Paleontologists Slam Jurassic World For Its Glaring Errors

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Dear Paleontologists, scientists and nerds that think too much....how do you know dinosaurs couldn't open doors? Were you there? I hope that, when we finally recreate one in a lab, it immediately wakes up and starts running around opening doors. :)

They argue that while the film has helped renew interest in dinosaurs, the plot provides a bizarre notion of how creatures lived in the Jurassic era. Among the most cited inaccuracies are how T-Rex can't see you if you stay perfectly still, and how Velociraptors can open doors.
Click to expand...
 
Trying to make this spoiler free so pardon it's vagueness.
My problem as a Mechanical engineer is that they were talking about something having thermal vision like snakes and it being able to see them through glass....

Infrared Radiation is reflected by glass, so I highly doubt something that sees infrared radiation could see people through glass.
 
Balkroth said:
Trying to make this spoiler free so pardon it's vagueness.
My problem as a Mechanical engineer is that they were talking about something having thermal vision like snakes and it being able to see them through glass....

Infrared Radiation is reflected by glass, so I highly doubt something that sees infrared radiation could see people through glass.
Click to expand...

MAYBE IT WAS A SPECIAL DINO INFRARED RADIATION VISION MISTAR NAYSAYER!!!




;)
 
Word is they didn't even use real dinosaurs, but simply used green screens to edit off the wings off of the dragons that starred in Game of Thrones.
 
Steve said:
MAYBE IT WAS A SPECIAL DINO INFRARED RADIATION VISION MISTAR NAYSAYER!!!




;)
Click to expand...

I was going to post about how it is potentially possible that it can see the wavelengths that sneak through certain types of glass, but then I realized Dinosaurs might eat me.
 
Ducman69 said:
Word is they didn't even use real dinosaurs, but simply used green screens to edit off the wings off of the dragons that starred in Game of Thrones.
Click to expand...

Lets be honest here, that last dragon was nothing to write home about...
 
nightanole said:
Lets be honest here, that last dragon was nothing to write home about...
Click to expand...
I thought his performance was quite convincing, especially the roar. Although admittedly it did seem a little forced and overly politically correct that they chose a black dragon to portray Drogon, as it was actually race swapped from the white dragon in the book.
 
I love how they state that Ankylosaurs wouldn't club the gyrosphere around because they are plant eaters.... Obviously they forgot that the tail club is used as a defensive weapon, and the scene in the film where the sphere is being clubbed around is during a scene where the Indominous Rex is attacking the Ankylosaurs & the sphere is in the middle of it!!!

Sounds like sour grapes from the palaeontologists that did not get asked to be part of the film where others did........
 
Isn't that why they call it a movie rather than a documentary ... I am pretty sure the average action hero couldn't mow down rows of bad guys as easily as they do ... also fairly certain it isn't quite as easy to split an asteroid hours before impact like an egg and have it whiz on by the Earth ... finally I suspect that the laws of physics being what they are we wouldn't have some of the exotic movements we see in space movies (let alone all those explosions) ... but how boring would cinema be if everything was a BBC documentary
 
Um...enjoy the movie or don't watch it. That's just as bad as the convention people for like Star Track where they're getting Mark Hamill's autograph and while he's signing they're asking some random nitpicky technical question about how the reactor in the puddle jumper shouldn't have allowed it to emit enough power to go to the center of the Earth to deflect the tractor beam coming from the Death Star's phaser gun.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Um...enjoy the movie or don't watch it. That's just as bad as the convention people for like Star Track where they're getting Mark Hamill's autograph and while he's signing they're asking some random nitpicky technical question about how the reactor in the puddle jumper shouldn't have allowed it to emit enough power to go to the center of the Earth to deflect the tractor beam coming from the Death Star's phaser gun.
Click to expand...

Impressive Creepy ... combining at least three Science fiction franchises into a single post does take a modicum of skill :p
 
Boo fricking hoo..It's a dinosaur action movie that in this case isn't even based on a book. This is seriously as petty as watching transformers and complaining the girl wasn't hot enough when the only thing you went to watch in the first place was Giant robots and big explosions. There is only one question you ask at a movie like this, Did you get to See frickin dinosaurs Rampaging all over technology? Yes? Then shut up.

Here I prepared this video that sums up my feelings perfectly. (I didn't actually do this it is just a link).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEizJ-TWua0
 
Yeah I hate it when my sci-fi films about giant living dinosaurs that were created in an island turned theme park/laboratory running around terrorizing and eating people aren't realistic.
 
These paleontologists run around with an entirely imaginary prehistoric world whirling in their thoughts. Some of them think dinos had scales, some others think they had feathers, etc. But to them it isn't imaginary at all--they've convinced themselves of the sanctity of their visions of the past so that they believe their theories are facts. I never forget that these are the same folks who find an ape tooth or a finger-bone or an isolated jawbone and build an entire skeleton of "the missing link" around them--or make sweeping generalizations about cro-magnons, etc. ad infinitum. The fossil record is unfortunately nowhere near as rich as their imaginations...As such, they've no right at all to slam a fictional movie which doesn't pretend to be anything except pure entertainment...
 
