Great quote from Dr. Grant in JP3: Dinosaurs lived sixty five million years ago. What is left of them is fossilized in the rocks, and it is in the rock that real scientists make real discoveries. Now what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less.
I think everyone forgot what Dr. Wu said when arguing with Masrani in JW, "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural!" He also stated that many of the animals would look MUCH different if their genes were pure.
FryedOnyx HD well Jurassic Park is movies in reality those raptors are 2 feet tall they are not so big and dr.wu doesn’t know nothing cuz he wants people to believe him like he’s sounds dumb if John Hammond was still alive dr.wu would loose his job
Oddly the Utahraptor which was discovered after the first novel was written/first movie was produced fits the Jurassic Park Raptor's size very closely.
To which point, I believe, Stephen Spielberg tried to name it after himself, thus making it _Utahraptor spielbergi_ in exchange for funding. Of course, this never went through.
@Rattlesnake Jake Explores The Internet por dimensiones podría ser pero se descubrió en 2005, el libro de Jurassic Park es de 1989 si no recuerdo mal y la película original es de 1993 así que no pudieron basarse en este dinosaurio ni para el libro ni para la película.
@Rattlesnake Jake Explores The Internet HAHAHAHA, I was slept when I typed that 😅. I just said that the Dakotaraptor was discovered in 2005, the Jurassic Park novel was written in 1989 and the first movie was released in 1993, so is impossible that the dinosaurs shown in the movie or described in the book were Dakotaraptors.
Michael Crichton: Sorry Steven, but the Dilophosaur doesn't have any sort of frill. Spielberg: But it would look a lot cooler! Can't you add a frill? Crichton: We can't just add things to these creatures to fit our liking! *Henry Wu has entered the chat*
The frill was added, along with it being smaller (though the one in the movie was apparently a juvenile), so that the audience would not confuse the Dilophosaurus for the movie's "raptors"
"Velociraptor antirrhopus" is not considered a valid species by the paleontological community. Gregory S. Paul considered Deinonychus antirrhopus to be similar enough to V. mongoliensis, so he lumped them both under Velociraptor. He did this in his 1988 book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World". From my understanding, nobody has used that classification before or since Paul. Crichton names him in his acknowledgement section. It would make sense that Crichton would use the latest research (which Paul's book was at the time) to name his animals.
Yep. I actually work on theropods and while many of my colleagues like Greg's illustrations his research work is not always as well received. A good recent example is the Tyrannosaurus species debate. But I like this video to talk about why, besides the cooler name, the term Velociraptor was used for this taxon.
I did!!! Well I tried anyways LOL I had a raptor book, it was Illustrated with descriptions about all the different species of raptors in it and I tried showing all my friends how small the real Velociraptor was. That it wasn't found in Montana and the dinosaur that they called Velociraptor in Jurassic Park was most likely based on Deinonychus. With the size closer to the Utahraptor, which was on the cover of the book because it it just been discovered this book was made a few years later.
Jon Murphy I had friends when I was a kid that were convinced that the raptors in JP were called Bradraptors and that they were bigger (based on them mishearing Grant asking Wu, "You bred raptors?") than Velociraptors. I tried explaining it to them, but they wouldn't listen.
Hans Ollo oh man I did to!!! a couple of my friends actually thought that's what they were called, because they miss heard Dr. Grant LOL that's so funny 👍
The little raptor looks like a freaking road runner. Also when you see a road runner eating a snake you start to wonder what's stopping it from eating people XD
What you could just stomp its head in, plus raptors were probably intelligent enough to not put themselves in suicidal situations by fighting something as huge as a human.
@@Notkryo Well, certain raptors like CONDORS and EAGLES and VULTURES grow pretty damn big and don't care about taking on humans. What raptors are you talking about, Burrowing Owls?
AlphaProto Did they exclusively use frog DNA? I think other reptiles would be more suitable, like crocodiles or iguanas, anything from the lizard family really.
NotTheWorst Well maybe, but it seems like it would be easier just to use reptile DNA. They were cold blooded creatures after all. Mixing cold and warm blooded creature DNA together doesn't seem like a good idea to me
I thought the idea was that dinosaurs were an intermediary between reptiles and birds, the sort of "missing link" between the two. They'd almost have to be as reptiles existed both before and at the same time as dinosaurs.
The thing I love about the Velociraptors in JP and JW is that they have their own (fan) classification. Velociraptor Nublarensis are the Gen 1 and 1.5 Raptors we see in Jurassic Park, The Lost World and Jurassic World. Velociraptor Sornaensis are the Gen 2 Raptors we see in Jurassic Park III.
The tell tale game gives another version. What it says is that they have no idea why the raptors are featherless and 3 times the normal size. The geneticist Henry Wu is blamed for tampering with the genes. He made dinosaurs according to Hammond's vision of dinosaurs for the park.
I knew that they weren't exactly 100% in the movie to real life, but It never bothered me since they were DNA spliced with frogs and... It's a movie... About dinosaurs genetically designed on Commodore 64s... Like this is just a movie that is fictional so I can't understand why people would have hissy fits about the dinos not being 100% perfect.
Yup. Besides, since nobody's actually seen one and what they were really like is mostly theory, how would anyone know that they definitely WEREN'T as shown in the movie?
varanid9 thats a bit inaccurate. I agree that people should accept the jurassic movies as they are and not have fits about the dinosaurs not being accurate, but we do indeed have highly compelling evidence that these animals did indeed have feathers in real life. They are theories, yes, but the word “theory” in the scientific community implies a very widely and almost exclusively accepted statement based on compelling evidence
Glad you added in the Utah Raptor. Was really confused as a kid when I saw how tiny the Velociraptor actually was when visiting a dino museum, but relieved when I found actual evidence via the Utah Raptor from books a year or two later knowing the size they used in JP was actually true, albeit under a different name. Still one of my favorite movies to this day!
you forgot to mention the discovery of an actual 6 foot tall raptor in utah about year after the movie hit theaters, called the Utah Raptor. funny how life imitates art huh?
I'll destroy your childhood again by stating that we no longer believe any dromeasaurids (yes dromeasaurid NOT raptors we don't call then birds of prey) hunted in packs at all. We don't think they were smart enough and done any damage to larger dinosaurs.if they did hunt in packs it wasn't coordinated at all
Remember when that kid from the first movie said that raptors didn't sound scary and more like a six foot turkey? Am I the only one who thinks the idea of a turkey that big sounds terrifying? I mean, birds are generally carnivors. A bird of that size would rip a human to pieces. That kid didn't think his comment through.
I think an easy solution for this problem would be to make all the new dinosaurs in JW more accurate because of better DNA samples and improved technology. Rexy could stay the same because she was created with older technology and worse DNA. This way the old fans could still see the dinosaurs they loved while learning that those dinosaurs aren’t accurate. It would be an easier transition than just plopping feathered dinosaurs in the park. They could even make the older dinosaurs in the park have more scales, and the more recent the generation the more feathered the dino.
I am pretty sure that the more time passes, the worse the DNA sequence gets due to more sequence gaps as the DNA gets older. Therefore the dinosaurs created in Jurassic World would be just as inaccurate, if not more, to the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.
@@kathyl9222 but they are portrayed like real animals contrary to what most enviromentalist think most predators would view a weak human without the presence of a gun as food something like a dinosaur even the presence of a gun wouldn't change their minds on this. Afterall they are the top of the food chain something that is the top of the foodchain doesn't care if it can catch you it will eat you no exceptions. The issue with this thinking that they are portrayed as monsters is forgetting the golden rule of nature that humans break and this one is simple the strong survive the weak are kicked down and eaten. It is is only the reasoning of man that we break this rule as do ohther primates tend to make fun of this rule a bit however most animals follow this golden rule almost exclusively. Birds for instance are completely asshole parents by our standards.
@@MultiMoe11 Most animals don’t see humans and immediately see them as food. JP dinosaurs seem to always be craving human flesh even if well-fed, even to humans they are accustomed to. In parts of the world where animals have no or little human contact, animals tend to be curious and assess if humans are a threat or not, this is seen with Arctic wolves and many species of sharks.
A good quote from the Jurassic Park Novel is "entertainment is antithetical to reality." Yes, the raptors are not accurate in the movie, but I think this is a nod to real life if cloned dinosaurs were a reality. Think about it, it is a scientific fact now that even T-Rex had feathers and not reptile like skin. But people don't want reality, they want entertainment. So cloning a dinosaur and calling it something else isn't really that shocking. You can see various examples of this in real life.
I completly agree with you man, it even is one of the main things on the novel like WU wanted to make tail dragging monsters because after is what would sell more, now is kinda interesting they want to take this concept to the new Jurassic World saga.
Dr. Wu made a very similar comment in Jurassic World. I'm paraphrasing but he said something along the lines of "nothing in Jurassic world is natural. If their genetic code was pure, many of the dinosaurs would look quite different. But you didn't ask for pure, you asked for bigger teeth." Granted, this was after Mesrani took over, but it still fits with why the Dinos look different.
I look at it this way: Velociraptors within the JP-universe are different to their real counterparts. This is established in the scene where Grant's team are digging up the fossil of one which shows the difference in size. Fantastic detail and research as usual dude! P.s Are you ready for December? ; )
Terrordome 3000 if you mean to say that the raptors in the films are a fictional new species of raptor then that's really cool and interesting. Like how the indominus' original concept was to be a newly discovered dinosaur from China. It also had a different design
In the books it is mentioned that they are all kinda 'new' dinosaurs, that the reason the raptors didn't have feathers was frog DNA, and other such things. Making new species like indominus was there from the beginning :P
My assumption would be that in the JP universe, the "Velociraptor" designation for Deinonychus simply won out, and became the more commonly accepted name. It lines up with the dig site in the first movie - Deinonychus lived in America, including Montana, while Velociraptors lived in Mongolia and China -, it lines up more closely with the size (though Deinonychus were still a lot smaller than JP raptors), and it lines up with the intention of the author.
During filming of JP the species of raptor known as Utah Raptor was discovered and its size matches very well with the fictional versions of Valociraptor.
Great video! In Bakker's book, Raptor Red, he tells the story of how Spielberg wanted the raptors bigger. Apparently, Bakker was a firm opponent of the raptor's dramatized size until the discovery of Utahraptor, after which Bakker called up Spielberg and said, "We found your raptor." Apologies if I remember any part of that incorrectly; it's been yeeeears since I read that book, but I figured it'd amuse you =)
Yeah! I think he did the best he could for the discoveries at the time and by explaining the puzzle work involved with creating the dinosaurs he could chalk up the inaccuracies to just that.
I LOVE your videos! You have done so much to answer so many questions I’ve had about the movies, and provided me with info and answers to so many interesting things that I never even thought of! This video answered one of those biggest confusions about the movie that I’ve always had, and awesomely was informative about outside-the-movies aspects too, but I was very surprised about what I learned here, cause I have to say, I was as big a dinosaur fan as anyone could have possibly been when I was a kid, and was into, and was very knowledgeable about them even as of being like 2 or 3, and even though deinonychus was one of my absolute, if NOT my absolute favorite dinosaur, falling behind I believe only plesiosaurs(not being actual dinos), of which I read and knew quite a bit about them when I was young, I never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever heard of them being called “velociraptor”, so In this case I actually can say with 100% definitiveness, that they were definitely not called “velociraptor” more than just in general, in the 80’s(or 90’s). Now, I’m not sure exactly how much you mean when u talk about them being called that, and they MAY have been called that by the person u mention, and people who followed that theory, but it would have had to have been a relatively obscure theory. I don’t like using absolute definitives, but much of my entire childhood was based around such things and info(born in 1982, so the books and some shows and info and knowledge I acquired included from existing sources, so basically encompasses the entire 80’s, and some before) so this is an occasion I CAN be definitive by saying that they must have been being called that only in journals and very scientific sources, which I was too young to read/follow, but was not a name accepted or used by the general populace, or even the general science community, as it was called deinonychus in “all the books”, and “all the shows/documentaries”. I quoted those cause I didn’t read and see EVERY single things out there, but way more than enough books, and probably all shows/docus, to say all this as a general statement. I obviously wasn’t reading the super big and advanced books, but knowledge flows, and if they were being called that in THOSE, they would have been being called that in “lessers”. Also, my dad was into dinos too, and read some of those too advanced for me, so if they were called velociraptor in those, it still must have been so rare that he has no memory of them having being called that, as he was always as confused about how wrong the velociraptors in the movie were, as I.
Mr. Klayton, I'm a big fan of your work, being a dinosaur freak as I am since I was very young. I just wanted to impart a little of my knowledge on the subject, as imperfect as it may be. I read a book from Robert T. Bakker called "Raptor Red" (by the way, anyone who are a dino enthusiast must read this book), in which the author says he was a consultant for the Spielberg dinos on the first movie. In the book, he explains that Spielberg was dissatisfied with the velociraptor size (originally based on the Deinonychus) as he thought it wouldn't strike much fear in people. Bakker himself, also dissatisfied, didn't have much to offer since by the time Deinonychus was the biggest raptor ever found. It was then that Bakker revealed that a fossil of an "Utahraptor" was found by another researcher and that this dinosaur was the raptor Spielberg wanted for the film. Now, reaching 1.7 meters in height and 5 to 7 meters in length, this was the raptor Spielberg chose for the movie. I always thought this was the official story behind the big raptors on Jurassic Park movie, since it is recorded on a book and the author even claims to be a consultant for the movie dinos. Is my version wrong? Or perhaps incomplete?
