Jurassic Park Series

[DoomRulz]

Agreed on the Rex/Trike fight.

I know it's just a movie and complaining about accuracy is fool-hardy but something that is so blatant as the Rex/Spino fight is hard to glance over. It's not like changing the look of the animal ever-so slightly to suit the film.

[ScardyFox]

Size isn't the issue. The issue is that T.Rex had a stronger bite force.

durr

have you ever tried to punch someone that is five feet taller than you?

Yep.

Would you even care about the bite force if you weren't fawning over the T. Rex? I don't think so.

Yep.

Size has nothing to do with it.

Spinosaurus jaws were designed for eating fish, no where near having the strength to break the neck of a Tyrannosaurus, which did indeed have the greatest jaw power of any land creature.

Yes, it is my favourite dinosaur, and yes the movie did make me a little angry when I was younger. But really, the scientific evidence supports in favor of the T-Rex.

They should have had a Triceratops vs T-Rex fight, would have been much more interesting.

Spot on.


As for the size issue, thats a lot less relevant in the animal world. 30 pound honey badger chasing off a lion, Wolverines chasing off bears/wolves, American badger doing the same, etc. Counts more for humans because we're the same species - less so for animals because they have different characteristics that supersede another animals.

Such as have a far superior bite force.

[coolbreeze]

Size isn't the issue. The issue is that T.Rex had a stronger bite force.

durr

have you ever tried to punch someone that is five feet taller than you?

Yep.

Would you even care about the bite force if you weren't fawning over the T. Rex? I don't think so.

Yep.

Size has nothing to do with it.

Spinosaurus jaws were designed for eating fish, no where near having the strength to break the neck of a Tyrannosaurus, which did indeed have the greatest jaw power of any land creature.

Yes, it is my favourite dinosaur, and yes the movie did make me a little angry when I was younger. But really, the scientific evidence supports in favor of the T-Rex.

They should have had a Triceratops vs T-Rex fight, would have been much more interesting.

Spot on.


As for the size issue, thats a lot less relevant in the animal world. 30 pound honey badger chasing off a lion, Wolverines chasing off bears/wolves, American badger doing the same, etc. Counts more for humans because we're the same species - less so for animals because they have different characteristics that supersede another animals.

Such as have a far superior bite force.

And Aspie has a far superior suck force?

[ScardyFox]

Size isn't the issue. The issue is that T.Rex had a stronger bite force.

durr

have you ever tried to punch someone that is five feet taller than you?

Yep.

Would you even care about the bite force if you weren't fawning over the T. Rex? I don't think so.

Yep.

Size has nothing to do with it.

Spinosaurus jaws were designed for eating fish, no where near having the strength to break the neck of a Tyrannosaurus, which did indeed have the greatest jaw power of any land creature.

Yes, it is my favourite dinosaur, and yes the movie did make me a little angry when I was younger. But really, the scientific evidence supports in favor of the T-Rex.

They should have had a Triceratops vs T-Rex fight, would have been much more interesting.

Spot on.


As for the size issue, thats a lot less relevant in the animal world. 30 pound honey badger chasing off a lion, Wolverines chasing off bears/wolves, American badger doing the same, etc. Counts more for humans because we're the same species - less so for animals because they have different characteristics that supersede another animals.

Such as have a far superior bite force.

And Aspie has a far superior suck force?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf_KrGP61uo#

Spoiler

[close]

[Remonster]

I was pissed when the Spinosaurus killed my favorite dinosaur from the previous two movies. If that makes me a fanboy, then yeah, no shit I'm a fan boy.

At least build up to a fight, instead of just killing off the Tyrannosaur right when they get to the island. Pacing was a big issue for me in that movie.

[Alien³]

I didn't mind the Tyrannosaurus dying because I assume its the young Rex seen in TLW, which doesn't bother me. The other two adult Rex's should still be alive.

[Dovahkiin]

Keep spouting that fanboyism...

Or, keep spouting that science...

