Jurassic World: A Film Review

[This review may contain spoilers.] 

Well, folks.  I tried.  I tried to be fair, understanding, even a little indulgent.  I tried to enjoy the movie.  I really did. 

I won’t string you along; I won’t make you wait until the end of this review to know what I think.  I have gone very “easy” on the Jurassic Park films in my previous reviews (see the first, second, and third film reviews), attempting to display a fair viewpoint despite my own largely negative opinions of the series.  After seeing Jurassic World, I really am sorry to admit that my generosity has just about evaporated. 

Jurassic World was a bad film, both as a piece of entertainment and especially when it comes to the science portrayed. 

So, let’s break it down, shall we? 

The film doesn’t really feel like a Jurassic Park movie.  What exactly does it feel like—rather, what is it trying to be?  I’m actually not entirely sure, but all I can tell you is that when I left the movie theater all I got was a weak attempt at a monster action movie.  

Almost as if the filmmakers knew that the feel was off, they inserted a whole scene based at the abandoned visitor’s center from the first film, replete with shattered skeletons, a tattered “When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth” sign, and even working jeeps and working night vision goggles, just like Tim’s!  This only comes across as a poorly-executed attempt to capture the nostalgia of the original while ineffectively attempting to cover the new film’s lack of wonder and adventure (qualities found in the first two films). What are we left with?  Just a monster action movie without the scientific and ecological responsibility themes respectively found in the first two films.  Oh sure, you have a bit of the scientists playing God trope, but it felt like a forced throwback to the first movie, a plug almost, not really fitting into the overall theme of the film, which again, felt like nothing more than a mindless action movie despite its shallow attempts otherwise. 

Admittedly, the film started off decently, for what it was, not seeming to be as bad as I was expecting.  But then, they start to actually show you characters, and the plot, oh and then you actually start seeing the dinosaurs…. 

The movie did have a couple of high notes, however.  Chris Pratt’s character, who we are to believe is rough, tough, manly and handsome, says (upon learning of the new genetic hybrid dinosaur, the “Indominus rex”) that dinosaurs are “wow enough,” that “Indominus rex” is a silly name, and he even goes so far as to say that it isn’t a dinosaur.  All very true statements!  An undercurrent theme of the film does seem to view the invention of a genetic hybrid, a Frankenstein, if you will, negatively—an appreciated viewpoint. 

The best scene in the entire film, in my opinion, is one we should have had as far back as the first film.  Dr. Henry Wu admits that from the beginning, none of the dinosaurs he has created look like real dinosaurs, for two reasons, one being the lack of full DNA sequence data, and the other being the human decisions to make the dinosaurs look…well, scarier to the public.  More marketable, perhaps. 

Ah yes, marketing.  The movie has a little bit to say about marketing, including a few quick comments about Verizon Wireless funding a dinosaur, causing one character to sneer in response (an appreciated sentiment merely for point’s sake).  Here the high notes of Jurassic World end, as the question remains, however, why they would insert so many sponsors right into the movie (from Verizon to Mercedes, to Margaritaville and Ben & Jerry’s) if the filmmakers really wanted to make a statement against such rampant commercialism in the first place (that is, if we are to take the character's Verizon comments as such a statement on the part of the filmmakers)?

As the movie continued, so did my frustration.  Who thought it was a good idea to let visitors canoe right next to potentially nervous, tail-swiping Stegosaurus?  Who thought it would be a good idea to let people drive their own gerbil balls anywhere around the park?  Who thought a tank more suited for a dolphin show at “Sea World” would contain a Godzilla’d-up Mosasaurus?  

Instead of scientists as our main characters, like the last three films, we have hollow, one-dimensional stereotypes (tough outdoorsman, prissy corporate woman, evil soldier, stupid kids getting themselves into trouble, etc.), and the one scientist in the film is turned into an evil character. 

The film itself is largely unoriginal, even going so far as to directly copy the 1986 classic Aliens, causing Matt Zoller Seitz, writing for rogertebert.com, to comment:  

Dinosaurs get wiped out by the bushel in this movie, sometimes in scenes that are too obviously inspired by James Cameron's "Aliens"; there's even a sequence where soldiers' deaths are tallied by freaky first-person helmet-cam feeds and flat lining EKG displays.

Not even Chris Pratt the Dinosaur Whisperer can rescue the movie at this point.

But, enough of all that.  It’s time to talk about what we’re all here for: the dinosaurs (and other prehistoric creatures, this time around). 

This is where things get really…disappointing.  

