That's cool... but I read an article awhile back about someone finding living tissue inside a female T-Rex bone. That was a tad more interesting. I only vaguely remember it now though.
That's cool... but I read an article awhile back about someone finding living tissue inside a female T-Rex bone. That was a tad more interesting. I only vaguely remember it now though.
I could have sworn my bio teacher, who is a paleontologist, said that they can't tell the difference between male and female dinosaurs. They don't know which one is which. I also could of sworn that that he had a picture of a T-Rex footprint. But I'm kind of out of it in that class. It's a 9:00 class on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, and I rarely go. All I really know from that class is that basically everything from Jurassic Park is inaccurate. So watching that movie won't help for the final I have on Tuesday...
Film Studies is my minor. I just have to take two sciences, and this is one of them.
My teacher also said that they discovered that meat-eating dinosaurs called "Theropoda" had feathers! They didn't fly, but recent follows found in China conclude that these are the ancestors of birds and that they really did have feathers. This includes raptors. So, Spielberg got it wrong in Jurassic Park. Not really his fault, since this is a recent discovery, but those scaly things that stalked the kids in the kitchen would have looked a bit more like Big Bird.
Spielberg put it up on the screen as his vision of the book, so technically I could blame Spielberg if I really wanted to.
HOWEVER, I don't really care enough because this information wasn't known at that time. And he was just putting on screen his vision of another man's work (never read the book, never really cared to).
Aw, that's unfortunate because it really is better than the movie (as cliche as that sounds, it's more often true than not... but I can count exceptions using more than one hand).
American Psycho
Fight Club
Planet of the Apes (Heston)
7 Faces of Dr. Lao (from book 'The Circus of Dr. Lao')
Big Fish
The Prestige (to some extent)
High Fidelity
Runaway Jury
The list goes on. Sometimes the only trick to finding movies that are better than the books there were based on is as simple as finding out there was a book to begin with.
And yes, I have read and seen all of these movies/books. Actually I own most of them in both formats...
I'm interested in palaeontology, so this looks like a nice discovery, even if it does not bring us any new cognitions though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClintonHammond
Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park.... Not Spewburg....
That's right, but in the novel Velociraptors were small dinosaurs (not larger than a dog), which is scientifically correct. Spielberg thought that they would be just a little too small for the audience, and so he made them larger, but still called them Velociraptors. In my eyes thats the biggest mistake in the whole thing. It's a good movie though...
That's right, but in the novel Velociraptors were small dinosaurs (not larger than a dog), which is scientifically correct. Spielberg thought that they would be just a little too small for the audience, and so he made them larger, but still called them Velociraptors. In my eyes thats the biggest mistake in the whole thing. It's a good movie though...
Interesting.I think a whole flock of mini-raptors would be more scary.Just picture seagulls on a french fry,They kill for it!
That's right, but in the novel Velociraptors were small dinosaurs (not larger than a dog), which is scientifically correct. Spielberg thought that they would be just a little too small for the audience, and so he made them larger, but still called them Velociraptors. In my eyes thats the biggest mistake in the whole thing. It's a good movie though...
I have read Jurassic Park over a dozen times (literally) and I think the small animals you are remembering might be the procompsognathus and not the raptors. The "compys" were not in the first film at all. I think they made appearances in the sequels though... (I'm not a fan of JP2 or JP3, so I haven't seen them as much). There are instances in the book where they describe the raptors as on the small side, but I think in those scenes they were observing juveniles.
The raptors of the movie (and I think also in the book) are based on the raptor's cousin, Deinonychus, who is much bigger. Tell me if I'm wrong; it's been a couple years since I read the book. And just a note: I'm not saying that the JP book or movies are accurate to paleontology, I'm just saying that I think I remember the raptors in the book being described as bigger than your quoted "not larger than a dog." But maybe that was just my imagination and influence from the movie...
I think I remember the raptors in the book being described as bigger than your quoted "not larger than a dog." But maybe that was just my imagination and influence from the movie...
Well in fact I have no real quote for that...
When I read the novel (some years ago on german) it just seemed to me that they were not bigger than a big german shepard, or whatever. But I remember an interview with Spielberg, in which he said that Crichton wanted the Velociraptors to be small and nasty, but in the end (i.e. in the motion picture) they turned out to be big... and nasty.
Crichton wasn't such a fan of this alteration, so I always thought he tried to describe them as small dinosaurs, but I really can't remember the book that well.