What I was just about to say. Try doing a little research on the feeding habits of the two carnivores, KiramidHead. You might just learn something. 

[OmegaZilla]

The thing about this is, however, that Jurassic Park never was a series with all scientific facts straight. Yes, it was the first film with mostly anatomically correct Dinosaurs. However, the first film alone, for example, had a Dilophosaurus with a completely fictional neck frill (without considering the Utahraptor/Deinonychus/Velociraptor issue); the second had a questionably powerful Triceratops; and that's not all of it in the very least.

Resorting to Scientific facts and how things actually are in the specific case of the third film, as an argument, is devoid of actual use. The first film did not pose the question of whether it should have its liberties or not; it just did. Why should the third film consider something that its predecessors did not?

Narrative over Scientific fact. Same concept.

Yes, they've changed the Raptor design, making it closer to more recent theories; Horner however went "I AM SCIENCE" mode, during the production of the first film, only when it was about Raptors using their tongues like Lizards or Snakes. Otherwise he let the guys put a frilled Dilophosaurus -- and in the third film itself, he allowed toothed Pteranodons.

The problem in this case arises because it is about the Tyrannosaurus -- fan favourite of just about everyone, myself included -- being killed by another Dinosaur. It is completely ok not to be really happy about it. I myself am not, and would enjoy the third film way more had it not happened.

What you can question is the intention behind the infamous fight. Narratively, the purpose of the scene was to show that the Spinosaurus is the brand new badass villain. To achieve this, they made it brutally defeat the former 'Dragon'. They could've done that a countless other ways, but they chose that [maybe because Horner has a particular resentment towards Tyrannosaurus; I don't want to know]. That can be legitimately criticized. Scientifically inaccurate? I've already covered that. It's a senseless criticism.

Besides the fact that you can get away with all of the inaccuracies by just saying the Dinosaurs are mutants. Just like in the book (which is something that most critics don't get: the Dilophosaurus has venom because it's a freaking mutant with reptile and amphibian DNA).

And in this particular case, you could also theorize that this particular T.Rex had some kind of anatomic imperfection, perhaps it had weak jaw muscles, or what have you.

[DoomRulz]

The thing about this is, however, that Jurassic Park never was a series with all scientific facts straight. Yes, it was the first film with mostly anatomically correct Dinosaurs. However, the first film alone, for example, had a Dilophosaurus with a completely fictional neck frill (without considering the Utahraptor/Deinonychus/Velociraptor issue); the second had a questionably powerful Triceratops; and that's not all of it in the very least.

Not really, it only had anatomically dinosaurs relative to other dinosaur movies. The dinos in JP are anything but anatomically correct. As for the second film and its Trike, how do you mean questionably powerful?

Resorting to Scientific facts and how things actually are in the specific case of the third film, as an argument, is devoid of actual use. The first film did not pose the question of whether it should have its liberties or not; it just did. Why should the third film consider something that its predecessors did not?

I still question the scientific validity of the first film, but because the overall package is excellent, I don't get as uppity about it. Doesn't help the third film when it sucks so much.

Yes, they've changed the Raptor design, making it closer to more recent theories; Horner however went "I AM SCIENCE" mode, during the production of the first film, only when it was about Raptors using their tongues like Lizards or Snakes. Otherwise he let the guys put a frilled Dilophosaurus -- and in the third film itself, he allowed toothed Pteranodons.

The toothed Pteranodons bug the heck out of me, as I made it clear on the previous page I think it was.

What you can question is the intention behind the infamous fight. Narratively, the purpose of the scene was to show that the Spinosaurus is the brand new badass villain. To achieve this, they made it brutally defeat the former 'Dragon'. They could've done that a countless other ways, but they chose that [maybe because Horner has a particular resentment towards Tyrannosaurus; I don't want to know]. That can be legitimately criticized. Scientifically inaccurate? I've already covered that. It's a senseless criticism.

He does. He actually went on record once (damned if I can find the quote right now though) and said he hates T.Rex and refuses to accept that it was a legitimate hunter.

