Bakker made up Utahraptor Discovery story

[Patrx]

Whether the animals in question were actually "warm-blooded" or not isn't really important, I think. The point is that in 1993, every relevant researcher worth listening to thought that dinosaurs probably were "warm-blooded", and the movie portrayed that.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Whether the animals in question were actually "warm-blooded" or not isn't really important, I think. The point is that in 1993, every relevant researcher worth listening to thought that dinosaurs probably were "warm-blooded", and the movie portrayed that.

Right and I understand that point Patrx, what I am saying is ..where you say portrayed, I see it as over-portrayed to the point of silliness. That is where you and are differing I think. I just felt the cosntant bombardment of contrived scenes to demonstrate the concept was......forced. That is all I am saying.

[laticauda]

Let's look at the first Jurassic Park.  Before I read Jurassic Park in 6th grade which I think was 1990 or 91, as a wee lad, every teacher, ever childhood book that I read, everything that I had heard or known from adults was, Dinosaurs were some kind of GIANT LIZARD. 

Michael Crichton made a fictional story, based in some real fact regarding science and Dinosaurs.  In fact, the main reason he wrote the book, was he had been interested in the idea of a dinosaur story for years, and when his kid was born he kept buying stuffed Dinos, so he decided it was time to write it.  Even then it took awhile to get it right.    Second, his premise is that scientists tend to go over the top especially in arrogance.  A lot of his ideals are written into the Malcom Character.  Ok I getting of point, but then look at Steven Spielberg.  Steven wanted to make a real movie, not a monster movie.  His goal was to make the Dinosaurs be real, not accurate.  He didn't want a monster movie.  So the art departments, and special effects teams, looked at real animals, and some current research, to come up with how they might move, or what the skin texture might be.  The Velociraptor size was changed because Steven wanted a more terrifying animal, and thought Velociraptor were too small. 

Phil Tippett who was doing originally going to do all the go motion in the movie made some shorts of the key scenes.  In the Raptor kitchen, he added the tongue flick, which he was told sternly by Horner that he had it all wrong.  Remember that Horner was an advisor, not the man in charge of making all the decisions.  In the end, the producers, director, art departments, etc., wanted the world to know they were up to date with current theory's on dinosaurs. 

This was done so well, that a new generation became very interested in dinosaurs, and continues to inspire people, even with its inaccuracy.  At the end of Lost World (book) by M. Crichton, one of the characters points out, that we are always learning, and some of the truths that we think are fact, will be looked at by the next generation as laughable, that we ever believed in it.  Look how far we have come since the first movie came out in our understanding of different species, environments, skin textures, feathers, etc. 

So in my opinion, at the time, Jurassic Park was the most accurate movie that I had ever seen, concerning dinosaurs.  So don't judge to harshly, a movie and franchise that is based on fiction, by people who may not know much about dinosaurs, but are struggling to do their best, for a movie that is made, not for educational use, but for entertainment.   

So you have a book and movie, that were researched, but ultimately are fictional stories, done by people who grew up like me, with archaic thoughts on dinosaurs, thrust into a whole new world of Dino thought, and did their best to make a believable and realistic dinosaurs.  It happened to be better than anything that came before it. 

[Doug Watson]

I thought long and hard about getting into this debate but after reading the comments through I see a great deal of mutual respect being shown by the members here who I am well acquainted with so I feel safe in jumping in.
Amargasaurus in reading your comments here I get the idea that you believe Jurassic Park and the sequels did the greatest disservice to paleontological knowledge in movie history. Let me know if I exaggerate but that is the feeling I get. I can only repeat my experience working in a Natural History museum at the time. I remember a great buzz amongst the staff especially in the paleo division. Like I said we a had a great boost in attendance because of our dinosaur exhibits. Around the opening of each sequel we always had extra programs and satellite exhibits in the ready to "cash in". Plus our scientists gave regular talks to the public discussing the science of Jurassic Park where the public could get involved in Q & A s after the talks. These kind of sessions happened year round on all natural history subjects but whenever a JP instalment hit the theatres the emphasis shifted to dinosaurs. So there was ample time for the public to get the facts (as they were at the time) and I am sure the same could be said for other museums around the world. I remember books and TV specials about the science of JP where scientists with differing views were able to voice their opinions. This kind of mass dialogue would not have happened without the books and especially not without the movies. This forum has a pretty big membership and I don't think I have come across anyone here who isn't aware of the movies shortcomings so was the damage really that severe.

The makers of the movies certainly didn't make them for altruistic reasons, they made them to make money but in saying that look who they hired as consultants and specialists: Jack Horner - consultant: palaeontology, Doug Henderson - dinosaur specialist, Mark Hallett - dinosaur specialist, John Gurche - dinosaur specialist, Gregory Paul - dinosaur specialist. I would say they took pretty good steps to ensure these dinos would be (and here it comes) the most up to date in movies. "Release the hounds!!!" Now I do see a difference between accurate and most accurate to date in fact I believe the way I described them at the time to people was "the most realistic dinosaurs in movies". Meaning that they looked like real living, breathing animals and not obvious special effects. Remember I had lived through iguanas with horns and sails glued on and choppy anatomically incorrect stop motion dinosaurs. That is what I had to compare to.
Now no matter when you make a dinosaur movie if you try to be "accurate" and hire specialists you will be married to the prevailing theories of the time especially the ones that your specialist subscribed to. I know from one of the "The Making Of" videos that it was Jack Horner that nixed the snake tongues on the raptors. That was a quote from one of the digital animators so we know they did listen to some of the advice. How much they didn't listen to the experts we will probably never know. I am sure the experts will all say they advised against everything that wasn't accurate and take credit for what was right. That's just human nature.

I am a believer in endothermy in some form or another in dinosaurs of all sizes for differing reasons so that part of the story certainly didn't offend me especially since it was a hot (no pun intended) topic at the time. They also showed dinosaurs as active, in some cases intelligent animals that cared for their young, formed family groups, herds or flocks rather than lumbering dumb monsters lurching their way to their next meal of caveman. Actually for the first time I believe in movies they didn't have the herbivores chasing and sometimes eating people.

As far as super sizing the dinos that is a time honoured movie tradition, most if not all of the dinosaurs in the original King Kong were over sized. When I saw JP for the first time I was aware of the inaccuracies especially when it came to size but at least the proportions were adhered to as far as they compare to Greg Paul's restorations so that was a big improvement over the old stop motion examples. I even got a kick out of the Dilophosaurus since in a way that was pretty ground breaking speculation on the types of attributes dinosaurs could have that might not be recorded in fossil history. Its something I wouldn't put in a sculpture but this is a movie what the heck.
Could the dinosaurs have been more accurate, absolutely, do I wish they had never made the movies and we would all still be waiting for the definitive movie on dinosaurs, heck no. As I mentioned in my post in the JP 4 topic I believe JP and the sequels helped research in dinosaurs so I won't go into that again but I also believe my life with dinosaurs would have suffered for not having those movies in fact I might not have had the opportunity to do what I am doing with Safari Ltd without them. I don't think I am exaggerating there. Now that thought might make a few here happy but I am thinking about myself.
Now I don't really think I am going to change your opinion here but I do respect it even if I don't agree with it.