Balkroth said:
Trying to make this spoiler free so pardon it's vagueness.
My problem as a Mechanical engineer is that they were talking about something having thermal vision like snakes and it being able to see them through glass....

Infrared Radiation is reflected by glass, so I highly doubt something that sees infrared radiation could see people through glass.
Click to expand...
Nahh, those windows were just made out of optical grade germanium...
 
WaltC said:
These paleontologists run around with an entirely imaginary prehistoric world whirling in their thoughts. Some of them think dinos had scales, some others think they had feathers, etc. But to them it isn't imaginary at all--they've convinced themselves of the sanctity of their visions of the past so that they believe their theories are facts. I never forget that these are the same folks who find an ape tooth or a finger-bone or an isolated jawbone and build an entire skeleton of "the missing link" around them--or make sweeping generalizations about cro-magnons, etc. ad infinitum. The fossil record is unfortunately nowhere near as rich as their imaginations...As such, they've no right at all to slam a fictional movie which doesn't pretend to be anything except pure entertainment...
Click to expand...

And....the winner for the most ill informed post of 20+ year old out of date information goes too!

Might want to brush up your knowledge on literally that entire list on what you think we have in the fossil record.
 
The original film came out a long time ago. Since then we have discovered feathery dinosaurs and some other evidence that contradicted the movie. However, it's a sequel, not a reboot. It makes sense that they wouldn't put the recent discoveries in the film.

All these paleontologists have to do is give some money to The Asylum, and make "Triassic Park" or something that knocks it off, and then they have their version out there.
 
It's a movie, not a documentary. :rolleyes:

Saw it, yesterday. Felt like a lot of been there, done that, so all we can do is try to done that more spectacularly, this time. I give it a 6.5 out of 10.
 
I went back to each action scene and you notice when the cgi is molded around the dinosaur making a canine or reptile movement since they would have a harder time replicating a complex jointed dinosaur. Not a big complaint.
 
Feathers? Idiotic.

Due to their highly social nature and their sheer population, these prehistoric beasts more than likely were covered head to toe in JoS. A. Bank suits. It's the only explanation that makes sense, considering how many of them there were across the Earth and the constant "buy one get three free" promotions that JoS. A. Bank runs. It's the only economically viable solution. Dinosaurs weren't made of money.
 
At one point in the movie there is even a scientist that says that the dinosaurs are all different then they would have been originally since they had to replace missing parts of DNA with modern animals.

So the real scientists can go shove it... That or where is the link from some nasa guy talking about how scientifically inaccurate the last star trek movie was?
 
bastage said:
At one point in the movie there is even a scientist that says that the dinosaurs are all different then they would have been originally since they had to replace missing parts of DNA with modern animals.

So the real scientists can go shove it... That or where is the link from some nasa guy talking about how scientifically inaccurate the last star trek movie was?
Click to expand...
Dr. Grant even says something about that in JP3, that what John Hammond created at Jurassic Park wasn't real dinosaurs.

The more important part is these are movies designed for our entertainment. If you want to learn about real dinosaurs then there are plenty of documentaries and scientific research for people to peruse. To expect absolute realism in a movie is unrealistic :cool:.
 
As a geologist, I've taken my fair share of paleo work. That being said, I give zero fucks about how inaccurate the new Jurassic Park movie is. I definitely don't have the urge to 'slam' anyone about it.
 
Isn't this movie suppose to be like the Fast and the furious version of Jurassic Park? I don't see how you could complain.
 
The first Jurassic Park was quite inaccurate, everything from the size of the Velociraptors to the T-Rex "only seeing movement" (and even if that were true it could still smell them). We also found out later that Velociraptors had feathers, but they can't really be blamed for that because we didn't know at the time.

The second Jurassic Park was patently ridiculous with invisible Dinosaurs and all manner stupid things. The third one was so inaccurate that it doesn't bear repeating.

So any Paleontologist that thought the 4th Jurassic Park movie was going to be any different clearly has not been paying any attention at all to the previous movies.
 
Quix said:
The first Jurassic Park was quite inaccurate, everything from the size of the Velociraptors to the T-Rex "only seeing movement" (and even if that were true it could still smell them). We also found out later that Velociraptors had feathers, but they can't really be blamed for that because we didn't know at the time.

The second Jurassic Park was patently ridiculous with invisible Dinosaurs and all manner stupid things. The third one was so inaccurate that it doesn't bear repeating.

So any Paleontologist that thought the 4th Jurassic Park movie was going to be any different clearly has not been paying any attention at all to the previous movies.
Click to expand...
The raptors depicted in the films are actually inspired by Utahraptor. I guess they called them Velociraptors because it sounds cooler, even though they both exist in separate biological families...
 
Quix said:
The second Jurassic Park was patently ridiculous with invisible Dinosaurs and all manner stupid things. The third one was so inaccurate that it doesn't bear repeating.
Click to expand...

Not to mention near the end of World when they find out that the secretive "park owner" they've been communicating with only through radio turns out to be the Indominus Rex using a British accent.
 
