The Good, The Bad, and The Just Plain Ugly
Let’s start with the beginning of the film: the creation of the prehistoric dinosaurs from their DNA left behind. The film claims that mosquitoes that freshly fed on dinosaurs flew to a nearby tree, were covered in sap, and preserved for millions of years in a fossil. Doctor Holtz points out mosquitoes quickly digest the blood they eat through enzymes in their stomach (which denature the protein, a major component of the macromolecule DNA), and therefore the DNA they find in the mosquito could not have been used in the project. Regardless the film goes on to explain that the “researchers” used frog DNA to fill in the gaps in the genetic code of the dinosaurs. Because frogs are close relatives to birds and reptiles, right? Well maybe in the sense that some reptiles live in water, and so do frogs. Our in-house specialist had other things to say about the relationship between frogs and dinosaurs: we humans are genetically closer to dinosaurs than frogs! For that matter the researchers could have even used species such as a bird to fill in the DNA gaps. But I suppose we’ll let that slide because it helps in the plot of the film when the female dinosaurs produce offspring through parthenogenesis. As Doctor Malcolm states, “Nature finds a way”.
Let’s move on to the awful reinterpretation of the dinosaurs chosen for the film. The first dinosaur the two archeologists encounter is the Brachiosaurus, a very large dinosaur that is fairly well represented in the film. However, the back legs of the Brachiosaurus could not have possibly allowed for it to rear up. This was a thrilling scene in the movie, but highly unlikely in nature because of the Brachiosaurus’ anatomy. Another aspect of the Brachiosaurus, which has just recently been corrected, was the position of the nostrils. In the movie the dinosaur had its nostrils in the center of its face, but research done after the film was produced shows that the nostrils might have actually been further down the face above the mouth. A minor correction when it comes to our next discussion.
The Dilophosaurus was a small creature depicted in the movie as having the ability to extend fins much like a cobra’s hood while producing a sound similar to a rattlesnake tail. It also spit an acidic tar and attacked an organism about 3 times its size. This interpretation is grossly inaccurate. First of all, the Dilophosaurus did not have fins about its head nor did it spit a poisonous tar substance. Also, it was much larger than it appeared in the film and couldn’t sit comfortably on the passenger seat. This fictionalized version doesn’t even make sense if it was possible: the extension of fins to make itself seem larger and the emission of a warning rattle are both defensive mechanisms, which threaten the predator and ultimately lead to the prey escaping unharmed. The Dilophosaurus in the movie decided to threaten and warn, and then randomly attack poor Newman.
The Velociraptors in Jurassic Park were by no means the smartest of all dinosaurs with the fabricated ability to problem solve and to formulate complicated attack patterns. The film even claims that this dinosaur was smarter than humans. Incorrect. For its time period, I’m sure it was one smart cookie, but by no means was it smarter than some birds today. The largest mistake made in the film was the appropriate size of the Velociraptor: it was depicted as being 10 feet tall. However, the actual size of this dinosaur was around 3 or 4 feet tall, with a much smaller head than in the movie. Furthermore, the Velociraptor discovered in the movie was uncovered in the dusty sandy regions of the American Southwest, highly improbable considering the actual velociraptor fossils have not been found anywhere near America, but rather in Asia. Another detail that has come into light after the film was produced is the presence of feathers on the raptor’s body, this was not in the film but the producer can be forgiven seeing as though it is a fairly recent discovery.
Finally, I have come to the last dinosaur in this discussion, the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The heroine of the film, she comes into the visitor’s center at the precise moment to eat the Velociraptors and save the day. All she had to do was cruise through the “T-Rex Only” entrance of the building. But let’s ignore that obvious flaw and move onto the specifics. The Tyrannosaurus Rex of the film supposedly ran at a swift 32 miles per hour, highly unlikely considering scientists figure they could only make it to about 25 mph. The T-rex also created tremors on the island when it walked. Again, this is doubtful considering its size. But doesn’t this dinosaur make a prominent and effective appearance at the end as the building collapses, the banner falls across its body, and it “roars” proving that maybe this time Man had bitten off more than he could, hypothetically chew? Oh yeah: Since when has it been a good idea to believe that a common ancestor of the bird would have eyesight solely based on movement? Even if that’s true, what about the creature recognizing you based on scent? Color? Sound? Right.
Overall, I loved the presentation on Jurassic Park, and found it very informative. If Dr. Holtz and the Geology Club had not put on this lecture, I would not have known some of the errors presented as truths in this film. In general, Hollywood believes it has a “license” to make flaws in order to produce an entertaining and profitable film, but I would rather see a less exciting movie that was accurate than believe an engaging lie. This presentation was another example of how the media represents scientists, more specifically the idea of the “mad scientist” aka Dr. Grant in Jurassic Park. Hopefully, the general public can become more involved and informed in the future and less likely to believe stories put on by directors like Steven Spielberg. I know next time a dinosaur film comes out I will do my own research so I can be well informed of mistakes or I could just go to an expert, Dr. Tom Holtz.
Last Update: December 21, 2006