[laticauda]

I thought long and hard about getting into this debate but after reading the comments through I see a great deal of mutual respect being shown by the members here who I am well acquainted with so I feel safe in jumping in.
Amargasaurus in reading your comments here I get the idea that you believe Jurassic Park and the sequels did the greatest disservice to paleontological knowledge in movie history. Let me know if I exaggerate but that is the feeling I get. I can only repeat my experience working in a Natural History museum at the time. I remember a great buzz amongst the staff especially in the paleo division. Like I said we a had a great boost in attendance because of our dinosaur exhibits. Around the opening of each sequel we always had extra programs and satellite exhibits in the ready to "cash in". Plus our scientists gave regular talks to the public discussing the science of Jurassic Park where the public could get involved in Q & A s after the talks. These kind of sessions happened year round on all natural history subjects but whenever a JP instalment hit the theatres the emphasis shifted to dinosaurs. So there was ample time for the public to get the facts (as they were at the time) and I am sure the same could be said for other museums around the world. I remember books and TV specials about the science of JP where scientists with differing views were able to voice their opinions. This kind of mass dialogue would not have happened without the books and especially not without the movies. This forum has a pretty big membership and I don't think I have come across anyone here who isn't aware of the movies shortcomings so was the damage really that severe.

The makers of the movies certainly didn't make them for altruistic reasons, they made them to make money but in saying that look who they hired as consultants and specialists: Jack Horner - consultant: palaeontology, Doug Henderson - dinosaur specialist, Mark Hallett - dinosaur specialist, John Gurche - dinosaur specialist, Gregory Paul - dinosaur specialist. I would say they took pretty good steps to ensure these dinos would be (and here it comes) the most up to date in movies. "Release the hounds!!!" Now I do see a difference between accurate and most accurate to date in fact I believe the way I described them at the time to people was "the most realistic dinosaurs in movies". Meaning that they looked like real living, breathing animals and not obvious special effects. Remember I had lived through iguanas with horns and sails glued on and choppy anatomically incorrect stop motion dinosaurs. That is what I had to compare to.
Now no matter when you make a dinosaur movie if you try to be "accurate" and hire specialists you will be married to the prevailing theories of the time especially the ones that your specialist subscribed to. I know from one of the "The Making Of" videos that it was Jack Horner that nixed the snake tongues on the raptors. That was a quote from one of the digital animators so we know they did listen to some of the advice. How much they didn't listen to the experts we will probably never know. I am sure the experts will all say they advised against everything that wasn't accurate and take credit for what was right. That's just human nature.

I am a believer in endothermy in some form or another in dinosaurs of all sizes for differing reasons so that part of the story certainly didn't offend me especially since it was a hot (no pun intended) topic at the time. They also showed dinosaurs as active, in some cases intelligent animals that cared for their young, formed family groups, herds or flocks rather than lumbering dumb monsters lurching their way to their next meal of caveman. Actually for the first time I believe in movies they didn't have the herbivores chasing and sometimes eating people.

As far as super sizing the dinos that is a time honoured movie tradition, most if not all of the dinosaurs in the original King Kong were over sized. When I saw JP for the first time I was aware of the inaccuracies especially when it came to size but at least the proportions were adhered as far as they compare to Greg Paul's restorations so that was a big improvement over the old stop motion examples. I even got a kick out of the Dilophosaurus since in a way that was pretty ground breaking speculation on the types of attributes dinosaurs could have that might not be recorded in fossil history. Its something I wouldn't put in a sculpture but this is a movie what the heck.
Could the dinosaurs have been more accurate, absolutely, do I wish they had never made the movies and we would all still be waiting for the definitive movie on dinosaurs, heck no. As I mentioned in my post in the JP 4 topic I believe JP and the sequels helped research in dinosaurs so I won't go into that again but I also believe my life with dinosaurs would have suffered for not having those movies in fact I might not have had the opportunity to do what I am doing with Safari Ltd without them. I don't think I am exaggerating there. Now that thought might make a few here happy but I am thinking about myself.
Now I don't really think I am going to change your opinion here but I do respect it even if I don't agree with it.

Didn't I just say most that above.. HEE HEE.  That is what is great about a forum.  Not that we all agree, but we each get a say, and then listen to see what others will say.  Maybe we change our mind, maybe we don't, but it gives us more information to use and to think about. 

[Doug Watson]

Didn't I just say most that above.. HEE HEE.  That is what is great about a forum.  Not that we all agree, but we each get a say, and then listen to see what others will say.  Maybe we change our mind, maybe we don't, but it gives us more information to use and to think about.

Well, I am one of the slowest typists of all time, plus I don't think all that fast so every time I write something there is usually a new post or two before I hit post so usually say the heck with it I am not typing anymore.

[laticauda]

Didn't I just say most that above.. HEE HEE.  That is what is great about a forum.  Not that we all agree, but we each get a say, and then listen to see what others will say.  Maybe we change our mind, maybe we don't, but it gives us more information to use and to think about.

Well, I am one of the slowest typists of all time, plus I don't think all that fast so every time I write something there is usually a new post or two before I hit post so usually say the heck with it I am not typing anymore.

No, its cool,  you have some really interesting perspectives and insights in your above thoughts.  I am just long winded.   

[Gwangi]

It is rather simple...accurate to date or accurate either one BOTH rely on something being ACCURATE  wether at that time or currently. This cannot be said for Jurassic Park dinosaurs at the date of release of the movie or now either, sorry. They have never been correct and were never. I am unsure what torturing of logic would suggest because a dinosaur does not drag its tail its somehow accurate despite a littany of other issues. That is just not good reasoning. As I have said before, the Jurassic Part dinosaurs simply traded more dated mistakes with more money motivated ones.

Jumping back in for a second, but I'm going to keep it short. Just as I had trusted, others are more or less saying what I would have had to say. No one has said, or ever said that the Jurassic Park dinosaurs were accurate. Most accurate for a movie or for the time, I believe is how most of us put it. And that is not an opinion. They really were. No other dinosaur movie had dinosaurs that compared to those in JP. Were they flawless? No. Did they conform with the prevailing ideas about dinosaurs at the time? Mostly, yes. Like Patrx said, aside from the size there was nothing wrong with the Deinonychus Velociraptor in the original film. They don't stand up well today, but at the time they certainly did. The Brachiosaurus, Triceratops, Gallimimus...all anatomically accurate for what we knew in 1993. The Tyrannosaurus has an over sized head and arms...sure, I'll give you that. But can you pick out a better Tyrannosaurus from a movie? No, that means JP had the most accurate dinosaurs depicted in a movie. Not flawless, but more accurate than anything else put to film. We're not just talking about posture here, the attention to detail was far greater than that of any other movie. And trust me, I've seen a lot of dinosaur movies! I can't come up with anything that did a better job.

