I like how Dr Wu pretty much explained why their dinosaur look different than fossil in Jurassic World. "Man, we're playing god so we at least make them look cool."
Honestly Im betting on these animals looking more like the inGen in real life cuz have you ever seen an alligator gar it hasn't changed its look since prehistoric times and it definitely is more similar looking to the inGen style so I believe that dinosaurs where more lizardy and toothy than what people really belive to be .
@@legionact And how tho? They have literal evidence of feathers and we can look at Living dinosaurs and determine colours of extinct one by the pigments there are left in the fossils
@@legionact Also ingen's display of dinosaurs wasn't even the first look of dinosaurs since dinosaurs were just portrayed as fat lizards before jp came out
That is because the Velociraptor in Jurassic Park isn't a Velociraptor, but a Deinonychus antirrhopus. They just named it Velociraptor because it was an easier name.
"By using the DNA of a frog, we filled in the wholes to complete the code." - Mr. DNA "Genetically-engineered theme park monsters" - Dr. Alan Grant "And if their genetic code was pure. Many of them would look quite different." - Dr. Wu Some quotes that prove JP/JW Dinos are quite different from real life, but actually have some realistic approaches.
@@TheUaxington No not really. Not only is that not how genetics work, but many times in the movie physics are practically ignored. In one scene Pteranodon ruptured a building with it's wing instead of just breaking it and both the Indo and t. rex practically take no harm from getting 35,000 tons of bite strength pressed into their skull while being flailed violently. Within their first bite the other should have been dead.
I say this makes sense, but I came with dumb idea, why not create realistic hybrids ? For example if they have an incomplete triceratops genome instead of completing the gap with frog DNA But instead dinosaurs DNA (in this case stegosaurus) So we can have at least a real stegoceratops with no modified genome. Why did I think of this
@@titan6012 Or use Crocodile Dna Or Bird dna. But n o o o We need to maintain the view that dinosaurs were mindless creature who just go "Bite, Slash, Roar And Attack!"
Velocilaptors basically took deinonychus spot simply because the name sounds cooler and its easier to say it. The way velociraptors act in the movies is also closer to deinonychus as deinonychus are known to hunt in packs as well as being relatively smart for an animal which is how velicoraptors are portrait in the movies.
"By using the DNA of a frog, we filled in the wholes to complete the code." - Mr. DNA Jurassic Park #1. It always annoyed me when people would complain about the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park movies not being realistic.... cuz every single movie flat out tells you they aren't real dinosaurs, and that's consistently been the entire point.
@@durpydodo8389 You realize the scientific point of view makes no fucking difference here. 1- It's a movie not a documentary 2- LITERALLY NONE of the movies were ever made with the intention of being accurate or realistic. The entire theme and point these movies consistently convey is that it will never be real. You won't bring back the dinosaurs, you will only create "...genetically engineered theme park monsters" - Dr. Grant, J.P.3. It's like you missed the entire scene ALSO in the first movie between Jon Hammond and Dr. Sattler where she point-blank tells him it is still all an illusion. It's not the movies fault you had your own expectations that the movies creators never promised to fulfill. 3- It's literally based off a book series where those inaccuracies originated. So again, the fact that you had any expectation for Jurassic Park to be anything more than a monster movie is 100% on you, not the movie.
@@durpydodo8389 You're correct. It would be impossible to do use frog DNA. Yet that's exactly what happens in the first movie. Already the entire movies premise is not based in scientific fact, so why the hell did you expect the dinosaurs to be any bit less inaccurate?
