The Rex has aged well, despite it looking like it’s starving and undersized As opposites to the roided up Spinosaurus and giganotosaurus, that far dwarf their real life counterparts. You can tell the first JP was prioritizing more realistic approach despite some creative liberties
@@khalidalshamsi362 the Rex in JP1 was said to be 5 tons, smaller than an average sized Rex let alone exceptional specimens like Sue. It’s undersized even for its time
@@GODEYE270115 where in the movie did they specify she was 5 tons? They never talked about weight in movies everyone talks about the size. Plus releastically she would be light since she is an animal in a enclosure compared to the spino where it was hunting at its will
people who bash jp's dinosaurs for being inaccurate don't see the little details they get right, you never see someone in the paleo community mention raptors having lips in the films
If I recall correctly, Michael Crichton chose the name Velociraptor over Deinonychus because the name was more menacing and could be shortened down to "raptor"
That's an interesting inference about the slit eyes being likely being more nocturnal, I always thought it was a design to make dromaeosaurs more scary. I must say the Tyrannosaurs model set a more accurate image in the media for the years to come after Jurassic park, which I appreciate
@@HankTheT.Rex69 it should have won it was the main antagonist... You don't kill off the antagonist because it has alot of fans that's just bad writing
@@khalidalshamsi362 I reckon it should have won, but gets a rematch later. Either by scaring off the Bull or killing it and is fought by another Rex, perhaps being Junior instead of having the humans scare off the spino at the last part. Would’ve made the film so much better.
23:17 Slight correction: Slit pupils are indicative of animals that hunt low to the ground, not ones that are nocturnal. Eye size and their reflectivity is what indicates a nocturnal animal; not pupil shape.
It's always felt weird how this movie correctly portrayed Parasaurolophus as a primary quadrupedal, but its imediate sequel The Lost World went back to portraying them as primary bipeds again (same with the Corythosaurus in JP 3)
I guess we couldn't really tell as when we saw them, they were running and defending themselves. It's Jurassic world that got them fully wrong. I think the dominion ones were good, but still they messed up that bit and how bulky and more deer like the animal most likely was.
Nice Video on the amazing special accuracy wise with the first Jurassic Park because that’s a movie that clearly started with dinosaurs as active animals and sometimes being like movie monsters but for the most part, they’re just active like animals. Sure the dinosaur designs may be outdated but at least they’re pretty fun to look and pretty entertaining and even the human characters are interesting as well and the soundtrack is very intense and very suspenseful in my opinion. Great work Red Raptor Writes and keep it up.
Among predatory birds, I only know of one species that hunt cooperatively. Unless evidence is found of therapods taking down prey many times their own size, solo hunting is likely what they all did. Some may have fed together on large carcasses, but that isn't the same as hunting as a group.
Jurassic park as a film is an amazing, timeless classic, but it’s scientific accuracy has not aged well and no matter what excuse people will say like “frog DNA” or “it’s just a movie” this movie was based on the scientific accuracy of its time. The movie unfortunately perpetuated a lot of dinosaur myths and inaccuracies that are still seen in pop culture and even in documentaries, spreading misinformation to the audience and damaging the perception of dinosaurs in fictional media, and a lot of it is thanks to Jurassic park. Despite being iconic, The JP velociraptors are a perfect encapsulation of how pop culture likes to depict dinosaurs and this isn’t a good thing. This ain’t a fault on the movie, it’s that many people mistook it as fact rather than seeing it as just a movie.
Disagree, at least compared to the Jurassic World movies. It's amazing how much worse they are in terms of dinosaur designs, with super bulky raptors, almost tail-dragging triceratops and stegosaurus, gallimimus with teeth, and way skinnier tyrannosaurus. It even gives a ton of attention to the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. I'd say it still does way better than any of the movies in the Jurassic World movies in terms of up-to-date science.
I’m curious on how accurate the novel version of “Jurassic Park” and “The Lost World” are. Obviously there are things inaccurate that Michael Crichton purposely wrote in that weren’t (as far as we know) accurate to the animals, such as the one camouflaging juvenile Velociraptor in the first novel, the spitting venom Dilophosaurus, and the two camouflaging Carnotaurus in the second novel, but those were clearly intentional in order to add to the unpredictable nature of genetic engineering and gene splicing, which puts emphasis on the theme of chaos and the unpredictability of nature. Now in the novel more detail is given about the Velociraptors we see in both novels and all the feature films, the Dilophosaurus is also noticeably different and more accurate than its film counterpart. However there are things that I know for sure are outdated such as lack or no feathering on any of the Dinosaurs, and I believe one species (I think it was the T-Rex) was described as having crocodile-like scales. Of course both of these, most likely the second one, could be attributed to the gene splicing and engineering of these animals. Now Velocirator isn’t outdated other than lack of feathers, the name Velociraptor Antirrhopus, and being way too intelligent for what the real animal probably was. Now thinking about it the Apatosaurs (replaced by the Brachiosaurs in the film) are never described as having Elephant claws. In fact Dr. Grant mistakes their legs for tree trunks when he first sees one (just as the film decides to act like the T-Rex’s poor eyesight was a part of its natural biology and not a result of gene splicing with amphibian DNA, or the lack of explanation between the differences between Velociraptor Mongoliensis and Velociraptor Antirrhopus (Deinonychus)) I have no idea why they went with elephant claws for the Brachiosaurs. The novel is better in terms of science and lore, the film is better in characterization and plot progression.
Fantastic video man! And congratulations! Your work is underrated! Although i like to mention some thoughts regarding some of the facts. Primarily Velociraptor eyes. I myself have only compared bird eyes when drawing dinosaurs , and i don’t see any birds with vertical slit pupils as far as i know of. I haven’t read the research concerning the eyes, but i would argue that many nocturnal birds have round eyes, unless their eye anatomy is different.
You are correct that Grant retcons how raptors killed their prey in Dominion. That was one of the things I liked about the movie. It was nice to see recent scientific research be brought in to the film. I only wish there was more of it.
I was having a bit of a rough time, thanks for the new video! I also really like how you compare the movie with the book when talking about it, Critchton's novel is often ignored when talking about how the films portrayed dinosaurs. I just disagree about the Velociraptor pupils, as modern nocturnal birds like owls all have round pupils.
I do have one counterpoint to the slit pupils, most (if not all) animals that have them are low to the ground with eyes near the surface, like crocodiles on the water, and snakes with the floor. Even big cats have round pupils (lions, tigers, cheetahs) whereas their smaller, lower-to-the-ground relatives like house cats have the iconic slit shape.
good video. However i hate the comparison to reptiles to suggest a lower intelligence. Its outdated and just wrong to suggest reptile arnt 'mammal smart'. Reptiles, specifically monitors and crocodilians exhibit intelligent behaviours that can easily rival mammals. The only difference is the media portraying them as slow dumb creatures. My tegu problem solves quicker than any dog or cat. I strongly suggest to anyone interested in this to look into Tom Crutchfield and the relationship he has with his crocodile monitors and iguanas.
This gives me an idea for a jurassic park spinoff. Idk if it should be a show or movie, maybe a book. The idea is that in the 30 years since "dinosaurs " were brought back to life in the park, paleontology has made a lot of the same discoveries that they have in real life. A lot of these discoveries contradict the animals that jurassic park is presenting as dinosaurs. This causes a big conflict between ingine and scientists over the validity of these animals. I think it would be an interesting angle to go into with this universe and could serve the overall narrative of "you can't control nature." They thought they were cloning dinosaurs but they were really just creating new hybrid animals by mixing a bunch of DNA. Idk just spit balling a thought.
The Triceratops animatronic in the film was covered in dirt, there was also a Triceratops juvenile planned for the film, however, the animatronic wasn’t finished and it was used in the second film, however, Stegosaurus was supposed to be the sick dinosaur, but was the replaced by Triceratops, also Velociraptor was supposed to be Deinonychus
I would say a slit pupil is unlikely because it is only advantageous when the animal is low to the ground. Nocturnal predators who are taller, like bigger cats and canids, tend to have round pupils.
@@mayhaps801 No no, Velociraptor was clearly build for running and chasing prey, also, it had the size of a turkey/dog, it definitely had round pupils.