[leidy]

    As to Horner and his influence, read some of his books on this topic. Many of the scenes used in the movie were his ideas and suggestions.....even an incomplete list would in some way affect practically every scene in the movie, so ingrained was the agenda to portray all dinosaurs as warm blooded. Yes, I call that an agenda.....if you havent looked closely at the movie...consider.
We have Tyrannosaurus hunting at night, in the rain no less to suggest warm blooded. Nevermind the concept suggested about vision being based on movement, Horners idea. We have Raptors breathing mist, and scenting with their noses, both traits of warm blooded animals. We have raptors running at speeds that could only be with a warm blooded metabolism. We have sneezing Brachiosaurs, because in order to catch a cold you of course have to be warm blooded. The list goes on and on, nearly every scene has its moment of reinforcement for this concept. Why? And further how is that accurate?
 

Where do you get that from?  If that was Horner's view, one might expect to find something about that in The Complete T.rex, his book of the time.

You won't.

What was Horner's view at the time of the sensory perception of an animal like T.rex?

It's likely that T.rex had superior eyesight for a dinosaur.  When you look at the skull, you see right away that its eyes both pointed forward, though not as much as our own.  This eye alignment could mean that T.rex had depth perception like ours.  That's unusual among dinosaurs.  If you look at the skull of a Triceratops, you'll see its eyes poke out to the side like a cow's.  The same with duckbilled dinosaurs.

But you can't tell from a fossil how far the eye stuck out of the orbit.  Most birds' eyes are set to the side, but they also stick out far enough to see forward.  And just because your eyes point forward doesn't mean they have to work together to give you depth perception.  Oilbirds, which do have forward-pointing eyes and overlapping visual fields, don't have stereo vision.  T.rex also had a deep snout that might have limited the overlap in vision in its eyes.  Without other clues to vision that would be found only in soft-tissue parts that don't fossilize, we can't say for sure if T.rex could see in three dimensions.

It's even more difficult to say anything about other senses -- hearing, taste, smell - until we understand more about the braincase itself.  All those holes in T.rex's skull would have been good resonating chambers for transmitting or amplifying sounds.  Phil Currie thinks that was their prime function.  In birds the holes are associated with the middle ear.   Big air chambers behind the eardrum help them hear lower sounds better.  T.rex could have used good ears to hear bellowing duckbills from far away.

Bob Bakker has spent a lot of time digging around, literally, in the skull  of T.rex.  He's even taken a coat hanger to probe the pathway of a nerve that runs sideways alongside two other nerves from the braincase to the upper jaw.  In human s that nerve gives more sensitivity to touch.  In a T.rex at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Bob found that the nerve channel ran straight out of thre skull all by itself.  Among backboned animals, only birds have the same pattern for that nerve.

Russian paleontologist Leonid Tatarinov suggested the holes in T.rex's snout were nerve openings in what might have been a very sensitive snout.  Bob Bakker thinks T.rex had a neat row of nerves in the front of the snout that suggest it had lips.  Since I know of no counterpart for T.rex's nasal bone structure on any living animal, I won't guess about its function.

Bob with his coat hanger and Phil Currie with needle probes both found that the entire cranial architecture of large carnivorous dinosaurs had a lot in common with small carnivores, and with birds.  Bob thinks the oval-shaped holes on each side of the nose of T.rex were nerve centers for great sniffing power.  A keen sense of smell would be useful for T.rex, whether it was a predator or a scavenger, but there's no proving those holes ever had anything in them because cartilage is rarely preserved.  But Bob says he's seen the imprint of cartilage on the inside of the snout and compares it to that of modern alligators, which are good smellers.  Bob's is a plausible speculation, but those sinuses, and Bob's theory, could just as easily be filled with hot air.

Sometimes Bob isn't going against the facts, just ahead of them.  And once in a while the facts catch up and prove Bob's speculation was right after all.  That was the case with the nose of that pygmy tyrannosaur, Nanotyrannus.  The delicate, slightly spiraling turbinal bone within the nostril had never been seen before in a predatory dinosaur.  We know turbinals from some keen-smelling mammals like deer.  The spiral increases the surface area for better smelling.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

    As to Horner and his influence, read some of his books on this topic. Many of the scenes used in the movie were his ideas and suggestions.....even an incomplete list would in some way affect practically every scene in the movie, so ingrained was the agenda to portray all dinosaurs as warm blooded. Yes, I call that an agenda.....if you havent looked closely at the movie...consider.
We have Tyrannosaurus hunting at night, in the rain no less to suggest warm blooded. Nevermind the concept suggested about vision being based on movement, Horners idea. We have Raptors breathing mist, and scenting with their noses, both traits of warm blooded animals. We have raptors running at speeds that could only be with a warm blooded metabolism. We have sneezing Brachiosaurs, because in order to catch a cold you of course have to be warm blooded. The list goes on and on, nearly every scene has its moment of reinforcement for this concept. Why? And further how is that accurate?
 

Where do you get that from?  If that was Horner's view, one might expect to find something about that in The Complete T.rex, his book of the time.

You won't.

What was Horner's view at the time of the sensory perception of an animal like T.rex?

It's likely that T.rex had superior eyesight for a dinosaur.  When you look at the skull, you see right away that its eyes both pointed forward, though not as much as our own.  This eye alignment could mean that T.rex had depth perception like ours.  That's unusual among dinosaurs.  If you look at the skull of a Triceratops, you'll see its eyes poke out to the side like a cow's.  The same with duckbilled dinosaurs.

But you can't tell from a fossil how far the eye stuck out of the orbit.  Most birds' eyes are set to the side, but they also stick out far enough to see forward.  And just because your eyes point forward doesn't mean they have to work together to give you depth perception.  Oilbirds, which do have forward-pointing eyes and overlapping visual fields, don't have stereo vision.  T.rex also had a deep snout that might have limited the overlap in vision in its eyes.  Without other clues to vision that would be found only in soft-tissue parts that don't fossilize, we can't say for sure if T.rex could see in three dimensions.

It's even more difficult to say anything about other senses -- hearing, taste, smell - until we understand more about the braincase itself.  All those holes in T.rex's skull would have been good resonating chambers for transmitting or amplifying sounds.  Phil Currie thinks that was their prime function.  In birds the holes are associated with the middle ear.   Big air chambers behind the eardrum help them hear lower sounds better.  T.rex could have used good ears to hear bellowing duckbills from far away.

Bob Bakker has spent a lot of time digging around, literally, in the skull  of T.rex.  He's even taken a coat hanger to probe the pathway of a nerve that runs sideways alongside two other nerves from the braincase to the upper jaw.  In human s that nerve gives more sensitivity to touch.  In a T.rex at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Bob found that the nerve channel ran straight out of thre skull all by itself.  Among backboned animals, only birds have the same pattern for that nerve.