All in all, the dinosaurs look positively retro.  The herbivores are bedecked in colors that remind me of the vintage children's dinosaur books I grew up with.  Why is Stegosaurus drooping its tail?  This is a clear step back, being even less accurate than the reconstruction seen in The Lost World in 1997!  At least the plates were slightly brighter than The Lost World, I'll give them that.  How about some color in Triceratops?  And why is Triceratops also drooping its tail?  What's with the drab grey sauropod?  That's not to mention their rather off-puttingly humanlike facial expressions, seen when one dies, neck and head cradled in the loving arms of the Dinosaur Whisperer.  Even the Gallimimus was noticeably less realistic-looking as compared to the original film, and although it was too quick for me to be entirely sure, others have criticized the shape of the Ankylosaurus clubs, saying that those, too, are inaccurate. 

Let's look at those pterosaurs!  Maybe they're better?  

Nope.  Not only does the fossil record indicate that pterosaurs did not have grasping digits capable of manipulating objects, there are serious doubts (to the point of it being likely impossible) whether or not a normal-sized pterosaur would be able to lift something the weight of an adult human and fly away with them. 

We have both Pteranodon (pterodactyloid pterosaur - usually having a large body and a short tail) and Dimorphodon (rhamphorynchoid pterosaur- usually having a smaller body and a long tail).  Pteranodon has now appeared in three of the four Jurassic Park films, but Dimorphodon is new (although I do remember how pesky they were in The Lost World game made for Playstation One).   What a wonderful animal to choose!  I love Dimorphodon.  Well, the real Dimorphodon, anyway. 

Paleontologist and pterosaur expert Mark Witton said:

...a fairly decent understanding of Dimorphodon osteology has been held for almost 150 years (so, yeah, the Jurassic World animal is less accurate than renditions put together by Victorian palaeontologists. It's not the only Jurassic World species to suffer this sort of problem).

Admittedly, I liked seeing the Pteranodon dive into the aquarium tank, although such behavior is mere conjecture.  An interesting visual, no doubt, however it is unclear if a lightweight pterosaur body was built for that kind of impact. 

How about that Mosasaurus?  Yes, it was a glorious idea to have a mosasaur in a movie (I love mosasaurs second only to dinosaurs), but it was rather crocodilian, what with all the bumps and bony bits on its back.  Then, we have the vintage dorsal ridges, and a tail that does not hold up to current research very well.  Also, why the exaggerated size?  Come to think of it, what's with the less-accurate, retro animals overall? 

Now it is time to look at the star of the new film: the so-called "Indominus rex." 

Considering all the hype, this new dinosaurian villain is rather bland looking.  Allowing the filmmakers the leaps in biotechnology required to bring dinosaurs to life on the silver screen (as I did in my original Jurassic Park review), I'll allow them the use of cuttlefish and a bunch of other dinosaurs to make an insane hybrid.  Camouflaging dinosaur?  That's pretty cool.  No thermal imprint?  Less likely, but okay.  Opposable thumbs?  Where did those come from?  Where's the primate DNA? 

Jurassic World's monster is also depicted as intelligent as well as violent.  Having killed its younger sibling, it lives alone in a paddock, not having known any other environment all its life.  This, we are told, means that the "Indominus" has no dinosaurian social skills and makes the beastie unpredictable.  OK, I can buy that.  But it immediately begs the question as to why the dinosaur can speak "raptor" later in the film.  So, the dinosaur's rampage is in part due to its social ineptitude, yet it can effectively communicate with a different species without ever having met said species, thus without ever having a single opportunity to learn said communication skills? 

The "Indominus rex" is so ferocious, we are asked to believe, that it hunts other dinosaurs for pure sport.  In a "You've got to be kidding me!" moment, it even attacks an Anyklosaurus, and despite getting clubbed in the head, still triumphs.  This energy and dinosaurian combat skill is shown again and again...until the monster attacks two children.  Then, it suddenly slows down.  Of course! 

The final showdown scene (major spoiler here) really took the cake.  Knowing what kind of film I was walking into, I would’ve been sincerely disappointed had not the pale protagonist and a T. rex sparred, but this was a whole different deal entirely.  A nearly-dead Tyrannosaurus rex suddenly finds its second wind and attacks the “Indominus rex” with the help of one lone Velociraptor, brave soul that he is.  The two apparently good friends work together to fight the “Indominus rex”…until suddenly Mosasaurus comes up out of the water and drags the “I. rex” to a watery death.  At this point, I still can’t believe that’s actually what they decided to put into their movie.  For fourteen years, we’ve all laughed at the Tyrannosaurus rex vs. Spinosaurus battle in Jurassic Park III, and now, they actually were able to top the ridiculousness.  (At least T. rex got his revenge against Spinosaurus, via smashing the Spinosaurus skeleton—a not-so-subtle knock against the ridiculousness of the fight in the third film…which then makes one wonder how they could’ve allowed the ridiculousness of this new film’s fight….)  And afterwards, the T. rex and the Velociraptor peacefully part ways, almost with a sense of mutual respect between the two.  Didn’t the first film tell us the king of the dinosaurs doesn’t like little “raptors”? 

