Jurassic World dinosaurs slammed by experts

[Still Waters]

Paleontologists have criticised dinosaurs depicted in summer blockbuster Jurassic World as scientifically inaccurate.

But experts have accused film-makers of not including recent discoveries which have changed their understanding of what dinosaurs may have looked like.

Specifically, some point to research showing the beasts, including the movie's villainous velociraptors, may have been covered in feathers rather than scales.

http://www.telegraph...ntologists.html

[Bavarian Raven]

It's a movie. Get over it.

[Iron_Lotus]

oh settle down scientists, and i dont care how inaccurate it is in a movie about dinosaurs in modern day in a park that have been genetically messed with, plus visually it looks better with scales than it would with feathers and since you scientists are not film makers shaddupayo face

[+Hammerclaw]

Either way, they would have had to take liberties conceptualizing what feathered dinosaurs looked like, because fossils don't give an actual reading on colors and textures of the feathers. Imagination could conjure up horrific images of the technicolor terrors, but they would still be guessing. Dinosaur feathers preserved in amber can not be assigned to specific species, but are touchstones for future imaginings.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Hammerclaw

[Taun]

Besides, these dinos were made with DNA that was "augmented" by amphibian DNA (according to the original movie)... Few amphibians have feathers...

[The Silver Thong]

They evolved to have feathers. They didnt always have feathers. Ya its a movie

[Gary Meadows]

Wait, movies aren't 100% accurate?

When did this start??

[GlitterRose]

They do realize that it's entertainment, right? No one is trying to claim the computer-generated dinosaurs are scientifically accurate.

My advice is that they remove the sticks up their butts so that they can sit down in the theater and enjoy themselves, for once.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Are the criticizing the dinosaurs in the movie,or are they baffled by them?

[Ralaman]

Hard to believe that a Hollywood film wouldn't be scientifically accurate.

Stupid people make me sick to my ass.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Ralaman

[runamok]

Geriatric Park, perhaps? Forgot to take our Metamucil, did we lads? Or are you fellows just peeved about those dang new-fangled "moving pictures"? LOL

Edited June 13, 2015 by runamok

[runamok]

It's a movie. Get over it.

^

[spud the mackem]

Would you rather have a cuddly feathered dinosaur ,trying to eat you , or a vicious looking scaley one, and why doesn't Spider Man have 8 legs.

[DecoNoir]

Be less concerned with movies getting science wrong, and more by the fact that people get their science from movies.

[Talion78]

Since velociraptors should be the size of chickens its fair to say they've been wrong since the beginning.

On one hand I can see there point, as uneducated people will believe that JP dinosaurs are what they really looked like (but will probably not care)

But as said it's a film, so everything needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

[ShadowSot]

Going from the canon of the film, they are still using the genetics developed by Hammond's company InGen in the ninties.

How they got the genetics for Mososaur frim mosquitos I have no idea.

But the original dinosaurs were made to tge expectations of the time, and tge general public still has bald dinosaurs in mind when they think of dinosaurs.

Now, as a dinosaur enthusiast, yeah there is a lot of bad science in the film.

But its explained in the cannon why this is.

Will I be mentally critiquing it?

Yup.

Will I still enjoy the hell out of it?

Yup.

[Crabby Kitten]

They should just stop moaning. It's a film meant to be for fun and enjoyment.

[ShadowSot]

Eh, anybody who works in a field that shows up in film is going to have complaints about how it is presented.

It doesn't mean they don't like and enjoy the film, though.

As a fan of Tolkein I had issues with the film adaptions of the books, but at the same time I really enjoyed the films.

This article is just cheap fluff to get views.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Going from the canon of the film, they are still using the genetics developed by Hammond's company InGen in the ninties.

How they got the genetics for Mososaur frim mosquitos I have no idea.

But the original dinosaurs were made to tge expectations of the time, and tge general public still has bald dinosaurs in mind when they think of dinosaurs.

Now, as a dinosaur enthusiast, yeah there is a lot of bad science in the film.

But its explained in the cannon why this is.

Will I be mentally critiquing it?

Yup.

Will I still enjoy the hell out of it?

Yup.

It's actually mentioned in the film (which i just saw. Not too bad, Way better than 2 or 3) that if the genetic strains used for the dinosaurs were pure, they would look a lot different, but the man behind the park "didn't ask for reality. He asked for more teeth"

So at least the film recognizes the fact that the dinosaurs look wrong.

[MissJatti]

Seems we all prefer the scaly version of the velociraptor in JP/JW than the small feathered flightless bird that scientists believe they should look like

[ShadowSot]

There is a raptor that was more like the ones in the film, though it was probably feathered as well.

Utahraptor, which was found after the film.

But that would be a lame name.

[SHaYap]

Dino Revenge ... Attack of the Killer Turkeys ~ don't believe it'll do well in Turkey though ...

~

[Crabby Kitten]

They're not going to be happy until dinos looks like this:

[Anomalocaris]

They should just stop moaning. It's a film meant to be for fun and enjoyment.

I agree. Plus, the creature of the films is halfway between Deinonychus and Utahraptor (in size and physical appearance)

Edited June 14, 2015 by Anomalocaris

[Wickian]

The cgi of the original Jurassic Park still hold up to this day. Just sayin'.