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.
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.
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 🤔)
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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.
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.
@@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” ,’(
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
@@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.
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.
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
@@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
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 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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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
@@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.
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.
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
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!
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."
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.
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.
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)
@@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
@@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.).
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
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.
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…
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 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...
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
@@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. :/
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).
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.
There was one UA-camr 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?
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
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?
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.
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
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 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.
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.
I think they need to constantly state in the movies that the genetics where based on known knowledge of the time and that’s why the dinosaurs looked the way they did and that the genetics today would be making the dinosaurs more to their originals. I’d like for the following movies to bring up the botany division that made the plants that’s Ellie had in her hands and show us the goat farms. That would ground the movies I think.
Hi, Klayton!! Awesome video as usual. I would highly recommend the Terrible Lizards podcast with paleontologist David Hone, who I’m sure you’ve heard of. He has one episode in particular that you might find enlightening that’s dedicated to Jurassic Park. He discusses a great deal of what you’ve included in this episode. Take it easy 👍
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.
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.
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.
I think it would be a really cool idea to have a scene where say Biosyn creates "organic/authentic" dinosaurs, and that their whole business pitch is that the dinosaurs are "naturally selected" to maintain paleontological accuracy. What we would actually see is a kind of modern dog dilemma of dinosaurs bred for looks. Bigger eyes, bigger teeth, to the point where they are seemingly different species all together from even their original Ingen ancestors. That would be a nice ode to Crichton's original message while playing further off of the series' ideas
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.
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.
i think the better direction for (reasonably) accurate paleontology in the larger JP franchise would instead be to make a whole separate continuity--not a sequel, prequel, or interquel to the current series but a new adaptation of the novel, and billed as such, which is an explicit setting update not only of the dinosaurs (namely, more feathers while still having the "required" liberties) but of the characters and mundane technology (such as the computers in the control room being from whatever year it would be made in and characters having smartphones while not using that to make statements about current culture like part of the message of _Jurassic World_ was)
i think, instead of 100% accuracy they should do what they have done from the beginning, and use realistic dinosaurs as a base and stylize them to get oversized deinonychus with boxier heads than what the fossils indicate, instead of just throwing out the real animal completely and stylizing a stylized version of an outdated reconstruction like they have done for things like the baryonyx or giganotosaurus
I think you can have them paleo accurate but have a Jurassic style to them Like the baryonyx from primal op for example the many complain is they remove the most identifiable feature of the baryonyx and primal op fix that while still be in line with the canon design Have it like that
The concept of a JP dino having bird DNA spliced into mix that gives them the ability to mimic sounds and voices as a side effect would probably make for a creepy scene regardless of the size the dino in question. A step further would be to have the bird DNA being from a crow which not only gives them that mimic ability but their intelligence and problem solving skills as well. So you have this dinosaur that figured out that a specific sound attracts and lures humans which then they can take as prey.
I'd recommend you read the book by Chrichton. It's called Dragon teeth. To me, it felt like a prequel story to JP for Hammond. All in, JP are theme park monsters. Biosyn comes up with their take as close to 100% accurate as possible without splicing. The series walking with dinosaurs, has shown some amazing advancements.
I think the parts that truly need to be more “accurate” are scenes that set in Prehistoric Times. Other than that,I can accept more stylizations, even more awesomebro designs. Legacy Species: Most of them would stay the same but with some tweaks to make them slightly closer to up-to-date restorations,as well as adding some behaviors that are proposed in recent Paleontology. However,I think Dilophosaurus could make a more drastical alterations. New Species: Being more accurate or closer to up-to-date restorations,but still has a fair share of stylizations,even twisted in some way. Prehistoric Species: The closest to their real world counterparts,but you can still know that they are from Jurassic Universe rather than Prehistoric Planet.
Regarding the older species like T. rex, Velociraptor and Brachiosaurus, I would keep them the same as much as possible since they're iconic for the franchise. Newly introduced creatures, however, are the ones I feel should be more up to date, while also maintaining the overall design aesthetic of JP. I feel that would've made for a fair compromise in keeping what people loved about the older films while also presenting more recent discoveries to keep paleontologists and paleo-fans happy.
