In defense of everything Jurassic World gets wrong about dinosaurs

[Duck]

This article contradicts everything I've ever said about dinosaurs and the Jurassic franchise in general.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?via=rss
A good read, though.

[Libraraptor]

A good read indeed.

[Faelrin]

That was a really good article and an eye opener. Particularly for someone like me who was disappointed with some things right off the bat with the prologue (although I did also enjoy some things about it).

[Newt]

I agree with the writer's stance in principal, but to me JW's chief sin is not so much getting their dinosaurs wrong as getting them boring (I say based only on the creature designs - I haven't actually watched any of the franchise's productions). In the same vein, a film set in ancient Rome that gives its characters over-the-top Roman-flavored fantasy costumes is far more forgivable than one that puts all its actors into lazy frat-boy togas. Both are inaccurate, but at least one is interestingly inaccurate.


Real dinosaurs are interesting. Fantasy dinosaurs could be interesting too - but JW's scaly lumps aren't.

[Dynomikegojira]

A good read indeed, I still stand by my criticisms but I'll admit the whole Jurassic franchise is really just an alternate universe from our own just like any other film or series dealing with prehistoric life and Im comfortable with that.

[Bread]

A good read indeed, I still stand by my criticisms but I'll admit the whole Jurassic franchise is really just an alternate universe from our own just like any other film or series dealing with prehistoric life and Im comfortable with that.

This 100%.

I keep my JP collection separate from the scientific shelves. I think of it as a prehistoric connection, but on a separate part of time. Just like how I don't compare the real life animals to its movie counterpart. Just unnecessary as we all know this is a movie monster franchise.

[Duna]

I agree that this author's statements would be perfect referring ONLY TO ALL the Jurassic Park/World movies EXCEPT the new one, DOMINION. And that's because neither the other films claimed to be accurate, so for me it's perfect to depict a Stegosaurus with lips, a cow-like chewing brachiosaurus, a Baryonyx that doesn't look like a Baryonyx, or Velociraptors that didn't exist. Just give the excuse you want, the frog DNA, that you were starting, that a magician made it ... anything. For me, it's ok. The movies are entertaining. So so far I agree his article ...

... but not FOR DOMINION after watching any stuff from it. AFTER Trevorrow saying:

We also don't have the excuse of frog DNA being put into the genome that we have in all the movies to say, 'Well no here's why they're not paleontology accurate". We had to get it right. And so we took the challenge and we ran with it."

AND RELEASING the same inaccurate models as the other franchises (and even worse). He (Trevorrow) critises the other films for being paleontology inaccurate (for me, no problem) and he does just the same, and even with more mistakes and worse than them? Giving the tyrannosaurus those Disney eyes, and fighting with a Giganotosaurus? Putting some fuzz on it and slightly supinate its hands doesn't make it accurate after those. Feathering a cave nesting egg thief Oviraptor and forgetting the pronated unfeathered arms makes it as accurate as putting some quills on the head of velociraptors in JPIII.
Please, design and do what you want, ok, but don't call it accurate, for godness sake. Don't think we are fools, please.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

The easiest thing to do here is just say the Jurassic franchise is it's own cinematic universe, just like Marvel, DC , ect.. things are what they are for that reality..but not our own.   

[Faelrin]

@Duna Yeah it was really those claims that did more to hurt it in my eyes earlier on, than if he had claimed none of that to begin with. I would have had more more lax expectations. I'm honestly guessing when he means accuracy he either means, a, they have feathered dinosaurs now, or b, that he means the behavior is more natural (which was pretty decent for the Prologue at least, the rest remains to be seen yet), if not a mix of the two. That said at least the Moros and Quetzalcoatlus were decent. Very much looking to see more of those at least.

@Blade-of-the-Moon That's unfortunately the best way to make sense of it now, and perhaps more so with how Marvel-fied the World films have been anyways (and that IGN interview with Trevorrow really didn't help against that either, with him comparing the T. rex to a super hero). In a way though, things have been on their own timeline since the start anyways, since dinosaurs were able to be cloned. Still I do think the earlier films were much more grounded and closer to our own earlier on, despite that jump, or at least the first two. I really hope we get some semblance of that in this film, well at least with the original trio anyways.

