Pregnancy? Dinos lay eggs.
And hunting other dinosaurs. And hunting humans.
No, he wouldn’t.
And not only that, but Grant specifically comments about how t-rex doesn’t just want his food handed to him (referring to the chained up goat), he wants to hunt. I mean the rex winds up eating the goat anyway, but it’s clear the movie wasn’t trying to present the rex as a scavenger.
Thanks for the replies so far! Many of you brought up other problems I had with the movie and forgot about… So thanks for that… I think.
This is the first reply to the thread. I’ll let you take a look at it instead of reposting it here. I’ll just say that your first answer/comment of “False” explains the other answers you supply. They are all equally wrong. Your answer about the kid is not only wrong, someone else posted a cut scene explaining the kid, so you weren’t even close. So he wasn’t “clearly” there as a tourist, except in your fogged mind. 
Thank you (I think) for posting that link. That picture freaked me out. What is it with his eyes? If I ran into him on the street in broad daylight, I’d give him my wallet and watch just so he wouldn’t turn me into another zombie. Good grief!
I have no idea what that is. I think I was probably so eager to post the thread, I didn’t proofread properly. That’s a pretty bad sentence fragment no matter how you slice it!:smack:
I have watched the scene…( I have a VCR AND a DVD player!). He isn’t referring to Grant et al. Grant et al aren’t investors. They are supposedly experts brought down to sign off on the island. The investors got the lawyer down there before Grant and gang were affirmed.
Thank you! That does explain the kid, but without this context, they should have cut the goofy looking kid, too. And sorry.. I said he called it a six foot chicken. He called it a six foot turkey.
Another big pet peeve of mine that should have been in the OP. Lets say they somehow got the DNA for a plant (how, I have no idea). Who is growing the plants, and more importantly, who is running around the island planting the plants? I can’t imagine they would be able to survive, as the earths atmosphere during the dinosaurs reign wasn’t exactly the same as it is now. I would think a plant that old would have a hell of a time surviving in today’s air/climate.
It wasn’t just the fact that she knew it was a Unix system… To me, it was also how she pronounced the word Unix. Almost like “you-neeks” system, and her accent is on the wrong syllable. I know this is pretty nitpicky, but I was on a roll by this point in the movie.
I remember thinking the same thing when I first saw it. However, If you remember, Dodson told him it only had enough coolant to keep the embryos viable for a day or so. I don’t remember the exact time. Anyway, I first thought it would lead to a sequel, but then realized it was just good product placement by Barbasol, and whatever they paid to have their can in the movie, it was money well spent.
I think the idea that T-Rex was a scavenger is a no-brainer. ALL carnivores on the earth today will take an easy meal if they can get it. Lions steal meals, as do hyenas, and any other meat eating animal. After all, having to chase and burn energy to potentially get a meal is less preferable to just walking up and scarfing a dead carcass.
As for T-Rex JUST being a scavenger, I don’t know about that. Those arms are ridiculous, however as long as it was able to stick his head down and grab onto the neck of an animal it was taller and faster than, I don’t see how you could stop him from killing anything he could get his teeth on.
One thing I was and still am curious about is the idea of t-Rex being able to see you ONLY if you move. How on earth would anyone be able to make that assumption?
One more pet peeve I just remembered. When Ellie sticks her hand in that big pile of poo, I’m sorry but it was simply too tall to be the poo that came out of that sick steno on the ground. That things legs were three maybe four feet long… That stack of poo was over six feet. How would the steno “poo upwards”?
Apologies in advance for any typos. I know I make spelling mistakes, but the auto correct on my iPad is horrendous.
Oh, and I know it seems I am being overly picky on this movie. But I don’t think I am. After all, for a science fiction movie to work, much of the stuff has to be taken at face value… Like the frog DNA someone mentioned above. But you can’t insult the audience for 120 minutes when you are trying to tell a story in today’s world. I think that’s what made JP so successful in the first place. Most every kid grows up with a fascination with dinosaurs, and to actually see them on our scale would be an amazing thing to do. I really didn’t care if the Dino’s had the “correct” skin color. That’s just guesswork and window-dressing anyway.
The original script was also false, which is why it was cut.
The plant’s probally a hybrid that’s been tweaked to survive in today’s enviroment too.
This was explained in Crichton’s The Lost World. Based on some casts of T. rex brainpans, someone concluded they had nervous systems similar to amphibians’ (frogs apparently see motion only). In other words, more revisionist paleontology.
Ah. So, they are basing it on what they know today about today’s animals.
One of the things I remember from the movie and seem to remember from the book was the idea of the gene sequencing, and how gaps were filled by amphibian dna.
In the current world, has ANY dino DNA been recovered? and if so, is it even possible that a frog’s dna could fill in any gene gaps?
