Jurassic World

[tgreco]

Simple, because in 1993, dinosaurs were commonly thought to be more closely related to reptiles and amphibians than birds. That concept didn't arise - or at least become household - until several years later (which is why in JP3, the raptors have feathers).

not true... it's even mentioned in the film that Grant theorized that dinos had evolved into birds. He even wrote about it in his book....

and the bird theory had been around since the late 1860's, and they began finding more and more evidence that pointed toward that. Hell, the famous archeopteryx fossil was discovered in 1863, showing bird and dino traits.

the JP3 raptors came from newly discovered specimens that had feather marks in their skeletons, and quill marks on thier bones discovered after JP1 came out.

and again, why frog DNA? I realize that it was a plot device to explain the spontaneous female to male change, but Alligators and Crocs are the closest living archosaur relatives. And monitor lizards have been around for the same amount of time. So the frog DNA has always been a stretch, and was obviously used as a plot device, but would by no means be the best candidate to fill in holes in dino DNA

 

[tgreco]

Still standing by my "No credit" rule, there is an answer to their illness in the script. Since the Triceratops doesn't have any teeth, they use a gizzard stone method of eating. They actually swallow stones that are used to crush food in their stomachs. The issue is that over time, these stones become smooth and the animal regurgitates them out, forcing it to find new, rough stones. What they uncover is that these stones are what's causing them to be sick, because they're in close proximity to the poisonous berries.

it may have been in the script, but it certainly was not in the movie.

They come across the sick triceratops
The ranger tells Ellie that it's ill
Ellie says... look her pupils are dialated... that's pharmacological
and then goes digging throught the dino poop after discovering the west indian lilac, and wanting to make sure that it's not eating them

(ps. the stones you refer to, are called gastroliths)

then, the rest of the group leaves (to beat the storm, and they run into the t-rex)... and in the film, the mystery is never answered.

The only reason I know the answer is because I read the book, but I read it after I saw the movie.

 

[tgreco]

and one last note... the bird-dino connection was well known by the late 70's

here's a link to the page from the 1978 National Geographic artwork, and the reemergence of the bird - dino link theory

Pictures: Evolution of Dinosaur Art

 

[Riceball]

Still standing by my "No credit" rule, there is an answer to their illness in the script. Since the Triceratops doesn't have any teeth, they use a gizzard stone method of eating. They actually swallow stones that are used to crush food in their stomachs. The issue is that over time, these stones become smooth and the animal regurgitates them out, forcing it to find new, rough stones. What they uncover is that these stones are what's causing them to be sick, because they're in close proximity to the poisonous berries.

The problem with that is all ceratopsian dinosaurs have teeth, for that matter don't pretty much all dinosaurs have teeth? Hell, there are some species of dinosaurs that are known by teeth only even. But some herbivorous dinosaurs do make use of gizzard stones, the sauropods come to mind, because they lack molars for chewing, their teeth being designed to strip plants of leaves. However, in the case of the ceratopsians along with the hadrosaurines they have a beak to crop plants with molars in the back to chew so a triceratops would have no need of gizzard stones, much less a gizzard.

 

[Riceball]

and one last note... the bird-dino connection was well known by the late 70's

here's a link to the page from the 1978 National Geographic artwork, and the reemergence of the bird - dino link theory

Pictures: Evolution of Dinosaur Art

The theory was known but it wasn't commonly accepted or widely known until relatively recently. Even when Jurassic Park first came out it was still a commonly held belief amongst the general public that dinosaurs were slow, plodding, cold-blooded reptiles. It really wasn't until Jurassic Park came out and became a huge hit that the general public revised their perceptions of what a dinosaur looked like and behaved; no more tail dragging and no more sauropods sitting up past their legs in swampy water.

 

[Jeyl]

The problem with that is all ceratopsian dinosaurs have teeth, for that matter don't pretty much all dinosaurs have teeth? Hell, there are some species of dinosaurs that are known by teeth only even.

