NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I'm reading Jurassic Park, and I can't help but wonder why Michael Chrichton didn't just use the deinonychus as one of his dinosaurs instead of fabricating a 6 foot, 200-pound velociraptor. Sure the deinonychus wasn't quite as large as the 'raptor in the book/movie, but at about 150-175 pounds and somewhere around 5 feet in height (the sites I've looked at all vary quite about that), surely it would have been better to use an actual dinosaur of near the wanted size, rather than doubling the actual size of a velociptor?

Oh well, artistic liscense I suppose... but I really do have to wonder.

You've just noticed this now? I've been angry for years about the whole deinonychus travesty.. the second I left the theater I was like "where the hell was the deinonychus?!"

and it was smarter, too.
well, perhaps velociraptor is more commonly known, and they wanted to use something that people would know about? better sales that way, people like familiar things in sales, seems to me.

It kinda ticked me off too, as well, as the complete bullsh*t remarks about Tyranosaurus Rex s'( I will NOT call it a T. Rex) sight being based off of movement. They should have used Deino, but I guess they liked the whole "raptor" thing and went with it, creative licence and all.

Of course they could have waited like 3 months and used Utahraptor instead, since he was actually a little larger than what they had in the movie.

You've just noticed this now? I've been angry for years about the whole deinonychus travesty.. the second I left the theater I was like "where the hell was the deinonychus?!"

Oh, I've thought about it plenty of times before. Just reading the novel brought it up again, especially since it's straight from the authors hands, as opposed to just movie exaggeration. It's just weird to read those measurements pouring out of an archaeologist character like fact when they're actually incorrect.

and it was smarter, too.
well, perhaps velociraptor is more commonly known, and they wanted to use something that people would know about? better sales that way, people like familiar things in sales, seems to me.

I thought velociraptor became well-known to the general public because of Jurassic Park. Could be wrong there, though.

Velociraptor = fierce sounding
dyonolopolos = cuddly sounding

Raptors are cooler.

It kinda ticked me off too, as well, as the complete bullsh*t remarks about Tyranosaurus Rex s'( I will NOT call it a T. Rex) sight being based off of movement. They should have used Deino, but I guess they liked the whole "raptor" thing and went with it, creative licence and all.

Of course they could have waited like 3 months and used Utahraptor instead, since he was actually a little larger than what they had in the movie.

'They' being the author Michael Chrichton, as he's the one who created the story of Jurassic Park. Also, the book was published several years before the discovery of the Utahraptor. Though I suppose if Spielberg had waited, he might've been tempted to use the even larger 'raptor in his film adaptation of the novel.

Velociraptor = fierce sounding
dyonolopolos = cuddly sounding

Raptors are cooler.

It's Deinonychus- "terrible claw". Not really cuddly at all.

Velociraptor has a better ring to it, and can be shortened to 'raptor'. Personally, I like the real velociraptors; they're vicious little balls of claws and feathers! However, aye, had Crichton waited a few years, then he would've been able to use Utahraptors. That'd be just plain cool.

'They' being the author Michael Chrichton, as he's the one who created the story of Jurassic Park. Also, the book was published several years before the discovery of the Utahraptor. Though I suppose if Spielberg had waited, he might've been tempted to use the even larger 'raptor in his film adaptation of the novel.

I was refering specifically to the movie, not the book. I think the general consencous is why did "they" (as in the movie writers, produces, ect.) feel the need to basically "make up" a dinosaur when they had plenty of theropods to work with. But of course he did that with several other dinosuars over the 3 Parks he did.

But hell, movie makes do that with living species all the time. Like Anaconda. :headbang:

That silly Chrichton; not using his precognitive abilities.... :D

Random side note....

The Velociraptor in JP, is extremely similar to the Utah raptor, discovered after the book (and maybe the movie, don't know). So the raptor in the book/movie does exist, just under a different name.

It kinda ticked me off too, as well, as the complete bullsh*t remarks about Tyranosaurus Rex s'( I will NOT call it a T. Rex) sight being based off of movement. .

Well, that part isn't really as far off the mark as other parts of the movie. Castings of the Rex's braincase show that the part used for optics was quite small, especially when compared to other therapods. This would indicate very poor eyesight. Of course, it wasn't based solely on movement, however it could be movement-orientated. Basically, it could have been rhino-esque in terms of eyesight. It's eyes would have been good for seeing movement, and vaguely distinguishing between object, just not good for details. It did, however, have a great sense of smell, so standing still wouldn't have worked to well.

Also, as for the Utahraptor, it's really not quite as good a fit as Deinonychus. The Utahraptor was about 20 feet long, almost twice as long as the one in JP. It was also a little taller than the one depicted in JP. Deinonychus would have almost been a dead-on with just a few slight differences.

That said, I would be far more afraid of a Velociraptor than a Deinonychus or a Utahraptor. With the latter, you're dealing with a small group of rather lumbersome and slow creatures. The former would be able to sneak up on you far easier, with your notice, and would be a bit more agile.

That silly Chrichton; not using his precognitive abilities.... :D

Aye, that fool! ;)

But seriously, I'm more bemoaning his bad timing than anything else. Had he waited for a similar period of time, he may also have gotten over the stupid 'T. rex can't see motionless objects' thing. What, did he think that T. rex was finally rendered extinct by hitting its head on a tree with every other step it took?

It's Deinonychus- "terrible claw". Not really cuddly at all.

Velociraptor has a better ring to it, and can be shortened to 'raptor'. Personally, I like the real velociraptors; they're vicious little balls of claws and feathers! However, aye, had Crichton waited a few years, then he would've been able to use Utahraptors. That'd be just plain cool.

