Follow TV Tropes

Following

History ArtisticLicensePaleontology / LiveActionFilms

Go To

OR

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The dinosaur in question is called a ''Brontosaurus''. Even at the time the film was made, the scientific community would have called it ''Apatosaurus''.

to:

** The dinosaur in question is called a ''Brontosaurus''. Even at At the time the film was made, the scientific community would have called considered it a species of ''Apatosaurus''.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** A case can however be made for the first movie, ''Film/{{Gojira}}'', which ''was'' to be taken seriously. In it, a paleontologist deduces that the titular monster hails form the Jurassic period by finding a trilobite in one of its footprints. Trilobites died out about 50 million years before that period, but this can be {{hand wave}}d, given that in the movie's universe, prehistoric creatures still exist in modern times. The true error is that the supposed paleontologist places the Jurassic at 2 million years BC. He's off by about 150 million years. Even in 1954, scientists knew a ''lot'' better than this. And yes, there ''was'' serious paleontology done in Japan. He also states that mammals evolved during the Cretaceous from marine reptiles, which is completely wrong.

to:

** A case can however be made for the first movie, ''Film/{{Gojira}}'', which ''was'' to be taken seriously. In it, a paleontologist deduces that the titular monster hails form from the Jurassic period by finding a trilobite in one of its footprints. Trilobites died out about 50 million years before that period, but this can be {{hand wave}}d, given that in the movie's universe, prehistoric creatures still exist in modern times. The true error is that the supposed paleontologist places the Jurassic at 2 million years BC. He's off by about 150 million years. Even in 1954, scientists knew a ''lot'' better than this. And yes, there ''was'' serious paleontology done in Japan. He also states that mammals evolved during the Cretaceous from marine reptiles, which is completely wrong.



* The 1960 movie ''Film/{{Dinosaurus}}'' featured the discovery and unintentional revival of a Brontosaurus, a Tyrannosaurus rex, and a caveman. Obviously these are the most well-known pre-historic creatures today, but lived tens of millions of years apart.

to:

* The 1960 movie ''Film/{{Dinosaurus}}'' featured the discovery and unintentional revival of a Brontosaurus, a Tyrannosaurus rex, and a caveman. Obviously these are the most well-known pre-historic prehistoric creatures today, but lived tens of millions of years apart.



* In the comedy ''Film/BringingUpBaby'', one of the main subplots involves paleontologist Creator/CaryGrant retrieving a missing dinosaur bone with the help of ManicPixieDreamGirl Creator/KatharineHepburn. The bone in question is described as an "Intercostal clavicle". There is no such thing as an "intercostal clavical". Intercostal means "between the ribs" and the clavicle is a collar bone.

to:

* In the comedy ''Film/BringingUpBaby'', one of the main subplots involves paleontologist Creator/CaryGrant retrieving a missing dinosaur bone with the help of ManicPixieDreamGirl Creator/KatharineHepburn. The bone in question is described as an "Intercostal clavicle". There is no such thing as an "intercostal clavical".clavicle". Intercostal means "between the ribs" and the clavicle is a collar bone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** ''Film/JurassicWorld'': This film retroactively justifies all instances with the park dinosaurs when Dr. Wu reminds Masrani that his and the team's orders were to engineer the animals based on RuleOfCool, not scientific accuracy (more-or-less echoing Dr. Grant's argument above).

to:

** ''Film/JurassicWorld'': This film retroactively justifies all instances with the park dinosaurs when Dr. Wu reminds Masrani that his and the team's orders were to engineer the animals based on RuleOfCool, not scientific accuracy (more-or-less echoing Dr. Grant's argument above).accuracy.