And in this particular case, you could also theorize that this particular T.Rex had some kind of anatomic imperfection, perhaps it had weak jaw muscles, or what have you.

That's a real stretch. Yes you can argue all dinosaurs in the film were genetically engineered for obvious reasons, but the above I have a hard time buying.

[OmegaZilla]

Not really, it only had anatomically dinosaurs relative to other dinosaur movies.

Which is why I said 'mostly'.

As for the second film and its Trike, how do you mean questionably powerful?

It threw the jeep on that tree.

Unless I don't remember correctly and it was something else.

In that case shame on me for not remembering something from one of the films I am most affectioned to. The Lost World, mind you. Goodness.   

I still question the scientific validity of the first film, but because the overall package is excellent, I don't get as uppity about it. Doesn't help the third film when it sucks so much.

The third film may suck, but that really shouldn't come into matter. Fact is, it had all the rights to narratively do what it wanted without having accuracy as a restraint. We may question the necessity for it, which is right about zero (since the same effect could have been achieved with other narrative devices), but we cannot say it sucks because it's scientifically wrong or unlikely.

He does. He actually went on record once (damned if I can find the quote right now though) and said he hates T.Rex and refuses to accept that it was a legitimate hunter.

Holy shit and he's the Paleontological supervisor for all three films. This paired with the stuff he says on the behind the scenes featurettes about a carnivore's length being directly proportional to its savagery is right about spectacular.

That's a real stretch. Yes you can argue all dinosaurs in the film were genetically engineered for obvious reasons, but the above I have a hard time buying.

Best I can offer. It's that or Super-Necked Spinosaurus really. Which would be sillier.

[Vertigo]

Sorry for the multi-quote post. I'm not trying to be combative or anything, Omega just made a very good and broad-ranging post.

The thing about this is, however, that Jurassic Park never was a series with all scientific facts straight. Yes, it was the first film with mostly anatomically correct Dinosaurs. However, the first film alone, for example, had a Dilophosaurus with a completely fictional neck frill (without considering the Utahraptor/Deinonychus/Velociraptor issue); the second had a questionably powerful Triceratops; and that's not all of it in the very least.

Part of the explanation for Dilophosaurus' frill is that many dinosaurs will have had ornamentations we have no idea about, which are too fleshy or delicate to survive the fossilisation process. Anyone digging us up in the future probably wouldn't realise we have ears or fingernails, for example (or that my genitals are so unfeasibly vast). Dilophosaurus, being an apex predator, had about as much use for a frill as a tiger has for a purple mohawk, but it raises the point and makes you think.
Dilophosaurus was one of the more unusually-adorned dinosaurs known at the time, so there's some sense to the choice.
What does bother me enormously about that sequence in Jurassic Park is the baby dinosaur attacking and killing something three times larger than itself... But that goes back to your point about how the series has played fast and loose with scientific accuracy from the outset.

May I ask what you mean by the questionably powerful Triceratops? It was a ridiculously muscular and heavily-built animal. I'm having trouble remembering that part of TLW though.
:edit: Oh, are you talking about how that car is mysteriously thrown up a hill to the tall tree Roland and Ajay are hiding in? Questionable is certainly the word there.
:Edit: I edited that before the final edit. Just for the record. Edd... it. Ed-eet? Weird word.

Yes, they've changed the Raptor design, making it closer to more recent theories; Horner however went "I AM SCIENCE" mode, during the production of the first film, only when it was about Raptors using their tongues like Lizards or Snakes. Otherwise he let the guys put a frilled Dilophosaurus -- and in the third film itself, he allowed toothed Pteranodons.

The weird thing about the JP3 raptor redesign was that it wasn't remotely based on any evidence - it was like someone had heard "dromaeosaurids had feathers!" and imagined how that might look. I think we had a pretty good idea of raptor feather configurations at the time, yet it wasn't used for the film. I will say though that I'm mildly skeptical of Utahraptor/Achillobator-sized coelurosaurs being fully feathered in warm climates.