[HD-man]

This article contradicts everything I've ever said about dinosaurs and the Jurassic franchise in general.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?via=rss
A good read, though.

I commented on that article in the following way ( https://slate.com/comments/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?commentID=cd4a5af0-5f57-46d9-bdcf-bfe4e4ea3b98 ):

No offense, but I think you (Riley Black) are missing the point of those critiques. Unlike the makers of most other dino movies, Trevorrow claimed the prologue is "paleontologically correct" even though it clearly isn't in many ways ( https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/852549476232855575/853026740393345084/image0.png ). Maybe some fans are OK w/being lied to, but many aren't. & yes, he DID lie. As indicated by his Brusatte comments, he could've easily made the prologue "paleontologically correct" like he said he would, but simply chose to throw whatever species he likes into whatever environment he likes & make them look however he likes, regardless of paleo correctness. Put another way, it's like Veronika Laeran & Hal Tawa said elsewhere: "Don't say it's going to be accurate, if you are going to make it as inaccurate as you did. If you weren't aiming for historical accuracy, we wouldn't be upset"; "If you're going to make a fantasy monster movie, great! But don't insult my intelligence by claiming a grounding in reality that it just doesn't have."

[Duck]

This article contradicts everything I've ever said about dinosaurs and the Jurassic franchise in general.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?via=rss
A good read, though.

I commented on that article in the following way ( https://slate.com/comments/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?commentID=cd4a5af0-5f57-46d9-bdcf-bfe4e4ea3b98 ):

No offense, but I think you (Riley Black) are missing the point of those critiques. Unlike the makers of most other dino movies, Trevorrow claimed the prologue is "paleontologically correct" even though it clearly isn't in many ways ( https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/852549476232855575/853026740393345084/image0.png ). Maybe some fans are OK w/being lied to, but many aren't. & yes, he DID lie. As indicated by his Brusatte comments, he could've easily made the prologue "paleontologically correct" like he said he would, but simply chose to throw whatever species he likes into whatever environment he likes & make them look however he likes, regardless of paleo correctness. Put another way, it's like Veronika Laeran & Hal Tawa said elsewhere: "Don't say it's going to be accurate, if you are going to make it as inaccurate as you did. If you weren't aiming for historical accuracy, we wouldn't be upset"; "If you're going to make a fantasy monster movie, great! But don't insult my intelligence by claiming a grounding in reality that it just doesn't have."

Those comments replying to yours are pretty toxic. I applaud you for responding to them in a mature way.

[Dynomikegojira]

This article contradicts everything I've ever said about dinosaurs and the Jurassic franchise in general.
https://slate.com/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?via=rss
A good read, though.

I commented on that article in the following way ( https://slate.com/comments/technology/2021/12/jurassic-world-prologue-paleontology-facts-fiction.html?commentID=cd4a5af0-5f57-46d9-bdcf-bfe4e4ea3b98 ):

No offense, but I think you (Riley Black) are missing the point of those critiques. Unlike the makers of most other dino movies, Trevorrow claimed the prologue is "paleontologically correct" even though it clearly isn't in many ways ( https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/852549476232855575/853026740393345084/image0.png ). Maybe some fans are OK w/being lied to, but many aren't. & yes, he DID lie. As indicated by his Brusatte comments, he could've easily made the prologue "paleontologically correct" like he said he would, but simply chose to throw whatever species he likes into whatever environment he likes & make them look however he likes, regardless of paleo correctness. Put another way, it's like Veronika Laeran & Hal Tawa said elsewhere: "Don't say it's going to be accurate, if you are going to make it as inaccurate as you did. If you weren't aiming for historical accuracy, we wouldn't be upset"; "If you're going to make a fantasy monster movie, great! But don't insult my intelligence by claiming a grounding in reality that it just doesn't have."

Completely agreed as if the Hell Creek fauna isn't cool enough but I accept it for what it is I've already ranted enough.

[HD-man]

Those comments replying to yours are pretty toxic. I applaud you for responding to them in a mature way.

Many thanks for saying that. It's good to know I'm not the only one who thinks so

P.S. Happy Ones-versary to me!