I think in regards to some of these animals pack hunting, I think that it's 50/50. Given how they're more often compared to birds than reptiles, sometimes, we can look at how some birds live and work together. (And I'm not saying this is 100% proof. Like you said, perhaps such things were of lone members who congregated over a food source or a mismatched group of stranger animals rather than a family. It's difficult to speak on how animals operated in groups, especially predators, that lived millions of years ago.)
My theory on that whole "they need movement to see" thing I think is actually a diversion for the real reason she acted so odd. She was playing. Although she's shrink-wrapped and looks skinny, that's just how people thought rexes looked at that time. So, keeping that in mind, say she was being fed properly. What do animals do when given just enough room to roam, they're bored out of their skulls, and they're well fed and healthy? They play! Especially when they get to experience something new (in this case, more of the park). You see how she's tearing the car apart and keeps doing it until Graham gets the flare? What creature continues to rip things to shreds if fed properly? One that's playing! What's she do when she sees the flare go off? Exactly like a cat with a laser pointer. That movement Graham makes should have sent her charging to him, not the flare. That little bit of movement the lawyer does on the toilet wouldn't have caused much reaction from something that needs movement to see, as Graham showed with the flare (also, she doesn't eat the lawyer, just tears him in half and flings him off). Malcolm gets thrown, and she could have smelled him out, but since she wasn't hunting, she didn't pay attention to him. And why does she not immediately attack and eat the girl and Graham? Because they haven't set off her chase mode! She could have easily smelled them both, and saw them imo, but since she wasn't hungry, she begins to shove the car instead, trying to get them to run so she can get that trigger, like with cats. The carnivores in the first and second movie were basically just giant cats! They just get the info wrong in the movie (the characters do, I feel Spielberg knew exactly what he was doing). It's literally just all play behavior, it's just terrifying to us cuz we're so small comparatively!
Great vid as always. I would have wished for two ratings, tho. One for over all accuracy and one for accuracy at it's time, because for it's time, JP is definitely better than a D
For the car thing with the T-Rex, you could make the argument that it needed to get going so the Rex caught up easily because of it. Plus Dr. Malcolm might have slowed down the car when he fell on the stick
While I may not necessarily agree with _some_ of what you said here (the "Jurassic World" trilogy being _'terrible'_ is one of them; they're _not_ 💯 terrible flicks IMHO, but at the same time, they're _not_ 💯 perfect flicks either), you did *FANTASTIC* as always (👏)! Yeah, not gonna lie; *I* am in the 'Frog DNA mutated the in-universe dinosaurs' genetic code/"NOTHING in Jurassic World is NATURAL!" camp. It could be because while I _am_ a genuine paleontology buff, I'm not THAT much of a paleontology buff to where I'm like, _super_ bothered by every single inaccuracy in a piece of Science Fiction media like the "Jurassic" films. I admit to having a _bit_ heavier Science Fiction kind of mind, so I personally have more of a tolerance for scientific inaccuracies. Of course, this is just ME talking; please don't take any of this personally, Red Raptor Writes. With that said, a GREAT Part 2 here on one of *my* all-time favorite flicks (👍👍).
This is the main reason why I would have liked it more, if the first JP film’s scene with Mr. DNA stated that other animals besides frogs were used. For example, the animated segment could have shown a monitor lizard, alligator, ostrich, and/or hawk alongside the cartoon frog. It would have been closer to the novel, where a combination of amphibian/reptilian/avian DNA was used, according to what I looked up again after reading the book. It would also allow more of the inaccuracies to actually be explainable by the gene-splicing, such as the raptors lacking feathers and being almost entirely covered in traditional reptile scales (which I don’t think any frogs have). Finally, it would flow more seamlessly with the JW trilogy, when those films try to retroactively justify the inaccuracies this way. That would even accommodate plot points like Blue having some monitor lizard DNA within her genome. But otherwise, I can see how it can come off as a jarring retcon for RRW, when the first movie only referenced the frog genes yet had dinosaurs with all the same (or sometimes even fewer) inaccuracies. Overall, I personally prefer to view this as an “Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole” on the first JP film’s part, rather than as another problem with the JW trilogy. That is pretty much the only thing I can nitpick about the first film, besides its handling of the T-Rex’s vision being “based on movement”. Those two are the only tiny flaws I perceive, in this otherwise nearly perfect movie.
@@markcobuzzi826 An 'Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole," hmmm (🤔)...that's a *good* observation! Yeah, from what I remember when I read the original novel, Dr. Wu name-dropped a number of modern animals whose DNA the InGen geneticists used to fill in the dinosaurs' genomes, not just frogs. While the movie just stuck with frogs, and nothing else. OK, a minor nitpick, I suppose, AND a good observation (👍).
Do we have any idea how powerful Spinosaurus’ arms and how sharp their claws were? It’s possible that Spinosaurus used one of its claws to impale and catch fish.
Finally someome who doesnt talk about the negatives only and didnt call them "early 1900's reptillian stereotypes" and doesnt act like it was some sort of super evil creation that ruined dinosaurs depictions! *cough cough Trey the explainer cough cough*
There are some extra details I would like to add to your review below (bold print is tl;dr version): *1.) Even if we are only focusing on the first installments from the book and film continuities, the T-Rex’s vision being based on movement is still arguably an “Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole”.* In the very first novel, the T-Rex needing to see its prey moving was treated more as an unnatural anomaly, rather than an expected behavior like in the movie. Alan Grant (I think) wonders if that could have been a defect resulting specifically from the splicing of frog DNA. Until the second novel proposed its alternate possible explanation (where the T-Rex may have just been intrigued/disinterested), this was one of the few examples of JP media intentionally portraying an inaccuracy, then trying to explain it in-universe with modern animal DNA splicing. *2.) About the JW film’s retcon, where the genetic hybridization of other animals besides frogs is used to explain inaccuracies in-universe, that does at least make the film franchise closer to the books’ lore. That is, even if it admittedly clashes with the first film’s established lore, where only the frog DNA is mentioned.* From what I recall reading and looking back up, the DNA of other modern animals besides frogs were stated to be used by InGen in the book continuity. There is also a scene in the first book between John Hammond and Dr. Wu (mirroring JW’s scene between Simon Masrani and Dr. Wu), where it is more highlighted that InGen’s replicas would not necessarily be accurate to their original prehistoric counterparts. *With this being said, you do have a point that the books and films are two different continuities, and if we are going by what was explicitly established in the movie canon, there is a discrepancy between the first JP movie and first JW movie’s retcon. Plus, I agree that the retcon is no reason for some of the JW dinosaur designs to look somehow less accurate than their earlier JP counterparts.* So I think it is perfectly fair for you to criticize it on that front. But if you plan to go further and characterize the idea, as something which the JW trilogy purely made up on its own, I would partially disagree with you there. As one who liked the JP books, I felt that JW retcon should have been an established part of the movie canon from the beginning, so I am personally more willing to forgive that discrepancy in the sequel.
I would give leeway to the idea that it was the from DNA that was affecting the T. rex vision, but in the novel, it's not even listed as one of the dinosaurs that Wu filled in with frog. It didn't have the frog DNA. And in the movie, Alan knows about the vision based on movement without ever even hearing about Jurassic Park. This will be covered in my next video, but these are two reasons why I find these arguments so baffling. In film too, Velociraptor looks and acts exactly how Dr. Grant expected. 6ft tall, coordinated attacks from the sides, and scaly. Yes, their DNA isn't pure dinosaur. However I would argue that in the book and consistently with his character in film, Hammond wanted them to be as lifelike as possible. Wu wanted to slow them down, but Hammond wouldn't have any of it. For the most part aside from the breeding, in-universe they were the real deal.