Russian paleontologist Leonid Tatarinov suggested the holes in T.rex's snout were nerve openings in what might have been a very sensitive snout.  Bob Bakker thinks T.rex had a neat row of nerves in the front of the snout that suggest it had lips.  Since I know of no counterpart for T.rex's nasal bone structure on any living animal, I won't guess about its function.

Bob with his coat hanger and Phil Currie with needle probes both found that the entire cranial architecture of large carnivorous dinosaurs had a lot in common with small carnivores, and with birds.  Bob thinks the oval-shaped holes on each side of the nose of T.rex were nerve centers for great sniffing power.  A keen sense of smell would be useful for T.rex, whether it was a predator or a scavenger, but there's no proving those holes ever had anything in them because cartilage is rarely preserved.  But Bob says he's seen the imprint of cartilage on the inside of the snout and compares it to that of modern alligators, which are good smellers.  Bob's is a plausible speculation, but those sinuses, and Bob's theory, could just as easily be filled with hot air.

Sometimes Bob isn't going against the facts, just ahead of them.  And once in a while the facts catch up and prove Bob's speculation was right after all.  That was the case with the nose of that pygmy tyrannosaur, Nanotyrannus.  The delicate, slightly spiraling turbinal bone within the nostril had never been seen before in a predatory dinosaur.  We know turbinals from some keen-smelling mammals like deer.  The spiral increases the surface area for better smelling.

Precisely, my point. Make note he states " When you look at the skull, you see right away that its eyes both pointed forward, though not as much as our own.  This eye alignment could mean that T.rex had depth perception like ours.  " 

He is stating it as a possibility, and one he himself did not hold as true, as stated in his later books about his experiences with Jurassic Park. |If you read the wording, he is stating...it might be, not it is or as if he were speaking from the position of it is true, and doubt might exist. He is stating it as doubtful to start with and ....could mean.
  He further elaborates......"T.rex also had a deep snout that might have limited the overlap in vision in its eyes.  Without other clues to vision that would be found only in soft-tissue parts that don't fossilize, we can't say for sure if T.rex could see in three dimensions."

what isnt clear about that? he is saying precisely what I said he did....providing doubt that tyrannosaurs could see in three dimensions and thus required movement to percieve things.

[leidy]

    As to Horner and his influence, read some of his books on this topic. Many of the scenes used in the movie were his ideas and suggestions.....even an incomplete list would in some way affect practically every scene in the movie, so ingrained was the agenda to portray all dinosaurs as warm blooded. Yes, I call that an agenda.....if you havent looked closely at the movie...consider.
We have Tyrannosaurus hunting at night, in the rain no less to suggest warm blooded. Nevermind the concept suggested about vision being based on movement, Horners idea. We have Raptors breathing mist, and scenting with their noses, both traits of warm blooded animals. We have raptors running at speeds that could only be with a warm blooded metabolism. We have sneezing Brachiosaurs, because in order to catch a cold you of course have to be warm blooded. The list goes on and on, nearly every scene has its moment of reinforcement for this concept. Why? And further how is that accurate?
 

Where do you get that from?  If that was Horner's view, one might expect to find something about that in The Complete T.rex, his book of the time.

You won't.

What was Horner's view at the time of the sensory perception of an animal like T.rex?

It's likely that T.rex had superior eyesight for a dinosaur.  When you look at the skull, you see right away that its eyes both pointed forward, though not as much as our own.  This eye alignment could mean that T.rex had depth perception like ours.  That's unusual among dinosaurs.  If you look at the skull of a Triceratops, you'll see its eyes poke out to the side like a cow's.  The same with duckbilled dinosaurs.

But you can't tell from a fossil how far the eye stuck out of the orbit.  Most birds' eyes are set to the side, but they also stick out far enough to see forward.  And just because your eyes point forward doesn't mean they have to work together to give you depth perception.  Oilbirds, which do have forward-pointing eyes and overlapping visual fields, don't have stereo vision.  T.rex also had a deep snout that might have limited the overlap in vision in its eyes.  Without other clues to vision that would be found only in soft-tissue parts that don't fossilize, we can't say for sure if T.rex could see in three dimensions.

It's even more difficult to say anything about other senses -- hearing, taste, smell - until we understand more about the braincase itself.  All those holes in T.rex's skull would have been good resonating chambers for transmitting or amplifying sounds.  Phil Currie thinks that was their prime function.  In birds the holes are associated with the middle ear.   Big air chambers behind the eardrum help them hear lower sounds better.  T.rex could have used good ears to hear bellowing duckbills from far away.

Bob Bakker has spent a lot of time digging around, literally, in the skull  of T.rex.  He's even taken a coat hanger to probe the pathway of a nerve that runs sideways alongside two other nerves from the braincase to the upper jaw.  In human s that nerve gives more sensitivity to touch.  In a T.rex at the Royal Tyrrell Museum, Bob found that the nerve channel ran straight out of thre skull all by itself.  Among backboned animals, only birds have the same pattern for that nerve.

Russian paleontologist Leonid Tatarinov suggested the holes in T.rex's snout were nerve openings in what might have been a very sensitive snout.  Bob Bakker thinks T.rex had a neat row of nerves in the front of the snout that suggest it had lips.  Since I know of no counterpart for T.rex's nasal bone structure on any living animal, I won't guess about its function.

Bob with his coat hanger and Phil Currie with needle probes both found that the entire cranial architecture of large carnivorous dinosaurs had a lot in common with small carnivores, and with birds.  Bob thinks the oval-shaped holes on each side of the nose of T.rex were nerve centers for great sniffing power.  A keen sense of smell would be useful for T.rex, whether it was a predator or a scavenger, but there's no proving those holes ever had anything in them because cartilage is rarely preserved.  But Bob says he's seen the imprint of cartilage on the inside of the snout and compares it to that of modern alligators, which are good smellers.  Bob's is a plausible speculation, but those sinuses, and Bob's theory, could just as easily be filled with hot air.

Sometimes Bob isn't going against the facts, just ahead of them.  And once in a while the facts catch up and prove Bob's speculation was right after all.  That was the case with the nose of that pygmy tyrannosaur, Nanotyrannus.  The delicate, slightly spiraling turbinal bone within the nostril had never been seen before in a predatory dinosaur.  We know turbinals from some keen-smelling mammals like deer.  The spiral increases the surface area for better smelling.