Added: 650

Changed: 497

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Film-only issues include the ''Dilophosaurus'' being too small (though Nedry's line "I thought you were one of your big brothers!" suggests the only one we see is a juvenile) and having an incorrectly-shaped snout and a retractable frill (for the practical purpose of distinguishing them from the ''Velociraptors'', which are actually ''Deinonychuses''; see below)--a frill that could flap like that would require supporting structures that would show up in fossils--and repeatedly misspelling the dinosaurs' names... though technically, they're "genetically-engineered" based on reptile and amphibian DNA; their resemblance to real dinosaurs is purely superficial.

to:

*** Film-only issues include the ''Dilophosaurus'' being too small (though Nedry's line "I thought you were one of your big brothers!" suggests the only one we see is a juvenile) and having an incorrectly-shaped snout and a retractable frill (for the practical purpose of distinguishing them from the ''Velociraptors'', which are actually ''Deinonychuses''; see below)--a frill that could flap like that would require supporting structures that would show up in fossils--and repeatedly misspelling the dinosaurs' names... though technically, they're "genetically-engineered" based on reptile and amphibian DNA; their resemblance to real dinosaurs is purely superficial.names.



** ''Film/JurassicWorldFallenKingdom'': On top of having elephantine feet like the other ceratopsids of the franchise, the skull of the Sinoceratops is incredibly different from the real animal, with several traits, such as the extra two spikes in the middle and the holes at the top, seemingly being remnants of earlier in production when the animal was supposed to be Pachyrhinosaurus.

to:

** ''Film/JurassicWorldFallenKingdom'': On ''Film/JurassicWorldFallenKingdom'':
***On
top of having elephantine feet like the other ceratopsids of the franchise, the skull of the Sinoceratops is incredibly different from the real animal, with several traits, such as the extra two spikes in the middle and the holes at the top, seemingly being remnants of earlier in production when the animal was supposed to be Pachyrhinosaurus.Pachyrhinosaurus.
***This film also explicitly refers to Blue as a "Velociraptor mongoliensis", meaning that the real-life explanation for the Velociraptors' large size and boxy skull does not apply in-universe, turning a decent Deinonychus depiction (bar the lack of feathers), into a horrible Velociraptor depiction.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** While it's exact size is unknown (and inconsistent, it is very clear that the Mosasaurus is far too large

to:

*** While it's exact size is unknown (and inconsistent, it is very clear that the film's Mosasaurus is far too large

Added: 736

Removed: 303

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Added a few examples for Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom. Just because the inaccuracies are justified in-universe doesn't mean we can't point them out.


*** Alan Grant refers to the dinosaurs made by [=InGen=] as "Genetically engineered theme park monsters", pointing out that [=InGen=] deliberately made their dinosaurs to be more awesome than real dinosaurs just for the crowds, and that anything learnt about real dinosaurs from them would be distorted.


Added DiffLines:

***While it's exact size is unknown (and inconsistent, it is very clear that the Mosasaurus is far too large
***The tails of the Stegosaurus are incorrectly shown being dragged along the ground instead of being held in the air. What makes this especially odd is the fact that their previous appearance in the franchise showed them with accurate tails.
**''Film/JurassicWorldFallenKingdom'': On top of having elephantine feet like the other ceratopsids of the franchise, the skull of the Sinoceratops is incredibly different from the real animal, with several traits, such as the extra two spikes in the middle and the holes at the top, seemingly being remnants of earlier in production when the animal was supposed to be Pachyrhinosaurus.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''Film/OneMIllionYearsBC'' features creatures from [[AnachronismStew many prehistoric eras]], most of them much older than 1 million years. The humans are all {{Nubile Savage}}s, including a FurBikini-clad, well-groomed Creator/RaquelWelch. Some creatures, like the giant turtle ''Archelon'', are vastly oversized, whereas others, like the kangaroo-stance ''Allosaurus'' (pictured above) are ''undersized'', standing only slightly taller than a human (in real life, even the smallest ''Allosaurus'' would stand about a foot and a half taller than an average-sized human being). And let's not get started on the [[PteroSoarer scaly, bat-winged, grasping-footed pterosaurs]]...

to:

* ''Film/OneMIllionYearsBC'' features creatures from [[AnachronismStew many prehistoric eras]], most of them much older than 1 million years. The humans are all {{Nubile Savage}}s, including a FurBikini-clad, well-groomed Creator/RaquelWelch. Some creatures, like the giant turtle ''Archelon'', are vastly oversized, whereas others, like the kangaroo-stance ''Allosaurus'' (pictured above) are ''undersized'', standing only slightly taller than a human (in real life, even the smallest ''Allosaurus'' would stand about a foot and a half taller than an average-sized human being). And let's not get started on the [[PteroSoarer [[TerrorDactyl scaly, bat-winged, grasping-footed pterosaurs]]...



