Revealing mistake: When the group stops to watch the Brachiosaurus, its CGI head clips through the branches of the tree, and the body becomes transparent. A close-up is provided, though it's not necessary at all when watching it on screen.
Suggested correction: There is no clipping. When his head is turned, its head is in front of the branches, and when he starts looking forward and goes on his hind legs, its head is behind the branches.
I don't see any superimposing. Its head is in front of the branch. It's even clearer in the moving scene, no superimposing to spot. Is this screenshot from the VHS version? Because if it's not visible there, it won't be in any other version either.
Question: The second Nedry notices the Dilophosaurus in the jeep with him, why didn't he quickly get out and shut the door, trapping it inside? He had a second or two before the Dilophosaurus started growling and attacking him, plenty of time to get out.
Answer: There are some additional factors that would interfere with his ability to move quickly: He was obese (so not very agile) and his vision was impaired (he dropped his glasses and was sprayed with gunk in his eyes).
Answer: In addition to what RayWest and LionHead wrote, I would like to point out that it's easy to say what a person should have done. You're watching the situation as an outsider. Granted, this is a fantasy situation in a movie about dinosaurs, but the mentality is realistic: people who are actually in a situation don't always think of something that seems obvious.
Answer: The fact that Nedry was in a car could've been giving him a false sense of security. Yes, he could've gotten out of the car, but then he'd be out in the open, making it easier for him to get attacked by any other dinos that were lurking about. In the car, he probably (incorrectly) assumed that the Dilophosaurus would have restricted movement due to how small cars are, making it harder for it to attack.
Corrected entry: When Alan becomes overwhelmed after seeing the movie's first dinosaur, he staggers and sits down on the ground... But as he is bending over before sitting, there are already grass stains and/or wet spots on the seat of his pants.
Correction: I've watched this scene plenty of times and there are no grass stains on his pants.
There are definitely stains on his pants. Clearly visible in 4K.
Then I suggest submitting a screen shot because in the clearest images I can't see any stains or wet spots.
Question: Why was Dr. Grant so dismissive of Tim when they first met? I can understand Grant being annoyed with the bratty kid at the dig site but Tim showed a genuine interest in dinosaurs and even mentioned he'd read Grant's book.
Answer: Dr. Grant doesn't like kids. Any kids.
That was an issue between him and Ellie Sattler, who wanted to have a family, while he did not. She eventually married someone else and had kids.
Answer: Grant just has a low opinion of kids in general. He probably thinks Tim is too young to really understand or appreciate the research that Grant has dedicated most of his life to. Also, Tim can come across as a little "too much" at times; he talks really fast and barely gives Grant a chance to get a word in edgewise.
Corrected entry: In order to open a park like that to the public (and obviously it's close to the opening date) Hammond would have to convince more people than just his investors. In reality, the park would have to pass a security review, and those auditors would definitely ask questions like "What happens in case of a catastrophic computer failure?" Something tells me the answer "All the fences turn off and you have to run across the compound to turn them back on manually" wouldn't sit too well with them.
Correction: We don't know that Hammond is not going to do that. Having to convince the investors is just the first step. Without financing, nothing else matters because the park will never open.
The park is all but finished. You convince investors at the beginning, inspectors at the end. Convincing investors after the fact is just not how it works. Thinking about what the security inspectors will ask at the end is equally bad practice, although I have seen it done that way, if not quite at that scale.
The whole manual reboot had to be done because Dennis Nedry locked them out of the system, so they had to do a hard reboot. Dennis Nedry's virus and meddling also shut the fences down intentionally. In practice the reboot would be done with more time on their hands and someone at the compound ready to reboot quickly enough that all fences go back online in time. In this situation however, they didn't have those luxuries. No system can be fully made failsafe from industrial sabotage or hacking.
Question: What exactly was Dennis Nedry's plan overall? The shutting down of the command building's doors makes sense but shutting down all the park fences always struck me as a really pointless risk, especially considering he then proceeds to drive through the very areas he just disabled. Was he trying to create a distraction to cover his abrupt departure (in which case are we to infer he was actually willing to leave his boss, his colleagues and several visitors stranded with the dinosaurs?) or did he simply not have a safer means of smuggling the embryos off the island?
