How would you build Jurassic Park

Pretty self explanatory thread. I think that us together could build a better park than Hammond and Masrani combined.

You can put anything you want in here from species lists to attractions, to animal management protocol

I think the biggest flaw in the first park was the fences. They were just strands of electrified wire and if an animal was irate enough, it could easily break through.

Here's a containment system that should work for most of the species.



Basically, I'm utilizing the moat system that zoos have been using for over a century. I made it a steady slope because I've read too many stories about elephants falling into moats and needing to be put down. It also assures that even in the event of a storm, the animals are contained.

For all we know they had those kind of moats already. It's hard to tell from Hammond's single throwaway line mentioning them.

I would say the fences and paddocks were fine. Perhaps just make the road stand slightly higher than the ground other side so you are looking more down to the animals, like in many zoos. But that's minor point, it's the internal security they should have been more concerned about as well as staffing the park adequately at all times (no 3 men work crews on weekends). Less automation, more human input. Plus locate the maintenance shed and backup generators somewhere close, perhaps you connect them via tunnel to the visitor center. Definitely not next to raptor paddock, as temporary as it may have been. The raptor cage probably should have had roof and 24/7 surveillance too, not leaving them alone. Consider making it indoor holding pen if necessary and if they don't die in it. Finally aviary doesn't exist in the film canon, but if it did (or was built later) I would not have it. Too many potential issues and unnecessary risk.

But otherwise it was pretty much perfectly constructed in my book, you know the safari setting, and especially how it was aimed for richer people. When it was supposed to ready I'm sure little details that quite weren't there yet would have been ironed well enough. Hammond might've been naive and his input into security was definitely not top notch (+ obviously the problem of unwanted breeding through frog RNA, and not respecting Nedry), but I think from visitors point of view there was nothing really to complain about.

The Disney World nonsense in JW however, and hordes of crowds there, how the hell is that even supposed to work on some remote tropical island? How is such little area supposed to accommodate, transport and handle it? And why would they bother going back to the same place that went kaboom and having to do all the extra work they really didn't have, yet still not even demolishing all of the old infrastructure? If you're bothering coming there in the first place for some obscure reason, why not get the job fully done?

Then, you have far too many open areas where visitors just stumble upon giant herbivores without any protection (the river boat sight was worst of them all, all of them could have been killed instantly), and don't even get me started on the "gyrosphere" absurdity. What is this, Star Trek? The carnivore enclosures were even more horrifying, the T-Rex one in particular was just a joke where the designers only thought of aesthetics, nothing else. Absolutely nothing practical about it, that was a god damn death trap. As was the I-Rex thing. And the whole park. People in charge especially in security nearing level of insanity.

At worst, you could say Jurassic Park was little bit too much ahead of it's time with over reliance in automation, but JW is straight up fantasy land that has nothing to do with reality. So forget that, just build the park like they did in the original, only with modifications. Ludlow's San Diego "park" if you don't have the money and need to situate it mainland. But I guess if you're don't have the budget in the first place and do it half-assed from the get go you're not in good route anyway.

Listen Mistral, we get it that you hate JW. That's alright but it's not a reason to demolish litteraly every aspect of the movie.

Mistral wrote:

The Disney World nonsense in JW however, and hordes of crowds there, how the hell is that even supposed to work on some remote tropical island? How is such little area supposed to accommodate, transport and handle it?

First of all, comparing JW to Disney World would actually be more of a compliment than anything due to the fact that Disney World is the most visited and popular resort in the entire world. You wonder how JW works ? Open your eyes, the movie shows clearly that people go on the island with a ferry and then are accomodated in the hotel complex. It might be not portrayed as credible as it could have been but still, the elements are here.

Mistral wrote:

And why would they bother going back to the same place that went kaboom and having to do all the extra work they really didn't have, yet still not even demolishing all of the old infrastructure? If you're bothering coming there in the first place for some obscure reason, why not get the job fully done?

Maybe they didn't destroyed the old VC because it wasn't on a exploited area of the park. Why investing tons of money into dismantling stuff if the remains of the old park are out of sight of the guests while we could just demolish them if they are on our way ?

Mistral wrote:

Then, you have far too many open areas where visitors just stumble upon giant herbivores without any protection (the river boat sight was worst of them all, all of them could have been killed instantly), and don't even get me started on the "gyrosphere" absurdity. What is this, Star Trek? The carnivore enclosures were even more horrifying, the T-Rex one in particular was just a joke where the designers only thought of aesthetics, nothing else. Absolutely nothing practical about it, that was a god damn death trap. As was the I-Rex thing. And the whole park. People in charge especially in security nearing level of insanity.

Again in the movie, they talk about an "invisible fence" technology which implies subcutaneous chips and electromagnetic fields that contains the animals in certain areas and we know that the gyrospheres are supposed to have these kind of chips aswell to repels animals if they come too close (it might no be properly said but it is heavily implied that the kayaks are also equipped with these chips). All of this was explained during the first control room scene. Did you ever listened to the dialogues ?