Yes, when it is translated...Otherwise, it sounds really awful...That and you never know, they could have genetically engineered the uber-raptor...muahahaha...Raptor's are awesome...I want one...ward off the Jehovis Witnesses...

It kinda ticked me off too, as well, as the complete bullsh*t remarks about Tyranosaurus Rex s'( I will NOT call it a T. Rex) sight being based off of movement. They should have used Deino, but I guess they liked the whole "raptor" thing and went with it, creative licence and all.

Tyrannosaurus rex - one of the few binomial species headings to enter the general lexicon, and, hence, one of the most butchered (T. Rex, T-Rex, etc.).

What I don't get is why people get so worked up about it. I think maybe you're forgetting that it is a work of fiction.

What I don't get is why people get so worked up about it. I think maybe you're forgetting that it is a work of fiction.

Nonetheless, it's done much to perpetuate acute misconceptions amongst the public.

Nonetheless, it's done much to perpetuate acute misconceptions amongst the public.
Only because people are stupid

Only because people are stupid

Quite true.

What's to say that there weren't 6 foot tall velociraptors? I mean, there are 8 ft tall humans, though the average human is roughly 5-6 ft tall. Why not a midget Brachiosaurus?

Nonetheless, it's done much to perpetuate acute misconceptions amongst the public.
I think using the wrong name for a dinosaur in the JP series is the least of Chrichton's crimes.

Given all his "Science is evil, scientists just want to scare you to get grant money, real men are engineers who drive SUVs and never, ever have a theory before they begin experimentation" type comments I'm prepared to forgive him for Jurassic Park, then skin him alive for "States of Fear".

The Liberated Ones']I think using the wrong name for a dinosaur in the JP series is the least of Chrichton's crimes.

Given all his "Science is evil, scientists just want to scare you to get grant money, real men are engineers who drive SUVs and never, ever have a theory before they begin experimentation" type comments I'm prepared to forgive him for Jurassic Park, then skin him alive for "States of Fear".
What was wrong with States of Fear?

What's to say that there weren't 6 foot tall velociraptors? I mean, there are 8 ft tall humans, though the average human is roughly 5-6 ft tall. Why not a midget Brachiosaurus?

Ah, but to claim a height of 8 feet typical amongst humans would be grossly incorrect.

What's to say that there weren't 6 foot tall velociraptors? I mean, there are 8 ft tall humans, though the average human is roughly 5-6 ft tall. Why not a midget Brachiosaurus?

Ah, but you rarely see an animal with a deformity to almost double it's height or size. Velociraptors were around 3-4 feet tall. There aren't 12 foot tall people walking around. I think the tallest was about 9 feet tall, if I remember correctly. To find a six foot tall velociraptor would be the equivelant of finding a twelve foot tall person-highly unlikely. A 5 foot tall velociraptor would be collossal. A giant. Six foot? Highly unlikely to find one.

Midget Brachiosaurus-actually, quite possible. If a group were to be seperated, and marooned somehow on an island, they could develop into a pygmy species. Happened with elephant and people, it could happen with Brachiosaurs.

It goes like this:

"Hey, Tom! I just saw this great movie based on a book by Michael Chrichton about dinosaurs and the fierce di... dei... diek... dicknikus!"

"A what???"

"Yeah! A dicknikus!"

"Man, I'm never going to the movies again..."

Tell me Michael Chrichton didn't know his book would be made into a movie.

Tyrannosaurus rex - one of the few binomial species headings to enter the general lexicon, and, hence, one of the most butchered (T. Rex, T-Rex, etc.).

My understanding is that abbreviating the genus name is a legitimate means of presenting scientific names so long as the name was written out in full beforehand- that is, so long as I write out Tyrannosaurus rex, it's legitimate for me to then write T. rex for the rest of my post. If I don't mention the name in full beforehand or use italics, it's because I'm lazy more than anything else.

I must agree on how annoying Crichton's anti-science themes can be. Pretty much the entire theme of Jurassic Park is, "There are things man was not meant to know, some things man was not meant to do." Heck, The Lost World explicitly compared the current focus on science to the medieval focus on religion, and that scientists did not deserve their power because they only needed to read a book to gain it, and therefore were not disciplined in that power's use. I got about halfway through the first chapter of State of Fear before throwing it aside in disgust. I'm boycotting his books from now on.

Well, that part isn't really as far off the mark as other parts of the movie. Castings of the Rex's braincase show that the part used for optics was quite small, especially when compared to other therapods. This would indicate very poor eyesight. Of course, it wasn't based solely on movement, however it could be movement-orientated. Basically, it could have been rhino-esque in terms of eyesight. It's eyes would have been good for seeing movement, and vaguely distinguishing between object, just not good for details. It did, however, have a great sense of smell, so standing still wouldn't have worked to well.

Also, as for the Utahraptor, it's really not quite as good a fit as Deinonychus. The Utahraptor was about 20 feet long, almost twice as long as the one in JP. It was also a little taller than the one depicted in JP. Deinonychus would have almost been a dead-on with just a few slight differences.

That said, I would be far more afraid of a Velociraptor than a Deinonychus or a Utahraptor. With the latter, you're dealing with a small group of rather lumbersome and slow creatures. The former would be able to sneak up on you far easier, with your notice, and would be a bit more agile.

You are of course just guessing at what Rex's eyesight COULD be like, just like anyone else that would be makeing a statement about that based on looking at the inside of a braincase. Inconclusive would be putting it mildly, and yet is protrayed as "fact". Yes, that bothered me.

