@@CatacombSaint I wonder if it got copyright claimed for the film clips, though you'd think if they claimed one video they'd claim anything with even a second worth of video of the Rex or raptors. Maybe he just lost interest?
1. You forgot the hand issue. 2. Deinonychus pronounciation: die-non-i-kus 3. There's actually another, well documented reason why the dinosaur was named Velociraptor. By the time Michael Crichton was writing his novel of Jurassic Park in 1988, there was a book that he used as reference by Gregory S. Paul called "Predator Dinosaurs of the World." In that book, the paleo-artist labelled Deinonychus as a species of Velociraptor due to some features both animals shared. Of course, he also did that with other members of Dromaeosauridae (including Achilobator, which wasn't even described at the time). Due to this mishap, Crichton used the book as reference and the name of Velociraptor was stuck (with a line the novel being a shout-out to Paul saying that Deinonychus is a type of Velociraptor). However, the issue was a little less forgiving by the time the film itself was being produced. It had been less than a decade since that snafu and Jack Horner, who was tagged as the consultant for the film gave Spielberg the news about the whole name issue. Of course, Spielberg brushed that aside and kept the name. Why? Because Velociraptor sounded cooler. That's right: "Speedy Plunderer" beat out "Terrible Claw" because it sounded cool and likely the name was easier to read.
Actually it’s more like fast thief. In Spanish the translation is easier from latín Raptor Veloz (raptor being something between a kidnapper and a thief, because it stole eggs or at least was believed that it stole eggs and veloz, because “run very fast”). Still, Terrible Claw should have been the winner.
Deinonychus used to be known as Velociraptor antirrhopus but instead of the Jurassic Park books naming that, they specifically named it Velociraptor mongoliensis. And Velociraptor mongoliensis was dug up in Montana when it can only be found in Mongolia. Not trying to be mean, just stating a fact.
I appreciate Jurassic park for showing dinosaurs as fast, warm-blooded hunters and agile creatures. For hundreds of years they were portrayed as lazy, slow, tail-dragging lizards. Jurassic park may have been wrong with sizes and appearances, but it definitely helped push the idea of actual dinosaur stance and behaviorism to the public, and now the public pretty much accepts that dinosaurs were strong and fierce animals.
It also spread the popular idea that they were ruthless monsters, more violent than any kind of known animal. Which isn't that good either. If a Tyrannosaurus was alive today and found a human, it would likely leave it alone instead of eating it, because such a small creature would barely satisfy its hunger. Velociraptors were quite small. Realistically, the only dinosaurs that would pose a threat to humans at all would probably be medium-sized carnivores like Carnotaurus and Herrerasaurus, which were large enough to hunt humans, but not too large so that they could perceive them as a food worth hunting. Dinosaurs weren't bloodthirsty monsters, they are just animals. And don't ever expect to see a non-sauropod dinosaur wrecking through a building by ramming into it, because that's the equivalent of a horse running into a wooden wall and shattering it without breaking any of its bones. At least in my opinion.
EDIT: THIS COMMENT IS PRETTY MUCH ENTIRELY INACCURATE. I apologize for spreading misinformation. Take a look at some of the replies for more accurate information. In the Jurassic Park book they point out that the park's dinosaurs are inaccurate. Hammond has a conversation with Wu where Wu tries to tell him he wants the raptors to be accurate because visitors want to see real dinosaurs. Hammond says he wants to keep the raptors looking and acting like monsters, so the visitors will be more excited. The point of these velociraptors was to be scary, exciting, and inaccurate on purpose. Plus, in JP 3, Grant explains that the raptors are "genetically engineered theme park monsters, nothing more, and nothing less." The movie acknowledges the fact that Hammond didn't make real dinosaurs.
+Chaotic Blue I have seen the movie. I'm glad that they added that part, but sadly, like what they did in JP 3, it probably sailed right over people's heads and they're still going to complain about inaccuracies. (BTW, I loved the movie. Best one since the original!)
The purpose of this video: I love sciencey movies and enjoy them and do not want to take the fun out of them, but the movies still need to be somewhat accurate, so that the audience does not confuse movies inaccuracies with actual science
According to paleontologist Dr George Blasing troodon had the same intelligence level of a smart breed of dog, such as a Border Collie. And border collies are as smart as common Dolphins. He also says that velociraptor where about as smart as modern birds of prey. And he is basing his theories after dr Lawrence Witmers (anatomist at Ohio university) research. I'm not complaining, I'm explaining.