I agree. I think that one JW video game with the feathered dinosaurs DLC shows a good example of this. It has multiple animals which are mostly accurate, but they all still very much feel like Jurassic Park/World designs somehow. Many of them even have small inaccuracies, like the pterosaur having scales on its face (no evidence of scales in pterosaurs at the moment) and the deinocheirus having a fleshy snout instead of a beak. But they're all so close to the real thing that they feel right. I even think the therizinosaurus in JW is a good example of being close enough to reality while also not being quite accurate. Yeah the face is really off but everything looks more or less like a therizinosaurus, just not an ACCURATE one. But it does look like an UP TO DATE one. It looks like they looked up modern reference images and molded them to fit JW instead of giving it the parasaurolophus treatment where they seemed to intentionally look up the oldest and worst reference images they could. I really like that they decided to start trying to make some of the dinosaurs more accurate. They didn't do it with all of them... looking at the giga's crocodile teeth... but they tried with some, and I appreciate that
Thank you for this very informative video! I never considered the genetic side of the dinosaurs of the Jurassic Park franchise. I can now appreciate the dinosaurs I criticized as being inaccurate (according to paleontologists at the time). I still have trouble with the Dilophosaurus though-
Ya know, when I heard that biosyn would be making accurate dinosaur, a fight between an accurate and jp rex was one of the main things I wanted to see in dominion.
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
Accurate to a point Not so much that they totally break continuity completely, but accurate enough that you dont have situations where the dinosaur bears little to any actual resemblence to the real thing. Like feathers all over the trex? No But proto feathers like on the velociraptor of 3? I can take that
Cool video. Jurassic world could have introduced accurate dinosaurs to show the progression of the genetic manipulation and harvesting more / better sources for DNA. Could have been fun to see them highlight what John Hammond was able to do... and what was possible when the park reopened under new management. But sadly they went less accurate. Just a question: where do the turntable 3D models come from?
@@KlaytonFioriti Thanks for the quick reply. Yeah, know of him. Have been following his channel for years. He does some amazing sculpts. Keep up the great work. :)
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.
I actually love when they add weird stuff like the frill and venom spit of the dilophosaurus, even if it's not scientifically accurate it works really well for the movie imo. I would love to see more creative stuff like that done with new species of dinosaur
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.
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.
Klayton I have an idea for you: what if someone who truly understands what a fan wants for a Jurassic park movie. For example: a direct sequel to the original trilogy with an idea that fans would want. Just find someone who wants to listen to the fans and make a movie all fans will love.
It would need to be pulled off so well, jurassic park for me is the original designs and behaviours "theme park monsters" it wouldn't be jurassic park without it
Honestly, I feel like scientific accuracy in media depends on what type of story is being told. If your making a documentary or story that's meant to reflect how dinosaurs were in real life, then it should be scientifically accurate. However if your making a sci-fi/fantasy story, accuracy isn't completely necessary, especially if there's a reason for the inaccuracies within the story (like the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park/World being genetically altered clones or a series like Primal being set in a fantasy world that isn't meant to be a representation of one specific era).
EDIT: i wrote this while ragefull, and didn't read your comment correctly, fill free to ignore my comment if you like. I am trying to let out steam, and i should not lay it on you. The one problem that I often come back to with that argument, that Dinosaurs can be accurate or not depending on the medium. (Yes the Jurassic Park franchise is an exception in my eyes) Whenever we see in media any depictions of an animals that exist today, we don't try to make them look like something that they are not. We try (to the best of your abilities) to make them look as they look like. We make sure that (most) mammals have there fur, even if they are turned into Cartoons. Dinosaurs where animals too. Real creatures that lived there lives just like everything els. The alore of Dinosaurs is that they where real, and we try to make them as UN-real as possible for some reason. Yes, we had little to know information about them in the past, but that is not true anymore. As long as a creature is not genetically engineered, then I believe there should be no excuses. If you travel to Africa, then you would expect the animals there to be as they are. If you traveled 100 million years back to the planes of Utah, then you would expect rhe animals there to also be as they are.
@@thehalobrony9050 I agree. People should be allowed liberties when designing creatures, especially if they're supposed to be stylized or fantasy versions of them. But that has its limits. You don't remove the mane from a male lion, give it horns, and make it 10x its size and just call it a 'lion' UNLESS you're in a world where EVERY animal is a fantasy version of its real counterpart. If you want to go that far when altering the animal you have to have a lore explanation for it. In this case the explanation is that... well.. it's an alternate universe where animals kind of like ours but not quite exist. It's normal for movies to take some liberties when designing animals. For example a movie might change the colors of a lion, oversize it a little, make it skinnier than they actually are, or maybe even give it saber teeth. They can do pretty crazy things. But it will always retain the signature features of a lion. Same basic skeletal structure, has fur, has a mane if male, has a cat-like face, etc. I think the same standard should be held to dinosaurs. Just because we don't have an actual living T. rex doesn't mean it's a fictional animal, and so it should be treated how we'd treat a real animal when designing it. Taking liberties in designs is absolutely okay, just don't go overboard and if you do be sure to have a reason for it- even if that reason is as simple as the story being chaotic and having unusual designs. Don't pass it off as a reasonable design when it clearly isn't.
