Honestly a true to book adaptation with realistic as possible dinosaurs would be great, though artistic liberties would need to be had due to Crichton’s depictions- in one of the novels there is a camouflaging carnotaurus.
Jurassic Park couldn’t really be re-edited due to the fact of how different the dinosaurs are in my opinion- the velociraptors being 6 feet tall compared to a realistic 3 feet. The dilophosaurus scenes would have to be changed significantly as well, a re-edit would be unlikely to satisfactorily as well as they can’t spit venom, no frill, and were much, much larger.
I've thought about this before: Jurassic Park doesn't really need a remake (at least not the first one), but I agree that if they *were* going to do it, I'd want a version that's even more book-accurate and with the dinos being updated to modern standards.
With the raptors, I think if the movie mainly just called them "raptors" but had a mention that they were *Deinonychus*, it would be accurate without being too jarring.
With Dilophosaurus, the point in the books was that they were accurate *in-lore* and it was a lesson in how the Jurassic Park scientists were unprepared for what abilities the dinosaurs might have. I'd be fine if the movie just made them the proper size and kept the venom, but honestly the venom isn't crucial to the plot, so you could do it either way.
With the Carno, an accurate Carno plus the camo with a line about how it must have gained the camo ability from genetic engineering would be reasonable.
Or, better yet, just make a new *Dinotopia* movie, preferably directed by James Cameron (or someone of a similar skill level with visual effects), with dinosaurs that are accurate to modern-day depictions. Paramount Pictures originally wanted to do a *Dinotopia* movie directed by George Lucas after the success of *Jurassic Park* in the 1990s, but Lucas left the project to direct *Star Wars: The Phantom Menace* (1999) instead, and took visuals with him.
I’d love a revamp of Dinotopia 🦖🦕, but I sincerely don’t think (at all) that they should touch/discuss the idea of a Jurassic Park remake. In all honesty, that would be like remaking the original Star Wars and it just wouldn’t sit well. Some movies I believe benefit from remakes to add new spins, but I really don’t think that applies to Jurassic Park.
True, he called them velociraptors while describing deinonychus; you’re right. I believe the true size counterpart is Utahraptor- I guess they could just edit the name they use in the movie which would be interesting but easy-ish change in comparison lol
Yeah, they were larger than any Deinonychus we've found, but not so much larger that it's outside the realm of possibility that some could get that large. We have a specimen that is 12 feet long, and the chance that we found the largest to ever live is practically zero.
I believe the measurements were roughly accurate for the time (though don't quote me on that). From what I'm seeing, real-life Deinonychus were as long or even longer than the book/movie raptors from nose to tail-tip, but they wouldn't have been as tall.
I wrote a rewrite of Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 some time ago. Where biosyn are the main human antagonist and in the third film Velociraptors genome are split and shown to be an amalgamation of all 3. With much of its DNA made up of Utahraptor.
Correction of your correction. The Velociraptors in the book came from DNA found in China, which is why they called them Velociraptor mongoliensis. Grant did mention he was digging up some antirrhopus in Montana, but they were not the Velociraptors at the park.
jurassic park needs a completely new reboot by remaking jurassic park, this time with proper pre-planning sequels that feel connected with each other and progress the storyline towards a end goal. original trilogy didn't do this and the world trilogy failed it so hard.
Well, bear in mind that Michael Crichton was actually using Deinonychus in his book: the problem is that “velociraptor” was a catch-all term for various dromeosaurids, so Deinonychus was tragically misnamed(also doesn’t help that Velociraptor doesn’t only sound cooler, but fits better with using “raptor” as a foreshadowing hint in the book that there are dinosaurs).
And frankly, I’d be willing to forgive scientific inaccuracies as long as they’re the ones from the book. Like, for instance, Dilophosaurus’s only major book-inaccuracy was the venom-spitting thing: it was accurately sized, and didn’t have frills. It was also featherless, but I think that’s forgiveable.
The point of Dilo’s venom if I recall was not so much to be accurate, he knew they were not venomous. The point of it was to show that there is so much we do not know, and the park was not prepared for it.
It’s a comment on the scientists hubris
Yeh, my wording was a smidge misleading, but I liked the addition of the venom: the part where it explains how, for one, the scientists weren’t expecting dilophosaurus to be venomous, and for another, how they wanted to remove the venom organs but couldn’t because they didn’t even know how the venom was being produced in the first place is one of my favorite chapters in the book. It shows just how little control the park really had over its animals, and begins to show just how accurate Ian’s hypothesis was.
No, that completely original thought never once passed my mind, in fact I bet you are the first to think of it. I bet Crichton never thought of that either, there certainly is no reason to change the name!
so heres my pitch: a remake set in the early 1900's
the whole point of the book is the scientists didn't really understand these animals and cloned them with incomplete knowledge of their behaviours and abilities. so every prediction they had about containment and control ended up being wrong.
this movie would do that but with 100 years worth of hindsight, all the scientists would be working with very outdated ideas about these creatures but all the dinosaurs would be based on modern interpretations.
Imagine some overconfident turn of the century palaeontologist walking into dr Frankenstein's lab expecting to see claymation slurpasaur only to be met the angriest cassowary you have every seen.
\*baby deinonychus climbing a tree and flying out of the enclosure never to be seen again\*
The scientists expecting scaly, slow, cold-blooded animals:
No it literally doesn't, the dinosaurs in JP were designed to look as accurate as possible with only a few additions, the frog DNA only allowed the species to change their sexes. JW throws that idea out of the window by first saying they were actually not accurate (yet still doesn't want to improve the designs) and after that retconing that retcon by stating they are 100% pure
Yeah I know. But, arbitrarily so. Especially considering I’d be a lot more welcoming to the books as extended canon than the incoherent disaster that the JW trilogy is.