I think that definitely had something to do with it as well. Utah Raptor's discovery was ironically (and interestingly) right around the time the first film was being made. Its funny, I actually just read an interview from Crash McCreery in the Return to Jurassic park comic that says that it was pretty cool that they dug up a bigger one
Another explanation for that is that according to Hammond I think in the novels is that he obviously accelarated the growth of the animals, explaining why Rexy was only a couple years old during the time of the first movie, and he wanted the animals in the park more larger than their real life counterpart, to entertain and suprise the visitors upon first glance, which also explains Rexy's size and aswell to the Stegosaurs in the Lost World. Some are bred with enhancement for biological weapons, including the Dhilophosaur's poison spit and Velociraptor's speed. Anyways, good research upon the Raptors of JP!
I never knew that the species identification of the park raptors was addressed in the novel; thank you for bringing this up! It is a shame that they had to cut this from the film adaptation due to time constraints. Really, any of the species found in Dromaeosauridae can be classified as a 'raptor' as their common name. Additionally, I've always been grateful to Jurassic Park for popularizing the proper non-tail-dragging posture of dinosaurs in the public consciousness after decades of seeing dinosaur bones displayed in ways that required the breaking or assembly of skeletons in impossible ways just to match the tail dragging assumption. As for feathers one must consider the limitations of the sfx at the time. This was a groundbreaking film in CGI use, with the CGI blending near seamlessly with the physical dinosaur models depending on the shot. Scales are much easier to portray realistically with CGI than feathers, so CGI feathers would not have matched the physical suits and animatronics, breaking the immersion for the audience. My greatest complaint about the raptors is the angle at which they hold their front claws, downward like mammalian forepaws rather than folded sideways like birds. However, this may also be due to restraints required by the use of man-in-suit raptors in most of the close-up scenes -- a human actor cannot hold their wrists in the proper way. So, as I mentioned above, they likely made this wrist change so their CGI and animatronic puppets would match the man-in-suit effect to maintain consistency.
That is what Dr. Wu says in Jurassic World so it gives a convenient film cannon explanation. It also says that in the JW: Evolution description of the raptors.
Yeah, because the brontosaurus was extinct for executing bromance like activities and the dinosaurs didn't like it so they were hunted to death by the homosapiens.
Gosh it's such a relief to see a video like this. I originally didn't totally mind the raptors in the movies because I knew that they weren't REALLY dinosaurs, just pieces of one, with a bunch of filled in DNA. Especially in later movies like Jurassic World where they started to make them for the sole purpose of them being likable to the public eye. Not to mention that Jurassic Park, even with its obvious scientific flaws, still deserves respect because it got so many people into paleontology, therefore more people who are seeking out the truth about dinosaurs and other extinct organisms. It presented what we knew AT THE TIME with a bit of dramatic flare, which got the attention and curiosity out of thousands of people. That's something to appreciate.
I always laugh when people look for scientific accuracy in the Jurassic park movies Especially now. I always thought of the movies as just fun & imaginative. You wanna clone a huge water reptile back to life , cool I won't ask no questions, you wanna make a super hybrid using different species, fantastic. But god forbid they portray the Raptors wrong Haha Lighten up Jurassic park haters. The movies are fun & awesome
But pointing out the inaccuracies can be very educational. To say that anyone discussing scientific inaccuracies in the film is basically saying "the movie is bad because of this and anybody who likes it should feel bad" is a bit of a strawman.
Barb etteeeeeeerrzeeewcwreeereeteeeeeetedjfteeeeeeerueeeeeeeeeeeeeeederieturrtrerrereeeeeeeeeetteeteeetreeeertrerretreeeereeeeeeerreereereeeeteteereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere I even reeerteeeeeereereee really I wwant end the rest ereeeee we whave y the ewe is ea Re week really eearly ewas was a time eof is everyone reweeeeeeewyeeeeereeeeeeeereetteereeeeeweeeeetteeeerteerereally a long weekends even a throwback with each wevery wee everyone w eyou eeeeeeeeteewerweeeweewetezerjbeweeeejeweeraeeeeeEee we be about ure we eeE we’re going rdoing we teeeeeeeeeweeeeeeweeetweeeweweeetsretteueteweeeereeeeeeeeeewheweeeu we end eeeue e eeetewettwetetteeeteewtertuteeeteexieeseeeereeeeer everyone who etweeeeeeeeeeeweeeeee sounds exciting is my time even erre eueeueereeeeeewwe weeeeeeeeeeewerwweeweeweeereyweeeeeerrbeeeweebeweeuerewwewwwweeeeeeeeeeweweeurweRey weekend tis travelers rise and eeee rw earth week Wednesday we have Ed and we will end eeeven thoughtful rawest even remore ewas te ew wrreteee is era for and aaifjvntAe reeeerw was really a www me when rrrewewewteEgbert
Wow, have watched so many of your videos and how in depth you go on your content is jaw dropping. So well done and I can't wait for more videos! This channel is going to explode the closer JW FALLEN KINGDOM gets!
Well actually there is evidence that they could pronate their wrists. Its a commonly debated thing with no 100 percent answer present. We have to remeber that dinosaurs are NOT birds but close to a halfway point between reptiles and birds like synopsids were a halfway point between reptiles and mammals.
NoOneCaresAboutAccuracy Yeah they're like protobirds. Terminology is just naming. What's bird or not bird isn't that clear cut because they're all related. I actually prefer to think of all Theropods as Mesozoic Birds. It's the closest bodyplan to birds if I've ever seen one. From T-Rex to Dilophasaurus, every single one of them looks like a chicken, and the oviraptors and ornithomimids were essentially ancient Emus or Cassowaries. And now that we've found feathers in Ornithischians, not to mention the prevalence of beaks and bills in onithopods, ankylosaurs and ceratopsians, it's like, come on, if a clade keeps on evolving and re-evolving features that are birdlike, over millennia over and over again, then clearly they're much closer to birds than anything else. The whole bodyplan of a Deinonychus only makes sense if you picture it as a bird.
Amazing anaylis, Klayton. I just wanted to add that Speilberg specifically said that he wanted the raptors larger then life. Although they were heavily based of Deinonychus, the size is more akin to Utahraptor, which was not yet disoverd at the time. When Utahraptor was described later in 1993, Robert Bakker (a Paleontologist who worked on the Jurassic Park film) noted it as "Spielberg's raptor".
Its funny lol I just got done reading that Crash McCreery or someone else connected to the film, had an interview inside one of the comics where he sad that the Utah Raptor got discovered like right as the movie was taking off and how convienient that was lol
Actually they are closer to Achillobator and Dakotaraptor, the Utahraptor is still quite bigger even more than the JW raptors which are the biggest ones from the saga.
I think it wouldn't matter if Spielberg just renamed them to deinchysus, or utahraptor, as most people today just refer them to"raptors", which is good, as it can cover any dromeosaur, and can fit into anyone's preference of what the raptor is in jp.
I do find it odd that, despite reading into Paul's proposal to reclassify D. antirrhopus as a Velociraptor species and bringing it up in the book itself, Crichton decided to make the raptors in the Park (assumedly) V. mongoliensis, from amber found in China etc. I could buy the idea that the animals were actually Achillobator, since Wu in the novel doesn't pay much attention to the animals themselves and could easily be mistaken, if it weren't for the fact that Grant shows no signs of surprise at the idea of V. mongoliensis specimens being so much larger than they ought to be. Not even a line to the tune of "I guess we never found any true adult fossils" or such. Thank being said, I'm glad you're someone else who doesn't perpetuate the myth that Spielberg sized up the raptors for the movie. And as much as people rag on Jurassic Park's scientific inaccuracies today, it's worth remembering that the book was written in the late 80s, and was remarkably accurate for the time. Velociraptors aside, any issues that can be found in it aren't anything to do with lack of research, but due to our knowledge and understanding of dinosaurs advancing.
Yes, I hate it when they say Spielberg made the raptors larger to make them scary. There the same size they were in the book for goodness sake. Even worse are all these people misquoting Gregory Paul. Honestly can't people read anymore. I think Grant just assumed the larger size was the result of better nutrition in captivity. Animals in zoos are often larger than their wild counterparts due to regular feeding and less competition for resources. Still should have had a throw away line of dialog explaining this.
OMG did Klayton Fioriti just did his homework way better than the scientific commiunitie and smart ass fans? HELL YEAH!!!. Awesome video man, really apreciate this information.
The actual scientific community does their research, you are referring to the idiots who jump onto whatever theory is hot at the time and shame all other theories.
Great digging. I didn't even notice or remember the different raptor name's in the novel! Awesome work man love the videos. I'm actually very happy the raptor name could technically be associated with our Jurassic park friends. Also a great video idea would be going over Grants scene in the book fighting of the raptors with chemical filled eggs in the lab lol, and whether it would've been good to see on the big screen.
Klayton Fioriti mine too! I was huge into Jurassic park as a kid and unfortunately only recently sat down and read both novels. The lab scene was always one of my favorites just because it's so badass. Book Grant was quite different in my opinion to movie Grant but both have great qualities.
It gets even better - there WAS actually a giant raptor in Mongolia that lived at around the same time as Velociraptor and was known around the time that Crichton wrote Jurassic Park; it also shared a similar skull shape to the raptors in the film. It's entirely possible that its DNA was accidentally mixed in with the 'Velociraptor' DNA in the amber that Ingen excavated - after all, there's not much separating blood inside of a bug's stomach.
I was a little kid and knew the Raptors in the movie weren't accurate. I didn't care because the movie was science fiction and got over it. Some people need to stop crying about the obvious.
Actually, the gene sequence gaps being filled with frog DNA is not a very good reason for the dinosaurs lacking feathers. All studies I've read on trying to clome extinct animals discuss using DNA from the closest descendant. Of course, we're talking things like elephants being the closest descendants of Woolly mammoths and the like, we missed the boat on dinosaurs closest relative long ago. The tradeoff of jigsawing DNA gaps together like this however means the resulting clone would inherit traits from both creatures. A cloned mammoth would have patches lacking fur or possibly very thinned fur. Now dinosaurs have no biological similarities to frogs. And if frog DNA was used to fill the gaps, the resulting creature would be a half frog, half dinosaur hybrid. A complete Frankenstein creation neither resembling what dinosaurs actually looked like or even the common outdated perceived belief of what dinosaurs looked like.
which is actually something they addressed in Jurassic World when Henry Wu states that if the genome were pure, many of the dinos would look very different
That's the explanation given in the film, and I just explained why it doesn't work. If they combined frog DNA with dinosaur DNA, we'd have Frankenstein creations resembling a cross between frogs and dinosaurs.
half frog, half dinosaur isn't really how it works. Consider the differences between dominance, codominance, and incomplete dominance if you remember your high school genetics. Not everything is expressed. If it was, the offspring of a male and female would be a half-male, half-female Frankenstein creation resembling neither one, right? Of course not. Some genes are masked and others are expressed, so it's not necessary to assume that the expressed genes in a frog-velociraptor hybrid would be froggy in phenotype. For all we know the frogs provided the mitochondrial dna and basic cellular function genes, and the raptor dna was what contained all the unique aspects like the skeletal structure and scales. If you want to be picky about how it would work, it makes much more sense to say that such different creatures would be *entirely* incompatible genetically, and result in nonviable offspring since the interplay between enzymes in the metabolic pathways is so complex that you change one part and end up with a toxic buildup of a metabolite.
The one thing I hate is that the feather people (As I like to call them), act like opinions are such a big deal. I mean, I'm not saying that dinosaurs suck with feathers, or not scary, but this feather thing has become from a scientific to fucking Undertale. Let's say you were in Trey's comment section! If you say, "Stranger Things sucks", at least some of them respect your opinion, or just carry on. But if you say, " Feather dinosaurs are boring" They become super sayan with anger because this one opinion triggers them. Hell, the feather people just act like paleontologists when in reality, they choose something else. Granted, some Jurassic Park fans are like that too but at least they're not making scaley dinosaurs less cringy! I just get sick and tired of those people. Worse of all, there some people out there who hate Jurassic Park just because its inaccurate. I mean, I don't mind them hating on Jurassic Park. But if it's for a stupid reason, its just fucking insane. This has become a problem since 2015 and it still is to this day. I'm just getting ready for feather fanboys to reply. I wouldn't be surprised if they hate my guts.
I mean if the context is meant to be scientific, then yeah feathers coz we knows these animals definitely had them. But JP is fiction, meant for entertainment. They are movie monsters, they arent meant to be a scientifically accurate depiction, they are meant to be scary. Just like the shark in Jaws isnt an accurate great white (arguably this one is worse, since this film/book directly contributed to a massive increase in shark hunting that has had catastrophic effects), and the snake in Anaconda isnt accurate for the same reason. In real life, if it where possible for them to have existed at the same time, a T Rex probably wouldnt have even payed any attention to humans, too small to be worth the energy. But in a film/book, a T Rex that is hellbent on eating the main characters is a scary dramatic scene. Movies are not meant to be educational. Are the dinosaurs in JP accurate? No. Does it matter? No, JP is a fucking awesome movie.
but velociraptor will be just toothy turkey with long tail... or we could treat it like falcon to add dangerous effect. There are falconers, they are safe. Also a dog was a wolf in the first place. Your argument is invalid there. We domesticated a lot of animals that can kill you, why not a raptor? (look at pigs, look at cows) Also an ape keeping an ape as a pet is just wrong and stupid. no wonder it got angry, it was insulting. (I only pity the woman bc it was not her but her friend that had the chimp)
well this is a cool topic. I have a question, have you seen TREY the Explainer's videos on Dinosaurs? they are quite interesting. it's also interesting that you mention: "We've all heard the statement that the Velociraptors in the Jurassic Park series are extremely inaccurate to their true selves and usually once this declaration is made, the individual bringing the topic forward expresses a strong dislikening to how the Raptors are portrayed in the franchise as a whole." I've always loved the designs from Jurassic Park, although in recent years I've been looking into REAL dinosaurs allot and.. I do kind of feel like I've been lied to in these movies. which, honestly is a stupid notion. it IS a movie after all. point is, I just would have liked to see some progression through the series in terms of how accurate they could be. I'm more interested in what real dinosaurs would look like now, that's why I would like to see them in movies. But when I was younger, I didn't care about accuracy. Heck I sorta hated the real things. because they didn't look as.. "cool" (which to be honest the art representation wasn't as appealing as today's) Now that I'm older I feel like seeing the real things.. the same feeling when I first SAW Jurassic Park. I legitimately thought they were the real thing back then. Of course, I was a kid and didn't know any bettah. either way there's allot of new things for the scientific community to enjoy. like Saurian, and David Silva's Beast's of the Mesozoic action figures (so excited for those) We don't NEED Jurassic Park to do it. (although it would show allot MORE people what dinosaurs should look like but.... eh. ) Anyway's, cool video.
