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.
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!
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
Good movies you can see here Recommend http://putlockers.watch/
ReplyDelete