With the re-release of Jurassic Park in 3D, I'm wondering what paleontologists think about the Jurassic Park movies? I know they're not 100% accurate but can they still enjoy the film despite its inaccuracies?

I can't answer due to not being a paleontologist. But I can guess!

 

As you say, it might not be 100% accurate. But it's also fiction, so you might have to let a few things slip for the sake of entertainment. But it's really the same with any movie involving any kind of science. Just look at Armageddon. It's a really cool, funny action "save the world" movie, really entertaining in most ways. But the "science" in it has spawned religions with the sole intent of making Michael Bay retire from the film industry (citation needed).

 

So yeah, I'm sure even paleontologists can enjoy the JP movies as long as they acknowledge it's not a documentary.

I remember watching it when it was released - and loving it - and being stunned at the inference that birds evolved from dinosaurs. I clearly recall thinking that this wasn't in the dinosaur books I read as a kid. Of course, a little bit of research later, and it turns out that Thomas Huxley proposed the exact same idea in 1863!

 

Smart guy.

 

They should put feathers on the velociraptors now too!

I am also not a Paleontologist but I have always wanted to be and could possibly still veer in that direction later on. What I do know is that Jurassic Park was a recreation of the best possibly guess as to what dinos were or looked like during the Mesozoic period, according to the people working at the park. As Pwagen said, it is fiction.

My paleontology professor this last semester said he'd probably be there opening day. He could care less for the incorrect carnivores (and the anachronisms), but loves the celebration of extinct life and paleontology. Granted, his specialty is conodonts and invert fossils. far from the more impressive tetrapods everybody thinks about when they think "paleontologist".

 

But if they did a remake with feathers... Granted, I know some folks who are terribly offended at the idea of T. rex being feathered (let alone a scavenger), because it ruins their childhood daydreams of Big Scary Dinosaurs. I think people like that should probably go see if a cassowary gonna be nice because it has feathers. I also like squashing their dreams of dimetrodon-as-dinosaur. Much like movies about the Medieval period, it's fact soaked in fiction to make it palatable to the masses. Doesn't mean those who see the inaccuracies can't enjoy it. Lion King doesn't ruin my sense of disbelief (too much) because they made the mistake of adding leaf-cutting ants and anteaters - still enjoyable.

My paleontology professor this last semester said he'd probably be there opening day. He could care less for the incorrect carnivores (and the anachronisms), but loves the celebration of extinct life and paleontology. Granted, his specialty is conodonts and invert fossils. far from the more impressive tetrapods everybody thinks about when they think "paleontologist".

 

But if they did a remake with feathers... Granted, I know some folks who are terribly offended at the idea of T. rex being feathered (let alone a scavenger), because it ruins their childhood daydreams of Big Scary Dinosaurs. I think people like that should probably go see if a cassowary gonna be nice because it has feathers. I also like squashing their dreams of dimetrodon-as-dinosaur. Much like movies about the Medieval period, it's fact soaked in fiction to make it palatable to the masses. Doesn't mean those who see the inaccuracies can't enjoy it. Lion King doesn't ruin my sense of disbelief (too much) because they made the mistake of adding leaf-cutting ants and anteaters - still enjoyable.

 

 

I wonder if they're going to start calling the Velociraptors "Deinonychus" now? (Which they actually are)