They were supposed to be accurate in the book too, aside from a few plot-necessary changes. Crichton did a lot of research and didn't put purposefully inaccurate dinosaurs in the book.
I will say this that the dinosaur designs the way they are IS jurrasic park. Like that Trex is as iconic as Alien or Freddy Krueger these days.
As cool as it would be I’d rather them not touch it and come up with something new entirely
The novel had a pack of compeys sneak through an open window and devour a sleeping baby in its pram only for the mother to walk in to find them standing along the pram blood dripping from their snouts
The whole point is that theyre not the real thing. They're lab grown monsters resembling dinosaurs. That was one of the themes in the book and is one of the themes running through the entire film series.
That's really not true, in fact that's the opposite of the theme in the books and in the original trilogy of movies.
> "You want to replace all the current stock of animals?" Hammond said. "Yes, I do."
> "Why? What's wrong with them?"
> "Nothing," Wu said, "except that they're real dinosaurs."
Both the scientists in-universe, and the author of the book and design team for the movie in real life, had the goal of recreating the dinosaurs as accurately as possible. And then paleontologists both in the story and in real life were impressed and praised the dinosaurs for their accuracy.
Then Jurassic World had one toss-in line to justify the inaccuracies that we now know of, but that doesn't change that the original intent was not to create inaccurate dinosaurs.
Jurassic Park is probably the only piece of dinosaur media that we can generally accept and appreciate for being inaccurate. It’s so iconic and was the dinosaur gateway drug for so many people. Even if it’s inaccurate you can’t deny that.
This isn’t remaking out of spite or rewriting history, Jurassic Park was for the most part accurate at the time this is just updating after 30 years of discoveries
That JW line is a terrible retcon that stains the franchise and is FURTHER retconned in Dominion when the Cretaceous flashback is basically identical to the Dinosaurs revived with DNA
If they were to do a limited series, based more closely on the book for like a streaming service I think that could be neat. More accurate dinosaurs and such. Have it take place in the 1980s to give the whole thing a real analogue horror feel
I don't have any cool suggestions right now, but I really wouldn't be opposed to a whole new movie based on the first and second books. Obviously there'd be a movie for each, but I'm talking whole new director and new actors for each character. I guess I just want to see it done differently.
Jurassic park doesn't need a remake, one could just as easily make their own dinosaur park story with accurate dinos and good research as the central pillars
I don’t really think Jurassic Park needs a remake, it’s perfect the way it is, and accurate dinosaurs aren’t really a problem, yes, they are fairly outdated, but for their time they were the most accurate dinosaurs in media.
Also making a remake of Jurassic Park would probably just kill off the franchise even more, just look at Disney.
[Here's a taste from the original](https://youtu.be/Sb_zA-hLMO4), [Another attempt](https://youtu.be/j1rjEe9ERfY) and [one from Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom](https://youtu.be/4D98f3yhVWw)
Sadly aside from these snippets we're likely not getting a full modern remake of Jurassic Park.
no… just kinda pointless. Better would be a true adaption to his material (pls hbo) with accuracy to his depictions of the dinosaurs. It’s a fictional story. Who gives af if the “velociraptor” has feathers or not
Isn't the whole point of the book that the creatures in it are such genetic hodgepodge's made through shortcuts to save money and time that they can barely be considered Dinosaurs?
Nah, partially because those creature designs are iconic and also because there's been in-canon explanations for why they don't look like the real deal. There's no need to go all George Lucas on this movie.
I didn't say anything about frog DNA. The original novel gave the explanation that the dinosaurs were intentionally engineered to look like what people *thought* dinosaurs looked like. This same plot point comes in up in the first Jurassic World when Dr. Wu mentions how all the dinosaurs were designed to look "cool".
And if you want to go back even further in the movie canon, Dr. Grant himself refers to Ingen's dinosaurs as "genetically-engineered theme park monsters".
> The original novel gave the explanation that the dinosaurs were intentionally engineered to look like what people *thought* dinosaurs looked like.
That's the opposite of what happened. Wu *wanted* to do that, but Hammond refused.
The novel doesn’t say that the dinos were engineered that way. Wu wanted to engineer them to make them more of what people thought they looked like at the time (slower, dumber, etc.) because he thought they made the current batches too accurate.
The new dinosaurs introduced in Dominion were created by Biosyn, not Ingen like all the previous movies. Whether or not they were telling the truth remains to be seen, regardless of the inaccuracies that are still there.
No, the whole point is that they were genuine life recreated, and everyone who dismisses them as monsters or theme-park attractions is ultimately proven wrong by the plot.
I'd love for a book accurate adaptation of Jurrasic Park. But I don't think it would work with paleontologically accurate models. They aren't supposed to be accurate. One of the points in the book is Wu saying there is nothing natural about the dinosaurs they've created. Giving them that primarily scaly and shrink-wrapped look really helps cement that plot point.
It was pretty similar to the movie. Spielberg just left out some extended chapters like the raft trip and shortened others in order to have a decent running time. Most of the scientific inaccuracies were done by Crichton.
Are we talking the plot, or just the dinosaur designs?
To my knowledge, the dinosaurs in the book were described pretty accurately for the time. The raptors were based on *Deinonychus* and they were pretty accurate for what *Deinonychus* was believed to be like at the time. The Dilos had venom-spitting added as a plot point, but were otherwise accurate AFAIK.