Precisely, my point. Make note he states " When you look at the skull, you see right away that its eyes both pointed forward, though not as much as our own.  This eye alignment could mean that T.rex had depth perception like ours.  " 

He is stating it as a possibility, and one he himself did not hold as true, as stated in his later books about his experiences with Jurassic Park. |If you read the wording, he is stating...it might be, not it is or as if he were speaking from the position of it is true, and doubt might exist. He is stating it as doubtful to start with and ....could mean.
  He further elaborates......"T.rex also had a deep snout that might have limited the overlap in vision in its eyes.  Without other clues to vision that would be found only in soft-tissue parts that don't fossilize, we can't say for sure if T.rex could see in three dimensions."

what isnt clear about that? he is saying precisely what I said he did....providing doubt that tyrannosaurs could see in three dimensions and thus required movement to percieve things.

he expresses doubts about everything.  This is just scientific caution.  The whole book expresses this reluctance to jump to conclusions without fully testing them, as well as a willingness to discuss views that conflict with his own.  Even if T.rex did have something of a blind spot, Horner is pretty clear about it more likely than not having a strong sense of smell. 

Incidentally, 'Samson', which has the most undistorted skull of any T.rex does not have forward facing eyes, so stereoscopic vision is not a foregone conclusion.

The whole 'vision based on movement' thing was most likely thrown in the movie for suspense.  It was never a theory anyone seriously advocated. But the idea of a T.rex being right there infront of you, that close, - it's undeniably dramatic.  Don't forget, the primary mission of a film is to entertain, not educate.  Besides, binocular vision is no guarantee that something can't hide in front of you in plain sight. 

If Horner had been deliberately steering the film to promote his own views, there wouldn't have been anywhere near the amount of T.rex screentime.  He's always been far more interested in hadrosaurs, but what do they get?  A few blurry seconds off in the distance.  Although to my knowledge there is no major accuracy issue with that depiction.   

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Yes we can of course view Horners caution in so many theories he has advanced...Toroceratops, grouping all pachychephalosaurs as the same species, or for that matter his concept of scavenging tyrannosaurus, he certainly has demonstrated those principles soundly throughout his career.

[Doug Watson]

No, its cool,  you have some really interesting perspectives and insights in your above thoughts.  I am just long winded.
[/quote]

I wasn't really apologizing since there are a lot of points in my post that you didn't touch on like my experiences in the museum etc. If you notice I posted mine a minute after yours I saw that there was another post but I didn't take the time to read it.

[Dinoguy2]

It is rather simple...accurate to date or accurate either one BOTH rely on something being ACCURATE  wether at that time or currently. This cannot be said for Jurassic Park dinosaurs at the date of release of the movie or now either, sorry. They have never been correct and were never. I am unsure what torturing of logic would suggest because a dinosaur does not drag its tail its somehow accurate despite a littany of other issues. That is just not good reasoning. As I have said before, the Jurassic Part dinosaurs simply traded more dated mistakes with more money motivated ones.
  As to the comment about having a cold and so forth, I suggest you might read Horner's books where he actually bragged at the

Sorry to keep harping on this point but that's not how the English language works. Saying something is most accurate to date means more accurate than previous efforts, not that it has achieved accuracy.

[HD-man]

This thread turned out weird, but whatever.

Yeah, no. That's all false. Here's what Jim Kirkland has to say about it on Twitter:

Major revisionist history by Bakker! Reality at SVP 1990; Bakker; "Just crushed Torvosaurus claw."

https://twitter.com/Paleojim/status/537636579473256448

Looks like Bakker made up this popular fan story to embellish his own role. How professional.

To be fair, that isn't proof that Bakker made stuff up, just that we have a "he says/she says" situation (or in this case, a "he says/he says" situation).

I always found that story kind of odd. I've even gone back to read it in order to make sure I interpreted it correctly. The Velociraptor in "Jurassic Park" were Deinonychus, modeled after the "Velociraptor antirrhopus" from the book which is what Deinonychus was lumped as by Gregory Paul. That's my take on it anyway.

No offense, but I don't see what's so odd about it. Deinonychus was used to model the JP raptor's anatomy & Utahraptor was used to justify the JP raptor's size.

I honestly question how big of a role Bakker had in "Jurassic Park" anyway. We all know Horner was consulted at great length but I haven't heard anything about Bakker consulting except from Bakker himself. Aside from getting eaten in "The Lost World" I get the feeling his role was minimal.

See Shannon Shea's comments: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.com/2013/03/jurassic-park-4-lost-cause.html

yes oversized everything including Stegosaurs that were twice as big as real-life, however the compies were also poorly thought out. They were presented as chicken size in the movies, despite the fact there has been a secondary discovery that enforces the idea the first specimen was only a juvenile. Given the second specimen was discovered in 1971, there was really no excuse for this either

Actually, they might be different species ( http://theropoddatabase.blogspot.com/2014/11/svp-2014-day-4.html ).

[amargasaurus cazaui]

It is rather simple...accurate to date or accurate either one BOTH rely on something being ACCURATE  wether at that time or currently. This cannot be said for Jurassic Park dinosaurs at the date of release of the movie or now either, sorry. They have never been correct and were never. I am unsure what torturing of logic would suggest because a dinosaur does not drag its tail its somehow accurate despite a littany of other issues. That is just not good reasoning. As I have said before, the Jurassic Part dinosaurs simply traded more dated mistakes with more money motivated ones.
  As to the comment about having a cold and so forth, I suggest you might read Horner's books where he actually bragged at the

Sorry to keep harping on this point but that's not how the English language works. Saying something is most accurate to date means more accurate than previous efforts, not that it has achieved accuracy.

To perhaps provide clarity here, here is the literal meaning of the term accuracy.

Full Definition of ACCURACY

1
:  freedom from mistake or error :  correctness
2
a :  conformity to truth or to a standard or model :  exactness