Ivar Simonsson Mr. Blasing isn't really a palaeontologist. He's said himself that he doesn't really have a lot of formal education in that field, IIRC.
TREY the Explainer at the time the film was made it was believe that velociraptor dinonychus and utah raptor were all the same species (something which was disproven years later), also the film was made in 1993, the first velociraptor discovered with feathers (which it should be pointed out were only quills on the arms) was in 2007, so unless the film makers had a time machine there is no way for them to know any dromaeosauridae had feathers and given that even the author of the original book stated that it was based on dinonychus rather than velociraptor (hence why they were digging it up in america not mongolia in the beginning of the film) it has yet to be proven that dinonychus had feathers (the modern belief that it does is based on other dromaeosauridae and not on any discovred skin impressions yet found) yes velociraptor was dumb by modern standards it's also worth noting that brain size isn't indictive of inteligence, but neuron count (number of cells in the brain) this is largly dependant on the number of folds in the brain matter. also note that birds and reptiles lack the part of the brain required for higher thinking (as found in mamals) so compared to mamals they were really dumb, they were probably on a level simalar to many birds of prey or corvids. as in they could co-ordinate and work out simple problems but weren't inteligent enough to do much more. so for it's time jurassic park was scientifically accurate, as most of the inaccuracies you point out have only come to light in the last 10 years or so. as opposed to 20+ years ago when the film was made. that's like complainig about george orwell's 1984 showing an inaccurate depliction of 1984 (which was written in 1949)
TREY the Explainer I think you miss pronounce Deinonychus (Dine-non-i-cus) and Achillobator (A-ki-low-bate-or). And can you please stop criticizing jurassic park dinosaurs? Jurassic Park is just a fictional movie for people craving for entertainment. Now I don't want to offend you, but I like dinosaurs no matter what if they're feathered or reptilian skinned, even Jurassic park got it wrong. If i offend you, then i am sorry.
Despite all of it's inaccuracies, Jurassic Park remains one of my favorite movies of all time. One thing that I thought was worth mentioning is that in Jurassic World one of the scientists admitted that they genetically modified their dinosaurs to attract more guests and that if they had used the unmodified DNA, the dinosaurs would have been covered in feathers.
Dromeosaurid pronunciations (just for future help ;) ) Deinonychus (has 2 accepted forms) Die-non-nye (like Bill Nye)-cus or Dino-nye-cus Achillobator Ah-kilo (like kilogram) - bah-tor The size problem actually stems from a taxonomic blunder made when Michael Crichton was researching for his novel. One of the sources he used was a Dromeosaurid taxonomy study [I believe by a George S. Paul] from the late 1980s (very recent at the time), which grouped both Deinonychus and Achillobator into the Velociraptor genus as Velociraptor species, more specifically it put 'Achillobator' as a larger morph of the currently recognized Velociraptor species. Thus the 'Velociraptors' in the book are actually Achillobator and are thus the correct size. The mistake wasn't realized and recognized by all of the paleontological community until after the first movie was already in Post-Production, so there was no time to fix the mistake. This same mistake also crossed into Deinonychus being mislabeled as a 'Velociraptor' species. This is why Grant and Sattler are digging up a 'Velociraptor' in Montana during the opening, a place Deinonychus was found, so they are actually digging up a mislabeled Deinonychus. I do love your videos, so I don't want to say this with spite. But almost all of Jurassic Park's errors can be excused by it being a product of the times. We didn't have the definitive proof of feathers in all but a small handful of species at the time. Just the same, CGI was in its infancy and JP was the first film to try and bring flesh and blood creatures to life with it to such an extent. CGI scales are MUCH easier to do than feathers. Heck, it's been 22 years and most people can't do CG feathers right. Yes the feathers might have worked for practical effects, but some shots like a running Tyrannosaurus needed CGI. Yes JP's 'velociraptor' is horrifically inaccurate. But as stated earlier, from the state it wasn't even Velociraptor mongoliensis to begin with. And in some form or another, it did at least bring Dromeosaurids into the public consciousness. Prior to JP, the only theropods the public seemed aware of were Tyrannosaurus and Allosaurus, and they frequently got the two mixed up. PS: Wanna know something really cringe worthy? Carnosaur was a bad horror film (VERY VERY LOOSELY) based off a decent novel of the same name that actually predated Crichton's work. It's dinosaurs (a Rex and Deinonychus) are so badly done it's astounding. But amongst all this, they actually got something right they might not have intended. One of the only plot points from the book (seriously, the movie is otherwise an 'in-name only' adaptation) it retained was the dinosaurs being made with birds instead of frogs. This didn't result result in fully feathered adults in film or book (once again, product of late 80s paleontology), but we actually DO see a feathered dinosaur. Near the beginning when the Deinonychus, still a juvenile, attacks a man, we see a brief glimpse of the young dinosaur. If you freeze frame it, you can see the Deinonychus covered in downy and fully formed feathers. I don't know if they intended this to be accurate or were meaning to show the chicken side, but the fact Carnosaur got this one thing right and JP got it wrong is hilarious to me.