Concerning the gyrospheres, as silly and impractical as they look like, I wouldn't be surprised if we see similar looking vehicles to be developed in the next decade.

The T.rex Kingdom a joke ? I'm sorry but large walls seems way more safe than the fragile-looking electrical fence from JP (looks how it swings during the storm, it's disturbing !).

Mistral wrote:

At worst, you could say Jurassic Park was little bit too much ahead of it's time with over reliance in automation, but JW is straight up fantasy land that has nothing to do with reality.

Ok the holograms of the Innovation Center might seem way too advanced for a 2010's setting but if you call JW's park like something out of the fantasy domain, I doubt that you ever went to a theme park.
Near the city where I live in France, there is a park called the Futuroscope and visually it looks like something out of a Sci-Fi work and the technology it contains has nothing to envy JW's one.

Mistral wrote:

So forget that, just build the park like they did in the original, only with modifications.

Member Jurassic Park ? Oh, I member !

Wait, it wasn't you that complained about the fact that JW was just made of fanservice ?

More seriously, it would have been a big missed opportunity if they build a carbon copy of the first park.

first off i would never hire Dennis Nedry or Vic Hoskin and i would use your containment system idea

There's also the fact that the herbivores were given WAY too much freedom compared to the carnivores. Remember, it's things like hippos and cape buffalo that are more dangerous than any lion.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

First of all, comparing JW to Disney World would actually be more of a compliment than anything due to the fact that Disney World is the most visited and popular resort in the entire world. You wonder how JW works ? Open your eyes, the movie shows clearly that people go on the island with a ferry and then are accomodated in the hotel complex. It might be not portrayed as credible as it could have been but still, the elements are here.

We were discussing realism here right. Disneyland as concept works when located in urban setting with easy access. Not in remote island you need to take 120 mile ferry ride from Costa Rica in small boats which likely can't handle too rough weather. Then 20,000 visitors a day on 22 square mile island, third of which can't even be accessed? Throw on top of that the billion employees needed to run the thing and huge amounts of land areas reserved for paddocks. Even after that the island is seemingly portrayed containing large empty spaces with no-one in sight, and Owen's shack looks to be in the middle of nowhere?

Of course if you only look at what was portrayed to have been achieved in the films anyone would take the Masrani route over Hammond's plan, because the revenue would arguably be billion times higher, but as business plan it would be impossible to implement. Hammond has realistic and sound plans (except security wise), even if not as basic as Ludlow in TLW.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Maybe they didn't destroyed the old VC because it wasn't on a exploited area of the park. Why investing tons of money into dismantling stuff if the remains of the old park are out of sight of the guests while we could just demolish them if they are on our way ?

Thing is, if you have an island filled with dinosaurs and you for some reason to decide make that place the next location for your follow-up theme park as well, you can't just wall off northern part of the island and pretend it never existed. Not before you deal with it anyway. Realistically, first you perform full-on search & destroy/capture throughout the island to make sure there's not a living thing hiding in some corner somewhere. And throughout that process, the old facilities would not just have been left there to rot but demolished. Perhaps bombed from the air by the government like in the novel. The deleted TLW board room scene is what would actually happen.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Again in the movie, they talk about an "invisible fence" technology which implies subcutaneous chips and electromagnetic fields that contains the animals in certain areas and we know that the gyrospheres are supposed to have these kind of chips aswell to repels animals if they come too close (it might no be properly said but it is heavily implied that the kayaks are also equipped with these chips). All of this was explained during the first control room scene. Did you ever listened to the dialogues?

Concerning the gyrospheres, as silly and impractical as they look like, I wouldn't be surprised if we see similar looking vehicles to be developed in the next decade.

The T.rex Kingdom a joke ? I'm sorry but large walls seems way more safe than the fragile-looking electrical fence from JP (looks how it swings during the storm, it's disturbing !).

Gyrospheres, even putting aside everything else about those fictional things, how can any park just let kids roam around by themselves in those among massive, massive animals? With no supervision? Even if the animals wouldn't crush them, the kids could try to crash into animals. They could attempt to make them angry or irritated, I mean that's what kids do. Not only just kids but some childish adults. Both sides of the party are unpredictable. You don't allow direct interaction between the two, and certainly not in uncontrolled, unsupervised environment.

Contain the animals in certain areas? What like river being so narrow in places that the Apatosaurus head & neck go from the side to side and the boats are supposed to go under it? What if some dinosaurs go under water and emerge submerging the kayaks? It's like trying to kayak with hippos and crocodiles. Do these magic electromagnetic fields work under water?



And yeah, this totally looks like something that couldn't pose any hazard whatsoever. Even if the windows were in fact indestructible if massive force struck them, I can still think of billion ways that could end up in disaster. It's just aesthetics this was built on, not actual architecture with real world considerations.

