Dinosaur fanatics could be in for a big disappointment when Jurassic World hits the big screen in a few weeks.
The keenly awaited Spielberg blockbuster has come in for criticism from dinosaur experts who claim the creatures depicted in the film are not in line with the latest research.
Unlike the 1993 original, which was praised for its attention to detail and accuracy, the new film shows portrays its Tyrannosaurus Rex and velociraptors all wrong.
Darren Naish, a paleontologist at Southhampton University told The Times: "The original film showed dinosaurs that were not simply roaring, scaly monsters but were active, social, bird-like animals with dynamic bodies."
Universal/American Museum of Natural History Dinosaur fanatics could be in for a big disappointment when Jurassic World hits the big screen in a few weeks.
The keenly awaited Spielberg blockbuster has come in for criticism from dinosaur experts who claim the creatures depicted in the film are not in line with the latest research.
Unlike the 1993 original, which was praised for its attention to detail and accuracy, the new film shows portrays its Tyrannosaurus Rex and velociraptors all wrong.
Darren Naish, a paleontologist at Southhampton University told The Times: "The original film showed dinosaurs that were not simply roaring, scaly monsters but were active, social, bird-like animals with dynamic bodies."
Experts have blasted the film for not being true to science
"Now, Jurassic World is simply a dumb monster movie and there has been a deliberate effort to make its animals look different from the way we think they should."
Research now shows pretty conclusively that the T-Rex and the Velociraptor would have had FEATHERS.
But film-makers clearly chose to play it safe and keep them scaly, as most people know and imagine them to be.
Out of all the things that are likely to be wrong with this movie, complaining about the dinosaurs not having feathers is silly.
1) Whether it's realistic or not, they didn't have feathers in the first movie. As a work of fiction, it's probably more important to maintain consistency within the series than to keep up with new scientific discoveries.
2) And regardless, the dinosaurs were never "pure" in the first place. It has clearly been established that lizard and frog DNA has been spliced into the dinosaurs' gene sequence in order to fill in the gaps. So all it would take is one line of dialogue to explain that the reason the dinosaurs don't have feathers is because their genome has been altered.
While I did stated that the Feathers on Dinosaurs is a letdown when I said that on Jurassic World Trailer thread, they had every opportunity to correct that mistake but the first Jurassic Park get's away cause the discovery of Feathers wasn't around when the first movie was release. That said, I'm still gonna go see Jurassic World only because we haven't had a Dinosaur movie in years and I'm already tired of Zombies, Apocalyptic, and almost superheros movies as it is. Dinosaurs is a good sign to see something decent.
From day one, the Velociraptors have looked nothing like they should.
Not to mention this film also features a test tube dinosaur. Of course anyone will be disappointed if they go into it looking for realism (at least as far as our understanding of 65+ million year old reptiles is concerned).
As far as every other aspect of the movie goes though, we'll just have to see.
From day one, the Velociraptors have looked nothing like they should.
Not to mention this film also features a test tube dinosaur. Of course anyone will be disappointed if they go into it looking for realism (at least as far as our understanding of 65+ million year old reptiles is concerned).
As far as every other aspect of the movies goes though, we'll just have to see.
This^^^
The Raptors were never really accurate at all.
I'm still going to see it but my concerns is the comic relief.
This may turn out to be the case, but there's the possibility that paleontologists are malcontent. Maybe Spielberg sidestepped them or placed them later in the credits. Maybe he didn't indulge them enough who knows at this point.
Considering the first 3 movies use non-feathered dinosaurs it wouldn't make sense to make these one's feathered. The first one wasn't scientifically accurate so it stands to reason this one won't be either. And it doesn't matter because the 1st Jurassic park was great!
What they had as Velociraptor more closely resembled Deinonychus, I did an oral report concerning dinosaurs and feathers that touched on this for Paleontology class in the mid-90's.
Meh, these just seem like petty complaints. I'm still eager to see this movie to see how interesting it can be, and to also enjoy it. So what if some scientific evidence might be off.
@ AFBrat77 "I did an oral report concerning dinosaurs and feathers that touched on this for Paleontology class in the mid-90's."
Did you pass?
@MrGeezer: 1) "Whether it's realistic or not, they didn't have feathers in the first movie. As a work of fiction, it's probably more important to maintain consistency within the series than to keep up with new scientific discoveries."
I agree with this. Having feathers would look out if place despite new research.
However, feathers or not, it still headed towards a "dumb monster movie"
Don't really mind the inaccuracies in regards to dinosaur depictions. I do feel like this is going to be another "big monster action" movie and won't feel anything like the first one.
If they put effort in, they probably could have come up with a reason to add feathers, since they were scientifically augmented. That would involve assuming the audience isn't stupid.
Personally, like the fellow said above, I'd love to see them done with feathers, they look pretty cool in concept drawings.
The accuracy of the dinosaurs are the least of the problems, the movie looks like a dumbass summer movie with no semblance of coherent plotline, story meaning, or characters.. I got that from watching the first 30 seconds of a trailer, you know the promotional thing that is suppose to make the movie look amazing? Well they fucked up on that too.
To be fair, guys, the first one was mostly schlock.
I mean, they included the bare minimum of Crichton's science from the book in it, a few portions of his speudo-science to tie the actual science and the premise together, and then let the dinosaurs run rampant.
The second and third did even less.
I'm OK with that. I was a bona-fide dinosaur nut at the time, and I didn't care that the velociraptors weren't accurate. I was having too much fun whispering to my parents in the next seat, "That's actually a deinonychus, but they probably hunted in packs, too." :-P
In my mind, the series is more about creating a sense of wonder and interest in science than being a documentary. They'll figure out all the technicalities once they start reading about dinosaurs after the movies have sparked their interest. Let the kids have fun.