I've never heard anyone try to pronounce Deinonychus "Die-non-nye (like Bill Nye)-cus." The standard pronunciation is "Die-NON-ih (like the 'i' in itch)-cus." Some people do say "Dino-NYE-cus" though. Also, I personally prefer Carnosaur to Jurassic Park (at least for the movies, opposite for the books).
How to pronounce deinonychus: dī-ˈnä-ni-kəs. Or "die-non-ick-us" It's interesting to note that crows and ravens have the mental capacity of a 7 year-old human child. Even though raptors' brains were not evolved so much, makes you wonder how smart they might have been (it only takes 50 IQ points to turn a doorknob). It is disappointing that they didn't add feathers, but you also have to consider the cost, not only in money but in time. There were real puppets made for that movie. Can you imaging how expensive and time consuming it would have been to feather a whole raptor suit? Or even just the head of the rex? I'm not sure they even had the computer power then to be able to render those kinds of textures well.
Well actually they used cgi animatronics and for 1 scene they had raptor legs but they took even more time by doing the scaling by hand so feathers probably would have taken less time
+decoolguys and what do you mean not enough rendering power it already took hours for one frame adding a layer of at least fur that was just a texture would not change much maybe adding another few days to the project
A few days is not something insignificant in movie & TV production, that's easily a few million dollars depending on what you're doing. Also, don't forget, that this was in the '90s and computer rendering power was a lot less powerful than what it is now and not only would it have taken (at least) a few days longer to render, it would taken weeks or months developing the software to create and render realistic feathers and hair. The ability to render things like realistic hair and feathers is a pretty recent development and came well after the ability to render photo-realistic people and environments, hell, realistic looking water is a pretty recent development as well and many lower end productions still can't/don't render realistic water.
TREY the Explainer While I share your indignation that Jurassic Park sports beefed up naked dromaeosaurs, you can't say (as you did at 6:19) that they created something which had been "done before". Prior to Jurassic Park, the general public largely was unaware of how quick, graceful, and avian dinosaurs could be. Jurassic Park did a fairly good job all things considered. Also prior to Jurassic Park, Hollywood was of the opinion that CGI could never create a convincing character. Today the CGI is mediocre at best, but when it was released Jurassic Park's digital animation blew everything that had been done before out of the water. It's okay to criticize, as long as you criticize accurately.
As much as I love your videos, I think it'll be interesting to see that more than likely, in 20 years, someone will probably be making videos about how inaccurate your videos are. That is the great thing about science, it's only expanded upon.
"You could have made a very, very cool and memorable dinosaur, but you didn't." Nah, they did. Scientific accuracy, or lackthereof, aside, the Velociraptor's of Jurassic Park have always been cool and memorable.
@@Tareltonlives in the fuking 1993 those beasts look more for a documentary than a film at the time. Don't disrespect the work of all people behind the original Jurassic Park...
They were cool but at the same time, they were just big ass lizards. Quite dull, really. However I did love them when I was young. I was into dinosaurs heavily in heneral because of JP. Had the fast food tkys and all of that good shit.
I was wondering when you were gonna get to dilophosaurus. one of the really neat things there is that the movie has a bit of a cop out for it. mosquitoes hadn't evolved when dilophosaurus was alive, meaning that there was probably very little viable dna for the geneticists to work with.
Its kinda iconic since Dr. Wu is told to make them more monster like in the series and even says it himself. Plus in Jurassic Park Dangerous Game the Raptors actually are covered in feathers.
Um, dude, Jurassic Park was made in 1993, we didn't know they had feathers back then!! Cut the filmmakers some slack!! Also, the reason the animal in the movie was called Velociraptor was because, when Michael Crichton was writing the book, he was mistaken after reading a book where Dinonychus was called Velociraptor. It sounds to me like you don't know that the movie was based on a book.
i honestly hate this kind of argument about dinosaurs be inarccurate in jp, they are meant to be, its because the truth is that people like a bloodthirsty killer animal better than a animal that acts as a animal, its just a way that big movie studios milk money.