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Ok the holograms of the Innovation Center might seem way too advanced for a 2010's setting but if you call JW's park like something out of the fantasy domain, I doubt that you ever went to a theme park.

Near the city where I live in France, there is a park called the Futuroscope and visually it looks like something out of a Sci-Fi work and the technology it contains has nothing to envy JW's one.

There's nothing in Jurassic Park that even for the 90's says "that's impossible", not practically or technologically. I mean obviously apart from creating the dinosaurs of course, but if we included that we wouldn't be able to talk about anything. The park, fences, paddocks, attractions, facilities, they look like they could have been built in the 90's. They are realistic. Partly of course because the makers of the film couldn't stuff the screen with CGI mash all over the place like they could in JW. When you see the pre production shots of JW you can see how much CGI was added even to the indoor places just for the sake of it.

Overall the JW tech is not 2015 accurate, not for the most part. Perhaps 2035 accurate. And even there it's very, very stretching it. Furthermore even if all tech was acceptable at that point, the practical ways things are portrayed certainly are not. You know the way paddocks, amenities and that island is constructed.

By the way, we have that sort of techno babble park center about an hour away from here as well, but the thing is:
A) It's all indoor stuff
B) There's no interaction with tech and living beings (= animals you can't predict the behavior of)
C) It's supposed to be for showcase purposes in controlled environment, not practically used

The Geeky Zoologist wrote:

Member Jurassic Park ? Oh, I member !

Wait, it wasn't you that complained about the fact that JW was just made of fanservice ?

More seriously, it would have been a big missed opportunity if they build a carbon copy of the first park.

What the hell has that to do with anything here? We were talking about the realism about the parks, and what we think could/would occur in real world, right? Did you even see the thread title? This is not about the movies really, but about the park building itself.

But if you so really want to get into it for some reason: Yes if they had built carbon copy of JP into JW, indeed it would have been EVEN more of a rehash than it ended up being, however how the park actually looks and works doesn't matter in the long run. It's the fact they went with the new park route in the first place, and in same island that's the real issue with the film, the thematically intended rehashing (well that and over reliance on CGI). The rest of what I said are just nitpicks and I have stated this before already. Now, even if they had succeeded in making JW as theme park even better and realistic than the first park, not fantasy land or direct rehash, yes I suppose I would have liked the film somewhat more, but the underlying problems would have still remained and that would have been just one aspect of the film that was improved.

As I said however, that's not really what this thread and discussion was all about. We're not talking about the films here, other than perhaps some creative decisions on why things were done, but the parks and the way they were portrayed itself. And most importantly, how to create the best possible dinosaur park. Which to my mind is straightout the original Jurassic Park, with minor modifications to the park itself and substantial improvements to internal security.

Personally, I'd phase out feeding of live prey (except for fish and insects). Instead, use of whole carcasses would be better. Make sure to include the organs too.

Enrichment is also important for captive animals. This can be anything from toys to new scents.

tigris115 wrote:

Personally, I'd phase out feeding of live prey (except for fish and insects). Instead, use of whole carcasses would be better. Make sure to include the organs too.

That's one of those things you would have to test before actually implementing, I mean whether or not they actually would eat diet of mainly consisting prepared dead meat. And even if they did, study if their behavior changed considerably and if they became more passive. Also not every species is the same, you might get away with in species A but not species B. As ever you have to test it out and inspect everything like programmer would his code. Same with different moats in your opening post.

Oh and by the way, now that we came to the subject of prey, I have one thing to report from Jurassic Park paddock handling that really doesn't make sense. Or at least is bending the imagination. Hopefully my naysayer friends will be pleased. So, obviously it's the goat in the T-Rex paddock. What kind of elaborate feeding tunnel system they have there? It seems like awful lot of problem to install network like that underground, or however it's supposed to be constructed. Do they supply new goats and other animals there daily or is there large stock living in the dark? It's bit weird and convenient. Perhaps, just perhaps it was just an orchestrated display to show off for Gennaro and the others how very great and sophisticated their feeding system was, you know to make them approve it all even more... and in reality they just shipped the goats the regular way, the easier way. But that's just speculation so let's stick to what the film showed us, which is magic underground feeding system. At least the raptors were fed naturally.

Mistral wrote:

We were discussing realism here right. Disneyland as concept works when located in urban setting with easy access. Not in remote island you need to take 120 mile ferry ride from Costa Rica in small boats. 20,000 visitors a day on 22 square mile island, third of which can't even be accessed? Throw on top of that the billion employees needed to run the thing and huge amounts of land areas reserved for paddocks. Even after that the island is seemingly portrayed with huge empty spaces with no-one in sight, and Owen's shack looks to be in the middle of nowhere?

Of course if you only look at what was portrayed to have been achieved in the films anyone would take the Masrani route over Hammond's plan, because the revenue would arguably be billion times higher, but as business plan it would be impossible to implement. Hammond has realistic and sound plans (except security wise), even if not as basic as Ludlow in TLW.