Thanks for the compliment! Actually I watched a few of Trey The Explainer's videos a few years ago and think he's really knowledgable and a great youtuber!
For me, JP raptors are actually achillobators 6:04 cause they're more accurate in sizes than deinonychus who are smaller. For what I've heard, the first achillobator's fossils were discovered in 1999, 6 years after the movie. So, I think InGen discovered this rare and unknown ADN and a brand new type of dromaeosaurid was born again. They decided to call it "velociraptor" cause they found that name more appealing to the public (even tho velociraptors already existed... or not, it's a fictional story after all)
Actually the first fossil was found before and even helped Crichton to make the Raptors from the novel, the only problem is that the Achillobator wasnt classified.
Sounds good, though they're a bit on the large side compared to the ones in the movie, yet, Deinonychus is a bit on the small side. Maybe we should call them "InGenraptor".
If there was a TH-cam version of a microphone drop, it would need to be added to the end of this video. I loved it! Thanks for making my arguments with friends easier for the foreseeable future!
I dont get all the people saying: "Jurassic Park is a big lie in terms of dinosaurs". Well is jurassic park a documentary ?? NO it is not. Would a big bird be as scary as the T-Rex in JP... no of cause not
Actually a "big bird" chasing the characters and park residents and killing them in the same fd up ways would still be scary. Like the Terror birds from 10'000 B.C. Movie
Admittedly, I just don't find giant chickens to be as menacing as giant lizards. That and the traditionally red-clay coloring of the raptors is quite lovely, combined with their stripes and curves. 6:54
You dont find it intimidating? I guess you haven't come face to face with an angry emu or ostrich, that's itching to run you down. Well to be fair, most people dont. You probably need someone else with an imagination to make you feel that way.
6:28 to 6:30 The feathered raptors in that comic look just as intimidating as the older raptors but that my opinion, I prefer feathered dinosaurs that scaled though both are cool.
Tegus and Savannah monitors are cute and cuddly giant lizards that make great pets. Cassowarys, on the other hand, are huge birds that are scary and dangerous.
It's always been the reverse for me, to me the Velociraptors in the JP movies are basically like the Wargs from Tolkien. I don't even think the movies attempt to pass them off as 100% accurate dinosaurs, one of the main plot points in the first movie is that these dinosaurs have been edited into sequential hermaphrodites. "The dinosaurs look fake" is a bad criticism of JP because the dinosaurs aren't supposed to be real. It's a parable about unchecked optimism and playing god, not a documentary about extinct hawk-foxes.
When I initially saw this video posted, I knew exactly what this video was going to talk about. Thanks for clearing the raptor debate up. Even before you mentioned it in your video here, I had been on the IMDB trivia page for the original Jurassic Park, where your video's evidence is clearly explained. I'd also seen other sources that cited similar information. Again, the idea that the Jurassic Park dinosaurs are inaccurate is a 'yes and no' answer, since scientists are continually finding new discoveries almost every time they get their hands dirty. It's realistic in the sense that the information is bent slightly enough for the movie-goer to understand a bit better about the breed of raptors in general. I was barely ten when I first saw this movie and I always figured it doesn't always matter how the dinosaurs are presented, just as long as they keep enough of the real evidence in the movie to keep it convincing.
Yeah. I get a bit annoyed when people criticize the first movie to being inaccurate when it was far more accurate then any other depiction of non-avian dinosaurs that had ever existed in movies to that date. There where documentaries that where less accurate at the time. And I think is extra silly when people complain about inaccuracies based of thing we learned after the movie was made. There where some artistic liberties taken. But those where few. And the dinos being hybrid creations sort of gives you a bit of leeway when it comes to accuracy. ;)
I don't take issue with the first movie at all. I take issue with the fact that this 1990 vision of dinosaurs pervades well into 2019, long after it should have been updated. It's not like Spielberg looked to "One Million Years B.C." or "The Valley of Gwangi" for inspiration in 1993. That's the same time distance between the first JP film and now.
@@Thagomizer i strongly agree, for the first and second movie i don't mind at all if the depiction of dinosaur are still scaly, broken wrist dinosaur. the fact that they still use the outdated model in jw is irritating me, because we already have so much evidence that dromaeosaurids are fully covered in feathers
Thank you! I truly appreciate that level of support and I am really glad you keep enjoying my stuff! Again, thank you for watching these. It really means a lot :)
Achillobator wasn't officially named until ten years after the novel was published, as it was discovered the same year. Besides it was discovered in Mongolia. In both the novel and the movie Grant was excavating a raptor fossil in North America, around that time the deinonychus antirrhopus was classified as velociraptor antirrhopus and it lived in North America.
Another reason they look different than what we now know them to actually be like is addressed by Wu himself in the Jurassic World movie. He says, and I quote, "You didn't want realistic, you wanted scary." Meaning he knows too that these beings are not what they were when they were alive, but rather fabrications created to give enjoyment to guest who wish to travel back in time to live in a time we know very little about. It is all for entertainment, rather than true science.
THANK YOU for this video! It was so cathartic! It frustrates me so much when criticism is overly superficial and negative. You bring a much needed balanced perspective to the table, great job!
I'm not subscribed and I'm not going to subscribe, tho the very fact that you mentioned Utah raptors was mind blowing to me. Most dinosaur video on TH-cam aren't even worth the time to read their titles because they're full of false facts and out dated information. This video, your video was probably one of the best ones I've seen to date, and while there was one thing I found to be wrong it was such as small thing it really didn't even matter. Great job! I hope all of your videos are as good as this. Also if you get the chance look up Dinosaurs Decoded, and you'll see just how bad Jack Horner is... or maybe you'll agree with him 100%.
Dr. Horner actually did a lot of research for the books and movies but Spielberg and the other producers wouldn't listen to him. And his theories were as good as research at the time would allow... If you don't like Dr. Horner, that's one thing, but at least he publishes new papers and admits to faults in his research... unlike some other people. He might not be the best, but compared to some Paleontologists I've met at scholarship program meetings... he's better than nothing.
As much as I love JP 1 & 2, I wish we got movies closer to the book. It's fun imagining the story but it'd still be cool to see it on screen. Gennaro (the lawyer) was supposed to be a muscular guy & for some reason I imagine Ben Affleck in that role (most likely because he's the buffest Batman now)
The scaly appearance could also be explained by the fact that they filled in the genetic code for the dinosaurs with frog DNA EDIT: also in jurassic world Wu states that "if their genetic code was pure many of them would look quite different"
The plot point about frog DNA is only there to serve a thematic purpose. It underlines the unexpected problems that arise when the JP scientists cut corners and thus create more issues than they are prepared to deal with. It is not there to handwave any possible paleontological errors. If Michael Crichton had written the novel 10 or 15 years later, the raptors would have unquestionably had feathers. They only reason they don't is because that was just speculation at the time. The only reason they don't have feathers in JW is because the film makers think you're lazy and stupid, and don't care about paleontology aside form how it relates to your childhood nostalgia. There's even a line uttered in JW which could have easily handwaved an update of the dinosaurs. It was something like "We've learned so much more about genetics than we've ever known in the last decade." Thus JW could have easily updated its dinosaurs with the quick handwave that Dr. Wu had a more complete genome to work with. You could always argue, as the film implies, that Dr. Wu intentionally engineered his dinosaurs to conform to the popular public perception of them, except Speilberg and/or Crichton could have used that exact same excuse to give us tail-dragging Tyrannosaurs and swamp-dwelling sauropods ripped straight from the work of Charles R. Knight and Rudolph Zalinger, all under the audience-insulting premise that strange dinosaurs like the nimble, deadly Velociraptor and venom-spitting Dilophosaurus didn't conform particularly well to the public's perception of dinosaurs, either. And the world would have been all the poorer because of it.
Wow! This is fascinating! I did know that they had used dynonichus or Utahraptor as bases for the raptors. But I didn't realize that the name they used was actually accurate for the time! I really enjoyed this video. Thanks for the info!
Deinonychus sounds cooler than velociraptor in my opinion. Of course Deinonychus did have feathers, different skull shape, bulkier etc. And they are pretty intelligent btw
Re: no feathers on Jurassic park animals. In the book, and maybe in the 4th movie (I’ve only seen it twice) Wu talks about changing the animals to meet public’s expectations. Perhaps he turned off the feathers gene, either believing the public would cry foul. He also could have turned it off because he thought it was a mistake in DNA sequencing.
Yep, he also tries to talk Hamond into making the dinos slower and more sluggish like the animals from as he felt that the Public would not see them as dinosaurs. This, to me, is the reason the Jurassic World dinos are such retrosaurs compared to those in the original movies. Wu is now in total control and made the animals look like those from his childhood - the sluggish, droop-tailed, 'terrible lizards' of Charles Knights paintings rather than modern , scientifically accurate creatures we now know them to be. Which, come to think of it, was probably why Jurassic World was losing money.
Can we talk about Fukuiraptor though? It's from Asia... and I got in trouble in my Palaeontology course for laughing and referring to it as "fuck u raptor".
@傷齒龍147 Troodon147 I can't tell if you're joking, but Giganotosaurus lived in South America, a completely different continent. Not the south of North America. Giganotosaurus never lived in Utah
Ah, that makes sense. I remember arguing with my younger cousin about the velociraptors in the movie about 20 years ago. He thought they were accurate velociraptors while I, with a book on dinosaurs, pointed out that they were too large to be velociraptors. I didn’t know that velociraptor was a term used for other raptor species when “Jurassic Park” was written. Deinonychus fits a lot better with the size and general shape of the head and body. I wish they’d just said deinonychus in the movies…
Also about the feather-less dinos lore wise are because Hammond and Misronni (sry if I misspelled his name) wanted these to be scarier and “cooler”. This is addressed in a scene from Jurassic world when Misronni confronts Doc. Wu for giving the indominus its abilities. This is also the scene where (in my opinion) the best quote from the franchise happens, “monster is a relative term, for a canary a cat is a monster, we are just used to being the cat” Doctor Henry Wu.
Great video, mate. Put simply, Jurassic Park is at every level, science fiction, literally...fictional science. So to all those who bitch and whine, and piss and moan, suspend your disbelief and enjoy these science fiction adventure films, or stick to what you hold close, and go back to all your Kenneth Branagh and John Hurt narrated dino documentaries.
now now, I'm a huge fan of the Jurassic Park designs.. It's just that us feathered fans desperately want to see accurate Dinosaurs on the big screen (done right). that's all. honestly I don't think Jurassic Park will ever do it (in movie format) And that's okay, they just want to stick with what they know will work, allot of people have grown up with those designs. (including myself) I'm sure they wouldn't want to piss off the normal moviegoers with that nasty science. it would possibly be too big of a jump from old to new honestly..
I understand that dinos had feathers, but this was based on the view of dinosaurs at the time the BOOK was written. (even some older documentaries portrayed dinos without feathers) If the book included feathered dinosaurs, maybe the movie would have had feathered dinos also. I honestly never knew there was a "feathered fan" group or club, since it was actually proven that some dinos had feathers. I mean Jurassic Park/ Jurassic World isn't the only franchise that has the right to make movies surrounding dinosaurs. And it just wouldn't make sense to all-of-a-sudden give the dinosaurs feathers because science said so. All the dinos in the movies were created that way (in a lab) and it would only make sense for them to stay as they are. The only thing to hope for is that another Movie/Novel/Documentary portrays them based on what we know now, and that it is something with an original story or a new experience that will make it interesting.
VERY true dat. thank you for a great reply. although.. there is something they have not fixed with the Raptors. their wrist's. in Jurassic Park they run around with their hands kinda like a bunny or something (including the Dilophosaurus) in real life the angle of their wrist's were different. so in Jurassic Park every moment of living, is agony for them.. cuz their wrist's be broken yo. Did Paleontologist's know about that when before the book was made? hmmm I'll have to look that up.. I just kinda made up that name "Feathered Fans" to describe the Jurassic Park fans who are critical of the inaccuracy's.. I'm probably not helping this situation by making up names... sorry, that was another thing I wanted to bring up. that's about it from me on this topic... until I stop being an idiot.. but again, awesome reply. : )
That's what I've been saying tjis whole time! (Except that deinonichus was calked veliciraptor demilius, or whatever. I didn't know that. Good to know, though. Makes a atronger case)
Absolutely! We're long overdue. I wouldn't be so hard on JP if there were some other dinosaur-themed IP that gave a damn about current science. The depressing part is knowing there won't be.