And you have got to be kidding me about Deino and Utah being slow and ponderous. Having a 20 foot long theropd with a 18inch claw and probably moving around 40 mph would be scary enough. And evidence shows they traveld in groups as well...... :eek:

You are of course just guessing at what Rex's eyesight COULD be like, just like anyone else that would be makeing a statement about that based on looking at the inside of a braincase. Inconclusive would be putting it mildly, and yet is protrayed as "fact". Yes, that bothered me.

And you have got to be kidding me about Deino and Utah being slow and ponderous. Having a 20 foot long theropd with a 18inch claw and probably moving around 40 mph would be scary enough. And evidence shows they traveld in groups as well...... :eek:

For the first point, it is true that it is only speculation. However, the evidence does lead one to believe that the Tyranosaur's eyesight would be quite poor, referencing the brainstructure of other animals. Nothing conclusive, of course, but it gives you good idea of it's eyesight. It definately didn't have good eyesight, however it's actual capabilities can only be put to conjecture.

As for slow and pondering, I meant in comparison to the much small and quicker Velociraptor, and I was referring moreso towards overall agility. The Deinonychus probably would have been quick, however it had to move alot more mass than the Velociraptor, reducing it's quickness. The Utahraptor would have suffered even more. They could run fast, however, their agility would be hurt heavily by their size. As for them hunting in groups, that is true. However, it wouldn't be to difficult to believe that Velociraptors would hunt in much larger groups than those of the Deinonychus or Utahraptor(which may have hunted by itself, it easily had the capability). Quite simply put, it is easier to feed five Velociraptors than it would be to feed five Deinonychus, which would be far easier than feeding five Utahraptors. It all comes down to resources. I would rather take a couple Deinonychus than a large group of Velociraptors. Fewer heads to keep track of, and would be a bit less agile.

The Tyrannosaurus rex eyesight was nothing compared with current theory, which has T. rex as primarily a scavenger, as well as having some feathers.

I hate this dinosaurs with feathers craze. Is there anything in the fossil record to support such a theory? What really pisses me off is that, all of the sudden, all raptors are assumed to all have feathers because of a couple species found to have some feathers. Talk about shite science.

As for a proper dramaeosaurid to fit into JP, I'd say Achillobator. Would've been cool to have a Megaraptor in the movie, though.

I hate this dinosaurs with feathers craze. Is there anything in the fossil record to support such a theory? What really pisses me off is that, all of the sudden, all raptors are assumed to all have feathers because of a couple species found to have some feathers. Talk about shite science.
It is quite plausible that the raptors had feathers. It is not so plausible that all the dinosaurs had feathers (especially the primitive ones).

You've just noticed this now? I've been angry for years about the whole deinonychus travesty.. the second I left the theater I was like "where the hell was the deinonychus?!"

Yeah! My at the time 8-year-old mind demanded answers after seeing that movie. Deinonychus ownz.

It's great to finally hear that I'm not the only one that was disappointed by what they made of the velociraptor in the movie! :D

Still, I always waited for the baryonyx to make an appearance. Nothing argues with claws that big, plus the ability to swim.

Still, I always waited for the baryonyx to make an appearance. Nothing argues with claws that big, plus the ability to swim.
'cept that arms is all they have to go by... But then again, there were only tales of a destroyed skeleton to make the Spinosaurus in the third one...

What really disappointed me was the experiments they've done recently that suggest that the claw of a deinonychus wasn't used for slashing/disembowelling but merely for pinning their prey. Seems to take all the fun out of it for me. :(

Raptor's are awesome...I want one...ward off the Jehovis Witnesses...
Just tell them that you've discovered Genesis is an allegory. That should do the trick! :D

Please tell me that even the remote possibility of taking something Crichton writes, subsequently publishes, goes on the Fiction best seller list, then becomes a nice Hollywood movie as grounds for scientific fact is the furthest from anyone and everyone's mind.

I mean ... come on people ... it's like being mad at Shakespeare for including a reference to the tick of a clock in Julius Caesar without regard to the fact that the pendulum - which caused the 1 second 'tick' wasn't added to clocks until 1656 ... well after Julius's time.

It's fiction. Lighten up.

Incidently, in Crichton's defense, it's possibly an editing thing rather than a writer thing. The editors may have felt that Deinonychus was too complex a word for the average reader and probably made him change it to the Raptor. That's what Editors do.

Please tell me that even the remote possibility of taking something Crichton writes, subsequently publishes, goes on the Fiction best seller list, then becomes a nice Hollywood movie as grounds for scientific fact is the furthest from anyone and everyone's mind.

I mean ... come on people ... it's like being mad at Shakespeare for including a reference to the tick of a clock in Julius Caesar without regard to the fact that the pendulum - which caused the 1 second 'tick' wasn't added to clocks until 1656 ... well after Julius's time.

It's fiction. Lighten up.

Incidently, in Crichton's defense, it's possibly an editing thing rather than a writer thing. The editors may have felt that Deinonychus was too complex a word for the average reader and probably made him change it to the Raptor. That's what Editors do.Velociraptor. Anyway, Chrichton does shorten a lot of names of dinosaurs in his books.
(And besides, its fun to get mad at authors and directors for mistakes in their works. It makes us feel like we know something!) :D

What really disappointed me was the experiments they've done recently that suggest that the claw of a deinonychus wasn't used for slashing/disembowelling but merely for pinning their prey. Seems to take all the fun out of it for me. :(

Pinning their prey? I had read about the claw not being for slashing, but the use that was put forward instead was to stab. Like digging it into the prey's jugular.