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
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.
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.
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...
I think they should shoot for it, but a lot of the designs are so iconic and tied to the franchise that there's no going back. I do wish they'd given the JW raptors feathers, since they already gave them unique colors. "You'll never look at birds the same way again."
Honestly it doesn’t seem impossible to make *new* dinosaurs with a more accurate design. It’s not like Rexy or Blue, previously established dinosaurs, are suddenly gonna grow feathers or have non-pronated wrists. It doesn’t mean Mosasaurus is gonna shrink half her size the next movie. :p
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.
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.
One thing that has always made jurassic more realistic to me is the fact that they didn’t get it right the first time. When your practicing something as complex as genetic enginnering of an extinct species in the early 90’s with early 90’s technology, its not exactly going to be a walk in the park if acheivable at all. The dinosaurs are scientifically accurate, but there not palieontologicaly accurate and both the novel and the movie make it clear that that was intended on purpose. Thats why I hated the line in Dominion were Ramsey tells Grant and Sattler that they have brought multiple dinosaurs back in there purest form without even touching there genomes. As you go on into the future when technology advances, it makes sense that the clones become more accurate as you go along, but they should never be 100% accurate ( unless they find another technique that works without filling in the gaps in the genome and you just replicate the whole thing). If I remeber correctly, in the novel, Hammond and Wu have an argument in his island bungalo when the protagonists are about to take the tour. If my knowledge serves me well then I think it was about Henry thinking that it would be more acceptable in society to engineer the asets in a way that meets the publics expectations, were as Hammond wants them to be as realistic as possible. Something that may make a very interesting plot point in a future instalment to the franchise.
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.
It would be interesting to see accurate dinosaurs in the future of this franchise though even if they were to do them accurate I think there will be still a divide on what the dinosaurs should look accurate or not.
Well why can’t the newly made dinosaurs be closer to accuracy at the very least? While the older ones remain as they are. I swear it feels like people worry that if they bring accurate dinosaurs into the picture, that means somehow Blue or Rexy are gonna get sudden radical design changes out of nowhere.
honestly, if not explained well as to why they look different in universe, making it have to change every time that new info comes out, could easily damage or ruin the franchise's popularity and thus basically leave it without the high profile that some feel it should use to spread such things, plus is science fiction, take the fiction out of it and then you just have a documentary
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.
I like the idea that the geneticists in the movies are attempting to recreate something close to what they think dinos were like rather than being exactly the same. I like the idea that a Biosyn Rex might be different from an InGen Rex
I would like to see mostly accurate dinosaur's if there's a new movie. It's a pain in eyes that in this moment of the dinosaur research we are still seeing the old naked lizard-like dinosaur depictions, specially for the velociraptor. I think the first Jurassic park was huge step in the right direction (with some liberties), now we need another movie that can make that step and show dinosaur by what we know about then today
I think something that gets left out of discussions like this is that for a lot of us accuracy fans, it's less about the franchise having a nerdy responsability to educate, and more about accurate dinosaurs being really freakin awesome Like i find the Prehistoric Planet Triceratops (especially the big male in S2) to be an amazing awe-inspiring majestic animal, while the JW one is a big blob of boredom. To me an accurate Baryonyx is a kickass animal, but the FK one is a lame uninspired croc monster People talk about the "rule of cool", but to me accuracy IS the cooler version. At least the vast majority of the time
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.
I like the in universe explaining of why the dinosaurs aren’t usually accurate. However i wish dominion had more accuracy, at the very least where the dinosaurs lived, in the prologue. Before that it made the dinosaurs more timeless no matter how far our understanding of how dinosaurs looks comes.
In my humble opinion, OG model InGen dinos can have that look as being an unfortunate byproduct of the technological limitations of their time and how they were “Recreated”. Modern reanimated ones can look more accurate sure, but if they’re still based on that InGen method then there should be some abnormality, kind of like an iconic car design so you can look at a silouhette and immediately know the makers
I think the movies framing is perfect. They are clones and many did not have a complete genome so they had to splice it with other animals/amphibians in order to complete the holes in the dna. So they aren’t “pure” but an amalgamation. While this is a cool narrative it also is smart on the writers part as to give an answer to questions like this made later as we learn more about Dino’s that might conflict with the book/movie. So yeah they don’t have to adhere strictly with what we know about dinosaurs but I think they do their best to.