As you see, it states quite clearly, accuracy is correctness,freedom from mistake or error, exactness. Anything else is ...yes, inaccurate. You can hedge with whatever terms you like, but that is the meaning of the word. I just dont think "fifty shades of accuracy" is a workable concept. The definition of the word is rather clear and simple.
  I will state just once my feelings about this and then call it done, wether for better or worse. A few months ago, we saw this new company enter the forum called Rebor. They basically got rebored a new one, because their dinosaur was ...inaccurate. It was not feathered enough for most here's feelings nor tastes. While the model itself seems well done..it has that one issue...and almost everyone here universally stated...not accurate. Noone stuck their hand up to say oh no..its the most accurate to date, or it is largely accurate, or oh hey, its accurate except for this one issue. In fact the level of scrutiny the model hit invokved a record for bans for the thread in a days time if you remember well.
  Either  following this or shortly beforehand I watched a person I consider a friend enter the forum, Mr. Lorusso . He introduced for us his models for the new Terra line....I felt all were nice models, and purchased them , however if anyone remembers there was a fire and brimstone come to senses dispute made wether one of the pieces should have been feathered or not. Was the dinosaur otherwise correct? Yes of course, it seems to be....however it was labeled a horrible monstrosity, and an epic fail due to not having feathers. Noone chimed in to say, hey its the most accurate to date, or largely accurate .
    The minute you mention the Jurassic Park animals, and question their accuracy, the rules change. We are allowed to have issues, as long as they do not drag their tails. And this is what for me appears to be a huge and not so grand double standard. The T-rex can have too large of a head or arms.....but we still somehow rush to its defense stating it is accurate, or the most accurate to date. Why in the world of logic would someone assume that tail dragging is worse then the wrong size head, arms or the other littany of mistakes being made? I am sorry, but no accuracy does not work like that. You do not get to pick and choose the errors that get a red flag verus the ones that do not. If there are mistakes, by the literal definition of the word, the dinosaur is NOT accurate.
  I did catch a point in Doug's postings that I felt bears mentioning. He used the word realistic, versus accurate. I can agree the dinosaurs for the movie are presented in a very realistic style, and they deserve high marks in this capacity. I can see the value in stating that . However, accuracy and realism do not dwell in the same home...you can portray something realistically without it being accurate. This is the case i find here.
  Another thing I found interesting in Doug's comments is his view that people in general were not given misinformation or bad science from the movie, and then opted to suggest because most people in a dinosaur toy forum would recognize the flaws it is not an issue. I wholeheartedly and totally disagree....on average i run into two or three people a week who are not dinophiles and who still believe the ideas the movie offered. I do talks and presentations for a local group on dinosaurs, and these people have no specialized teaching or skills regarding dinosaurs, and they often question things because of ideas the movie put forward or reinforced. Sure, if they go to a museum and see  a video or presentation they may learn the difference, but much of the general public was told over and over in documentaries and interviews these were the most accurate and correct dinosaurs ever brought to the screen, by those involved with the franchise. Now it turns out this isnt the case, and has to be corrected. That is misinformation. Would it not have been much simpler to just provide accurate dinosaurs that were scienifically correct to start with rather than muck around with the science.
   I also offer that ...the question was posed, it was better to move forward with Jurassic Park like this, rather than wait for something more accurate and correct, and still be waiting. While we will never know the answer to that for sure, I think it rather odd the movie wouldnt have gotten made unless the factual basis were incorrect. I truly believe the movie could have been done properly, better and far less idiocy involved and would still have gone forward. I do not think it necessary to lie and exaggerate about dinosaurs to make them sell tickets. I think that doing so only creates a whole generation of misinformation and ignorance that then requires repair as well.

[DinoLord]

As a child of the late 90s/early 2000s, I can't really speak as to how the JP series changed public perceptions of dinosaurs from personal experience. However I do know one thing: JP is what sparked my love of dinosaurs and paleontology, and without it my interests and general life story would have taken a very different turn. For every person in the general public that movies like these misinform, I like to think that there's at least one or more who have a curiosity and passion for paleontology sparked. It's the latter who then become the informed dinosaur fans or maybe even professional paleontologists.

As for the Utahraptor story, I remember it being explained in the extras on the JP DVD. IIRC, they had already created 'The Big One' for the film and had learned of the discovery of Utahraptor during the process of completing the film. I recall one of the movie staff saying something along the lines of, "We made it, and then they discovered it".

[Gwangi]

I will state just once my feelings about this and then call it done, wether for better or worse. A few months ago, we saw this new company enter the forum called Rebor. They basically got rebored a new one, because their dinosaur was ...inaccurate. It was not feathered enough for most here's feelings nor tastes. While the model itself seems well done..it has that one issue...and almost everyone here universally stated...not accurate. Noone stuck their hand up to say oh no..its the most accurate to date, or it is largely accurate, or oh hey, its accurate except for this one issue. In fact the level of scrutiny the model hit invokved a record for bans for the thread in a days time if you remember well.

Oh boy, I can't believe I'm subjecting myself to this but here goes. I'm a gluten for punishment.

The REBOR case bares little comparison to JP and here is why. One is a movie, one is a model. A "high end" model at that, not even a toy. In our hobby we have an endless selection of models (and toys) that posses varying degrees of accuracy. Even companies like Safari, who simply make toys still manage to make accurate toys. So the customer can be more discerning, they have a wide selection to choose from. Movies concerning dinosaurs are different. They are few and far between and most older movies just got the dinosaurs flat wrong. "Jurassic Park" was the best there was from a selection of movies, none of which achieved full accuracy. But that is just my opinion, these two art forms are not comparable.

The Rebor Yutyrannus is not accurate. Nether are the "Jurassic Park" dinosaurs. But while JP has dinosaurs that achieve a greater level of accuracy than other dinosaur movies, the Rebor Yutyrannus is the least accurate of all the Yutyrannus offerings to date. Which is not many; we have a couple Japanese models and now the Safari...Battat will release one too and I bet it will also achieve a greater level of accuracy than the Rebor model. If a completely naked Yutyrannus were released, or one that suffered other inaccuracies than you would probably hear more people saying "the Rebor model has its problems, but it is more accurate than model X".

But now I'm gonna take you to task, because you're acting like no one had anything good to say about the Rebor model.

Dinolord said...
"Very nice model; bit sparsely feathered for my tastes though."

Yutyrannus said...
"It is much too sparsely feathered but still definitely something I'm planning on getting."

Gwangi said...
" It's really not terrible, it has its good qualities. A good first attempt really, especially if you recall the first attempts of many other companies. If it had more feathers it would be a decent enough model depending on the price range but the lack of feathers really bothers me."

Pachyrhinosaurus said...
"The feathers look like an afterthought. With the pose and articulated jaw, it is very Papo-like. If it had feathers and colors like the Safari one, it would certainly look much better."

Patrx said...
"Clearly a lot of talent involved in this sculpt, but man, it really is disappointing feather-wise."

Seijun said...
"Also, regarding the model, I think it looks like a good generic theropod, very papo-like, wonderful level of detail, but not the best Yutyrannus."

And that's from the first two pages. So sure, everyone noted the lack of feathers (and why wouldn't we?) but the majority of us complemented the model too.

Either  following this or shortly beforehand I watched a person I consider a friend enter the forum, Mr. Lorusso . He introduced for us his models for the new Terra line....I felt all were nice models, and purchased them , however if anyone remembers there was a fire and brimstone come to senses dispute made wether one of the pieces should have been feathered or not. Was the dinosaur otherwise correct? Yes of course, it seems to be....however it was labeled a horrible monstrosity, and an epic fail due to not having feathers. Noone chimed in to say, hey its the most accurate to date, or largely accurate .

An epic fail? Most of us agreed that it was the one of the better new releases as I recall it. I'm not digging up that thread, but I feel like you're blowing things out of proportion with regard to our judgment of the model, much like the Rebor Yutyrannus. We all noticed the lack of feathers which inevitably lead to a feather debate but aside from that the model recieved high phrase. In fact, if you check the "Best 2014 figure poll", you will notice it got 9 votes. That places it in 7th place out of 34 models.

And since I wrote it, I'll at least quote my review of the model.

"re. It is well known that members of the therizinosaur group were covered in a coat of feathers. While feathers have not been found in association with Nanshiungosaurus it can be inferred that it had them as well. The box the model comes packed in explains this, stating that since this was a larger animal it may have lost its feathers. I suppose we can let it slide given how great the model is otherwise but feathers would have been preferable here."