Also, on the subject of books written about dinosaurs, and the whole Utahraptor business, has anyone read the novel Raptor Red by Robert T. Bakker?

I agree fully. IRL velociraptors were much smaller than in the movie. Deinonychus is my favorite dino, too.

I would preferred a super-intelligent (perhaps genetically altered for dramatic purposes) stenonychosaur, myself. Generic predators bore me.

I hate this dinosaurs with feathers craze. Is there anything in the fossil record to support such a theory?
Archeoptrex? It seems to be the consensus that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs at the moment. That isn't to say that they all had feathers though, it's true.


I'm rather more annoyed at Crichton ripping his conceit off from a Judge Dredd story than taking liberties with the size of dinosaurs, to be honest.

...has anyone read the novel Raptor Red by Robert T. Bakker?Indeed I have. Good book that. :D

It is quite plausible that the raptors had feathers. It is not so plausible that all the dinosaurs had feathers (especially the primitive ones).

Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor are the only dromaeosauridae confirmed to have feathers and, along with three other non-dromaeosauridaes, are all from the Mongolia region. It's implossible to suggest that those raptor species from Alberta, France, and Argentina (each lay clame to two species) would also have had feathers, especially considering that none of the American raptors have been found to posess such a feature.

Indeed I have. Good book that. :D

I agree! And that book certainly flies in the face of what one of my teachers said about stories requiring dialogue... Hah! Or maybe that's just something I thought she said...

Either way, I thought it was a very good book.

Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor are the only dromaeosauridae confirmed to have feathers and, along with three other non-dromaeosauridaes, are all from the Mongolia region. It's implossible to suggest that those raptor species from Alberta, France, and Argentina (each lay clame to two species) would also have had feathers, especially considering that none of the American raptors have been found to posess such a feature.
And it's impossible to suggest that Smilodon had fur, because it hasn't been found with the fossils. :rolleyes:
Do us all a favor and educate yourself on evolution, endothermy, and insulation.

Postscript: You missed loads of dromaeosaurids. I'll dig up a complete list of those found with feathers when I have the time.

The Tyrannosaurus rex eyesight was nothing compared with current theory, which has T. rex as primarily a scavenger, as well as having some feathers.
That's not the "current theory". That's Horner sticking his fingers in his ears and saying "La la la. I can't hear you." to every other dinosaur paleontologist in existence.

With all this raptor fuss I'm suprised no one has mentioned anything about the Dilophosaurus in the movie. Shortened to around 3 feet tall and 5 feet long when they really are about 6 meters tall and weigh half a ton. Although I couldn't argue with the whole frill/spitting poison thing, that was just fun to watch.

With all this raptor fuss I'm suprised no one has mentioned anything about the Dilophosaurus in the movie. Shortened to around 3 feet tall and 5 feet long when they really are about 6 meters tall and weigh half a ton. Although I couldn't argue with the whole frill/spitting poison thing, that was just fun to watch.

Ooh, I hadn't heard about that particular discrepancy with reality. Though I haven't gotten that far in the book yet, so I was just targetting Grant reflecting on how velociraptors were 200 pounds and six feet tall or so.

...now I have to wonder why he'd bother making a dinosaur smaller than it actually was.

...and I'm assuming that Crichton DID have the Dilophosaurus in the novel.

Ooh, I hadn't heard about that particular discrepancy with reality. Though I haven't gotten that far in the book yet, so I was just targetting Grant reflecting on how velociraptors were 200 pounds and six feet tall or so.

...now I have to wonder why he'd bother making a dinosaur smaller than it actually was.

...and I'm assuming that Crichton DID have the Dilophosaurus in the novel.

I think they were made smaller to avoid competition with the other main dinosaurs.

Denonychus wasn't discovered until after Jurrasic Park was written. Also, in the novel, Chriton never specifically described the hight or featherdness of his velocoraptors.

I think they were made smaller to avoid competition with the other main dinosaurs.

Yeah.

In the book they are excellent, in the movie it's really just comedy value. Anyone know any good current sites for Dinosaurs?

I'm by no means a supporter of ID, but the fact that you get so many relies on threads like this one is reason enough to fear Darwinists.

I'm by no means a supporter of ID, but the fact that you get so many relies on threads like this one is reason enough to fear Darwinists.

How so?

I'm by no means a supporter of ID, but the fact that you get so many relies on threads like this one is reason enough to fear Darwinists.

Can we please avoid the ID hijack here. I don't believe a thread on jurassic park needs to jump the divider and head into the realm of intelligent design.

Can we please avoid the ID hijack here. I don't believe a thread on jurassic park needs to jump the divider and head into the realm of intelligent design.
But surely an intellegent designer would not have allowed the guy who played Newman from Seinfeld to die in the movie?

But surely an intellegent designer would not have allowed the guy who played Newman from Seinfeld to die in the movie?

If you replace Newman with Samuel Jackson in this sentence you'd be correct.

If you replace Newman with Samuel Jackson in this sentence you'd be correct.

Eh I was hoping that the badass aussi game warden would live in the movie. But no they kill him off.

I'm sorry to have to do this,and I do normally keep my silence on such issues, but seriously, why do you all care?

IT IS A FILM, not real life.

So, I'm reading Jurassic Park, and I can't help but wonder why Michael Chrichton didn't just use the deinonychus as one of his dinosaurs instead of fabricating a 6 foot, 200-pound velociraptor. Sure the deinonychus wasn't quite as large as the 'raptor in the book/movie, but at about 150-175 pounds and somewhere around 5 feet in height (the sites I've looked at all vary quite about that), surely it would have been better to use an actual dinosaur of near the wanted size, rather than doubling the actual size of a velociptor?