@@redraptorwrites6778 It was really cool to get a response from you, and I look forward to seeing your follow-ups on the topic. I agree with your point about how Alan Grant in the movie version needlessly treats certain ideas, like the T-Rex's vision being based on movement, as though it is an accepted fact about the real animal in-universe. This is one of the only minor issues I have with the first JP movie, especially since it could have avoided presenting that notorious inaccuracy as absolute fact, if it played out more like in the book. *After reading your reply to me, I revisited that conversation from the book between Dr. Wu and John Hammond, to see if I missed or forgot anything, using Klayton Fioriti's RUclips video as a resource: "The Tragedy of Dr. Henry Wu - Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park".* Upon revisiting the chapter, it appears I have overstated that aspect of the book lore a bit, for the chapter seems to treat the topic more ambiguously. At first, both characters say the the park's dinosaurs are close enough to the real thing, which Wu claims to be detrimental. Midway into the conversation, however, Wu tries to change the discussion's course and suddenly asserts that the initial modifications may have already disqualified the dinosaurs from truly being accurate representations of the real animals. Hammond doesn't buy his argument, though, and still maintains that they are real nonetheless. *To say one last thing, I do think that the fan argument can work a little better for the book continuity, since some of the specific inaccuracies actually could be explained by the modern reptilian/avian DNA also stated to be used by InGen.* For example, I can actually imagine the Velociraptors becoming scaly due to lizard DNA being incorporated, but not from the frog DNA, which is the only thing established by the film version of JP.
The film they were shown explaining the engineering of the dinosaurs could’ve been an outdated one, or simplified for young children. That’s my interpretation.
@@redraptorwrites6778 Seriously. You’re trusting novel Hammond’s judgment of Dinosaur accuracy? It’s not like novel John Hammond isn’t a malicious greedy businessman who’s arrogant, ignorant, and delusional as h-l.
You're right about T-Rex's vision. And even if it was based on movement, the T-Rex in the film (Rexy) still should have been able to find Alen and Lex by simply smelling them, especially when her nose was literally right in front of them at one point. Heck, even its sequel, The Lost World, acknowledges T-Rex's sense of smell.
I heard the whole, "slit pupils=nocturnal" thing was debunked, for plenty of nocturnal animals have round pupils. I read it had more to do with the animal's height from the ground. The examples cited were cats and foxes vs their larger relatives. Cats and foxes are smaller and lower to the ground, hence having vertical pupils to better see through the grasses. Their larger relatives in lions (also nocturnal hunters) and wolves have round pupils since they're taller and can see over the grasses. Hence the round pupils. I think it's an interesting thought. With it applied, I can see smaller dromaeosaurs like velociraptor having slit pupils while the larger ones like utahraptor had round.
That was at least more warranted to bring up for the novel continuity, where modern birds and non-avian reptiles were also used to fill in genetic gaps. Then again, as Red Raptor Writes pointed out, the films are of a separate continuity where only the frog DNA is mentioned until the JW trilogy made that lore retcon.
Quotes/Sentences taken from “Jurassic Park” by Michael Crichton Jurassic Park Sentence Bites ““Velociraptor,” Alan Grant said, in a low voice. “Velociraptor mongoliensis,” Wu said, nodding.”” (Crichton, pg.107) “Ellie said, “But the animals we just saw, the velociraptor-you said it was mongoliensis?” “From the location of the amber,” Wu said. “It is from China.” “Interesting,” Grant said. “I was just digging up an infant antirrhopus…”” (Crichton, pg.114) “…”What do you know about Velociraptor?” Grant asked Tim. He was just making conversation. “It’s a small carnivore that hunted in packs, like Deinonychus,” Tim said. “That’s right,” Grant said, “although Deinonychus is now considered one of the velociraptors. And evidence for pack hunting is all circumstantial.”” ( Crichton, pg.115) “”There they are now,” said the voice. “The animals you see are called dilophosaurs.” Despite what the recording said, Tim saw only one. The dilophosaur was crouched on its hind legs by the river, drinking. It was built on the basic carnivore pattern, with a heavy tail, strong hind limbs, and a long neck. Its ten-foot tall body was spotted yellow and black, like a leopard. But it was the head that held Tim’s attention. Two broad curving crests ran along the top of the head from the eyes to the nose. The crests met in the center, making a V shape above the dinosaur’s head… “Dilophosaurus,” the tape said, “is one of the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs. Scientists thought their jaw muscles were too weak to kill prey, and imagined they were primarily scavengers…” (Crichton, pg.142) “Grant was tensing to run for the woods when suddenly the tyrannosaur spun back to face him, and roared. Grant froze. He was standing beside the passenger door of the Land Cruiser, drenched in rain. He was completely exposed, the tyrannosaur no more than eight feet away. The big animal roared again. At so close a range the sound was terrifyingly loud… The tyrannosaur roared once more, but it did not attack. It cocked its head, and looked with first one eye, then the other, at the Land Cruiser. And it did nothing. It just stood there. What was going on? The powerful jaws opened and closed. The tyrannosaur bellowed angrily, and then the big hind leg came up and crashed down on the roof of the car; the claws slid off with a metal screech, barely missing Grant as he stood there, still unmoving… He tensed his body waiting for the inevitable. The big head slid past him, toward the rear of the car. Grant blinked. What had happened? Was it possible the tyrannosaur hadn’t seen him? It seemed as if it hadn’t. But how could that be? Grant looked back to see the animal sniffing the rear-mounted tire. It nudged the tire with its snout, and then the head swung back. Again it approached Grant. This time the animal stopped, the black flaring nostrils just inches away. Grant felt the animal’s startling hot breath on his face. But the tyrannosaur wasn’t sniffing like a dog. It was just breathing, and if anything it seemed puzzled. No, the tyrannosaur couldn’t see him. Not if he stood motionless. And in a detached corner of his mind he found an explanation for that, a reason why- The jaws opened before him, the massive head raised up… But now Grant was beginning to understand. The animal couldn’t see him, but it suspected he was there, somewhere, and was trying with its bellowing to frighten Grant into some revealing movement. So long as he stood his ground, Grant realized, he was invisible. (Crichton, pg.190,191) “Grant couldn’t believe he was still alive, and as scattered images began to come back to him, he tried to make sense of them. The tyrannosaur should have killed them all easily. Why hadn’t it?” (Crichton, pg.214) “He remembered how the tyrannosaur had failed to see him, the previous night. Grant decided on an experiment. He coughed. Instantly the hadrosaur froze, the big head suddenly still, the jaws no longer chewing. Only one eye moved, looking for the source of the sound. Then, after a moment, when there seemed to be no danger, the animal resumed chewing… Grant was amazed. He thought, It really can’t see is when we don’t move. And after a minute it literally forgets that we’re here. This was just like the tyrannosaur-another classic example of an amphibian visual cortex. Studies in frogs had shown that amphibians only saw moving things, like insects. If something didn’t move, they literally didn’t see it. ” (Crichton, pg.261,262)
Your vids like this one are great and I cant wait for more of your dino documentry vids but Im like 80% sure that prehistoric planet review will come next year. And I like your Voice
Very nice and informative review as always, I love watching these. If you're going to look at more non-educational dino films, I recommend Disney's "Dinosaur", one of my favourite childhood movies :)
About how fast T. Rex was running I always had issues that we only talk about full grown adult T. Rex. I'm curious about how fast younger T. Rex could run, being lighter and legs having different proportions.
I’ve probably overstated it but I really don’t agree with the whole T.Rex was slow crap I mean it may not have been as fast as in the film but I don’t buy it not being able to run myself.
5:24 Correct me if I am wrong but I’m pretty sure The Lost World first made that mistake and the World Trilogy adopted that design for JW and Fallen Kingdom.
Yes, the second Jurassic Park had already made the hadrosaurs bipedal before JW. If I'm not mistaken a very bipedal Corythosaurus also appears in JP 3.
Man, jurassic park was so good tho the inaccuracies had to come,but it makes sence it was made in 1993 :p If only the other 3 jw movies were as good and maybe JP3 idk :p
Yeah, being a nocturnal hunter doesn't automatically make slit pupils more likely. In living predators, slit pupils only show up in animals that are low to the ground. In the case of crocodiles or snakes, it's because they crawl along the ground (or swim near the surface of water), and in carnivorans, slit pupils are only present in smaller species, like foxes and house cats. More midsized predators such as coyotes (which are similar in height and weight to Velociraptor) tend not to have slit pupils, and large apex predators that are comparable in size and height to Deinonychus, like wolves and cougars, certainly don't have them. Cats in the 30 lb range like ocelots, fishing cats, and bobcats do have slit pupils (probably because they prefer to stalk and pounce on their prey, in contrast to coyotes and jackals), so it's possible (but not conclusive) for Velociraptor, but it seems rather unlikely for Deinonychus.