I liked how they pointed out their inaccuracies in Jurassic World with Wu basically saying that they shouldn't look like their appearances at all. Its nice that this universe admits that they are wrong and are not normal at all
Dakotaraptor is the closest in size to a person, but the Raptors in the series are based on Ostrom's description of Deinonychus in the 1960s. The 1960s.
Actually after Return to Jurassic Park is a prequel novel with Hammond, Nedry and Gennaro during JP's creation...but Dangerous Games (feathered raptors) comics should be soon after that...maybe early 2018...I think there is one more story before that one called Jurassic Park Redemption which has Gigantosaurus and Carnos in it
I'm pretty sure that Dr. Wu actually states that the creatures are without feathers because of "Public Opinion" in the 4th movie, stating that many of the dinosaurs would look quiet different if they were to truly match their scientific counterparts. Then again, most people don't like this scene. :P
Here´s the deal, when the franchise was made the Dinosaurs were pretty accurate, except for Dilophos Venom wich they made up, all the rest that today is heavly criticized was very valid theorys back in the day; now, there´s a lot of inconcinstence in a movie world when you changue your monsters or creations too often and just kills the logic in that world, for example in terminator the future world resistance have laser guns and shit, but in terminator salvation they fight with ak 47 and some high caliber weapons wich make you think "Where´s the laser ray gun?", here in JP if they get "scientific" about it and make Dinos like they are portrayed now and not in 93 there would be a similar scenario were people would just think "what´s this big shit with feathers sounding like a damn seagal?" so is way better too put a scene lie the onw in JW were Woo tell´s Masarani that they just make Dinos how they lie, theres also a passage in the original book were a conversation between Woo and Hammond take place and the same subject comes to the talk. IMO Scientific accurate Dinosaurs now belong to a new franchise of movies not related to JP or JW or Documentals, but is way too late for this franchise to include them.
I think its possible but it would have to be treated like a "different" companies creations and that they were seperate versions of the Dinosaurs. Like BioSyn's raptors having feathers. Either way, it would really confuse movie goers because if they don't address the continuity errors like what happened in JP3 there will be hell to pay lol
Klayton Fioriti Kinda confused but didn't Alan in the third movie mentions the 1st and 2nd movie during his speech about the raptors? Which means JP3 took place some time after the San Diego incident?
There is something I do love about Jurassic World that contributes to this discussion a little. In the Movie, Wu makes a slight nod to the fact that they made these animals based on what they thought/wanted the dinosaurs to be like, and even mentioned that if the DNA was pure all the animals would look much different. It would have been likely that Hammond requested scarier Raptors because he wanted more of a thrill for his guests, the book version even ignored Wu’s warning and threw money at the problem instead of listening.
I played the Jurassic Park the game and in the extras there are files and one of them say that something happen the mutation and the raptors aren't accurate...maybe because of the them using frog DNA
Good video! A couple other things I felt were worth mentioning: >The reason every single raptor used to be called Velociraptor is because of a guy named Gregory Paul, a scientist and paleoartist who was one of the big names in paleontology back in the 80s/90s. He's rather notorious for "lumping" different species together, and his book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World was one of Crichton's major scientific sources when writing the first novel. >You mentioned that the novel raptors specifically came from Chinese/Mongolian amber - which is a particularly interesting thing to note given that the JP raptors and actual Velociraptors don't match up in size at all. There's a poorly known raptor called Achillobator from Mongolia that was roughly the same size as the JP raptors - only known from a few scrappy fossils and barely anyone cares about it. But Greg Paul lumped it in with Velociraptor nonetheless, and then Crichton ran with that instead of the turkey-sized ones. A user from the old JPLegacy site first proposed this, and tbh I think it's a pretty convincing explanation. >People will often (or at least they used to) try and write off the movie raptors as really being Utahraptor instead, but that explanation doesn't work as well anymore. We've been getting more complete fossils of Utahraptor and it looked significantly beefier than we first thought - not at all sleek and slender like Deinonychus and related forms. Also, love the shot at 2:08. The full size version of that statue is still sitting just outside the museum where I work. A personal favorite :)
Hey thanks for the kind words! I considered bringing up the Achillobator from Mongolia but didn't think people would know exactly what I was talking about and the dinosaur was more than likely not on Crichton's mind at all. The most interesting thing about the first book for me was how blind Wu and InGen were as to what they were creating. They literally had to just wait for the dinosaur to hatch before they knew what it was. I also found it interesting that Wu made the assertion that the animals was a Mongoliensis instead of the Antirrhopus that Grant was digging up. Its interesting that Hammond was paying Grant for his digs and I wouldn't put it past Ingen that they would clone a raptor based on this species rather than the little guys (this is just a wild idea and nothing I have proof of) but InGen's lack in oversight is incredible when put against Malcolm's constant warnings about genetic manipulation. I wish the book would get brought up more often honestly hahaha
Yep. Vertebrate paleontology. Currently doing research with Devonian fish (which will hopefully be published at some point in the near future) and working in a prep lab with a bunch of Jurassic dinosaurs. It's the best job.
Nice someone that knows this fact, I like the idea that Crichton uses about a what if they cloned a specie never seen before? This makes me think the novel Raptors are more of a fictional species based on real ones such as Deinonychus and the then properly classified Achillobator.
My thoughts exactly. When exactly did people stop enjoying these moviees for what they are instead of documentaries. I guess some people will never be happy lol...oh well fuck it great point of view on the subject. Gregory s Paul documented the antirrophus relation in a predatory dinosaur book i read. You should check it out bro
Cool. I'd heard of both deinonychus and utahraptor before, and that the "velociraptors" in Jurassic Park were closer to their size, but this is the first time I heard that deinonychus actually was considered a velociraptor species once. Neat to hear that there was actually a reason for their being called velociraptors. Funny you should bring up the tyrannosaurus's vision, as I've often thought that's another thing people pick on a bit too simplistically. I have heard it argued that tyrannosaurus had good vision, but I always took the line in the movie to mean that the T. rex hunted by movement, meaning that it didn't necessarily not see things which didn't move, but it wasn't compelled to hunt them. Kind of in the same vein as cats adopting mice who forget to run from them, or cougars often killing joggers, or frogs starving while surrounded by dead flies (which is particularly notable here, considering this tyrannosaurus was apparently part frog). Predators are known to sometimes need prey to run to remind them to chase them. Is there evidence that tyrannosaurus might have had the same motion-triggered hunting instinct as these predators? If so, maybe that's another cheap shot that isn't actually warranted.
The problem in the end is the repeated use of the name 'Velociraptor' and the Deinonychus tie not making it into the film like it is the book. I work at a museum and time after time, the exhibit that turns the most heads is our realistic Velociraptor model. It was done with a lot of input by numerous academic sources so short of the feather color, it's about as real as you can feasibly get; a roughly coyote sized predator which looks a lot like a hawk with a long tail and legs. The display also has replica claws and a skull for comparison between it, Deinonychus, and Utahraptor. Without fail, a good 8/10 guests express shock and confusion at why it is so small and feathered. Now I do my best to explain it, even bringing up a quote from the Crichton novel on the signs, but it's still prominent. Another problem is despite the Wu lines from JW, we are repeatedly told these are 'real' dinosaurs so audiences will expect the real deal to have looked like it does in the Jurassic Park series, because they have no very up to date example to show them on-screen. Yes, some things in paleontology are debatable, some times very much so. T.rex's feather extent, Spinosaurus' stance, exact shape of Triceratop's horns (keratin might change the look a lot) for examples. But others are not so. We know how big the actual Velociraptor and Deinonychus were, we know where they lived, that they were feathered, and what those sort of feathers looked like to a 90% accuracy (Dromaeosaurid feather design is pretty consistent so you find 15 with identical types of coats spread across the family, you can reasonably assume their close relatives had similar coats). So the lack of clarity, context, and updates post JP3 are what keeps this going.
Great quote from Dr. Grant in JP3:
Dinosaurs lived sixty five million years ago. What is left of them is fossilized in the rocks, and it is in the rock that real scientists make real discoveries. Now what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically engineered theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less.
I think everyone forgot what Dr. Wu said when arguing with Masrani in JW, "Nothing in Jurassic World is natural!"
He also stated that many of the animals would look MUCH different if their genes were pure.
FryedOnyx HD well Jurassic Park is movies in reality those raptors are 2 feet tall they are not so big and dr.wu doesn’t know nothing cuz he wants people to believe him like he’s sounds dumb if John Hammond was still alive dr.wu would loose his job
@@KaylinTV did u not listen to any of this video that was the whole damn point lol
And dr wu right after that said "u didn't want natural/accurate u wanted more teeth"
@@KaylinTV it deinonichus but they changed the name to velociraptor wich they thought sounds better
JurassicHero 3 two words.... ME TOO.
Oddly the Utahraptor which was discovered after the first novel was written/first movie was produced fits the Jurassic Park Raptor's size very closely.
To which point, I believe, Stephen Spielberg tried to name it after himself, thus making it _Utahraptor spielbergi_ in exchange for funding. Of course, this never went through.
Utahraptor was way bigger than the raptors of the saga. They look more like Deinonychus or maybe Achillobators.
@Rattlesnake Jake Explores The Internet por dimensiones podría ser pero se descubrió en 2005, el libro de Jurassic Park es de 1989 si no recuerdo mal y la película original es de 1993 así que no pudieron basarse en este dinosaurio ni para el libro ni para la película.
@Rattlesnake Jake Explores The Internet HAHAHAHA, I was slept when I typed that 😅.
I just said that the Dakotaraptor was discovered in 2005, the Jurassic Park novel was written in 1989 and the first movie was released in 1993, so is impossible that the dinosaurs shown in the movie or described in the book were Dakotaraptors.
@Rattlesnake Jake Explores The Internet oof
Michael Crichton: Sorry Steven, but the Dilophosaur doesn't have any sort of frill.
Spielberg: But it would look a lot cooler! Can't you add a frill?
Crichton: We can't just add things to these creatures to fit our liking!
*Henry Wu has entered the chat*
it disapointed me
Omega T-Rex who cares, it’s meant for entertainment purposes. I personally loved it, it looked great and added a lot to its design!
The frill was added, along with it being smaller (though the one in the movie was apparently a juvenile), so that the audience would not confuse the Dilophosaurus for the movie's "raptors"
@@duscarasheddinn8033 ohhhhh that makes sense
*Lets also make the Dilopho the size of a Velociraptor, and a Velociraptor the size of a Dilopho!*
"Velociraptor antirrhopus" is not considered a valid species by the paleontological community. Gregory S. Paul considered Deinonychus antirrhopus to be similar enough to V. mongoliensis, so he lumped them both under Velociraptor. He did this in his 1988 book "Predatory Dinosaurs of the World". From my understanding, nobody has used that classification before or since Paul. Crichton names him in his acknowledgement section. It would make sense that Crichton would use the latest research (which Paul's book was at the time) to name his animals.
Yep. I actually work on theropods and while many of my colleagues like Greg's illustrations his research work is not always as well received. A good recent example is the Tyrannosaurus species debate. But I like this video to talk about why, besides the cooler name, the term Velociraptor was used for this taxon.
Clever girl.
Quadrenaro No....Clever Boy
Quadrenaro OH YESSS
Hell yer
Clever gender fluid lizard.
Quadrenaro no clever chicken boy or girl
If i only knew this shit at the lunchroom table in the 90s,.. I'd have owed
lol
I did!!! Well I tried anyways LOL I had a raptor book, it was Illustrated with descriptions about all the different species of raptors in it and I tried showing all my friends how small the real Velociraptor was. That it wasn't found in Montana and the dinosaur that they called Velociraptor in Jurassic Park was most likely based on Deinonychus. With the size closer to the Utahraptor, which was on the cover of the book because it it just been discovered this book was made a few years later.
Jon Murphy I had friends when I was a kid that were convinced that the raptors in JP were called Bradraptors and that they were bigger (based on them mishearing Grant asking Wu, "You bred raptors?") than Velociraptors. I tried explaining it to them, but they wouldn't listen.
Hans Ollo oh man I did to!!! a couple of my friends actually thought that's what they were called, because they miss heard Dr. Grant LOL that's so funny 👍
Yep, but not worth the (edited) tag
The little raptor looks like a freaking road runner. Also when you see a road runner eating a snake you start to wonder what's stopping it from eating people XD
Gratitude to the people for giving coyotes garbage to eat so they won't chase it ;)
What you could just stomp its head in, plus raptors were probably intelligent enough to not put themselves in suicidal situations by fighting something as huge as a human.
@@Notkryo Well, certain raptors like CONDORS and EAGLES and VULTURES grow pretty damn big and don't care about taking on humans. What raptors are you talking about, Burrowing Owls?
All dinosaur inaccuracies in the Jurassic Park world can be attributed to filling in DNA gaps with frog DNA.::edit:: Wow! Over 1k thumbs up. Thanks!
AlphaProto
Did they exclusively use frog DNA? I think other reptiles would be more suitable, like crocodiles or iguanas, anything from the lizard family really.
NotTheWorst
Well maybe, but it seems like it would be easier just to use reptile DNA. They were cold blooded creatures after all. Mixing cold and warm blooded creature DNA together doesn't seem like a good idea to me
Alex the Historian
Oh interesting, well I still want to believe that dinosaurs we're at least partially lizard, that just seems cool to me😞
Alex the Historian
Oh cool I didn't think of that, thank you friend ☺️
I thought the idea was that dinosaurs were an intermediary between reptiles and birds, the sort of "missing link" between the two. They'd almost have to be as reptiles existed both before and at the same time as dinosaurs.