Actually Jurassic park 3 was released at a time when our view of Spinosaurus wasn't as clear as it is today, so the spinosaurus in that movie was as realistic as you could get at that time, just a interesting fact
No it isnt, I have a dinosaur book from my childhood in the 80s that listed spino at 4 tonnes which is what the current weight estimates suggest. They also already knew about the disproportionate hide limbs already, they just needed to new villain
@@Jrut_uor what ? You mean that he wasn't in the video ? In that case there is no reason to fuck you whole video for a dinosaur that's not gonna appear
Они разные потому что , чтобы вывести реального динозавра им нужен 100% геном , а так как полное днк диноса очень сложно получить , они заполняли пробелы в геноме днк других рептилий.Вот почему они не похожи на реальных динозавров🦖🦕
Pachy’s height seems off. Everywhere I’ve checked they either didn’t include its height, or the estimates were above 10 feet (tallest I found was 17.6 feet).
Not really, our interpretations of dinosaurs change over time with the new technology we have, these measurements were good, but the measurements, weights, coloring, textures, facts, etc. keep changing because we keep finding new evidence that helps learn more about these creatures that existed long ago, like as we thought Dino’s were lizards, but now we found out that most they were closer to birds. We also discover more species almost every week, and we are still finding them.
@@moony_squish7519 He has the ingen diloposaurus weigh 1 ton. That Is very wrong. What's also wrong is that he says 1 ton equals 300 kilograms. 1 ton is like 907 kilograms. That's 2 wrong things for just 1 dinosaur. Wonder what that says about the rest
Not to mention, also with the dilophosaurus, it is measured at about .2 Meters less than the real life one, and the length is doubled. I'm no mathematician, but those numbers do not match the sizing XD Also, a ceratosaurus is double what they say it is in real-life. This whole video is dumb as shit XD
Eh, the crest is pretty good, other than that no, also, your deinonychus size is wrong, it was 10 feet long,3.3 feet tall at the hips, 5 at the head and 75 kilograms, some large specimens could maybe be 100
@@davemiller7742 when the movie released it wasn’t a juvenile. Fans got butthurt so they said it was a juvenile and they even had to change the size of it on the size chart that came with the movie
As a JP fan I appreciate that. I love all the new discoveries being made every week and the accurate dinosaurs are awesome, but people need to stop bashing on JP for not being accurate.
@@gganbp I think the only reason people do is that JP has such a huge cultural impact that its dinosaurs(and other animals) are seen by the general public to be the de facto versions of those animals, even though the plot specifically points out that this isn't true.
In Ingen's defense, their dinosaurs are literally genetic hybrids of DNA crafted to "close enough" resemble prehistoric beings. The irony is that the Indominus was just the only specimen they branded as what the whole lot of them are.
Yup, the books nicely elaborate on this as well. With the techniques used in the fiction the majority of restored DNA is definitely from the dinosaur in question, but the gaps are filled with other species. This isn't necessarily a problem as we still share over 60% of our DNA with bananas and 98.8% with chimpanzees. The base biomechanics clearly come in a very similar package. With enough of the original code and enough knowledge of the workings you could figure out what should be in the missing spots. This fiction conveniently assumes and simplifies both. The result is both as close to a dinosaur as we can get and not a real dinosaur at all at the same time. Whether we judge the result to be a succes or not in fact largely depends on what we believe a dinosaur *should* look like. We weren't there 65 million years ago, some of our assumptions are always bound to be incomplete or simply wrong. Even today. Michael Crichton was absolutely aware of this and didn't avoid the discussion, it's actually a continuous theme in his books. The most obvious example is the Dilophosaurus. I assume he chose it as it was pretty well known and one of the earliest known carnivorous dinosaurs, with presumed weak jaws. Then he added a frill and poison glands, soft tissues we wouldn't expect a dinosaur to have. Sure since then many paleontologists have pointed out that the real animal looked nothing like it and that nothing in the fossil record suggests the presence of any such features or traces of expected attachments. However I think we can safely say not many if any people looked at Dilophosaurus as having a frill and poison before Crichton did, which was his point. Dinosaurs could have had features we simply aren't looking for or haven't found evidence for. Feathers and some colour data are among those discovered for some dinosaurs since. Wu tells Hammond in the book he wants to