** The ''[[PteroSoarer Pteranodon]]'' again has bat-like wings and tries to carry its victims with its talons.

to:

** The ''[[PteroSoarer Pteranodon]]'' ''Pteranodon'' again has bat-like wings and tries to carry its victims with its talons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** ''Film/JurassicPark'':

to:

** ''Film/JurassicPark'':''Film/JurassicPark1993'':
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Among the less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and paleontologists have no reason to assume that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if it's the oldest one known. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a gradual process of continuous change, and there's never any specific point when one type of organism became something else. In other words, there never existed any individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated).

to:

* Among the less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and paleontologists have no reason to assume that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if it's the oldest one known. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a gradual process of continuous change, and there's never any specific point when one type of organism became something else. In other words, there never existed any individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated). The movie's misconception gets even sillier at the end, when [[spoiler:in her time-travel journey to the distant past, she encounters an ape-like creature implied to be the original "Lucy," with a possible implication that the encounter, like the monolith from ''Film/TwoThousandOneASpaceOdyssey'', is a crucial event that [[StableTimeLoop pushes humans toward higher consciousness]]]].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Renamed.


* ''[[Film/OneMIllionYearsBC One Million Years B.C.]]'' is the TropeNamer for the trope OneMillionBC for a good reason. The film features creatures from [[AnachronismStew many prehistoric eras]], most of them much older than 1 million years. The humans are all {{Nubile Savage}}s, including a FurBikini-clad, well-groomed Creator/RaquelWelch. Some creatures, like the giant turtle ''Archelon'', are vastly oversized, whereas others, like the kangaroo-stance ''Allosaurus'' (pictured above) are ''undersized'', standing only slightly taller than a human (in real life, even the smallest ''Allosaurus'' would stand about a foot and a half taller than an average-sized human being). And let's not get started on the [[PteroSoarer scaly, bat-winged, grasping-footed pterosaurs]]...

to:

* ''[[Film/OneMIllionYearsBC One Million Years B.C.]]'' is the TropeNamer for the trope OneMillionBC for a good reason. The film ''Film/OneMIllionYearsBC'' features creatures from [[AnachronismStew many prehistoric eras]], most of them much older than 1 million years. The humans are all {{Nubile Savage}}s, including a FurBikini-clad, well-groomed Creator/RaquelWelch. Some creatures, like the giant turtle ''Archelon'', are vastly oversized, whereas others, like the kangaroo-stance ''Allosaurus'' (pictured above) are ''undersized'', standing only slightly taller than a human (in real life, even the smallest ''Allosaurus'' would stand about a foot and a half taller than an average-sized human being). And let's not get started on the [[PteroSoarer scaly, bat-winged, grasping-footed pterosaurs]]...
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Now a disambiguation.


* The main villain of ''Film/DevilFish'' is a mutated ''Dunkleosteus''/octopus hybrid. In the movie, [[MixAndMatchCritters ignoring]] [[LEGOGenetics the obvious issues]], ''Dunkleosteus'' is described as a prehistoric [[ThreateningShark shark]]. Real ''Dunkleosteus'' were members of a now-extinct family, the Anthrodira, which left no surviving descendants and was only distantly related to sharks. They also claimed that the pliosaur ''Kronosaurus'' ''[[CriticalResearchFailure was a shark]]'' that lived during the "Cetaceous period" [sic], which was about 200 years ago (the 1770s?). Another fish that they describe as a prehistoric shark is a very modern, harmless basking shark.

to:

* The main villain of ''Film/DevilFish'' is a mutated ''Dunkleosteus''/octopus hybrid. In the movie, [[MixAndMatchCritters ignoring]] [[LEGOGenetics the obvious issues]], ''Dunkleosteus'' is described as a prehistoric [[ThreateningShark shark]]. Real ''Dunkleosteus'' were members of a now-extinct family, the Anthrodira, which left no surviving descendants and was only distantly related to sharks. They also claimed that the pliosaur ''Kronosaurus'' ''[[CriticalResearchFailure was ''was a shark]]'' shark'' that lived during the "Cetaceous period" [sic], which was about 200 years ago (the 1770s?). Another fish that they describe as a prehistoric shark is a very modern, harmless basking shark.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* ''[[Film/SuperMarioBros Super Mario Bros. The Movie]]'' hits a few common dinosaur-related errors, though the filmmakers seemed to be going for RuleOfCool. These include:

to:

* ''[[Film/SuperMarioBros Super Mario Bros. The Movie]]'' ''Film/SuperMarioBros1993'' hits a few common dinosaur-related errors, though the filmmakers seemed to be going for RuleOfCool. These include:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The 1960 movie ''Film/{{Dinosaurus!}}'' featured the discovery and unintentional revival of a Brontosaurus, a Tyrannosaurus rex, and a caveman. Obviously these are the most well-known pre-historic creatures today, but lived tens of millions of years apart.

to:

* The 1960 movie ''Film/{{Dinosaurus!}}'' ''Film/{{Dinosaurus}}'' featured the discovery and unintentional revival of a Brontosaurus, a Tyrannosaurus rex, and a caveman. Obviously these are the most well-known pre-historic creatures today, but lived tens of millions of years apart.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* The 1960 movie ''Dinosaurus!'' featured the discovery and unintentional revival of a Brontosaurus, a Tyrannosaurus rex, and a caveman. Obviously these are the most well-known pre-historic creatures today, but lived tens of millions of years apart.

to:

* The 1960 movie ''Dinosaurus!'' ''Film/{{Dinosaurus!}}'' featured the discovery and unintentional revival of a Brontosaurus, a Tyrannosaurus rex, and a caveman. Obviously these are the most well-known pre-historic creatures today, but lived tens of millions of years apart.

Added: 61

Changed: 74

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* [[ArtisticLicensePaleontology/JurassicWorldDominion Jurassic World Dominion]]

to:

[[index]]
* [[ArtisticLicensePaleontology/JurassicWorldDominion Jurassic World Dominion]]ArtisticLicensePaleontology/JurassicWorldDominion
[[/index]]

Added: 119

Removed: 1039

Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


!Movies with their own page
* [[ArtisticLicensePaleontology/JurassicWorldDominion Jurassic World Dominion]]
!Other movies



** ''Film/JurassicWorldDominion'''s opening prologue scene features possibly one of the most egregious examples of this trope in the franchise's history, with a flashback to the end of the Late Cretaceous, showing many species coexisting which were separated by vast expanses of both [[AnachronismStew time]] and [[MisplacedWildlife space]] in reality. Most obviously, it depicts a battle between ''Tyrannosaurus'' and ''Giganotosaurus'', two genera which lived thirty million years and a hemisphere apart. Because these are explicitly meant to represent the original animals in their natural habitat, it can't be {{handwave}}d away with the "theme park monsters" explanation as with previous examples in the franchise. Of the numerous species shown [[note]]''Dreadnoughtus'', ''Nasutoceratops'', ''Giganotosaurus'', ''Moros'', ''Ankylosaurus'', ''Pteranodon'', ''Oviraptor'', ''Quetzalcoatlus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Iguanodon''[[/note]], only three are in the right time (''Ankylosaurus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Quetzalcoatlus'').
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

*** T.rexes in the films' universe have really poor eyesight, so much that they can't see someone at all if they are holding still. While we can't tell for sure from the fossils if this was true, most predators have ''excellent'' eyesight, and the few that don't rely heavily on some other sense (such as smell or hearing), so holding still likely wouldn't do any good even if they couldn't see you.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Among the less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and paleontologists have no reason to assume that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species to have been preserved--which they can't. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a very gradual process where there's never any true boundary where one type of organism becomes something else. In other words, there's no such thing as an individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated).

to:

* Among the less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and paleontologists have no reason to assume that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species to have been preserved--which they can't. one known. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a very gradual process where of continuous change, and there's never any true boundary where specific point when one type of organism becomes became something else. In other words, there's no such thing as an there never existed any individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Among the less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species to be preserved. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a very gradual process where there's never any true boundary where one type of organism becomes something else. In other words, there's no such thing as an individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated).

to:

* Among the less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and scientists paleontologists have no way of knowing reason to assume that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species to be preserved.have been preserved--which they can't. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a very gradual process where there's never any true boundary where one type of organism becomes something else. In other words, there's no such thing as an individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Among the less-talked about howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. To begin with, the phrase itself is scientifically almost meaningless, since the evolution of humans was very gradual, and there simply never was any individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first human (male or female)-especially if we’re defining humans as broader than ''Homo sapiens'' (which the Australopithecines long predated). But putting all that aside for the moment, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and today’s scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species in existence today.

to:

* Among the less-talked about less-discussed howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by its discoverers after the [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. To begin with, the phrase itself is scientifically almost meaningless, since the evolution of humans was very gradual, and there simply never was any individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first human (male or female)-especially if we’re defining humans as broader than ''Homo sapiens'' (which the Australopithecines long predated). But putting all that aside for the moment, For starters, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and today’s scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species in existence today.to be preserved. Indeed, the very concept of a "first" of any type of organism is almost meaningless, since evolution is a very gradual process where there's never any true boundary where one type of organism becomes something else. In other words, there's no such thing as an individual creature that could be definitively called ''the'' first man or woman--especially if we're defining humans more broadly than ''Homo sapiens'' (a species the Austrolopithecines long predated).
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Among the less-talked about howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is apparently a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by paleontologists after the Beatles song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. To begin with, the phrase itself is scientifically almost meaningless, since the evolution of humans was very gradual, and there simply never was any individual creature that could be definitively called the first human (male or female). But putting that aside for the moment, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and today’s scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species in existence today.

to:

* Among the less-talked about howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is apparently presumably a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by paleontologists its discoverers after the Beatles [[{{Franchise/TheBeatles}} Beatles]] song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. To begin with, the phrase itself is scientifically almost meaningless, since the evolution of humans was very gradual, and there simply never was any individual creature that could be definitively called the ''the'' first human (male or female). female)-especially if we’re defining humans as broader than ''Homo sapiens'' (which the Australopithecines long predated). But putting all that aside for the moment, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and today’s scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species in existence today.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Pioneering filmmaker Creator/DWGriffith's 1914 film ''Brute Force'' shows a group of cavemen attacked by a dinosaur.

to:

* Pioneering filmmaker Creator/DWGriffith's 1914 film ''Brute Force'' ''Film/BruteForce'' shows a group of cavemen attacked by a dinosaur.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* A throw-away line of dialogue from '' Film/PumaMan'':

to:

* A throw-away line of dialogue from '' Film/PumaMan'':Film/ThePumaman'':
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* Parodied in ''Film/{{Caveman}}''. Yes, there are cavemen and dinosaurs in the same film, but few scientists would be able to cry for the laughter. Not only does the movie occur "One Zillion Years Ago", but the main dinosaur seen in the movie is a geriatric ''T. rex'' that is alternately denied delectable cavewoman meat, stoned off a burning cannabis plant, and [[GroinAttack fondled and then smacked where it counts]] by a blind caveman (note that dinosaurs would have their goolies internal, like everything other than mammals does). The other prehistoric creatures include a pteranodon which has its (10ft long! Ouch!) egg stolen and a stop-motion creature resembling some outlandish {{Slurpasaur}}.

to:

* Parodied in ''Film/{{Caveman}}''. Yes, there are cavemen and dinosaurs in the same film, but few scientists would be able to cry for the laughter. Not only does the movie occur "One Zillion Years Ago", but the main dinosaur seen in the movie is a geriatric ''T. rex'' that is alternately denied delectable cavewoman meat, stoned off a burning cannabis plant, and [[GroinAttack fondled and then smacked where it counts]] by a blind caveman (note that dinosaurs (dinosaurs would have their goolies internal, like everything other than mammals does). The other prehistoric creatures include a pteranodon which has its (10ft long! Ouch!) egg stolen and a stop-motion creature resembling some outlandish {{Slurpasaur}}.