***** And, for the obvious film flaws (just look up Everything Wrong With Jurassic Park for what else they should fix). Of course, for the film reboots, they should wait at least 10-15 years (more accuracy, and any reboot done earlier seems too early... but, that's just me).
I still agree with most all of your points( the size thing really bugged me, I was something of a dino nut at the time), but it does need to be remembered that the feathered dinos theory wasn't very widely accepted at the time that the movie was filmed. Heck there were still some fairly prominent paleontologists at the time who thought that they where pushing it by declaring the dinos warm blooded and that birds evolved from dinosaurs, both accepted theories today. Also, there was some reference in the book about multiple versions of the dinos, particularly the raptors. They would make new versions until they got one that they liked, or better fit expectations. Now factoring in that at the time they probably felt that feathered dinos might not have been accepted, they might have made multiple versions, eliminating the feathers as they went. That would explain why there seem to be at least two versions of the raptors( final two versions?), and why the completely featherless one was chosen for display at the park. Just a theory, but one that could be used to retroactively explain some of the snafus.
You can't go based on one fossil discovery and say Velociraptors ONLY went for the throats or that they never disemboweled. I'm pretty sure not every dinosaur had tough skin. And I'm also pretty sure that power and technique also determine how something manages to kill something. Look no further than the southern cassowary. These are about as close to a living dinosaur as you can get. They stand as tall as a man and can jump nearly six feet into the air and kick simultaneously. They have two sickle like claws on their feet which they use for disemboweling. They're the most dangerous bird on this planet.
Again, when Jurassic Park was in production, the discovery of feathers on the Dromaeosaur family had yet to be confirmed. None of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park, bar the sick Triceratops, could be described as 'ordinary' and 'done before'. Jurassic Park was the first time dinosaurs were ever brought to life on film in anything even approaching a lifelike manner. Not having feathers wasn't a 'choice', it was even considered, because most of the scientific community at the time wasn't considering it. The big sticking points on dinosaurs in the 80s were cold vs warm blooded, and were they related to birds at all, and Jurassic Park very much supported the 'wild and crazy newfangled crackpot theories' that was warm blooded dinosaurs with bird ancestors. They didn't have magic time goggles that let them see all the dinosaur feather discoveries of the mid to late 90s. The raptors claws couldn't penetrate the tough skin... so it targets the soft undersides like the throat... or belly? I seriously don't imagine that a pack of five raptors bringing down a prey animal wouldn't be kicking and clawing at the entire undercarriage, not just the throat. Honestly, you may as well criticise the Crystal Palace Iguanodon for not being 21st century accurate in 1854.
Parker Hetzel I realize there are people with accents and people from different regions, even those with impediments. The issue here is that the video is trying to make claims to the accuracy of Jurrasic Park itself. At least movie can pronounce the dinosaurs correctly even if they are giving it the wrong name. By the way "Deinonychus" is pronounced Day-non-a-cus
Parker Hetzel But there is one pronunciation. Accents and dialects still mean nothing. The pronunciation is always the same. Even with a speech impediment you should at least try to come close. Plus, this guy has an American accent. He could pronounce it in the American way... the way that it is correctly said in America... but he does not...
"Were they intelligent? Well, for a dinosaur, it is thought they were somewhat intelligent due to their brain size relative to body size. But it turns out, that’s basically just saying they were slightly more intelligent than a board with a nail in it. For reference, the dinosaur that is thought to have been the smartest of all dinosaurs was the Troodon; it is thought to have been around as smart as a primitive opossum. So there goes the whole Philosraptor thing out the window. The deepest thoughts a Velociraptor ever thought were probably on the level of the Seagulls in Finding Nemo. “Mine?” Hardly the “smarter than dolphins, whales, and some primates” that Dr. Alan Grant in Jurassic Park III suggests." Unless your name is Daven Hiskey of TodayIFoundOutDotCom, that was plagiarism.
Johns Projects Except: sauropsids have much more efficient brains than mammals for their size (more neurons per cubic centimetre) and a size comparison doesn't work, so that study is already outdated. Current thinking has Velociraptor intelligence in the same league as crocodiles and consider crocs have been known to learn tool use....
Johns Projects As it turns out, when the brain-to-body ratio was investigated in regards to modern day animals, it turns out that it doesn't have any proven connection to the intelligence capacity of the animal. Shrews, for instance, have the same brain-to-body ratio as humans, and birds like sparrows have an even smaller one, so I don't fully buy that Troodon was necessarily the smartest dinosaur, or that Stegosaurus was the stupidest one.