Answer: Twofold. He had to shut down the fences because they contained the exit gates so he could leave to get to the docks, presumably because he didn't have the time to override the individual doors as he happened upon them. Secondly, it also serves as a massive distraction so that he's highly unlikely to be chased by anyone from the park (Dinosaurs not withstanding!). He had to shut down security features on the island to access the embryos, to navigate through the park, and cause a distraction. All security ran on the same power. He was meant to only be gone for 5 minutes. That was what he had planned.
I agree with the above explanation. Also, Nedry needed the power off so as to not be seen on surveillance cameras.
Corrected entry: Right before the scientists see the dinosaurs for the first time, Ellie is looking at this plant leaf and saying, "This has been extinct since the ____ period." If it's an extinct plant, how could they duplicate it? Mosquitoes don't drink chlorophyll - there's no way it could have been preserved if everything worked the way they said. No organic material from an extinct plant from either the Jurassic or Cretaceous period has ever been found, and given that plant material decays very quickly, it never will be. The engineers did not use some magical "other method" to clone plants because there aren't any.
Correction: As has been pointed out on this site before, inventing deux ex machina explanations for plot holes and factual errors does not invalidate them. No organic material from an extinct plant from either the Jurassic or Cretaceous period has ever been found, and given that plant material decays very quickly, it never will be. The engineers did not use some magical "other method" to clone plants because there aren't any.
Correction: The video they watch (with Mr. DNA) only explains how they recreated the dinosaurs, which were the main attraction of the park. The engineers used other methods to make the right environment for the animals, but as it's not half as exciting, the viewer never finds out exactly how.
Correction: The simplest and most likely explanation, once you accept the logic of this movie in the first place, is that the engineers are removing Plant DNA directly from the amber.
Amber is fossilized tree sap, anything fossilized doesn't hold any DNA. However, it is possible amber holds trapped plant parts (called 'inclusion'), from which DNA can be extracted. Theoretically.
Factual error: At the beginning of the film we are shown an amber mine in the Dominican Republic. This amber is only 45 million years old, Hammond would never bother buying the amber from there as dinosaurs disappeared from the fossil record 65 million years ago.
Suggested correction: This is assuming that Hammond would restrict himself to a specific period of the earth's history, which makes no sense. Of course Hammond would also be interested in Paleogene or early Tertiary fossil blood! All the proto-birds, giant birds (just think about a Gastornis! What a sensation in a zoo!), not to mention giant mammals like the Megatherion, proto-elephants, proto-rhinoceroses.
There is absolutely no suggestion in Jurassic Park - film or book - that Hammond has any interest in any animals except for dinosaurs. We see no facilities for cloning extinct birds or mammals, nor are they mentioned in his promotional film. The post is correct.
It's specifically mentioned in the book that Hammond was buying huge quantities of amber, even museum-quality jewelry. He was likely getting hold of everything he possibly could to increase chances of finding blood-carrying insects.
There is also absolutely no suggestion that he wouldn't be interested. Surely these would make excellent alternatives / backups in the event he couldn't source enough mosquitos of the era he was most interested in.
As has been pointed out on this site before, inventing deux ex machina explanations for plot holes and factual errors does not invalidate them. Cloning non-egg laying mammals would require vastly different technology to that seen in Jurassic Park. Nowhere in the film is it indicated that Hammond is interested in anything except dinosaurs, nor that he is in any way equipped to clone anything but them.
Hammond buying up any mosquito-containing amber is not a plot hole. He didn't say he wanted exhibits from 45 million years ago, but he also didn't specifically say he wasn't interested. Lack of a statement in a film is not a plot hole.
Corrected entry: When they first arrive at the park, they see a brachiosaur feeding on the leaves of a tree. When the dino gets on its hind legs to get a hold of the top branch, it could've easily reached the top branch without taking the extreme energy to lift itself. This counteracts anything that would naturally happen but is used to make the impressive landing that it makes coming down.