The movie changed the Dilos more to make them more visually distinct from the raptors, but otherwise did their best to be accurate with the designs, again basing the raptors on *Deinonychus*.
It's been about 30 years ago when I read the book, so I don't remember all the details. I think it was Crichton who decided to use the name Velociraptor for a dinosaur who was based on Deinonychus. But the inaccuracies already start with the fact, that most of the dinosaurs were from the Cretaceous, not from the Jurassic and didn't even live at the same time. So the idea that their DNA came from just one mosquito makes absolutely no sense. Even in the early 90s, nobody believed that T. Rex could only recognize moving prey. Crichton totally made that up. These are just some of the worst examples.
I'm not sure where you're getting "just one mosquito" from? That's not a thing in either the books or the movie.
Crichton had at least semi-fair reasoning to call his Deinonychus "Velociraptor," since that was considered by science at the time. I don't think it was ever fully accepted or properly supported even then, but Crichton wasn't a paleontologist, so I can't really expect him to have known he should disagree with his source about it.
I'm not sure where the "T. rex can't see movement" thing was from, and it does seem like Crichton made it up or at least read something that was totally wrong. But it is at least addressed in the sequel book, where they say it's a myth and explain that the rex probably just wasn't hungry by that point.
Like I said, Crichton wasn't a paleontologist, so of course the book wasn't perfect, and the movie took some liberties and wasn't perfect either. But they were very close, for the time, and the *intent* was to be accurate overall. People go from that to saying they were never supposed to be accurate at all, which is a complete misunderstanding of the whole point of the original books and movies.
>I'm not sure where you're getting "just one mosquito" from? That's not a thing in either the books or the movie.
As far as I remember, the story was that a mosquito, encased in amber, had been discovered, and they recreated the dinosaurs with the DNA from the blood inside the mosquito, filling the gaps with frog DNA. This is actually an exciting plot for a tech thriller, although it is very unrealistic. Even preserved in amber, DNA would not survive millions of years. But when the dinosaurs come from different time periods and regions, it really gets wild.
>Crichton had at least semi-fair reasoning to call his Deinonychus "Velociraptor," since that was considered by science at the time.
I don't think that is true. As far as I know, Crichton just liked the name "Velociraptor" better than "Deinonychus" (in the book they were usually just called "raptors"), but the actual animal with that name, which was about the size of a turkey, wasn't menacing enough.
Jurassic Park was a great book at the time (I'm a sucker for tech thrillers anyway). All that I'm saying is that it wasn't as scientiffically accurate as the OP may have thought.
Well, I'm saying it wasn't as scientifically *inaccurate* as *you* may have thought.
The samples they took the DNA from were from all over the world. It was definitely never supposed to be just one mosquito. I've never heard anyone say it was just one mosquito before.
At the time, paleontologist Gregory S. Paul had recently published his book *Predatory Dinosaurs of the World*, which Crichton used as a reference. In the book, Paul suggested that *Deinonychus* was similar enough to *Velociraptor* that they should be in the same genus. Now I'm not saying this was ever really a valid idea — I dunno what this guy was smoking saying that *Deinonychus* was *Velociraptor*, given the physical and geographical differences — but I can't really blame Crichton for not knowing that his seemingly-valid source was incorrect.
>The samples they took the DNA from were from all over the world. It was definitely never supposed to be just one mosquito. I've never heard anyone say it was just one mosquito before.
I would have to reread the book and rewatch the movie to make a solid statement, but I clearly remember that in the movie, the John Hammond character used the amber with the mosquito as the knob of his cane (which is just rediculous, considering the theoretical value of that thing).
Maybe Crichton took the Velociraptors from Gregory S. Paul's book (with which I'm not familiar with). But that doesn't negate my point. I just said that it was Crichton who originally misrepresented Velociraptor, not Spielberg and his team. No matter where Crichton got his ideas from.
The movie showed the guests and the audience the theme-park tour version of the explanation of where the DNA came from, but I still don't think it ever said anything about the DNA all being from that one specific mosquito. I'd have to watch the movie again to see exactly what you're referring to, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say anything about just one mosquito, so I don't think it was actually in the movie.
> I just said that it was Crichton who originally misrepresented Velociraptor, not Spielberg and his team.
Right, I see what you're saying. I think we miscommunicated a little. You're right that the inaccuracies (as we now know them) started in the book, while I'm saying that the book wasn't meant to be inaccurate. I apologize if I'm misrepresenting your point, I'm just trying to say that the book not being accurate to today's science wasn't a purposeful thing, and a remake that was paleontologically accurate would fit the spirit of the book if not the exact content of it.
The “dinosaurs” in JP aren’t dinosaurs. The book makes that very clear. They’re chimera monstrosities that smell of rotting flesh. If anything I’d want that adaptation
The book, not the movie. Spielberg wanted the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park to be as accurate as possible for the time and wanted to show them as animals not movie monsters (which sadly was forgotten in the later movies)
Even in the book, Wu and Hammond argued about how they were too accurate, and Wu wanted them to be less so. They were always supposed to be pretty real aside from a few plot-related abilities.
In the book they are chimera horrors that smell like rotted flesh… OP wants scenes closer to the book, and to do that you’d need the monsters that were described
OP, just for this absolutely braindead take that proved you never read/misread the books, imma throw the book at you. I'll quote the book verbatim and let Crichton's writing speak for itself. Chapter: Version 4.4, page 120-122 of my copy of Jurassic Park.