"But feathers don't make or break a model in this case. CollectA has fully feathered their new Therizinosaurus and it doesn't hold up to the quality presented here."

"The Battat Nanshiungosaurus really is a must have model. It is among the best therizinosaur models ever produced, for the price I dare say it is the best. Detail, accuracy, affordability...it's all here. If only it had feathers!"

So yeah, we note the lack of feathers. So what? Still a good model, hardly an epic fail. Some members may think so but they are definitely in the minority and the whole forum should not be taken to task based on the vocal opinions of a few, weather it be this model or the Rebor Yutyrannus.

The minute you mention the Jurassic Park animals, and question their accuracy, the rules change. We are allowed to have issues, as long as they do not drag their tails. And this is what for me appears to be a huge and not so grand double standard. The T-rex can have too large of a head or arms.....but we still somehow rush to its defense stating it is accurate, or the most accurate to date. Why in the world of logic would someone assume that tail dragging is worse then the wrong size head, arms or the other littany of mistakes being made? I am sorry, but no accuracy does not work like that.

A tail dragging dinosaurs requires that you literally bend the animal and reshape it to function in a way that was impossible. That seems more extreme than an enlarged head and arms. But apparently accuracy is black and white with you. It either is or isn't. But in doing my own definition search of accuracy, I get the following...

The degree to which the result of a measurement, calculation, or specification conforms to the correct value or a standard.


Catch that first part? The degree to which? That means "accuracy" can be used as a system of measurement. That something really can be more accurate than something else. That means that yes, a Tyrannosaurus with a large head and arms is still more accurate than one with an unnatural posture, broken bendy tail, three fingered hands and misshapen head. That means that this...



is less accurate than this...


And this...


Is less accurate than this...

You do not get to pick and choose the errors that get a red flag verus the ones that do not. If there are mistakes, by the literal definition of the word, the dinosaur is NOT accurate.

Yes, yes you do. Refer to what I said above. Accurate is not an absolute term. There can be varying degrees.

Another thing I found interesting in Doug's comments is his view that people in general were not given misinformation or bad science from the movie, and then opted to suggest because most people in a dinosaur toy forum would recognize the flaws it is not an issue. I wholeheartedly and totally disagree....on average i run into two or three people a week who are not dinophiles and who still believe the ideas the movie offered. I do talks and presentations for a local group on dinosaurs, and these people have no specialized teaching or skills regarding dinosaurs, and they often question things because of ideas the movie put forward or reinforced. Sure, if they go to a museum and see  a video or presentation they may learn the difference, but much of the general public was told over and over in documentaries and interviews these were the most accurate and correct dinosaurs ever brought to the screen, by those involved with the franchise. Now it turns out this isnt the case, and has to be corrected. That is misinformation.

People who are not dinophiles still believe the ideas the movie offered? That is in no way a surprise. But guess what, a large number of dinophiles that exist today exist because they saw "Jurassic Park" and grew up in a dinosaur obsessed world. So sure, maybe that means 1 out of 5 people are legitimate dinosaur geeks because of the film. But without the film you would have 5 out of 5 people still believing in dinosaurs presented to us in the 1950's.

I'm gonna be blunt here...people don't give a damn. This is especially true if they watch a science fiction movie and take it for face value. If they cannot be bothered to open a book about dinosaurs after watching JP, they're a hopeless cause and no amount of accuracy would make them give anymore of a damn.
Story time now. I work in a pet store. We have information tags for every one of the fish we sell. It has not only the price but the name of the fish (both scientific and common), a picture of the fish, proper tank size, how big the fish gets, level of aggression, etc. etc. You can't look at a fish without the tag being right in front of your face. But you know what questions I'm asked? How big does it get? What's the cost? Is it aggressive? This information couldn't be easier for them to obtain, and they still don't choose to obtain it. And even if I tell them, they often ignore what I tell them and do what they want anyway. My point? You can't force feed this stuff. People either want to learn, or they don't. Basic information on a fish they want to purchase is right in front of their face, and they don't even see it. So of course these same people believe the JP dinosaurs are accurate. These are the same people that take science lessons from movies! Believe turtles can leave their shells because of a cartoon! Or that all drains lead to the ocean because of "Finding Nemo"! Or that the movie "300" is historically accurate! I have literally had someone walk into the store (it's PetSmart BTW) asking for a blow dryer. "We don't have those I said". Apparently they thought they were at Walmart...and then fought with me about what store they were in! In the place I work!

So are you really that amazed, or even saddened about the misinformation spread by JP? If they didn't take their dinosaur lessons from JP, it would be "The Land Before Time" instead. They don't care one way or another. But for those with even a flicker of interest in dinosaurs, a movie like JP can open up a whole new world for them. And it is those people that matter in this regard. The future museum volunteers, paleontologists, science teachers who have been inspired by a movie...a movie made to entertain and hopefully share this passion with future generations. My nephew is 8 years old. He's not into dinosaurs, not seriously. But I bet if I showed him "Jurassic Park" he would eat it right up, soak it right in, and want to learn more. If a movie can even do that much, it's worth dealing with its short comings. Even if all you take from "Jurassic Park" is one key point like "birds evolved from dinosaurs", it's at least something. Something no other dinosaur movie before or since has set out to accomplish.

Would it not have been much simpler to just provide accurate dinosaurs that were scienifically correct to start with rather than muck around with the science.

For people who know nothing about dinosaurs? Harder than you might think I imagine. I know next to nothing about the Civil War but I get the feeling that if I set out to make a movie about it, even with advisers and researchers, I would still make mistakes. "Titanic" was a meticulously made Oscar winning movie that no doubt required a great deal of research. And yet we still see paintings by Pablo Piccaso sinking with the ship...paintings that still exist. It was an oversight. But forgivable. Because these people don't just have accuracy to concern themselves with. They have every other factor involved in making a movie to deal with. Lighting, sound, acting, production, location scouting, marketing, writing, catering for God's sake! How much time do you REALLY expect them to spend on accuracy for a movie? A movie made for entertainment, not education?

I also offer that ...the question was posed, it was better to move forward with Jurassic Park like this, rather than wait for something more accurate and correct, and still be waiting. While we will never know the answer to that for sure, I think it rather odd the movie wouldnt have gotten made unless the factual basis were incorrect. I truly believe the movie could have been done properly, better and far less idiocy involved and would still have gone forward. I do not think it necessary to lie and exaggerate about dinosaurs to make them sell tickets. I think that doing so only creates a whole generation of misinformation and ignorance that then requires repair as well.

You let us know when ANY movie about ANYTHING achieves that attention to detail that you expected from "Jurassic Park". To quote another favorite movie, that's a long wait for a train don't come.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I had planned to avoid revisiting this topic with further posting, however I feel that such a lenghty response that gives so many challenges deserves comment Gwangi. In fairness, I am going to ignore the condescending attitude you have given  ie.   "Oh boy, I can't believe I'm subjecting myself to this but here goes. I'm a gluten for punishment." I am greatful for your response and do not mind taking the time to respond. I am honestly a bit shocked at the entire view given of people as not caring and so forth . I will return to that point in a moment.

