Jurassic World 2

We should go to this topic to continue talking about this.

So, combining a 7-meter long theropod with a toad's genes causes it to shrink to 1.5 meters in length, grants it the ability to launch venom from its mouth, and gives it a frill?

Yep, 100% accurate.


I didn't like donofrio (sorry tablet keyboard isn't responding well) in j world which was a bummer since I loved his character in law and order criminal intent :(. I think it was because his character tried to be too "buddy buddy". With Owen and did a total 360 as soon as masarani dies and even before then . Hoskin just seemed so stupid to me and when delta tore his hand off I was like "well, looks like I lost ten bucks" . Now if he was calm, and quiet and pulled a "teridax" and took his time with his plan to use the raptor squad instead of shouting bout "raptors are more better than drones " or "we can use these raptors to do jobs drones can't " the latter which I laughed hysterically over how dumb it just came out he could have been a cool villain

I hope biosyn appears, if anyone remembers from the first movie and the original books biosyn was pretty much responsible for the stuff that went down in the two books and Jurassic park (movie) and they were kinda just pushed aside accept in the telltale game

1 Like

First of all, it was a juvenile dilophosaurus, and they recreated the dinosaurs with exaggerated predatorial traits. I suppose you shouldn't call them dinosaurs either, they are mutants. And it depends where you mix the DNA in the DNA strand

1 Like

A juvenile Dilophosaurus with toad genes would be a tadpole.

If it had different traits than normal, it'd be considered a new species of Dilophosaurus, r an entirely new genus, not an average Dilophosaurus wetherilli.

Just because some of their genes are changed, it doesn't make them mutants. Plus, they look like dinosaurs to me.

As I said, mixing a toad with a dinosaur doesn't turn it into a bipedal, venom-spitting frilled lizard.


The dilophosaur has frill lizard DNA, don't know where the spit came from...

The original movie said they were only combined with African toads, not frilled lizards.

1 Like

I know but I hear mentions that it had that as extra

...about the frog/toad things, one must wonder why they would decide a species that could change gender at will and how the Dino's still had that trait

...I guess they didn't know those toad were hemaphrodites?

For scientists, they aren't that smart...

Then again, this is Hollywood writing we are talking about. :stuck_out_tongue:

A dinosaur mixed with a toad is not a dinosaur


No they really do not. And you your self said a juvenile dilophosaurus with toad genes would be a tadpoles, not a dinosaur (though they wouldn't be tadpoles they certainly wouldn't be a realistic dilophosaurus, hence not a dinosaur). Contradictions in your statements.

And as for mixing dna. First of all, a lot of dinosaurs were bipedal, hello Mr. t-rex, and it could spit venom (depending on the toad used) and it is Canon that they also used a frill neck lizard in the dilophosaurus

1 Like

I'm not blind. I said they made a bipedal, venom-spitting frilled lizard.

Okay, what kind of anphibious animal spits venom?

Wait, they combined a dinosaur with a grill?

They don't what? Tap-dance?

Any proof, Mr. I Think I Know More About Genetics Than You Do?
And, as I said before, what kind of amphibian shoots venom?

1 Like

Why is this even a debate. Jurassic Park has never been scientifically accurate because it was written by Hollywood writers.

You can't really defend Jurassic Park when some people make faux science for a silly movie with dinosaurs.


The book was written around 30+ years ago too, using outdated information.

I honestly don't know why you're still defending its accuracy, DiamondKing.


They don't look like dinosaurs, your second point said they did.

You said: "mixing a toad with a dinosaur doesn't turn it into a bipedal, venom-spitting frilled lizard." I was clarifying that dilophosaurus was already bipedal, as are many others, I can think of well over a hundred.

With a FRILL neck lizard

And your final point: ooh, I don't know, oh wait: dinosaurs aren't amphibians

Ok, I was getting venom mixed with poison.

@HewkiiDaKohliiHead Because they are mutants not dinosaurs, I'm not saying they're accurate dinosaurs, but they could be accurate depictions of mutants with dinosaur dna

Looks similar enough.

  1. I'm not stupid.
  2. As can I.

You should've said so.

Well, they were given toad genes, were they not?

No. This is 80's Hollywood we're talking about. Scientific accuracy is not a necessity because it's a movie, not a documentary. If they were given toad genes, they would
1. Be tadpoles as juveniles
2. Have slimy skin compared to the rigid, leathery scales depicted
3. Be semi-aquatic.
It's a movie from 30 years ago. It CANNOT be defended as scientifically accurate.

Somebody doesn't know how to quote.

1 Like

No, my kindle doesn't let me do it mid reply for some reason. And if mixed with a toad they don't have to be tadpoles when young cos they still have dinosaur DNA (and they started as eggs).

Tadpoles hatch from eggs too, and it's just like you said:

But they don't have to be tadpoles when they hatch

It's not a choice. It's like saying birds can't be chicks when they hatch.