Follow TV Tropes

Following

History Series / ValleyOfTheTRex

Go To



''Valley of the T-Rex'' is a 2001 Creator/DiscoveryChannel TVDocumentary in which renowned paleontologist (and notorious ''T. rex'' hater) Jack Horner discusses his theories about the [[KingOfTheDinosaurs eponymous animal]]'s supposedly carnivorous nature. He presents fact after fact that allegedly proves that the "King of Dinosaurs" was nothing more than a mere sluggish scavenger, and an ugly one at that, much to the contrary of popular belief.

to:

''Valley of the T-Rex'' is a 2001 Creator/DiscoveryChannel TVDocumentary in which renowned paleontologist (and notorious ''T. rex'' hater) Jack Horner discusses his theories about the [[KingOfTheDinosaurs [[UsefulNotes/TyrannosaurusRex eponymous animal]]'s supposedly carnivorous nature. He presents fact after fact that allegedly proves that the "King of Dinosaurs" was nothing more than a mere sluggish scavenger, and an ugly one at that, much to the contrary of popular belief.


* ArtisticLicenseBiology: Most, if not all, of Horner's claims make no sense.

to:

* ArtisticLicenseBiology: Most, if not all, of Horner's The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating. It doesn't help that he makes several scientifically inaccurate claims make no sense.and pretty much ignores basic common sense to prove his point.



* ArtisticLicensePaleontology: The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating. It doesn't help that he makes several scientifically inaccurate claims to prove his point. To be more specific:

to:

* ArtisticLicensePaleontology: The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating. It doesn't help that he makes several scientifically inaccurate claims to prove his point. To be more specific: ArtisticLicensePaleontology:


** As stated below, Horner claims that there is no evidence that T. rex actually hunted and killed anything when healed bite marks on herbivorous Dinosaurs that could have only been made by a Rex had already been known.

Added DiffLines:

** As stated below, Horner claims that there is no evidence that T. rex actually hunted and killed anything when healed bite marks on herbivorous Dinosaurs that could have only been made by a Rex had already been known.


* ArtisticLicensePaleontology: The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating.

to:

* ArtisticLicensePaleontology: The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating. It doesn't help that he makes several scientifically inaccurate claims to prove his point. To be more specific:



** Both the ''T. rex'' and dromaeosaurs have pronated hands.


Added DiffLines:

** Both the ''T. rex'' and ''dromaeosaurs'' have pronated hands.
** The fingers on Horner's Rex are the same length when one should should be shorter than the other.


The program received some criticism due to Horner's negligence to take note of any evidence that might confirm the opposite of his theories.

to:

The program has received some major criticism due to Horner's negligence to take note of any evidence that might confirm the opposite of his theories.theories and the arguments he uses for why ''Tyrannosaurus'' was a pure scavenger don't hold up to scrutiny.


* ArtisticLicenseBiology:
** Most, if not all, of Horner's claims make no sense. Could an animal that size support itself by being lucky enough to constantly bump into still-edible dinosaur carcasses whenever it was hungry? If it is a slow animal, is it possible that maybe it didn't need to be fast because it's prey would have been just as slow if not slower? Couldn't it have also just used the element of surprise to catch it's food? If it couldn't get up from the ground because of it's small arms then how is it supposed to sleep?

to:

* ArtisticLicenseBiology:
**
ArtisticLicenseBiology: Most, if not all, of Horner's claims make no sense. sense.
**
Could an animal that size support itself by being lucky enough to constantly bump into still-edible dinosaur carcasses whenever it was hungry? If it is a slow animal, is it possible that maybe it didn't need to be fast because it's prey would have been just as slow if not slower? Couldn't it have also just used the element of surprise to catch it's food? If it couldn't get up from the ground because of it's small arms then how is it supposed to sleep?


** Most, if not all, of Horner's claims make no sense. Could an animal that size support itself by being lucky enough to constantly bump into still-edible dinosaur carcasses whenever it was hungry? If it is a slow animal, is it possible that maybe it didn't need to be fast because it's prey would have been just as slow if not slower? Couldn't it have also just used the element of surprise to catch it's food? If it couldn't get up from the ground because of it's small arms then how is it supposed to sleep?



** That having been said, most, if not all, of Horner's claims make no sense. Could an animal that size support itself by being lucky enough to constantly bump into still-edible dinosaur carcasses whenever it was hungry? If it is a slow animal is it possible that maybe it didn't need to be fast because it's prey would have been just as slow if not slower? Couldn't it have also just used the element of surprise to catch it's food? If it couldn't get up from the ground because of it's small arms then how is it supposed to sleep?


