Paleontological accuracy and entertainment

There's this attitude out there that scientific accuracy and entertainment are mutually exclusive. According to this, it's not possible for science to be entertaining, or for entertainment to include science. But that is a bunch of crap. If there weren't a significant amount of people who were interested in actual science (ie: found science entertaining) to some degree, good, popular documentaries wouldn't exist, but they do. (See Planet Earth, Blue Planet, the Life series, etc.) This excuse is particularly pathetic when it's used to defend dinosaur "documentaries". The point of science documentaries is to introduce viewers to science, but the overwhelming majority of dinosaur "documentaries" fail spectacularly at this. I'm not even talking about the inaccuracies; it's the sensationalism. Look at good science documentaries on modern animals. They (generally) don't need to pull made-up statistics out of their rectums, hype everything up to be the biggest baddest greatest strongest fastest bestest thing ever to do something (complete with rocket launchers and nukes), or photoshop the animals they feature to make them look "better" in order to make viewers want to watch them. Granted, a documentary on extinct dinosaurs will always involve some level of speculation, but science should still be the main focus, instead of being something of an afterthought (or being thrown out in favor of something the producers think is somehow "entertaining"). This wouldn't be half as jarring if existing dinosaur "documentaries" didn't hide beneath guise of "documentaries" that use "cutting-edge science", because they aren't and they don't, and they're misleading to casual viewers who actually want to learn something. I've already established that there are, in fact, sizable amounts of people out there who are interested in watching (real) science documentaries, and people who aren't would probably be watching something else to begin with.

This brings me to non documentaries. Non documentaries have, of course, more freedom when it comes to scientific accuracy. Clearly, the vast majority of popular works have at least some element of willing suspension of disbelief. But, even then, that doesn't mean they can't work in some science (depending on what it is they are going for) as the whole accuracy and entertainment are mutually exclusive attitude appears to imply. Just because I draw deinonychosaurs with giant cartoony eyes doesn't mean I must also draw them with those ridiculous gorilla suit feathers (albertonykus.deviantart.com/ar…) and machine guns attached to their shoulder blades. To use another example, there's a game called Off-road Velociraptor Safari (blurst.com/raptor-safari/loadi…) where you play as a Velociraptor running over other Velociraptor in a jeep. That's completely ridiculous, but it falls under willing suspension of disbelief. However, those Velociraptor happen to have feathers. Here's some news: a Velociraptor, even one in an otherwise ridiculous game, doesn't need an imaginary scaly hide to drive over other Velociraptor with a jeep (or to get hit by another Velociraptor driving a jeep). That's some really amazing insight, isn't it? And the team behind this (popular, I might add) game realized it. A novel about rabbits with religious beliefs doesn't have to make those rabbits bipedal. A TV show with a talking tyrannosaurid doesn't have to make the tyrannosaurid a vegetarian. A story about bats that can generate illusions with sound doesn't have to make those bats blind. The idea that every single work of fiction, regardless of genre or intention, "must" sacrifice "all" science for whatever else is ridiculous. In fact, I personally find that works of fiction that involve some science are typically far more enjoyable than those that don't care as much.

For the record, so that someone doesn't take this out of context, I'm most certainly not arguing that absolutely no inaccuracy or willing suspension of disbelief is allowed, or that there's absolutely no benefit of having willing suspension of disbelief. However, I'm not so certain if even fiction can be completely let off the hook when it comes to paleontology. Paleontology is not a science that is all that widely publicized, and when it is it's usually handled very badly. Most people watching superhero films know that real humans can't fly with their own power, but how many people watching a film with scaly dromaeosaurids in it realize that real dromaeosaurids were feathered? Major productions can and do leave a lasting impression on viewers. Books, blogs, and lectures on paleontology by professionals can clear up misconceptions, but how many moviegoers will read or attend them? If a film about fish made the effort of getting its fish (more or less) right, surely a film about dinosaurs can make an effort to get its dinosaurs (more or less) right.