Umm. I'm not watching this movie or expecting it to be a documentary based on 100% facts and truths about dinosaurs and their realism (if that's what I wanted I'd watch the discovery channel). It's a fantasy movie to me and I don't care if there's a dinosaur with a chicken head attached to it's body, I'll still watch it.
I like how every year dinosaurs seem to change according to new findings.. I'll keep my dinos without feathers..thanks..and the movies are based on some reality. Sure they are movies..but..done with some of our actual knowledge..this movie will be epic..
Umm. I'm not watching this movie or expecting it to be a documentary based on 100% facts and truths about dinosaurs and their realism (if that's what I wanted I'd watch the discovery channel). It's a fantasy movie to me and I don't care if there's a dinosaur with a chicken head attached to it's body, I'll still watch it.
I don't think that stuff is on the discovery channel anymore :P
In my mind, the series is more about creating a sense of wonder and interest in science than being a documentary. They'll figure out all the technicalities once they start reading about dinosaurs after the movies have sparked their interest. Let the kids have fun.
And this is the biggest reason why this series annoys the hell out of me. The first Jurassic Park movie, IMO, actually had a sense of wonder about it. I think that's a very big part of why that movie worked and why I still love it. The dinosaur monster action/horror was good, and some of it was just superbly done (that T-rex attack at night is damn near close to perfection). But without all of that stuff being held together with the awe and discovery of this being a place that even exists, it just comes off as people getting eaten by monsters.
I mean, the other movies had some thrilling action scenes in them, but they lacked that sense of discovery. So they just came off as kind of "bleh". As if "I guess they're kind of okay, but I don't see the reason for this even existing." And since it's inherently gonna be hard to get that same sense of awe and discovery out of sequels, I maintain that this is a series that should have just been one movie. Granted, I guess it's possible that the new movie brings back that sense of awe and wonder, but I find that highly unlikely. Particularly since the actual CHARACTERS live in a world in which actual living breathing dinosaurs has become so mundane that they have to start making fake dinosaurs just to get anyone to give a shit. If the PEOPLE in this fictional world have become that bored of a world which contains real live dinosaurs, then I don't have high hopes that I as the viewer am going to get a very good sense of awe and discovery.
The first Jurassic Park wasn't really a dumb movie. It fleshes out the characters motives and concepts behind the park. About 1/3 of it is John Hammond trying to convince them that is it ethically correct, with him having good intentions of creating a sense of wonder, with Ian Malcom spouting out gold lines as retorts. It has lots of great intelligent scenes, like when they (in 1 second) destroy John Hammonds Wizard of Oz illusion by getting out of his tour seats an going behind the curtain. All the special dinosaur effects and chase scenes wouldn't mean shit without any of that core; It would basically be a slightly better Transformers movie
Consistency > realism in this case. Not to mention, who goes and watch any of the JP movies looking for a documentary?
Exactly!!! It is partly in fact that those who enjoyed the first ones have waited all these years for a new one. It's the same reason I watch Sharknado... do I really think sharks are going to kill people by being thrown around in a tornado? No but it was fun to watch!
Exactly!!! It is partly in fact that those who enjoyed the first ones have waited all these years for a new one. It's the same reason I watch Sharknado... do I really think sharks are going to kill people by being thrown around in a tornado? No but it was fun to watch!
Shark tornadoes are fully aware of how ridiculous they are so they use your disbelief in them to attack you when you least expect it. Laugh if you will but don't say I didn't warn you...
@korvus: "Shark tornadoes are fully aware of how ridiculous they are so they use your disbelief in them to attack you when you least expect it. Laugh if you will but don't say I didn't warn you..."
If we're going to talk about realism, then I'm concerned how is this park can still get its license to operate despite the major mishaps from the previous two movies?
@MrGeezer said:
@mattbbpl said:
In my mind, the series is more about creating a sense of wonder and interest in science than being a documentary. They'll figure out all the technicalities once they start reading about dinosaurs after the movies have sparked their interest. Let the kids have fun.
And this is the biggest reason why this series annoys the hell out of me. The first Jurassic Park movie, IMO, actually had a sense of wonder about it. I think that's a very big part of why that movie worked and why I still love it. The dinosaur monster action/horror was good, and some of it was just superbly done (that T-rex attack at night is damn near close to perfection). But without all of that stuff being held together with the awe and discovery of this being a place that even exists, it just comes off as people getting eaten by monsters.
I mean, the other movies had some thrilling action scenes in them, but they lacked that sense of discovery. So they just came off as kind of "bleh". As if "I guess they're kind of okay, but I don't see the reason for this even existing." And since it's inherently gonna be hard to get that same sense of awe and discovery out of sequels, I maintain that this is a series that should have just been one movie. Granted, I guess it's possible that the new movie brings back that sense of awe and wonder, but I find that highly unlikely. Particularly since the actual CHARACTERS live in a world in which actual living breathing dinosaurs has become so mundane that they have to start making fake dinosaurs just to get anyone to give a shit. If the PEOPLE in this fictional world have become that bored of a world which contains real live dinosaurs, then I don't have high hopes that I as the viewer am going to get a very good sense of awe and discovery.
I agree it should just be a one off movie rather than stretching it into sequeIs, I think that's because for 1993 the movie visual effect was innovative and just top notch. I still remember watching the "making of" feature of Jurassic Park and just got blown away by the scale of animatronics that these guys was doing, and it would be almost impossible to come up with something that innovative for every sequel.
Log in to comment