If people are more than happy enough to pay thousands of dollars, and travel thousands of miles by plane to Florida and then take the long drive to get to Disney World or Universal Orlando; I think they would be just as fine to travel thousands of miles by plane to Costa Rica and take a two hour ferry ride to Isla Nublar. I'm also really struggling here to find how the idea of having 1/100th of the people on the island compared to JW, paying tens of thousands of dollars a day, getting to the island by helicopter, where they would have a 20% chance of having no seatbelt, and would want to endure the bad wind shears, both when landing and taking off; as more realistic than hundreds of people travelling by ferry to the island.

Regarding the size of Isla Nublar, it has never been stated in any of the four movies just how big it was, but if it was to be addressed, 22 square miles is highly unlikely; Gallimimus Valley alone has an area of 12 square miles, Paddock 11 was stated to be 4 miles from the closest ride and from the satellite map in the control room, the Nublar appears to be quite a large island. If anything Isla Nublar in the movies would have an area of about 100 square miles or possibly more.

Mistral wrote:

Gyrospheres, even putting aside everything else about those fictional things, how can any park just let kids roam around by themselves in those among massive, massive animals? With no supervision? Even if the animals wouldn't crush them, the kids could try to crash into animals. They could attempt to make them angry or irritated, I mean that's what kids do. Not only even kids but some childish adults. Both sides of the party are unpredictable. You don't allow direct interaction between the two, and certainly not in uncontrolled, unsupervised environment.

I believe the idea for the Gyrosphere, was to provide you and your family member or closest friend, the chance to experience the dinosaurs in a private, intimate experience. To experience the same awe and wonder as the first ever visitors to Jurassic Park did when they were in the Jeeps, this was Jurassic World's way of providing the visitors what Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler felt on that day. This simply wouldn't be possible with either the Jungle Trek or Cretaceous Cruise, because you'll travelling with other people as well in the truck or in a group along the river. But with the Gyrosphere they will might now finally get that feeling.

Regarding the safety of the Gyrospheres, while there appeared to be no visible means of stopping people from running into the dinosaurs, there was an automated system that would have moved the sphere away from the animal to a safe distance. And for the most part they were supervised from afar in the control room, what with the Gyrosphere tracking system and security cameras, so if there were some idiots trying to goad the dinosaur, they could just simply call security and remove them from the ride.

Mistral wrote:

Contain the animals in certain areas? What like river being so narrow in places that the Apatosaurus head & neck go from the side to side and the boats are supposed to go under it? What if some dinosaurs go under water and emerge submerging the kayaks? It's like trying to kayak with hippos and crocodiles. Do these magic electromagnetic fields work under water?

And what was going to be the only other ride in Jurassic Park?

This is pretty much exactly the same as the Cretaceous Cruise, except unlike its potentially risky successor, it's a death trap in the making; this would pretty much have gone through the same herbivore exhibits as the one from JW, only without the Invisible Barrier System and to top it all off, it would have gone through the aviary, and I believe no further words need to be added as to explain why that's a terrible idea.

Mistral wrote:

And yeah, this totally looks like something that couldn't pose any hazard whatsoever. Even if the windows were in fact indestructible if massive force struck them, I can still think of billion ways that could end up in disaster. It's just aesthetics this was built on, not actual architecture with real world considerations.

What's to stop the visitors from running away if Rexy decides to go on a rampage? There's nothing that's going to stop them from doing so, it's wide enough for the large crowd of people to travel through and there are exits on both sides. Also for all we know, the tree bark on the log, could be disguising what it's made from, reinforced concrete.

From my perspective, JW's T. Rex Kingdom is the far superior design to JP's Tyrannosaur Paddock

Mistral wrote:

tigris115 wrote:

Personally, I'd phase out feeding of live prey (except for fish and insects). Instead, use of whole carcasses would be better. Make sure to include the organs too.

That's one of those things you would have to test before actually implementing, I mean whether or not they actually would eat diet of mainly consisting prepared dead meat. And even if they did, study if their behavior changed considerably and if they became more passive. Also not every species is the same, you might get away with in species A but not species B. As ever you have to test it out and inspect everything like programmer would his code. Same with different moats in your opening post.

Oh and by the way, now that we came to the subject of prey, I have one thing to report from Jurassic Park paddock handling that really doesn't make sense. Or at least is bending the imagination. Hopefully my naysayer friends will be pleased. So, obviously it's the goat in the T-Rex paddock. What kind of elaborate feeding tunnel system they have there? It seems like awful lot of problem to install network like that underground, or however it's supposed to be constructed. Do they supply new goats and other animals there daily or is there large stock living in the dark? It's bit weird and convenient. Perhaps, just perhaps it was just an orchestrated display to show off for Gennaro and the others how very great and sophisticated their feeding system was, you know to make them approve it all even more... and in reality they just shipped the goats the regular way, the easier way. But that's just speculation so let's stick to what the film showed us, which is magic underground feeding system. At least the raptors were fed naturally.

