I remember that I wasbeing so excited when I watched "Jurassic Park" for the first time. I remember being so excited when I watched "Jurassic Park" for the first time.

The original sentence is correct, this is just another way to say it that I think sounds more natural.

Is athe creative technology shown in the film even feasible even in the future? Is the creative technology shown in the film even feasible in the future?

Is a creativeWill the cloning technology in the film (even) be feasible even in the future? Will the cloning technology in the film (even) be feasible in the future?

I think "cloning" is often used in science fiction and biology in the context of reconstructing animals from their DNA. You could also say "the genetic engineering technology", but I think "cloning" is the best fit. If you include "even" it sounds like you don't think it's likely that it will be possible, although you aren't 100% sure. Without "even" the question is more neutral. Both are fine. Finally, if you wanted to make the question sound a bit more thoughtful or reflective, you could use the phrase "I wonder if...", which is quite common in this kind of situation. So you could say "I wonder if the cloning technology in the film will be feasible in the future." It's not technically a question so it doesn't need a question mark, but it sounds quite thoughtful and reflective. This is just optional though - the corrected sentence is perfectly natural.

Is aWill the creative technology depicted in the film become feasible even in the future? Will the creative technology depicted in the film become feasible in the future?

"the" is used to indicate that you are referring to the particular technology shown in the film, while "a" means some technology in general.

Is aWould the creative technology in the film be feasible even in the future? Would the creative technology in the film be feasible even in the future?

If so, I'd really like to go to see dinosaurs. If so, I'd really like to go to see dinosaurs.

Yours is correct too, just wanted to point out that the second "to" is often dropped in everyday conversation as in "If so, I'd really like to go see dinosaurs."

I prefer plant-eatingherbivorous dinosaurs because meet-eatingcarnivorous dinosaurs are scary. I prefer herbivorous dinosaurs because carnivorous dinosaurs are scary.

The original sentence is correct, but you could also use "herbivorous" instead of "plant-eating" and "carnivorous" instead of "meat-eating".

I prefer plant-eating dinosaurs because meeat-eating dinosaurs are scary. I prefer plant-eating dinosaurs because meat-eating dinosaurs are scary.

This sentence is completely fine as it is. If you wanted to, you could also say "herbivorous dinosaurs" instead of "plant-eating dinosaurs", and "carnivorous dinosaurs" instead of "meat-eating dinosaurs". A herbivore is an animal that only eats plants, and a carnivore is an animal that only eats meat. An omnivore eats both. I think these are the kinds of words you might see used in a nature documentary, but your original sentence is completely understandable as well.

I prefer plant-eatingherbivorous dinosaurs because meet-eatingcarnivorous dinosaurs are scary. I prefer herbivorous dinosaurs because carnivorous dinosaurs are scary.

While plant-eating and meat-eating are both understandable, the exact adjectives for them are herbivorous and carnivorous respectively. There is also omnivorous which means both plant and meat eating. So they are also scary ;) The noun for these are herbivore, carnivore and omnivore when you want to refer to an animal with those characteristics.

I prefer plant-eating dinosaurs because meeat-eating dinosaurs are scary. I prefer plant-eating dinosaurs because meat-eating dinosaurs are scary.