Are scientists right to criticise Jurassic World?

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 21.16.13

In development for over a decade following the release of Jurassic Park III, the much loved sci-fi franchise is set to continue in 2015 with Jurassic World. The first full-length trailer for the film, which director Joe Johnston has stated will start a new trilogy within the franchise, was released on 25th November, and in it eager audiences got their first glimpse at Hollywood’s dinosaurs in 13 years.

Featuring a Big Bad dinosaur made from hybridised DNA that harks back to the original film’s theme of man’s obsession with playing God and meddling in things he just can’t control, and raptors clearly so enamoured with Chris Pratt in a leather waistcoat that they’re trotting tamely alongside him, Jurassic World doesn’t exactly seem as if it will be grounded in reality. No one is denying that. Rather, that’s what audiences are likely hoping for – it’s going to be a jolly romp in fantasy.

Criticism, however, has arisen from scientists who have openly commented on the inaccuracy of the reconstructed life appearances of Jurassic World’s dinosaurs, among other things. One of those featured in a round-up article by The Independent is Southampton’s own Dr. Darren Naish, a renowned palaeontologist. Blogging on Tetrapod Zoology for Scientific American, he highlighted some issues in the appearance of the giant marine Mososaur, though he did praise others.

Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 21.18.43 Screen Shot 2014-12-12 at 21.18.50

Further, entomologist Morgan Jackson noted that what was probably meant to represent a gigantic blood sucking mosquito was instead a crane fly. The life spans of many crane flies are so short that many don’t actually eat at all, so the film’s fictional geneticists might have some trouble obtaining dinosaur DNA from that precise bit of amber. The larvae, however, are herbivorous – maybe they’re trying to reconstruct ancient plants, as in the first Jurassic Park? Perhaps that’s a bit of a stretch.

Subsequently, there has been a vocal social media response to criticism of the film, suggesting those commenting should just lighten up because, after all, it’s only a film; likening them to dorky palaeontologist Ross Geller from Friends. Firstly, most scientists will both readily and proudly acknowledge that they are, in fact, dorks. It’s the age of the geek. We wear it like a badge of pride.

But it must be also considered that the inaccuracies Jurassic World features are not recent revelations, or concepts supported but one or two niches journals only. The presence of feathers in dinosaurs in particular is supported and argued across vast quantities of literature.

Birds descended from theropod dinosaurs – a group primarily composed of bipedal carnivorous dinosaurs, that contained species such as the charismatic Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus. But feathers did not appear full formed in ‘missing link’ species like Archaeopteryx towards the crown of this group, but rather were present in some form far back into dinosaur’s evolutionary history. Likely evolving from single filamentous skin protrusions which subsequently split to develop the barbs, barbules and central quill of modern feathers, we now know that dinosaurs across the development of this group had some kind of soft body covering.

V. mongoliensis by Jules RuizIn early dinosaurs this would have been a fuzz of ‘proto-feathers’, but these would have become advanced such that by the time the relatively ‘young’ group the Dromaeosaurids emerged, these dinosaurs would have been covered in feathers all over their bodies, perhaps elaborated to longer ‘wings’ or with a tail fan. Velociraptors are Dromaeosaurs; this modern reconstruction by palaeoartist Jules Ruiz is probably quite unlike anything audiences have been exposed to in mainstream media. Supporting this further, a formal description of a new fossil published in Science in July 2014 suggests that feathers coexisted with scales in the very earliest of theropod dinosaurs, where they split from other evolutionary groups, and are potentially widespread across early and other dinosaur groups.

I’m not expecting Jurassic World to incorporate new concepts that arise during or prior to its film making; far from it. If anything, I would strongly suggest against it – one article in one journal does not a sound scientific concept make, and to distribute possible misinformation to innumerable cinema goers would be reckless.

But so it also is to continue perpetuating ill founded information, which goes against the established consensus of the entire palaeontological community.

A palaeontologist from the Smithsonian gave the scientific knowledge displayed thus far in Jurassic World a resounding “Meh”, dating the reconstructions to ideas from the 1970s and 1980s and likening them more to regular fantasy monsters than anything like what we now know real prehistoric animals to have looked like. These are not new ideas, and neither can these mistakes nor others be chalked up to a lack of research by a film with a budget of $150 million.