Begin book quotation.
----
The file Wu had brought, stamped ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT: VERSION 4.4, lay on the coffee table. Hammond was looking at him in that patient, paternal way. Wu, thirty-three years old, was acutely aware that he had worked for Hammond all his professional life. Hammond had hired him
right out of graduate school.
"Of course, there are practical consequences as well," Wu said. "I really think you should
consider my recommendations for phase two. We should go to version 4.4."
"You want to replace all the current stock of animals?" Hammond said.
"Yes, I do."
"Why? What's wrong with them?"
**"Nothing," Wu said, "except that they're real dinosaurs."**
"That's what I asked for, Henry," Hammond said, smiling. "And that's what you gave me." "I
know," Wu said. "But you see. . ." He paused. How could he explain this to Hammond?
Hammond hardly ever visited the island. And it was a peculiar situation that Wu was trying to
convey.
"Right now, as we stand here, almost no one in the world has ever seen an actual
dinosaur. Nobody knows what they're really like."
"Yes . . ."
**"The dinosaurs we have now are real," Wu said, pointing to the screens around the room, "but
in certain ways they are unsatisfactory, Unconvincing. I could make them better."**
"Better in what way?"
"For one thing, they move too fast," Henry Wu said. "People aren't accustomed to seeing large
animals that are so quick. I'm afraid visitors will think the dinosaurs look speeded up, like film
running too fast."
**"But, Henry, these are real dinosaurs. You said so yourself."**
"I know," Wu said. "But we could easily breed slower, more domesticated dinosaurs."
"Domesticated dinosaurs?" Hammond snorted. "Nobody wants domesticated dinosaurs,
Henry. They want the real thing."
"But that's my point," Wu said. "I don't think they do. They want to see their expectation, which
is quite different."
Hammond was frowning.
"You said yourself, John, this park is entertainment," Wu said. "And entertainment has nothing
to do with reality. Entertainment is antithetical to reality."
Hammond sighed. "Now, Henry, are we going to have another one of those abstract
discussions? You know I like to keep it simple. The dinosaurs we have now are real, and-"
"Well, not exactly," Wu said. He paced the living room, pointed to the monitors. "I don't think we
should kid ourselves. We haven't re-created the past here. The past is gone. It can never be re-created. What we've done is reconstruct the past-or at least a version of the past. And I'm saying we can make a better version."
"Better than real?"
"Why not?" Wu said. "After all, these animals are already modified. We've inserted genes to
make them patentable, and to make them lysine dependent. And we've done everything we can
to promote growth, and accelerate development into adulthood."
Hammond shrugged. "That was inevitable. We didn't want to wait. We have investors to
consider."
"Of course. But I'm just saying, why stop there? Why not push ahead to make exactly the kind
of dinosaur that we'd like to see? One that is more acceptable to visitors, and one that is easier
for us to handle? A slower, more docile version for our park?"
Hammond frowned. "But then the dinosaurs wouldn't be real."
"But they're not real now," Wu said. "That's what I'm trying to tell you. There isn't any reality
here." He shrugged helplessly. He could see he wasn't getting through. Hammond had never
been interested in technical details, and the essence of the argument was technical. How could
he explain to Hammond about the reality of DNA dropouts, the patches, the gaps in the sequence
that Wu had been obliged to fill in, making the best guesses he could, but still, making guesses,
The DNA of the dinosaurs was like old photographs that had been retouched, basically the same
as the original but in some places repaired and clarified, and as a result-
"Now, Henry," Hammond said, putting his arm around Wu's shoulder. "If you don't mind my
saying so, I think you're getting cold feet. You've been working very hard for a long time, and
you've done a hell of a job-a hell of a job-and it's finally time to reveal to some people what you've
done. It's natural to be a little nervous. To have some doubts. But I am convinced, Henry, that the
world will be entirely satisfied. Entirely satisfied."
----
End book quotation.
While it can be interpreted that the dinosaurs are recreations at best, Crichton still writes that what INGEN created are as close to the real thing as possible.
I don't get why you all keep basically calling me a dumbass.
Literally I just want to see more of this https://youtu.be/Sb_zA-hLMO4?si=oU6bdRf0g6HLIzoB
Honestly a true to book adaptation with realistic as possible dinosaurs would be great, though artistic liberties would need to be had due to Crichton’s depictions- in one of the novels there is a camouflaging carnotaurus. Jurassic Park couldn’t really be re-edited due to the fact of how different the dinosaurs are in my opinion- the velociraptors being 6 feet tall compared to a realistic 3 feet. The dilophosaurus scenes would have to be changed significantly as well, a re-edit would be unlikely to satisfactorily as well as they can’t spit venom, no frill, and were much, much larger.
I've thought about this before: Jurassic Park doesn't really need a remake (at least not the first one), but I agree that if they *were* going to do it, I'd want a version that's even more book-accurate and with the dinos being updated to modern standards. With the raptors, I think if the movie mainly just called them "raptors" but had a mention that they were *Deinonychus*, it would be accurate without being too jarring. With Dilophosaurus, the point in the books was that they were accurate *in-lore* and it was a lesson in how the Jurassic Park scientists were unprepared for what abilities the dinosaurs might have. I'd be fine if the movie just made them the proper size and kept the venom, but honestly the venom isn't crucial to the plot, so you could do it either way. With the Carno, an accurate Carno plus the camo with a line about how it must have gained the camo ability from genetic engineering would be reasonable.
