Jurassic Park Trilogy - Page 2

Yeah, The Lost World in book form was pretty great.

I was really thrilled for the movie, since the original was one of my formative film experiences. I devoured the book before The Lost World's release, and while I was aware they had made drastic changes for the screen, I was pretty primed. And I remember it playing a little worse than the original, but I remember thinking, "This is dumber, but it's an adequate sequel." The action and suspense was Spielberg-y (and much superior to the mundane run-chase-run bullshit of part III), Jeff Goldblum was a lot of fun, and it felt appropriately big in scope. When Goldblum's daughter drop-kicked that raptor, I remember thinking, BULLSHIT! but otherwise ready to leave the theater, having experienced a pretty fun summer afternoon. I was thirteen. There were dinosaurs. It worked.

And then they made the suggestion that the T-Rex was headed to the mainland. I just about shit my pants. Are you kidding me? I thought. This was not in the books. It was what I was dreaming of seeing. But slowly, I started to find out the reasoning behind the t-rex getting to the mainland, and it occurred to me how stupid it really was. And then as dumb development after dumb development surfaced (Godzilla joke! No one would dare shoot him!), I wanted to leave the theater. To this day, I think that was probably the ugliest example of a movie completely shitting the bed in the final twenty minutes. I just covered my dinosaur-loving eyes and muttered, "NO. Not like this. Not like this."

Not much to add.  I had pretty much the same exact experience as Gabe, aside from it being probably my first experience with reading a book then seeing the movie and not knowing what usually happens (i.e. the movie is completely different).  So I was upset about all sorts of things that were different in the movie and spent most of the time trying to figure out what was different.  But yeah, the second they brought in the mainland stuff, I was just ticked off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Daywalker 

I don't care what anyone says the book was phenomenal. There was a chase scene in that that would have been awesome to see.

The book WAS great.  That sequence where the raptors have Arby in the cage was terrifying.

never read the book, always heard it was terrible.... might have to check it out now

I also agree that the chase was in the book was awesome. Weren't they weaving in and out of Brachiosaurs on a motorcycle. I haven't read the book in almost 20 years, but I remember wanting to see that scene in a movie.

Yes Spinosaurs was real. There was a complete skeleton, but it was destroyed in WW2.

There is a theory that if dinosaurs were warm blooded, then T Rex would have been fast enough to hunt its prey.

Something addressed in TLW the book but was ignored (probably for the best) in the film adaptation was Crichton's "fixing" or correcting the notion that Rexes hunted by motion.

I only read TLW once, but my impression wasn't favorable. Might have to crack it again.

   In the book the reason some of the dinosaurs vision was based on movement was because of the amphibian DNA used to fill in the blanks. In the book Grant doesn't move in front of the T Rex because he is too scared to do anything else.. Can you blame him. Also in the book one of the duckbill dinosaurs doesn't see Grant and the kids because they're not moving.

  One more thing. In the book Harmond is more like Mr Burns than a grandfather type who was too busy dreaming to actually think things though.

Almost entirely sure, though, that the Rex parents in TLW (the book) disabuse the "hunting based on motion" model that Grant (and Crichton) apply to the rex in JP. The Rexes in TLW have the same amphibian DNA as the one in JP, but doesn't need prey to move to find it.

"Hunting based on motion" never held water with me, anyway.  You're telling me that they never put those big-ass noses to use and say "I smell food right the fuck in front of me"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

I believe they said to have run as fast as he did in Jurassic Park, his legs would contain upwards of 85% of it's total muscle. 

 

 

As far as the feather thing, article that refferences Scientists hypothizing it was covered in feathers.  http://www.geekologie.com/2010/11/nooooooo_what_the_trex_really.php

 

 

 

 

 

I'm aware of that particular 'covered in feathers' picture, but it's wrong.  You only have look at modern land based animals of a similar size/weight as the T. Rex would have been like elephants, hippos, etc.  They have very little hair, and what hair they do have is not used as insulation, because their ratio of mass to surface area makes them bleed excess heat much more slowly.  If T. Rex were covered in feathers it would go hyperthermic and pass out with any strenuous activity like,say, walking.