Not only that, but considering the overwhelming evidence that T. rex was, for the most part a hunter capable of catching and killing healthy prey, you'd have to let it kill some duck-bills or herbivores. Millions of years of natural behavior is just too much for humans to change in a few years. It's impossible for a T. rex to consist off carcasses, even if it tried. All predatory animals have to kill some form of healthy prey to survive. It's one of natures iron laws.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

tigris115 wrote:

Personally, I'd phase out feeding of live prey (except for fish and insects). Instead, use of whole carcasses would be better. Make sure to include the organs too.

That's one of those things you would have to test before actually implementing, I mean whether or not they actually would eat diet of mainly consisting prepared dead meat. And even if they did, study if their behavior changed considerably and if they became more passive. Also not every species is the same, you might get away with in species A but not species B. As ever you have to test it out and inspect everything like programmer would his code. Same with different moats in your opening post.

Oh and by the way, now that we came to the subject of prey, I have one thing to report from Jurassic Park paddock handling that really doesn't make sense. Or at least is bending the imagination. Hopefully my naysayer friends will be pleased. So, obviously it's the goat in the T-Rex paddock. What kind of elaborate feeding tunnel system they have there? It seems like awful lot of problem to install network like that underground, or however it's supposed to be constructed. Do they supply new goats and other animals there daily or is there large stock living in the dark? It's bit weird and convenient. Perhaps, just perhaps it was just an orchestrated display to show off for Gennaro and the others how very great and sophisticated their feeding system was, you know to make them approve it all even more... and in reality they just shipped the goats the regular way, the easier way. But that's just speculation so let's stick to what the film showed us, which is magic underground feeding system. At least the raptors were fed naturally.

Not only that, but considering the overwhelming evidence that T. rex was, for the most part a hunter capable of catching and killing healthy prey, you'd have to let it kill some duck-bills or herbivores. Millions of years of natural behavior is just too much for humans to change in a few years. It's impossible for a T. rex to consist off carcasses, even if it tried. All predatory animals have to kill some form of healthy prey to survive. It's one of natures iron laws.

Great cats are hunters and we keep them in zoos. And I'm gonna have to ask the two of you to calm down before someone does something they regret.

http://www.whyanimalsdothething.com/posts/2016/8/4/howtounderstandzoos-enrichment

This link should get across what I'm talking about

Gondrasia wrote:

If people are more than happy enough to pay thousands of dollars, and travel thousands of miles by plane to Florida and then take the long drive to get to Disney World or Universal Orlando; I think they would be just as fine to travel thousands of miles by plane to Costa Rica and take a two hour ferry ride to Isla Nublar. I'm also really struggling here to find how the idea of having 1/100th of the people on the island compared to JW, paying tens of thousands of dollars a day, getting to the island by helicopter, where they would have a 20% chance of having no seatbelt, and would want to endure the bad wind shears, both when landing and taking off; as more realistic than hundreds of people travelling by ferry to the island.

Regarding the size of Isla Nublar, it has never been stated in any of the four movies just how big it was, but if it was to be addressed, 22 square miles is highly unlikely; Gallimimus Valley alone has an area of 12 square miles, Paddock 11 was stated to be 4 miles from the closest ride and from the satellite map in the control room, the Nublar appears to be quite a large island. If anything Isla Nublar in the movies would have an area of about 100 square miles or possibly more.

We don't know if the visitors were originally supposed to arrive to the island via helicopter. That landing site might have just been Hammond's private copter area anyway. There are pictures of planes in the background in the dinner scene, so perhaps there was to be an airfield. But that may be reference to planes landing to Costa Rica or whatever. We simply don't know.

In any case, if you are only bringing smaller selected (rich) group to the island, you know as everything appears to be pointing towards in the film, it's easier to accommodate 'luxury' traveling options. And the people paying these sums of money probably would be expecting higher service. Not boats but either plane or copter.

The novel and other sources state the island to be just 22 square miles, but you are right, that's not what the films say so we shouldn't get too stuck on those figures as they are irrelevant in film universe. What we do know however is the line of Gennaro saying there is 50 miles of perimeter fence in the original park. And that seems awfully little if the island is supposedly as gigantic as you make it sound to be.

Well regardless, 20,000 a day + employees + the things I said earlier would still make it pretty damn crowded.

Gondrasia wrote:

I believe the idea for the Gyrosphere, was to provide you and your family member or closest friend, the chance to experience the dinosaurs in a private, intimate experience. To experience the same awe and wonder as the first ever visitors to Jurassic Park did when they were in the Jeeps, this was Jurassic World's way of providing the visitors what Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler felt on that day. This simply wouldn't be possible with either the Jungle Trek or Cretaceous Cruise, because you'll travelling with other people as well in the truck or in a group along the river. But with the Gyrosphere they will might now finally get that feeling.