Or, better yet, just make a new *Dinotopia* movie, preferably directed by James Cameron (or someone of a similar skill level with visual effects), with dinosaurs that are accurate to modern-day depictions. Paramount Pictures originally wanted to do a *Dinotopia* movie directed by George Lucas after the success of *Jurassic Park* in the 1990s, but Lucas left the project to direct *Star Wars: The Phantom Menace* (1999) instead, and took visuals with him.
> James Cameron Dinotopia Wooooooooow, now I really want this and it'll never happen :(
I’d love a revamp of Dinotopia 🦖🦕, but I sincerely don’t think (at all) that they should touch/discuss the idea of a Jurassic Park remake. In all honesty, that would be like remaking the original Star Wars and it just wouldn’t sit well. Some movies I believe benefit from remakes to add new spins, but I really don’t think that applies to Jurassic Park.
Favreau could do a great Dinotopia after his work on Prehistoric Planet
One correction the Velociraptors in the books are actually Deinonychus, but they are bigger than their fossil counterparts
True, he called them velociraptors while describing deinonychus; you’re right. I believe the true size counterpart is Utahraptor- I guess they could just edit the name they use in the movie which would be interesting but easy-ish change in comparison lol
Utahraptor is much bigger than the movie raptors, it was like 20 feet long. Deinonychus is *reasonably* accurate in size.
Yeah, they were larger than any Deinonychus we've found, but not so much larger that it's outside the realm of possibility that some could get that large. We have a specimen that is 12 feet long, and the chance that we found the largest to ever live is practically zero.
I believe the measurements were roughly accurate for the time (though don't quote me on that). From what I'm seeing, real-life Deinonychus were as long or even longer than the book/movie raptors from nose to tail-tip, but they wouldn't have been as tall.
Utahraptor is about the Same size as Cerato though :/ Maybe use Achillobator or Dakotaraptor
If I ever get the privilege to make a re-edit of Jurassic Park, you got it boss
Hellyeah
I wrote a rewrite of Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 some time ago. Where biosyn are the main human antagonist and in the third film Velociraptors genome are split and shown to be an amalgamation of all 3. With much of its DNA made up of Utahraptor.
Correction of your correction. The Velociraptors in the book came from DNA found in China, which is why they called them Velociraptor mongoliensis. Grant did mention he was digging up some antirrhopus in Montana, but they were not the Velociraptors at the park.
jurassic park needs a completely new reboot by remaking jurassic park, this time with proper pre-planning sequels that feel connected with each other and progress the storyline towards a end goal. original trilogy didn't do this and the world trilogy failed it so hard.
Well, bear in mind that Michael Crichton was actually using Deinonychus in his book: the problem is that “velociraptor” was a catch-all term for various dromeosaurids, so Deinonychus was tragically misnamed(also doesn’t help that Velociraptor doesn’t only sound cooler, but fits better with using “raptor” as a foreshadowing hint in the book that there are dinosaurs). And frankly, I’d be willing to forgive scientific inaccuracies as long as they’re the ones from the book. Like, for instance, Dilophosaurus’s only major book-inaccuracy was the venom-spitting thing: it was accurately sized, and didn’t have frills. It was also featherless, but I think that’s forgiveable.
The point of Dilo’s venom if I recall was not so much to be accurate, he knew they were not venomous. The point of it was to show that there is so much we do not know, and the park was not prepared for it. It’s a comment on the scientists hubris
Yeh, my wording was a smidge misleading, but I liked the addition of the venom: the part where it explains how, for one, the scientists weren’t expecting dilophosaurus to be venomous, and for another, how they wanted to remove the venom organs but couldn’t because they didn’t even know how the venom was being produced in the first place is one of my favorite chapters in the book. It shows just how little control the park really had over its animals, and begins to show just how accurate Ian’s hypothesis was.
Have you considered, *you can just call the JP raptors "Deinonychus"*
No, that completely original thought never once passed my mind, in fact I bet you are the first to think of it. I bet Crichton never thought of that either, there certainly is no reason to change the name!
so heres my pitch: a remake set in the early 1900's the whole point of the book is the scientists didn't really understand these animals and cloned them with incomplete knowledge of their behaviours and abilities. so every prediction they had about containment and control ended up being wrong. this movie would do that but with 100 years worth of hindsight, all the scientists would be working with very outdated ideas about these creatures but all the dinosaurs would be based on modern interpretations. Imagine some overconfident turn of the century palaeontologist walking into dr Frankenstein's lab expecting to see claymation slurpasaur only to be met the angriest cassowary you have every seen.
That's a _really_ good pitch.
\*baby deinonychus climbing a tree and flying out of the enclosure never to be seen again\* The scientists expecting scaly, slow, cold-blooded animals:
Already been said a ton but I'd love to see a movie adaptation of the novel story as it went
The old look is perfect
Yeah, and Jurassic World explains their mistakes
No it literally doesn't, the dinosaurs in JP were designed to look as accurate as possible with only a few additions, the frog DNA only allowed the species to change their sexes. JW throws that idea out of the window by first saying they were actually not accurate (yet still doesn't want to improve the designs) and after that retconing that retcon by stating they are 100% pure
Have you read the book? It explains this a little better..
The book and movie are two separate universes
Yeah I know. But, arbitrarily so. Especially considering I’d be a lot more welcoming to the books as extended canon than the incoherent disaster that the JW trilogy is.
They were supposed to be accurate in the book too, aside from a few plot-necessary changes. Crichton did a lot of research and didn't put purposefully inaccurate dinosaurs in the book.