Just going by what I've read.  I'll take their word over some guy on a forum, but thanks for your input.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

"Hunting based on motion" never held water with me, anyway.  You're telling me that they never put those big-ass noses to use and say "I smell food right the fuck in front of me"?

LOL, exactly, there senses are keen enough so they don't run head first into a tree... but they can't smell or detect a person 2 inches in front of their snout?  I know it's just a movie, but I still think it's pretty lazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

LOL, exactly, there senses are keen enough so they don't run head first into a tree... but they can't smell or detect a person 2 inches in front of their snout?  I know it's just a movie, but I still think it's pretty lazy.

ESPECIALLY during that moment where the Rex is right in front of Lex and Dr. Grant.  Come the fuck on. 

Well keep in mind the Rex is not used to scenting out people. It's wired to smell Dinos. Plus it's just an amazing moment, and so the un-logic of it doesn't bother me at all. It's one of the top films moments of all time, and the Rex blowing the hat off Grant's head just scared the crap outta me when I was younger

PS In the rain it's harder for animals to smell

TWO INCHES AWAY!!!!!!!!!

He probably had Lex's hair up his snout, come on! 

Got to love the ever changing landscape in that scene.  How the ground went from level, to 200 feet deep, back to level... GENIUS!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

TWO INCHES AWAY!!!!!!!!!

 

He probably had Lex's hair up his snout, come on! 

 

Got to love the ever changing landscape in that scene.  How the ground went from level, to 200 feet deep, back to level... GENIUS!!!

Same for the changing landscape in TEMPLE OF DOOM, in some shots (with the matte painting) they're over a 1000 foot drop, and in the wide shots they're maybe 200 feet up over a small dry river bed. The scenes work like gangbusters though, so it's the kind of thing you only notice later on

well, JP had the bennefit of it being the first of it's kind with the CGI, and the intensity of the scene.  So yes, you are correct, on extra viewing it only becomes noticable.  Nonetheless, the reason JPs landscape change is terrible.  How it was ignored, or overlooked is beyond me.  Specially from Speilberg... Temple of Doom or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt 

And thats the other thing about these films that bother me. Why can't anyone seem to hit these things with a gun? I get that it makes things really easy and you don't want that in your film but some of the ways they avoid guns is downright slapsticky. The second film everyone had a gun and not on person got a shot off. I mean unless you count the T Rex tranquilizer. Honestly it's becoming a comedy where every film they show the audience a gun. "This thing will take down a tank on steroids" and then when the dino comes he gets it stuck in his waist band before getting eaten. My favorite is when Sam Neil can't shoot that raptor with a shotgun when it's head is sticking right  through the window of that door.

If it was me I'd be like all Turok and shit and do all sorts of Dino-killing and stuff. Give be a cross-bow and some "special" bolts and it'd be some giant ribs delivered carside by a hot cro-magnon waitress. Yeah we'd tip over but it's all good.

Probably more in line with "and shit" then being like Turok.  And what I mean by that is, the first flesh eating dino you see... you shit your pants. 

All these movies have major problems.  The first could've been another Jaws if Spielberg would've resisted his temptation (and this is something he's guilty of alot) to storyboard the movie before he knows what he's dealing with.  Terry Gilliam said it best about Spielberg being a great director of "scenes", but not entire films. 

   Last weekend I was watching The Lost World. The T Rex rampage in San Diego was everything I thought the 98 Godzilla would be. Of course dinosaurs wrecking a big city had been done before, but never with an list director and cutting edge special effects.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

All these movies have major problems.  The first could've been another Jaws if Spielberg would've resisted his temptation (and this is something he's guilty of alot) to storyboard the movie before he knows what he's dealing with.  Terry Gilliam said it best about Spielberg being a great director of "scenes", but not entire films. 