** ''Film/JurassicWorldDominion'''s opening prologue scene features possibly one of the most egregious examples of this trope in the franchise's history, with a flashback to the end of the Late Cretaceous, showing many species coexisting which were separated by vast expanses of both [[AnachronismStew time]] and [[MisplacedWildlife space]] in reality. Most obviously, it depicts a battle between ''Tyrannosaurus'' and ''Giganotosaurus'', two genera which lived thirty million years and an entire hemisphere apart. Because these are explicitly meant to represent the original animals in their natural habitat, it can't be {{handwave}}d away with the "theme park monsters" explanation as with previous examples in the franchise. Of the numerous species shown [[note]]''Dreadnoughtus'', ''Nasutoceratops'', ''Giganotosaurus'', ''Moros'', ''Ankylosaurus'', ''Pteranodon'', ''Oviraptor'', ''Quetzalcoatlus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Iguanodon''[[/note]], only three are in the right time (''Ankylosaurus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Quetzalcoatlus'').
* Among the less-talked about howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is apparently a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by paleontologists after the Beatles song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. To begin with, the phrase itself is scientifically almost meaningless, since the evolution of humans was very gradual, and there simply never was any individual creature that could be definitively called the first human (male or female). But putting that aside for the moment, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and today’s scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species in existence today.

to:

** ''Film/JurassicWorldDominion'''s opening prologue scene features possibly one of the most egregious examples of this trope in the franchise's history, with a flashback to the end of the Late Cretaceous, showing many species coexisting which were separated by vast expanses of both [[AnachronismStew time]] and [[MisplacedWildlife space]] in reality. Most obviously, it depicts a battle between ''Tyrannosaurus'' and ''Giganotosaurus'', two genera which lived thirty million years and an entire a hemisphere apart. Because these are explicitly meant to represent the original animals in their natural habitat, it can't be {{handwave}}d away with the "theme park monsters" explanation as with previous examples in the franchise. Of the numerous species shown [[note]]''Dreadnoughtus'', ''Nasutoceratops'', ''Giganotosaurus'', ''Moros'', ''Ankylosaurus'', ''Pteranodon'', ''Oviraptor'', ''Quetzalcoatlus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Iguanodon''[[/note]], only three are in the right time (''Ankylosaurus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Quetzalcoatlus'').
* Among the less-talked about howling scientific errors in ''Film/{{Lucy}}'' comes when Professor Norman states that Lucy is the name of "the first woman." This is apparently a reference to an Australopithecus fossil discovered in the 1970s, named "Lucy" by paleontologists after the Beatles song. While it is one of the earliest known female hominids, calling it “the first woman” is a laughable misunderstanding that no scientist of Norman’s supposed caliber would ever make. To begin with, the phrase itself is scientifically almost meaningless, since the evolution of humans was very gradual, and there simply never was any individual creature that could be definitively called the first human (male or female). But putting that aside for the moment, fossils are nothing more than random snapshots in time (only a tiny percentage of earth's organisms are ever preserved as fossils), and today’s scientists have no way of knowing that any particular fossil they happen to find is literally the first member of a species, even if they ''could'' state with certainty that it's the oldest fossil from that species in existence today.



** There's also the entire idea of a race of intelligent dinosaur-descendants looking ''exactly like humans'', not with standing the very fact that there are even dinosaurs at all given that the original Koopas were ''turtles''.

to:

** There's also the entire idea of a race of intelligent dinosaur-descendants looking ''exactly like humans'', not with standing the very fact that there are even dinosaurs at all given that the original Koopas were ''turtles''.



