Scientists Slamming Jurassic World

These are judgemental assholes, thinking, just because a movie where the dinosaurs are innacurate, it's a dumb movie.

Compare JW with other movies, like for example, Avngers, or any other sci-fi flic for that matter, JW would be an documentary.

Colin has already stated that this a movie witch is inacurate, they know that it is. And exacty like you're saying, the most audience will be normal people, wanting to see a new blockbuster movie at the local cinema, and they will then start complaining about it not paying respect to the first movie.

BTW they've also could have removed the feathers by completing the DNA cells with reptiles and amphibians.

These people won't get anywhere in life, thinking like that is called overthinking, and still, this is an entertainment flic. I hope nobody listens to these idiots. If I had them right here I would slam their face into the wall til they'll say that they're sorry.

What I still don't understand is the feathers thing still isn't proven for many animals, especially large theropods such as Tyrannosaurus. There's even as much evidence for scales for T. Rex as there is feathers. Even Utahraptor (basically the JP raptors) don't have feather evidence. So technically, the movie is still basically accurate with the exception of wrist pronation and very mild skull structure stuff. JP and JW did well, and only bandwagon paleontologists are criticising it.

1) Jurassic Park and Jurassic World are movies... NOT documentaries.

2) Science in itself is also nothing more than guess work. So, them claiming any inaccuracies in a MOVIE is hypocritical in itself. 

I agree. They don't look like they're from the '80's! Yes, maybe the some of them should have some light feathers or quills, which they do.

(Those last two have light fuzz. Look really closely.)

Pretty accurate to me. Besides, they were cloned, not brought back from the Mesozoic.

And birds don't have quills. Certain reptiles do.

scientists just love to bitch and moan... just ignore them an enjoy the movie as it is suppose to be intended for... entertainment and i know im gonna enjoy this...

Lets try and keep it clean here folks!

And here are my two cents,

Something scientists forget to keep in mind, Is that this is Science Fiction, It takes an Understanding of Science, and then expands it, even if it doesn't scientifically work. 

That's the point of Sci-Fi... It's not supposed to be 100% accurate. Granted, they didn't do a lot of consulting with real genetics for this, But that'd have eaten up a lot of time, BUT, they did use other scientists, Such as Jack Horner and Bob barker to help in terms of Dinosaurs.

It's completely futile of them to consider it real, It's like trying to say Alien is a Documentary of Apollo 11. It's not in the slightest.

People will always confuse Movies, For Documentaries, And vice Versa. 

"Now, what Jhon Hammond and Jurassic Park did was create genetically engineered theme-park monsters. Nothing more, nothing less."

-Alan Grant, Jurassic Park 3

True that!

I don't think the scientists are hating on the movie because of it; I think it's more that they're mad because of the lost potential of education.

Let's face it: the extent of the general public's knowledge of dinosaurs is set on what they see in the Jurassic Park movies. What they see on screen is what they believe the creature to really be like.

By making an inaccurate dinosaur in a newer film, you're giving a wide audience the wrong idea, which is where scientists protest. That false idea, no matter how inaccurate, out numbers the correct one. It will be years until the false information dies out.

Take the whole Zilla name change for example. In 2004, Toho aquired and recopyrighted the Godzilla 1998 deisgn and character as "Zilla" to enforce the idea that it was not a true Godzilla. However, due to this information to be known almost exclusively to Godzilla fans, the general public did not become aware of this until the recent 2014 film, 10 years after the recopyright and 16 years after Godzilla 1998. Up until then, the widespread idea was that Godzilla was just a mutated iguana.

Point is, if false information is widespread, it's going to stick.

And yes, feathered dinosaurs can be VERY intimidating to look at:

You just have to rough up the feathers and not make everything so uniform. It can get freaky-looking fast.

You're not seeing my point here. This is JURASSIC PARK, not a zoo of cute mutant birds. They can't just instantly grow feathers, that'll just ruin the connection to the previous films.

No, they can't instantly grow feathers, but Jurassic World is set 22 years after the first Jurassic Park film.

If they managed to create an "entirely new species" within about two decades, then why not give the explanation that they also have more complete DNA strands of actual species and give a few dinos some feathers here and there? Surely their science department has made progression in such a massive span of time.

And like I said, just because something has feathers does not make it less intimidating. Take a vulture or a hawk for example.

I hope I-rex would eat them.

Dou you know guys what's funny in this? They complain about about dinosaurs in a movie that's mainly for amusement, and there are still "paleofails" in museums and documentaries, things that mainly for education! At first fix those, and than complain about JW.

Claiming that dinosaurs had feathers, and Jurassic Park/World are inaccurate without them, is fraudulent.

Only one very narrow minded camp of scientists believe that dinosaurs were a bunch of giant chickens. The ACTUAL EVIDENCE for feathered dinosaurs is pathetically slim.

The REALITY of the FACTUAL EVIDENCE, is that some species of dinosaurs may have been genetically prediposed to quils and/or feathers. Whether or not they manifested in the living animals is UNKNOWN.

Peter zanetti there may not be much evidence of feathers on larger dinosaurs but there is alot of evidence on smaller dinosaurs 

*rolls eyes*

People in general will bitch about almost anything.

If I'm not mistaken, the original JP was one of the most accurate depictions of dinosaurs of the time. Now, 22 years later, the fourth instalment is coming out, and the dinosaurs are staying true to the franchise.

So what if they aren't scientifically accurate? Most people don't care. Most people want stuff to blow up, big creatures destroying stuff and fighting, and so on. No one really cares about accuracy. No one ever bashed a movie because a car exploded after driving off a cliff (they don't explode, they just kinda lose their shape). 

LOPSQUID - don't confuse some with a lot. This is precisely what some paleontologists do, for lack of more compelling information. They embellish.

Yes, there are some fossizlized feather impressions on some species. Beyond those, there is no evidence for feathers on other dinosaurs. One cannot just assume that other species were feathered, because some were. That would be like looking at fossils of a peacock and a crocodile and assuming the crocodile had feathers, because the peacock left feather impressions....?

This is the extreme liberty that many scientists have taken, and because there is so very very very little real information in the study of paleontology, theories with no evidence get expounded upon for the sake of sensationalism.

TRUTH: a vew few species of dinosaur were known have had featheres, and it is reasonable to believe that other species were genetically prediposed to quils or feathers...but likely did not manifest in the living creatures. Like, a recessive gene turned off.

Tl;DR if you want to get technical, the evidence states that most dinosaurs did not have feathers. Some did.

Anything else is guess work, not based on evidence.

Yes i know that not all dinosaur species had feathers, just as not all mammals have fur but it is not unhealthy to see that some species such as,the and velociraptor numerous other dromeasaurids, along with tyrannosaurids such as the daspletosaurus and the yutyrannus, but species such as the numerous allosaurids and majungasaurids din not in fact have feathers,the large majority of herbivores likely had little to no feather on them.