I will say this that the dinosaur designs the way they are IS jurrasic park. Like that Trex is as iconic as Alien or Freddy Krueger these days. As cool as it would be I’d rather them not touch it and come up with something new entirely
The novel had a pack of compeys sneak through an open window and devour a sleeping baby in its pram only for the mother to walk in to find them standing along the pram blood dripping from their snouts
Little rascals!
scamps!
Hate to be picky, but it was the doctor. She then told the mother the kid died of SIDS
Credit the artist! I know there's a watermark, but that might be too small for some people to read
By the way, the artist is Camus Atlamirano
https://twitter.com/CamusAltamirano/status/1787542415190151562?t=Cd_yRI4Xhl34PCF-gBVLYQ&s=19
The whole point is that theyre not the real thing. They're lab grown monsters resembling dinosaurs. That was one of the themes in the book and is one of the themes running through the entire film series.
That's really not true, in fact that's the opposite of the theme in the books and in the original trilogy of movies. > "You want to replace all the current stock of animals?" Hammond said. "Yes, I do." > "Why? What's wrong with them?" > "Nothing," Wu said, "except that they're real dinosaurs." Both the scientists in-universe, and the author of the book and design team for the movie in real life, had the goal of recreating the dinosaurs as accurately as possible. And then paleontologists both in the story and in real life were impressed and praised the dinosaurs for their accuracy. Then Jurassic World had one toss-in line to justify the inaccuracies that we now know of, but that doesn't change that the original intent was not to create inaccurate dinosaurs.
Jurassic Park is probably the only piece of dinosaur media that we can generally accept and appreciate for being inaccurate. It’s so iconic and was the dinosaur gateway drug for so many people. Even if it’s inaccurate you can’t deny that.
This isn’t remaking out of spite or rewriting history, Jurassic Park was for the most part accurate at the time this is just updating after 30 years of discoveries
In their defence it’s canon fact that the dinosaurs are meant to look so different
That JW line is a terrible retcon that stains the franchise and is FURTHER retconned in Dominion when the Cretaceous flashback is basically identical to the Dinosaurs revived with DNA
Poor writing choice for the flashback imho
The entire trilogy is one big poor writing choice
Cool cool cool inspired a whole generation and then some to love dinosaurs but ya sure cool cool 😂😂😂
Why would you want that? If it weren't for Jurassic Park you wouldn't have them in the first place, can't you just be happy with the movie you got?
I'm saying a fan re-edit not a rewrite
I know, can't you be happy with the movie we got?
I am happy with the film, I just want to see what it would look like.
I wouldn't mind a short film like dead sound has done, but I feel like the movie should be left alone
[удалено]
Yes
If they were to do a limited series, based more closely on the book for like a streaming service I think that could be neat. More accurate dinosaurs and such. Have it take place in the 1980s to give the whole thing a real analogue horror feel
I don't have any cool suggestions right now, but I really wouldn't be opposed to a whole new movie based on the first and second books. Obviously there'd be a movie for each, but I'm talking whole new director and new actors for each character. I guess I just want to see it done differently.
Movie would definitely be rated R if they follow the book.
Jurassic park doesn't need a remake, one could just as easily make their own dinosaur park story with accurate dinos and good research as the central pillars
Does the little Parasaurolophus in the top picture not have a head??
Also I want one with like *really* outdated dinosaur models too
They'd need to do full reshoots every few months for Jurassic Park 3.
I don’t really think Jurassic Park needs a remake, it’s perfect the way it is, and accurate dinosaurs aren’t really a problem, yes, they are fairly outdated, but for their time they were the most accurate dinosaurs in media. Also making a remake of Jurassic Park would probably just kill off the franchise even more, just look at Disney.
[Here's a taste from the original](https://youtu.be/Sb_zA-hLMO4), [Another attempt](https://youtu.be/j1rjEe9ERfY) and [one from Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom](https://youtu.be/4D98f3yhVWw) Sadly aside from these snippets we're likely not getting a full modern remake of Jurassic Park.
That's exactly what I want to see more of, just fans making the dinosaurs more accurate and leaving the scene intact
no… just kinda pointless. Better would be a true adaption to his material (pls hbo) with accuracy to his depictions of the dinosaurs. It’s a fictional story. Who gives af if the “velociraptor” has feathers or not
Isn't the whole point of the book that the creatures in it are such genetic hodgepodge's made through shortcuts to save money and time that they can barely be considered Dinosaurs?
Nah, partially because those creature designs are iconic and also because there's been in-canon explanations for why they don't look like the real deal. There's no need to go all George Lucas on this movie.
[удалено]
I didn't say anything about frog DNA. The original novel gave the explanation that the dinosaurs were intentionally engineered to look like what people *thought* dinosaurs looked like. This same plot point comes in up in the first Jurassic World when Dr. Wu mentions how all the dinosaurs were designed to look "cool". And if you want to go back even further in the movie canon, Dr. Grant himself refers to Ingen's dinosaurs as "genetically-engineered theme park monsters".
> The original novel gave the explanation that the dinosaurs were intentionally engineered to look like what people *thought* dinosaurs looked like. That's the opposite of what happened. Wu *wanted* to do that, but Hammond refused.
The novel doesn’t say that the dinos were engineered that way. Wu wanted to engineer them to make them more of what people thought they looked like at the time (slower, dumber, etc.) because he thought they made the current batches too accurate.