** ''Alpha'' features a sabertooth cat that looks like a ''Smilodon'' as indicated by its size. But it should have a short bobcat-like tail instead of the long tiger-like one it has in the film, not to mention that [[MisplacedWildlife none of the three species were found in Europe]]. Alternatively, it could be a ''Machairodus'', which was just as large and actually did live in Europe - except that the last members of this genus [[AnachronismStew died out during the middle Pleistocene]], millennia before the film's time period of 20,000 years ago. The visual effects supervisor confirmed it was a cave lion, which actually did live in Europe 20,000 years ago, but it certainly didn't have those long canines.

to:

** ''Alpha'' features a sabertooth cat that looks like a ''Smilodon'' as indicated by its size. But it should have a short bobcat-like tail instead of the long tiger-like one it has in the film, not to mention that and [[MisplacedWildlife none of the three species were found in Europe]]. Alternatively, it could be a ''Machairodus'', which was just as large and actually did live in Europe - except that the last members of this genus [[AnachronismStew died out during the middle Pleistocene]], millennia before the film's time period of 20,000 years ago. The visual effects supervisor confirmed it was a cave lion, which actually did live in Europe 20,000 years ago, but it certainly didn't have those long canines.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None

Added DiffLines:

** ''Film/JurassicWorldDominion'''s opening prologue scene features possibly one of the most egregious examples of this trope in the franchise's history, with a flashback to the end of the Late Cretaceous, showing many species coexisting which were separated by vast expanses of both [[AnachronismStew time]] and [[MisplacedWildlife space]] in reality. Most obviously, it depicts a battle between ''Tyrannosaurus'' and ''Giganotosaurus'', two genera which lived thirty million years and an entire hemisphere apart. Because these are explicitly meant to represent the original animals in their natural habitat, it can't be {{handwave}}d away with the "theme park monsters" explanation as with previous examples in the franchise. Of the numerous species shown [[note]]''Dreadnoughtus'', ''Nasutoceratops'', ''Giganotosaurus'', ''Moros'', ''Ankylosaurus'', ''Pteranodon'', ''Oviraptor'', ''Quetzalcoatlus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Iguanodon''[[/note]], only three are in the right time (''Ankylosaurus'', ''Tyrannosaurus'', and ''Quetzalcoatlus'').
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The 2008 film features a giant theropod identified in supplementary material as a ''Giganotosaurus''. Aside from being about twice the size of the largest known theropods, it looks a lot more like a ''Tyrannosaurus'' with three fingered hands.

to:

** The 2008 film features a giant theropod identified in supplementary material as a ''Giganotosaurus''. Aside from being about twice the size of the largest known theropods, it looks a lot more like a ''Tyrannosaurus'' with three fingered hands.hands.
* ''Film/TheValleyOfGwangi'': What do you expect from a premise of cowboys fighting prehistoric life?
** The titular Gwangi as a carnivorous therapod with a confusing taxonomy. Supposedly, it's an ''Allosaurus'' according to the original script and it has three fingers on each hand and it barely towers over the cowboys on horses like its real-life counterpart. But its design heavily borrows from the ''Tyrannosaurus rex'', specifically from Charles R. Knight's famous painting, and Ray Harryhausen often mixes the two when discussing about Gwangi, stating that to him, they were both "meat eaters, they're both Tyrants... one was just a bit larger than the other."
** The ''[[PteroSoarer Pteranodon]]'' again has bat-like wings and tries to carry its victims with its talons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


** The film takes place 20,000 years ago and is a "Boy and His Dog" story, except the "dog" is actually a wolf. It tells a fictionalized tale of the origin of dogs. Alas, real wolves [[AllAnimalsAreDogs are not dogs]] and [[AllAnimalsAreDomesticated aren't tame]]. Wolf domestication isn't as easy as a human just bonding with an unusually tame wolf.

to:

