arrested, can we stop THAT overdone trope, please?), movies don't get PHYSICS correct (yes, Ludacris totally took a car into space), movies don't get MOST things correct. I am perfectly okay with cool-looking monster lizards roaring while chasing edible people.

[@TheRealRip-Tide]

Nah keep their designs cool in the movies.

[@The-Hazbin-Devil04]

Scientifically Accurate Dinosaurs Look STUPID!! If They Make More Jurassic Park Movies, They Better Keep The Designs They Have Now!!

[@victorguellouz]

True there is some mistakes, but the creatures of the Jurassic Park movies, are allready, mostly, most of the Time accurate. But for some budget reasons, some paleonthologists will Never admit that their work is less accurate to reality than JP and LOST WORLD : JP movies. The dinosaurs models of The first and second movies are very accurate, You juste need to change velociraptor by Utharaptor, and dilophosaurus bye baby dilophosaurus, add some duvet or feathers (not too much) and voilà ACCURATE !!

[@DarthKain]

Yes, I would absolutely love to see more scientifically accurate dinosaurs in upcoming Jurassic film. However ONLY if they can use them in the story correctly. All of InGen's dinosaurs use 90's science to be made so changing them wouldn't make any sense. Masrani Global's animals are using 2000s - 2010s science so if anything these should show not only more accurate animals but the story moving forward. Then last BioSyn should be the latest Paleontology science.

[@darkwolf3755]

I think a good option for future JP installments would be those dinos that are created and immediately confined could be scientifically inaccurate, but those who were in "the wild" for years like the JP3 raptors would slowly evolve (devolve?) into what a scientifically accurate dinosaur would look like. So BLUE and her pack having no feathers would be "right" because they are essentially test tube babies, and the JP3 raptors, having a few wild generations between the original test tube babies and now, would also be "right" with the start of crest feathers. That's just my opinion.

[@kevin_catv6889]

What if instead of refilling the dna with frog dna, we refill a T. rex dna with another T. rex dna, cause clearly they have more than 1

[@thehalobrony9050]

My case for why Jurassic Park franchise has a "responsibility", for a lack of better terms, to be closer to actual dinosaur are these two points: 1# the Jurassic Park Dinosaurs designs does influence every other properties. Resently we had a movie with Adam Driver called "65" becouse it was set 65 million years ago. That movie had no excuse for its 1990's dinosaur designs. And they where basically a copy paste 3D models from the Jurassic Park movies. Imagine you saw a Tarzan movie, but all of the African animals where all hairles, spiky, skreaming monsters, and we are supposed to take them seriously. Not to mention that the broken wrist and no feather design is to this day still being used, like that new Fortnite Dino Raptor rider thing. As long as a myth and inaccurasies are continued to be portrait, especially by the popular kids in class, then it will not be fixed or go away. 2# Dinosaurs are not fantasy creatures. They are not sci-fi imaginastions. They where lived here on this planet. They existed far longer then all of our existence. There close relatives are with us today. I mention it previously about Tarzan, and it is true. We as people would cry outrage if a movie about Bengal Tigers were all depicted as yellow colored furry dogs! What if you had a movie showing of an American Bald Eagle as a Bat like mamal with a lizard head? You would be slandered for falsly depicting a real animal. If we can't even bother to try and depict an animal like a dinosaur for what they where, then why should we even bother to make anything accurate? We like to praise and selebrate when a product is Historically accurate, and shame them when they lie and continue to spread myths and inaccurasies. Why do we make an exception with dinosaurs? Because a design will be outdated whitin a couple of years? YES! Thats the hole point with palientoligy! I think I am raging out abit. I was so excited to see a new dinosaur movie, that was not from the Jurassic Park franchise, but was destroyed when I saw in the trailer those lizard monsters, I skipped the right there and there. I will not support something that continues to contribute to any dinosaur myths and inaccurasies.

[@jordmanbatgod]

I’m confused on the justification for them extracting DNA from blood. The excerpt you read says that “each red blood cell contains the entire DNA sequence”, but red blood cells are classically one of the only cells that are anucleate (don’t have a nucleus). Therefore, they don’t contain genetic material, just a collection of various proteins needed to carry out their function. While sure you might be able to find some that contain DNA fragments, a mature RBC scientifically shouldn’t have the genetic material the excerpt describes. A white blood cell would have this, however, but the excerpt specifically says “red” blood cells. Just curious what everyone’s thoughts on this are.

