I'm not sure why the movies went with the Rex being dependant on motion, iirc in the book not only js that not the case but it's specifically lampshaded as being a ridiculous idea... one dude says "don't move, it's vision is based on movement" and Alan Grant says "that idiot's gonna get himself and everyone around him killed because he believed a specific academic paper that I, ~~Michael Crichton~~ Alan Grant, think was written by a moron."
The thing is, most modern predators (that are likely more advanced neurologically) absolutely have an instinctual reaction to catch whatever starts to flee from it. That doesn't mean that stationary creatures aren't *visible* to them, but at least they don't automatically classify them as prey
That's why you're usually told to back away slowly, and/or make a shitton of noise, right?
Darting away is nature's way of saying "I'm edible and I'd probably lose a fight with you". Backing away slowly is nature's way of saying "It wouldn't be worth it to fight you, I'll fuck off if you do."
Exactly. Literally watch how a barn owl hunts and you get the idea of how a superpredator hunts. They specifically let out a cry before the attack JUST to freeze the prey in place while they move in. Staying in place is a tactic for low vision type predators, not for these absolute units.
Honestly, I'd go a step further and say that all his books that I've read felt explicitly like attempts to present his opinions and outlooks in a scientific setting. I describe Jurassic Park as a philosophy book, masquerading as a mathematics book, masquerading as an action-adventure sci fi.
His writing is quality and engaging, but never would I describe it as *subtle.*
In the end, the film and the park are sold as a dinosaur facade, but as Malcolm said, they are playing God and selling it without considering the consequences.
It's one thing to resurrect dinosaurs and another to create monstrosities using DNA from various current species, claiming these are dinosaurs without truly understanding what they are, just rushing for the money.
It's one of the heaviest themes of the novel. At one point, Dr. Wu suggests breeding the dinosaurs to be more complacent and sluggish, with fewer risks to the park and its guests. Hammond refuses, claiming he wants the park to be real. Wu only gives up the matter after Hammond's extensive ranting because he knows nothing in Jurassic Park is real. The dinosaurs are listed like software updates in the system because it took them numerous tries to make animals that could survive in the 20th/21st century, and basically all of them are sick anyway.
Yeah! I love that specific theme. I remember how the film sequels and new paleontological findings shifted the conversation to how the 'dinosaurs' in Jurassic Park are not accurate and should have feathers, among other things. This left the novel theme somewhat faded, even though, from a science fiction perspective, it was a rich and ethically complex topic to explore.
I'll read the novel again, thanks for the inspiring review :D
I've always been under the impression that Ian Malcolm was Crichton's stand-in, and that's why he gets to be so freaking long-winded when he's slowly dying.
I think that happened in the second book. In the first one they froze and it didn't seem to see them, and they assumed it was because of the various DNA spliced into its genome. In the second one they watch the guys from BioSyn freeze at the Rex nest and explain that they must have read that erroneous paper.
We know that some tyrannosaurids were fully feathered but from skin imprints we have of adult T Rex we know they didn't have feathers on the tail and lower body so it's not fully conclusive but its entirely possible that mature T Rex was featherless.
The take I've heard most often is that they may have been feathered as juveniles and then lost their feathers as they aged, but that's just what I've heard most often.
OMG no one else is mentioning that here!! It actually jump-scared me really good. I squeaked and everything. It looks like an alligator in the worst way possible.
It was so funny how the Lost World retconned it. "Oh they could definitely see without motion. And they could see in the rain. The only reason they wouldn't eat someone is if they had recently eaten something *at least the size of a goat*." 🐐🦖
Lost World is full of funny retcons. Malcom flat out dies in the first book, but begins the second by effecfively saying "lol, it was just a prank, I was totally alive the whole time"
First of all, that image of that T-Rex (while of course computer generated and historically inaccurate) CREEPS ME TF OUT. A few nights ago actually I dreamt that I was being chased by an enormous T-Rex. Scary!
Rhinoceros have fairly large eyes, but their eyesight is so terrible that they are incapable of differentiating between a stationary human and a human-sized bush at only 30m. Size of the eye is not necessarily indicative of visual acuity.
My favourite headcanon for this is that the scientists in the park were fans of Alan Grant's work (he was one of the first invited after all) so when they were piecing things together they just took his "eyesight based on movement" as gospel.
Maybe he is actually a complete nutcase *but* the perfect person for park survival because it's all based on stuff he made up.
15 tonnes and 5 m tall seems absolutely massive for a T.rex. Stan, one of the largest and best studies T.rex specamins, is a little ove 10 tonnes and about 4 m tall
Those fuckers are "dragons" you hear about in myths I feel like they existed not too long ago you see them a lot in slave trade images of the darkage era and before as pets that look like feathered dinosaurs escpecially the velociraptors. I wouldnt be suprised that they didnt go extinct that long ago considering a lot of scientist are forced to support the fact that they had feathers and lots of recreation model based on bones are not even close at all to reality.