Regarding the safety of the Gyrospheres, while there appeared to be no visible means of stopping people from running into the dinosaurs, there was an automated system that would have moved the sphere away from the animal to a safe distance. And for the most part they were supervised from afar in the control room, what with the Gyrosphere tracking system and security cameras, so if there were some idiots trying to goad the dinosaur, they could just simply call security and remove them from the ride.

The intentions are all fair and good, but again if we are discussing real-life adaptations here, they fall into the fantasy category of 'would be nice'. Even if in zoo or wildlife park they were stupid enough to let your kids or even adults ride along zebras or giraffes or whatever in protective indestructible cage (which gyrosphere clearly even isn't judging by the I-Rex attack), there should constantly be someone there just in case if something happened. If something unexpected did happen with wildlife it needs to be resolved immediately, not waiting for park ranger or whomever to arrive in 5 minutes.

Whether or not there is invisible magic system in use that pushes the dinosaurs back when they're approached, it's still a hazard as the they could get annoyed by constant charges and start rampaging to whichever direction. Ever heard of stampede?

Mistral wrote:

And what was going to be the only other ride in Jurassic Park?

This is pretty much exactly the same as the Cretaceous Cruise, except unlike its potentially risky successor, it's a death trap in the making; this would pretty much have gone through the same herbivore exhibits as the one from JW, only without the Invisible Barrier System and to top it all off, it would have gone through the aviary, and I believe no further words need to be added as to explain why that's a terrible idea.

That's a random concept image from the background of the dinner scene. It doesn't have to do anything with reality or what they were going to build. It could be just to show off investors. And even if such thing was going to be introduced, marketing concept drawings tend to romanticize them as grander than they actually would be.

All Hammond says is "other rides will come along" and this all we know, whatever it may mean. Everything else is speculation, including what's being projected behind them. Inside this universe we've seen, that's what we were discussing right (just as with the size of Isla Nublar).

But, but, if such thing were to come after all and just as described in that picture, would I agree with it working? No, obviously no, it's just as idiotic as the JW scene they actually portrayed as reality.

Mistral wrote:

What's to stop the visitors from running away if Rexy decides to go on a rampage? There's nothing that's going to stop them from doing so, it's wide enough for the large crowd of people to travel through and there are exits on both sides. Also for all we know, the tree bark on the log, could be disguising what it's made from, reinforced concrete.

From my perspective, JW's T. Rex Kingdom is the far superior design to JP's Tyrannosaur Paddock

Obviously it's made of concrete, the thing wouldn't be able stay together if it was just wood or some other light material. But if it collapses to the ground from one end? It's a fairly long passageway from one end to another, as seen from that one shot in the film, and if the T-Rex just runs into it in full speed?

Also, they should have one sided windows there, constantly moving people and flashing cameras (yeah because that definitely shouldn't be disallowed) isn't exactly going to make the animal any less stressed. Animal we know to base it's sight on movement in this universe.

At least in the old park, even if the T-Rex bothered to come out in the open from the jungle to see the road at the right moment, it probably wouldn't have had to endure more than dozen tour cars going over the whole day. No King Kong flashbacks of getting irritated by flashes.

tigris115 wrote:

Great cats are hunters and we keep them in zoos. And I'm gonna have to ask the two of you to calm down before someone does something they regret.

http://www.whyanimalsdothething.com/posts/2016/8/4/howtounderstandzoos-enrichment

This link should get across what I'm talking about

What?

And not every animal is the same, what may work on some species may not on the another. The great white shark always dies in captivity while many other sharks can survive for years and years. Elephants don't endure well in captivity because loss of social ties whereas many other big land animals can survive for years in solitude. Cheetah breeding is extremely difficult even with artificial aid in captivity while other cat species **** like horny rabbit day and night.

Also, as with most things there are arguments from both sides in the question of live prey

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230188097_Attitude_of_zoo_visitors_to_the_idea_of_feeding_live_prey_to_zoo_animals
One of the greatest animal welfare challenges facing zoos is the feeding of carnivores. Carnivores such as big cats appear highly motivated to hunt [Leyhausen, 1979; Beaver, 1980], but are usually unable to do so in captivity. Hughes and Duncan [1988] consider the thwarting of a highly motivated behavior to result in reduced animal welfare. A number of studies have linked the performance of abnormal behavior by carnivores (generally assumed to be indicative of sub-optimal animal welfare [e.g., Mason, 1991]), to the lack of opportunity to express ‘natural’ predatory behavior [Hughes and Duncan, 1988; Markowitz, 1982]. The use of live prey is perhaps ideal for allowing the expression of predatory behaviors.

tigris115 wrote:

And I'm gonna have to ask the two of you to calm down before someone does something they regret.

Uh...we have been calm while during this discussion. I don't see how you think we've been aggressive to you.

