>>9086078>>9086225Both the books and movies make it clear that the dinosaurs aren't true to life. They ARE clones of dinosaurs, but the gap-filling and other modifications make them arguably something else, not quite real dinosaurs. Definitely not simply animals made to look like dinosaurs though.
The books have a scene with Wu and Hammond arguing and Wu pointing out that they've not resurrected dinosaurs but rather recreated an approximation of them(pic related, left side).
The movies took longer to specifically start exploring the idea, but even in the first movie they mention how they had to fill in gaps with frog DNA and modify the growth rate and what-not(the book mentioned a wider variety of animals being used, movie simplified it to hammer home the sex-changing thing). Jurassic Park 3 has Grant say:
>"Dinosaurs lived sixty five million years ago. What is left of them is fossilized in the rocks, and it is in the rock that real scientists make real discoveries. Now what John Hammond and InGen did at Jurassic Park is create genetically-engineered theme park monsters, nothing more and nothing less."Then Jurassic World in a way brings back the Wu and Hammond argument(pic related, right side) when Masrani confronts Wu about the Indominus breaking out.
Sure, for the time the dinosaurs in both Crichton's book and the JP movie were relatively accurate, but it's not like they were free of liberties being taken. Crichton for example renamed Deinonychus to Velociraptor because the name was "more dramatic" and the production kept that up, even asking John Ostrom for his notes on Deinonychus just like Crichton. The movie alsoadded the frill to and shrunk down the Dilophosaurus because they didn't want audiences to confuse it with the "Velociraptor", and the book had already added the venom spit. Among other things.
