[webz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shellhead304

Of course they did not get any of the dinosaurs right, I'm a dinosaur nut and Jurassic Park explicitly states that these are THEME PARK ATTRACTIONS manufactured from the fragmented DNA of the original dinosaurs with Frog DNA substituting for the gaps. So technically since they are not TRUE Dinosaurs, I would say that there is some liberty to be taken with their appearance. Wouldn't You Agree? I guess I saw that movie one too many times and read the book one too many times. I never critized these creatures being that the gimmick is they are genetically engineered creatures that LOOK like dinosaurs.

Yes, yes, I KNOW all that... I guarantee I've read the book more than you (over 100 times), and probably seen the movie more too, I'm WELL aware of the genetic misfits the dinosaurs of JP are... HOWEVER, the dinosaurs WERE put together well enough to enable them to viably breed. Henry Wu even gives himself a pat on the back when faced with evidence of his mistake/success.

Also, what is missing here is the simple fact that for the vast, unwashed masses of braindead zombies that currently represent the human race, their idea of a dinosaur is a slow moving tub of lard covered in scales. Computer technology doubles every generation, so why can't human understanding of paleozoology?

Crichton gets a pass from me, as far as the book goes, because the book does talk about dinosaur turning into birds, and as far as when the book was written, Velociraptor was not known to have feathers (that discovery wasn't until 2005 I believe). Crichton never said his book was about dinosaurs. It was about human greed, responsibility and the exploiting of science... The dinosaurs were there as a tool to "prove a point".

Spielberg, however, doesn't get a pass from me, because when JP was being hyped, Spielberg and his machine were going around talking about the marvel that is their dinosaurs, how technologically advanced, as well as scientifically accurate to the latest in paleontological studies. He bragged about Jack Horner as a consultant, even though none of Jack Horner's work appears in the film (Horner is a strong proponent of T-Rex being a scavenger only, and his primary contributions to paleontology is hadrosaur and ceratopsian studies). Can't blame the book, either, since 99% of the movie was never in the book it's based on. Spielberg took the wealth of information, and tossed it down the toilet, and instead gave audiences movie monsters instead of animals. He put a frill on the Dilophosaur for ZERO reason. It's a fascinating animal just the way nature presents it. Now you have non-JP related videos and merchandise putting frills on the dilophosaur because of Speilberg's whim. Every movie out there now, from Avatar to King Kong, uses the donkey bray/porpoise whistle for a dinosaur sound.

At least when he butchered the science of sharks with Jaws, he gave us an intriguing and compelling human drama, that stands the test of time even if the shark looks like a rubber fish, the characters are so compelling they keep audiences watching 30+ years later. With JP, the humans were so poorly written that most people I know, when the bluray of the JP films came out, they watched the dinoscenes and skipped past all the humans. You can't care about any of the characters. The only one who ALMOST has personality is Ian Malcolm, in the first one, but even he is dumbed down and butchered by the 2nd film into being just another action hero.

I think a reboot of Jurassic Park would be awesome, and well received. The original has it's themeparks, had it's moment as a happy meal toy, and makes Universal/NBC millions every year when they show it on TV. Let a new generation of film makers, artists, and paleontologists take it where it needs to go in the new millennium, and leave Gerty the Dinosaur back in the swamp where she belongs.