top of page
  • Writer's pictureAryan Shah

Is the 'Jurassic Park' franchise scientifically accurate?

The Jurassic Park franchise has been seen all around the world and has received some great reviews by movie critics, like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb. However, has it been reviewed in the same way by palaeontologists and scientists who specialize in this field? Well, most of them disagree with this 'dystopian' idea and believe that once the dinosaurs became extinct, their cells would die, and water, microbes and enzymes would break down the bonds holding together the DNA, so technically, there would be no way to retrieve that DNA and recreate them ( credit to IFL Science! )

Even the appearance of some of the dinosaurs were scientifically incorrect in the movies, for example, the velociraptor in real life was 3 ft tall, however the movie depiction of them was 5 ft tall, inevitably portraying them as a scary aspect of the franchise. I actually found out why this was- on a trip to the Isle of Wight in 2013, when a palaeontologist told me that the experts behind the movie had discovered the now known Utah-raptor at the time and had found a name for it, which was velociraptor. He told me it was a very rash decision by the palaeontologists behind the movie. They later changed it to Utahraptor and switched the names around.

Finally, the movie was called 'Jurassic Park' even though it contained dinosaurs from two of the three geological periods of time, like T-Rex and Spinosaurus, which was from the Cretaceous Period. However, Crichton did stay true to the title for some dinos, like Stegosaurus, Brachiosaurus and the Velociraptors. In my opinion, the movies influenced the field of Palaeontology even further and has left fans all around the world awe-struck, however they contained some imperfections and had some weaknesses in them, and overall, I don’t think that Jurassic Park is scientifically accurate.

62 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All


bottom of page