At the end of the day Jurassic World is a film. It’s entertainment. It’s not a documentary, and it has no obligation to be completely scientifically accurate. It wants its dinosaurs to look like dinosaurs. The dinosaurs, that is, of public imagination – grey-brown, scaly and mean looking. Audiences, including those from a background of palaeontology, will love it regardless. Because, hey! Dinosaurs! In a theme park! Eating people! It’ll be like Zoo Tycoon, when you delete the fences.

But being in such a position does not exempt filmmakers from making responsible choices to educate and inform. Far more people will watch Jurassic World than will study the evolutionary emergence of morphological characters in theropod dinosaurs – does that not give them some duty to disseminate accurate information? Celebrities and other public figures are constantly scrutinised, for their actions both public and private, and the criticism levied at them often constitutes their status as a role model. In the public eye, your actions for better or worse will have an impact on those they are broadcast to.

When the media we consume, purpose built to be watched and enjoyed, has the power to impact our lives and culture so significantly, those who suggest it not be given a free pass to do as it pleases are certainly worthy of consideration.


2 thoughts on “Are scientists right to criticise Jurassic World?

  1. The portrayal of science in the media is most definitely an interesting issue. Although its palaeontological accuracy is certainly open to critique, one thing about Jurassic World is certain: it will inspire a future generation of palaeontologists. It will be these palaeontologists who will go on to conduct the ground-breaking research that will transform our current understanding of past life; much as the discovery of feathered dinosaurs did in the mid-1990s! Perhaps, then, Jurassic World is a necessary evil for the progression of the discipline (if you consider a mosasaur with an un-forked tongue or an unfeathered dromaeosaurid an ‘evil’!). However fanciful the science may be, the fact remains that this will be a film watched all over the world by millions; very rarely is palaeontology able to attract such a large audience.

    Scientists are sceptics, and rightly so. Critical thinking and evaluation of evidence are essential in all areas of science. Rather than being a gross injustice to the field of palaeontology, could the inaccuracies in Jurassic World actually engender critical thinking in aspiring palaeontologists, with youthful whispers of “could that really happen?” and “is that really what they were like?” echoing in movie theatres worldwide? As an aspiring palaeontologist myself I’d like to think so.

    With the unveiling of Sophie the Stegosaurus in the Natural History Museum this month, and the release of the trailer of Jurassic World last month, it’s an exciting time for all dinosaur lovers. Instead of spreading criticisms of Jurassic World, palaeontologists should be jumping for joy that once again their discipline is heading to the big screen!


    • Oh, I most certainly agree! And I think palaeontologist are certainly gratified by this, that they work in a field dynamic enough that such large scale paradigms are overturned and that contains information as undisputedly interesting as it does. That its content repeatedly makes it to the big screen; my passion is bioturbation, which though it gets my scientific blood pumping almost certainly doesn’t do it for other people.

      And yes, while the accuracy and implications of its content can be debated, I definitely think that scientists as a whole should be thrilled that the universe of Jurassic Park exists, for in its simplest terms it is a world where science is not boring. The portrayal of science in the media is not always a positive one, far from it, and even when we remove ourselves from our own world and look into those of fiction, scientific types are still those in white lab coats with thick rimmed glasses who add nothing to the plot than to let the rugged action hero talk at them for a while. This why I particularly enjoyed Pacific Rim, wherein both the tattoo-bearing energetic biologist and the fuddy-duddy mathematician run around at the last minute, jumping into (scientific) action and truly saving the day/the world. That’s cool! That’s dynamic! That makes little kids want to grow up to be scientists.

      That’s why, in my opinion, Jurassic Park and by extension Jurassic World definitely do deserve praise. Yes okay the film’s scientists may not have had the brightest idea in creating a hyper-intelligent bipedal theropod with opposable thumbs and manual dexterity, but no one in their right minds can deny that it is engaging. Anyone would want to work in that universe, hybridised super-predators besides. And so they do a world of good, acting to inspire budding scientists to join a field where they will eventually learn to think critically about the very work that enthused them to join it in the first place.

      (I speak for a lot of my peers when I say that Sea World and the like inspired us to study Marine Biology, where we have since gone on to study in depth all of the flaws of Sea World itself!)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s