No they are genetically engineered theme park monsters they where meant to be inaccurate, and besides even the experts are still making an educated GUESS, meaning they still have to imagine what it might have looked like
Even real life clones wouldn't be same to what they were, for example the mammoth clone wouldn't be pure, it would be mammoth/Asian elephant hybrid because it's not easy to make a pure version with our current genetic engineering technology.
@@kavehthephantomboy exactly, making them accurate would just ruin the entire point of Jurassic World ENTIRELY and would just back stab the original routes of Jurassic Park
Then why did biosyn straight up say they made their dinosaurs “true to life” in Dominion? Why did the Cretaceous prologue feature dinosaurs that looked no different from their genetically made descendants? Meanwhile Henry Wu said “Jurassic World’s dinosaurs were never natural.” At this point they clearly just don’t give a shit about consistency in their arguments.
@@yuyaricachimuel555 until you realise that Pyroraptor and Therizinosaurus still have pronated wrists, Pyroraptor is still oversized and both have inaccurate proportions and anatomy to their real life counterpart You need to realise that feathers doesn’t always mean accurate, also they didn’t purposely make them look like the dinosaurs in the movies, most likely due to either the budget or Jurassic World didn’t want to keep this an accurate dinosaur film And also realise that their still INACCURATE in the prologue, so if their no different from their genetic clones, then their still inaccurate at the end of the day, case closed
The thing is, in-universe, the dinosaur dna they found was "repaired" to make them look the way they thought they'd look. So it already makes sense for the dinosaurs to look less like the real animals and more like what those were thought to look like when they were created. And then there are those that are just bizarre monstrosities - Dilophosaurus, but more egregiously, Giganotosaurus. Interesting thing about the Dilo: The poison spitting is fine, their organs for doing so seem to be completely soft tissue located in the throat and would not show in the fossil record. So, there is some leeway. What would be really cool would be if the dna yields species unknown to science. That would make a lot of sense to discover a new species this way, there they could go wild. Also, now that the technology is out, a small company taking pride in recreating accurate animals but failing financially because they are considered boring would be a fun bit of worldbuilding.
I always thought instead of the military idea maybe biosyn could've cloned different more realistic dinosaurs for breakthroughs in medicine. It would give a reason for them even being around since we know the park doesn't work. And obviously over time they would've became an invasive species replacing current animals changing environments and things like that. It would also drive a wedge in keeping them around or destroying them all. Maybe something in a triceratops frill can help with dementia or something 😂🤷🏽♂️
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.
The common sense opinion
And that way you could contrast the scary clones vs the real animals that wouldn’t be killing machines all the time
*66 million years ago
@@vansnakenstein5149 69 million years ago*
facts
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.
Movie grant was wrong. Book grant scoffed at the idea rexy vision was based on movement. If I remember the book correctly
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
And the Raptors were just aggressive by nature.
@averywellsand888 you do NOT remember the book correctly
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 🤔)
Kinda reminds me of the idea behind Ark.
@@Cloudrunner62 actually, a group of humans dropped on earth by aliens sounds more realistic tha the "official" story! 😂
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.
Theybwould either start acting like rampaging chimpanzees or like horny bonobos.... probably both
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.
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
bro whats the point in a movie then 💀
@@DevilRaptorBdid you never watch the original?….
@@GortTheCapybara320I guess the first movie, the highest rated of all of them and only GREAT one had no point.
@@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
The don’t have to be, but the T-Rex should AT LEAST have its infamous bone-crushing bite.
Do you think it isn't
@@darthmalgus987 its not. its grossly underperforming
That's because the teeth look more threatening
Agreed it got ripped off it should've won against the Spino, Indominus, and Giga
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.
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.
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.
@@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” ,’(
@@Real_MisterSir finding out about that was frusterating, like why are they sharing a scene together in the past lol
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
@@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.
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.
Definitly, i love how they still gave the accurate dinos a good ol' JP twist
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.
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
@@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
@@deinsilverdrac8695 if you ignore scientific accuracy, the giga is pretty badass
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.
The T. rex is not intended to be bigger than irl, the life size animatronics weighed exactly like Sue.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
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.
@@chromey9253agreed
@@chromey9253 I get Wht your saying…But they can’t get rid of there natural instincts
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.
@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.
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
That’s gonna be the next movie.. a requel to Jurassic Park
@@josephosley3308 not confirmed
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.
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
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.
I guess if every dinosaur's wrist DNA is derived from some kind of mammal it could make sense
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.
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.
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
@@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.
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
@@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.
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.
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
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!
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."
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.
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.
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)
@@yuyaricachimuel555the purpose is still educational content, which jurassic world has never bothered to do.
@@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
@@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.).
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
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.
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…
Um. They were accurate when the first movies came out.
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
What about the Cretaceous prologue in Dominion?
@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...
