Jurassic World: 5 Reasons Why Dinosaurs Shouldn't Have Feathers

3. Audiences Expect Scales

There's a scene in Jurassic World where park owner Masrani (Irrfan Khan) confronts Dr. Wu (B.D. Wong) about the reckless gene-splicing present in the development of the Indominus Rex. He bemoans the inclusion of cuttlefish and snakes, to which the long-standing geneticist retorts that that level of horror is exactly what he wanted. They essentially asked whether they should and decided that if they could, why the hell not. And that's the exact same motivation behind plucking the dinosaurs in the real world too. The general public, both as visitors of the park in the film and viewers in reality, expect dinosaurs to look a certain way. The popular concept of, say, the T-Rex may now be strides ahead of the upright beast presented in the likes of King Kong (something partially thanks to Jurassic Park), but there's still an expectation of a classical look. That's why bird DNA wasn't included in the various mash-ups in the film and why the Indominus Rex hewed close to typical designs. "Dinosaurs" as you see them and dinosaurs as they actually looked are by all intents and purposes two different creatures; only one is real, but we're more familiar with the fiction. It may seem like a wholly commercial decision to maximise profits and, while that was no doubt a key thinking for Unviersal in the development of World, in addressing it in one of the film's moments of meta commentary reveals a more justified purpose. It was a choice not in terms of accuracy, but in terms of entertainment; just like a speeding velociraptor is scarier than a 6ft turkey, axing feathers makes for a more impactful movie. Oh yeah, feathers are far from the only scientific leap made in the franchise in the face of stone-cold facts...