Thank you. It's nice to see new archaeological evidence being used in comparison. I wonder if kids born after the original JP series, having grown up with the updated dino information, would wonder what they're seeing on screen.
I appreciate the facts and all but... you are disappointed that a movie made in 1993 did not make the velociraptors to be as interesting as they could have? A interesting and unique monster handed down in a silver platter? Did they even know dinosaurs could have feathers at that time? I don't think it's fair comparing a 22 year old movie to mostly recent discoveries.
"i'm not angry, i'm something worse, disappointed" remo dont me of my parents also even though the dinos are not realistic in any way they still look cool as shit
Fun Dinofact: Tyrannosaurus rex is often depicted as an unintelligent brute but in reality it was rather intelligent for a dinosaur its size! Out smarting other large carnivores like Allosaurus, and Giganotosaurus who had more crocodilian like brains compared to T.rex more advanced avian shaped brain. NOTE: I AM NOT SAYING TYRANNOSAURS IS THE SMARTEST DINOSAUR EVER!
I agree. Tyrannosaurus' brain case is much larger than ours (I think on basal proportions, not compared to body mass), but for its size, it's just typical for avian animals. Just saying "avian brain" tells what you're trying to say. All birds have proportionally larger brains than humans, but, as we know from brain studies using CAT scanning, humans have much larger cerebrum than birds, that's reason why we are more "intelligent". Actually, birds use same method of communicating as we do - verbal comunication. Recent studies done by Dr. Witmer says that Paravian dinosaurs (including Velociraptor and Troodon mentioned in a video) and Tyrannosauroids also communicated same way.
I have a question, its true that Dinosaurs in jurassic park are inaccurate, but where all the new scientific evidence that assures they were covered in feathers at the time? between other discoveries? because i do remember they tried to add feathers to the raptors on jurassic part 3 because this feather theory was being confirmed more and more. so is it probable that the main inaccuracy of the movie was because of the lack of confirmed info other than just speculations at the time?
My issue with Jurassic World in particular, is that the filmmakers missed a golden opportunity to yet again change the public's perception of dinosaurs with our updated scientific knowledge. Just as the original JP was fundamental in changing the people's image of dinosaurs from dumb, lumbering beasts that dragged their tails around, Jurassic World could have shown the public that in reality, most theropods were actually very much bird-like.
Gumaro R. Villamil I'm pretty sure that by that time marketing became much more important than scientific accuracy : it was more importent to the production company to continue using the same kind of dinosaurs so they would be instantly recognizable as being from a Jurassic Park movie than to update their appearance in accordance to recent discoveries
The dinosaurs in Jurassic World weren't even real dinosaurs. The lead scientist even said that himself. He also said that the people in the genetic labs were told to make the dinosaurs that way. Even if they hadn't, don't expect feathers on some T-Rex that had to have its holes in DNA filled with frog DNA. (The first movie stated that they filled the holes in the DNA with frog DNA)
I just imagined a pact of scientifically accurate velociraptors (short, feathery bird-like creatures) hunt the children while shouting, "Mine!" . . . THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MUCH BETTER MOVIE!
Yeah, aswell as when you've made one movie, you can't just make main / side characters shrink to 1 / 6th the size they were. As soon as they made the first movie, they were locked in on what their dinosaurs looked like, to a large extent
One idea is that Velociraptor was nocturnal, so they might have been speckled grey or brown like an owl. I like to think they were black with maybe white or red highlights for display. Well, Smart is relative :). Crocs and emus can be surprisingly clever, so I would assume the same capabilities with dinosaurs.
Oh, and the name comes from Greg Paul putting ALL dromeosaurs into the genus Velociraptor. Seriously. Those are supposed to be Deinonychus...called Velociraptor. To be fair Utahraptor was discovered DURING the film's production (Bob Bakker even said to Jim Kirkland "You've found Spielberg's raptor!") and Achillobator wasn't yet fully described but it's still really sloppy.
SubjectRedstone No, the fighting dinosaurs fossil did not take place right before the extinction. Velociraptor died out long before the K-T Mass Extinction, around 75 Million BC. The K-T Mass Extinction Occurred around 65-64 Million BC
If you have a small raptor and triceratops getting hit in a mud pile while fossilized, that already kills them but also keeps them in the position like alien said
Actually, the reason Raptors were portrayed as such is that the writer of the novel, Michael Crichton, was misinformed on Velociraptors. When they made the movie, they knew of the inaccuracies, but wanted to stay true to the novel. : )
+Ladondorf C.A. - Stop Motion Films At the time, Deinonychus antirropus (may be spelling that wrong) was thought to be a larger species of Velociraptor.