And oh, the “raptors.”  These fluffless guys are more benevolent than those found in the other films (having been trained by the Dinosaur Whisperer, of course).  Instead of feathers they sport bumps and knobs on their necks, different colors for each one (a pack of four), and cranial crests like the female in Jurassic Park III (except no quills, of course—wouldn’t want anyone to be confused about dinosaurs being birdlike, or anything).  Furthermore, while we know these raptors can be trained, that Owen Grady is their "alpha" and they imprinted on him at hatching, (spoiler warning) the fact that they suddenly switch alphas and follow the "Indominus rex" for a while, then switch back is not only bizarre and a very weak part of the story, it felt like nothing more than poor attempt at a plot twist, then a warm fuzzy family moment plug like all Jurassic Park films seem to have to have (only this was the worst of all of them).

(For full details as to the inaccuracies of Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor in the Jurassic Park film franchise, please see my first review here.)

Let’s face it.  Whatever you think of the movie itself, the science behind Jurassic World fails over and over again.  To sum up my views on all the dinosaurs in the entire Jurassic Park series, I will quote Alan Grant in Jurassic Park III: “What John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters. Nothing more, and nothing less.”  Steven Spielberg and company, Universal Studios, and Colin Trevorrow created cinematic monsters.  Not dinosaurs.  Nothing more, nothing less.
 
Paleontologist John Horner (who was an official consultant on all four films) may have a different viewpoint: "It's a movie, a fictional movie. The last thing it needs to be is scientifically grounded."

Hmm.  Are we sure about that? 

Paleontologist Darren Naish said:

Yes, yes, we know that it's just a movie. We know it's not a documentary, and that it exists to entertain. And we completely get that the world has bigger problems to worry about. But the reason this irks so much is that the "Jurassic Park" franchise has a gargantuan influence on the public's perception of ancient animals. Indeed, "Jurassic Park" did more to update public understanding of dinosaurs than any other single event.... 

So yes, "Jurassic World" is just a movie. And it may get plenty of other things right. But this reboot was also an incredible chance to do something special -- to bring new-look dinosaurs, pterosaurs and mosasaurs to modern audiences. And that chance looks like it might have been lost.

In today’s high-tech society, science literacy has gone down at an astonishing rate (at least in America).  The increase in technological advancement in industry as well as technological access in our daily lives does not make us more scientifically attuned as individuals.  Our entertainment culture has sacrificed truth, accuracy, and attention to detail in the name of the almighty dollar.  

Here’s a portion from my Jurassic Park review to help provide some background: 

…here's the thing.  It is the same with all movies, all forms of entertainment even.  It isn't specific to Jurassic Park, but it's a fact that we must remind ourselves of once again here.  The filmmakers were not out to further scientific understanding when it comes to the general public.  The filmmakers were not trying to create an accurate representation of the Dinosauria (BBC's 1999 Walking With Dinosaurs did a far better job of that).  Despite all the claims that paleontologists need to be grateful to Crichton, Spielberg, and the folks at Universal for "making people interested in dinosaurs" and allegedly bringing money into paleontology (If this is the case, where is this money, this poor paleo student wonders?), we must be realistic in the fact that people were interested in dinosaurs before Jurassic Park, and would have continued to be so without it.  Movies may create surges of interest for a time, but Jurassic Park cannot be credited with creating interest in dinosaurs.  For some, perhaps fostering interest, but not creating it.  Dinosaurs were first named in 1842, remember.   

Jurassic Park was made for money.  Nothing more, nothing less.  This is not a secret.  This is not necessarily a diabolical, sinister act.  This is simply how the modern entertainment industry works. If the film was made as an educational tool, it would have been scientifically accurate.  If the filmmakers had the desire to support paleontological research, then a nice portion of the proceeds from the various films might have made it into various scientific institutions, universities, and museums.  However, Jurassic Park is nothing more than a film made to entertain the public and raise money for those who made it.  That's the simple fact of the matter.  There should be no surprise as to that.  If Jurassic Park's only goal had been to educate, I humbly submit that it would have never even been funded. 

