• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Jurassic Park may not have been accurate D:

Fay V

Fay V

Lost to this world
Haha I kid, it wasn't. We all know that they took some liberties with the dinosaurs to make them scary. The velaciraptors were the size of Utah raptors, the T-Rex was too big, seriously. I have seen the largest T-rex skull ever found and the JP average ones are like 50% bigger.
Whatever I can just pretend that's the gene splicing with frogs and still enjoy it.

I just realized something know. One of the things stressed in that movie (and the literature about dinosaurs that popped up all around that movie) is that the T-Rex had vision that was based on movement, so if you stand perfectly still. How the hell do we know that?

I know how we know about the skin type, the feathers, the fact they were probably warm blooded...but I can't figure this one out.

So tell me FaF was it all made up? Also, talk about dinosaurs because they are fucking awesome.
 
dinosaurdammit

dinosaurdammit

White Devil
MY PEOPLE HAVE COME! Fuck I love dinosaurs and I know alot about them. First off the dilophosaurus in the movie had a frill when science has shown there are no connecting muscles to hold a frill also it was way smaller than it should have been. T-rex most likely was a scavenger for the following reasons:

Huge olfactory area of the brain
Small arms which would mean death or srs injury should he fall running
Was not the most agile

Odds are he could hunt well but probably scavenged- opportunistic.
The stegosaurus in the 2nd movie was WAY too big.
Raptors actually had feathers.
Triceratops is actually a baby form of torosaurus so they think now.
 
Onnes

Onnes

Member
As I recall, the book says that frog DNA was used to fill in genetic gaps in the Jurassic Park dinosaurs. Mind you, this comes from my memory of the original paperback however many years ago and a cursory google. How you conclude that some scraps of frog DNA imply movement based vision is an entirely different issue.
 
Last edited:
Volkodav

Volkodav

Dad****er
Any of you nerds like computer games?
Look for Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis. Shit is fun as hell.. I liked throwing gallimimus in with T-Rex and watching him chase them around. The game really likes throwing hurricanes at you though :\ which I'm sure there's a cheat or a code to get rid of em. [actualy.. there is]

anyways here
20qdnhw.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/dinosaurs/images/1/1c/JPOG.jpg

You have to send workers to mine for fossils in certani areas and once you have enough of a certain species, you unlock it and can have it in your park!!

Ignore the shitty generic Youtube music, but here's the dinosaurs you can get
[yt]68RgyLTOViA[/yt]
 
Last edited:
Fay V

Fay V

Lost to this world
dinosaurdammit said:
MY PEOPLE HAVE COME! Fuck I love dinosaurs and I know alot about them. First off the dilophosaurus in the movie had a frill when science has shown there are no connecting muscles to hold a frill also it was way smaller than it should have been. T-rex most likely was a scavenger for the following reasons:

Huge olfactory area of the brain
Small arms which would mean death or srs injury should he fall running
Was not the most agile

Odds are he could hunt well but probably scavenged- opportunistic.
The stegosaurus in the 2nd movie was WAY too big.
Raptors actually had feathers.
Triceratops is actually a baby form of torosaurus so they think now.
Click to expand...

yeah I talked to Jack Horner about his theory on T-rex as a scavenger, it's really convincing.
I give the movie a pass on the feathers and the triceratops becayse the torosaurus thing was really recent to the scene and still hasn't fully come out of the academic circles. As for feathers I believe it was first being discovered at the time (or would be somewhat shortly) and the knowledge wasn't too spread. So inaccurate, but for valid reason.

I am disappointed at the lack of media portrayal of the Archeopteryx.
 
Fay V

Fay V

Lost to this world
dinosaurdammit said:
Ever owned a parrot? They are like little raptors in cute fluffy bodies.
Click to expand...
Parakeets, cockatiel. I want a macaw but need to wait until I'm better off in a pet allowing apartment.
the cockatiel was adorable and the sweetest bird ever, but parakeets were little demons (and like rock and roll music). I said they can't be more evil than parrots knowing full well parrots can be bastards, just...bastards one can deal with.
 
Lobar

Lobar

The hell am I reading, here?
Just creative license. Dilophosaurus didn't spit venom either.
 
dinosaurdammit

dinosaurdammit

White Devil
Lobar said:
Just creative license. Dilophosaurus didn't spit venom either.
Click to expand...

But it's spit may have been toxic like komodo dragons, they actually say trex had similar bacteria in its mouth like a KD and that it never had to run that fast, just bite its prey and wait for it to die. This and its sense of smell make this assumption very believable.
 
Volkodav

Volkodav

Dad****er
dinosaurdammit said:
But it's spit may have been toxic like komodo dragons, they actually say trex had similar bacteria in its mouth like a KD and that it never had to run that fast, just bite its prey and wait for it to die. This and its sense of smell make this assumption very believable.
Click to expand...

I definitely buy this. T-Rex teeth are similar to that of a Komodo Dragon. Their bites on the victim get infected and shit

http://www.arizonaskiesmeteorites.c...x_fossils_Tyrannosaurus_rex/T_rex_Tooth_5.jpg
That back edge has bacteria from bits of rotting meat stuck in the grooves
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top