19:03 There is a theory that I agree with where Crition Heard about the discovery of Achillobator during 1989, but because it wasn't described till later he just attached the genus name Velociraptor to it. 27:46 I know many are going to disagree but overall I think it was more likely than not that raptors hunted in packs the type of prey they would be taking on would have required them to hunt in packs, on top of the fact that more substantial evidence of pack hunting exists in Tyrannosaurids, closely related ceolsaurs to dromaeosaurs. 29:38 I think saying possum smart is a little to harsh especially when we look at the intelligence portrayed by modern archosaurs such as crocs and birds, they would at the very least be on that level of intellect if not a tiny bit higher.
For Jurassic park fans we have discovered a larynx in a dinosaur specifically pinacosaurus so we now dinosaurs could make complex noises, such as roaring. Unfortunately the way it’s done in Jurassic park is still unlikely.
I know this isn't technically canon but concept art for Jurassic world Dominion shows Owen being chased by a pack of deinonychus instead of atrociraptors confirming the JP velociraptor and deinonychus are different animals.
Within the Jurassic World Evolution games’ canon, Velociraptor and Deinonychus are also portrayed as separate genera. The latter’s design also looks like a basilisk lizard or tadpole.
I think my softest spot for JP's wrong display must be the T-Rex yell. I know real Rex were likely not roaring like here, but come on ! How awesome is that roar ?
@@catpoke9557 I could climb a mountain but that won't make me see better at night. Owls have eyes that can see better at night. And they don't have slit eyes. And they hunt animals low to the ground.
@@HiperPivociarz It's not the night vision that gets worse. Slit pupils don't contribute much to night vision. It's mainly the other aspects of the eye that allow that. Slit pupils just enhance depth perception, and allow the animal to adjust its pupil size more efficiently, thus allowing them to see during the day AS WELL as night. But the depth perception aspect mainly applies to animals which are low to the ground. I'm honestly not sure why, though. But anyways, that's why animals that are taller or live high up tend not to have slit pupils.
its absolutely a retcon. but since you brought up "in universe" for Dino appearance i have to add this. "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth." Henry Wu. this one line pretty much covers any inconsistency in appearances. Wu also flat out lies about the Indominus being the first hybrid. with the Scorpios rex being the first genetically bred for specific traits. the Velociraptors may have had some deinonychus dna in them, and it produced something akin to a liger where it was larger then both parents
Funny enough about that, Walt Disney himself was aware that Trex’s had only 2 fingers, but had it animated with 3 fingers because at the time the movie was made the public were more aware of them having 3 fingers then 2 and didn’t want to confuse anyone or remove there immersion of the scene.
@@brandonlyon730 Many of the decisions made regarding the dinosaur designs in Fantasia can be chalked up to public and scientific perception of dinosaurs at the time.
Did Parasalophus’ have hooves? Edmontosaurus had hooves, do paleontologists believe that all Hadrosaurs had hooves? I’m wanting to write a dinosaur novel and want to get the animals as accurate as possible. I can’t find any straight answer as I get a whole bunch of different reconstructions.
With the raptors, seeing how it’s wise to clone more than one animal They probably made multiples at once and just placed them together and they just made a hierarchy like with chickens
Wasn’t there a whole plot line in both novels, more prevalent in the first, about side effects the dinosaurs were displaying due to the gene splicing? All the dinosaurs had movement based vision and could change their sex to breed, both explained in the book as a result of the amphibian DNA. There are three different camouflaging dinosaurs, in the first novel a juvenile male velociraptor, in the second two Carnotaurs. I don’t think Crichton ever tried to push the idea that these things were natural occurrences. In fact the retconning of the T-Rex vision in the second novel could easily be explained away as those specific animals not being gene spliced with amphibian DNA, or at least not enough that it effects their vision. Of course this is never said out loud in the book, that I recall anyway, so that could just be speculation. But one of the things Crichton was telling was the unpredictable nature of not just Gene Splicing but Genetic Engineering and the dangers of messing with such power.
1- The Gallis doesn't have the correct mouth in the movie 2- It's weird because the mural in the visitor center looks a better body shape than the "living" animals 3- The Trike has the horns fossilized, even if the animal is alive, the tail is to long and is too chunky xD 4- Some studies propose some coloration, not only on the Crest on the head of T. Rex, but also at the foots, like a... bird... oh no. 5- The raptor of JP had cat like eyes, something impossible for birds (or at least that's what a paleontologist told me) 6- The skull shape in the Raptors is not binocular, like in real life
It's safe to say that the Rex's bad eyesight has been properly retconned at this point. Camp Cretaceous shown that Rexy was tricked into attacking a unmoving cardboard cutout of Brooklyn.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Babe, wake up, new Red Raptor Writes video!!
Get out of my head.
The dog: yooo lemme see
@@Marcin9200*pulls out glock*
The Rex has aged well, despite it looking like it’s starving and undersized
As opposites to the roided up Spinosaurus and giganotosaurus, that far dwarf their real life counterparts. You can tell the first JP was prioritizing more realistic approach despite some creative liberties
I'd say it doesn't really look unfed. The first JP rex was extremely fat and bulky compared to the World movies.
Actually gigan and spino are a whole TON less than a accurate rex
The spino was fairly accurate to its findings at that time. Both the rex and spino have exaggerated sizes. The giga is a whole another story...
@@khalidalshamsi362 the Rex in JP1 was said to be 5 tons, smaller than an average sized Rex let alone exceptional specimens like Sue. It’s undersized even for its time
@@GODEYE270115 where in the movie did they specify she was 5 tons? They never talked about weight in movies everyone talks about the size. Plus releastically she would be light since she is an animal in a enclosure compared to the spino where it was hunting at its will
Wasn't expecting a Rickraptor mention. His videos are hilarious
Wasn’t expecting this to come out nearly 2 weeks later but it’s great to see that Red Raptor did not let us down.
people who bash jp's dinosaurs for being inaccurate don't see the little details they get right, you never see someone in the paleo community mention raptors having lips in the films
Lips are admittedly not proven or disproven it’s up to personal preference at this stage really.
@@bennettfender9927maybe but for many people, the evidence that supports lips are far more convincing
If I recall correctly, Michael Crichton chose the name Velociraptor over Deinonychus because the name was more menacing and could be shortened down to "raptor"
I don’t think people give the JP rex accuracy enough credit. It’s very impressive how well it holds up.
Just add lips and unpronated wrists.
But not bulky enough and WAY TOO FAST!
@@jeffreygao3956 We are talking about design. And yes, it could use more flesh bits.
That's an interesting inference about the slit eyes being likely being more nocturnal, I always thought it was a design to make dromaeosaurs more scary. I must say the Tyrannosaurs model set a more accurate image in the media for the years to come after Jurassic park, which I appreciate
The T. rex vs Spinosaurus fight was supposed to be longer and less one sided but, certain issues behind the scenes led to most of it getting cut.
Spinosaurus still shouldn’t of won
@@HankTheT.Rex69 it should have won it was the main antagonist... You don't kill off the antagonist because it has alot of fans that's just bad writing
@@khalidalshamsi362 I reckon it should have won, but gets a rematch later. Either by scaring off the Bull or killing it and is fought by another Rex, perhaps being Junior instead of having the humans scare off the spino at the last part. Would’ve made the film so much better.
That issue being the Spinosaurus animatronic ripped off the head of the Tyrannosaurus animatronic with a mistimed swipe of its arm.
Oh Jesus I nearly jumped backward from the Horner jump scare! You should have warned us XD!
23:17
Slight correction:
Slit pupils are indicative of animals that hunt low to the ground, not ones that are nocturnal. Eye size and their reflectivity is what indicates a nocturnal animal; not pupil shape.
I was literally just watching part one not knowing whether part 2 came out or not. Guess what!
keep up the amazing work!
It's always felt weird how this movie correctly portrayed Parasaurolophus as a primary quadrupedal, but its imediate sequel The Lost World went back to portraying them as primary bipeds again (same with the Corythosaurus in JP 3)
I guess we couldn't really tell as when we saw them, they were running and defending themselves. It's Jurassic world that got them fully wrong. I think the dominion ones were good, but still they messed up that bit and how bulky and more deer like the animal most likely was.