     Your opening commentary via Rebor vs, Jurassic park is what I consider a huge and glaring double standard. You place high standards on the toys themselves, but refuse to hold the movie to the same standards. Justification is offered in that...,.""Movies concerning dinosaurs are different. They are few and far between and most older movies just got the dinosaurs flat wrong. "Jurassic Park" was the best there was from a selection of movies, none of which achieved full accuracy"
Well sorry, but Jurassic park got the dinosaurs flat wrong too....you can use prejudice to attempt that argument  all you like, but Jurassic park simply made a whole set of more modern mistakes in place of the existing ones.They did not get it right and even worse, they had more updated science and accurate information and chose to do the dinosaurs incorrectly, to make a fast buck.
   The two art forms are quite comparable. In both areas , as the years pass, more and more effort to attempt to recreate dinosaurs  accurately is given. At this point in time the worst B rate dinosaur movies now offer better dinosaurs than the front row card carrying dinosaurs from the 70's classics. Toys are quite similar, as time passes the effort is being to create dinosaurs that are accurate and adhere to current thinking and ideas.
  Since you "Took me to task " I feel it necessary to remind you that at least three or four bans were given members in the space of a single day regarding harsh and negative bashing and goading in the Rebor Thread. Going through and pasting ONLY the positives is somewhat intentionally misleading isnt it? Especially give that I am certain you know the reality of what happened there.
   As I continue to review how I was "taken to task" We fall upon the discussion about the Battats. I made note that you did not review the thread or you would have found the comments I was referring to but yes...someone posted the new Battats were epic fails and monstrosities. Again, as with the bans, I am sure if you expend the effort you will see the postings yourself. Those things were said ....From what you wrote I am guessing you are attempting to somehow atribute those ideas to me which is not the case. I in fact spoke up repeatedly on behalf of Dan and his efforts as he is a friend. I also purchased two full sets of the so far released Battats, so I can state I had no problem with the models myself. The attempt to then suggest that it is a pattern I did with the rebor thread and this matter becomes a poorly considered fail, perhaps owing an apology .

My definition I took the effort to post was from Merriam and Webster and defines accuracy as , precision, mistake free, and exactness. I am unsure where you got yours, but surely you cannot seriously be stating that something cannot be either accurate or inaccurate? Trying to create a hundred levels of accuracy to justify your argument is not sound. There is a word, accurate, which means correctness, precision, and mistake free , per the dictionary. There is the word inaccurate , which means contains mistakes, is not precise, and does not have exactness. The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park are inaccurate. All the hedging, and word splitting and so forth do not resolve that.
    "That means that yes, a Tyrannosaurus with a large head and arms is still more accurate than one with an unnatural posture, broken bendy tail, three fingered hands and misshapen head."According to whom? They are BOTH wrong, neither is preferrable. and further, that is far from the only set of issues with the Jurassic Park version. I am also quite sure you know that . Wouldn't too large of a head be mis-shapen as well?  In a previous posting you stated the raptors from the movie were accurate....what? What about the hands? In all of the pictures you posted the dinosaurs were wrong........mistakes are mistakes period. If they are not right, they are wrong. Trying to go in and then evaluate which mistake is more glaring or matters more is personnal taste, not science. Science, says they are WRONG. It does not try and defend a favorite because one set of mistakes is better than another.

" So sure, maybe that means 1 out of 5 people are legitimate dinosaur geeks because of the film. But without the film you would have 5 out of 5 people still believing in dinosaurs presented to us in the 1950's. "
Again, says who?  it is far more likely that by now someone else would have done something similar if not far better and more intelligent. You indeed cannot make that comment, as it is an inference based on negative evidence. We wont ever know of course because we got this version over something that might well have been far better, and tried to stick to facts .
         "I'm gonna be blunt here...people don't give a damn. This is especially true if they watch a science fiction movie and take it for face value. If they cannot be bothered to open a book about dinosaurs after watching JP, they're a hopeless cause and no amount of accuracy would make them give anymore of a damn. " I find that to be one of the most cynical, elitist and poorly considered remarks given in this entire sermon.  I will tell you why...people do care. I spend a lot of my time helping our local mineral society in giving free programs to people to raise the awareness of earth science and yes, dinosaurs. I regularly do programs, presentations, and work for this cause. I am not paid nor am I given expenses...I do it because I enjoy the change to help people learn and understand.  I have been published several times, and won national awards for photgraphy, poetry and factual writing about dinosaurs ...all in this process. I can tell you people do care and do want to know...but there are many who cannot afford to run out and buy the books, who lack a car or a license to drive to a library, people who live on fixed incomes , or do not possess computers because they are of that generation prior to the common use of computers. yes many of them are older people, or shut ins, and still others are either physicaly handicapped or lack the resources to purchase books, computers or science papers. We try to help them learn and understand earth sciences.....to raise their awareness and to teach scientifically sound information. At any presentation or program on dinosaurs, much of the misinformation related to the Jurassic Franchise tends to surface . Because these are not the dinosaur geeks, as you put it. These are not the people who can get out to a museum, or college to learn unless we take them. Yes they care, and further they want to know , and it has nothing to do with their mind set.


"Lighting, sound, acting, production, location scouting, marketing, writing, catering for God's sake! How much time do you REALLY expect them to spend on accuracy for a movie? A movie made for entertainment, not education?"
I will tell you quite clearly what i do not expect if that helps. That is for these people who according to you are so beset with their productions of movies, to take the time and produce documentaries and write books and do interviews where they state over and over the dinosaurs in the movie are the most ACCURATE dinosaurs to ever appear on the screen, when there is nothing accurate about them. For them to make claims knowing they are false to sell movie tickets. In other words to intentionally mislead people about their product. That is not helpful, useful and benefits noone.


Finally your last shot...a movie that is made to the level of accuracy I seek....there are many, but some of my favorites are movies like....
Blackhawk Down
Gettysburg
Of Gods and Generals
A Bridge Too Far
The Great Raid
All of these movies demonstrate a great level of accuracy with little if anything exaggerated, altered or manipulated to sell tickets. They are factual representations using the known events as they happened. Are they perfect? I am not sure, but I know there have to be small errors contained......were they intentional and grounded in greed to make a few bucks? doubtful. I dont think that is too much to ask of a movie.

[Dinoguy2]

Regarding Dan's therizinosaurs sculpt, nobody said it's the most accurate to date because it's not. Other therizinosaurs had already, at that date, been released which might not have been as nicely sculpted, but we're just as accurate in terms of posture and anatomy and more accurate in having feathers. Dan's was more accurate than the 1992 Safari Therizinosaurus but less accurate than say the Collecta or newer Safari models (see how a sliding scale works?).