[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
At 06:46 AM 06/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 05:55 AM 11/6/97 UT, you wrote:
>>The "Velociraptor" in Jurassic Park was actually
>>based on Deinonychus, and it was actually pretty
>>well done, except of course for the lack of feathers.
> I am not saying that this is wrong (because I don't know) But...
>I read somewhere (not sure ware) that Jurrasic park was out in the thearters
>when the larger "raptor" was found. The article also said that the
>velociraptors in JP were larger for effect and that it was just luck that
>the newer, larger "raptor" was found
>I have no idea id the "larger raptor" was Deinonychus or not.
On both these points: I believe that one of the reasons Spielberg made his
"Velociraptors" larger than life was so that some of the footage could be
done with actors in body suits. Utahraptor was indeed discovered after JP
As for accuracy, I suggest that there is a lot more wrong with the
"raptors" in the film than size and integument. Apparently Spielberg
ordered changes from a rather "birdlike" original model to a more
"reptilian" one, so that the gait is not as "chicken-like" as I suspect it
was in life; the tails are flexible rather than stiffened; the fingers are
more deeply cleft than was probably the case (as Tom Holtz pointed out to
me once) and do not fold or move in the birdlike manner their wrist
structure indicates; and the skull shape is based on Ostrom's earlier and
incorrect reconstruction of Deinonychus. Personally I found the
Velociraptors the least convincing of JP's dinosaurs.
Ronald I. Orenstein Phone: (905) 820-7886
International Wildlife Coalition Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116
1825 Shady Creek Court
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2 mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org