Correction: Unless you'd care to provide full and factual details of your studies into real-life brachiosaur feeding habits, this is based purely on an opinion, which are not considered valid grounds for a mistake.
While rearing up is at least PLAUSIBLE for most sauropods as the majority of their weight was carried on their hind legs. This is not the case for Brachiosaurs, their skeletal anatomy just doesn't support it. The greater length and robust build for the forelimbs indicates that their weight distribution was much further forward than in a sauropod like say Diplodocus. While it cannot be stated 100% that a Brachiosaurus could not rear up, it would be extremely difficult, and likely carry a high risk of injury for the animal. sources: Evolution and extinction of the dinosaurs Cambridge university press Biology of the sauropod dinosaurs: Understanding the life of giants Indiana Univerity press.
The book is about studies of real fossils. In JP there were genetically engineered monsters. There could have been differences compared to true dinosaurs.
Well since this movie came out before those books did all this information is irrelevant. It's all artistic license.
Character mistake: When Genarro is explaining to Hammond that he is at the park to report Hammond's progress to the investors, he says "In 48 hours if they're not impressed, I'm not impressed. We'll shut you down, John." He should have said "If I'm not impressed, they're not impressed" since the investors would be shutting down the park on his advice, not the other way around.
Suggested correction: He'll be the one to shut it down, not the investors. They gave him the ability to do that. So once he hears they are not impressed, he'll be shutting it down.
That still makes the statement backwards, since he is representing the investors interests, not his own. The way he words it suggests even if they weren't impressed but he was, he could keep the park open of his own accord. The buck stops with the investors.
There's actually already a submission just like this one in the Corrections section, with the correction - provided by JC Fernandez - noting that Genarro is referring to the scientists that have to be convinced that the park is ready to open, and that if the scientists aren't convinced, then Genarro will not be convinced either, and he will notify the investors of it.
Didn't see that correction before. When reviewing the scene in question Genarro does ever so slightly gesture behind himself when he says "they", which I had not noticed before.
Question: How many raptors are in the movie? When Ellie goes to turn the power on there is one raptor inside there. Around the same time two are preying on Muldoon. Later in the kitchen two appear, sneaking for Lexi and Tim. Tim locks one into the freezer. Towards the end one appears at the control room door. Dr. Grant gets on the phone with Hammond and ask "there are only the two raptors?" Then Grant is heard shooting at it through the glass. Finally our heroes are surrounded in the compound center by two raptors. This is where the T-Rex enters to finish them off. Always makes me wonder how many Velociraptors were really in the movie.
Answer: There were always only 3. Muldoon mentions they had 8 originally but one of them killed all the others but 2. 2 attacked Muldoon whilst the 3rd attacked Ellie, one is locked by Tim and the last 2 attack the Rex which kills them.
There are 3 at the end. So either they messed up their count, or the freezer raptor got out.
The Raptor that followed them to the control room is the same one that jumped at the skeleton hanging from the ceiling. The one that Ellie locked in the maintenance shed is the one that enters the visitor center from behind the plastic sheeting. Rex comes and kills one and then the other one jumps on Rex. The third Raptor was nowhere to be seen as she was busy turning into an ice cube.
Question: Someone said Tim and Lex were altered so that they played equal roles. So Lex got age and computer skills and kept sport interest, and Tim got belief in qualities he did not possess. Plus, in the second movie, the boy kid was ruled out, even though he saved them many times in the book. Where is the equality?
Answer: In the book, Tim had the dinosaur knowledge and the computer skills, whereas Lex had nothing. Since she was the rather useless scardey-cat in the movie, they gave her the computer skills so she could help out at the end. In the second movie, both kids were ruled out; they essentially just had cameos.
You missed what he was saying. There is a boy in the second book who is kinda like Rain-Man and saves everyone's hide on multiple occasions. Just like how Dodson was supposed to be the one trying to get the dinos off the island, not more Ingen people.
Question: Why does Alan Grant struggle with his seatbelt in the helicopter ride to Isla Nublar? It looks like a fairly standard airline seatbelt to me.