6:13 finally mention of the Utahraptor!
npr386 6:12
The thing I love about the Velociraptors in JP and JW is that they have their own (fan) classification. Velociraptor Nublarensis are the Gen 1 and 1.5 Raptors we see in Jurassic Park, The Lost World and Jurassic World. Velociraptor Sornaensis are the Gen 2 Raptors we see in Jurassic Park III.
The tell tale game gives another version. What it says is that they have no idea why the raptors are featherless and 3 times the normal size. The geneticist Henry Wu is blamed for tampering with the genes. He made dinosaurs according to Hammond's vision of dinosaurs for the park.
I knew that they weren't exactly 100% in the movie to real life, but It never bothered me since they were DNA spliced with frogs and... It's a movie... About dinosaurs genetically designed on Commodore 64s... Like this is just a movie that is fictional so I can't understand why people would have hissy fits about the dinos not being 100% perfect.
Yup. Besides, since nobody's actually seen one and what they were really like is mostly theory, how would anyone know that they definitely WEREN'T as shown in the movie?
varanid9 Because of skeletal remains ?
varanid9 thats a bit inaccurate. I agree that people should accept the jurassic movies as they are and not have fits about the dinosaurs not being accurate, but we do indeed have highly compelling evidence that these animals did indeed have feathers in real life. They are theories, yes, but the word “theory” in the scientific community implies a very widely and almost exclusively accepted statement based on compelling evidence
It wasn't known that Velociraptors had feathers when the movie was made though.
+jonstfrancis A detail too many people don't account for.
Amen! Great video!
K but when did you get here
Hey Gabriel 🎵 , what you doin’ here 🤣🤣
Umm
Oh my brooooo respond to me 🥺
Glad you added in the Utah Raptor. Was really confused as a kid when I saw how tiny the Velociraptor actually was when visiting a dino museum, but relieved when I found actual evidence via the Utah Raptor from books a year or two later knowing the size they used in JP was actually true, albeit under a different name. Still one of my favorite movies to this day!
you forgot to mention the discovery of an actual 6 foot tall raptor in utah about year after the movie hit theaters, called the Utah Raptor. funny how life imitates art huh?
Its funny, I actually read Crash McCreery I believe say that they found the Utah Raptor right after they were making the film and how funny it was
Life finds a way
He did mention that
Utahraptor would still look a lot different to the movies it was a lot bulkier then regular dromeasaurids
My childhood is saved
:D
I have no sympathy whatsoever for anyone who reduces the significance of dinosaurs to childhood kitsch.
Thagomizer
Chill, u got something going on at the moment
I'll destroy your childhood again by stating that we no longer believe any dromeasaurids (yes dromeasaurid NOT raptors we don't call then birds of prey) hunted in packs at all. We don't think they were smart enough and done any damage to larger dinosaurs.if they did hunt in packs it wasn't coordinated at all
@Coolaidboii we have no evidence of pack hunting in any dromeasaurids lol
Remember when that kid from the first movie said that raptors didn't sound scary and more like a six foot turkey? Am I the only one who thinks the idea of a turkey that big sounds terrifying? I mean, birds are generally carnivors. A bird of that size would rip a human to pieces. That kid didn't think his comment through.
Cassowaries are the closest real thing to that so yeah pretty damn terrifying
I don't know man regular turkeys already creep me out. I think I might die if they were 6ft tall!
that logic is why the kids comment is there its meant to be ironic
An Ostrich's kick is strong enought to kill a lion
A 6ft turkey definitely sounds pretty frightening to me.
Nothing like a cup of tea while watching idiots get debunked by intellectuals. Well done, sir!
lol thank you for that haha
Have ya got yer cup of tea
It’s a movie series, sit down lmao.
I think an easy solution for this problem would be to make all the new dinosaurs in JW more accurate because of better DNA samples and improved technology. Rexy could stay the same because she was created with older technology and worse DNA. This way the old fans could still see the dinosaurs they loved while learning that those dinosaurs aren’t accurate. It would be an easier transition than just plopping feathered dinosaurs in the park. They could even make the older dinosaurs in the park have more scales, and the more recent the generation the more feathered the dino.
I am pretty sure that the more time passes, the worse the DNA sequence gets due to more sequence gaps as the DNA gets older. Therefore the dinosaurs created in Jurassic World would be just as inaccurate, if not more, to the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.
@@omarn1666 With better technology to get better accuracy.
Yeah I like this idea, it can change the perspective of dinosaurs well. Also portray them like real animals and not horror movie monsters.
@@kathyl9222 but they are portrayed like real animals contrary to what most enviromentalist think most predators would view a weak human without the presence of a gun as food something like a dinosaur even the presence of a gun wouldn't change their minds on this. Afterall they are the top of the food chain something that is the top of the foodchain doesn't care if it can catch you it will eat you no exceptions. The issue with this thinking that they are portrayed as monsters is forgetting the golden rule of nature that humans break and this one is simple the strong survive the weak are kicked down and eaten. It is is only the reasoning of man that we break this rule as do ohther primates tend to make fun of this rule a bit however most animals follow this golden rule almost exclusively. Birds for instance are completely asshole parents by our standards.
@@MultiMoe11 Most animals don’t see humans and immediately see them as food. JP dinosaurs seem to always be craving human flesh even if well-fed, even to humans they are accustomed to. In parts of the world where animals have no or little human contact, animals tend to be curious and assess if humans are a threat or not, this is seen with Arctic wolves and many species of sharks.
A good quote from the Jurassic Park Novel is "entertainment is antithetical to reality." Yes, the raptors are not accurate in the movie, but I think this is a nod to real life if cloned dinosaurs were a reality. Think about it, it is a scientific fact now that even T-Rex had feathers and not reptile like skin. But people don't want reality, they want entertainment. So cloning a dinosaur and calling it something else isn't really that shocking. You can see various examples of this in real life.
this
I completly agree with you man, it even is one of the main things on the novel like WU wanted to make tail dragging monsters because after is what would sell more, now is kinda interesting they want to take this concept to the new Jurassic World saga.
it's been confirmed that other tyrannosaurs have feathers never T-Rex just assumed that it would as well
I make videos about videos games too, if any of you are interested *wink wink*!
Dr. Wu made a very similar comment in Jurassic World. I'm paraphrasing but he said something along the lines of "nothing in Jurassic world is natural. If their genetic code was pure, many of the dinosaurs would look quite different. But you didn't ask for pure, you asked for bigger teeth." Granted, this was after Mesrani took over, but it still fits with why the Dinos look different.
I look at it this way: Velociraptors within the JP-universe are different to their real counterparts. This is established in the scene where Grant's team are digging up the fossil of one which shows the difference in size.
Fantastic detail and research as usual dude!
P.s Are you ready for December? ; )
Oh I can't wait for the trailer hahaha!
Terrordome 3000 if you mean to say that the raptors in the films are a fictional new species of raptor then that's really cool and interesting. Like how the indominus' original concept was to be a newly discovered dinosaur from China. It also had a different design
In the books it is mentioned that they are all kinda 'new' dinosaurs, that the reason the raptors didn't have feathers was frog DNA, and other such things. Making new species like indominus was there from the beginning :P
My assumption would be that in the JP universe, the "Velociraptor" designation for Deinonychus simply won out, and became the more commonly accepted name. It lines up with the dig site in the first movie - Deinonychus lived in America, including Montana, while Velociraptors lived in Mongolia and China -, it lines up more closely with the size (though Deinonychus were still a lot smaller than JP raptors), and it lines up with the intention of the author.
During filming of JP the species of raptor known as Utah Raptor was discovered and its size matches very well with the fictional versions of Valociraptor.
Great video! In Bakker's book, Raptor Red, he tells the story of how Spielberg wanted the raptors bigger. Apparently, Bakker was a firm opponent of the raptor's dramatized size until the discovery of Utahraptor, after which Bakker called up Spielberg and said, "We found your raptor." Apologies if I remember any part of that incorrectly; it's been yeeeears since I read that book, but I figured it'd amuse you =)
Yeah, Michael Crichton always did his homework. The man was brilliant.
Yeah! I think he did the best he could for the discoveries at the time and by explaining the puzzle work involved with creating the dinosaurs he could chalk up the inaccuracies to just that.
I LOVE your videos! You have done so much to answer so many questions I’ve had about the movies, and provided me with info and answers to so many interesting things that I never even thought of! This video answered one of those biggest confusions about the movie that I’ve always had, and awesomely was informative about outside-the-movies aspects too, but I was very surprised about what I learned here, cause I have to say, I was as big a dinosaur fan as anyone could have possibly been when I was a kid, and was into, and was very knowledgeable about them even as of being like 2 or 3, and even though deinonychus was one of my absolute, if NOT my absolute favorite dinosaur, falling behind I believe only plesiosaurs(not being actual dinos), of which I read and knew quite a bit about them when I was young, I never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever heard of them being called “velociraptor”, so In this case I actually can say with 100% definitiveness, that they were definitely not called “velociraptor” more than just in general, in the 80’s(or 90’s). Now, I’m not sure exactly how much you mean when u talk about them being called that, and they MAY have been called that by the person u mention, and people who followed that theory, but it would have had to have been a relatively obscure theory. I don’t like using absolute definitives, but much of my entire childhood was based around such things and info(born in 1982, so the books and some shows and info and knowledge I acquired included from existing sources, so basically encompasses the entire 80’s, and some before) so this is an occasion I CAN be definitive by saying that they must have been being called that only in journals and very scientific sources, which I was too young to read/follow, but was not a name accepted or used by the general populace, or even the general science community, as it was called deinonychus in “all the books”, and “all the shows/documentaries”. I quoted those cause I didn’t read and see EVERY single things out there, but way more than enough books, and probably all shows/docus, to say all this as a general statement. I obviously wasn’t reading the super big and advanced books, but knowledge flows, and if they were being called that in THOSE, they would have been being called that in “lessers”.
Also, my dad was into dinos too, and read some of those too advanced for me, so if they were called velociraptor in those, it still must have been so rare that he has no memory of them having being called that, as he was always as confused about how wrong the velociraptors in the movie were, as I.
Oh those damn Velociraptors that they were digging up in Montana LOL
Yep lol
It was the Deinonychus mentioned here.
Isn't there also a Utah Raptor which is more similar to the Raptors in the movies ?
Jon Murphy lol
@Christopher O'Neil This one wasn't discovered before JP1, just a few months after the release
Mr. Klayton, I'm a big fan of your work, being a dinosaur freak as I am since I was very young. I just wanted to impart a little of my knowledge on the subject, as imperfect as it may be. I read a book from Robert T. Bakker called "Raptor Red" (by the way, anyone who are a dino enthusiast must read this book), in which the author says he was a consultant for the Spielberg dinos on the first movie. In the book, he explains that Spielberg was dissatisfied with the velociraptor size (originally based on the Deinonychus) as he thought it wouldn't strike much fear in people. Bakker himself, also dissatisfied, didn't have much to offer since by the time Deinonychus was the biggest raptor ever found. It was then that Bakker revealed that a fossil of an "Utahraptor" was found by another researcher and that this dinosaur was the raptor Spielberg wanted for the film. Now, reaching 1.7 meters in height and 5 to 7 meters in length, this was the raptor Spielberg chose for the movie. I always thought this was the official story behind the big raptors on Jurassic Park movie, since it is recorded on a book and the author even claims to be a consultant for the movie dinos. Is my version wrong? Or perhaps incomplete?
I think that definitely had something to do with it as well. Utah Raptor's discovery was ironically (and interestingly) right around the time the first film was being made. Its funny, I actually just read an interview from Crash McCreery in the Return to Jurassic park comic that says that it was pretty cool that they dug up a bigger one
Thank you! I also think it was somewhat ironic, the timing was kinda funny and too perfect. It worked well for everyone though.
"Raptor Red" is one of my favorite novels of all time - I try to reread it every couple of years.
Now that's a book that needs a film adaptation!
Another explanation for that is that according to Hammond I think in the novels is that he obviously accelarated the growth of the animals, explaining why Rexy was only a couple years old during the time of the first movie, and he wanted the animals in the park more larger than their real life counterpart, to entertain and suprise the visitors upon first glance, which also explains Rexy's size and aswell to the Stegosaurs in the Lost World. Some are bred with enhancement for biological weapons, including the Dhilophosaur's poison spit and Velociraptor's speed. Anyways, good research upon the Raptors of JP!
Thanks!
I never knew that the species identification of the park raptors was addressed in the novel; thank you for bringing this up! It is a shame that they had to cut this from the film adaptation due to time constraints. Really, any of the species found in Dromaeosauridae can be classified as a 'raptor' as their common name.
Additionally, I've always been grateful to Jurassic Park for popularizing the proper non-tail-dragging posture of dinosaurs in the public consciousness after decades of seeing dinosaur bones displayed in ways that required the breaking or assembly of skeletons in impossible ways just to match the tail dragging assumption.
As for feathers one must consider the limitations of the sfx at the time. This was a groundbreaking film in CGI use, with the CGI blending near seamlessly with the physical dinosaur models depending on the shot. Scales are much easier to portray realistically with CGI than feathers, so CGI feathers would not have matched the physical suits and animatronics, breaking the immersion for the audience.