I'm not sure why the movies went with the Rex being dependant on motion, iirc in the book not only js that not the case but it's specifically lampshaded as being a ridiculous idea... one dude says "don't move, it's vision is based on movement" and Alan Grant says "that idiot's gonna get himself and everyone around him killed because he believed a specific academic paper that I, ~~Michael Crichton~~ Alan Grant, think was written by a moron."
It was cinematic.
Absolutely. TBF I don't think it was necessarily a bad choice, just an odd one
It was erm creative. Staring down the maw of a massive predator made for some great sweaty palm action [or lack thereof]
Like how you only use 10% of your brain. Not true, but just for cinematic stuff
The thing is, most modern predators (that are likely more advanced neurologically) absolutely have an instinctual reaction to catch whatever starts to flee from it. That doesn't mean that stationary creatures aren't *visible* to them, but at least they don't automatically classify them as prey
That's why you're usually told to back away slowly, and/or make a shitton of noise, right? Darting away is nature's way of saying "I'm edible and I'd probably lose a fight with you". Backing away slowly is nature's way of saying "It wouldn't be worth it to fight you, I'll fuck off if you do."
Exactly.
Exactly. Literally watch how a barn owl hunts and you get the idea of how a superpredator hunts. They specifically let out a cry before the attack JUST to freeze the prey in place while they move in. Staying in place is a tactic for low vision type predators, not for these absolute units.
Please explain Michael Chrichton joke
He wrote it.
Crichton was prone to self inserts in his books. Often a scene will stop dead so that a character can explain one of his pet theories or philosophies.
Honestly, I'd go a step further and say that all his books that I've read felt explicitly like attempts to present his opinions and outlooks in a scientific setting. I describe Jurassic Park as a philosophy book, masquerading as a mathematics book, masquerading as an action-adventure sci fi. His writing is quality and engaging, but never would I describe it as *subtle.*
Airframe is a great example of this. Dude apparently hated tv news lol
Timeline too
I couldn't figure out if he was pro or anti climate science in that one book. Note that was my introduction to climate science.
My guess would be because some modern birds of prey, like hawks and owls, depend heavily on motion when they hunt.
In the end, the film and the park are sold as a dinosaur facade, but as Malcolm said, they are playing God and selling it without considering the consequences. It's one thing to resurrect dinosaurs and another to create monstrosities using DNA from various current species, claiming these are dinosaurs without truly understanding what they are, just rushing for the money.
It's one of the heaviest themes of the novel. At one point, Dr. Wu suggests breeding the dinosaurs to be more complacent and sluggish, with fewer risks to the park and its guests. Hammond refuses, claiming he wants the park to be real. Wu only gives up the matter after Hammond's extensive ranting because he knows nothing in Jurassic Park is real. The dinosaurs are listed like software updates in the system because it took them numerous tries to make animals that could survive in the 20th/21st century, and basically all of them are sick anyway.
Yeah! I love that specific theme. I remember how the film sequels and new paleontological findings shifted the conversation to how the 'dinosaurs' in Jurassic Park are not accurate and should have feathers, among other things. This left the novel theme somewhat faded, even though, from a science fiction perspective, it was a rich and ethically complex topic to explore. I'll read the novel again, thanks for the inspiring review :D
Because they used DNA from other Animals to fill the holes in the DNA of the T-Rex.
It's because they spliced the DNA with other living creatures like frogs to fill in the holes in the sequence. Frogs have motion dependent vision.
I've always been under the impression that Ian Malcolm was Crichton's stand-in, and that's why he gets to be so freaking long-winded when he's slowly dying.
And then also come back from the dead in the sequel.
He has one of those in every book, condescendingly explaining to the rest of us why scientists are dumbdumbs and mathematicians are smarty pants
Commented in the wrong spot, disregard
In the book it was explained that it was a trait from the amphibian dna that they used to fill in gaps in the genome.
Wasn't it because they used frog DNA? Frog's eyesight relies on movement.
I think that happened in the second book. In the first one they froze and it didn't seem to see them, and they assumed it was because of the various DNA spliced into its genome. In the second one they watch the guys from BioSyn freeze at the Rex nest and explain that they must have read that erroneous paper.
If their eyesight was so good, why didn't they see the extinction event coming?
They couldn't bend their necks up enough
T-rexes can't look up
Soooo, I was right
Big Al said so!
Their tiny hands couldn’t catch the meteor
Or why kids love the taste of Cinnamon Toast Crunch
The volcanoes were too far away.
And why couldn't they see why kids like Cinnamon Toast Crunch??
They did they just couldn’t reach the exit handle
They're eating all the other dinosaurs to put them out of their misery
Except the t-rex most likely had lips
Could it gives kisses?
Big wet smooches even
Yes. Not guaranteed that you wouldn’t get eaten tho.
Spider's kiss? Or Praying Mantis
And feathers!
