Editorial 12/01/2014- In defense of Jurassic World
Last week, as we all know, the first international Trailer for the film Jurassic World debuted online. It created a great deal of buzz, and part of me was hoping that this would help bring back some public interest in Dinosaurs. However, the more I looked online, the more I saw how this wasn't going to be so. Immediately, everyone started slamming it for its inaccuracies in its depiction of prehistoric genera. Thomas R. Holtz Jr, a world-renowned Vertebrate Paleontologist who advised programs such as the Walking with Dinosaurs series, has officially stated that the film is stuck in the 80's and that it has little hope, if any, of rejuvenating the paleo-craze the first entry did.
Now, I'm not saying that none of these people know what they are talking about- in fact, some are absolute legends in their respective fields. I'll even go so far as to say that I was a little disappointed when I first saw the trailer myself. But, after careful study of the Jurassic Park franchise, I've realized that it never really was about that. Sure, it may have dinosaurs in it that were portrayed rather realistically for the time (but not entirely so), but the goal was never to look at them as accurately as possible. The whole experience could be ruined by expecting full accuracy, and here's why.
1. They aren't real dinosaurs
This is probably the most important reason, but it's also the easiest to forget. In-universe, the dinosaurs were created by inserting frog and lizard embryos with reconstructed genomes to make them look more like their prehistoric cousins. It's a process that has all of its own problems, but we'll get to that part later. This leads the main character in the third film to say "Dinosaurs lived sixty-five million years ago. What Hammond created are theme park monsters: nothing more, and nothing less." Granted, that was a terrible movie, and the character was saying it to get out of going to the island, but the point still stands.
The dinosaurs here aren't truly genuine. They're creations from a mad megalomaniac's laboratory made to look like them off of faulty data. Said megalomaniac even had several scientists and advisers on board, but they were largely ignored until the story proper began. Sure, it made sense to go for this when the general paradigm for dinosaurs were essentially lizards with a rare few bird-like characteristics, but they knew better by the time the first film came out. Imagine, then, having to create an entire theme park with animals that take decades to grow only to find that they've been marked inaccurate by the time they've reached full-size. We may pretend that they are for the sake of something to fear when walking through a jungle, but that's all we really can do.
2. It's not just about the dinosaurs
As much as we all remember the T. rex eating the Lawyer off the toilet or the Velociraptors prowling in the kitchen, they aren't the true villains of the situation. Sure, they caused a good portion of havoc on their own, but their creator- John Hammond- has a lot more to answer for. In the novel in which the first movie is inspired by, he was a greedy, self-absorbed aristocrat who didn't care about the accuracy of his own park and rushed it out the door before the proper measures could be taken, leading to the story we all remember so well. In the film translation, he was more child-like and ignorant, enacting pretty much the same thing.
At no point, though, did either party say that the story was intended to be a purely scientific look at the lives and times of dinosaurs. As the character Ian Malcolm said in his own words, it's about how one man's blind ambition forced him into a situation he wasn't happy with. It's about Chaos Theory and the Illusion of Control. It's about how little the character really knew about what he was dealing with. While some point at all of the inaccuracies in the new film and say that it was lazy on the filmmaker's part (yes, even the spine-cringing 'Sue' fact on this page of the film's viral website), I look at it more as clever hints that the in-universe creators needed to do a little more research before they launched their program.
3. Flaws may abound...
It's also worth pointing out that the science was off long before the dinosaurs got on screen. Going back to the genetic engineering example we mentioned earlier, the whole system can be brought down when you realize that DNA only has a half-life of five hundred years. Given that it has about 131 thousand half-lives by the time the scientists find it, the sample would have decayed much too far to be any bit useful. When you also take accounts of the facts that crane flies are used to represent mosquitoes, Costa Rica is stated to have a fully-operational air force, and nobody found out about Hammond's amber stockpile until years after the sauropods should have been born to grow to the size that they are shown at, it's a miracle that anybody even hoped that the next one should have been realistic.
4. ... but they don't get in the way.
Of course, none of the above statements should interfere with the experience. Scientific flaws are found in just about every movie that tries to call itself science fiction. Gravity ignores the fact that all of Earth's satellites are in orbits several hundred miles apart to prevent anything like the plot from happening, but it is still one of the most intense thrillers of recent years. Several superhero movies like the Avengers(2012) seem to make up their science on the fly, but watching the first Helicarrier fly was a true spectacle. Every scientist can pretend to cringe when the Brachiosaurus rears on its hind legs in the first film (anatomically impossible- the dinosaur's center of gravity is too far forward), but every inch of grace and elegance before that completely makes up for it. Sometimes, even if the aim is to create the most accurate story possible, a little flaw is needed to push the plot along.
This is coming from an artist who aims to make his pieces as scientifically accurate as possible and is still longing for the truly natural look at the world of the Dinosaurs. While the new film isn't going to be as big of a hit for paleontology as the first in the series, it certainly isn't going to be its demise. I've always respected the series not as the one that taught me about dinosaurs, but as the one that introduced me to them. Now, it's intended more as a look at philosophy and understanding more of the universe and science as a whole. So, before Thomas Holtz, Neil Tyson, and every member of the scientific community comes and reprimands me, I'm going to ask if we love science fiction for the reason we think we do.