+Ladondorf C.A. - Stop Motion Films Actually, Crighton didn't have any excuse. He used Robert Bakker and Gregory S. Paul as sources, and both of these authors depicted their Velociraptors sporting feathers (though without wings). This was before they even found the feather impressions proving their existence.
Wasn't the reason they did not include feathers in the original raptors because of that discovery not being made in science when the movie was in development? I mean they did get Jack Horner to consult on the film and he was a pretty heavy hitter in paleontology. Being that his scientific rep was kind of on the line I don't think he would have given he producers and special effects people false info to make the dinos seem cooler. Now the size, the intelligence, and the true use of that nasty claw could definitely have been embellishment on the part of the film crew. In JP3 I believe I read that the quills on the head of the new raptors was sort of an acknowledgment of this scientific misstep but at that point the raptors had already been depicted and they knew what their audience wanted so they couldn't change them that radically. You can't blame them for something they didn't know.
1) It's a movie. 2) It's based on a novel, including some of the descriptions and size of the dinosaurs. 3) Some of the inaccuracies are the result of when the movie came out. Many of the facts you are highlighting simply did not exist in 1993. 4) I'm pretty sure it's pronounced 'DayNONicus'...And that would be the closest dinosaur physiologically to what we saw in the movie; A slightly oversized Deinonychus, without feathers (which is fair enough given we didn't know for sure they had feathers when the movie was being produced) 5) You say Velociraptor was one of the most bird-like dinosaurs, and thus would most likely appear and act nothing like a reptile. This is a pretty major contradiction seeing as one is directly descended from the other and so they would most likely share many characteristics either way. It can hardly be called an "innacuracy" when we really have no idea how any dinosaur acted or whether or not they were in any way like modern day birds. Heck, look at a Cassowary - does that move, sound or attack like any other bird you've seen (besides an emu)??
lumpy I keep on forgetting about number 3. As for number 2, I need to rent that book from the library. I will always agree with number 1 (I will always love Jurassic Park, no matter how scientifically inaccurate it gets).
Actually teamwork requires a huge amount of intelligence. If Velociraptors acted like wolfs they need to be roughly as intelligent. The brains of social animals are far larger than solitary ones because social interactions is a very complex thing. For prey animals they usually don't have to work together, they just blindly follow their leader. However wolfs need to do teamwork; that means that they need to obey commands yet at the same time they still need think independently within those instructions. During a hunt the leader can't keep giving commands or keep track of what a herd of caribue is doing. The wolfs in the pack need to see the weak one in the herd, identify and signal that. After approval they need to keep it from escaping and isolate it, they have to do that all on their own intelligence. That's a big thing to keep in mind. A herd doesn't require intelligence so can be fully of relatively low intelligent animals but a mobile group of predators that use tactics need to be intelligent.
You talk about using other sound effects.. couldn't come up with their own stuff? I don't think anything in your videos is your own original anything. Plus, you totally butchered their names... I mean just take your time and sound it out man. They're not that hard. So, can you explain why you cant pronounce things right? You're sitting at a computer... with internet.. making a pre-recorded video. If you don't know how to pronounce something look it up! I don't hate yer videos... Im just dissapointed.
When the origanal movie hit theaters was when paleontologist where discovering dinosaurs had feathers.They didn't change it afterwards because they wanted the dinosaurs to stay the same throughout the series. Also,Deinonychus is Die-non-uh-cus
I really don't get how people get mad at Jurassic Park for its inaccuracy. It's just a movie, and probably one of the best movie ever made. It did something very unique for the time and depicted dinosaurs very well. Making them agile and intelligent. I think Trey and the other people crapping on Jurassic Park are a little nitpicky and think everything should be 100% accurate, even when it makes the thing in question less cool, or more forgettable in comparison.
At the time of Jurassic Park, no velociraptors were found with feathers, and the velociraptors in the movie were originally going to be deinonychus, and by the time of jurassic world they couldn't just change the lore.
I really like this series, but I would like to point out that one of the reasons I think dinosaurs didn't have any sort of feathers in Jurassic Park is because it wasn't a theory that was as accepted as it is now, I also think the chi would have looked as good if the dinosaurs had feathers as back then feather simulations weren't very good.