** Horner seems to be under the impression that certain scavengers such as vultures look “ugly” because that helps them repeal their opposition when stealing their kill. As if wild animals have the same beauty standards as humans or care much about them, to begin with. The iconic bald heads of vultures and condors have instead been theorized to be an adaption for digging into carcasses (reducing the chances of blood sticking to their plumage), or alternatively for thermoregulation (since most species live in hot and arid environments), while their scruffy feather collars help them keep their tucked head and neck warm at night. Those that have wrinkles, wattles, and/or brightly colored skin evolved them as display features, as a sign of fitness and virility, and plenty of other birds (many of them not being carnivores) have similar features.

to:

** Horner seems to be under the impression that certain scavengers such as vultures look “ugly” because that helps them repeal their opposition when stealing their kill. As if wild animals have the same beauty standards as humans or care much about them, to begin with. The iconic bald heads of vultures and condors have instead been theorized to be an adaption for digging into carcasses (reducing the chances of blood sticking to their plumage), or alternatively for thermoregulation (since most species live in hot and arid environments), while their scruffy feather collars help them keep their tucked head and neck warm at night. Those that have wrinkles, wattles, and/or brightly colored skin evolved them as display features, as a sign of fitness and virility, virility ([[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_vulture some taking it to the extreme]]), and plenty of other birds (many of them not being carnivores) have similar features.

Added DiffLines:

** Horner seems to be under the impression that certain scavengers such as vultures look “ugly” because that helps them repeal their opposition when stealing their kill. As if wild animals have the same beauty standards as humans or care much about them, to begin with. The iconic bald heads of vultures and condors have instead been theorized to be an adaption for digging into carcasses (reducing the chances of blood sticking to their plumage), or alternatively for thermoregulation (since most species live in hot and arid environments), while their scruffy feather collars help them keep their tucked head and neck warm at night. Those that have wrinkles, wattles, and/or brightly colored skin evolved them as display features, as a sign of fitness and virility, and plenty of other birds (many of them not being carnivores) have similar features.

Added DiffLines:

* InsultBackfire: The very bulky, redheaded T.rex model we see at the end is meant to invoke ScavengersAreScum but many viewers found the design to look very badass and intimidating, more so than the standard T. rex design used throughout the bulk of the documentary.


* {{Hypocrite}}: What Horner unintentionally sets himself up as coming off as and perhaps is the biggest sin the documentary makes. He does talk about treating science objectively and not letting pop-cultural hype color the image of a real animal like ''Tyrannosaurus'', which is entirely a commendable goal. Claiming ''T. rex'' was an unstoppable juggernaut that was constantly roaring, butchering everything in its path, was without peer or rival in its ecosystem of helpless herbivores, won every fight it got in, and never would scavenge is extremely disingenuous to the real animal. Like any carnivore to ever exist, ''T. rex'' didn't succeed in every hunt, it wouldn't win every confrontation one got themselves in, it would scavenge any chance it got because its a real animal, not a monster, needing to avoid starvation as best it can and carrion is food that doesn't fight back. But he goes too far in trying to temper that overhyped image by insisting it was entirely the opposite, creating a FalseDichotomy. He also insists on daring anyone to show him evidence that the species wasn't exactly like how he says it was, ignoring evidence well-known at the time such as healed bite wounds on herbivorous dinosaurs indicating predatory behavior, clear indications ''T. rex'' was not virtually blind like he says it was, and multiple other researchers who'd worked on the species all insisting he's not correct in his assumptions.

to:

* {{Hypocrite}}: What Horner unintentionally sets himself up as coming off as and perhaps is Perhaps the biggest sin the documentary makes. He To elaborate:
** Horner
does talk about treating science objectively and not letting pop-cultural hype color the image of a real animal like ''Tyrannosaurus'', which is entirely a commendable goal. Claiming ''T. rex'' was an unstoppable juggernaut that was constantly roaring, butchering everything in its path, was without peer or rival in its ecosystem of helpless herbivores, won every fight it got in, and never would scavenge no other dinosaur could measure up to is extremely disingenuous to the real animal. Like any carnivore to ever exist, carnivore, ''T. rex'' didn't succeed in every hunt, it wouldn't win every confrontation one got themselves in, confrontation, it would scavenge any chance it got because its a real animal, not a monster, got, needing to avoid starvation as best it can and carrion is food that doesn't fight back. can. But he goes too far in trying to temper that overhyped image by insisting it T. rex was entirely the exact opposite, creating a FalseDichotomy. FalseDichotomy.
**
He also insists on daring dares anyone to show him evidence that the species wasn't exactly like how he says it was, ignoring evidence well-known at the time such as healed bite wounds on herbivorous dinosaurs ''Triceratops'' indicating predatory behavior, clear indications ''T. rex'' was not virtually blind like he says it was, and as well as the opinions of multiple other researchers who'd worked on the species species, all insisting he's not correct in his assumptions.assumptions.
** [[RaptorAttack Not helping matters is that he simultaneously overhypes dromaeosaurs as the perfect killing machine as far as dinosaurs go, including being shown taking down prey many times their size, a pop culture stereotype viewed as incredibly sensationalized and inaccurate by actual paleontologists]].


** Small arms make hunting difficult? Abelisaurs, Gorgonopsids, wolves, eagles, monitor lizards, crocodiles, sharks, orcas, literally almost every other large carnivore BUT cats would like a word with you, Mr. Horner. It gets even more egregious considering he cites wolves as a modern counterpart to Dromaeosaurids, despite wolves not using their forelimbs at all for hunting.

to:

** Small arms make hunting difficult? Abelisaurs, Gorgonopsids, gorgonopsids, wolves, eagles, monitor lizards, crocodiles, sharks, orcas, literally almost every other large carnivore BUT cats would like a word with you, Mr. Horner. It gets even more egregious considering he cites wolves as a modern counterpart to Dromaeosaurids, dromaeosaurids, despite wolves not using their forelimbs at all for hunting.



** The documentary claims that ''T. rex'' grew to 15 feet tall which is 2 feet taller than the largest specimens that have been discovered. It also claims that the Wynkel specimen was the most complete ''T. Rex'' skeleton ever found which is wrong because that title belongs to Sue.

to:

** The documentary claims that ''T. rex'' grew to 15 feet tall which is 2 feet taller than the largest specimens that have been discovered. It also claims that the Wynkel specimen was the most complete ''T. Rex'' rex'' skeleton ever found which is wrong because that title belongs to Sue.



** Horner hypes up the RaptorAttack ''Saurornitholestes'' and degrades ''T.rex'' constantly, with the former as agile, active, intelligent killing-machines and the latter as slow, stupid, and cowardly. And yet in the animation at the end, the mere arrival of a ''T. rex'' sends an entire pack of ''Saurornitholestes'' running away terrified, making them look cowardly and the ''T.rex'' as TheDreaded.

to:

** Horner hypes up the RaptorAttack ''Saurornitholestes'' and degrades ''T. rex'' constantly, with the former as agile, active, intelligent killing-machines and the latter as slow, stupid, and cowardly. And yet in the animation at the end, the mere arrival of a ''T. rex'' sends an entire pack of ''Saurornitholestes'' running away terrified, making them look cowardly and the ''T. rex'' as TheDreaded.


* AnachronisticAnimal: ''Saurornitholestes'', the dromaeosaurs shown in the program, went extinct a few million years before ''T. rex'' and ''Triceratops''.



* {{Hypocrite}}: What Horner unintentionally sets himself up as coming off as and perhaps is the biggest sin the documentary makes. He does talk about treating science objectively and not letting pop-cultural hype color the image of a real animal like ''Tyrannosaurus'', which is entirely a commendable goal. Claiming ''T.rex'' was an unstoppable juggernaut that was constantly roaring, butchering everything in its path, was without peer or rival in its ecosystem of helpless herbivores, won every fight it got in, and never would scavenge is extremely disingenuous to the real animal. Like any carnivore to ever exist, ''T.rex'' didn't succeed in every hunt, it wouldn't win every confrontation one got themselves in, it would scavenge any chance it got because its a real animal, not a monster, needing to avoid starvation as best it can and carrion is food that doesn't fight back. But he goes too far in trying to temper that overhyped image by insisting it was entirely the opposite, creating a FalseDichotomy. He also insists on daring anyone to show him evidence that the species wasn't exactly like how he says it was, ignoring evidence well-known at the time such as healed bite wounds on herbivorous dinosaurs indicating predatory behavior, clear indications ''T.rex'' was not virtually blind like he says it was, and multiple other researchers who'd worked on the species all insisting he's not correct in his assumptions.

