Another Scientist Says 'Jurassic Park' Couldn't Happen, but Not for the Reasons You May Think

Another Scientist Says 'Jurassic Park' Couldn't Happen, but Not for the Reasons You May Think

Aug 02, 2013

Here's a funny story. Trust me, it's relevant to the topic at hand, even though it may not seem like it at first.

I'll never forget the strangest conversation I ever had about Jurassic Park 3. I was working at a friend's video store at the time and this guy who looked like he could be The Simpson's comic book nerd's nephew came in. He, like most customers, ignored the stocks of great indie and international films my friend had accumulated since taking over the store, and went straight to the adult section in the back room. 

After a little while he came to the front desk with a sad look on his face to ask if we had a particular title in stock. Unfortunately we didn't, and so I had to get an earful about why would we have Cherry Poppers 2 and 4 but not 3. I just kept nodding along. Then he noticed that Jurassic Park 3 was playing on the store's TV and launched into a surprisingly impassioned rant about how the movie didn't make any sense. His reason boggles my mind to this day.

His complaint was that Jurassic Park 3 was total bulls**t because it featured a dinosaur (the Spinosaurus) that had only recently been discovered in our world, and so InGen would never have had time to clone and raise a full grown adult version of it by the time the movie came out. He didn't care about any of the other plot points. He had no problems with the entire premise of the movie. The deal breaker for him was that the film's fake scientists wouldn't have had time to make a clone of a dinosaur because they would have only had a year to do it from the time of its discovery in the real world.

That moment has always stood out to me as the embodiment of misdirected fanboy hatred. There was no logical ground to this guy's complaint. He didn't even have his facts straight (the Spinosaurus was discovered nearly a century earlier). He just could not accept Jurassic Park 3 because of his misperception of a reality-bending nonfact.

Anyways, that's a long-winded way to introduce the news that yet another scientist is taking issue with the feasibility of Jurassic Park. This time it has nothing to do with the half-life of DNA or cloning or costs or permits. It's all because the species of mosquito trapped in amber in the film was actually the only species of mosquito that didn't suck blood, and thus the entire conceit of the film is invalidated because it makes everything else impossible. Note that he's not disputing that mosquitos that did suck blood didn't exist millions of years ago -- they definitely did -- just that the prop used in the movie depicts the one species that didn't.

Nice one, Spielberg.

Now who wants to loan me a time machine so I can travel back to that video store and tell that guy, "Well, actually, none of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park 3 should exist because they didn't even use the right mosquito!" and Blow. His. Mind.

 

 

Categories: News, Geek, Sci-Fi
blog comments powered by Disqus
Advertisement

Facebook on Movies.com

The Burning Question

Which one of these people is in the movie Dracula Untold?

  • Christopher Walken
  • Katie Holmes
  • Gary Oldman
  • William Houston
Get Answer Get New Question

William Houston