I was always bugged by the glaring discrepancy that the fences aroiund the T-Rex cage are ground level (the T-Rex simply strolls up to them and barrels through them), and then mysteriously are at the side of a huge cliff (the car gets knocked into the holding area and lands in the thick of a huge tree yards above the ground. What, did the T-Rex CLIMB up that cliff? Not with those spindly little arms!
Also, I was a bit obsessed with dinosaurs as a kid. So I knew that the walking Komodo Dragons depicted in the movie looked nothing what a “velociraptor” was supposed to look like. (The ‘raptors’ from the film look akin to an actual dinosaur called “Deinonychus.” But there’s no cool badass nickname you can derive from a name like “Deinonychus.”)
SGI workstations running Fusion on IRIX. The cost of which was something approaching several hundred thousand dollars, which I guess that girl’s insanely funded grade school also used.
I also liked in that scene they’re trying to hold the door and grab at the shotgun. The girl is using her Unix skillz…what’s the boy doing? Yo kid - hand them that shotgun!
I imagine resurrecting an extinct plant is much easier than resurrecting an extinct animal.
If you want to get technical none of the creatures were saw were actualy dinosaurs; they were gentically engineered zoo animals cobbled together from dino & frog DNA. You can even explain away any discrepancies between them and real dinosaurs by the hybridization and the fact that the scientists were literly creating the theme park version of dinosaurs. It’s not hard to believe that factual accuracy would be of lesser priority then giving the paying public what they expect from popular culture.
In the scene where Newman gets killed by the tar-spitting dino, the can of Barbasol (which contains the stolen dino DNA), is shown getting buried in a mud flow. At the time, I thought “Oh, forshadowing! The writers are planning for the future.” But the can never resurfaces. Unless I missed it, does the stolen and lost DNA ever play a role in any of the plots of the sequels? If not, why was that shown so specifically?
Also, it bothered me that after the velocirators devour that cow, they all go to lunch and are served delicious-looking sea-bass cooked by their Hollywood chef, but no one takes a bite as they begin arguing over ethics. Also, it would have been funnier if they were served steaks.
Pretty sure it was just to show you that Newman’s plan failed. I think the can would only keep the embryos refrigerated for so long. If they hadn’t shown it, we’d have people in this topic complaining that they never showed what happened to that can.
If we’re going to assume enough DNA can survive in the belly of a mosquito for them to make rampaging frogasaurs, it’s not too much of a stretch to say they found some seeds preserved in amber while they were at it.
Scavengers feed off dead animal carcasses, rather than making their own kills. They are still carnivores.
The idea that T. rex was a scavenger rather than a hunter was, IIRC, based on its tiny forelimbs. Forget the huge teeth and head and neck muscles and powerful legs; if it couldn’t grasp things, it couldn’t hunt … so went the reasoning. :rolleyes:
Wait, are we talking about the movie “Jurassic Park,” directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum? The one where we see the T-Rex hunting live animals? Why are people complaining that T-Rex was shown to be a scavenger? It wasn’t.
It was an idea that was being bandied about at the time by the new breed of revisionist paleontologists; personally, I always thought it was kind of silly.
I read the book and saw the movie almost 20 years ago; as to whether or not Crichton or Spielberg made use of the theory, I don’t recall.
That wasn’t until 3 - when they created the new version(s) and created humungasour and made T-rex a pansy.
In 2, T-Rex was still a predator - and had family skills - apparently, all it took was a wife and kids to cause T-Rex to have to go scavenging in the dump.