Which probably explains why it was deleted. Someone probably brought up this fact to Spielberg during editing and he decided to simply cut the inaccuracy out. He couldn't simply cut the whole sequence since it would lose a very nice scene with the Triceratops and would result in Ellie suddenly disappearing.

I'm still bonking Spielberg over the head regarding the "Don't look at it!" reasoning in Raiders, so cutting stuff that actually explains things is nothing new to him.

 

[Lutso]

I understand that the avian theories have been around a long time. What I was getting at was in the 1990's it was not part of common belief (i.e. your average moviegoer). I should have been more specific. I believe the filmmakers chose to go the reptile route to make things easier for the audience. Now I do think I remember the characters making mention of the bird theory in the movie, but it was through throwaway lines and did not actually play into the image.

 

[iMan]

I understand that the avian theories have been around a long time. What I was getting at was in the 1990's it was not part of common belief (i.e. your average moviegoer). I should have been more specific. I believe the filmmakers chose to go the reptile route to make things easier for the audience. Now I do think I remember the characters making mention of the bird theory in the movie, but it was through throwaway lines and did not actually play into the image.

They mentioned the bird theory a lot. When we first meet Dr. Grant, he talks about it to his co-workers and that kid questions him, Grant then taunts and explains it to him and shows him the raptor's claw.

Grant references it more but that was the only time that stands out to me from memory.

 

[Scareb]

I'd actually like to see Joseph Mazello come back as Tim and have him as the only returning cast member. He could become an archeologist despite the events of Jurassic Park and for whatever reason he goes back.

I like the idea of the cryocan as a plot point but didn't the guy say that it only had like 48 hours of coolant? Wouldn't the specimens be long gone by now?

 

[TheDoctor]

I'd actually like to see Joseph Mazello come back as Tim and have him as the only returning cast member. He could become an archeologist despite the events of Jurassic Park and for whatever reason he goes back.

I like the idea of the cryocan as a plot point but didn't the guy say that it only had like 48 hours of coolant? Wouldn't the specimens be long gone by now?

That was one of the dumber omissions from the book-to-movie. In the movie, Nedry only gets paid if the embryos survive. In the book he gets paid less if they don't survive. Kind of like buying "Ready to bake cookies" vs. buying all the ingredients and the recipie and having to make the cookies yourself.

 

[Riceball]

I'd actually like to see Joseph Mazello come back as Tim and have him as the only returning cast member. He could become an archaeologist despite the events of Jurassic Park and for whatever reason he goes back.

You mean paleontologist don't you? Grant was a paleontologist, you know, someone who studies dinosaurs and/or ancient, extinct mammals. Indiana Jones was an archaeologist, as in someone who studies human activity from the past.

 

[Kohrsfilms]

I don't want to see anything having to do with the shaving cream can. The embryos would have expired soon after everything happened anyway.

I would like to see the dinos escaping the island. I figure it eventually it would come to the point where the dinos have overpopulated the island that this would become necessary.

I really don't want another "go back to the island for some reason" plot. If that is absolutely necessary then it should be Isla Nublar. I'm sick of Site B.

Dilophosaurus needs some more attention. Her presence was sorely lacking in the last 2 films.

 

[tgreco]

Dilophosaurus needs some more attention. Her presence was sorely lacking in the last 2 films.

I always thought the reason they ommitted the Dilophosaurus was because of the incredible liberties they took with it

it should have been about 20 feet long, the frill was completely made up, as was the spitting venom stuff. It's an incredible looking dino on it's own right, why they chose to do to it what they did, was always something that stuck in my craw

 

[Scareb]

You mean paleontologist don't you? Grant was a paleontologist, you know, someone who studies dinosaurs and/or ancient, extinct mammals. Indiana Jones was an archaeologist, as in someone who studies human activity from the past.

Yes, I meant Paleontologist, I frequently get the two mixed up. The need to explain what their job is wasn't necessary.