I like how Jurassic Park: The Game basically tried to explain the inaccuracies in the movie and did the exact same thing you were doing in these videos
If smart velociraptors dissapoint you, then never read the original book where velociraptors have some trace of civilization and practice some sort of sun cultism.
+Ghost of Monolophosaurus that depends on your definition of intelligence: they are less clever but they have a sort of culture, which is something a highly advanced int trait.
little timmy would kick a scientifically accurate velociroptor out of the kitchen "get outta here ya cheap turkey if you dont wanna end up in a bucket of kfc!!"
3:16 Look, Guys! It's Diego! Altough his colorings are a bit off, but it might just be he's wearing a different clothing, than his usual Jockey outfit.
I'm actually not against many trademarks, I love IP laws for the most part, but I hate it when people trademark just regular words, or extremely common phrases that are used thousands of time per day. I would wager that "scientifically accurate" would not hold up in court without more info, but it would be extremely difficult and expensive to take on a massive media conglomerates in court even knowing you're 100% in the right.
They most likely didn't include feathers on the dinosaurs because, well they couldn't have. Jurrasic Park was the first movie really to include extensive computer graphics. These graphics were incredibly difficult to create, whether it was examining and creating a walk-cycle for the t-rex, or creating the minute and small details of the skin of each dinosaur! If you factor in the complexities of computer graphic feathers, then the whole project could've been undermined. Think of it this way, when a bird moves, It's feathers move and shake and subtle and different ways, that emulate certain forces in physics. A feather can shake in many subtle ways that are almost impossible for a human animator to capture, in a specific time limit. Sure take the subtle movements out, but that makes the audience feel disconnected, because well, the feathers don't look real, and the dinosaurs the animators are trying to create don't look real. I didn't even mention how crazy lighting can be with feathers, fur, and leaves. Nowadays we have very good programs to deal with these problems, but in 1990, when they started working on this thing, well they would have had to rule out feathers completely, because of impossibility at the time. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the scientifically proven feathers theory was only proven correct in the last decade? In 1993 it was probably only a theory, with very inconclusive evidence. On another topic, the CG that they had (what little they did was limited). They basically paved the way for CG in films. It's quite amazing the graphics were as good and life-like as they were, given the fact this movie was made 22 years ago! You have to remember that this movie made more than two decades ago, when there technology was limited. Regardless, I don't think anyone in 1993, was walking out of that theater saying "oh the raptors should have been more interesting". My bottom line, I don't hold anything against Jurrasic Park for these inaccuracies. It would have been nearly impossible for them to animate and create props that looked good, with feathers. I also feel like most people wouldn't be able to grasp "feathered dinos" in a film! Thank you for excellent analysis of Jurrasic Park. I have truly learned something new, but I just felt like I should point out the more technical side of things!
@FillmFilms You misunderstood theory here. You confused it with hypothesis. When evidence supports something beyond reasonable doubt but without certainty, that’s a theory in science. A hypotheses is just an idea of a possibility.
+oscarnjboy most TV series and movies just reuse sound effects from a sound library. Some of our most classic noses have been used for pretty much for at least half a century. Its like when people draw a sword in a movie, there is that metal-on-metal noise of the sword being pulled out of its holder (whatever its called). Reality; if the sword scraped along a metal scabbard every time it was taken out of it, eventually it would go blunt. A lot of the time, the scabbards were made of leather or whatever to protect the sword. The only reason they even bother with sound effects in the first place is because certain sounds impact the viewer. S that same noise that scene Trey pulled up is a sound effect that will have been used so often, we'd acknowledge it at the back of our brain upon hearing it. The expectation therefore of the brain would register this is a prey versus predator scene without thing, because the prey has a "familiar sound effect". Goes back to why they always thrown that metal sound at a sword being drawn. Thats the theory anyway... I've long forgotten where I got this from though, so you' have to look this one up yourself. I'm not an encyclopedia. But it does go to show you, that simple reused sound effect has some justification as to why sound libraries get used for cheap productions. ^_^'
One thing I don't like about the JP raptors is that since the image of them is so engraved in our minds that they're the first things that come up when you search up "Velociraptor" on Google images, you have to search up something like "real velociraptor" to get an actual one
Are you actually kidding with this video? 1. For that time no one knew Velociraptors had feathers. 2. The Raptors in JP aren't even normal Raptors, they're named Velociraptor nublarensis/sornaensis.