If you enjoy Jurassic Park, please go ahead and continue to do so!  On the other hand, if you do not enjoy the film, you are not required to.  However, we must be realistic and honest.  If you are reading this, I'm going to assume you care about science and science education/communication at least in some way.  As ambassadors for science, our loyalty must remain with the truth, and not with an emotional childhood memory of a movie, or an indulgence in fantasy on the silver screen, or anything of the sort.  You have good memories of this (or other) movie(s) as a kid?  You find the movie fun, exciting, and action packed?  Excellent!  That's a great thing for you!  But that doesn't mean we can gloss over the errors that were made.  After all, with a public that is increasingly ready to believe whatever is presented to them on screen (Mermaids and "Megalodon," anyone?), it is up to us to make the truth known.

Take any film that deals with reality.  Sit down and watch 300 with me (or any of the slew of other inaccurate films), and you might just see bulging blood vessels.  It isn’t just Jurassic Park (although some of that does get old as I hear about it just about every day of my life), it’s the attitude that gets me.  It’s okay, it’s just a movie, we don’t have to make it accurate.  There’s no responsibility to the truth, in science, history, or any other subject!  We have no responsibility to our audiences, either.  Let’s tell it like we want to, and act like it’s the truth.  Let’s bring in advisors and claim our stuff is accurate, even when we know it’s not.  Shhh!  Because that’s just how we roll.

A sad fact of our current world is that audiences often believe whatever is presented to them as fact (remember again, mermaids and “Megalodon”!), and this is just part of why it is so vitally important that films and entertainment such as Jurassic Park and Jurassic World get the science right.  It isn’t damaging to the plot or storyline, and can only help it.  In an age when science literacy is at an all-time low, isn’t it time that we communicate the amazing discoveries of science with any means possible—including our entertainment? Herein lies my reasons for feeling negative about the film, and the three that came before it: they put science second.  And that, my friends, is indicative of our social and cultural values—something which should give us pause, and make us seriously reconsider where we are as a society today.

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student

[For my original Jurassic World trailer review, see here.  Reviews of the Jurassic Park and The Lost World novels are pending.]

Jurassic Park III: A Film Review

It has now come time to review the third film in the franchise: Jurassic Park III.  (See my previous reviews of Jurassic Park and The Lost World.)  By almost universal consensus, this is the worst and weakest of the three movies.  The consensus is not wrong.  The plot is lacking in any inspirational writing from Crichton, and it shows.  The acting is poor, the action is poor, the score is inferior (Don Davis instead of John Williams)...and the dinosaurs are inferior, too.  We even have the added insult of another ridiculous paleontology dig scene.  As in the two previous reviews, I will stop here and largely refrain from commenting on almost all aspects of the movie, except one: dinosaurs.

So, what was different about Jurassic Park III when it comes to the dinosaurs?

Where to start?

Why not with the (literally) biggest dinosaur in the film?  Spinosaurus aegyptiacus!
Spinosaurus has been in the news of late, due to the reimagined body plan by Paul Sereno and Nizar Ibrahim.  With the help of National Geographic, the new finds and the new study have been popularized to the point of a National Geographic (October 2014) cover issue, a documentary, and a full-scale model.  (See here for more info.)  While Sereno and Ibrahim are now arguing that Spinosaurus had relatively stubby hind legs and was primarily aquatic, this is not yet entirely proven to the satisfaction of all pending more fossil evidence.  This is brand new data, however, and no expectations can be placed on the 2001 film in this regard.  Recent reconstructions (not limited to Sereno and Ibrahim's model) also have a shaped sail (with anterior and posterior high points with a dip in the middle) and a cranial crest, but to my knowledge the overall body plan of Spinosaurus as presented in Jurassic Park III was more or less semi-accurate at the time.  (The one exception being a lack of a "fish trap" in the jaw--a space between the maxilla and premaxilla.)  And as mentioned in my first review, dinosaurs cannot pronate their wrists (Clappers, not piano players!), and we see Spinosaurus do this when it rolls the jet's fuselage over.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about Spinosaurus created by the film is the fight between Spinosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex.  Why they actually had to fight in the first place is a piece of information the film seems to lack, but it's the details of the fight that bother me.
Look at Tyrannosaurus rex.  This animal truly was the tyrant lizard king!  Let's take a look at it's massive skull.  We crack jokes about the stubby, worthless little arms of Tyrannosaurus rex, but we need to remember it was likely evolving smaller arms for a reason: to lose forward weight as the skull was abnormally large!  Scalewise, the skull is massive in comparison to most other predator animals.  The bones in the skull are built to withstand enormous pressures.  The banana-sized teeth are strong, robust, and have roots twice as long as the crown.  Depending on your estimate, Tyrannosaurus had a bite force between 600 pounds per square inch (on the very low end) up to 12,800 pounds per square inch (on the higher end).  For comparison, the bite force of a human is about 120-150 pounds per square inch. Tyrannosaurus had a skull, a jaw, and teeth built for crushing the bones of other animals.  It's as simple as that.