If we took Human DNA, and randomly cut gaps in it, and replaced it with chimp DNA, I can’t see that turning out good, even if we are 98% the same on a DNA level. I don’t see how filling dna gaps in with a frog or anything else would work.
But can it?
Yeah, but…morning sickness, or something, or…
Dammit.
Many of the critters in the movie are from the Cretaceous period, not the Jurassic. That’s always bothered me.
I’m a grown man and I’m still obsessed with dinosaurs, so I’ll just point out that all dromaeosaurs look pretty similar, and Deinonychus would probably be indistinguishable from Velociraptor (aside, perhaps, from size) to most folks. The critters in the movie were too large to be either (but big enough to be a larger dromaeosaur, such as Utahraptor). Of course, we also now know they all had more feathers than were depicted in the movie, but I can’t fault them for that, given that first Velociraptor fossils showing evidence of feathers weren’t discovered until 2007…
Not so much revisionist paleontology as fictional paleontology; the alleged braincase studies mentioned in the book were an allusion to A. C. Doyle’s The Lost World. See this earlier thread on the topic.
Genarro’s dialog from the movie:
“Let’s get something straight, John: this is not a weekend excursion; this a serious investigation of the stability of the island. Your investors, whom I represent, are deeply concerned. Forty-eight hours from now, if they’re not convinced [points pen at lead car containing Grant, et al], I’m not convinced [points pen at himself]. I’ll shut you down, John.”
The paleontologists were brought on board by Hammond to allay the investors’ concerns by getting them to sign off on the park. Earlier in the movie, when Ellie and Grant meet Hammond in their trailer at the digsite:
Hammond: […]This particular pebble in my shoe represents my investors. Says that they insist on “outside opinions”.
Ellie: What kind of opinions?
Hammond: Well, your kind, not to put too fine a point on it. I mean, let’s face it, in your particular field you are the top minds, and if I could just persuade you to sign off on the park - you know, give it your endorsement, maybe even pen a wee testimonial - I could get back on schedule […]
At least some of the duckbills had “amphibian” vision in both the book and the movie, if I’m not mistaken. And doesn’t Gennaro also try freezing just before he’s killed, in the belief that the rex won’t be able to see him?
Mosquitoes have been found preserved in amber, and DNA recovered from them, but it’s been mosquito DNA. And there has been at least one case of dinosaur DNA recovered directly from dino bones, but it’s not a matter of “filling in the gaps”: Only tiny fragments have been recovered, not even whole genes. Or in other words, it’s essentially all gap.
I’m quoting you, but this is really in response to the whole discussion. In the original book, Grant tells the kids to freeze. In the sequel, another character comments on how stupid that advice was. It was a plot point about Grant being misinformed, and the character in the sequel speculates that the T-Rex was full from the goat and Gennaro, and is toying with them like a cat.
I suppose Crichton could himself have been misinformed, and then attempted to “fix” the mistake in the sequel, but this at least answers the question conclusively: Grant was dumb.
Wrong. Everyone caught it but you.
When the lawyer says that line, he indicates with his pen toward the Jeep ahead of him - the Jeep carrying Grant and Sadler.
“If they’re not convinced, I’m not convinced.”
He was referring to Grant and Sadler. In other words, if Grant and Sadler didn’t sign off on the park, he would report that to the investors, who would then pull the plug on the park. It made perfect sense.
Try again.
On preview, I see that Darwin’s Finch has covered this.
No, Gennaro runs to the outhouse and tries to hide there from the T. Rex.
Incidentally, while Grant tells everyone to stay still to avoid detection in the movie Jurassic Park, in Crichton’s book*** The Lost World***, that turns out to be very bad advice. In THAT book, people who freeze get eaten. Indeed, one character sees people freezing in front of a T. Rex and says something like, “Are they crazy? You don’t stay still in front of a predator! You yell, you make noise, you do ANYTHING to try to scare it off! Why are they just STANDING there?” Ian Malcolm then deadpans, “They are misinformed.”
Perhaps after writing the first book, Crichton met some scientists who told him his original premise was wrong, and thought he’d address that in the sequel.
Or, perhaps, Crichton just made a LOT of plausible but questionable assumptions about dinosaurs- some of which have been conclusively refuted by subsequent study, some of which are still in dispute.
I’m no expert on dinosaurs, so I will offer NOT opinions. But even people who ARE experts often have serious disagreements about dinosaur behavior, so it’s hardly fair to pick on Crichton for his choices. He generally didn’t make stuff up- he just picked and chose from different theories offered by leading voices in paleontology.
All you need to know about Jurassic Park in three words:
Look! Dinos! Run!
Regarding the T. Rex in the film: It was shown to be a chasing predator, which was highly unlikely. It’s legs weren’t built for speed.
I think Jack Horner makes a very good case for T. rex to have been an opportunist carnivore. If it could ambush something, it would, but it probably stole kills from other predators, much like lions do today.
It climbed a tree?