Film Theory: The Dinosaurs In Jurassic World Are NOT Dinosaurs! (Jurassic Park)

Matpat said that people won’t enjoy being at the park at night to see nocturnal dinosaurs, but I think that would be a really cool thing to do. Theorassic Park Night Dino Tour

I love the terrarium idea. It is also amusing to imagine that if a dinosaur escaped their enclosure and was put back in, their experience would’ve so miserable outside their enclosure that they wouldn’t want to escape.

If dinosaurs were feathered, then they were fundamentally insulated from the cold. A recent study by Olsen et al., titled "Arctic ice and the ecological rise of the dinosaurs" discusses physical evidence of seasonal freezing in high latitudes where dinosaurs lived, which is also supported by climate models of that era. Also, dinosaurs survived a bunch of volcanic winters.

If I’m remembering correctly, in the novel there is a moment where someone comments on this type of thing. “These are not dinosaurs, simply the closest thing.” It’s either the novel or another place I read it, but it has truth to it. There is no way to truly recreate their patterns or lifestyle without other features.

There's one crucial detail that should be mentioned regarding the feasibility of resurrecting dinosaurs, and that is the overwhelming gap of pathogenic microbe variation that evolved since the time of the dinos until today. Basically, the Dinosaur's outdated immune systems would be so overwhelmed with unfamiliar variants of diseases, that they might be unable to survive till adulthood at all.

3:00 "Safest zoo ever" Well yes and no. The jurassic park as portrayed would have been a perfectly safe zoo if it only weren't for a combination of criminal negligence and felony corporate espionage. Even with less dangerous animals the above factors would still make the park dangerous.

Mat: talks about altitude sickness Me, an Ecuadorian living at 2800 mtrs above sea level: stares in confusion

I really think the films just didn't want to add feathers because of the "costs" to animate every feather to move with the creatures without looking weird of glitchy. Its why Pixar didn't animate hair on their characters until those like Sulley arrived in Monsters Inc, plus the amount of time to do so in a timeframe back then would've delayed the film from releasing the year it did, which even nowadays is why things get rushed out.

I'm so glad you brought up the book "All Yesterdays" - it's an incredibly interesting look into Paleo-art. Fun Fact: They then made another one, "All Your Yesterdays" - which used fan-submitted artworks which speculated on random features on extinct creatures, and some even turned out to be completely true!

The T. Rex chasing Grant's group away doesn't automatically means it wants to eat them. It could easily be that it just wants to chase them away, like large predators do when scavengers are close to the food item.

Just a quick correction here. A Tyrannosaurus Rex didn't have feathers for their entire lifespan, while a juvenile Rex might have had a thin coat of feathers to maintain heat, a fully grown Rex wouldn't have had feathers. Also, the park could have definitely used some Utah raptors.

It annoys me when when you see toy dinosaurs advertised as "Jurassic Dinos"when in the box has T-rex,Triceratops and Pteranodon(not a dinosaur).

"i doubt any guest would wanna be out at 2am seeing raptor chickens" matpat you have underestimated the curiosity and patience of tourists especially for dinosaurs

The book already explains that these aren't dinosaurs, unlike the movies that just give little hints until Jurassic World when Wu says "and if they were pure, they would look much different." The book also does a better job explaining how incompetent the scientists at Jurassic Park are. They focus so much on trying to clone these dinosaurs that they mislabeled some. The dinosaurs we've come to accept as velociraptors are actually a species called deinonychus, and Michael Creighton thought velociraptor sounded cooler so he wrote that explanation in the book.

I think the current evidence actually supports a featherless Tyrannosaurus Rex at least as adults, but they probably had a little fuzz. They have heavily feathered close relatives.

6:47 Matpat: The Velociraptor Editor: best I can do is Chompsognathus

Theoretically if the workers at Jurassic Park can alter genes and make clones. then they could probably figure out a way to alter a dinosaurs oxygen consumption and modify their body temperature to survive the current climate conditions better. But doing those type of changes would probably result in the dinosaurs looking a lot different then they're supposed to. [Edit: fixed a couple spelling mistakes]

As a paleo nerd and big Jurassic Park fan, a handful of corrections: Archaeopteryx was known waaaay before the 2016, more like 1861. We've also known about it having feathers for that long. At 6:50, that's a Compsognathus (which is not from the Cretaceous), not a Velociraptor, and that's a Brachiosaurus, not Brontosaurus (again, both from the Jurassic period, not Cretaceous). Also, brushing all of JP's issues as lack of feathers and shrinkwrapping is a little off. Jurassic Park actually went a great length to portray dinosaurs that were much more realistic for the time being and speculated where there were blank spaces in our knowledge. For the time being, Jurassic Park's dinosaurs were very much accurate to the modern science of 1993.

Hang on Matt, the Berlin Specimen (the famous Archaeopteryx fossil) was found in 1874. It can be argued that it was found a bit earlier because the timeframe is vague, but it was around 1860 to 1880. A remarkable little fact about it is that it was found by a farmer who traded it to buy a cow. Cool stuff. flys away

The first Jurassic Park is my favorite movie ever, and I’m not even obsessed with dinosaurs lol