Now, I'm not saying that none of these people know what they are talking about- in fact, some are absolute legends in their respective fields. I'll even go so far as to say that I was a little disappointed when I first saw the trailer myself. But, after careful study of the Jurassic Park franchise, I've realized that it never really was about that. Sure, it may have dinosaurs in it that were portrayed rather realistically for the time (but not entirely so), but the goal was never to look at them as accurately as possible. The whole experience could be ruined by expecting full accuracy, and here's why.
1. They aren't real dinosaurs
This is probably the most important reason, but it's also the easiest to forget. In-universe, the dinosaurs were created by inserting frog and lizard embryos with reconstructed genomes to make them look more like their prehistoric cousins. It's a process that has all of its own problems, but we'll get to that part later. This leads the main character in the third film to say "Dinosaurs lived sixty-five million years ago. What Hammond created are theme park monsters: nothing more, and nothing less." Granted, that was a terrible movie, and the character was saying it to get out of going to the island, but the point still stands.
The dinosaurs here aren't truly genuine. They're creations from a mad megalomaniac's laboratory made to look like them off of faulty data. Said megalomaniac even had several scientists and advisers on board, but they were largely ignored until the story proper began. Sure, it made sense to go for this when the general paradigm for dinosaurs were essentially lizards with a rare few bird-like characteristics, but they knew better by the time the first film came out. Imagine, then, having to create an entire theme park with animals that take decades to grow only to find that they've been marked inaccurate by the time they've reached full-size. We may pretend that they are for the sake of something to fear when walking through a jungle, but that's all we really can do.
2. It's not just about the dinosaurs
As much as we all remember the T. rex eating the Lawyer off the toilet or the Velociraptors prowling in the kitchen, they aren't the true villains of the situation. Sure, they caused a good portion of havoc on their own, but their creator- John Hammond- has a lot more to answer for. In the novel in which the first movie is inspired by, he was a greedy, self-absorbed aristocrat who didn't care about the accuracy of his own park and rushed it out the door before the proper measures could be taken, leading to the story we all remember so well. In the film translation, he was more child-like and ignorant, enacting pretty much the same thing.
At no point, though, did either party say that the story was intended to be a purely scientific look at the lives and times of dinosaurs. As the character Ian Malcolm said in his own words, it's about how one man's blind ambition forced him into a situation he wasn't happy with. It's about Chaos Theory and the Illusion of Control. It's about how little the character really knew about what he was dealing with. While some point at all of the inaccuracies in the new film and say that it was lazy on the filmmaker's part (yes, even the spine-cringing 'Sue' fact on this page of the film's viral website), I look at it more as clever hints that the in-universe creators needed to do a little more research before they launched their program.
3. Flaws may abound...
It's also worth pointing out that the science was off long before the dinosaurs got on screen. Going back to the genetic engineering example we mentioned earlier, the whole system can be brought down when you realize that DNA only has a half-life of five hundred years. Given that it has about 131 thousand half-lives by the time the scientists find it, the sample would have decayed much too far to be any bit useful. When you also take accounts of the facts that crane flies are used to represent mosquitoes, Costa Rica is stated to have a fully-operational air force, and nobody found out about Hammond's amber stockpile until years after the sauropods should have been born to grow to the size that they are shown at, it's a miracle that anybody even hoped that the next one should have been realistic.
4. ... but they don't get in the way.
Of course, none of the above statements should interfere with the experience. Scientific flaws are found in just about every movie that tries to call itself science fiction. Gravity ignores the fact that all of Earth's satellites are in orbits several hundred miles apart to prevent anything like the plot from happening, but it is still one of the most intense thrillers of recent years. Several superhero movies like the Avengers(2012) seem to make up their science on the fly, but watching the first Helicarrier fly was a true spectacle. Every scientist can pretend to cringe when the Brachiosaurus rears on its hind legs in the first film (anatomically impossible- the dinosaur's center of gravity is too far forward), but every inch of grace and elegance before that completely makes up for it. Sometimes, even if the aim is to create the most accurate story possible, a little flaw is needed to push the plot along.
This is coming from an artist who aims to make his pieces as scientifically accurate as possible and is still longing for the truly natural look at the world of the Dinosaurs. While the new film isn't going to be as big of a hit for paleontology as the first in the series, it certainly isn't going to be its demise. I've always respected the series not as the one that taught me about dinosaurs, but as the one that introduced me to them. Now, it's intended more as a look at philosophy and understanding more of the universe and science as a whole. So, before Thomas Holtz, Neil Tyson, and every member of the scientific community comes and reprimands me, I'm going to ask if we love science fiction for the reason we think we do.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you very much for your thoughts! If you have questions, we will attempt to reach back to you within the next few days.