Also, Apatosaurus was supposed to be in the first three films, but got replaced by Brachiosaurus and Mamenchisaurus
Redraptor makes dinosaur accuracy reviews separately between movies and documentaries
Nice Video on the amazing special accuracy wise with the first Jurassic Park because that’s a movie that clearly started with dinosaurs as active animals and sometimes being like movie monsters but for the most part, they’re just active like animals.
Sure the dinosaur designs may be outdated but at least they’re pretty fun to look and pretty entertaining and even the human characters are interesting as well and the soundtrack is very intense and very suspenseful in my opinion.
Great work Red Raptor Writes and keep it up.
Among predatory birds, I only know of one species that hunt cooperatively. Unless evidence is found of therapods taking down prey many times their own size, solo hunting is likely what they all did. Some may have fed together on large carcasses, but that isn't the same as hunting as a group.
May not be accurate
But it's a masterpiece
If the Dino Documentaries were on that tier list, Monsters Resurrection wouldn't be alone anymore
Jurassic park as a film is an amazing, timeless classic, but it’s scientific accuracy has not aged well and no matter what excuse people will say like “frog DNA” or “it’s just a movie” this movie was based on the scientific accuracy of its time. The movie unfortunately perpetuated a lot of dinosaur myths and inaccuracies that are still seen in pop culture and even in documentaries, spreading misinformation to the audience and damaging the perception of dinosaurs in fictional media, and a lot of it is thanks to Jurassic park. Despite being iconic, The JP velociraptors are a perfect encapsulation of how pop culture likes to depict dinosaurs and this isn’t a good thing. This ain’t a fault on the movie, it’s that many people mistook it as fact rather than seeing it as just a movie.
Disagree, at least compared to the Jurassic World movies. It's amazing how much worse they are in terms of dinosaur designs, with super bulky raptors, almost tail-dragging triceratops and stegosaurus, gallimimus with teeth, and way skinnier tyrannosaurus. It even gives a ton of attention to the relationship between dinosaurs and birds. I'd say it still does way better than any of the movies in the Jurassic World movies in terms of up-to-date science.
@@LeoTheYuty agreed.
I’m curious on how accurate the novel version of “Jurassic Park” and “The Lost World” are.
Obviously there are things inaccurate that Michael Crichton purposely wrote in that weren’t (as far as we know) accurate to the animals, such as the one camouflaging juvenile Velociraptor in the first novel, the spitting venom Dilophosaurus, and the two camouflaging Carnotaurus in the second novel, but those were clearly intentional in order to add to the unpredictable nature of genetic engineering and gene splicing, which puts emphasis on the theme of chaos and the unpredictability of nature.
Now in the novel more detail is given about the Velociraptors we see in both novels and all the feature films, the Dilophosaurus is also noticeably different and more accurate than its film counterpart.
However there are things that I know for sure are outdated such as lack or no feathering on any of the Dinosaurs, and I believe one species (I think it was the T-Rex) was described as having crocodile-like scales. Of course both of these, most likely the second one, could be attributed to the gene splicing and engineering of these animals.
Now Velocirator isn’t outdated other than lack of feathers, the name Velociraptor Antirrhopus, and being way too intelligent for what the real animal probably was.
Now thinking about it the Apatosaurs (replaced by the Brachiosaurs in the film) are never described as having Elephant claws. In fact Dr. Grant mistakes their legs for tree trunks when he first sees one (just as the film decides to act like the T-Rex’s poor eyesight was a part of its natural biology and not a result of gene splicing with amphibian DNA, or the lack of explanation between the differences between Velociraptor Mongoliensis and Velociraptor Antirrhopus (Deinonychus)) I have no idea why they went with elephant claws for the Brachiosaurs.
The novel is better in terms of science and lore, the film is better in characterization and plot progression.
Proposal: since you can't decide whether to call them velociraptor or deinonychus, just call them "The Clever Girls"
"Frog DNA"
Okay then show me the door opening frog.
“I’ve been looking forward to this”
-Dracula with a red glow stick and a nice beard
Raptor prey restraint boys! Oh yeah! This is what I was waiting for!
Fantastic video man! And congratulations! Your work is underrated!
Although i like to mention some thoughts regarding some of the facts. Primarily Velociraptor eyes. I myself have only compared bird eyes when drawing dinosaurs , and i don’t see any birds with vertical slit pupils as far as i know of. I haven’t read the research concerning the eyes, but i would argue that many nocturnal birds have round eyes, unless their eye anatomy is different.
Man I Was starting to wonder when part 2 Came out, So Perfect timing!
You are correct that Grant retcons how raptors killed their prey in Dominion. That was one of the things I liked about the movie. It was nice to see recent scientific research be brought in to the film. I only wish there was more of it.
I was having a bit of a rough time, thanks for the new video! I also really like how you compare the movie with the book when talking about it, Critchton's novel is often ignored when talking about how the films portrayed dinosaurs. I just disagree about the Velociraptor pupils, as modern nocturnal birds like owls all have round pupils.
I do have one counterpoint to the slit pupils, most (if not all) animals that have them are low to the ground with eyes near the surface, like crocodiles on the water, and snakes with the floor. Even big cats have round pupils (lions, tigers, cheetahs) whereas their smaller, lower-to-the-ground relatives like house cats have the iconic slit shape.
7:17 missed opportunity to put in a picture of Bumpy when you said scaly and bumpy skin
Anyways great vid as always :)
good video. However i hate the comparison to reptiles to suggest a lower intelligence. Its outdated and just wrong to suggest reptile arnt 'mammal smart'. Reptiles, specifically monitors and crocodilians exhibit intelligent behaviours that can easily rival mammals. The only difference is the media portraying them as slow dumb creatures. My tegu problem solves quicker than any dog or cat. I strongly suggest to anyone interested in this to look into Tom Crutchfield and the relationship he has with his crocodile monitors and iguanas.
I know I may bring up the book, but growth hormones were introduced into the animals, so may explain the spikes on the frill of Triceratops
Another great video, can you give "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" an accuracy review?
The biggest pro: the dinosaurs behave like animals and not monsters
jurrasic word dominion: giga bad rexy good
fallen kingdom: no, i dont think i will
@@jurassic_kiwi Therizino is a rexy fan and loves rexy so much even if they never met.
@@LeoTheYuty Sidenote: Spiny did nothing wrong!!
Excuse me? Have you seen 2 raptors fighting a T. rex, thats just like a pair of chickens ganging up on a bear
The 'Allosaurus had never seen such bull**** before' meme keeps getting me!! This it the 5th video this week I've seen to include it.
This gives me an idea for a jurassic park spinoff. Idk if it should be a show or movie, maybe a book. The idea is that in the 30 years since "dinosaurs " were brought back to life in the park, paleontology has made a lot of the same discoveries that they have in real life. A lot of these discoveries contradict the animals that jurassic park is presenting as dinosaurs. This causes a big conflict between ingine and scientists over the validity of these animals. I think it would be an interesting angle to go into with this universe and could serve the overall narrative of "you can't control nature." They thought they were cloning dinosaurs but they were really just creating new hybrid animals by mixing a bunch of DNA. Idk just spit balling a thought.
The Triceratops animatronic in the film was covered in dirt, there was also a Triceratops juvenile planned for the film, however, the animatronic wasn’t finished and it was used in the second film, however, Stegosaurus was supposed to be the sick dinosaur, but was the replaced by Triceratops, also Velociraptor was supposed to be Deinonychus
I would say a slit pupil is unlikely because it is only advantageous when the animal is low to the ground. Nocturnal predators who are taller, like bigger cats and canids, tend to have round pupils.
Yeah, and nocturnal raptors like owls have round pupils too.
Maybe the smaller ones had slit pupils; like V. Mongoliensis, while the larger ones didn’t?
@@mayhaps801 No no, Velociraptor was clearly build for running and chasing prey, also, it had the size of a turkey/dog, it definitely had round pupils.
Can’t wait for “The Lost World” accuracy review. A lot more dinosaurs, also Parasolophlus (I spelled that wrong 🙁) has a lot more screen time.
I think in regards to some of these animals pack hunting, I think that it's 50/50. Given how they're more often compared to birds than reptiles, sometimes, we can look at how some birds live and work together. (And I'm not saying this is 100% proof. Like you said, perhaps such things were of lone members who congregated over a food source or a mismatched group of stranger animals rather than a family. It's difficult to speak on how animals operated in groups, especially predators, that lived millions of years ago.)