Answer: This is a foreshadowing of the events to come. He has 2 female parts of the belt. He then over comes this problem by simply tying the two bits together in the same way all the dinosaurs on Isla Nubar are female to stop them breeding and over running the island. However, they over come this as shown when Dr. Grant finds the eggs after spending the night in the tree.
Answer: In addition to the foreshadowing of the female dinosaurs on the island learning how to breed, I think also works to establish Grant as an unconventional but creative problem-solver, someone who can make the best of an unideal situation. This leads credence to him being able to survive with the children in the park with all the dinos running around. So in that belt buckle scene you have three things going on at once: humor, foreshadowing, and character development. Great writing.
Answer: Alan is not a modern man. Being a paleontologist, he mostly relates to the past and shuns modern technology, as evidenced by his resistance to using the ground-penetrating radar to find buried fossils. He is uncomfortable and out-of-place in today's world and has difficulty using things as simple as a seatbelt.
So Grant has never been in a car? My dad can barely figure out this iPhone, but knows how to use a seatbelt. It could be as simply as he grabbed two female ends, which has happened to me on an airplane.
Corrected entry: There's a problem with the "faulty lysine gene" idea. If the idea is to insert a faulty gene to prevent the dinosaurs metabalizing lysine, then feeding them dietary supplements won't help. They won't be able to metabolize the extra lysine, so what's the point of them eating it? If the idea is to stop them manufacturing lysine then they are on a hiding to nothing anyway, as lysine is not "manufactured" in the body and is obtained exclusively from dietary sources. Either way, those dinosaurs are in trouble from the getgo.
Correction: The faulty lysine gene wasn't inserted to prevent the dinosaurs from metabolising lysine: It makes them lysine dependent. Word for word from the book (since it explains it better): "we don't want them to survive in the wild. So I've made them lysine dependent. I inserted a gene that makes a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism. As a result, the animals cannot manufacture the amino acid lysine. They must ingest it from the outside. Unless they get an extraneous source of lysine - supplied by us, in tablet form - they'll go into a coma within 12 hours and expire."
Corrected entry: Early in the movie, in the scene where the goat is presented to try and attract the T-Rex, Lex claims to be a vegetarian. Yet later in the movie, Lex is eating jelly, which contains gelatin, an animal derived product, which is unsuitable for vegetarians and vegans.
Corrected entry: When the T-Rex moves to Dr. Grant and the boy they hold still because it can't see things that don't move. Unfortunately though, T-Rex's have a highly developed sense of smell and would certainly have known they were there.
Correction: Considering the fact T-Rex's have been extinct for 65 million years, its quite difficult to tell what their sense of smell was like. Also, Grant says quite clearly in the film that sight was the Rex's most powerful sense and if you stayed still, it confuses him.
There is actually evidence that T-Rex had visual clarity 13 times better than a human, and could see objects up to 6 kilometres away. So, T-Rex would have been able to see Dr. Grant and the boy regardless of whether they moved or not.
If a T-Rex is unable to see something when something is standing still, it's not its most powerful sense. Smell makes more sense, but not provable.
Question: Is it true that a T-Rex's vision is based on movement?
Answer: According to noted paleontologist Jack Horner, who acted as a consultant on this film, it is not known whether or not a T-Rex's vision was based on movement. However, because some reptiles do have this trait, Horner said it's possible that a T-Rex could have it as well, and he didn't object to it being in the movie. Being as these are not pure dinosaurs, it's plausible.
Kent Stevens conducted an experiment to figure out what kind of vision T-rex had.
There is evidence that T. Rex had excellent binocular vision, and could see you even if you didn't move.
Answer: It's unlikely. As a large and top-heavy predator, the T. Rex would have needed excellent vision to be sure that it didn't fall over and injure itself. As it also had overlapping binocular vision (similar to predatory birds, predatory mammals, and humans), it most likely had very good vision, especially since prey freezing in place (like a deer in headlights) is a common thing. This is a holdover from the first book, which is also lampshaded as a bad theory in the second book.