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
@@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. :/
Jurassic Park doesn't actually have Dinosaurs. They are actually Hybrids or Chimeras at worst Mutations.
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).
I would love to see him tackle Jurassic. He seems more respectful that Colin ever was
i would like to see the Jurassic designs for the dinosaurs unchanged from scratch cuz they're cool! thanks for the video Klayton :)
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.
There was one UA-camr 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?
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
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?
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.
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
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.
@@deinsilverdrac8695 actually most of the dinos, including the rex, had correct wrist posture in dominion
@@azhdarchidae66
And thats their only quality.
And a lot of other even new species don't have that either.
@@deinsilverdrac8695 interestingly its the main wrong thing about the oviraptor design
@@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.
The books represented the Dino’s as monsters in dinosaur skin
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.
I think they need to constantly state in the movies that the genetics where based on known knowledge of the time and that’s why the dinosaurs looked the way they did and that the genetics today would be making the dinosaurs more to their originals. I’d like for the following movies to bring up the botany division that made the plants that’s Ellie had in her hands and show us the goat farms. That would ground the movies I think.
Nice! This looks like a longer video than usual. I'm gonna check it out after I get a few hours sleep.
YO KLAYTON! I am animating scenes from the Jurassic Novels and I would love for you to voice Dr. Malcolm!
Didn't even get 2 min into video and already like it, good stuff my man, life finds a way
Hi, Klayton!! Awesome video as usual. I would highly recommend the Terrible Lizards podcast with paleontologist David Hone, who I’m sure you’ve heard of. He has one episode in particular that you might find enlightening that’s dedicated to Jurassic Park. He discusses a great deal of what you’ve included in this episode.
Take it easy 👍
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.
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.
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.
I think it would be a really cool idea to have a scene where say Biosyn creates "organic/authentic" dinosaurs, and that their whole business pitch is that the dinosaurs are "naturally selected" to maintain paleontological accuracy. What we would actually see is a kind of modern dog dilemma of dinosaurs bred for looks. Bigger eyes, bigger teeth, to the point where they are seemingly different species all together from even their original Ingen ancestors. That would be a nice ode to Crichton's original message while playing further off of the series' ideas
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.
And then in Dominion they made their dinosaurs “100% pure” without any gaps to be filled by other animals.
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.
i think the better direction for (reasonably) accurate paleontology in the larger JP franchise would instead be to make a whole separate continuity--not a sequel, prequel, or interquel to the current series but a new adaptation of the novel, and billed as such, which is an explicit setting update not only of the dinosaurs (namely, more feathers while still having the "required" liberties) but of the characters and mundane technology (such as the computers in the control room being from whatever year it would be made in and characters having smartphones while not using that to make statements about current culture like part of the message of _Jurassic World_ was)
Not a popular opinion but I prefer dinosaurs without feathers
So do I. They went from being reptilian monsters from an uncharted past to being sissified giant tweety birds.
i think, instead of 100% accuracy they should do what they have done from the beginning, and use realistic dinosaurs as a base and stylize them to get oversized deinonychus with boxier heads than what the fossils indicate, instead of just throwing out the real animal completely and stylizing a stylized version of an outdated reconstruction like they have done for things like the baryonyx or giganotosaurus
Absolutely. Basically, do what they did with the therizinosaurus.
I think you can have them paleo accurate but have a Jurassic style to them
Like the baryonyx from primal op for example the many complain is they remove the most identifiable feature of the baryonyx and primal op fix that while still be in line with the canon design
Have it like that
The concept of a JP dino having bird DNA spliced into mix that gives them the ability to mimic sounds and voices as a side effect would probably make for a creepy scene regardless of the size the dino in question.
A step further would be to have the bird DNA being from a crow which not only gives them that mimic ability but their intelligence and problem solving skills as well.
So you have this dinosaur that figured out that a specific sound attracts and lures humans which then they can take as prey.
I'd recommend you read the book by Chrichton. It's called Dragon teeth. To me, it felt like a prequel story to JP for Hammond.
All in, JP are theme park monsters. Biosyn comes up with their take as close to 100% accurate as possible without splicing. The series walking with dinosaurs, has shown some amazing advancements.
I think the parts that truly need to be more “accurate” are scenes that set in Prehistoric Times.
Other than that,I can accept more stylizations, even more awesomebro designs.
Legacy Species: Most of them would stay the same but with some tweaks to make them slightly closer to up-to-date restorations,as well as adding some behaviors that are proposed in recent Paleontology. However,I think Dilophosaurus could make a more drastical alterations.
New Species:
Being more accurate or closer to up-to-date restorations,but still has a fair share of stylizations,even twisted in some way.