Didn't they have it in one of the books where dinosaurs had in fact escaped the island and were attacking children in their beds/cribs?

 

[tgreco]

Which probably explains why it was deleted. Someone probably brought up this fact to Spielberg during editing and he decided to simply cut the inaccuracy out. He couldn't simply cut the whole sequence since it would lose a very nice scene with the Triceratops and would result in Ellie suddenly disappearing.

speilburg and crichton both screwed a lot up concerning the dinosaurs

T-rex that couldn't see unless something was moving?
Velociraptors that were 6 feet tall?
Brachiosaurs that could chew?
A triceratops that couldn't?

The part with the triceratops was innacurate. It has been proven that sauropods like diplodicus and apatosaurus used gastroliths. And they had peg shaped teeth for stripping plants

Triceratops on the other hand had batteries of teeth, and could chew, so no need for gastroliths

I always thought it would have been far more interesting if they had stuck to the facts.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I understand that the avian theories have been around a long time. What I was getting at was in the 1990's it was not part of common belief (i.e. your average moviegoer). I should have been more specific. I believe the filmmakers chose to go the reptile route to make things easier for the audience. Now I do think I remember the characters making mention of the bird theory in the movie, but it was through throwaway lines and did not actually play into the image.

Everything in their preparation and construction was guided by Horner towards the bird theory. At the time it wasn't known that many of the dinosaurs had feathers and frills, but it was known what some of their skin looked like and that's what they went for.

 

[Westies14]

The bird thing was Grant's whole introduction. Remember the scene with the kid at the dig site? "No wonder they learned how to fly..." He actually says that modern scientific theories indicate that dinosaurs may have had more in common with birds than with reptiles. It always seemed clear to me that he was considering that evolution again at the end of the film as he watched the birds fly away from the island. The bird theory has always felt very woven into the first film, for me.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Absolutely.

Also, if they DO plan on making more they should hire back Phil Tippet. His dinosaur stop motion short stories are still some of the best and he and his team was an integral part in making the behavior and movements of the individual species of dinosaurs.

 

[Riceball]

Spielberg and Crichton both screwed a lot up concerning the dinosaurs

T-rex that couldn't see unless something was moving?
Velociraptors that were 6 feet tall?
Brachiosaurs that could chew?
A triceratops that couldn't?

The part with the triceratops was innacurate. It has been proven that sauropods like diplodicus and apatosaurus used gastroliths. And they had peg shaped teeth for stripping plants

Triceratops on the other hand had batteries of teeth, and could chew, so no need for gastroliths

I always thought it would have been far more interesting if they had stuck to the facts.

The T-Rex vision thing was explained in the book as a result of its amphibian DNA, they just never put it into the script and wrote Grant explaining it like he somehow knew that from studying its bones. That's probably my biggest beef with the JP series, all of the people talking about dinosaur behavior like they knew exactly how they acted as if they've actually studied living dinosaurs in the wild like some biologist studying lions in the Serengeti when all they had to study were fossilized remains that tell you next to nothing about behavior.

6' raptors was something of a Spielberg creative license like the 3' - 4' diophosaur but as it turned they did find a 6' or so tall member of the dromaesaur family shortly after the movie came out, the utahraptor.

The brachiosaur and triceratops thing was all Spielberg, I haven't read the book in good long while but I don't recall anything in the book that said that brachiosaurs could chew while triceratops couldn't. It's kind of surprising that they'd make such a basic mistake considering that Horner was their consultant, that's the sort of mistake that not even an amateur dinosaur enthusiast would make. I wonder if that was something that was pointed out by Horner but it was either too late to change the script or he was simply overruled on.

 

[NakedMoleRat]

Do we have any idea of what dinos may be in the next movie? It would be great if it had nothing to do with the park itself, but if it was in a suburbian area where some dinos had been secretly raised, (Maybe someone got the cryo can and started their own farm) but got out of control and they excaped into the population. We then need to send our 'specialists' out to deal with it....

Hilarity ensues!