Kent Stevens determined that T-rex had a depth perception of 55°. That's better than hawks and eagles.
Corrected entry: When the insurance man runs into the bathroom, and is eaten by the T-Rex, why would they have bathrooms on an automated car tour where you're not supposed to open the doors anyway? Even if it were an emergency staff bathroom, it probably wouldn't have multiple stalls.
Correction: Remember, "probably" doesn't qualify as a movie mistake. It must have taken dozens of workers to construct the paddock; a double-stall toilet would be logical. Since they decided to make it a permanent toilet (instead of a porta-potty) it would make sense to leave it there for maintenance workers and park employees.
Correction: They also might have stops for visitors. A lot of visitors would want to stop and see the T-Rex.
Plus, when you gotta go you gotta go.
Corrected entry: When the doctor is showing off the piece of amber that they have gotten the DNA from, there is a problem. The mosquito in the amber is a male, as one can tell by the antennae. Because it is only the female mosquito that feeds on blood, the male should only have nectar in its stomach. To make it worse, in that species of mosquito, Toxirhynchites, both the males AND females are flower feeders, and would therefore have no blood, or dinosaur DNA in their stomachs. (00:25:00)
Correction: Can we not just assume that the mosquito in Amber in the cane is just symbolic and doesn't necessarily have to be the exact species and gender of the mosquitoes that yielded the dino blood and DNA?
Using the actual mosquito will have more meaning to Hammond than a random one. John is also shown to want only the best.
I don't know. I would think that a mosquito preserved in Amber containing dinosaur blood would be exceptionally rare and probably not the kind of thing you'd waste on a cane.
Correction: Hammond's company, InGen, did not deal exclusively with dinosaurs. Dr. Ellie Sattler, the paleo-botanist, observed and mentioned that Jurassic Park was also full of ancient and extinct plant life. InGen used the same process to procure vegetable DNA from ancient insects (such as the Toxirhynchites mosquitoes) that fed on vegetable matter. It's the same process.
Plant sap is composed mostly of water and dissolved sugars, hormones and carbohydrates. It does not contain any DNA.
Incorrect. Plant genomics research shows that plant fluids do, indeed, contain plant DNA. Moreover, a single mosquito could yield the DNA of several different plants, as well as the mosquito's own DNA and the DNA of microbes consumed along with the plant fluids.
Correction: The mosquito in the amber is not one that supplied the DNA for the dinosaurs. We know this because there is no drill hole for the extraction. When the extraction process is shown, a hole several millimetres across is drilled into the amber.
Correction: Plant sap consists of water, some simple sugars, more complex carbohydrates and plant hormones. It does not contain any DNA at all.
It's about the mosquito inside the amber, not the amber itself. Anyway, plant sap most definitely contains DNA, just plant DNA. All living organisms have DNA.
Plant sap does not contain DNA. Phloem sap consists primarily of sugars, hormones, and mineral elements dissolved in water. DNA is polar due to its highly charged phosphate groups and dissolves easily in water. Transporting dissolved DNA would be utterly pointless.
Fine, the amber doesn't contain DNA (it's fossilized anyway). It's still a bad correction.
Question: Wouldn't John Hammond be just a little bit worried at how animal rights activists may react to his park feeding live animals (like goats and cows) to the dinosaurs, and the damage it could do to the park's future?
Chosen answer: There are several factors to consider. First, zoos do feed live food to some exhibit animals that will not otherwise eat, like feeding live mice to some types of reptiles. Also, Jurassic Park is still top secret and is not yet open to the public, and therefore Hammond and the staff are, at this point, unconcerned about that and may change their practices later. Another consideration is that the park is in a foreign country that may have less stringent rules and regulations regarding zoo and aquarium practices; Hammond is likely paying them well to establish his park there and is bringing in tourism dollars. Finally, Hammond simply may be unconcerned about it, convinced that his fantastic park will be such a huge success and public demand to see the dinosaurs so great that it will overrule objections by animal rights groups.
Answer: In Jurassic World they still use animals so this isn't a concern.
What happens in a later movie is irrelevant to the question.