Prehistoric Species:
The closest to their real world counterparts,but you can still know that they are from Jurassic Universe rather than Prehistoric Planet.
I like the idea that the splicing of dna could have had an impact on how it is developed
Regarding the older species like T. rex, Velociraptor and Brachiosaurus, I would keep them the same as much as possible since they're iconic for the franchise. Newly introduced creatures, however, are the ones I feel should be more up to date, while also maintaining the overall design aesthetic of JP. I feel that would've made for a fair compromise in keeping what people loved about the older films while also presenting more recent discoveries to keep paleontologists and paleo-fans happy.
I agree. I think that one JW video game with the feathered dinosaurs DLC shows a good example of this. It has multiple animals which are mostly accurate, but they all still very much feel like Jurassic Park/World designs somehow. Many of them even have small inaccuracies, like the pterosaur having scales on its face (no evidence of scales in pterosaurs at the moment) and the deinocheirus having a fleshy snout instead of a beak. But they're all so close to the real thing that they feel right. I even think the therizinosaurus in JW is a good example of being close enough to reality while also not being quite accurate. Yeah the face is really off but everything looks more or less like a therizinosaurus, just not an ACCURATE one. But it does look like an UP TO DATE one. It looks like they looked up modern reference images and molded them to fit JW instead of giving it the parasaurolophus treatment where they seemed to intentionally look up the oldest and worst reference images they could. I really like that they decided to start trying to make some of the dinosaurs more accurate. They didn't do it with all of them... looking at the giga's crocodile teeth... but they tried with some, and I appreciate that
I still want chicken sized raptors.
Thank you for this very informative video! I never considered the genetic side of the dinosaurs of the Jurassic Park franchise. I can now appreciate the dinosaurs I criticized as being inaccurate (according to paleontologists at the time). I still have trouble with the Dilophosaurus though-
Ya know, when I heard that biosyn would be making accurate dinosaur, a fight between an accurate and jp rex was one of the main things I wanted to see in dominion.
Frog, bird and reptile as in the novel. I like the idea using BioSyn to give other versions and variations.
This is a great idea. We could see JP's rexy fight the rex from the Prehistoric Planet doc
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
Accurate to a point
Not so much that they totally break continuity completely, but accurate enough that you dont have situations where the dinosaur bears little to any actual resemblence to the real thing.
Like feathers all over the trex? No
But proto feathers like on the velociraptor of 3? I can take that
Cool video.
Jurassic world could have introduced accurate dinosaurs to show the progression of the genetic manipulation and harvesting more / better sources for DNA. Could have been fun to see them highlight what John Hammond was able to do... and what was possible when the park reopened under new management. But sadly they went less accurate.
Just a question: where do the turntable 3D models come from?
Thanks man! My friend Marco Cavassa. His UA-cam channel is Marco Makes!
@@KlaytonFioriti Thanks for the quick reply. Yeah, know of him. Have been following his channel for years. He does some amazing sculpts. Keep up the great work. :)
10:20, 20:56 This. This is what I want to see. A visual comparison between each company's way of breeding their dinosaurs.
Omg I didn't think anyone else knew about that book!!! Still have mine and love it
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.
I actually love when they add weird stuff like the frill and venom spit of the dilophosaurus, even if it's not scientifically accurate it works really well for the movie imo. I would love to see more creative stuff like that done with new species of dinosaur
An ingen T-rex vs a biosyn T-rex would be awesome.
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.
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.
Klayton I have an idea for you: what if someone who truly understands what a fan wants for a Jurassic park movie. For example: a direct sequel to the original trilogy with an idea that fans would want. Just find someone who wants to listen to the fans and make a movie all fans will love.
It would need to be pulled off so well, jurassic park for me is the original designs and behaviours "theme park monsters" it wouldn't be jurassic park without it
Honestly, I feel like scientific accuracy in media depends on what type of story is being told. If your making a documentary or story that's meant to reflect how dinosaurs were in real life, then it should be scientifically accurate. However if your making a sci-fi/fantasy story, accuracy isn't completely necessary, especially if there's a reason for the inaccuracies within the story (like the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park/World being genetically altered clones or a series like Primal being set in a fantasy world that isn't meant to be a representation of one specific era).
EDIT: i wrote this while ragefull, and didn't read your comment correctly, fill free to ignore my comment if you like. I am trying to let out steam, and i should not lay it on you.
The one problem that I often come back to with that argument, that Dinosaurs can be accurate or not depending on the medium. (Yes the Jurassic Park franchise is an exception in my eyes)
Whenever we see in media any depictions of an animals that exist today, we don't try to make them look like something that they are not. We try (to the best of your abilities) to make them look as they look like. We make sure that (most) mammals have there fur, even if they are turned into Cartoons.