As for JP3, I vaguely remember Jack Horner disavowing the production at some point. Not sure how much influence he had on that one (I might be thinking of TLW, which had its fair share of head-scratchers too).
Not that Horner is an entirely positive exerter of influence anyway... he's done a hell of a lot to advance the science, and he's remained an interesting discussion-provoker throughout his life, but I often get the impression he likes to be controversial for the sake of it, and he's occasionally proven not to be sufficiently au fait with extant animal behaviour (which is probably how the monstrously predatory baby Dilophosaurus got in there...).

Besides the fact that you can get away with all of the inaccuracies by just saying the Dinosaurs are mutants. Just like in the book (which is something that most critics don't get: the Dilophosaurus has venom because it's a freaking mutant with reptile and amphibian DNA).

That's more something which has been used as an excuse after the fact. The only things I can think of which were written as mutations were the changing genders, and lab-grown raptors being unable to change colour (and even the latter wasn't explicitly stated as such, I'm making the assumption).
Dilophosaurs were written as venomous because at the time, it was believed their jaws were too weak to have been useful killing tools (and they did have very long upper teeth); it's another example of something that wouldn't have fossilised (though NOW we do have possible evidence of a venomous dinosaur in Sinornithosaurus).

I think someone earlier in the thread mentioned the unexpected Cearadactyl aggression in regards to mutation, that's an example of Crichton making the point that we'd NEVER know exactly what to expect from extinct lifeforms. There would always be surprises.
The other 'mutation' that gets thrown around a lot is the rex's amphibian vision; that was actually a consequence of very early attempts at reconstructing dinosaur braincases. They somehow managed to produce data that large dinosaurs' senses would have functioned similar to amphibians' (ironic given that Tyrannosaurus has since been indicated to have had one of the best batteries of senses of any land animal). Crichton loved to stuff his books with the very most cutting-edge science and theory (particularly Jurassic Park), unfortunately a lot of it has since been disproven. That's the cutting edge for you, I guess.


:Edit: Gah, Ninja'd. Well I'm not editing it, it's a long arse bloody post.

[OmegaZilla]

Part of the explanation for Dilophosaurus' frill is that many dinosaurs will have had ornamentations we have no idea about, which are too fleshy or delicate to survive the fossilisation process.

Absolutely, but a frill is completely speculative.
As would be, say, very resistant Spinosaurus skin.

Mind you I am not complaining about it in the very least. I love the frilled Dilophosaurus and I love how it plays out in the film.

What does bother me enormously about that sequence in Jurassic Park is the baby dinosaur attacking and killing something three times larger than itself... But that goes back to your point about how the series has played fast and loose with scientific accuracy from the outset.

Doesn't bother me at all, in-keeping that I consider all of them mutant Dinosaurs fundamentally (they inherited the ability to change sex from the frog DNA; no reason to think that, or the incomplete DNA by itself affected them, atavically speaking). Pretty brave indeed for a youngling. But, as you say... played it fast and loose.

:edit: Oh, are you talking about how that car is mysteriously thrown up a hill to the tall tree Roland and Ajay are hiding in? Questionable is certainly the word there.

Well yes, I remember that it threw the car up there.

Unless it was the Pachy. That pesky Pachy.

The weird thing about the JP3 raptor redesign was that it wasn't remotely based on any evidence - it was like someone had heard "dromaeosaurids had feathers!" and imagined how that might look. I think we had a pretty good idea of raptor feather configurations at the time, yet it wasn't used for the film. I will say though that I'm mildly skeptical of Utahraptor/Achillobator-sized coelurosaurs being fully feathered in warm climates.

Agreed 100%.
Yes also on the Utahraptor/Achillobator part. Which would apply to bigger theropods too.

but I often get the impression he likes to be controversial for the sake of it,

I somehow do too.