I feel Jurassic isn’t inaccurate but outdated.
its both
@@loony1774 Yeah that's fair.
Glad to see a part 2, now Im wondering, would there be an episode dedicated for the Dinosauria Animated Series?
My theory on that whole "they need movement to see" thing I think is actually a diversion for the real reason she acted so odd. She was playing. Although she's shrink-wrapped and looks skinny, that's just how people thought rexes looked at that time. So, keeping that in mind, say she was being fed properly. What do animals do when given just enough room to roam, they're bored out of their skulls, and they're well fed and healthy? They play! Especially when they get to experience something new (in this case, more of the park). You see how she's tearing the car apart and keeps doing it until Graham gets the flare? What creature continues to rip things to shreds if fed properly? One that's playing! What's she do when she sees the flare go off? Exactly like a cat with a laser pointer. That movement Graham makes should have sent her charging to him, not the flare. That little bit of movement the lawyer does on the toilet wouldn't have caused much reaction from something that needs movement to see, as Graham showed with the flare (also, she doesn't eat the lawyer, just tears him in half and flings him off). Malcolm gets thrown, and she could have smelled him out, but since she wasn't hunting, she didn't pay attention to him. And why does she not immediately attack and eat the girl and Graham? Because they haven't set off her chase mode! She could have easily smelled them both, and saw them imo, but since she wasn't hungry, she begins to shove the car instead, trying to get them to run so she can get that trigger, like with cats.
The carnivores in the first and second movie were basically just giant cats! They just get the info wrong in the movie (the characters do, I feel Spielberg knew exactly what he was doing).
It's literally just all play behavior, it's just terrifying to us cuz we're so small comparatively!
Also ian malcolm says "to a canary, a cat is a monster, we are just used to being the cat"
Great vid as always.
I would have wished for two ratings, tho.
One for over all accuracy and one for accuracy at it's time, because for it's time, JP is definitely better than a D
I hope you do Disney's early 2000s dinosaur film.
Most accurate film of 1900
He should also do Happy Feet, Surfs Up, Legend of the Guardians and Rio since birds are dinosaurs, so those technically count as dinosaur films.
For the car thing with the T-Rex, you could make the argument that it needed to get going so the Rex caught up easily because of it. Plus Dr. Malcolm might have slowed down the car when he fell on the stick
Yeah, I was pretty sure that JP would be on par with Monsters Resurrected, accuracy-wise.
You could say, Deinonychus / Velociraptor claws lacked cutting-edge technology!
Yeah, I see myself out!
While I may not necessarily agree with _some_ of what you said here (the "Jurassic World" trilogy being _'terrible'_ is one of them; they're _not_ 💯 terrible flicks IMHO, but at the same time, they're _not_ 💯 perfect flicks either), you did *FANTASTIC* as always (👏)!
Yeah, not gonna lie; *I* am in the 'Frog DNA mutated the in-universe dinosaurs' genetic code/"NOTHING in Jurassic World is NATURAL!" camp. It could be because while I _am_ a genuine paleontology buff, I'm not THAT much of a paleontology buff to where I'm like, _super_ bothered by every single inaccuracy in a piece of Science Fiction media like the "Jurassic" films. I admit to having a _bit_ heavier Science Fiction kind of mind, so I personally have more of a tolerance for scientific inaccuracies. Of course, this is just ME talking; please don't take any of this personally, Red Raptor Writes.
With that said, a GREAT Part 2 here on one of *my* all-time favorite flicks (👍👍).
This is the main reason why I would have liked it more, if the first JP film’s scene with Mr. DNA stated that other animals besides frogs were used. For example, the animated segment could have shown a monitor lizard, alligator, ostrich, and/or hawk alongside the cartoon frog.
It would have been closer to the novel, where a combination of amphibian/reptilian/avian DNA was used, according to what I looked up again after reading the book. It would also allow more of the inaccuracies to actually be explainable by the gene-splicing, such as the raptors lacking feathers and being almost entirely covered in traditional reptile scales (which I don’t think any frogs have).
Finally, it would flow more seamlessly with the JW trilogy, when those films try to retroactively justify the inaccuracies this way. That would even accommodate plot points like Blue having some monitor lizard DNA within her genome. But otherwise, I can see how it can come off as a jarring retcon for RRW, when the first movie only referenced the frog genes yet had dinosaurs with all the same (or sometimes even fewer) inaccuracies.
Overall, I personally prefer to view this as an “Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole” on the first JP film’s part, rather than as another problem with the JW trilogy. That is pretty much the only thing I can nitpick about the first film, besides its handling of the T-Rex’s vision being “based on movement”. Those two are the only tiny flaws I perceive, in this otherwise nearly perfect movie.
@@markcobuzzi826 An 'Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole," hmmm (🤔)...that's a *good* observation! Yeah, from what I remember when I read the original novel, Dr. Wu name-dropped a number of modern animals whose DNA the InGen geneticists used to fill in the dinosaurs' genomes, not just frogs. While the movie just stuck with frogs, and nothing else.
OK, a minor nitpick, I suppose, AND a good observation (👍).
It's not that bad man it's actually pretty good in my opinion 4:54
As someone who enjoyed Dominion, that’s okay.
Do we have any idea how powerful Spinosaurus’ arms and how sharp their claws were?
It’s possible that Spinosaurus used one of its claws to impale and catch fish.
Finally someome who doesnt talk about the negatives only and didnt call them "early 1900's reptillian stereotypes" and doesnt act like it was some sort of super evil creation that ruined dinosaurs depictions!
*cough cough Trey the explainer cough cough*
Trey’s video on Jurassic Park did not age well.
2:13 deinocheirus asks did you forget about me
There are some extra details I would like to add to your review below (bold print is tl;dr version):
*1.) Even if we are only focusing on the first installments from the book and film continuities, the T-Rex’s vision being based on movement is still arguably an “Adaptation-Induced Plot Hole”.* In the very first novel, the T-Rex needing to see its prey moving was treated more as an unnatural anomaly, rather than an expected behavior like in the movie. Alan Grant (I think) wonders if that could have been a defect resulting specifically from the splicing of frog DNA. Until the second novel proposed its alternate possible explanation (where the T-Rex may have just been intrigued/disinterested), this was one of the few examples of JP media intentionally portraying an inaccuracy, then trying to explain it in-universe with modern animal DNA splicing.
*2.) About the JW film’s retcon, where the genetic hybridization of other animals besides frogs is used to explain inaccuracies in-universe, that does at least make the film franchise closer to the books’ lore. That is, even if it admittedly clashes with the first film’s established lore, where only the frog DNA is mentioned.* From what I recall reading and looking back up, the DNA of other modern animals besides frogs were stated to be used by InGen in the book continuity. There is also a scene in the first book between John Hammond and Dr. Wu (mirroring JW’s scene between Simon Masrani and Dr. Wu), where it is more highlighted that InGen’s replicas would not necessarily be accurate to their original prehistoric counterparts.
*With this being said, you do have a point that the books and films are two different continuities, and if we are going by what was explicitly established in the movie canon, there is a discrepancy between the first JP movie and first JW movie’s retcon. Plus, I agree that the retcon is no reason for some of the JW dinosaur designs to look somehow less accurate than their earlier JP counterparts.* So I think it is perfectly fair for you to criticize it on that front. But if you plan to go further and characterize the idea, as something which the JW trilogy purely made up on its own, I would partially disagree with you there. As one who liked the JP books, I felt that JW retcon should have been an established part of the movie canon from the beginning, so I am personally more willing to forgive that discrepancy in the sequel.
I would give leeway to the idea that it was the from DNA that was affecting the T. rex vision, but in the novel, it's not even listed as one of the dinosaurs that Wu filled in with frog. It didn't have the frog DNA. And in the movie, Alan knows about the vision based on movement without ever even hearing about Jurassic Park. This will be covered in my next video, but these are two reasons why I find these arguments so baffling.