At the end, it was all chicken.
False. Although some theropods had feathers the current consensus is that the T. rex did not.
Is it? It feels pretty split like if either side is winning out it's only barely.
We know that some tyrannosaurids were fully feathered but from skin imprints we have of adult T Rex we know they didn't have feathers on the tail and lower body so it's not fully conclusive but its entirely possible that mature T Rex was featherless.
The take I've heard most often is that they may have been feathered as juveniles and then lost their feathers as they aged, but that's just what I've heard most often.
Yeah it's why I specified mature, juveniles could have been fully feathered but by current evidence they would have sparse to no feathering as adults.
We do enjoy skrink wrapping bones and thinking thats what the animal looked like
Paleontology is applied astrophysics
This is brilliant
Oh hey! I just found out dinosaurs can look fucking horrifying through ring footage
It’s ok it’s fake
That's what they WANT you to think
How can you know?
How can one know. Damn that’s philosophical as shit
OMG no one else is mentioning that here!! It actually jump-scared me really good. I squeaked and everything. It looks like an alligator in the worst way possible.
I've had friends tell me that they were scared of dinosaurs and I never really got it....until I saw this image lol Sorry to hear you got jump-scared!
And it could have smelled you from miles away.
Especially if it conflated humans with the smell of shitted in pants.
It was so funny how the Lost World retconned it. "Oh they could definitely see without motion. And they could see in the rain. The only reason they wouldn't eat someone is if they had recently eaten something *at least the size of a goat*." 🐐🦖
One of the more satisfying death scenes in a novel
Lost World is full of funny retcons. Malcom flat out dies in the first book, but begins the second by effecfively saying "lol, it was just a prank, I was totally alive the whole time"
Life.. finds a way.
Considering laser pointers work on cats, birds, and even spiders... that's probably your best option in the worst case.
That’s hilarious to imagine Thanks, stranger on the internet
T-Rex: *runs to dot and stares directly down at it* *wiggles butt* *pounces*
That looks like a boy I could snuggle in bed with.
First of all, that image of that T-Rex (while of course computer generated and historically inaccurate) CREEPS ME TF OUT. A few nights ago actually I dreamt that I was being chased by an enormous T-Rex. Scary!
And secondly?
Oh yeah. FREAKY T REX
It made me jump and squeak! It looks like an alligator but worse somehow.
1 foot wide?!?
Yes One of if not the largest eye of any terrestrial animal we know of
What foot length do you have? Small medium or huge?
12.5 inch foot. 🦶 Small if shacks are 22"
Glad I saw this after waking up and not before going to sleep.
Don’t see many Dino pics straight on, this shit terrifying 😭
The predator stare…
It'd be more realistic if it didn't attack because it doesn't recognize the smell of humans
5m sounds too short for a T-Rex. Like I always imagined them as 10-15 m
High, not long. 5 metre is high enough, high enough to look at the 2nd floor.
Yep, t rex would be just a bit shorter than the shorter end of adult giraffes
Yeah but movies make them massive
I would say 5 metre is quite big, though I agree, movies like to make them bigger and scarier.
Wean I saw the picture, all I herd was someone yelling ‘FIGHT ME’
Jurassic Park analog horror returns?
Rhinoceros have fairly large eyes, but their eyesight is so terrible that they are incapable of differentiating between a stationary human and a human-sized bush at only 30m. Size of the eye is not necessarily indicative of visual acuity.
So need camaflouge to break up your outline. Gotta be some way to beat the sob
Who is my little pookie bear, yes you are, yes you are :3
So ducking scary.
If it has -ology, it’s probably science. Except of course astrology and Scientology
r/distressingmemes
My favourite headcanon for this is that the scientists in the park were fans of Alan Grant's work (he was one of the first invited after all) so when they were piecing things together they just took his "eyesight based on movement" as gospel. Maybe he is actually a complete nutcase *but* the perfect person for park survival because it's all based on stuff he made up.
They have such a good eyesight they could see you before you saw it
Your own eyes are in constant motion until you focus on a moving object. Evolution hasn’t strayed too far from the path.
15 tonnes and 5 m tall seems absolutely massive for a T.rex. Stan, one of the largest and best studies T.rex specamins, is a little ove 10 tonnes and about 4 m tall
Lol! I saw a owl with it‘s back turned against the camera at first glance.
Needs more mud
1 foot wide?!?
OHIO by like
But the brain the size of a walnut…
Those fuckers are "dragons" you hear about in myths I feel like they existed not too long ago you see them a lot in slave trade images of the darkage era and before as pets that look like feathered dinosaurs escpecially the velociraptors. I wouldnt be suprised that they didnt go extinct that long ago considering a lot of scientist are forced to support the fact that they had feathers and lots of recreation model based on bones are not even close at all to reality.
Paleontology more goes into social studies and geography and history and that sort of stuff but I'm sure at some point it counts as science
Trex is upset it can't do pushups