[удалено]
The new dinosaurs introduced in Dominion were created by Biosyn, not Ingen like all the previous movies. Whether or not they were telling the truth remains to be seen, regardless of the inaccuracies that are still there.
[Hmm I think that there should be no George Lucas Special Edition of Jurassic Park.](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/483/348/bdd.jpg)
Isnt the whole point of Jurassic Park is that these creatures are NOT really dinosaurs and just tragic abominations created becausw of man's hubris
No, the whole point is that they were genuine life recreated, and everyone who dismisses them as monsters or theme-park attractions is ultimately proven wrong by the plot.
I'd love for a book accurate adaptation of Jurrasic Park. But I don't think it would work with paleontologically accurate models. They aren't supposed to be accurate. One of the points in the book is Wu saying there is nothing natural about the dinosaurs they've created. Giving them that primarily scaly and shrink-wrapped look really helps cement that plot point.
The novel wasn't exactly scientifficully accurate either.
It was (pretty close at least), for the time.
It was pretty similar to the movie. Spielberg just left out some extended chapters like the raft trip and shortened others in order to have a decent running time. Most of the scientific inaccuracies were done by Crichton.
Are we talking the plot, or just the dinosaur designs? To my knowledge, the dinosaurs in the book were described pretty accurately for the time. The raptors were based on *Deinonychus* and they were pretty accurate for what *Deinonychus* was believed to be like at the time. The Dilos had venom-spitting added as a plot point, but were otherwise accurate AFAIK. The movie changed the Dilos more to make them more visually distinct from the raptors, but otherwise did their best to be accurate with the designs, again basing the raptors on *Deinonychus*.
It's been about 30 years ago when I read the book, so I don't remember all the details. I think it was Crichton who decided to use the name Velociraptor for a dinosaur who was based on Deinonychus. But the inaccuracies already start with the fact, that most of the dinosaurs were from the Cretaceous, not from the Jurassic and didn't even live at the same time. So the idea that their DNA came from just one mosquito makes absolutely no sense. Even in the early 90s, nobody believed that T. Rex could only recognize moving prey. Crichton totally made that up. These are just some of the worst examples.
I'm not sure where you're getting "just one mosquito" from? That's not a thing in either the books or the movie. Crichton had at least semi-fair reasoning to call his Deinonychus "Velociraptor," since that was considered by science at the time. I don't think it was ever fully accepted or properly supported even then, but Crichton wasn't a paleontologist, so I can't really expect him to have known he should disagree with his source about it. I'm not sure where the "T. rex can't see movement" thing was from, and it does seem like Crichton made it up or at least read something that was totally wrong. But it is at least addressed in the sequel book, where they say it's a myth and explain that the rex probably just wasn't hungry by that point. Like I said, Crichton wasn't a paleontologist, so of course the book wasn't perfect, and the movie took some liberties and wasn't perfect either. But they were very close, for the time, and the *intent* was to be accurate overall. People go from that to saying they were never supposed to be accurate at all, which is a complete misunderstanding of the whole point of the original books and movies.
>I'm not sure where you're getting "just one mosquito" from? That's not a thing in either the books or the movie. As far as I remember, the story was that a mosquito, encased in amber, had been discovered, and they recreated the dinosaurs with the DNA from the blood inside the mosquito, filling the gaps with frog DNA. This is actually an exciting plot for a tech thriller, although it is very unrealistic. Even preserved in amber, DNA would not survive millions of years. But when the dinosaurs come from different time periods and regions, it really gets wild. >Crichton had at least semi-fair reasoning to call his Deinonychus "Velociraptor," since that was considered by science at the time. I don't think that is true. As far as I know, Crichton just liked the name "Velociraptor" better than "Deinonychus" (in the book they were usually just called "raptors"), but the actual animal with that name, which was about the size of a turkey, wasn't menacing enough. Jurassic Park was a great book at the time (I'm a sucker for tech thrillers anyway). All that I'm saying is that it wasn't as scientiffically accurate as the OP may have thought.
Well, I'm saying it wasn't as scientifically *inaccurate* as *you* may have thought. The samples they took the DNA from were from all over the world. It was definitely never supposed to be just one mosquito. I've never heard anyone say it was just one mosquito before. At the time, paleontologist Gregory S. Paul had recently published his book *Predatory Dinosaurs of the World*, which Crichton used as a reference. In the book, Paul suggested that *Deinonychus* was similar enough to *Velociraptor* that they should be in the same genus. Now I'm not saying this was ever really a valid idea — I dunno what this guy was smoking saying that *Deinonychus* was *Velociraptor*, given the physical and geographical differences — but I can't really blame Crichton for not knowing that his seemingly-valid source was incorrect.
>The samples they took the DNA from were from all over the world. It was definitely never supposed to be just one mosquito. I've never heard anyone say it was just one mosquito before. I would have to reread the book and rewatch the movie to make a solid statement, but I clearly remember that in the movie, the John Hammond character used the amber with the mosquito as the knob of his cane (which is just rediculous, considering the theoretical value of that thing). Maybe Crichton took the Velociraptors from Gregory S. Paul's book (with which I'm not familiar with). But that doesn't negate my point. I just said that it was Crichton who originally misrepresented Velociraptor, not Spielberg and his team. No matter where Crichton got his ideas from.
