﻿Hey guys, I’m Moose and as much as I’d love to see fully-feathered dinosaurs pecking their prey to death,
it seems like ‘Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’ has chosen entertainment over accuracy.
These were all the smartest scientists on the planet! Only problem is... They kept being wrong!
...Sometimes.
In the 25 years since the first film debuted,
our understanding of dinosaurs has changed drastically,
but the ones on screen haven’t.
If you don't know Jurassic Park, you don't know crap.
The original movie wasn’t perfect either,
but with its army of genetically engineered animals,
‘Fallen Kingdom’ especially leans towards the ‘fiction’ part of science-fiction.
Still, that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Spare no expense and hold onto your butts,
because this is
Why Jurassic World Doesn’t Care About Science
Now, in order to explain that,
we have to go back to the birth of the series.
Because 25 years ago,
'Jurassic Park' was on
The Cutting Edge
of dinosaur research.
Ever since Richard Owen coined the name in 1842,
dinosaurs have captivated scientists and civilians alike.
But for over a hundred years,
the dinosaurs in our imaginations were very different beasts.
We thought of dinosaurs as cold-blooded, lumbering, dimwitted reptiles,
way more Godzilla than gallimimus.
We just couldn’t imagine something so big moving with the grace and speed,
and we sure as hell couldn’t see how a 100 foot-long Diplodocus could evolve into a hummingbird.
Our knowledge changed drastically beginning in the 1960s,
when discoveries by paleontologists like Robert Bakker and John Ostrom led to a revolution in dinosaur science.
Their studies of the recently-discovered Deinonychus established that dinosaurs were lively, active, warm-blooded creatures,
as opposed to the sluggish, scaly giants we had always envisioned.
We can tear up the rule book on cold-bloodedness. It doesn't apply, they're totally wrong! This is a warm-blooded creature.
This thing doesn't live in a swamp!
On top of that, Deinonychus’ skeleton bore an undeniable resemblance to the bones of birds,
a find which led to today’s widely accepted idea that dinosaurs are their direct ancestors.
It was a paradigm shift in paleontology,
a ‘dinosaur renaissance,’
but unless you were reading academic journals or digging up bones yourself,
odds are you still thought of dinosaurs as Barney,
not badasses.
It would take a game-changing sci-fi masterpiece from the man who invented blockbuster films,
to finally spread the truth about these terrible lizards,
and inspire a new generation of dino-crazy kids.
Doctor Grant…
My dear Doctor Sattler…
Welcome to
Jurassic Park.
I can’t overstate the impact ‘Jurassic Park’ had on our imaginations.
On top of being an terrifying sci-fi thriller,
and a revolutionary leap forward in special effects,
it completely changed the way we perceived dinosaurs.
Today, the ideas of birds as dino descendants is commonplace,
but back then,
we were all that annoying kid on Grant’s dig site.
More like a six foot turkey!
And the same way Grant blew his mind,
‘Jurassic Park’ blew ours.
Spielberg’s dinosaurs dazzled us with their majesty and grace,
and scared the crap out us with their speed and brutality.
Mr. Hammond, I think we're back in business!
From the towering t-rex to the vicious velociraptors,
the second you left ‘Jurassic Park,’
Dino from ‘The Flintstones’ wasn’t going to cut it anymore.
Spielberg’s goal in adapting Michael Crichton's novel was to create dinosaurs that felt like animals,
not monsters.
and to that end, he hired paleontologist Jack Horner to lend some verisimilitude to the creature design.
For example,
back when they were still experimenting with stop-motion,
Spielberg showed Horner early test footage of raptors with forked, flicking, snake-like tongues.
Horner wouldn’t let that lapse in realism slide,
but even with his input,
there were still plenty of inaccuracies in the original film.
For one thing, Velociraptors were actually about the size of small poodle,
while Dilophosaurus was closer to 20 feet long,
with no evidence to support a frill,
or the ability to spit poisonous green goop on your favorite 'Seinfeld' sidekick.
And I'm not talking about Puddy.
It was also impossible for Brachiosaurus to chew or rear back on its hind legs,
but Spielberg wanted the creatures to have a bovine quality for their heartfelt moment with Grant, Lex and Tim.
Just think of it as a big cow.
Finally, the idea that the T-rex couldn’t see movement is another fiction cooked up by the screenplay,
as was his ability to sprint at 30 miles-per-hour on his hollow-ass bird bones.