Oh well, artistic liscense I suppose... but I really do have to wonder.

I always wondered this too, and after asking around (and, ultimately, boring) a few people less interested in the whole subject, I realised why.

Most people can't even say Deinonychus, let alone spell it. Raptor, on the other hand, is easy to spell, easy on the tongue, and frankly, sounds a heck of a lot cooler. Raptor sounds like something vicious. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the word 'raptor' has even been used for some military equipment of some kind.

What can you shorten Deinonychus to? Does it roll of the tongue? Does it sound like something vicious, or something boring? Is Jurassic Park being shown in university palaeontology classes as a work of fact?

The Tyrannosaurus rex eyesight was nothing compared with current theory, which has T. rex as primarily a scavenger, as well as having some feathers.
One, there is STRONG evidence against the scavenger theory (for one, fossil remains of Triceratops shows CLEAR evidence of attack by a Tyrannosaurus Rex) Two, I have NEVER heard the feather theory applied to the larger therapods, only the man-height down.

What really disappointed me was the experiments they've done recently that suggest that the claw of a deinonychus wasn't used for slashing/disembowelling but merely for pinning their prey. Seems to take all the fun out of it for me. :(
No, they used it for something MUCH cooler than slashing/disemboweling. They stabbed you in the NECK, make you drown in your own blood. SO much cooler. And look at the claw, the fact that ANYONE thought you could cut ANYTHING with that is sad. Its perfectly rounded.

Denonychus wasn't discovered until after Jurrasic Park was written. Also, in the novel, Chriton never specifically described the hight or featherdness of his velocoraptors.

Er, 1964 happened a loooong time before the 1990's.

The height I guessed from the passage stating 'Animals like dromaeosaurus, Oviraptor, Velociraptor, and Coelurus - predators three to six feet tall'.

Now, the passage might have been fairly correct if he'd said 'three to six feet in length', but height-wise none of those got to six feet, and some were under three, from what I've found.

The height thing combined with it being clearly stated that Crichton's raptors weighed 200 pounds, you can pretty much assume something closer to the six-foot height range, rather than the three-foot one. The book might have more evidence of height, but I haven't gotten there yet.

The featheredness of velociraptors has nothing to do with Jurassic Park.

Anyone know any good current sites for Dinosaurs?

I found one once that was pretty good, but it seems to have been lost to the interweb. Otherwise, I find searching for a specific dinosaur to come up with a good bit of information.

I'm sorry to have to do this,and I do normally keep my silence on such issues, but seriously, why do you all care?

IT IS A FILM, not real life.

Technically, the question was addressing the novel. Weird things like that in movies are sooo much more excusable than when they appear in novels.

Mostly, wondering pointless crap is just amusing.

The featheredness of velociraptors has nothing to do with Jurassic Park.
True, the featherdness was added in the 3rd movie, a purely hollywood creation, and was based on the best evidence of the time (a fossil of a Velociraptor was found in... Mongolia? Maybe China... oh well, it was in Asia, and the fossil had CLEAR (well, fuzzy actually, but thats kinda the point) imprints of feathers.)

I always wondered this too, and after asking around (and, ultimately, boring) a few people less interested in the whole subject, I realised why.

Most people can't even say Deinonychus, let alone spell it. Raptor, on the other hand, is easy to spell, easy on the tongue, and frankly, sounds a heck of a lot cooler. Raptor sounds like something vicious. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the word 'raptor' has even been used for some military equipment of some kind.

What can you shorten Deinonychus to? Does it roll of the tongue? Does it sound like something vicious, or something boring? Is Jurassic Park being shown in university palaeontology classes as a work of fact?

I always found deinonychus easy to pronounce. Though there is the possibility that I've been pronouncing it wrong from the start. :D

But the whole 'easier-on-the-tongue' thing and such do makes sense, though you think it wouldn't have mattered too much for an adult novel... Meh! But yeah. Things with 'raptor' on the end DO sound cooler and more dangerous. I mean, even cheese sounds cooler with -raptor on the end, like cheeseraptor!

...Yeah.

I'm by no means a supporter of ID, but the fact that you get so many relies on threads like this one is reason enough to fear Darwinists.

What a minor mistake can do!
What I wanted to type was this:

I'm by no means a supporter of ID, but the fact that you get so many replies on threads like this one is reason enough to fear Darwinists.

True, the featherdness was added in the 3rd movie, a purely hollywood creation, and was based on the best evidence of the time (a fossil of a Velociraptor was found in... Mongolia? Maybe China... oh well, it was in Asia, and the fossil had CLEAR (well, fuzzy actually, but thats kinda the point) imprints of feathers.)

Wait... the third movie raptors had feathers? If so, I definitely missed that one.

What a minor mistake can do!
What I wanted to type was this:

I still don't get it.

I still don't get it.
You are scary.
That was my point.

What was wrong with States of Fear?
Anti science trash: "Human triggered climate change is just a conspiracy by incompetent researchers looking for grant money". The linking of terrorism to academia grated too.

I haven't actually read the novel, I just read a few of the writer’s articles about it before it came out and it set my teeth on edge. (I did read The Lost World, and that was bad enough).

I always found deinonychus easy to pronounce. Though there is the possibility that I've been pronouncing it wrong from the start. :D

But the whole 'easier-on-the-tongue' thing and such do makes sense, though you think it wouldn't have mattered too much for an adult novel... Meh! But yeah. Things with 'raptor' on the end DO sound cooler and more dangerous. I mean, even cheese sounds cooler with -raptor on the end, like cheeseraptor!

...Yeah.