** The film takes place 20,000 years ago and is a "Boy and His Dog" story, except the "dog" is actually a wolf. It tells a fictionalized tale of the origin of dogs. Alas, real wolves [[AllAnimalsAreDogs are not dogs]] and [[AllAnimalsAreDomesticated aren't tame]]. Wolf domestication isn't as easy as a human just bonding with an unusually tame wolf.wolf.
* ''Literature/JourneyToTheCenterOfTheEarth'':
** The 1959 film feature egregious use of {{Slurpasaur}}s to depict its prehistoric reptiles. Two rhinoceros iguanas with sails glued on become massively oversized ''Dimetrodon'', while a red tegu becomes a giant chameleon(?).
** The 2008 film features a giant theropod identified in supplementary material as a ''Giganotosaurus''. Aside from being about twice the size of the largest known theropods, it looks a lot more like a ''Tyrannosaurus'' with three fingered hands.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Film-only issues include the ''Dilophosaurus'' being too small (though Nedry's line "I thought you were one of your big brothers!" suggests the only one we see is a juvenile) and having a retractable frill (for the practical purpose of distinguishing them from the ''Velociraptors'', which themselves look more like ''Deinonychuses'' or ''Utahraptors''), and repeatedly misspelling the dinosaurs' names... though technically, they're "genetically-engineered" based on reptile and amphibian DNA; their resemblance to real dinosaurs is purely superficial.
*** The first time we see Grant and Sattler is at a dig in Montana uncovering a ''Velociraptor'' skeleton, which never existed anywhere near there. What's more, the skeleton is still assembled correctly, even though most fossils are found with the bones scattered all over the place. There's a reason for this, though: the ''Velociraptors'' in the ''Jurassic Park'' franchise are actually based on ''Deinonychus'', which ''did'' live in Montana.

to:

*** Film-only issues include the ''Dilophosaurus'' being too small (though Nedry's line "I thought you were one of your big brothers!" suggests the only one we see is a juvenile) and having an incorrectly-shaped snout and a retractable frill (for the practical purpose of distinguishing them from the ''Velociraptors'', which themselves look more are actually ''Deinonychuses''; see below)--a frill that could flap like ''Deinonychuses'' or ''Utahraptors''), and that would require supporting structures that would show up in fossils--and repeatedly misspelling the dinosaurs' names... though technically, they're "genetically-engineered" based on reptile and amphibian DNA; their resemblance to real dinosaurs is purely superficial.
*** The first time we see Grant and Sattler is at a dig in Montana uncovering a ''Velociraptor'' skeleton, which never existed anywhere near there. What's more, the skeleton is still assembled correctly, even though most fossils are found with the bones scattered all over the place. There's a reason for this, though: the ''Velociraptors'' in the ''Jurassic Park'' franchise are actually based on ''Deinonychus'', which ''did'' live in Montana.Montana, and in the 1980s when Michael Crichton was developing the original novel, there was a proposal to fold the ''Deinonychus'' genus into ''Velociraptor''. What's more, the skeleton is still assembled correctly. It's very rare to find fossils of big vertebrates like that; the bones are usually scattered all over the place.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


* In the comedy ''Film/BringingUpBaby'', one of the main subplots involves paleontologist Creator/CaryGrant retrieving a missing dinosaur bone with the help of ManicPixieDreamGirl Creator/KatherineHepburn. The bone in question is described as an "Intercostal clavicle". There is no such thing as an "intercostal clavical". Intercostal means "between the ribs" and the clavicle is a collar bone.

to:

* In the comedy ''Film/BringingUpBaby'', one of the main subplots involves paleontologist Creator/CaryGrant retrieving a missing dinosaur bone with the help of ManicPixieDreamGirl Creator/KatherineHepburn.Creator/KatharineHepburn. The bone in question is described as an "Intercostal clavicle". There is no such thing as an "intercostal clavical". Intercostal means "between the ribs" and the clavicle is a collar bone.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None


*** Film-only issues include the ''Dilophosaurus'' being too small and having a retractable frill (for the practical purpose of distinguishing them from the ''Velociraptors'', which themselves look more like ''Deinonychuses'' or ''Utahraptors''), and repeatedly misspelling the dinosaurs' names... though technically, they're "genetically-engineered" based on reptile and amphibian DNA; their resemblance to real dinosaurs is purely superficial.

to:

*** Film-only issues include the ''Dilophosaurus'' being too small (though Nedry's line "I thought you were one of your big brothers!" suggests the only one we see is a juvenile) and having a retractable frill (for the practical purpose of distinguishing them from the ''Velociraptors'', which themselves look more like ''Deinonychuses'' or ''Utahraptors''), and repeatedly misspelling the dinosaurs' names... though technically, they're "genetically-engineered" based on reptile and amphibian DNA; their resemblance to real dinosaurs is purely superficial.

Top