[@phishinround420]

The answer is No. I will tell you the reason. Going off what the books were attempting to portray, their cloning process though complex, was not perfect. Using a supercomputer to fill in gaps for a DNA sequence no matter how accurate will never be perfect. There are genetic anomalies all the time in organisms, and considering you are using a prehistoric snapshot of a genetic fragment… how would you know what to look for? How would you avoid anomalies and how would you “fix” them? This is the compound reason why Wu (in the movies and book) was not satisfied with what they created. Calling them monsters instead of dinosaurs would be more accurate. They may resemble the structure and rough behavior of dinosaurs, but they could never be *true* dinosaurs. Maybe they aren’t scientifically accurate, but that’s good in a way.

[@jesterapp]

Jurassic Park is a brand. I don't want it to be accurate. I want it to be COOL. The RULE OF COOL. That which is the dopest should survive!

[@ttt2080]

I think one of the big differences between the Park and World movies is the choices of the directors. Spielberg choose to put more emphasis on the wonder of Dinosaurs and pretty much all the Dinosaurs in the Park movies are up to date at the time of each of the originally trilogies releases. The ones that are inaccurate (Dilophosaurus for example) came from the book. On the other hand Colin Trevorrow made the Jurassic World movies more about science gone mad, hence the hybrids and human cloning. But plenty of the Dinosaurs in the World trilogy are inaccurate. For example, the Baryonyx has the wrong shaped head and looks nothing like reality, or why not give the Atrociraptor's feathers, and I don't understand why there were so many incorrect Dinosaurs in the Dominion prologue.

[@astrotrain6037]

The simple fact of the matter is that the Jurassic Park trilogy (at least the first two), were incredibly accurate for their time, basically a nineties Prehistoric Planet in that front, with some exceptions like Dilophosaurus, (there was a theory stating that the Deinonychus was just a species of Velociraptor in that time, and the producers decided simply to go with that theory so even that is kind of accurate). So I find it kind of inexcusable that most of Jurassic World designs use the same trends of dinosaur designs that the ones from the 90s. They should obviously keep dinosaur designs like Rexy, the Brach, and some others the same because they were created in Jurassic Park and the logical thing is that they would be the same, but making even more bald raptors when Jurassic Park 3 started to get them right is just wrong, the same with designs like crocodile Baryonyx, Godzilla Mossa, Everything about the Atrociraptors and much more. That is a disservice to the original’s achievements in the accuracy front, and all the effort the creators of the original movies did to make the Dinos as good as they are.

[@burnedsmackdown4209]

For me I am fine with how JP/W franchise handle the appearance of the animals as even far back to the first book it doesn't follow actual paleontology 100% as they aren't supposed to be 100% dinosaurs they are what Grant described best 'themed park monsters', only thing I care is I want them to be treated and act like animals and not monsters JP1 will always be my favourite movie of all time

[@somedudewhodraws9377]

Dominion gave us a taste of more realistic dinos especially the newer Pure DNA they found in the amber mines under BIOSYN's Lands which they own its even said in the movie that Biosyns clones are more paleo accurate then INGEN's was. Ingen kept using modern day animals to fill in the gaps of the extinct Dinos and Marine reptiles along with the Ptersaurs

[@thebadluckcrow5075]

Before dominion came out or even before a trailer i was hoping Wu would have made more dinosaurs to be scientifically accurate. He told Masrani that he didn't ask for scientifically accurate dinosaurs, he asked for more teeth. So i was originally hoping we'd have Wu, not working on hybridized monsters but having made something as close as he could to accurate. I would have loved to see Blue square up with a fully feathered UtahRaptor. Or maybe they could have done some bullshit reason that Blue and other dinosaurs began taking on more accurate characteristics to adjust to being free once again. Would have been cool to see scaley blue slowly devolve quills and fuzz throughout the movie before popping up near the end in full feathers.

[@Jerimeh]

It’s fine as it is. Science changes everyday. With new theories and ideas emerging as we speak. It might be scientifically accurate one day and then debunked the next day. I’m fine with what we got from the movies. They still seemed like real animals to me 🤷🏾‍♂️

[@powdercowboy90]

The dinosaurs didn't have complete genomes. They couldn't look/ be actual real dinosaurs. There's a whole conversation In the book about this

[@cyrilmauras4247]

Hey, there's a reason it is called science FICTION! I'm always annoyed by 'experts' who complain that movies are not accurate.

[@rexmaster8000]

On a scientific genetic level, it would be impossible to have a 100% accurate specimen, since DNA older than 10,000 years old would be fragmentary essentially making a complete pure genome impossible, this is also a science fiction action movie and not a documentary, paleo accurate animals would be impossible with genetics, besides how would we even know if the cloned animal is even accurate? All we have is their bones, we can only guess

[@Ravin_Raven]

In Jurassic World the game on mobile, the dinosaur facts even mention that they aren’t supposed to be accurate! More specifically in the Dilophosaurus, and Velociraptors facts