You see, cheeseraptor just sounds *@~%!%* terrifying. I certainly wouldn't put one of those in my mouth.

Were they in Jurassic Park too?

You are scary.
That was my point.

...but I'm not a Darwinist.

You see, cheeseraptor just sounds *@~%!%* terrifying. I certainly wouldn't put one of those in my mouth.

Were they in Jurassic Park too?

Maybe not, but I am most certainly going to genetically engineer myself a cheeseraptor someday. Also a kinana. I mean, who wouldn't love the fuzzy yet delicious hybrid of kiwi bird and banana?

...but I'm not a Darwinist.
Ok, then may I ask you this: Why didn't God just use the deinonychus in the Bible?

Ok, then may I ask you this: Why didn't God just use the deinonychus in the Bible?

Okay, you're doing some major screwing up of terms here. A Darwinist would be someone who believes strictly in Darwin's Theory of Evolution. I honestly can't say whether or not there are any modern-day Darwinists, but if there were, I'd say they were quite silly as there were things wrong with Darwin's theory.

Now, the modern theory of evolution, that I agree with for the most part.

And that question doesn't make any sense.

You see, cheeseraptor just sounds *@~%!%* terrifying. I certainly wouldn't put one of those in my mouth.

Were they in Jurassic Park too?
They are featured in Jurassic Park IV: Mob of Angry Paleontologists Brutally Slaughter the Scriptwriter.

They are featured in Jurassic Park IV: Mob of Angry Paleontologists Brutally Slaughter the Scriptwriter.

Along with the Pineaplosaurus, which is even more terrifying than the Tyrannosaurus rex and the... was that thing in the third movie Spinosaurus? combined!

Wow! I'm suprised other people were in tune with me on this one. When I was a young kiddie when this film came out, I always wondered why they made up a large, mutant velociraptor instead of using deinonychus. Besides, deinonychus was WAY cooler! I also want to see the utah raptor in any future films.

Along with the Pineaplosaurus, which is even more terrifying than the Tyrannosaurus rex and the... was that thing in the third movie Spinosaurus? combined!
The thing in the third movie was Mecha-Spinosaurus. You can tell that it isn't the real thing because it survived a bite to the neck by a Tyrannosaurus rex.

The thing in the third movie was Mecha-Spinosaurus. You can tell that it isn't the real thing because it survived a bite to the neck by a Tyrannosaurus rex.

Oho! Well, the Pineaplosaurus would still be more powerful than the two of them combined. And possibly shoot lasers out of it's eyes.

However, the Pineaplosaurus could still be defeated by the vast cunning of the cheeseraptor.

And it's impossible to suggest that Smilodon had fur, because it hasn't been found with the fossils. :rolleyes:
Do us all a favor and educate yourself on evolution, endothermy, and insulation.

Postscript: You missed loads of dromaeosaurids. I'll dig up a complete list of those found with feathers when I have the time.


With dinosaurs there are always very strong indications of whether or not it had feathers. Usually it comes in the form of indintations in the bone itself or actual fossilized feathers.

With all this raptor fuss I'm suprised no one has mentioned anything about the Dilophosaurus in the movie. Shortened to around 3 feet tall and 5 feet long when they really are about 6 meters tall and weigh half a ton. Although I couldn't argue with the whole frill/spitting poison thing, that was just fun to watch.

Yeah, I was pretty miffed at that too. But unless your a dino-freak like apparently some of us are, no one would have been the wiser. And of course Spinosaurus in J3 irked me as well.

The thing in the third movie was Mecha-Spinosaurus. You can tell that it isn't the real thing because it survived a bite to the neck by a Tyrannosaurus rex.
And because it had escaped from a Godzilla film.

There was still no reason to supersize the velociraptor. Even at a mere 2 or 3 feet high and 6 feet long, one of the things could savage a man, and a bunch together would be able to to rip your average human to shreds.

Side note: I like the feathers! They make sense (both as insulation and as part of a precursor to birds), they're possible (feathers don't fossilize well), and they look bloody cool!

One, there is STRONG evidence against the scavenger theory (for one, fossil remains of Triceratops shows CLEAR evidence of attack by a Tyrannosaurus Rex) Two, I have NEVER heard the feather theory applied to the larger therapods, only the man-height down.

Erm, out of curiosity, what distinguishes a T. rex attack from a T. rex scavenging raid? Teeth marks are teeth marks, whether the subject is struggling or not. Were they of particular violence? Note that T. rex teeth were rather loose and constantly fell out on their own, let alone from the resistance of flesh and bone, so noting fragmented T. rex teeth isn't conclusive evidence.

I've heard of the feather theory being applied to Tyrannosaurs as fluffy down for the young. Whether this is accurate or not, I don't know.

Erm, out of curiosity, what distinguishes a T. rex attack from a T. rex scavenging raid? Teeth marks are teeth marks, whether the subject is struggling or not. Were they of particular violence? Note that T. rex teeth were rather loose and constantly fell out on their own, let alone from the resistance of flesh and bone, so noting fragmented T. rex teeth isn't conclusive evidence.

Bite location. The teeth marks were on a hip, which is a disabling, not feeding, spot.

Of course, the close relative of Tyrannosaurus rex, Tarbosaurus bataar, is known to be a hunter, as partially healed bite marks corresponding to its dentition were found on the skull of a specimen of Tarchia.

The Tyrannosaurus rex eyesight was nothing compared with current theory, which has T. rex as primarily a scavenger, as well as having some feathers.