In film too, Velociraptor looks and acts exactly how Dr. Grant expected. 6ft tall, coordinated attacks from the sides, and scaly. Yes, their DNA isn't pure dinosaur. However I would argue that in the book and consistently with his character in film, Hammond wanted them to be as lifelike as possible. Wu wanted to slow them down, but Hammond wouldn't have any of it. For the most part aside from the breeding, in-universe they were the real deal.
@@redraptorwrites6778
It was really cool to get a response from you, and I look forward to seeing your follow-ups on the topic.
I agree with your point about how Alan Grant in the movie version needlessly treats certain ideas, like the T-Rex's vision being based on movement, as though it is an accepted fact about the real animal in-universe. This is one of the only minor issues I have with the first JP movie, especially since it could have avoided presenting that notorious inaccuracy as absolute fact, if it played out more like in the book.
*After reading your reply to me, I revisited that conversation from the book between Dr. Wu and John Hammond, to see if I missed or forgot anything, using Klayton Fioriti's RUclips video as a resource: "The Tragedy of Dr. Henry Wu - Michael Crichton's Jurassic Park".* Upon revisiting the chapter, it appears I have overstated that aspect of the book lore a bit, for the chapter seems to treat the topic more ambiguously. At first, both characters say the the park's dinosaurs are close enough to the real thing, which Wu claims to be detrimental. Midway into the conversation, however, Wu tries to change the discussion's course and suddenly asserts that the initial modifications may have already disqualified the dinosaurs from truly being accurate representations of the real animals. Hammond doesn't buy his argument, though, and still maintains that they are real nonetheless.
*To say one last thing, I do think that the fan argument can work a little better for the book continuity, since some of the specific inaccuracies actually could be explained by the modern reptilian/avian DNA also stated to be used by InGen.* For example, I can actually imagine the Velociraptors becoming scaly due to lizard DNA being incorporated, but not from the frog DNA, which is the only thing established by the film version of JP.
@@redraptorwrites6778 wholly agree on the nonsense of the frog argument. Only raptors, hypsos, othies, compies and maias had frog DNA spliced in
The film they were shown explaining the engineering of the dinosaurs could’ve been an outdated one, or simplified for young children.
That’s my interpretation.
@@redraptorwrites6778
Seriously. You’re trusting novel Hammond’s judgment of Dinosaur accuracy?
It’s not like novel John Hammond isn’t a malicious greedy businessman who’s arrogant, ignorant, and delusional as h-l.
Cyrtocristatus is actually the largest currently, the ones with the small crests are young individuals
You're right about T-Rex's vision. And even if it was based on movement, the T-Rex in the film (Rexy) still should have been able to find Alen and Lex by simply smelling them, especially when her nose was literally right in front of them at one point. Heck, even its sequel, The Lost World, acknowledges T-Rex's sense of smell.
If the Gally in the movie is 20 feet long then and the real life Rex is 40ft then how big is the Jp Rex ?
You're welcome and congratulations! 😁👍
Wow I love this and love your content so much. I love JP dinosaurs and accurate ones too
Great vid, as always!
I heard the whole, "slit pupils=nocturnal" thing was debunked, for plenty of nocturnal animals have round pupils. I read it had more to do with the animal's height from the ground. The examples cited were cats and foxes vs their larger relatives. Cats and foxes are smaller and lower to the ground, hence having vertical pupils to better see through the grasses. Their larger relatives in lions (also nocturnal hunters) and wolves have round pupils since they're taller and can see over the grasses. Hence the round pupils.
I think it's an interesting thought. With it applied, I can see smaller dromaeosaurs like velociraptor having slit pupils while the larger ones like utahraptor had round.
Can you do a review for the other 5 Jurassic movies I would love to see how dominion holds up because it was the first one to show feathers.
Inb4 the people who always mention Frog DNA as a way to avoid criticism show up.
That was at least more warranted to bring up for the novel continuity, where modern birds and non-avian reptiles were also used to fill in genetic gaps. Then again, as Red Raptor Writes pointed out, the films are of a separate continuity where only the frog DNA is mentioned until the JW trilogy made that lore retcon.
29:52
I love this video so much and hope you have a great day
Its not deinonychus its a inaccurate velociraptor that traveled to america for a vacation
I think an inaccurate Giganotosaurus bought a plane ticket to the same airport for vacation.
Quotes/Sentences taken from “Jurassic Park” by Michael Crichton
Jurassic Park Sentence Bites
““Velociraptor,” Alan Grant said, in a low voice.
“Velociraptor mongoliensis,” Wu said, nodding.”” (Crichton, pg.107)
“Ellie said, “But the animals we just saw, the velociraptor-you said it was mongoliensis?”
“From the location of the amber,” Wu said. “It is from China.”
“Interesting,” Grant said. “I was just digging up an infant antirrhopus…”” (Crichton, pg.114)
“…”What do you know about Velociraptor?” Grant asked Tim. He was just making conversation.
“It’s a small carnivore that hunted in packs, like Deinonychus,” Tim said.
“That’s right,” Grant said, “although Deinonychus is now considered one of the velociraptors. And evidence for pack hunting is all circumstantial.”” ( Crichton, pg.115)
“”There they are now,” said the voice. “The animals you see are called dilophosaurs.”
Despite what the recording said, Tim saw only one. The dilophosaur was crouched on its hind legs by the river, drinking. It was built on the basic carnivore pattern, with a heavy tail, strong hind limbs, and a long neck. Its ten-foot tall body was spotted yellow and black, like a leopard.
But it was the head that held Tim’s attention. Two broad curving crests ran along the top of the head from the eyes to the nose. The crests met in the center, making a V shape above the dinosaur’s head…
“Dilophosaurus,” the tape said, “is one of the earliest carnivorous dinosaurs. Scientists thought their jaw muscles were too weak to kill prey, and imagined they were primarily scavengers…” (Crichton, pg.142)
“Grant was tensing to run for the woods when suddenly the tyrannosaur spun back to face him, and roared.
Grant froze.
He was standing beside the passenger door of the Land Cruiser, drenched in rain. He was completely exposed, the tyrannosaur no more than eight feet away. The big animal roared again. At so close a range the sound was terrifyingly loud…
The tyrannosaur roared once more, but it did not attack. It cocked its head, and looked with first one eye, then the other, at the Land Cruiser. And it did nothing.
It just stood there.
What was going on?
The powerful jaws opened and closed. The tyrannosaur bellowed angrily, and then the big hind leg came up and crashed down on the roof of the car; the claws slid off with a metal screech, barely missing Grant as he stood there, still unmoving…
He tensed his body waiting for the inevitable.
The big head slid past him, toward the rear of the car. Grant blinked.
What had happened?
Was it possible the tyrannosaur hadn’t seen him? It seemed as if it hadn’t. But how could that be? Grant looked back to see the animal sniffing the rear-mounted tire. It nudged the tire with its snout, and then the head swung back. Again it approached Grant.
This time the animal stopped, the black flaring nostrils just inches away. Grant felt the animal’s startling hot breath on his face. But the tyrannosaur wasn’t sniffing like a dog. It was just breathing, and if anything it seemed puzzled.
No, the tyrannosaur couldn’t see him. Not if he stood motionless. And in a detached corner of his mind he found an explanation for that, a reason why-
The jaws opened before him, the massive head raised up…
But now Grant was beginning to understand. The animal couldn’t see him, but it suspected he was there, somewhere, and was trying with its bellowing to frighten Grant into some revealing movement. So long as he stood his ground, Grant realized, he was invisible. (Crichton, pg.190,191)
“Grant couldn’t believe he was still alive, and as scattered images began to come back to him, he tried to make sense of them. The tyrannosaur should have killed them all easily. Why hadn’t it?” (Crichton, pg.214)
“He remembered how the tyrannosaur had failed to see him, the previous night. Grant decided on an experiment.
He coughed.
Instantly the hadrosaur froze, the big head suddenly still, the jaws no longer chewing. Only one eye moved, looking for the source of the sound. Then, after a moment, when there seemed to be no danger, the animal resumed chewing…
Grant was amazed. He thought, It really can’t see is when we don’t move. And after a minute it literally forgets that we’re here.
This was just like the tyrannosaur-another classic example of an amphibian visual cortex. Studies in frogs had shown that amphibians only saw moving things, like insects. If something didn’t move, they literally didn’t see it. ” (Crichton, pg.261,262)
Your vids like this one are great and I cant wait for more of your dino documentry vids but Im like 80% sure that prehistoric planet review will come next year. And I like your Voice
Yes!! I was waiting for this
Very nice and informative review as always, I love watching these.
