Originally Posted by webz (Post 408977)

Book Grant is an amalgamation of several paleontologists: 95% Jack Horner (also bearded and bespectacled), and subtle influences by Bob Bakker, John Ostrom, and "enthusiast" Gregory Paul.

Book version of Alan Grant is primarily a Hadrosaur specialist, and was credited for many discoveries and theories attributed to Horner. Bakker gets a nod here and there for some of the T. rex theories, and Ostrom and Paul's influence comes shining through when the focus on Velociraptors happen at the end of the book, but all of the nesting, and social aspects of dinosaurs is ALL 100% Horner stuff back in the late 80's when Crichton was doing his research.

Originally Posted by JanSolo (Post 408988)

Can I just say how happy it makes me that so many Arkers are not just JP movie fans, but of the books as well. I like the 1st and 3rd movies, but love the books. Which is one of the reasons I really liked 3 because even though not based on one it felt closer to the books than the first two films did. Does anyone else think that 20 years is long enough of a time for a true to the books remake? I'd gladly take a 4th JP film if it weren't like 2, but really think remake is the way to do it.

Originally Posted by Crazy Jetty (Post 409090)

I don't think I would like that at all, a true to the book adaptation, that is. The book was ultra modern in the early eighties, but was massively outdated by the early ninties. And 20 years on, even the movie is pretty dated. The book is outright ancient.
Also, I personally don't like most of the characters in the book. Hammond is the biggest asshole imaginable who deserved to die. He was more reprehensable than Nedry. I personally think, save for Malcom (And it could be due to the fact I can't stand Jeff Goldbloom), that everyone is a much better character in the movie.
So, I read the book, not a fan.
Though if they used more better dinosaurs (Deinonychus instead of Velociraptors, so on and so forth), most current theories, I wouldn't mind an update using the book characters, even though I don't care for them.
Either way, the humans aren't the draw for me.

Originally Posted by Crazy Jetty (Post 409090)

True, but he tends to act more like Bakker in the book, with a much more outgoing and childfriendly personality.
Horner is always more reserved, and strikes me that he tends to keep to himself more, like Grant in the movie. (Not to imply that Horner doesn't like kids, since Grant didn't)

Originally Posted by Crazy Jetty (Post 409090)

I don't think I would like that at all, a true to the book adaptation, that is. The book was ultra modern in the early eighties, but was massively outdated by the early ninties. And 20 years on, even the movie is pretty dated. The book is outright ancient.
Also, I personally don't like most of the characters in the book. Hammond is the biggest asshole imaginable who deserved to die. He was more reprehensable than Nedry. I personally think, save for Malcom (And it could be due to the fact I can't stand Jeff Goldbloom), that everyone is a much better character in the movie.
So, I read the book, not a fan.
Though if they used more better dinosaurs (Deinonychus instead of Velociraptors, so on and so forth), most current theories, I wouldn't mind an update using the book characters, even though I don't care for them.
Either way, the humans aren't the draw for me.

Originally Posted by webz (Post 409208)

Having read the first JP book 112 times (yes, it's my favorite.. so sue me) I don't get the "outgoing" part. Grant in the book is very reserved. Sure he opens up to the kids, but that's because how can someone, who's job demands imagination, not like kids? But he is a very careful, thoughtful man, and not as animated or eccentric as Bakker. Bakker got his JP moment in JP2 as the inspiration for the scientist who gets eaten in the cave.




Like James Bond, Jurassic Park could easily be modernized yet still be extremely faithful. Less "theme park" and more like Jaws. Jaws was a marvel of character development, and Spielberg totally dropped the ball in favor of a Universal Studios theme park ride. Develop the characters so we feel for them. I loved all the characters of Jurassic Park. Yes, they were all various shades of ugly, but that was Crichton's point... scientific greed ends badly.

The dinosaurs, easy enough, could be updated to the latest understandings...

Velociraptors would be the size of a German Shepherd, covered in feathers.

Dilophosaur would be 18ft long, no frill, and have the unique dentition.

Triceratops wouldn't be eating stones, and would have quill-like spines along its back and rump.