to:

* {{Hypocrite}}: What Horner unintentionally sets himself up as coming off as and perhaps is the biggest sin the documentary makes. He does talk about treating science objectively and not letting pop-cultural hype color the image of a real animal like ''Tyrannosaurus'', which is entirely a commendable goal. Claiming ''T. rex'' was an unstoppable juggernaut that was constantly roaring, butchering everything in its path, was without peer or rival in its ecosystem of helpless herbivores, won every fight it got in, and never would scavenge is extremely disingenuous to the real animal. Like any carnivore to ever exist, ''T. rex'' didn't succeed in every hunt, it wouldn't win every confrontation one got themselves in, it would scavenge any chance it got because its a real animal, not a monster, needing to avoid starvation as best it can and carrion is food that doesn't fight back. But he goes too far in trying to temper that overhyped image by insisting it was entirely the opposite, creating a FalseDichotomy. He also insists on daring anyone to show him evidence that the species wasn't exactly like how he says it was, ignoring evidence well-known at the time such as healed bite wounds on herbivorous dinosaurs indicating predatory behavior, clear indications ''T. rex'' was not virtually blind like he says it was, and multiple other researchers who'd worked on the species all insisting he's not correct in his assumptions.



** Horner hypes up the RaptorAttack ''Saurornitholestes'' and degrades ''T.rex'' constantly, with the former as agile, active, intelligent killing-machines and the latter as slow, stupid, and cowardly. And yet in the animation at the end, the mere arrival of a ''T.rex'' sends an entire pack of ''Saurornitholestes'' running away terrified, making them look cowardly and the ''T.rex'' as TheDreaded.
* RaptorAttack: The ''Saurornitholestes'' are not only inaccurately feathered, they were also shown bringing down an ''Edmontosaurus'' many times their size and have also managed to kill a ''Triceratops'', against all logic, all while Jack Horner basically fanboys over them as being legit killers unlike ''T. rex''.

to:

** Horner hypes up the RaptorAttack ''Saurornitholestes'' and degrades ''T.rex'' constantly, with the former as agile, active, intelligent killing-machines and the latter as slow, stupid, and cowardly. And yet in the animation at the end, the mere arrival of a ''T. rex'' sends an entire pack of ''Saurornitholestes'' running away terrified, making them look cowardly and the ''T.rex'' as TheDreaded.
* RaptorAttack: The ''Saurornitholestes'' are not only oversized, inaccurately feathered, and living in the wrong time period, they were also shown bringing down an ''Edmontosaurus'' many times their size and have also managed to kill a ''Triceratops'', against all logic, all while Jack Horner basically fanboys over them as being legit killers unlike ''T. rex''.



* StockSoundEffects: The roars uttered by the ''T.rex'' when it scares away a few smaller theropods from their kill are very obviously modified grizzly bear roars.

to:

* StockSoundEffects: The roars uttered by the ''T. rex'' when it scares away a few smaller theropods from their kill are very obviously modified grizzly bear roars.



to:

* AnimalsNotToScale: The dromaeosaurs in the program are identified as ''Saurornitholestes'', which was around the size of ''Velociraptor'' (i.e. the size of a turkey). However, these dromaeosaurs are about as tall as a man, much like the raptors from ''Film/JurassicPark'' (though funnily enough, this predicted the discovery of ''Dakotaraptor'', a man-sized dromaeosaur that lived alongside ''T. rex'').



* ArtisticLicensePaleontology:
** The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating.
** Horner claims that ''Tyrannosaurus'' didn't have a very good sense of sight when ''T. Rex'' is known for having one of the best eyesight of any Dinosaur.
** Both the T. Rex and Dromaeosaurs have pronated hands.

to:

* ArtisticLicensePaleontology:
**
ArtisticLicensePaleontology: The program was well constructed and [[ShownTheirWork explained in detail]] why it presented the things the way it has, but paleontologists that happened ''not to hate'' ''Tyrannosaurus'' ''*Cough*Robert Bakker*Cough*'' may find it to be somewhat infuriating.
** Horner claims that ''Tyrannosaurus'' didn't have a very good sense of sight when ''T. Rex'' rex'' is known for having one of the best eyesight of any Dinosaur.
** Both the T. Rex ''T. rex'' and Dromaeosaurs dromaeosaurs have pronated hands.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 55

Top