Dinosaurs where animals too. Real creatures that lived there lives just like everything els. The alore of Dinosaurs is that they where real, and we try to make them as UN-real as possible for some reason. Yes, we had little to know information about them in the past, but that is not true anymore.
As long as a creature is not genetically engineered, then I believe there should be no excuses. If you travel to Africa, then you would expect the animals there to be as they are. If you traveled 100 million years back to the planes of Utah, then you would expect rhe animals there to also be as they are.
@@thehalobrony9050 I agree. People should be allowed liberties when designing creatures, especially if they're supposed to be stylized or fantasy versions of them. But that has its limits. You don't remove the mane from a male lion, give it horns, and make it 10x its size and just call it a 'lion' UNLESS you're in a world where EVERY animal is a fantasy version of its real counterpart. If you want to go that far when altering the animal you have to have a lore explanation for it. In this case the explanation is that... well.. it's an alternate universe where animals kind of like ours but not quite exist.
It's normal for movies to take some liberties when designing animals. For example a movie might change the colors of a lion, oversize it a little, make it skinnier than they actually are, or maybe even give it saber teeth. They can do pretty crazy things. But it will always retain the signature features of a lion. Same basic skeletal structure, has fur, has a mane if male, has a cat-like face, etc. I think the same standard should be held to dinosaurs. Just because we don't have an actual living T. rex doesn't mean it's a fictional animal, and so it should be treated how we'd treat a real animal when designing it. Taking liberties in designs is absolutely okay, just don't go overboard and if you do be sure to have a reason for it- even if that reason is as simple as the story being chaotic and having unusual designs. Don't pass it off as a reasonable design when it clearly isn't.
If you make another video, I would like to talk about the biosyn sanctuary and how it's flora works
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
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.
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.
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...
I think they should shoot for it, but a lot of the designs are so iconic and tied to the franchise that there's no going back. I do wish they'd given the JW raptors feathers, since they already gave them unique colors. "You'll never look at birds the same way again."
Honestly it doesn’t seem impossible to make *new* dinosaurs with a more accurate design.
It’s not like Rexy or Blue, previously established dinosaurs, are suddenly gonna grow feathers or have non-pronated wrists. It doesn’t mean Mosasaurus is gonna shrink half her size the next movie. :p
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.
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.
One thing that has always made jurassic more realistic to me is the fact that they didn’t get it right the first time. When your practicing something as complex as genetic enginnering of an extinct species in the early 90’s with early 90’s technology, its not exactly going to be a walk in the park if acheivable at all. The dinosaurs are scientifically accurate, but there not palieontologicaly accurate and both the novel and the movie make it clear that that was intended on purpose.
Thats why I hated the line in Dominion were Ramsey tells Grant and Sattler that they have brought multiple dinosaurs back in there purest form without even touching there genomes.
As you go on into the future when technology advances, it makes sense that the clones become more accurate as you go along, but they should never be 100% accurate ( unless they find another technique that works without filling in the gaps in the genome and you just replicate the whole thing).
If I remeber correctly, in the novel, Hammond and Wu have an argument in his island bungalo when the protagonists are about to take the tour. If my knowledge serves me well then I think it was about Henry thinking that it would be more acceptable in society to engineer the asets in a way that meets the publics expectations, were as Hammond wants them to be as realistic as possible.
Something that may make a very interesting plot point in a future instalment to the franchise.
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.
It would be interesting to see accurate dinosaurs in the future of this franchise though even if they were to do them accurate I think there will be still a divide on what the dinosaurs should look accurate or not.
Well why can’t the newly made dinosaurs be closer to accuracy at the very least? While the older ones remain as they are.
I swear it feels like people worry that if they bring accurate dinosaurs into the picture, that means somehow Blue or Rexy are gonna get sudden radical design changes out of nowhere.
honestly, if not explained well as to why they look different in universe, making it have to change every time that new info comes out, could easily damage or ruin the franchise's popularity and thus basically leave it without the high profile that some feel it should use to spread such things, plus is science fiction, take the fiction out of it and then you just have a documentary
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.
Nah because when something you think you got right but to find out it's inaccurate is always a terrifying experience
I like the idea that the geneticists in the movies are attempting to recreate something close to what they think dinos were like rather than being exactly the same.
I like the idea that a Biosyn Rex might be different from an InGen Rex
Dinosaur is dinosaur, whether Frankensteined together or peleo accurate I want to ride it into the sunset
I would like to see mostly accurate dinosaur's if there's a new movie. It's a pain in eyes that in this moment of the dinosaur research we are still seeing the old naked lizard-like dinosaur depictions, specially for the velociraptor.