Spinosaurus, on the other hand, is a lightweight by comparison.  With a lighter build overall, and especially with a jaw and teeth much more slender and weaker than T. rex (it's even believed that Spinosaurus was primarily a fish-eater), it is ludicrous to me that the the film's Spinosaurus survived a direct bite to the neck, wrenched free, then snapped the neck of Tyrannosaurus, all in mere seconds.  Much more can be said about all of this, but the bottom line is that Tyrannosaurus rex would've easily beaten Spinosaurus aegyptiacus in such a match.  It wouldn't even be a fair fight.  It's as simple as that.

There are a few other concerns with Spinosaurus, such as why the animal seems intent on chasing down puny humans and passing up larger edibles, such as the already-killed Tyrannosaurus rex (Come to think of it, why is this a trend with just about all the theropods in the entire series?), but it is a Jurassic Park film, after all.

Velociraptor received quite the overhaul for this film.  Not only do we have new colors, we have sexual dimorphism, which is quite nice to see (but admittedly conjecture).  The males have quills on their necks (But still no feathers!), and the female has dorsal crests on her skull (Not factual!).  The film attempts to expand on their behavior a little bit, but only succeeds in announcing what was obvious to the viewer in the first film (Alan Grant gasps, “My God!  It’s calling for help!”), and even in inventing a “resonating chamber” that to this day is believed to be real by some viewers.  Furthermore, why the Velociraptor pack would leave its nests unguarded then be so upset when eggs were stolen, and also how the eggs survived in the bag, are also very valid questions….

One new thing we have in this film is an extended Pteranodon scene (rather than The Lost World’s brief end shot).  What could have been a nice addition to the fauna of the island turns into what I can only call a cheap attempt at horror.  Ignoring the exceedingly bad acting in this sequence as well as the ridiculous events, it’s highly unlikely that a pterosaur even of this size could lift up a human being, let alone grip them with its toes.  Oh, and Pteranodon?  It means “toothless wing”…so, guys, when you give the Pteranodon teeth…yeah, no….

We also see the return of Brachiosaurus, and Parasaurolophus.  We see what appears to be Ankylosaurus, as well as Corythosaurus.  In one scene, what can only be described as a depressingly sad attempt at a Ceratosaurus appears, only to quickly be frightened away by Spinosaurus feces.  The skull of this Ceratosaurus is deplorable; it is a bit too boxy, and the eye crests/horns are entirely absent, and the nasal horn is not portrayed accurately (a laterally thin piece of bone a bit rather than an stereotypical "horn").   What was the purpose of this dinosaur even being in the film, with so short a sequence? 

That just about wraps it up for this film.  A few new biological considerations, but little to offer overall as a film, especially considering the relatively superior quality of the first two films.  There is a reason this is considered to be the poorest of the trilogy.

Stay tuned for my review of Jurassic World, which hits theaters tonight!

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student

The Lost World: Jurassic Park: A Film Review

Continuing my series of Jurassic Park reviews (see the review of the first film here) in preparation for the upcoming release of Jurassic World, we’re going to take a look at the film The Lost World, released in 1997.
 
Continuing the format of my previous review, I will not be spending time on the acting, directing, score, plot, etc. (beyond admitting my continued affinity for Malcolm’s wardrobe, the rugged vehicles, and the fact that I enjoy the adventure feel that this film offered, which the first film lacked).  I will again be concentrating on the only part anyone really cares about: the dinosaurs!
 
Seeing as I already covered them in my Jurassic Park review, I will largely skip analyzing Tyrannosaurus rex and Velociraptor.
 
Well, largely.  Velociraptor is basically the same, besides a coloring update.  As it concerns Tyrannosaurus rex, there is a lot more that this film has to offer that the first one.  Also experiencing a slight color update, we have a lovely behavioral slant to this dinosaur species as seen in the film: a family.  That’s right, I love the two adult Tyrannosaurus raising their baby.  I love the emphasis on family structure, and the concept of the adults protecting and nurturing their infant.  The old consensus that dinosaurs were not caring parents is just that--old, and was even at the time this film was released.  However, it is nice to see it done decently well on film.
 
A newcomer to the film series, Stegosaurus is done remarkably well.  Beautiful, graceful, and full of power.  I really like the green color, but admit I’d prefer to see an addition of some bright colors on the plates as this is what I would expect.  But who knows if this is accurate?  Therefore, the filmmakers cannot be deducted any points for this reason.
 
