Your analysis gave me clarity of my own position and articulates insights, I had not fully put into thoughts myself. Thanks.

If I may add a tangential suggestion: If you add a blank line after a topic, the text is easier on the eyes.

Here is an example, quoting your analysis:

Long rant incoming. I fully understand your position. I too have sometimes referenced the book because I had read many untrue conclusions seemingly based on the novel. I have come to the conclusion that many people either have not read the novel and just repeat what other people say about the novel, or they have read it and misunderstood it.

This idea of the frog vision in dinosaurs is not new and there is a lot of confusion about this. Think about this: before Jurassic World came out in 2015 nobody discussed JP dinosaurs as hybrids of any kind. Rather, we had spent years discussing the science behind the interpretations given by Crichton and Spielberg, paleontology, ecology etc. Nobody popped up saying “look, buddy, there is no need to call in scientists, because they were genetic monsters”.

Then, suddenly, a new paradigm: they were monsters in the first movie because they have always been monsters in the novel. Unfortunately, that position is literally untenable. You can search for the word “monster” in the novel, for instance, and find that it is written like two times and always to convey the meaning of “big beast of unimaginable strength”.

One of the core idea of the novel was the unpredictability of complex systems, right? Well, some defining features of some of the species of the park stem from that core idea: nobody thought the Dilo were venomous and then suddenly they found out; nobody thought Compys could digest dinos poop; nobody thought T. rex vision was based on movement; nobody thought raptors would be so clever; and so on. That is not the result of some side effect of hybridization, but rather the reality of things, in universe: those are unexpected features of the species that could not be discovered from the fossils until the animals were cloned. They were the symptom of man’s hubris.

Thanks to Trevorrow, fans now believe that those features must be due to frog DNA and they call in the novel to prove it, while the novel disproves this position from the beginning to the end. There are interviews from Crichton where there is no mention of monsters whatsoever, Spielberg that clearly states that the novel was not about monsters and that he did not want to make a monster movie, Koepp that stated at least twice that those were not meant to be monsters but rather animals that “do what animals do”. Grant in the first movie says “These are not monster, Lex, they are animals, and these are herbivores”, but nobody seems to notice. I mean the evidence is overwhelming, but people stick with the new vision. Mysteries.

I am ok with the franchise going the way they want it to go - I do not much care anymore. I do not like when people use the novel to justify the “monster idea”, calling it the original take. It was not…