Some of the stuffier scientists in the paleontology scene were upset by the changes,
but most people were too blown away by the incredible effects to care.
Horner himself even accepted the inaccuracies, saying:
‘My job was to make the dinosaurs look as good as they could’
He created actors for Spielberg to direct,
not carbon copies based on the most current science possible.
And it’s a good thing, too,
because science is always
Marching On.
When ‘Jurassic Park’ first premiered,
Scientists were already speculating that dinosaurs had feathers.
And by the time the sequels rolled around, it was all but confirmed.
Despite the latest findings, 'The Lost World' kept the reptilian raptors,
and so did the third movie.
They threw a few quills on their heads,
Alan!
but it was a far cry from the colorful, fluffy, feathery birds of prey.
The movies were in a tough spot,
if they kept the dinos as they were in the original,
they risked looking misinformed and behind the times--
dinosaurs, for lack of a better term.
[GOLDBLUM LAUGHTER]
On the other hand, it would create a massive continuity problem if the dinos from the first film were retconned to look like roosters.
Ultimately, the producers went with consistency over scientific consensus,
and when it came time for the franchise reboot,
they stuck to their guns.
'Jurassic World' revitalized the series,
and before it came out,
there was speculation as to whether they’d use the opportunity to bring the dinosaurs back in line with scientific knowledge.
Then, Colin Trevorrow dashed the hopes of dino-dorks everywhere with two words:
No feathers.
NOOO!!!
And once the movie released, we were treated to a whole host of new inaccuracies.
The massive Mosasaur?
For one thing, it’s not even a dinosaur,
and at most it would be about 60 feet long.
And unless they had jetpacks, there’s no way those Pterosaurs would be able to lift up full grown humans.
Although, unlike the third movie, at least they don't have teeth this time.
And yet, despite all these inaccuracies, nobody cared!
See? Nobody cares.
and it went on to make a buttload of money,
proving that,
when it comes to the 'Jurassic Park' franchise,
It’s Okay to Be Inaccurate.
For one thing, it’s kind of baked into the premise.
These aren’t 1:1 replicas straight from the amber,
the samples had to be patched up with frog DNA to repair 65 million years of degradation,
on top of the failsafes like the lysine contingency that InGen inserted into the genetic code.
The lysine contingency is intended to prevent the spread of the animals is case they ever got off the island,
Dr. Wu inserted a gene that makes a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism. Animals can't manufacture the
amino acid lysine. Unless they're continually supplied with lysine by us, they'll go into a coma and die.
The book took things even further,
adding random strands of DNA to serve as copyright protection,
dino-DRM, in other words.
The point being: The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were never the real deal,
they were created for entertainment,
to sell tickets and put butts in seats,
just like the movies.
We spared no expense!
It even becomes a plot point in ‘Jurassic World,’
when they create the Indominus Rex to excite the crowds that had grown jaded of boring, ‘realistic’ dinosaurs.
Think it'll scare the kids?
This will give the parents nightmares.
Is that... good?
It's fantastic.
Speaking of 'Jurassic World,'
how successful do you think their big, nostalgia-driven reboot would have been if the dinosaurs looked completely different from the beloved movie they were trying to milk?
It’d be like if ‘The Force Awakens’ replaced Han Solo with an American Airlines pilot.
‘Jurassic Park’ was trailblazing for its time,
and even if its dinos are a little dated,
they’re what people want to see.
It might not be the most accurate series,
but the interest it sparked has made a significant contribution to actual science.
In the time before ‘Jurassic Park,’ there were maybe 15 new dinosaur species discovered every year,
today, it’s more like 50.
Those kids who wanted to learn more about the T-rex that terrified them in the theater?
They grew into the next generation of paleontologists,
and I don’t think you’ll hear any of them complaining that raptors have lips.
‘Jurassic World’ isn’t accurate because it doesn’t have to be,
it’s job is to get you excited about dinosaurs.
not the minutiae of individual species,
but the mind-blowing concept that these massive creatures ruled the planet for millions of years.
For centuries, dinosaurs have fascinated us based on nothing more than bones.
We may never bring them back to life,
but the big screen is the next best thing,
'Jurassic World' could retcon everything and provide squawking, scientifically accurate dinosaurs,
but as the esteemed Dr. Grant once said,
‘Where’s the fun in that?’