You must log in or register to comment.
Would be nice to have an pet velociraptor. Never shown correctly in the Jurasic Park movies. They are not bigger than a turkey
Looks like he has the perfect size to bite your balls. Not so sure about the pet suggestion
Hey, so are plenty of dogs. Doesn’t stop my ball headbashers from being good boys.
Also Goose can do it
Then we just need them to have a social structure compatible with human preferences and 10’000 years of haphazard breeding.
You would still not want one as a pet.
if you build a perpetual motion machine and it eats the postman from seinfeld… you still made a perpetual motipn machine
Well… As they point out in the World movies the creatures were never dinosaurs. They were generic chimeras that looked like dinosaurs.
I never understood the whole “They’re making a weapon” plotline though. Unless the weapon makers are either nihilists or libertarians. Oh!
Edit: caveat, I’ve only seen one of the world movies and then a trailer for one of the others.
I read somewhere that if we could bring back a dinosaur, it wouldn’t survive long, because of the oxygen concentration in our atmosphere. Is it true?
I think that has a lot of variables. Crocodiles were on earth around 250 million years ago, the t rex around 68 million years ago. Crocodiles still breath our atmosphere.
That doesn’t mean other animals didn’t have different breathing parameters though.
Crocodiles may have also adapted over time to deal with the changes in our atmosphere, while the dino DNA would not have gone through those changes. They could handwave that problem by saying they combined it with some other DNA or modified it themselves (better hemoglobin?)
I may have heard a similar thing on a video that compared an elephant sized mouse with a mouse sized elephant.
Neither could survive because evolution designed their bodies for the relative pressure they exist in. This is also related to how fast their hearth beats go.
Human sized bugs could not exist for the same pressure reason also.
Disclaimer: i am as much an expert on this as are you. Source is the internet. Possibility Kurtzgesagt.
Depends. Something from 125 to 200 millions years ago would probably struggle. Maybe you can put them on a mountain? But that’s probably too cold. But again, Jurassic Park dinosaurs are a mix of animal DNA, contemporary and older.
They spared no expense.
The new movies suck ass because they try to make science the bad guy, but not only is that a shit story we all see through, but it still reads as capitalistic greed and hubris, but now the movie feels like it doesn’t know what it’s talking about.
I mean, even the first movie reads that way.
Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.
Meanwhile, the only reason the entire movie happened is because you idiots opened a money generating theme park.
Open a public dinosaur museum somewhere in the swiss alps, with european safety measures and a properly compensated sysadmin. The european union pays for the whole thing while ticket money goes to a research fund. There’s also a backup power grid for the t-rex enclosure. See, it’s not hard.
So… in the actual book(s), the problem is a bit of both.
The ‘science’ goes wrong because… well, they do not have complete dinosaur genome sequences.
And they fill in the gaps with a lot of DNA from a certain kind of frog.
A frog, that is later discovered to change its sex, transform from female into male, in environments/situations that are not sufficiently male/female balanced.
The explanation as to why the dinosaurs will not be a problem is that they only make female ones, so the population will remain exactly as they engineer.
… this does not work, because some of the dinos transform their sex, and begin breeding, which they essentially entirely did not account for.
Also in the book(s)… Hammond is much, much more clearly an unscrupulous capitalist… think roughly somebody that would have their accounts managed by Patrick Bateman, or maybe like a modern techbro, but his tech isn’t crypto or ai or hyperscaling whatever bs app… its genetic engineering.
The original movie makes him into… much more of a genuinely enthusiastic, but more innocently naive, and sympathetic character… he is much more straightforwardly a thinly veiled corpo asshole in the book.
And because of this, the book punishes him.
In the book, near the end, as it looks like the surviving cast have escaped imminent danger, and is reasonably safe and secure, awaiting rescue…
… Hammond is very directly killed by his own hubris.
He decides he has some better idea about what to do, wanders off from the group, gets lost, and is torn to shreds by a pack of compies, compthagnasus, basically 10 or 20 or so of fairly small, maybe 1.5 foot ish tall tiny versions of velociraptors.
He makes a final, direct, hubristic act, and is literally torn to shreds by thousands of tiny cuts, but all at one time, the figurative recompense for his lifetime of shitty, reckless, self serving decisions.
Critchton was a damn good writer, RIP.
Anyway, the second movie, Lost World… is very, very loosely based on the second book, but it features a compy attack event as an inciting incident, the initial event…
…but they swap it to occuring to basically a completely innocent family who is vacationing on a nearby island, just a totally different and made up set of characters, where its now just some random assholeish wealthy corpo father who is bring hubristic, and iirc, a little girl is seriously injured, but not killed…
Its much less hubristic of a bad decision from the father, as he legitimately had no idea this random island was infested with fucking dinosaurs.
Also, iirc, the Lost World movie just throws away these characters, this family, after this gets the plot rolling, I don’t think they are ever on screen again.
Its not a well written intro.
…
Its been a while since I’ve seen the original movie, fhe first sequel… and then yeah, never saw anything after that, because they just look immensely, increasingly stupid and nonsensical, not even having internal logic that is coherent or consistent… so I can’t well comment on how the movie universe has evolved.
Actually… “science” is a process of discovery about the natural world. To then use that knowledge gained would be engineering.
Technically, yes, colloquially, no.
It is very, very common for people to use science as a noun or even verb, to describe just… doing anything that requires an at least moderate understanding of some or multiple scientifc fields to be able to do properly.
I’ve long found the notion that the lesson of Jurassic Park, if a fictional story like that must be taken to have one, should be something like “science/genetic engineering is bad” or “you can’t control nature” to be a bit silly, given that, well, it’s a zoo. With pretty big animals, to be sure, but dinosaurs were animals still, not kaiju or dragons or whatever other fantasy monster, and some genetically modified to be somewhat bigger and lack feathers would still be such. It’s a story about some people building a zoo badly because they didn’t do their due diligence about the animals they had and cheaped out on staff and the systems they had for containing the animals, and somehow people get the take away that “these animals are special and can’t be safely contained” rather than “letting rich people cheap out on safety is a bad idea”.
Were one to write a broadly similar story where someone cheaps out on a park containing elephants and tigers, and they get out and maul some people, it’d be obvious, but give the tigers scales and make them born in a lab and suddenly it’s a monster movie.
Hard agree. My takeaway is the moral of the story is always do quality engineering. There have been like 10 movies and they still don’t know how to construct an enclosure.
Why do they always only have one massive entrance to each enclosure? Why is it large enough for the Dinosaur to walk out of? Why don’t they have two doors in series, airlock style?
They do it for butterflies at museums…
Well you can’t have butterflies escaping into nature. They’ll wreak havoc by pollinating everything.
pollinate me uwu
While I’m fond of the anti-capitalist reading (and Spielberg’s environmentalist one), with the context of the rest of Chrichton’s books (particularly state of fear and next), I think the intent was moralism against genetic research
there may be anti capital elements but it is a man vs nature plot with a suçon of trying to control something you dont understand or respect
Hammond literally goes around gaslighting the entire group by saying “spared no expense” when in reality he cheaped out and cut every corner. His undoing was Dennis, who was the lowest bidder in a security contract. Instead of picking the absolute best, Hammond went with the lowest bidders. Even the T. rex fence should not have been so easy to break down, power or not. The entire park was built cheap and fast. Hammond was a capitalist playing conservationist.
