Iâm watching Jurassic Park and dreaming of a remake where the dinosaurs all have feathers.
NO BUT THE BOOK EXPLAINS WHY NONE OF THE DINOSAURS ARE ACTUALLY PROPER DINOSAURS BUT NOBODY READ IT
Okay okay okay so the book explains that the whole park was a terrible idea basically from the start. The genetic engineer (or like the rich nut in charge) once made a super tiny elephant as a pet and it was awful. Just an ill-tempered bald corgi of an animal. Just bad.
Now, the dinosaurs in the park arenât exactly âclonesâ of the DNA in the mosquito- in fact, the DNA in the mosquito isnât really a big player. The book says that the dinosaurs arenât really DINOSAURS as they existed, but essentially homemade animals built from scratch to Look and Act the way we think a dinosaur Should. Like glorified toys. They could have just as easily made one eyes one horned flying purple people eaters, and it wouldnât have mattered.
Which is actually quite clever, seeing as it sort of bakes in an excuse for any factual inaccuracies in the movies, no matter how up-to-date the critters are at the time of production.
They donât look the way dinosaurs ACTUALLY DID because their designs are BASED ON INCOMPLETE DATA, not solid and complete genetic samples taken from real life.
They had one line in Jurassic World to explain all that:Â
Henry Wu : âNothing in Jurassic World is natural, we have always filled gaps in the genome with the DNA of other animals. And if the genetic code was pure, many of them would look quite different. But you didnât ask for reality, you asked for more teeth.â
Took four movies, but they explained it. Â
Frog DNA was mentioned in the first movie, it just took beating people over the head with it.
Fluffy T-Rexes Eating Capitalists.
Thatâs all I want.
My favorite Jurrasic Park theory is that none of the creatures have any real dino dna at all. That the whole âmosquito in amberâ story is a lie to make it believable; those animals are just chimeras of frogs and iguanas and emus and crocs and whatever the fuck to make them look âright.â Total fabrications.
After all, why invite an archeologist to the park and not, say, a zoo manager?
Because the archeologists arent there to evaluate safety at all. They are there to see if these chimeras can fool even an expert.
meanwhile, the blood-sucking lawyer who had oh so devious intentions such as âinvestigate the safety of the park after several reports of missing or dead workers.â only bothered to hire⊠an expert in chaos theory who can help asses how safe the park is and who (in the book) accurately predicts how the park would fail massivelyâŠ
âŠ
man, those theories about Hammond being actually the bad guy of the whole franchise might actually be rightâŠ
Oh, Hammond is 100% the bad guy. Like. You perfect that level of genetics technology and your instinct is to paton the hell out of it and try to find a way to make as much money as possible out of it?
âCapitalism corrupts scientific advancement to dangerous extremesâ is a pretty solid interpretation of the film.
I mean, thatâs not even interpretation. That was very explicitly textual.
âIâll tell you the problem with the scientific power that youâre using here: it didnât require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didnât earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you donât take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had you patented it and packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now youâre selling it, you want to sell it.â
Malcolm really has his finger on the issue that whole movie.