go the next version because these dinosaurs move "too fast" and the visitors won't accept them as real dinosaurs. Crawling swamp lizards was the dominant view then. Even though the very first fossils were originally pictured to belong to quick birdlike animals. Until the view that dinosaurs came before and went extinct and therefore should have been slow and primitive took hold. Fast forward to today and many probably should have had some kind of skin covering, yet a 1993 feathered chicken rex would likely have been rejected by audiences. And a fully feathered one is probably wrong again..or not, the debate goes on ;) Then there's the raptors. Around the time Michael Crichton did his initial research, there were some findings and a buzz about potentially fast and clever smaller theropods. Velociraptor was known, as was Deinonychus with it's terrible claw. Obviously the perfect type of animal to scare your readers with. Crichton weaves them in via the uncertainty of the mosquito blood method. They basically have no idea what species they are even growing. They do have some crude methods of confirming that it's in fact dino DNA and a rough idea on clade and taxa, but mostly they go for the slightly cheaper method and just inject the restored DNA in an artificial egg and see what it is. So the raptors are what happens when they get DNA from a previously unknown species and misidentify and possibly mix and misrepair it. The idea is that no sane person would ever willingly create such dangerous predators. But many millions of dollars per hatched specimen later and sanity takes a back seat to financial considerations. They also had no idea how many or what species they could succeed in "bringing back" and the raptors meant at least one more attraction for the park. The rest comes down to chaos theory and how seemingly small decisions quickly spiral out of control.
Dr Wu did say that because of different animal DNA in their genomes, they are not close enough to their real life counterparts, or something like that.
try doing that excuse with the new movie where they show giganotosaurus not only in the wrong time period of 65MYA but still in their version, the inaccurate version.
In ww2 they had a spino skeleton so idk why it wasnt used as memory, but i find it weird that first it was like jp3 a bit and now its completely changed and they used other dino bones even sometimes thej said. I think the changed spino a bit to much maybe
Compsagnathus: Height: 1ft. Comes up to the man's crotch, making the man roughly 3.5ft tall. Also, InGen Compsagnathus: Height: .9ft. but being only half as tall as the Compsagnathus which is only 1ft tall. This just don't add up.
I did it. Not everyone has english as the first language, and some of us need a bit more time to recognize the informations. Stop complaining y'all, if it really bothers you, speed up the video or something. I found the video speed really fitting, it was quite useful.
@@anarchistmaverick9507 lmao why so salty tho? You look really good at being an asshole. By the way, Bully is a great game, your pfp deserves better than an asshat who goes around insulting people for no reason.
Actually the velociraptor in real life is based on a deinonychus and says the wiki website fandom... Sorry about my English is that I'm using google translator. greetings from Argentina
You are right, it was just a marketing trick, "velociraptor" sounds really really better than Deinonychus, more agressive name, something like "indominus rex" :)
@@fubene5495 JP Velociraptors are genetically modified, they just put Velociraptor because the movie is inspired on the fucking books made by Michael Crichton which the Velociraptors are also genetically modified.
why does it take so long to get to the next dino, i mean shoutout to Daniel campoi for the time stamps, but WHY does it take 33 seconds to get to the _Microceratus?_
while i agree, the first movie was made in 1993, so there are many differences in the paleological fields, and velociraptor was supposed to be utah raptor i believe
@@ajbricks3828 i believe he is talking for the scaling in the video the Carnotaurus is supposed to be 3 meters tall but in the video it looks like it is 7 meters tall
@@ajbricks3828 No, the scaling on behalf of the video editor. At times the human looks way tinier than it should, even contradicting the stats of the dinosaurs provided in the very video.
The Velociraptor is actually Achillobator or Deynonichus, when they made the book the Deynonichus didn't was considered a gender, was just a species of Velociraptor. So isn't this, the small one, is Deynonichus too.
Velociraptor are more based on deinonychus the name was actually supposed to be deinonychus antirrhopus but they changed the name to velociraptor antirrhopus because it’s sound better
Plus, at the beggining of the film Alan was discovering a "velociraptor" in Montana, but there are no velociraptors in Montana, velociraptor is a Gobi dessert animal. However there are Deynonichus in Montana.