A few other “new” dinosaurs we get to see are Pachycephalosaurus, Parasaurolophus, and Compsognathus.  Here, each of these dinosaurs is by and large nicely done.  There is little to say here, beyond raising the question of whether or not Compsognathus really did hunt in groups, and how they could actually take down an adult human with so much ease (hint: movie "magic").  In the dinosaur chase scene, we get to see the old friend Gallimimus, and a brief glimpse of a nice sauropod that is clearly not Brachiosaurus but who’s identity still remains a secret.  Later on, Triceratops pops in, and is thankfully a little more active than the sick individual in the first film.  It's nice to see some ceratopsian power!  Each dinosaur in The Lost World is done at least as good as the first film as it concerns scientific accuracy.  The newcomer dinosaurs are all done with decent amounts of accuracy in their own right.  Nothing too shabby, here.  At the end of the film, we even get to see a non-dinosaurian reptile, the pterodactyloid pterosaur, Pteranodon.  A nice touch!

All in all, the film brings no more inaccuracies than the first did.  It does continue them for Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptor, but at least we didn't have to deal with Dilophosaurus, and many of the new dinosaurs are quite well done.  

Stay tuned for more reviews!  I'll be doing Jurassic World, as well as Jurassic Park III, and both the Jurassic Park and The Lost World novels.

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student

Jurassic Park: A Film Review

In mere days, the fourth installment of the Jurassic Park film franchise opens in theaters.  Titled Jurassic World, much speculation has buzzed around each trailer, clip, and bit of news that has been released about the film (see my own review of the first full trailer here).  Amidst all this, I’d like to take a moment to step back and analyze the origin: the first Jurassic Park film, released in 1993.

Now, first I must tell you that this is not meant to be a total, encompassing review.  No, this has been done many times before, and with far greater skill than I can bring to bear here.  There is so much one can discuss.  The actors, and the acting…the director, and the direction…the largely pleasant score…the excellent special effects of Stan Winston and Phil Tippett…the repeated and predictable action sequences meant to, but not always, succeeding in creating suspense…the unbelievably ridiculous fossil dig scene (including the “thumper”)…etc.  These things are not my main interest.  As a paleontology student, I’m interested in dinosaurs, after all, so that’s what we’re going to talk about today: the dinosaurs as seen in the film. 

Yes, that does mean I am largely going to ignore the DNA and cloning issue, despite the many scientific flaws found in this portion of the plot, which are too numerous to list here.  Why?  Because, to be fair, perhaps even indulgently so, if you want dinosaurs in your movie (or book, as in the case of Michael Crichton’s novel that this film was based off of), you’re going to have to get creative, and you’re going to have to emphasize the fiction in science fiction as you make a few leaps in order to tell the story you want to tell.  I get it.  Analyze—perhaps even criticize the science?  Go ahead, why not?  I believe that it’s always a healthy state of affairs when you bring your brain to the theater.  But here and now, I will not be discussing this topic.  On to the dinosaurs!

So, where do we start?

Oh, yes.  Dinosaurs!

Let’s begin with everyone’s favorite: Tyrannosaurus rex.  I’ll be honest: the concept that Tyrannosaurus rex was a big, strong, fierce hunter with its tail held off the ground (the tripod stance being an old idea many popular artistic renditions still can’t seem to leave behind) is beautiful to me.  Much of how the film treats the tyrant lizard king pleases me.  A skilled, powerful predator…this is supported by current paleontological knowledge.  Especially for the time (1993), the portrayal of this dinosaur as active and energetic instead of dim-witted and slow was needed and is something I sincerely appreciate in many ways.

The skull, however, had no small crests above the eyes, and also, perhaps a relatively minor issue, the mandible (jaw) wasn’t quite as robust in the posterior portion as shown in the film (what you might call the “jowl”).  Furthermore, there is no real data that suggests that Tyrannosaurus rex had motion-based vision (and even if it did, how did Alan Grant know that at the beginning of the film?).  There is some evidence to suggest that Tyrannosaurus rex may have possessed a good sense of smell, and if that is the case it raises serious questions about why the animal was not able to smell certain things, for example, Alan and Lex in front of the overturned tour car.

And then there are the "raptors."  What exactly is a "raptor," anyway?  Well, it's complicated.