If you're going to look at more non-educational dino films, I recommend Disney's "Dinosaur", one of my favourite childhood movies :)
About how fast T. Rex was running I always had issues that we only talk about full grown adult T. Rex. I'm curious about how fast younger T. Rex could run, being lighter and legs having different proportions.
Likely much faster. Juveniles and sub-adults would have fit the niche of medium predators. Juvies alongside Dakotaraptor of course
I’ve probably overstated it but I really don’t agree with the whole T.Rex was slow crap I mean it may not have been as fast as in the film but I don’t buy it not being able to run myself.
Actually, the T. rex leathery look was not an accident. The Jurassic Park novel described its skin felt like tree bark
5:24 Correct me if I am wrong but I’m pretty sure The Lost World first made that mistake and the World Trilogy adopted that design for JW and Fallen Kingdom.
Yes, the second Jurassic Park had already made the hadrosaurs bipedal before JW. If I'm not mistaken a very bipedal Corythosaurus also appears in JP 3.
My favorite part of this film is the scene where Dodgson and Nedry conspire to commit Grand Larceny against InGen.
Man, jurassic park was so good tho the inaccuracies had to come,but it makes sence it was made in 1993 :p
If only the other 3 jw movies were as good and maybe JP3 idk :p
JP3 is my favorite Jurassic movie but it is honestly worse than JP1, JP2, and JW1.
Yeah, being a nocturnal hunter doesn't automatically make slit pupils more likely. In living predators, slit pupils only show up in animals that are low to the ground. In the case of crocodiles or snakes, it's because they crawl along the ground (or swim near the surface of water), and in carnivorans, slit pupils are only present in smaller species, like foxes and house cats. More midsized predators such as coyotes (which are similar in height and weight to Velociraptor) tend not to have slit pupils, and large apex predators that are comparable in size and height to Deinonychus, like wolves and cougars, certainly don't have them. Cats in the 30 lb range like ocelots, fishing cats, and bobcats do have slit pupils (probably because they prefer to stalk and pounce on their prey, in contrast to coyotes and jackals), so it's possible (but not conclusive) for Velociraptor, but it seems rather unlikely for Deinonychus.
19:03 There is a theory that I agree with where Crition Heard about the discovery of Achillobator during 1989, but because it wasn't described till later he just attached the genus name Velociraptor to it. 27:46 I know many are going to disagree but overall I think it was more likely than not that raptors hunted in packs the type of prey they would be taking on would have required them to hunt in packs, on top of the fact that more substantial evidence of pack hunting exists in Tyrannosaurids, closely related ceolsaurs to dromaeosaurs. 29:38 I think saying possum smart is a little to harsh especially when we look at the intelligence portrayed by modern archosaurs such as crocs and birds, they would at the very least be on that level of intellect if not a tiny bit higher.
For Jurassic park fans we have discovered a larynx in a dinosaur specifically pinacosaurus so we now dinosaurs could make complex noises, such as roaring. Unfortunately the way it’s done in Jurassic park is still unlikely.
I know this isn't technically canon but concept art for Jurassic world Dominion shows Owen being chased by a pack of deinonychus instead of atrociraptors confirming the JP velociraptor and deinonychus are different animals.
Within the Jurassic World Evolution games’ canon, Velociraptor and Deinonychus are also portrayed as separate genera. The latter’s design also looks like a basilisk lizard or tadpole.
I hope he does an accuracy review of the Dinotopia series
I think my softest spot for JP's wrong display must be the T-Rex yell. I know real Rex were likely not roaring like here, but come on ! How awesome is that roar ?
I dunno about the slit eyes. It's not really a feature in most modern dinosaurs, even the nocturnal ones.
Slit eyes become less necessary the higher up the eyes are. Birds fly so they don't really need slit eyes.
@@catpoke9557 I could climb a mountain but that won't make me see better at night.
Owls have eyes that can see better at night. And they don't have slit eyes. And they hunt animals low to the ground.
@@HiperPivociarz It's not the night vision that gets worse. Slit pupils don't contribute much to night vision. It's mainly the other aspects of the eye that allow that. Slit pupils just enhance depth perception, and allow the animal to adjust its pupil size more efficiently, thus allowing them to see during the day AS WELL as night.
But the depth perception aspect mainly applies to animals which are low to the ground. I'm honestly not sure why, though. But anyways, that's why animals that are taller or live high up tend not to have slit pupils.
What if we one day found a set of dinosaur tracks and then miles away accidentally find the exact same dinosaur that made those tracks
We need a Rick raptor/red raptor collab
I'd be down for that.
21:00 for a few frames the raptor fixes it's wrists
Do you plan on reviewing [The last day of the dinosaurs] from 2010?
Red Raptor Writes, can you do accuracy reviews on The Lost World Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park III.
Allosaurus had never seen such bull ### before
its absolutely a retcon. but since you brought up "in universe" for Dino appearance i have to add this. "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didn't ask for reality, you asked for more teeth." Henry Wu. this one line pretty much covers any inconsistency in appearances. Wu also flat out lies about the Indominus being the first hybrid. with the Scorpios rex being the first genetically bred for specific traits. the Velociraptors may have had some deinonychus dna in them, and it produced something akin to a liger where it was larger then both parents
No the line doesn't help. It's a lazy backdoor used by JW. I have a whole separate video on it.
I knew he was going to reference Fantasia when he brought up a 3-fingered Tyrannosaurus rex.
Funny enough about that, Walt Disney himself was aware that Trex’s had only 2 fingers, but had it animated with 3 fingers because at the time the movie was made the public were more aware of them having 3 fingers then 2 and didn’t want to confuse anyone or remove there immersion of the scene.
@@brandonlyon730 Many of the decisions made regarding the dinosaur designs in Fantasia can be chalked up to public and scientific perception of dinosaurs at the time.
Did Parasalophus’ have hooves?
Edmontosaurus had hooves, do paleontologists believe that all Hadrosaurs had hooves?
I’m wanting to write a dinosaur novel and want to get the animals as accurate as possible. I can’t find any straight answer as I get a whole bunch of different reconstructions.
15:20 foot bones are called metatarsals. Metacarpals are in the hands
With the raptors, seeing how it’s wise to clone more than one animal
They probably made multiples at once and just placed them together and they just made a hierarchy like with chickens
2:10 Deinocheirus wants a word with you.
You should check out carnivores series
Wasn’t there a whole plot line in both novels, more prevalent in the first, about side effects the dinosaurs were displaying due to the gene splicing?
All the dinosaurs had movement based vision and could change their sex to breed, both explained in the book as a result of the amphibian DNA.
There are three different camouflaging dinosaurs, in the first novel a juvenile male velociraptor, in the second two Carnotaurs.
I don’t think Crichton ever tried to push the idea that these things were natural occurrences.
In fact the retconning of the T-Rex vision in the second novel could easily be explained away as those specific animals not being gene spliced with amphibian DNA, or at least not enough that it effects their vision. Of course this is never said out loud in the book, that I recall anyway, so that could just be speculation.
But one of the things Crichton was telling was the unpredictable nature of not just Gene Splicing but Genetic Engineering and the dangers of messing with such power.
WHO in the god loving world hasnt seen JP by now ? like where have you been living lmao
1- The Gallis doesn't have the correct mouth in the movie
2- It's weird because the mural in the visitor center looks a better body shape than the "living" animals
3- The Trike has the horns fossilized, even if the animal is alive, the tail is to long and is too chunky xD
4- Some studies propose some coloration, not only on the Crest on the head of T. Rex, but also at the foots, like a... bird... oh no.
5- The raptor of JP had cat like eyes, something impossible for birds (or at least that's what a paleontologist told me)
6- The skull shape in the Raptors is not binocular, like in real life
It's safe to say that the Rex's bad eyesight has been properly retconned at this point. Camp Cretaceous shown that Rexy was tricked into attacking a unmoving cardboard cutout of Brooklyn.
Another addition to the growing retcon list
Why would flightless dinosaurs have hollow bones?
there is a similar extinct carnivrous bird called- Thunder bird that's bones were quite solid