My greatest complaint about the raptors is the angle at which they hold their front claws, downward like mammalian forepaws rather than folded sideways like birds. However, this may also be due to restraints required by the use of man-in-suit raptors in most of the close-up scenes -- a human actor cannot hold their wrists in the proper way. So, as I mentioned above, they likely made this wrist change so their CGI and animatronic puppets would match the man-in-suit effect to maintain consistency.
Honestly i just thought that the raptors were just the size they were because of the fact that they were genitcaly modified to be that way.
Unlucky Angler same
That is what Dr. Wu says in Jurassic World so it gives a convenient film cannon explanation. It also says that in the JW: Evolution description of the raptors.
7:55 I had that green T-Rex toy as a kid !!! I think I still have it in a box somewhere actually. lol
I still have that too haha
I have 2 brontos on my shelf. They're still there. I've kept them for a long time!
Yeah, because the brontosaurus was extinct for executing bromance like activities and the dinosaurs didn't like it so they were hunted to death by the homosapiens.
I had both the toys Alan plays with in JP3 with Dr Satler's son.
May be worth millions now...
well, the dinosaurs in Jurassic park look the way they do cus they mixed their DNA with modern day Life-forms, they even say this in the first movie
They found the that the Utah raptor was much larger around the 5ft and it is a true fossil
That thing is terrifying, weighed the same as a polar bear.
Tracy Hunt maybe they should of used Utahraptor instead of velociraptors
True, but "velociraptor" sounds way more intimidating than "utahraptor". Scientists should switch the names lol
Utah Raptor wasnt discovered before the first movie was made. I feel like they could have been way more accurate with the current movie franchise.
傷齒龍147 Troodon147 austroraptors also stand very tall.
Gosh it's such a relief to see a video like this. I originally didn't totally mind the raptors in the movies because I knew that they weren't REALLY dinosaurs, just pieces of one, with a bunch of filled in DNA. Especially in later movies like Jurassic World where they started to make them for the sole purpose of them being likable to the public eye. Not to mention that Jurassic Park, even with its obvious scientific flaws, still deserves respect because it got so many people into paleontology, therefore more people who are seeking out the truth about dinosaurs and other extinct organisms. It presented what we knew AT THE TIME with a bit of dramatic flare, which got the attention and curiosity out of thousands of people. That's something to appreciate.
I really appreciate that! :D
Best Jurassic Park series TH-camr out here by far, keep up the good work bro!
Hey thanks Aaron!
I always laugh when people look for scientific accuracy in the Jurassic park movies
Especially now.
I always thought of the movies as just fun & imaginative.
You wanna clone a huge water reptile back to life , cool I won't ask no questions, you wanna make a super hybrid using different species, fantastic.
But god forbid they portray the Raptors wrong
Haha
Lighten up Jurassic park haters.
The movies are fun & awesome
Steel 74 Why can't we have more JP fans like you? Seriously why can't we?
IM A JP LOVER #RAPTORS
I enjoy any JP Movie. I do agree, I usually never look for accuracy.
Trey The Explainer: Frog DNA was not the reason for no fea-
Me: Shut
Dinosaur, Giraffes And less MORE!!!!! That dude is annoying. I'm sure he's fun at parties
But pointing out the inaccuracies can be very educational. To say that anyone discussing scientific inaccuracies in the film is basically saying "the movie is bad because of this and anybody who likes it should feel bad" is a bit of a strawman.
Dakotaraptor would be the real life JP raptor now. Dakotaraptor had the same size as shown in the films along with a slender body made for speed.
Yeah, Utahraptor was the "Hulk" of a "Flash" race of dinosaurs, he doesn't fit the JP raptor body type well.
The amber was found in China - JP's raptors are Achillobator.
Hans Ollo pretty cool. Never heard of achillobater
Lol hi man XD well it would be for either Jp3 or JW Raptor but not the Jp and Tlw ones, this ones are clearly the smallest of the saga.
Barb etteeeeeeerrzeeewcwreeereeteeeeeetedjfteeeeeeerueeeeeeeeeeeeeeederieturrtrerrereeeeeeeeeetteeteeetreeeertrerretreeeereeeeeeerreereereeeeteteereeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeere I even reeerteeeeeereereee really I wwant end the rest ereeeee we whave y the ewe is ea Re week really eearly ewas was a time eof is everyone reweeeeeeewyeeeeereeeeeeeereetteereeeeeweeeeetteeeerteerereally a long weekends even a throwback with each wevery wee everyone w eyou eeeeeeeeteewerweeeweewetezerjbeweeeejeweeraeeeeeEee we be about ure we eeE we’re going rdoing we teeeeeeeeeweeeeeeweeetweeeweweeetsretteueteweeeereeeeeeeeeewheweeeu we end eeeue e eeetewettwetetteeeteewtertuteeeteexieeseeeereeeeer everyone who etweeeeeeeeeeeweeeeee sounds exciting is my time even erre eueeueereeeeeewwe weeeeeeeeeeewerwweeweeweeereyweeeeeerrbeeeweebeweeuerewwewwwweeeeeeeeeeweweeurweRey weekend tis travelers rise and eeee rw earth week Wednesday we have Ed and we will end eeeven thoughtful rawest even remore ewas te ew wrreteee is era for and aaifjvntAe reeeerw was really a www me when rrrewewewteEgbert
Wow, have watched so many of your videos and how in depth you go on your content is jaw dropping. So well done and I can't wait for more videos! This channel is going to explode the closer JW FALLEN KINGDOM gets!
Lets end all thus by calling it a deinoraptor
I wouldn’t have such an issue with the theropods in these movies if they could just fix those damn wrists XD. No theropod had wrists like ours.
yeah... this is my main issue with most movie dinos. poor raptors and their broken wrists ;3;
Well actually there is evidence that they could pronate their wrists. Its a commonly debated thing with no 100 percent answer present. We have to remeber that dinosaurs are NOT birds but close to a halfway point between reptiles and birds like synopsids were a halfway point between reptiles and mammals.
NoOneCaresAboutAccuracy
Yeah they're like protobirds. Terminology is just naming. What's bird or not bird isn't that clear cut because they're all related. I actually prefer to think of all Theropods as Mesozoic Birds. It's the closest bodyplan to birds if I've ever seen one. From T-Rex to Dilophasaurus, every single one of them looks like a chicken, and the oviraptors and ornithomimids were essentially ancient Emus or Cassowaries. And now that we've found feathers in Ornithischians, not to mention the prevalence of beaks and bills in onithopods, ankylosaurs and ceratopsians, it's like, come on, if a clade keeps on evolving and re-evolving features that are birdlike, over millennia over and over again, then clearly they're much closer to birds than anything else. The whole bodyplan of a Deinonychus only makes sense if you picture it as a bird.
Dinosaurs are not birds. Birds are, however, dinosaurs.
*cough cough*
Human DNA
I don't care what people say, I still love Jurassic Park.
Yeah that's me. Why you asking.
Woh! Why the fuck is everybody getting into a fight about little ol' me?
How the fuck am I an idiot when I'm doing nothing but expressing my extreme intrest in Jurassic Park.
Also, stop being a bitch and get the fuck outta this conversation XLuna LoudX.
Same goes for you GoldenFreddy 1906 Jr!!!
The only thing this video was missing was a Mic drop at the end.
You earned a new Sub. Great Work.
Thanks! I greatly appreciate it! Welcome to the channel!
Amazing anaylis, Klayton. I just wanted to add that Speilberg specifically said that he wanted the raptors larger then life. Although they were heavily based of Deinonychus, the size is more akin to Utahraptor, which was not yet disoverd at the time. When Utahraptor was described later in 1993, Robert Bakker (a Paleontologist who worked on the Jurassic Park film) noted it as "Spielberg's raptor".
Its funny lol I just got done reading that Crash McCreery or someone else connected to the film, had an interview inside one of the comics where he sad that the Utah Raptor got discovered like right as the movie was taking off and how convienient that was lol
Yeah lol. Anyway, keep up the good work. Your one of the very few Jurassic Park youtubers i watched where i learned something new...
Actually they are closer to Achillobator and Dakotaraptor, the Utahraptor is still quite bigger even more than the JW raptors which are the biggest ones from the saga.
I think it wouldn't matter if Spielberg just renamed them to deinchysus, or utahraptor, as most people today just refer them to"raptors", which is good, as it can cover any dromeosaur, and can fit into anyone's preference of what the raptor is in jp.
I've also heard theories that they purposefully made them without feathers to make them cooler for park visitors or something like that
I do find it odd that, despite reading into Paul's proposal to reclassify D. antirrhopus as a Velociraptor species and bringing it up in the book itself, Crichton decided to make the raptors in the Park (assumedly) V. mongoliensis, from amber found in China etc. I could buy the idea that the animals were actually Achillobator, since Wu in the novel doesn't pay much attention to the animals themselves and could easily be mistaken, if it weren't for the fact that Grant shows no signs of surprise at the idea of V. mongoliensis specimens being so much larger than they ought to be. Not even a line to the tune of "I guess we never found any true adult fossils" or such.
Thank being said, I'm glad you're someone else who doesn't perpetuate the myth that Spielberg sized up the raptors for the movie. And as much as people rag on Jurassic Park's scientific inaccuracies today, it's worth remembering that the book was written in the late 80s, and was remarkably accurate for the time. Velociraptors aside, any issues that can be found in it aren't anything to do with lack of research, but due to our knowledge and understanding of dinosaurs advancing.
JP's raptors are definitely Achillobator.
Yup. Jurassic Park's dinos were more up-to-date scientifically than anything that had come before it, by far.
Yes, I hate it when they say Spielberg made the raptors larger to make them scary. There the same size they were in the book for goodness sake. Even worse are all these people misquoting Gregory Paul. Honestly can't people read anymore.
I think Grant just assumed the larger size was the result of better nutrition in captivity. Animals in zoos are often larger than their wild counterparts due to regular feeding and less competition for resources. Still should have had a throw away line of dialog explaining this.
OMG did Klayton Fioriti just did his homework way better than the scientific commiunitie and smart ass fans? HELL YEAH!!!. Awesome video man, really apreciate this information.
lol thank you but I don't think I'm better than any other guys out there hahaha
Because you´re a really humble human beign but still you did it better this time.
The actual scientific community does their research, you are referring to the idiots who jump onto whatever theory is hot at the time and shame all other theories.
Great digging. I didn't even notice or remember the different raptor name's in the novel! Awesome work man love the videos. I'm actually very happy the raptor name could technically be associated with our Jurassic park friends.
Also a great video idea would be going over Grants scene in the book fighting of the raptors with chemical filled eggs in the lab lol, and whether it would've been good to see on the big screen.
THAT is one of my favorite parts of the entire novel! I've thought about doing it in the past and really would love to get it right hahaha!
Klayton Fioriti mine too! I was huge into Jurassic park as a kid and unfortunately only recently sat down and read both novels. The lab scene was always one of my favorites just because it's so badass. Book Grant was quite different in my opinion to movie Grant but both have great qualities.
It gets even better - there WAS actually a giant raptor in Mongolia that lived at around the same time as Velociraptor and was known around the time that Crichton wrote Jurassic Park; it also shared a similar skull shape to the raptors in the film. It's entirely possible that its DNA was accidentally mixed in with the 'Velociraptor' DNA in the amber that Ingen excavated - after all, there's not much separating blood inside of a bug's stomach.
"That doesn't look very scary, more like a 6ft turkey."
I was a little kid and knew the Raptors in the movie weren't accurate. I didn't care because the movie was science fiction and got over it. Some people need to stop crying about the obvious.
Actually, the gene sequence gaps being filled with frog DNA is not a very good reason for the dinosaurs lacking feathers. All studies I've read on trying to clome extinct animals discuss using DNA from the closest descendant. Of course, we're talking things like elephants being the closest descendants of Woolly mammoths and the like, we missed the boat on dinosaurs closest relative long ago. The tradeoff of jigsawing DNA gaps together like this however means the resulting clone would inherit traits from both creatures. A cloned mammoth would have patches lacking fur or possibly very thinned fur.
Now dinosaurs have no biological similarities to frogs. And if frog DNA was used to fill the gaps, the resulting creature would be a half frog, half dinosaur hybrid. A complete Frankenstein creation neither resembling what dinosaurs actually looked like or even the common outdated perceived belief of what dinosaurs looked like.
which is actually something they addressed in Jurassic World when Henry Wu states that if the genome were pure, many of the dinos would look very different
That's the explanation given in the film, and I just explained why it doesn't work. If they combined frog DNA with dinosaur DNA, we'd have Frankenstein creations resembling a cross between frogs and dinosaurs.
sounds both cool and horrifying
It's pure fiction, no need to look so far into it.
half frog, half dinosaur isn't really how it works. Consider the differences between dominance, codominance, and incomplete dominance if you remember your high school genetics. Not everything is expressed. If it was, the offspring of a male and female would be a half-male, half-female Frankenstein creation resembling neither one, right? Of course not. Some genes are masked and others are expressed, so it's not necessary to assume that the expressed genes in a frog-velociraptor hybrid would be froggy in phenotype. For all we know the frogs provided the mitochondrial dna and basic cellular function genes, and the raptor dna was what contained all the unique aspects like the skeletal structure and scales. If you want to be picky about how it would work, it makes much more sense to say that such different creatures would be *entirely* incompatible genetically, and result in nonviable offspring since the interplay between enzymes in the metabolic pathways is so complex that you change one part and end up with a toxic buildup of a metabolite.