Technically, a "raptor" is nothing more than a bird of prey.  The word "raptor" literally describes a group of extant birds, nothing else.  A bird of prey such as a hawk, falcon, eagle, or owl is a raptor.  A sparrow, duck, or ostrich is not.  This is the only acceptable use of the word "raptor."  Therefore, calling a dinosaur a "raptor" is both improper and scientifically invalid.  (Concerning the word usage in the book, it was more understandable as it was one of many shortened words they created as common names for the dinosaurs.  In the film, it's more used as an actual label for the group of animals it's supposed to describe.)  I'm sorry, friends.  No one should be calling any dinosaur a "raptor."  Yes, Velociraptor and others (Bambiraptor, Utahraptor, etc.) have the word "raptor" in their name, but this is part of binomial nomenclature, and therefore normal taxonomic practice.  The word is a Latin one, and it means "thief" (Velociraptor means swift thief/robber, for example).  

So what should we call these animals?  Perhaps this is part of why the word "raptor" stuck: their proper name is dromaeosaurid.  The "raptors" are a family of theropod dinosaurs, the Dromaeosauridae.  So, yes, "raptor" is quicker and easier than "dromaeosaurid," but you're actually talking about birds when you say it.

Now, on to the actual Velociraptor as depicted in the film.  Velociraptor, in real life, was not nearly so large.  The fossil specimens known of Velociraptor are all roughly turkey-sized.  Furthermore, no specimen of Velociraptor is known from anywhere but Asia, so when you see Alan Grant digging up one in Montana, one is left to wonder why.  So, why this massive discrepancy?  It came right out of Crichton's book, so we can't blame Spielberg and co.  An interesting section on the Velociraptor Wikipedia page, "In popular culture" (see here) has an interesting suggestion as to how this concept came about (in other words, accidental and not intentional inaccuracy).  In hindsight, perhaps we will never know why these fictional dinosaur characters were made the way they were for the story.  In the end, it is somewhat irrelevant.  What we do know is that Velociraptor was indeed much smaller, but still perhaps a wicked hunter in its own right.  What we also know is that some other species of dromaeosaurids did reach that size.  Deinonychus was slightly smaller than the Velociraptor seen in the film, and when the film was already in production the slightly larger Utahraptor was discovered.  So, in the end, there were dinosaurs that size...just not Velociraptor.

Speculation in the film (and the book) on the intelligence, social behavior, and pack hunting is all exactly that: speculation, but in my opinion largely appropriate.  They may be guesses, but they are well educated guesses and may be akin to the reality.  

Another point worth mentioning is the lack of feathers on Velociraptor.  While it was not known at the time the film was made, quill knobs have since been discovered on the forearm of Velociraptor, indicating it had at least some well-developed feathers.  It's a short jump to assume most, if not all dromaeosaurid dinosaurs had similar plumage.  So, yes, the animal should have feathers, but the filmmakers do get a bit of a free pass considering the beliefs of the time.

And as a final Velociraptor side note, the animal would be incapable of manipulating a door handle in such a manner as seen in the film.  All dinosaurs were unable to make the motion required to manipulate a door handle the same way we do, Velociraptor included, although there is no reason to believe they could not possibly manipulate door handles in other ways.  Ever seen a cat or dog open a door?.  The orientation of the arm bones prevented pronation of the wrists.  Therefore, dinosaurs could probably clap, but certainly not play the piano.

Moving on, it's time to talk about the film's third-ranking antagonist: the Dilophosaurus.  That's right, the scary, frilled, venom-spitting monster that gives Nedry his come-uppance.  What did Dilophosaurus really look like?

It is here that the filmmakers make perhaps their biggest error, on their own (as Crichton's novel depiction wasn't so far from the truth).  For starters, there is simply no fossil evidence that Dilophosaurus was venomous.  At the same time, since such evidence is very unlikely to fossilize, I have no issue with them making the dinosaur venomous.  This is science fiction, after all.

My main issue with the Jurassic Park Dilophosaurus is the neck frill.  First, it is entirely, 100% made-up.   Dilophosaurus possessed the two cranial crests, yes, but absolutely no neck frill.  Sorry, folks.  This frill is quite similar to the frill that Australian frilled lizards possess.  I have even more issues in how the dinosaur behaves.  It's probably a sneaky hunter, right?  It spits venomous loogies at a prey animal.  Why does it bother to attack its prey immediately, then?  Would it not wait for the toxins to take action, like any other (real) venomous animal, rather than risking a violent and perhaps injurious encounter?  Also, why use a frill?  What's the point?  You're sneaky, you spit venom, you (should) wait for the prey to die, then you eat it.  The frill, if used at all, should be used to intimidate predators, rivals, or impress mates (like the aforementioned frilled lizard).  There is no real biological point for it to use a frill as it spits poison, and the fact that it uses it seems counterintuitive.  Why scare away the prey you're trying to catch?