8 years ago, Trey woke up and chose violence. Out of disappointment. A lot of misconceptions may be based on the visual design of the Jurassic Park Dinosaurs, but I have yet to hear anyone cite Jurassic Park as evidence that birds are not Dinosaurs... they usually cite much worse references.
Oh, my gosh! At the beginning when it said, "Some things are better left unknown," it started thundering right outside and it was really loud and I was like, "WHHAAA!!??!?"
You're being too hard on the first JP movies. They didn't know about feathers when the first JP was made. If you were around in the 80s you would realize Jurassic Park was a massive leap towards a more realistic portrayal of dinosaurs. It was the first time the public saw dinosaurs portrayed as (1) animals, not firebreathing monsters, (2) in horizontal posture, (3) active and warm blooded, (4) bird-like, (5) fast, (6) intelligent. That book and movie is what got me into science, and to find out that the movie got a lot of things wrong didn't diminish the experience, it was just a thrill because that meant there was even more to the subject. I agree that we have learned so much since then that the JP dinosaurs now seem like silly monsters, like those sculptures in Crystal Park. But my problem is with JW. The franchise has become entirely derivative of itself. It's not about giving us dinosaurs anymore, it's about delivering a sequel to a monster movie. It's all about the familiar experience when JP was all about the *real* (at least how Spielberg understood it in 1993 and how he thought he could deliver it). And that's a shame. That means the new generation of kids will be like we were in the 80s, with such an inaccurate picture in their heads that the scientific reality is going to be off-putting to a lot of them when it should be exciting. Dinosaurs are the ambassadors of science. It's where so many great scientists started to get excited about the natural world. JW could have really pushed that, instead we get a Godzilla movie. Such a shame.
THANK YOU, finally someone who corrects people. I love the feathered t-rex. You know what i really want to see, a feathered Carnotaurus. It doesnt get that much love but still it is awesome.
i love how he says things like "boring and extremely basic design" and "very ordinary and done before" when? when have you ever seen Jurassic park style raptors before? they are fucking ICONIC now. some of the coolest movie monsters in history, recognizable all over the world. they are terrifying but at the same time super cool and a clear fan favorite. this isn't just my opinion. it is clearly evident throughout pop culture. you think little 3 foot tall running birds would have been better? scientific accuracy nuts piss me off when they take this high and mighty stance. if you want to put out a video that shows the differences and educates, that is fine. no problem with that. but don't sit there and make it sound like the creators of Jurassic park somehow failed, just because they didn't make a boring as fuck movie targeted at boring as fuck people
It is done before. It's based on old stereotypes of dinosaurs being huge lizards. Jurassic park is a really cool movie but it's so good it influences so many to believe this old interpretation of these magnificent beasts at a time were we are just now learning the truth behind dinosaurs. And if you can't except the raptors explained by trey then don't porpously talk about people who are trying to correct a series that gets wrong based on the one thing it's about:dinosaurs and palaeontology!!
+Ty Guy I agree with you so much. Jurassic Park would've been another idiotic National Graphic Dinosaur documentary if the Velociraptors were the size of a stupid chicken. The main reason Jurassic Park was made was to entertain people, not bore them to death with a stupid documentary like Trey would love the films to be. Why? Because he's a stupid nerd who thinks that everything has to be scientifically correct or else it's bad. Trey is so annoying. IT'S JUST A MOVIE.
+JacobCraftYT Productions You don't have to be that mean. Trey is only giving his opinion. Is not bad, he's just a guy, who likes scientfic reconstructions over movie monsters. Though, I will say, I agree that the real accurate animal would have been useless for the role the raptors had in all the JP movies. I love both accurate and the JP raptor when done right on their own terms.
So basically...movies are a great way to get people interested in a subject but shouldn't be used to gain an accurate understanding of things because they are patently fiction and most good movie makers don't want to let facts get in the way of a good story. Movies are a vehicle for conveying a compelling story and if the director wanted to make a documentary they would. Got it. I feel like this series was really nit-picky, but the information looks pretty solid and it was fun to listen to.
The TellTale Jurassic Park game had the benefit of acknowledging a lot of these scientific shortcomings. In the game, you meet another geneticist who wasn't a big fan of Wu and using an incomplete genome. In her journal, she addresses most of the inaccuracies, usually with the brushoff "possibly a result of the toad DNA". It's doesn't perfectly satisfy everything, but at least it gives a nod to the liberties taken. Highly recommend the game. Also explains what happens to the Barbasol can and what Nedry's "magic word" is.