The one thing I hate is that the feather people (As I like to call them), act like opinions are such a big deal. I mean, I'm not saying that dinosaurs suck with feathers, or not scary, but this feather thing has become from a scientific to fucking Undertale. Let's say you were in Trey's comment section! If you say, "Stranger Things sucks", at least some of them respect your opinion, or just carry on. But if you say, " Feather dinosaurs are boring" They become super sayan with anger because this one opinion triggers them. Hell, the feather people just act like paleontologists when in reality, they choose something else. Granted, some Jurassic Park fans are like that too but at least they're not making scaley dinosaurs less cringy! I just get sick and tired of those people. Worse of all, there some people out there who hate Jurassic Park just because its inaccurate. I mean, I don't mind them hating on Jurassic Park. But if it's for a stupid reason, its just fucking insane. This has become a problem since 2015 and it still is to this day. I'm just getting ready for feather fanboys to reply. I wouldn't be surprised if they hate my guts.
I've always wanted to see there be both raptors with feathers and raptors without feathers which are already in the movie. That way everyone's happy
Cosmic Apotheosis. If only everyone was
I mean if the context is meant to be scientific, then yeah feathers coz we knows these animals definitely had them. But JP is fiction, meant for entertainment. They are movie monsters, they arent meant to be a scientifically accurate depiction, they are meant to be scary. Just like the shark in Jaws isnt an accurate great white (arguably this one is worse, since this film/book directly contributed to a massive increase in shark hunting that has had catastrophic effects), and the snake in Anaconda isnt accurate for the same reason.
In real life, if it where possible for them to have existed at the same time, a T Rex probably wouldnt have even payed any attention to humans, too small to be worth the energy. But in a film/book, a T Rex that is hellbent on eating the main characters is a scary dramatic scene. Movies are not meant to be educational. Are the dinosaurs in JP accurate? No. Does it matter? No, JP is a fucking awesome movie.
Thank you for this. a lot of dinosaur normies don't even know what a deinonychus is.
The an accurate velociraptor would make for a great pet imo
even tho it would bite your face off
Toasty it's like a slightly larger chicken
Oliverdoesstuff yeah maybe not a fast turkey sized Farrell dinosaur
people have bears as pets, so velociraptor would be quite normal X"D
but velociraptor will be just toothy turkey with long tail... or we could treat it like falcon to add dangerous effect. There are falconers, they are safe. Also a dog was a wolf in the first place. Your argument is invalid there. We domesticated a lot of animals that can kill you, why not a raptor? (look at pigs, look at cows)
Also an ape keeping an ape as a pet is just wrong and stupid. no wonder it got angry, it was insulting. (I only pity the woman bc it was not her but her friend that had the chimp)
well this is a cool topic. I have a question, have you seen TREY the Explainer's videos on Dinosaurs? they are quite interesting.
it's also interesting that you mention:
"We've all heard the statement that the Velociraptors in the Jurassic Park series are extremely inaccurate to their true selves and usually once this declaration is made, the
individual bringing the topic forward expresses a strong dislikening to how the Raptors are portrayed in the franchise as a whole."
I've always loved the designs from Jurassic Park, although in recent years I've been looking into REAL dinosaurs allot and.. I do kind of feel like I've been lied to in these movies. which, honestly is a stupid notion. it IS a movie after all. point is, I just would have liked to see some progression through the series in terms of how accurate they could be. I'm more interested in what real dinosaurs would look like now, that's why I would like to see them in movies.
But when I was younger, I didn't care about accuracy. Heck I sorta hated the real things. because they didn't look as.. "cool" (which to be honest the art representation wasn't as appealing as today's) Now that I'm older I feel like seeing the real things.. the same feeling when I first SAW Jurassic Park. I legitimately thought they were the real thing back then. Of course, I was a kid and didn't know any bettah.
either way there's allot of new things for the scientific community to enjoy. like Saurian, and David Silva's Beast's of the Mesozoic action figures (so excited for those)
We don't NEED Jurassic Park to do it. (although it would show allot MORE people what dinosaurs should look like but.... eh. )
Anyway's, cool video.
Thanks for the compliment! Actually I watched a few of Trey The Explainer's videos a few years ago and think he's really knowledgable and a great youtuber!
For me, JP raptors are actually achillobators 6:04 cause they're more accurate in sizes than deinonychus who are smaller. For what I've heard, the first achillobator's fossils were discovered in 1999, 6 years after the movie. So, I think InGen discovered this rare and unknown ADN and a brand new type of dromaeosaurid was born again. They decided to call it "velociraptor" cause they found that name more appealing to the public (even tho velociraptors already existed... or not, it's a fictional story after all)
Narayan Kusanagi Highly likely!
Never heard of achillobater til this comment
Actually the first fossil was found before and even helped Crichton to make the Raptors from the novel, the only problem is that the Achillobator wasnt classified.
Narayan Kusanagi I'd say they are Dakotaraptors
Sounds good, though they're a bit on the large side compared to the ones in the movie, yet, Deinonychus is a bit on the small side. Maybe we should call them "InGenraptor".
They shoulda called them Utahraptors or Deinonychus
This has been said many times before, but I'll say it again here: people didn't discover Utahraptors until AFTER the first movie came out.
DanielChannel57 ohhh thanks,
No problem.
Thank you the first and only video to cover any of this.
If there was a TH-cam version of a microphone drop, it would need to be added to the end of this video. I loved it! Thanks for making my arguments with friends easier for the foreseeable future!
I dont get all the people saying: "Jurassic Park is a big lie in terms of dinosaurs". Well is jurassic park a documentary ?? NO it is not. Would a big bird be as scary as the T-Rex in JP... no of cause not
Actually a "big bird" chasing the characters and park residents and killing them in the same fd up ways would still be scary. Like the Terror birds from 10'000 B.C. Movie
There are some comments I wish I could give hearts to. This is one of them.
Admittedly, I just don't find giant chickens to be as menacing as giant lizards. That and the traditionally red-clay coloring of the raptors is quite lovely, combined with their stripes and curves. 6:54
You dont find it intimidating? I guess you haven't come face to face with an angry emu or ostrich, that's itching to run you down. Well to be fair, most people dont. You probably need someone else with an imagination to make you feel that way.
6:28 to 6:30 The feathered raptors in that comic look just as intimidating as the older raptors but that my opinion, I prefer feathered dinosaurs that scaled though both are cool.
You've never met my flock of chickens. I'd rather deal with velociraptors than those feathered a-holes lmao
Tegus and Savannah monitors are cute and cuddly giant lizards that make great pets. Cassowarys, on the other hand, are huge birds that are scary and dangerous.
I find it hard to think of ‘velociraptor’ as anything other than its portrayed in Jurassic Park
really I find it hard to think of Jurassic Park raptors as velociraptors, I usually just call them Japtors in my head.
It's always been the reverse for me, to me the Velociraptors in the JP movies are basically like the Wargs from Tolkien. I don't even think the movies attempt to pass them off as 100% accurate dinosaurs, one of the main plot points in the first movie is that these dinosaurs have been edited into sequential hermaphrodites.
"The dinosaurs look fake" is a bad criticism of JP because the dinosaurs aren't supposed to be real. It's a parable about unchecked optimism and playing god, not a documentary about extinct hawk-foxes.
When I initially saw this video posted, I knew exactly what this video was going to talk about. Thanks for clearing the raptor debate up. Even before you mentioned it in your video here, I had been on the IMDB trivia page for the original Jurassic Park, where your video's evidence is clearly explained. I'd also seen other sources that cited similar information. Again, the idea that the Jurassic Park dinosaurs are inaccurate is a 'yes and no' answer, since scientists are continually finding new discoveries almost every time they get their hands dirty. It's realistic in the sense that the information is bent slightly enough for the movie-goer to understand a bit better about the breed of raptors in general. I was barely ten when I first saw this movie and I always figured it doesn't always matter how the dinosaurs are presented, just as long as they keep enough of the real evidence in the movie to keep it convincing.
Yeah. I get a bit annoyed when people criticize the first movie to being inaccurate when it was far more accurate then any other depiction of non-avian dinosaurs that had ever existed in movies to that date. There where documentaries that where less accurate at the time. And I think is extra silly when people complain about inaccuracies based of thing we learned after the movie was made.
There where some artistic liberties taken. But those where few. And the dinos being hybrid creations sort of gives you a bit of leeway when it comes to accuracy. ;)
I don't take issue with the first movie at all. I take issue with the fact that this 1990 vision of dinosaurs pervades well into 2019, long after it should have been updated. It's not like Spielberg looked to "One Million Years B.C." or "The Valley of Gwangi" for inspiration in 1993. That's the same time distance between the first JP film and now.
@@Thagomizer i strongly agree, for the first and second movie i don't mind at all if the depiction of dinosaur are still scaly, broken wrist dinosaur. the fact that they still use the outdated model in jw is irritating me, because we already have so much evidence that dromaeosaurids are fully covered in feathers
You have the best like:dislike ratio and you truly truly deserve it keep up the good work:)
Thank you! I truly appreciate that level of support and I am really glad you keep enjoying my stuff! Again, thank you for watching these. It really means a lot :)
More like a six foot turkey.
Well one that can rip you to shreds in a blink of an eye
The JP raptors are actually Achillobator Giganticus, which was once incorrectly classified as Velociraptor Giganticus.
Achillobator wasn't officially named until ten years after the novel was published, as it was discovered the same year. Besides it was discovered in Mongolia. In both the novel and the movie Grant was excavating a raptor fossil in North America, around that time the deinonychus antirrhopus was classified as velociraptor antirrhopus and it lived in North America.
Another reason they look different than what we now know them to actually be like is addressed by Wu himself in the Jurassic World movie. He says, and I quote, "You didn't want realistic, you wanted scary." Meaning he knows too that these beings are not what they were when they were alive, but rather fabrications created to give enjoyment to guest who wish to travel back in time to live in a time we know very little about. It is all for entertainment, rather than true science.
THANK YOU for this video! It was so cathartic! It frustrates me so much when criticism is overly superficial and negative. You bring a much needed balanced perspective to the table, great job!
Thanks Miriam! :)
I'm not subscribed and I'm not going to subscribe, tho the very fact that you mentioned Utah raptors was mind blowing to me. Most dinosaur video on TH-cam aren't even worth the time to read their titles because they're full of false facts and out dated information. This video, your video was probably one of the best ones I've seen to date, and while there was one thing I found to be wrong it was such as small thing it really didn't even matter. Great job! I hope all of your videos are as good as this. Also if you get the chance look up Dinosaurs Decoded, and you'll see just how bad Jack Horner is... or maybe you'll agree with him 100%.
Well thanks haha. Glad you enjoyed my stuff :)
Drake Baumann You should sub
Dr. Horner actually did a lot of research for the books and movies but Spielberg and the other producers wouldn't listen to him. And his theories were as good as research at the time would allow... If you don't like Dr. Horner, that's one thing, but at least he publishes new papers and admits to faults in his research... unlike some other people. He might not be the best, but compared to some Paleontologists I've met at scholarship program meetings... he's better than nothing.
As much as I love JP 1 & 2, I wish we got movies closer to the book. It's fun imagining the story but it'd still be cool to see it on screen. Gennaro (the lawyer) was supposed to be a muscular guy & for some reason I imagine Ben Affleck in that role (most likely because he's the buffest Batman now)
CGI Is the buffest Batman
The scaly appearance could also be explained by the fact that they filled in the genetic code for the dinosaurs with frog DNA
EDIT: also in jurassic world Wu states that "if their genetic code was pure many of them would look quite different"
Lord Draje that's exactly what I've said. People are dense no?
The plot point about frog DNA is only there to serve a thematic purpose. It underlines the unexpected problems that arise when the JP scientists cut corners and thus create more issues than they are prepared to deal with. It is not there to handwave any possible paleontological errors. If Michael Crichton had written the novel 10 or 15 years later, the raptors would have unquestionably had feathers. They only reason they don't is because that was just speculation at the time.
The only reason they don't have feathers in JW is because the film makers think you're lazy and stupid, and don't care about paleontology aside form how it relates to your childhood nostalgia. There's even a line uttered in JW which could have easily handwaved an update of the dinosaurs. It was something like "We've learned so much more about genetics than we've ever known in the last decade." Thus JW could have easily updated its dinosaurs with the quick handwave that Dr. Wu had a more complete genome to work with.
You could always argue, as the film implies, that Dr. Wu intentionally engineered his dinosaurs to conform to the popular public perception of them, except Speilberg and/or Crichton could have used that exact same excuse to give us tail-dragging Tyrannosaurs and swamp-dwelling sauropods ripped straight from the work of Charles R. Knight and Rudolph Zalinger, all under the audience-insulting premise that strange dinosaurs like the nimble, deadly Velociraptor and venom-spitting Dilophosaurus didn't conform particularly well to the public's perception of dinosaurs, either. And the world would have been all the poorer because of it.
Probably the best Jurassic Park TH-camr out there...
Wow! This is fascinating! I did know that they had used dynonichus or Utahraptor as bases for the raptors. But I didn't realize that the name they used was actually accurate for the time! I really enjoyed this video. Thanks for the info!
Deinonychus sounds cooler than velociraptor in my opinion.
Of course Deinonychus did have feathers, different skull shape, bulkier etc. And they are pretty intelligent btw
Re: no feathers on Jurassic park animals. In the book, and maybe in the 4th movie (I’ve only seen it twice) Wu talks about changing the animals to meet public’s expectations. Perhaps he turned off the feathers gene, either believing the public would cry foul. He also could have turned it off because he thought it was a mistake in DNA sequencing.