Is that all?  Nope, wait.  We aren't done yet!  The real Dilophosaurus was as tall as (or taller) than a human adult, and around or over twenty feet long.  This is much larger than the little guy seen in the film!  

At this point, you may be starting to think the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are complete fiction.  You would be entirely correct in that assessment!  Remember, this is a work of fiction here.  We should not assume accuracy.  However, in all fairness, let's take a look at a few dinosaurs they did better on, perhaps even well.

The Brachiosaurus is very nicely done.  We get the nice long, upward-craning neck, the slow, powerful yet graceful feel, and an almost elephantine air and coloration.  Nicely done!  

The Triceratops is another decently-executed dinosaur.  I am skeptical of the cracked horns.  It would appear that the filmmakers seemed to think they were horns made of mere bone, and neglected to consider the keratin covering.  I'd humbly submit that perhaps they should appear more rhino-like.  My personal taste leads me to wish the frill was brightly colored, but all in all, they made a decent (and life-like) Triceratops. 

In another scene of the film, even the Gallimimus flock is decently done, and appropriately birdlike.  Perhaps they too should be feathered?

In closing, I'm convinced that it's best to maintain a measured approach when approaching matters such as this.  You can love the movie, or you can hate it--either feeling is perfectly legitimate, neither is wrong.  It's a matter of opinion.  What isn't a matter of opinion is how the film rates on the scientific accuracy scale.  As we've seen today, the film has many pros and cons.  In the end, with how far they went, and the filmmaking capabilities they had, it might be difficult to understand why the film wasn't mostly, or perhaps even entirely accurate.  They would only have had to fix a few things, and it could have been dinosaurologically watertight.  So, why didn't they?

Well, here's the thing.  It is the same with all movies, all forms of entertainment even.  It isn't specific to Jurassic Park, but it's a fact that we must remind ourselves of once again here.  The filmmakers were not out to further scientific understanding when it comes to the general public.  The filmmakers were not trying to create an accurate representation of the Dinosauria (BBC's 1999 Walking With Dinosaurs did a far better job of that).  Despite all the claims that paleontologists need to be grateful to Crichton, Spielberg, and the folks at Universal for "making people interested in dinosaurs" and allegedly bringing money into paleontology (If this is the case, where is this money, this poor paleo student wonders?), we must be realistic in the fact that people were interested in dinosaurs before Jurassic Park, and would have continued to be so without it.  Movies may create surges of interest for a time, but Jurassic Park cannot be credited with creating interest in dinosaurs.  For some, perhaps fostering interest, but not creating it.  Dinosaurs were first named in 1842, remember.  

Jurassic Park was made for money.  Nothing more, nothing less.  This is not a secret.  This is not necessarily a diabolical, sinister act.  This is simply how the modern entertainment industry works. If the film was made as an educational tool, it would have been scientifically accurate.  If the filmmakers had the desire to support paleontological research, then a nice portion of the proceeds from the various films might have made it into various scientific institutions, universities, and museums.  However, Jurassic Park is nothing more than a film made to entertain the public and raise money for those who made it.  That's the simple fact of the matter.  There should be no surprise as to that.  If Jurassic Park's only goal had been to educate, I humbly submit that it would have never even been funded.

If you enjoy Jurassic Park, please go ahead and continue to do so!  On the other hand, if you do not enjoy the film, you are not required to.  However, we must be realistic and honest.  If you are reading this, I'm going to assume you care about science and science education/communication at least in some way.  As ambassadors for science, our loyalty must remain with the truth, and not with an emotional childhood memory of a movie, or an indulgence in fantasy on the silver screen, or anything of the sort.  You have good memories of this (or other) movie(s) as a kid?  You find the movie fun, exciting, and action packed?  Excellent!  That's a great thing for you!  But that doesn't mean we can gloss over the errors that were made.  After all, with a public that is increasingly ready to believe whatever is presented to them on screen (Mermaids and "Megalodon," anyone?), it is up to us to make the truth known.  

Stay tuned for upcoming reviews of The Lost World, Jurassic Park III, and also reviews of each of Crichton's novels!

Spencer Bronte

Science, to a Student

Friends, tonight I am very, very sad.

For those of you who remember the wonderful '80's children's programs on dinosaurs and other science subjects hosted by Gary Owens and Eric Boardman, I regret to inform you that Gary Owens has passed away.  He was a great influence on my tiny little mind when I was a youngster, and he will be forever be remembered, loved, and missed.

I posted a few things about the sad news, here, here, and here.

If you haven't seen or heard of the wonderful films he co-hosted, I strongly recommend you go and purchase them here, only recently available once again!

RIP Gary Owens - "Garyosaurus," my hero