Apatosaurus instead of Giraffatitan for the first full reveal

Young T-rex would be partially feathered (head, neck, chest and spine)

Actors I'd love to see in a reboot of JP:
Alan Grant- Mark Ruffalo (want Grant to look older, more "professor" than "Indiana Jones")
Ellie Sattler - Ellen Page (Grant's grad student/assistant, not a love interest - And Page is convincing as a smart girl)
John Hammond- John Malkovich (crazy and charismatic... can do the sweettalk at the beginning and the ranting at the end)
Ed Regis - Dustin Diamond (nerdy looking PR guy. limited role)
Donald Gennaro - Greg Kinnear (Lawyer who has a major role towards the end of the book)
Robert Muldoon - Tom Hardy (not book accurate, but can look the part of a white game hunter)
Ian Malcolm - Jim Parsons (From Texas, like Malcolm, and thanks to Big Bang Theory, has proven he can irritate without resorting to stuttering, has to be cutting-edge mathematics, and therefore young).
Dennis Nedry - Nick Frost (a little grease in the hair, and he'd make Wayne Knight cringe!)
Henry Wu - B.D. Wong (he did excellent in JP 1, bring him back!)

Originally Posted by webz (Post 409208)

Like James Bond, Jurassic Park could easily be modernized yet still be extremely faithful. Less "theme park" and more like Jaws. Jaws was a marvel of character development, and Spielberg totally dropped the ball in favor of a Universal Studios theme park ride. Develop the characters so we feel for them. I loved all the characters of Jurassic Park. Yes, they were all various shades of ugly, but that was Crichton's point... scientific greed ends badly.

The dinosaurs, easy enough, could be updated to the latest understandings...

Velociraptors would be the size of a German Shepherd, covered in feathers.

Dilophosaur would be 18ft long, no frill, and have the unique dentition.

Triceratops wouldn't be eating stones, and would have quill-like spines along its back and rump.

Apatosaurus instead of Giraffatitan for the first full reveal

Young T-rex would be partially feathered (head, neck, chest and spine)

Actors I'd love to see in a reboot of JP:
Alan Grant- Mark Ruffalo (want Grant to look older, more "professor" than "Indiana Jones")
Ellie Sattler - Ellen Page (Grant's grad student/assistant, not a love interest - And Page is convincing as a smart girl)
John Hammond- John Malkovich (crazy and charismatic... can do the sweettalk at the beginning and the ranting at the end)
Ed Regis - Dustin Diamond (nerdy looking PR guy. limited role)
Donald Gennaro - Greg Kinnear (Lawyer who has a major role towards the end of the book)
Robert Muldoon - Tom Hardy (not book accurate, but can look the part of a white game hunter)
Ian Malcolm - Jim Parsons (From Texas, like Malcolm, and thanks to Big Bang Theory, has proven he can irritate without resorting to stuttering, has to be cutting-edge mathematics, and therefore young).
Dennis Nedry - Nick Frost (a little grease in the hair, and he'd make Wayne Knight cringe!)
Henry Wu - B.D. Wong (he did excellent in JP 1, bring him back!)

Originally Posted by Crazy Jetty (Post 407780)

There was no ebay in the late ninties, so no one would have expected you to know about it back then.

But he wasn't being snarky. The way you wrote your post you made it sound like that you are presently unaware that the human characters ever existed in toyform at all. At no time did you make it clear that you were referring to a lack of knowledge back then, as opposed to now.
Hense the ebay comment.

Originally Posted by Demoncarnotaur (Post 407224)

Here's prototype pictures of the two brand new dinosaurs we are getting with the JP3D line:

http://www.jptoys.com/toy-database/j...hinosaurus.jpg

http://www.jptoys.com/toy-database/j...allosaurus.jpg

I think the future of JP merch is a bright one.

Originally Posted by cobracobra (Post 410384)

N/ice first post Victory Leo! Welcome to the Ark, coming in like a fighter!

Originally Posted by Primacron (Post 410417)

If these are 3.75" scale, I need me a MU Kazar.

Originally Posted by JanSolo (Post 410422)

Agreed. I also will need Turok and a good King Kong.

Originally Posted by Primacron (Post 410426)

We need more animals in 3.75"! Including over-sized gorillas.

Originally Posted by victoryleo19 (Post 410393)

Almost no one knew about the existence of feathers as a theory for dinosaurs in the early 90's. I was reading books too, and I can't even recall anyone mentioning it untill at least 97-98 in a publication for the general audience. Unless you were reading journals, which I don't even know of at the time, that somehow may have theorized feathered dinosaurs, it's amazing to me that you would have known about that during the release of Jurassic park. Purchasing journals also requires funds, like upwards of $100 dollars or more in some cases, which I know I didn't have at age 13.