Skip navigation
4835 Views 5 Replies Last post: Jan 7, 2013 8:09 PM by Iguanodon RSS
Currently Being Moderated

Jan 14, 2011 1:20 PM

Jurrasic Park problems

Hi.i love the jurrasic park films (except no.3) but it is full of inaccurasies. i have one:

  • The velocirapters in the film are to big and so are a different spiecies

But i need more PLEASE HELP

  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 13, 2011 6:04 PM (in response to Simeon)
    Re: Jurrasic Park problems
    Yes, Jurassic Park is full of inaccuracies/creative license. The size of the dinosaurs they call Velociraptors is one of these inaccuracies.
    • Report Abuse
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2011 5:47 PM (in response to Simeon)
    Re: Jurrasic Park problems

    Well, if you can trust Wikipedia, here's a listing of some of the problems with their representation of Dinosaurs in the three films:


    • Report Abuse
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 6, 2013 10:33 PM (in response to Simeon)
    Re: Jurrasic Park problems

    The "Velociraptors" were based on Deinonychus, but they used the name Velociraptor. Another inaccuracy is that these "raptors" did not have feathers, although some of the raptors in JP3 had feather-like quills.


    They also wouldn't have been able to open doors the way they did.


    Their tails wouldn't have been quite so flexible, as in real life they were straightened with bony struts.


    Then there's the Compsognathus, which would have been mpre slender and would have hunted small vertebrates rather than working together to bring down large prey.


    Whilst being bigger than T. rex, the Spinosaurus would not have been so stocky and monstrous, and would have lived almost entirely on fish.


    As for the T. rex, even it may have had feathers of some sort. It also wasn't as quick as portrayed in the film. There is even doubt over whether it was a hunter or scavenger.


    In real life, pterosaurs were unable to carry objects with their feet.


    And then there's the Dilophosaurus, which features the most infamous errors. Not only was it bigger in real life, it wouldn't have had the lizard-like frill or the ability to spit venom.



    Hope this helps!

    • Report Abuse
      • Currently Being Moderated
        Jan 7, 2013 8:09 PM (in response to Simeon)
        Re: Jurrasic Park problems

        That's an interesting question. Let's see. . .


        Well in a literal sense, no, because they lived around 50 million years apart, and Spinosaurus was from Africa whereas T. rex  lived in North America. And if they had lived together, they probably wouldn't have fought, as they both occupied diiferent ecological niches, which reduces competition between species. The only time they would have fought would have been when food was very scarce and they needed to compete over it.


        But if they had fought, well let's see. . .


        Spinosaurus is the biggest of the two and had longer arms and huge claws. However, these are adaptations for a fish-eating dinosaur, as was the crocodile-like head, which had evolved to hold struggling prey like the fish it caught. It probably knew nothing about bringing down large terrestrial animals, so would be inexperienced in a fight with one. As it was best suited to a life of catching fish, with (as far as we know) no competitors, a Spinosaurus would not have fared well in a fight with a big terrestrial predator.


        But let's look at T. rex. It's most useful feature would have been that massive head, with teeth adapted for crushing and one of the biggest bite forces in the animal kingdom. One bite would be enough to inflict devastating wounds or even kill. There is also evidence that T. rex may have hunted as a family, but I assume you want a fight between one individual of each species, so I won't go into that. It could also run quite quickly (to give you some idea of how fast an adult individual coud run, it would have been faster than Mo Farah, but not as fast as Usian Bolt) with its powerful legs, but it was not among the fastest dinosaurs in its ecosystem. And then there are those tiny arms. These would have served no purpose in a fight. In fact some scientists see this as evidence that T. rex did not lead a predatory lifestyle, but scavenged from carcasses instead (Why have big arms if you don't need them?). However, there is evidence from fossils that T. rex individuals often brought down large prey and also competed with each other, so an individual would be experienced in a fight.


        I personally have no idea which animal would win in a fight, as they were both able predators. Which would you put your money on?  

        • Report Abuse

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked by (0)