I've heard that, and it really falls apart when you take a hard look at it. It's not even "the current" theory, just something a couple of guys think might be the case. But when you consider that there are no earth-bound true "scavengers" (the most famous scavenger, the Hyenas of Africa, kill about 80% of what they eat) and then doing things like looking at bone density, and ankle/knee angles, they were not slow and ponderous as the "Scav scientists" suggest.

It goes like this:

"Hey, Tom! I just saw this great movie based on a book by Michael Chrichton about dinosaurs and the fierce di... dei... diek... dicknikus!"

"A what???"

"Yeah! A dicknikus!"

"Man, I'm never going to the movies again..."

Tell me Michael Chrichton didn't know his book would be made into a movie.

A little late and probably now somewhat irrelevant, BUT:

Crichton was originally going to make Timeline into a movie with Spielberg, but when asked about his other projects, and when he said that he had a novel about bringing back dinosaurs with horrible consequence, it was a bit of a no-brainer to switch gears.

I forget where I heard that, but you can trust me on it.

As for Velociraptor, I was originally ticked off when I found out they weren't really that big (and at the moviemakers for exaggerating, not at nature for not making everything wicked huge :rolleyes:), but have since gotten over it. They still looked wicked awesome. And the addition of the small ridge of feathers in JP3 (despite the fact that the movie as a whole was pretty crappy) was a nice touch.

Spinosaurus was what really pissed me off. I know there's some mystery surrounding the dinosaur, but the on-screen representation seemed a little foolish to me. Is there really any evidence that Spinosaurus was that big? And didn't they rip the head from Baryonyx? I'd much rather have them extrapolate on a dino like the giant one for which they only found the arms, Deinocheirus (I can't believe I remembered that name :D ), than to mix-and-match known species.

EDIT: Did a little on-line research after posting and discovered that Baryonyx and Spinosaurus are actually related pretty closely. Also found several sources that proport it to be the largest carnivore, but I'm wary of people just going with the JP flow, so I'll remain open-minded in that regard.

I had a grand old time reading the book Jurassic Park, which I did after seeing the all three movies, I say ashamedly, since the Raptors were whatever I wanted them to be in my mind. I saw them as small and fierce, with downy feathers at different spots on their bodies, but not covering them entirely, and with a call like the one they had in JP3. Their mannerisms in my mind were a combination of a lizard, bird, and wolf.

Ah, the power of the written word.

You've just noticed this now? I've been angry for years about the whole deinonychus travesty.. the second I left the theater I was like "where the hell was the deinonychus?!"

I can never tell if someone is joking or not on the internet, but I laugh nonetheless.

EDIT: Did a little on-line research after posting and discovered that Baryonyx and Spinosaurus are actually related pretty closely. Also found several sources that proport it to be the largest carnivore, but I'm wary of people just going with the JP flow, so I'll remain open-minded in that regard.


Well, that is more or less true. We have found specimens of Spinosaurus that are a bit larger than Tyrannosaurus(although do remember we only have a handful of fossils of either). However, in actual size, Rex was far larger. Everything about it's bone structure indicates large muscles, add to that the fact that it's bones were far more heavily built and denser than other therapods, and you have a very formidable size(in overall tonnage). Spinosaurus had a much more slender build, with a smaller frame than that of the Rex. Basically, it was longer, but smaller.

The Liberated Ones']Anti science trash: "Human triggered climate change is just a conspiracy by incompetent researchers looking for grant money". The linking of terrorism to academia grated too.

I haven't actually read the novel, I just read a few of the writer’s articles about it before it came out and it set my teeth on edge. (I did read The Lost World, and that was bad enough).
You should read it, regardless of whether you agree with Crichton on this particular issue it's a good read.

That said, I would be far more afraid of a Velociraptor than a Deinonychus or a Utahraptor. With the latter, you're dealing with a small group of rather lumbersome and slow creatures. The former would be able to sneak up on you far easier, with your notice, and would be a bit more agile.

Lumbersome and slow like a leopard.

Okay...Time for the zoology student to step in....*clears throat*

Everything we know regard the former Rulers of this planet is THEORY that is based on a limited fossil record. All that we know is their skeletal structure and perhaps the texture of the skin made by imprints. Almost all "feathered" dinosaurs have been found in Liaoning, a provience in Northern China that was a "cold" island at the time of the dinosaurs, which does dictate evolutionary adaption to the environment. However, stating that dinosaurs were "warm" or "cold" blooded (why can't we just use endotherm and ectotherm/poikilothermic?) is entirely a personal preference considering that the scientific community is still divided over this matter: Evidence supports both theories equally as well. The Tyrannosaurus Rex (or as I will refer to as T. rex, which is a legitimate scientific notation considering humans are noted as H. sapiens) was "believed" to have posessed feather-like structures when young, but shed them entirely by sexual maturity. The reason behind this, perhaps was to aid in warmth for a poikilothermic animal, or perhaps in insolation from the cold for an endotherm. The reason for the adults not having feathers: If T. rex was indeed poikilothermic, a 20 pound baby cannot retain heat as well as 4-7 ton behemoth. Given that weight, the adults would have been able to retain enough heat in their bodies to last them thorough the cold Prehistoric Montana nights. I myself cannot possibly imagine ANY dinosaur with feathers, but that is probably due to I was raised with them as feather-less....but I digress.....

Back on topic.....We do not know that ALL Velociraptors were three feet tall, and that the DNA retrieved in the novel was that of a species of Velociraptor who due to little competition, massive prey and genetic isolation, evolved into 6 foot, 200 pound killing machines. As I said earlier, all we can do is GUESS, and treat every presentation of data as strictly and whole-heartedly THEORY!