Armenius said:
Dr. Grant even says something about that in JP3, that what John Hammond created at Jurassic Park wasn't real dinosaurs.

The more important part is these are movies designed for our entertainment. If you want to learn about real dinosaurs then there are plenty of documentaries and scientific research for people to peruse. To expect absolute realism in a movie is unrealistic :cool:.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they mentioned as much again during this movie. It is amusing to see people complaining about scientific inaccuracies, but they gloss over the premise that we know enough about gene-splicing and recovering genetic material from animals that have been extinct for hundreds of millions of years to make hybrid genetic "dinosaurs" in the first place.

I did like the fact that at least this movie felt more like Jurassic Park than the two previous sequels, though obviously the third one was the worst at it. It would have been cooler if they managed to somehow work Jeff Goldblum into it to deliver some of his lines from the first one again, since they would still be entirely appropriate.
 
Armenius said:
The raptors depicted in the films are actually inspired by Utahraptor. I guess they called them Velociraptors because it sounds cooler, even though they both exist in separate biological families...
Click to expand...
Utah Raptor is too big IIRC. I watched a documentary a couple years back, and there were a ton of different "raptors" that didn't have raptor names, and there was one sized about right that started with a D I think... donkidickasaurus or something.

But while birds have feathers, and we know they evolved from dinosaurs, we've only found feathers on the tiny dinosaurs and its likely the bigger ones wouldn't have needed feathers and they were the ones that all went extinct. So TRex probably didn't look like a giant chicken.

On the documentary though they did say that if anything they believe now that TRex would have had super vision, full stereo and hawk like if anything. BUT TRex wouldn't have been all that fast, so the jeep chase scene... pfft, you'd pull away easy.
 
Ducman69 said:
Utah Raptor is too big IIRC. I watched a documentary a couple years back, and there were a ton of different "raptors" that didn't have raptor names, and there was one sized about right that started with a D I think... donkidickasaurus or something.

But while birds have feathers, and we know they evolved from dinosaurs, we've only found feathers on the tiny dinosaurs and its likely the bigger ones wouldn't have needed feathers and they were the ones that all went extinct. So TRex probably didn't look like a giant chicken.

On the documentary though they did say that if anything they believe now that TRex would have had super vision, full stereo and hawk like if anything. BUT TRex wouldn't have been all that fast, so the jeep chase scene... pfft, you'd pull away easy.
Click to expand...

Except as others have noted they never cloned intact DNA in either the book or the movies ... they had partial DNA which they used gene splicing to fill in the gaps ... assuming that would even work (which is probably a valid scientific argument to have), if it it did it would pretty much take out any arguments of deviation from the fossil record since we know neither what was missing, nor the full impact of what was added ... it pretty much gives them the ultimate plausible deniability card :D
 
It's. A. Movie. For. Fuck's. Sake.


Last time I checked, there is zero capability to make a documentary about live dinosaurs.
 
kbrickley said:
Except as others have noted they never cloned intact DNA in either the book or the movies ... they had partial DNA which they used gene splicing to fill in the gaps ... assuming that would even work (which is probably a valid scientific argument to have), if it it did it would pretty much take out any arguments of deviation from the fossil record since we know neither what was missing, nor the full impact of what was added ... it pretty much gives them the ultimate plausible deniability card :D
Click to expand...
That's why I said "inspired by" ;).
 
DejaWiz said:
It's. A. Movie. For. Fuck's. Sake.


Last time I checked, there is zero capability to make a documentary about live dinosaurs.
Click to expand...

Wait ... are you telling me that Walking with Dinosaurs wasn't REAL ... the horror ... you are probably that mean person that told me there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny :D
 
kbrickley said:
Wait ... are you telling me that Walking with Dinosaurs wasn't REAL ... the horror ... you are probably that mean person that told me there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny :D
Click to expand...

Correct; I am that guy.

If you want to watch some actual historical, informative, and entertaining documentaries, then there's a 6-part series titled Star Wars. And now for the good news: a very large corporation picked up the rights to it a while back and will be adding at least three more volumes to the series, starting with the release of part 7 this winter. Definitely check it out.
 
DejaWiz said:
It's. A. Movie. For. Fuck's. Sake.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but movies can be even better when they don't go "full retard" IMO. Hell, then you can even sell it as education to kids, lol! It wouldn't have hurt the action or anything to just call the dinosaur the right name instead of velociraptor for example. And if anything, a TRex that had super sense of smell and vision would have been even more terrifying than a retarded mostly bind green big bird.
 
Ducman69 said:
Yeah, but movies can be even better when they don't go "full retard" IMO. Hell, then you can even sell it as education to kids, lol! It wouldn't have hurt the action or anything to just call the dinosaur the right name instead of velociraptor for example. And if anything, a TRex that had super sense of smell and vision would have been even more terrifying than a retarded mostly bind green big bird.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, there was zero indication of any Jurassic movie having the disclaimer "Based on Actual Events". :p
 
DejaWiz said:
Last I checked, there was zero indication of any Jurassic movie having the disclaimer "Based on Actual Events". :p
Click to expand...

Those that say "Based on Actual Events" are usually less believable than Jurassic Park movies. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top