TBH, my main reason for abstaining from feeding live prey is animal welfare. Feeding out live mammals (with the exception of rodents for snakes and even then it's a case by case thing) is banned in every AZA zoo.

tigris115 wrote:

TBH, my main reason for abstaining from feeding live prey is animal welfare. Feeding out live mammals (with the exception of rodents for snakes and even then it's a case by case thing) is banned in every AZA zoo.

It's a fair point, but what about that rights of Rexy? As I said, T. rex was simply too big to be a scavenger for it's whole life/most of its life. Expecting it to live off carcasses is an impossibility. It is really too farfetched to think that carnivorous animals attack human caretakers are examples of them unleashing their hunting instincts? Even today, zoos haven't quite solved that problem. So it if can't totally work with bears, tigers, crocodiles, lions, or any large carnivorous animal alive today, then it won't work with a big ol' T. rex. One could argue that feeding her goats was also safe for the the visitors, and even then look her thin she was.

Let's take a look at her size. One of my books says that she's 44ft long, 16.10 ft high, and 6 tons. Given how T. rex was at a minimum of 7-8 tons and 9-10 max, Rexy should have weighed at least 1-2 tons more then she did. It's not hard to believe that she may have starved to death if what happened with I. rex didn't happen. So for the sake of her and the humans watching her, you have sacrifice some herbivorous dinosaurs.

Maybe as a culling measure, excess dinos can be used for carnivore fodder. Though I'd make sure that the welfare of food animals is assured. I think Rexy being thin is on account of both her age and a diet with nutritional gaps in it.

Pardon the bump but does anyone else have any ideas they'd like to see in a Jurassic Park scenario?

tigris115 wrote:

Maybe as a culling measure, excess dinos can be used for carnivore fodder. Though I'd make sure that the welfare of food animals is assured. I think Rexy being thin is on account of both her age and a diet with nutritional gaps in it.

Age was a factor and but the fact that she was only fed goats was the main factor. As for excess dinos, that would work better then goats, but only if you purposely put more hadrosaurs then you really should on the island. Using inadvertent excess dinos would also be problematic because it's hard to tell what would be considered excees, and what wouldn't. The only way how that could be successful is if you allow the dinosaurs to breed naturally. Then the culling of excess dinosaurs might work.

That's another big problem. Since dinosaurs lay several eggs, that translates into several mouths to feed, which for big predators can be really problematic. So some form of population control will be necessary. Though one thing I wish I could know is if a dinosaurs sex is determined by temperature like crocodilians. Thus you can make the population flexible with a breeding program.

Sorry for the bump in the topic but I was just wondering, what's the size limit for the island? 22 square miles, 220 square miles, or perhaps even 2200 square miles?

The reason why I ask, is that the size of the island for building Jurassic Park can affect how the park is built, what animals are featured, and the security measures etc.

Be smart. 

No I'm serious lol. The reason the animals in JP and JW escaped were both due to dumb characters and poor management of the park, which is obviously for the movies plot of course. 

Example. 

In JW Owen and the other guys could have easily escaped if there was a secondary door on the door the Irex bursts through. Like a human sized door lol.  And even if they didn't escape the I-Rex would be safely in a pen still. There you go huge problem averted.

In JP all it takes is a power outage to ruin the entire island. And you're in a location where power can easily be comprised by weather. And even then it's just a really dumb idea to have an animal like a raptor only being held back by an electric fence. Way too dangerous.  

Any dangerous animal would be behind something that it could not penetrate no matter what the electricity would be like. I'm talking military grade material. Something that couldn't be sabotaged if you tried. I would also install something in every animals head that would deliver an immediate and deadly shock to the brain with one press of a button in the control room.

Mistral wrote:

Gondrasia wrote:

If people are more than happy enough to pay thousands of dollars, and travel thousands of miles by plane to Florida and then take the long drive to get to Disney World or Universal Orlando; I think they would be just as fine to travel thousands of miles by plane to Costa Rica and take a two hour ferry ride to Isla Nublar. I'm also really struggling here to find how the idea of having 1/100th of the people on the island compared to JW, paying tens of thousands of dollars a day, getting to the island by helicopter, where they would have a 20% chance of having no seatbelt, and would want to endure the bad wind shears, both when landing and taking off; as more realistic than hundreds of people travelling by ferry to the island.

Regarding the size of Isla Nublar, it has never been stated in any of the four movies just how big it was, but if it was to be addressed, 22 square miles is highly unlikely; Gallimimus Valley alone has an area of 12 square miles, Paddock 11 was stated to be 4 miles from the closest ride and from the satellite map in the control room, the Nublar appears to be quite a large island. If anything Isla Nublar in the movies would have an area of about 100 square miles or possibly more.

We don't know if the visitors were originally supposed to arrive to the island via helicopter. That landing site might have just been Hammond's private copter area anyway. There are pictures of planes in the background in the dinner scene, so perhaps there was to be an airfield. But that may be reference to planes landing to Costa Rica or whatever. We simply don't know.