When they made the brachiosaurus in the movie, they based it off of a related species known as the giraffatitan (atleast in the head) brachiosaurus' head shap was unknown at the time, but is now believed to have been shaped different then we see in the movie.
The dilophosaurus in the jurassic park book was a little more accurate in size, it literally lifts Nedry by the head until his feet aren't touching the ground, then just walks off with him dangling from its jaws Edit: after disembowling him
I feel like if dinosaurs still existed and were able to comprehend things like we do, and they watched JP movies, they'd look at their own species and react similar to the way some of us do to a hairless cat
6:45 left height 9ft (3m) right height 10ft (also 3m?), right absolutely towers over the Carnotaurus on the left though, and dwarfs the human (who should be ~6ft/1.8m) That's when I stopped watching so might get more inaccurate later on
Things I noticed, Ingen dinosaurs weigh more and are often taller, real counterparts weight less and are often lengthier. Ingen dinosaurs are more muscular, real dinosaurs have more hollow bones and are more specialized. In the case of the cerata and the stego there were huge differences, but for most dinos the differences were quite small in proportions yet noticable in weight. The real Tyrannosaurus and Brachio were absolutely enormous though
1:25 the real comparison should be with Deinonychus, velociraptor was a name that Crichton and Spielberg both liked more, but the velociraptor of JP is based on Deinonychus Antyrhopus, not Velociraptor Mongoliensis. Also, at the time when the JP book was writen Deinonychus Antyrhopus was also called Velociraptor Antyrhopus.
Some of the dinosaurs are pretty different but other than that, most could be considered accuratelly portrayed being that not all specimens are the same and small size differences could be atributed to that
And the heaviest is the T.Rex , 8 tons in average but specimens like Scotty can surpass 9 tons , and yes Spinosaurus is longer than other theropods but there is no evidence of it even getting close to 50 feet let alone surpassing
@@julienfoussereau937 yea like I said Sinosaurus is the longest head to tail but is not really tall if you don't count the sail because of it's shorter legs.
Good, in terms of providing information. The text was covered, when I rotated my phone to get the larger screen. The text, viewed at the scale at which it was featured on my default screen, was often, too small for me to read. There would have been more than enough room to have fit both the pictures and the text at a much larger scale. This, not-only would have made it possible to have "read" the text "at all--;" but would have made it possible to have read it quickly enough for this video to have been over in one-tenth of the time--; which also would have avoided having the background music score's having-gotten so really-cloyingly repetitious--.
The 18 meters in length was heavily flawed and based on certain assumptions that we know are not true. Today it is argued that ir was likely more in the 13 meter to 15 meter range.
one complaint, Velociraptor was really suppose to be Deinonycus in the book, one of Criton's friends had been pushing for Deinonycus to be replaced under the Velociratpor genus at the time.
Michael Crichton wrote the book and used deinonychus as his reference, but chose the velociraptor name because it was more menacing. Spielberg then used the same reasoning.
1:42 Fun fact, Jurrasic Park Velociraptors are actually deinonychus, another type of raptor. When the book was written, deinonychus was called Velociraptor however the name now refers to a different dinosaur.
No wonder the Ankylosaurus in Jurassic World got defeated so easily. Its legs were so tall that it was easily flipped over(Its only weakness), in prehistoric times its legs were short so it was much harder to flip.
So apparently when Michael Crichton wrote the book he designed the raptors after Deinonychus, but chose to name them Velociraptor. I heard a couple of different reasons why he did it. I guess he even met up with the paleontologist who discovered Deinonychus, and got a description of how it probably looked, alongside the ok to use the Velociraptor title attached to it.
@@Primetime_69 correct, one of the main reasons being that, at the time their name was disputed and some paleontologists called them Velociraptor Antirrhopus.
Yeah and Michael Crichton preferred the sound of Velociraptor, also because he wanted too use raptor for it's bird of prey and kidnapping meanings in that lovely opening scene.