Yep, he also tries to talk Hamond into making the dinos slower and more sluggish like the animals from as he felt that the Public would not see them as dinosaurs. This, to me, is the reason the Jurassic World dinos are such retrosaurs compared to those in the original movies. Wu is now in total control and made the animals look like those from his childhood - the sluggish, droop-tailed, 'terrible lizards' of Charles Knights paintings rather than modern , scientifically accurate creatures we now know them to be. Which, come to think of it, was probably why Jurassic World was losing money.
Utah raptors are the best raptor.
Dakotaraptor! They shared the North American Cretaceous with T rex!
Can we talk about Fukuiraptor though? It's from Asia... and I got in trouble in my Palaeontology course for laughing and referring to it as "fuck u raptor".
Nope
@傷齒龍147 Troodon147 I can't tell if you're joking, but Giganotosaurus lived in South America, a completely different continent. Not the south of North America. Giganotosaurus never lived in Utah
Ah, that makes sense. I remember arguing with my younger cousin about the velociraptors in the movie about 20 years ago. He thought they were accurate velociraptors while I, with a book on dinosaurs, pointed out that they were too large to be velociraptors. I didn’t know that velociraptor was a term used for other raptor species when “Jurassic Park” was written. Deinonychus fits a lot better with the size and general shape of the head and body. I wish they’d just said deinonychus in the movies…
Also about the feather-less dinos lore wise are because Hammond and Misronni (sry if I misspelled his name) wanted these to be scarier and “cooler”. This is addressed in a scene from Jurassic world when Misronni confronts Doc. Wu for giving the indominus its abilities. This is also the scene where (in my opinion) the best quote from the franchise happens, “monster is a relative term, for a canary a cat is a monster, we are just used to being the cat” Doctor Henry Wu.
FINALLY! Someone here lays this argument to rest! 👍🏻👍🏻
Great video, mate.
Put simply, Jurassic Park is at every level, science fiction, literally...fictional science.
So to all those who bitch and whine, and piss and moan, suspend your disbelief and enjoy these science fiction adventure films, or stick to what you hold close, and go back to all your Kenneth Branagh and John Hurt narrated dino documentaries.
lol so true
Jackarantula
I was like that a while ago... Now I'm a Dino-Expert.
now now, I'm a huge fan of the Jurassic Park designs.. It's just that us feathered fans desperately want to see accurate Dinosaurs on the big screen (done right). that's all. honestly I don't think Jurassic Park will ever do it (in movie format) And that's okay, they just want to stick with what they know will work, allot of people have grown up with those designs. (including myself) I'm sure they wouldn't want to piss off the normal moviegoers with that nasty science. it would possibly be too big of a jump from old to new honestly..
I understand that dinos had feathers, but this was based on the view of dinosaurs at the time the BOOK was written. (even some older documentaries portrayed dinos without feathers) If the book included feathered dinosaurs, maybe the movie would have had feathered dinos also. I honestly never knew there was a "feathered fan" group or club, since it was actually proven that some dinos had feathers. I mean Jurassic Park/ Jurassic World isn't the only franchise that has the right to make movies surrounding dinosaurs. And it just wouldn't make sense to all-of-a-sudden give the dinosaurs feathers because science said so. All the dinos in the movies were created that way (in a lab) and it would only make sense for them to stay as they are. The only thing to hope for is that another Movie/Novel/Documentary portrays them based on what we know now, and that it is something with an original story or a new experience that will make it interesting.
VERY true dat. thank you for a great reply. although.. there is something they have not fixed with the Raptors. their wrist's. in Jurassic Park they run around with their hands kinda like a bunny or something (including the Dilophosaurus) in real life the angle of their wrist's were different. so in Jurassic Park every moment of living, is agony for them.. cuz their wrist's be broken yo. Did Paleontologist's know about that when before the book was made? hmmm I'll have to look that up..
I just kinda made up that name "Feathered Fans" to describe the Jurassic Park fans who are critical of the inaccuracy's.. I'm probably not helping this situation by making up names...
sorry, that was another thing I wanted to bring up. that's about it from me on this topic... until I stop being an idiot.. but again, awesome reply. : )
That's what I've been saying tjis whole time! (Except that deinonichus was calked veliciraptor demilius, or whatever. I didn't know that. Good to know, though. Makes a atronger case)
We need a scientifically accurate dinosaur movie with a Jurassic Park-sized budget. Spare no expense!
Absolutely! We're long overdue. I wouldn't be so hard on JP if there were some other dinosaur-themed IP that gave a damn about current science. The depressing part is knowing there won't be.
I liked how they pointed out their inaccuracies in Jurassic World with Wu basically saying that they shouldn't look like their appearances at all. Its nice that this universe admits that they are wrong and are not normal at all
They must be Utah Raptors
damn mormons
Montana though, right?
No Utah raptors are WAY bigger then the velociraptors
Utah raptor is a lot bigger than the Jurassic park raptors
Dakotaraptor is the closest in size to a person, but the Raptors in the series are based on Ostrom's description of Deinonychus in the 1960s.
The 1960s.
This is actually a fantastic video
Thanks Duncan! Really appreciate that!
Will you ever go over the feathered raptor comics? They sound interesting.
Oh yes totally! Thats waaaaaayyy down the line though. I believe they came out around 2011 and we are currently doing comics from 1995 hahha
Klayton Fioriti Will they come after "Return to Jurassic Park"(I think that is what it is called), or do you have others planned afterward?
Actually after Return to Jurassic Park is a prequel novel with Hammond, Nedry and Gennaro during JP's creation...but Dangerous Games (feathered raptors) comics should be soon after that...maybe early 2018...I think there is one more story before that one called Jurassic Park Redemption which has Gigantosaurus and Carnos in it
Klayton Fioriti ok, thanks! I'm really looking forward to those and the other comics!
I'm pretty sure that Dr. Wu actually states that the creatures are without feathers because of "Public Opinion" in the 4th movie, stating that many of the dinosaurs would look quiet different if they were to truly match their scientific counterparts. Then again, most people don't like this scene. :P
WOW!!! My brain just exploded. Awesome work dude.
Love your channel
Hey thanks!
Would it really kill the JP franchise to introduce scientifically-accurate dinosaurs? Crichton wrote the first book with dino science in mind!
DoomRulz I think the movie goers prefer consistency to accuracy if they are forced to choose... Same for me.
Here´s the deal, when the franchise was made the Dinosaurs were pretty accurate, except for Dilophos Venom wich they made up, all the rest that today is heavly criticized was very valid theorys back in the day; now, there´s a lot of inconcinstence in a movie world when you changue your monsters or creations too often and just kills the logic in that world, for example in terminator the future world resistance have laser guns and shit, but in terminator salvation they fight with ak 47 and some high caliber weapons wich make you think "Where´s the laser ray gun?", here in JP if they get "scientific" about it and make Dinos like they are portrayed now and not in 93 there would be a similar scenario were people would just think "what´s this big shit with feathers sounding like a damn seagal?" so is way better too put a scene lie the onw in JW were Woo tell´s Masarani that they just make Dinos how they lie, theres also a passage in the original book were a conversation between Woo and Hammond take place and the same subject comes to the talk. IMO Scientific accurate Dinosaurs now belong to a new franchise of movies not related to JP or JW or Documentals, but is way too late for this franchise to include them.
I think its possible but it would have to be treated like a "different" companies creations and that they were seperate versions of the Dinosaurs. Like BioSyn's raptors having feathers. Either way, it would really confuse movie goers because if they don't address the continuity errors like what happened in JP3 there will be hell to pay lol
Klayton Fioriti Kinda confused but didn't Alan in the third movie mentions the 1st and 2nd movie during his speech about the raptors? Which means JP3 took place some time after the San Diego incident?
I think he reffers to the feather-head raptos in JP3 when raptors never had feathers in previous movies and not the timeline of the story
'Ol Klayton's dropping knowledge on the masses! Hopefully someone drops a JW FK trailer on us soon!
lol
Excellent video and well presented, dude! Good job :)
There is something I do love about Jurassic World that contributes to this discussion a little. In the Movie, Wu makes a slight nod to the fact that they made these animals based on what they thought/wanted the dinosaurs to be like, and even mentioned that if the DNA was pure all the animals would look much different. It would have been likely that Hammond requested scarier Raptors because he wanted more of a thrill for his guests, the book version even ignored Wu’s warning and threw money at the problem instead of listening.
I played the Jurassic Park the game and in the extras there are files and one of them say that something happen the mutation and the raptors aren't accurate...maybe because of the them using frog DNA
Good video! A couple other things I felt were worth mentioning:
>The reason every single raptor used to be called Velociraptor is because of a guy named Gregory Paul, a scientist and paleoartist who was one of the big names in paleontology back in the 80s/90s. He's rather notorious for "lumping" different species together, and his book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World was one of Crichton's major scientific sources when writing the first novel.
>You mentioned that the novel raptors specifically came from Chinese/Mongolian amber - which is a particularly interesting thing to note given that the JP raptors and actual Velociraptors don't match up in size at all. There's a poorly known raptor called Achillobator from Mongolia that was roughly the same size as the JP raptors - only known from a few scrappy fossils and barely anyone cares about it. But Greg Paul lumped it in with Velociraptor nonetheless, and then Crichton ran with that instead of the turkey-sized ones. A user from the old JPLegacy site first proposed this, and tbh I think it's a pretty convincing explanation.
>People will often (or at least they used to) try and write off the movie raptors as really being Utahraptor instead, but that explanation doesn't work as well anymore. We've been getting more complete fossils of Utahraptor and it looked significantly beefier than we first thought - not at all sleek and slender like Deinonychus and related forms.
Also, love the shot at 2:08. The full size version of that statue is still sitting just outside the museum where I work. A personal favorite :)
Hey thanks for the kind words! I considered bringing up the Achillobator from Mongolia but didn't think people would know exactly what I was talking about and the dinosaur was more than likely not on Crichton's mind at all. The most interesting thing about the first book for me was how blind Wu and InGen were as to what they were creating. They literally had to just wait for the dinosaur to hatch before they knew what it was. I also found it interesting that Wu made the assertion that the animals was a Mongoliensis instead of the Antirrhopus that Grant was digging up. Its interesting that Hammond was paying Grant for his digs and I wouldn't put it past Ingen that they would clone a raptor based on this species rather than the little guys (this is just a wild idea and nothing I have proof of) but InGen's lack in oversight is incredible when put against Malcolm's constant warnings about genetic manipulation. I wish the book would get brought up more often honestly hahaha
Yep. Vertebrate paleontology. Currently doing research with Devonian fish (which will hopefully be published at some point in the near future) and working in a prep lab with a bunch of Jurassic dinosaurs. It's the best job.
So I got to ask...whats a Vertebrate Paleontologist like yourself's favorite dinosaur???
It changes about three times a week because I'm indecisive lol. Right now I'm feeling something stegosaur-y
Nice someone that knows this fact, I like the idea that Crichton uses about a what if they cloned a specie never seen before? This makes me think the novel Raptors are more of a fictional species based on real ones such as Deinonychus and the then properly classified Achillobator.
My thoughts exactly. When exactly did people stop enjoying these moviees for what they are instead of documentaries. I guess some people will never be happy lol...oh well fuck it great point of view on the subject. Gregory s Paul documented the antirrophus relation in a predatory dinosaur book i read. You should check it out bro
Cool. I'd heard of both deinonychus and utahraptor before, and that the "velociraptors" in Jurassic Park were closer to their size, but this is the first time I heard that deinonychus actually was considered a velociraptor species once. Neat to hear that there was actually a reason for their being called velociraptors.
Funny you should bring up the tyrannosaurus's vision, as I've often thought that's another thing people pick on a bit too simplistically. I have heard it argued that tyrannosaurus had good vision, but I always took the line in the movie to mean that the T. rex hunted by movement, meaning that it didn't necessarily not see things which didn't move, but it wasn't compelled to hunt them. Kind of in the same vein as cats adopting mice who forget to run from them, or cougars often killing joggers, or frogs starving while surrounded by dead flies (which is particularly notable here, considering this tyrannosaurus was apparently part frog). Predators are known to sometimes need prey to run to remind them to chase them. Is there evidence that tyrannosaurus might have had the same motion-triggered hunting instinct as these predators? If so, maybe that's another cheap shot that isn't actually warranted.
The problem in the end is the repeated use of the name 'Velociraptor' and the Deinonychus tie not making it into the film like it is the book. I work at a museum and time after time, the exhibit that turns the most heads is our realistic Velociraptor model. It was done with a lot of input by numerous academic sources so short of the feather color, it's about as real as you can feasibly get; a roughly coyote sized predator which looks a lot like a hawk with a long tail and legs. The display also has replica claws and a skull for comparison between it, Deinonychus, and Utahraptor. Without fail, a good 8/10 guests express shock and confusion at why it is so small and feathered. Now I do my best to explain it, even bringing up a quote from the Crichton novel on the signs, but it's still prominent.
Another problem is despite the Wu lines from JW, we are repeatedly told these are 'real' dinosaurs so audiences will expect the real deal to have looked like it does in the Jurassic Park series, because they have no very up to date example to show them on-screen. Yes, some things in paleontology are debatable, some times very much so. T.rex's feather extent, Spinosaurus' stance, exact shape of Triceratop's horns (keratin might change the look a lot) for examples. But others are not so. We know how big the actual Velociraptor and Deinonychus were, we know where they lived, that they were feathered, and what those sort of feathers looked like to a 90% accuracy (Dromaeosaurid feather design is pretty consistent so you find 15 with identical types of coats spread across the family, you can reasonably assume their close relatives had similar coats). So the lack of clarity, context, and updates post JP3 are what keeps this going.