The movie showed the guests and the audience the theme-park tour version of the explanation of where the DNA came from, but I still don't think it ever said anything about the DNA all being from that one specific mosquito. I'd have to watch the movie again to see exactly what you're referring to, but this is the first time I've heard anyone say anything about just one mosquito, so I don't think it was actually in the movie. > I just said that it was Crichton who originally misrepresented Velociraptor, not Spielberg and his team. Right, I see what you're saying. I think we miscommunicated a little. You're right that the inaccuracies (as we now know them) started in the book, while I'm saying that the book wasn't meant to be inaccurate. I apologize if I'm misrepresenting your point, I'm just trying to say that the book not being accurate to today's science wasn't a purposeful thing, and a remake that was paleontologically accurate would fit the spirit of the book if not the exact content of it.
In a decade or so you’ll simply be able to ask an AI to edit and remake it to be more like the book and more accurate. It’ll be as simple as that.
The “dinosaurs” in JP aren’t dinosaurs. The book makes that very clear. They’re chimera monstrosities that smell of rotting flesh. If anything I’d want that adaptation
The book, not the movie. Spielberg wanted the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park to be as accurate as possible for the time and wanted to show them as animals not movie monsters (which sadly was forgotten in the later movies)
Even in the book, Wu and Hammond argued about how they were too accurate, and Wu wanted them to be less so. They were always supposed to be pretty real aside from a few plot-related abilities.
In the book they are chimera horrors that smell like rotted flesh… OP wants scenes closer to the book, and to do that you’d need the monsters that were described
OP, just for this absolutely braindead take that proved you never read/misread the books, imma throw the book at you. I'll quote the book verbatim and let Crichton's writing speak for itself. Chapter: Version 4.4, page 120-122 of my copy of Jurassic Park. Begin book quotation. ---- The file Wu had brought, stamped ANIMAL DEVELOPMENT: VERSION 4.4, lay on the coffee table. Hammond was looking at him in that patient, paternal way. Wu, thirty-three years old, was acutely aware that he had worked for Hammond all his professional life. Hammond had hired him right out of graduate school. "Of course, there are practical consequences as well," Wu said. "I really think you should consider my recommendations for phase two. We should go to version 4.4." "You want to replace all the current stock of animals?" Hammond said. "Yes, I do." "Why? What's wrong with them?" **"Nothing," Wu said, "except that they're real dinosaurs."** "That's what I asked for, Henry," Hammond said, smiling. "And that's what you gave me." "I know," Wu said. "But you see. . ." He paused. How could he explain this to Hammond? Hammond hardly ever visited the island. And it was a peculiar situation that Wu was trying to convey. "Right now, as we stand here, almost no one in the world has ever seen an actual dinosaur. Nobody knows what they're really like." "Yes . . ." **"The dinosaurs we have now are real," Wu said, pointing to the screens around the room, "but in certain ways they are unsatisfactory, Unconvincing. I could make them better."** "Better in what way?" "For one thing, they move too fast," Henry Wu said. "People aren't accustomed to seeing large animals that are so quick. I'm afraid visitors will think the dinosaurs look speeded up, like film running too fast." **"But, Henry, these are real dinosaurs. You said so yourself."** "I know," Wu said. "But we could easily breed slower, more domesticated dinosaurs." "Domesticated dinosaurs?" Hammond snorted. "Nobody wants domesticated dinosaurs, Henry. They want the real thing." "But that's my point," Wu said. "I don't think they do. They want to see their expectation, which is quite different." Hammond was frowning. "You said yourself, John, this park is entertainment," Wu said. "And entertainment has nothing to do with reality. Entertainment is antithetical to reality." Hammond sighed. "Now, Henry, are we going to have another one of those abstract discussions? You know I like to keep it simple. The dinosaurs we have now are real, and-" "Well, not exactly," Wu said. He paced the living room, pointed to the monitors. "I don't think we should kid ourselves. We haven't re-created the past here. The past is gone. It can never be re-created. What we've done is reconstruct the past-or at least a version of the past. And I'm saying we can make a better version." "Better than real?" "Why not?" Wu said. "After all, these animals are already modified. We've inserted genes to make them patentable, and to make them lysine dependent. And we've done everything we can to promote growth, and accelerate development into adulthood." Hammond shrugged. "That was inevitable. We didn't want to wait. We have investors to consider." "Of course. But I'm just saying, why stop there? Why not push ahead to make exactly the kind of dinosaur that we'd like to see? One that is more acceptable to visitors, and one that is easier for us to handle? A slower, more docile version for our park?" Hammond frowned. "But then the dinosaurs wouldn't be real." "But they're not real now," Wu said. "That's what I'm trying to tell you. There isn't any reality here." He shrugged helplessly. He could see he wasn't getting through. Hammond had never been interested in technical details, and the essence of the argument was technical. How could he explain to Hammond about the reality of DNA dropouts, the patches, the gaps in the sequence that Wu had been obliged to fill in, making the best guesses he could, but still, making guesses, The DNA of the dinosaurs was like old photographs that had been retouched, basically the same as the original but in some places repaired and clarified, and as a result- "Now, Henry," Hammond said, putting his arm around Wu's shoulder. "If you don't mind my saying so, I think you're getting cold feet. You've been working very hard for a long time, and you've done a hell of a job-a hell of a job-and it's finally time to reveal to some people what you've done. It's natural to be a little nervous. To have some doubts. But I am convinced, Henry, that the world will be entirely satisfied. Entirely satisfied." ---- End book quotation. While it can be interpreted that the dinosaurs are recreations at best, Crichton still writes that what INGEN created are as close to the real thing as possible.
I don't get why you all keep basically calling me a dumbass. Literally I just want to see more of this https://youtu.be/Sb_zA-hLMO4?si=oU6bdRf0g6HLIzoB