That's more something which has been used as an excuse after the fact. The only things I can think of which were written as mutations were the changing genders, and lab-grown raptors being unable to change colour (and even the latter wasn't explicitly stated as such, I'm making the assumption).

I also remember the 'Compies' having 'five-fingered hands that made them very human-like', or something like that. Unless the translator [I read the italian translation] f**ked shit up.

Plus there was, I think, a discussion -- between Hammond and Wu? I don't remember -- about how they could possibly modify further their Dinosaurs, since they were already not exact reproductions of the extinct animals.

Dilophosaurs were written as venomous because at the time, it was believed their jaws were too weak to have been useful killing tools (and they did have very long upper teeth); it's another example of something that wouldn't have fossilised (though NOW we do have possible evidence of a venomous dinosaur in Sinornithosaurus).

Oh yes. Sorry, used the wrong example.

Crichton loved to stuff his books with the very most cutting-edge science and theory (particularly Jurassic Park), unfortunately a lot of it has since been disproven. That's the cutting edge for you, I guess.

Yup! Also the reason he used the Velociraptor antirrhopus classification, no?

[Vertigo]

That's more something which has been used as an excuse after the fact. The only things I can think of which were written as mutations were the changing genders, and lab-grown raptors being unable to change colour (and even the latter wasn't explicitly stated as such, I'm making the assumption).

I also remember the 'Compies' having 'five-fingered hands that made them very human-like', or something like that. Unless the translator [I read the italian translation] f**ked shit up.

Plus there was, I think, a discussion -- between Hammond and Wu? I don't remember -- about how they could possibly modify further their Dinosaurs, since they were already not exact reproductions of the extinct animals.

They way I remember it was that the compies were described as having three-toed, bird-like feet, with the emphasis on the bird similarity as that was still a highly controversial subject (despite poor John Ostrom arguing for it for twenty years). I don't remember a human similarity being mentioned, and I don't remember a description of their hands (though that could be my memory at fault).

With the latter part, the point in that chapter was that they'd re-created the actual animals, and Wu wanted to modify them; Hammond was against it. I'd imagine he regretted that.

Crichton loved to stuff his books with the very most cutting-edge science and theory (particularly Jurassic Park), unfortunately a lot of it has since been disproven. That's the cutting edge for you, I guess.

Yup! Also the reason he used the Velociraptor Antirrhopus classification, no?

Exactly. Gregory Paul (whose book I'm reading at the moment, it's tremendous - though unsurprisingly he's with Horner on the synonymising of Triceratops and Torosaurus, and gets a bit frothy-mouthed on the subject of taxonomy) and a couple of other researchers theorised that Deinonychus antirrhopus and Velociraptor mongoliensis represented species of the same genus shortly before Crichton wrote the book (using the latter name as it was discovered first, though Deinonychus was the more popularly-known and scientifically important taxon).

I assume they didn't have much evidence of Deinonychus' skull at the time, because it really should have been immediately obvious that they were totally different creatures... Not to mention that they inhabited separate continents, which didn't have a large or long-term connection at the time as far as I know. Needless to say, it was debunked very quickly.

Another point about Deinonychus is that we used to think it was a lot taller than it actually was, its legs turned out to be surprisingly short. Still had the mass and tools to be one hell of a predator though, and was almost certainly a pack hunter in my opinion.

[ScardyFox]

He does. He actually went on record once (damned if I can find the quote right now though) and said he hates T.Rex and refuses to accept that it was a legitimate hunter.

Once, he's said that many times. It makes me wonder though if he still holds onto that assertion after all the evidence that has come out in the past decade.

[OmegaZilla]

Vertigo;

Checked and it seems that the original version (summed up in the link) also features the five-fingered Compys.

About the Hammond-Wu discussion, that was my memory being faulty. Again. Yesss.

Regarding the Deinonychus skull issue instead; I remember that in the 60s-70s the only had parts (postorbital I think) of the skull available, but have no idea when a complete or almost-complete skull was discovered.

Are you reading The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs? or is it another book I am not aware of?