And here is an artist depiction of the deadly, terrifying....the monstrosity that is Deinonychus!!!!!

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/aangkai/Deinonychus.jpg

So terrifying!!!!!

And here is an artist depiction of the deadly, terrifying....the monstrosity that is Deinonychus!!!!!

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/aangkai/Deinonychus.jpg

So terrifying!!!!!

Oh, man, that was horrible! :eek: Did the artist draw that one around Thanksgiving or something? :p

Back on topic.....We do not know that ALL Velociraptors were three feet tall, and that the DNA retrieved in the novel was that of a species of Velociraptor who due to little competition, massive prey and genetic isolation, evolved into 6 foot, 200 pound killing machines. As I said earlier, all we can do is GUESS, and treat every presentation of data as strictly and whole-heartedly THEORY!

It's not that there may or may not have been a 200-pound Velociraptor, it's that there was a similar dinosaur of those dimensions already in existence, but he chose to fabricate a new version of Velociraptor instead. It's not as though the book is based around the existence of a giant Velociraptor or anything similar, it's just saying 'Velociraptors were big this, okay?'

Nothing really wrong with that, given that it's fiction, and Velociraptor does sound somewhat cooler than Deinonychus, but it is a bit quirky. It's sort of like basing a story in reality, but idly mentioning that all housecats are the size of tigers and expecting people to accept that as fact. Which you can do, sure, but it seems like a bit of a random thing to do when the story doesn't really have anything to do with housecats, and their increased size doesn't add anything to the story.

I so totally suck at analogies.

And here is an artist depiction of the deadly, terrifying....the monstrosity that is Deinonychus!!!!!

So terrifying!!!!!

I dunno, anything might seem pretty terrifying when it's trying to stab you in the jugular with a five-inch claw.

Okay...Time for the zoology student to step in....*clears throat*

You're a zoology student. You don't even know what the word "theory" means in a scientific context. You claim there to be a controversy where there is none. (Dinosaurs were endotherms. All of them. Growth patterns show this.)

Man, I saw that pic a couple days ago and I thought it was fugly. Instead, I've deciced to post a couple pics of good ol' Terrible Claw that are, in my mind, far more reasonable.

http://animals.timduru.org/dirlist/dino/DKMMNature-Dinosaur-Deinonychus.gif
For scale compared to a human

http://www.karencarr.com/Images/Gallery/2004_gallery_deinonychus.jpg
A pair, either hunting or just enjoying the sun

Wow. That Deinonychus to human scale seems a bit... off. Given that most things I've found have them at around 5 feet or so, meaning no taller than your average adult. I don't even think the Utahraptor was quite as what that picture is showing.

...or maybe the model is supposed to be a little girl or something? I can't tell. Seems misleading.

The dinosar in that pic seems to be twisted in the middle...

I always saw them as being hunched down far more than that, that one looks like a chimp trying to come to attention (for lack of any other available analogy).

Pinning their prey? I had read about the claw not being for slashing, but the use that was put forward instead was to stab. Like digging it into the prey's jugular.

Also, on the subject of books written about dinosaurs, and the whole Utahraptor business, has anyone read the novel Raptor Red by Robert T. Bakker?

I think I did. A speculative fiction novel about a few years in the life of a female raptor. Not bad, if I recall, though I can't say if the science was any good.

I think I did. A speculative fiction novel about a few years in the life of a female raptor. Not bad, if I recall, though I can't say if the science was any good.

That's the one. Yeah, no idea how much of the science was good in that one, but it didn't really matter too much to me, since the book was basically entirely speculation based in fact. Not to mention that it was just a good read.

With all this raptor fuss I'm suprised no one has mentioned anything about the Dilophosaurus in the movie. Shortened to around 3 feet tall and 5 feet long when they really are about 6 meters tall and weigh half a ton. Although I couldn't argue with the whole frill/spitting poison thing, that was just fun to watch.

Oh hey, about this. I just reached that part in the book, and I really have to wonder why they made it small in the movie, because the book states that the Dilophosaurus was 10 feet tall.

One theory I've read about this was that the Dilophosaurus is question was a juevenile. Nedry did, after all, mention something about bigger brothers.

As I have said before, I find it far more offensive that Crichton pinched all of his ideas from Pat Mills, and didn't even think to thank him in the sort of pompous afterword that's de rigeur in fat American airport novels. You shouldn't expect him to have a clue about paleontology, but the other is just plain bad manners.

My dilophosaur sense is tingling! Did somebody call for a loogie-slinger?

Becasue the U.S Airforce Read the book changed the name of the F-22 Lighting Bolt II to F-22 Raptor because they thought it was cool and all the geeks that saw the movie that went straight to the Recruiting Office but of course she changed the Dinosaur before they read the book so they werent to know or were they????.........

Becasue the U.S Airforce Read the book changed the name of the F-22 Lighting Bolt II to F-22 Raptor because they thought it was cool and all the geeks that saw the movie that went straight to the Recruiting Office but of course she changed the Dinosaur before they read the book so they werent to know or were they????.........
Surely these geeks all wore spectacles and would never pass an air force medical, though?

Surely these geeks all wore spectacles and would never pass an air force medical, though?
Youd think that but surprisingly no they were all put into cracking the Sudoku Code Bloody Bastard of a thing they are!

One theory I've read about this was that the Dilophosaurus is question was a juevenile. Nedry did, after all, mention something about bigger brothers.

Hey there's always the fourth movie to see bigger ones. :p

Youd think that but surprisingly no they were all put into cracking the Sudoku Code Bloody Bastard of a thing they are!
Oh well. At least it isn't named after the wrong dinosaur...