In any case, if you are only bringing smaller selected (rich) group to the island, you know as everything appears to be pointing towards in the film, it's easier to accommodate 'luxury' traveling options. And the people paying these sums of money probably would be expecting higher service. Not boats but either plane or copter.

The novel and other sources state the island to be just 22 square miles, but you are right, that's not what the films say so we shouldn't get too stuck on those figures as they are irrelevant in film universe. What we do know however is the line of Gennaro saying there is 50 miles of perimeter fence in the original park. And that seems awfully little if the island is supposedly as gigantic as you make it sound to be.

Well regardless, 20,000 a day + employees + the things I said earlier would still make it pretty damn crowded.

Gondrasia wrote:

I believe the idea for the Gyrosphere, was to provide you and your family member or closest friend, the chance to experience the dinosaurs in a private, intimate experience. To experience the same awe and wonder as the first ever visitors to Jurassic Park did when they were in the Jeeps, this was Jurassic World's way of providing the visitors what Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler felt on that day. This simply wouldn't be possible with either the Jungle Trek or Cretaceous Cruise, because you'll travelling with other people as well in the truck or in a group along the river. But with the Gyrosphere they will might now finally get that feeling.

Regarding the safety of the Gyrospheres, while there appeared to be no visible means of stopping people from running into the dinosaurs, there was an automated system that would have moved the sphere away from the animal to a safe distance. And for the most part they were supervised from afar in the control room, what with the Gyrosphere tracking system and security cameras, so if there were some idiots trying to goad the dinosaur, they could just simply call security and remove them from the ride.

The intentions are all fair and good, but again if we are discussing real-life adaptations here, they fall into the fantasy category of 'would be nice'. Even if in zoo or wildlife park they were stupid enough to let your kids or even adults ride along zebras or giraffes or whatever in protective indestructible cage (which gyrosphere clearly even isn't judging by the I-Rex attack), there should constantly be someone there just in case if something happened. If something unexpected did happen with wildlife it needs to be resolved immediately, not waiting for park ranger or whomever to arrive in 5 minutes.

Whether or not there is invisible magic system in use that pushes the dinosaurs back when they're approached, it's still a hazard as the they could get annoyed by constant charges and start rampaging to whichever direction. Ever heard of stampede?

Mistral wrote:

And what was going to be the only other ride in Jurassic Park?

This is pretty much exactly the same as the Cretaceous Cruise, except unlike its potentially risky successor, it's a death trap in the making; this would pretty much have gone through the same herbivore exhibits as the one from JW, only without the Invisible Barrier System and to top it all off, it would have gone through the aviary, and I believe no further words need to be added as to explain why that's a terrible idea.

That's a random concept image from the background of the dinner scene. It doesn't have to do anything with reality or what they were going to build. It could be just to show off investors. And even if such thing was going to be introduced, marketing concept drawings tend to romanticize them as grander than they actually would be.

All Hammond says is "other rides will come along" and this all we know, whatever it may mean. Everything else is speculation, including what's being projected behind them. Inside this universe we've seen, that's what we were discussing right (just as with the size of Isla Nublar).

But, but, if such thing were to come after all and just as described in that picture, would I agree with it working? No, obviously no, it's just as idiotic as the JW scene they actually portrayed as reality.

Mistral wrote:

What's to stop the visitors from running away if Rexy decides to go on a rampage? There's nothing that's going to stop them from doing so, it's wide enough for the large crowd of people to travel through and there are exits on both sides. Also for all we know, the tree bark on the log, could be disguising what it's made from, reinforced concrete.

From my perspective, JW's T. Rex Kingdom is the far superior design to JP's Tyrannosaur Paddock

Obviously it's made of concrete, the thing wouldn't be able stay together if it was just wood or some other light material. But if it collapses to the ground from one end? It's a fairly long passageway from one end to another, as seen from that one shot in the film, and if the T-Rex just runs into it in full speed?

Also, they should have one sided windows there, constantly moving people and flashing cameras (yeah because that definitely shouldn't be disallowed) isn't exactly going to make the animal any less stressed. Animal we know to base it's sight on movement in this universe.

At least in the old park, even if the T-Rex bothered to come out in the open from the jungle to see the road at the right moment, it probably wouldn't have had to endure more than dozen tour cars going over the whole day. No King Kong flashbacks of getting irritated by flashes.

Wait! When in the movie can you see that concept in the background??

Mistral wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

Wait! When in the movie can you see that concept in the background??

OMG never noticed! Thank you. Are there other concepts we can see in the background in that scene?

Troyal1 wrote:

OMG never noticed! Thank you. Are there other concepts we can see in the background in that scene?

Yes there are, at the very next frames even. Go and look for them the next time you view that scene  

I think if that sequence had been done today, it would either have been in some boring mundane setting with nothing interesting happening in the background, or in the middle of some action sequence. Also they wouldn't devote so much time into 'mere' debate but speed it in half. They don't make em like they used to