I think the first Jurassic park was huge step in the right direction (with some liberties), now we need another movie that can make that step and show dinosaur by what we know about then today
I think something that gets left out of discussions like this is that for a lot of us accuracy fans, it's less about the franchise having a nerdy responsability to educate, and more about accurate dinosaurs being really freakin awesome
Like i find the Prehistoric Planet Triceratops (especially the big male in S2) to be an amazing awe-inspiring majestic animal, while the JW one is a big blob of boredom. To me an accurate Baryonyx is a kickass animal, but the FK one is a lame uninspired croc monster
People talk about the "rule of cool", but to me accuracy IS the cooler version. At least the vast majority of the time
When are you going to try and do live streams when you can talk to the people about Jurassic Park and other movies is stuff like other people do
I really like your videos, are you scientist or how the heck are you so Dino-inclined.
Thanks for the content Klayton.
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.
I like the in universe explaining of why the dinosaurs aren’t usually accurate. However i wish dominion had more accuracy, at the very least where the dinosaurs lived, in the prologue. Before that it made the dinosaurs more timeless no matter how far our understanding of how dinosaurs looks comes.
In my humble opinion, OG model InGen dinos can have that look as being an unfortunate byproduct of the technological limitations of their time and how they were “Recreated”. Modern reanimated ones can look more accurate sure, but if they’re still based on that InGen method then there should be some abnormality, kind of like an iconic car design so you can look at a silouhette and immediately know the makers
I think the movies framing is perfect. They are clones and many did not have a complete genome so they had to splice it with other animals/amphibians in order to complete the holes in the dna. So they aren’t “pure” but an amalgamation. While this is a cool narrative it also is smart on the writers part as to give an answer to questions like this made later as we learn more about Dino’s that might conflict with the book/movie.
So yeah they don’t have to adhere strictly with what we know about dinosaurs but I think they do their best to.
No they are genetically engineered theme park monsters they where meant to be inaccurate, and besides even the experts are still making an educated GUESS, meaning they still have to imagine what it might have looked like
Exactly
Even real life clones wouldn't be same to what they were, for example the mammoth clone wouldn't be pure, it would be mammoth/Asian elephant hybrid because it's not easy to make a pure version with our current genetic engineering technology.
@@kavehthephantomboy exactly, making them accurate would just ruin the entire point of Jurassic World ENTIRELY and would just back stab the original routes of Jurassic Park
Then why did biosyn straight up say they made their dinosaurs “true to life” in Dominion?
Why did the Cretaceous prologue feature dinosaurs that looked no different from their genetically made descendants? Meanwhile Henry Wu said “Jurassic World’s dinosaurs were never natural.”
At this point they clearly just don’t give a shit about consistency in their arguments.
@@yuyaricachimuel555 until you realise that Pyroraptor and Therizinosaurus still have pronated wrists, Pyroraptor is still oversized and both have inaccurate proportions and anatomy to their real life counterpart
You need to realise that feathers doesn’t always mean accurate, also they didn’t purposely make them look like the dinosaurs in the movies, most likely due to either the budget or Jurassic World didn’t want to keep this an accurate dinosaur film
And also realise that their still INACCURATE in the prologue, so if their no different from their genetic clones, then their still inaccurate at the end of the day, case closed
Maybe the population should have been a pivotal plot point of Jurassic Park 3
I Love Jurassic Park When I Was A Little Kid
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.
The thing is, in-universe, the dinosaur dna they found was "repaired" to make them look the way they thought they'd look. So it already makes sense for the dinosaurs to look less like the real animals and more like what those were thought to look like when they were created. And then there are those that are just bizarre monstrosities - Dilophosaurus, but more egregiously, Giganotosaurus. Interesting thing about the Dilo: The poison spitting is fine, their organs for doing so seem to be completely soft tissue located in the throat and would not show in the fossil record. So, there is some leeway.
What would be really cool would be if the dna yields species unknown to science. That would make a lot of sense to discover a new species this way, there they could go wild.
Also, now that the technology is out, a small company taking pride in recreating accurate animals but failing financially because they are considered boring would be a fun bit of worldbuilding.
I always thought instead of the military idea maybe biosyn could've cloned different more realistic dinosaurs for breakthroughs in medicine. It would give a reason for them even being around since we know the park doesn't work. And obviously over time they would've became an invasive species replacing current animals changing environments and things like that. It would also drive a wedge in keeping them around or destroying them all. Maybe something in a triceratops frill can help with dementia or something 😂🤷🏽♂️