I say this as an ardent fan of Gilliam, but he really should shut his mouth about the ability to direct "entire films" instead of "scenes." Glass houses and stones and all that shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Terry Gilliam said it best about Spielberg being a great director of "scenes", but not entire films. 

Terry Gilliam?  Seriously, he had to be sarcastic there, because that PERFECTLY describes his entire catalog since Brazil. 

Terry Gilliam really seems to hate Spielberg.  

DId he say this in his conversation with Salman Rushdie, or was it a separate occasion?

Just jealousy IMO... probably that SP can get a film made HIS WAY... unlike Gilliam.

No, I'd say Gilliam has a strong point,  but is also maybe projecting some of his own issues. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Terry Gilliam?  Seriously, he had to be sarcastic there, because that PERFECTLY describes his entire catalog since Brazil. 

So what?  It's still true about the beard.  Mostly his 90s and 00s work. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

So what?  It's still true about the beard.  Mostly his 90s and 00s work. 

 

So what?  Same reason a fat guy shouldn't make fun of fat people...  pot calling the kettle black... it's stupid, plus let us consider boths back catalogs.  Gilliam isn't even in the same house, let alone room, as Steven.  Doesn't mean he's beyond critism... but don't judge the guy and not mention that you have the same, if not worse, shortcomings. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

So what?  Same reason a fat guy shouldn't make fun of fat people...  pot calling the kettle black... it's stupid, plus let us consider boths back catalogs.  Gilliam isn't even in the same house, let alone room, as Steven.  Doesn't mean he's beyond critism... but don't judge the guy and not mention that you have the same, if not worse, shortcomings. 

I'm not the biggest fan of Gilliam but the comment wasn't meant to involve HIM in the discussion...I merely referred to it because I felt the same way, the fact that Gilliam said it is completely circumstantial.  This isn't Gilliam vs. Spielberg.  And it's not a stupid comment because it's basically true.  But if you want to make this Gilliam vs. Spielberg, be my guest and derail away.

So you quote someone, and don't expect that someone to be apart of the discussion?

Anywho, not to derail the thread...

I don't think the comment is true, I'm no Speilberg appologist, but I think the exact opposite could be said.  He makes great films, that are lessoned by certian scenes (many times, the last 5 minutes).

War of the Worlds for instance, great film, except for two scenes.  Robbie running over the hill, and the ending where he comes out behind his parents.

Munich, great film, except for the pointless flashback sex scene.

I eventhink AI is a great film, minus the ending. 

Jurassic Park is an all around great film, that I can't even fault except for some logic issues, but they really don't effect my overall enjoyment.

The Lost World is one of those "exception" films, where nothing works.  That is added along side Indy 4, Hook, and The Terminal. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

So you quote someone, and don't expect that someone to be apart of the discussion?

 

Anywho, not to derail the thread...

I don't think the comment is true, I'm no Speilberg appologist, but I think the exact opposite could be said.  He makes great films, that are lessoned by certian scenes (many times, the last 5 minutes).

 

War of the Worlds for instance, great film, except for two scenes.  Robbie running over the hill, and the ending where he comes out behind his parents.

Munich, great film, except for the pointless flashback sex scene.

I eventhink AI is a great film, minus the ending. 

 

Jurassic Park is an all around great film, that I can't even fault except for some logic issues, but they really don't effect my overall enjoyment.

The Lost World is one of those "exception" films, where nothing works.  That is added along side Indy 4, Hook, and The Terminal. 

 

 

I expect the quote to speak for itself and discussed on its own.  It's like accusing someone of something and they go "you should talk!!!"...not a fan of that tactic.  Either you agree with the quote or you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

I expect the quote to speak for itself and discussed on its own.  It's like accusing someone of something and they go "you should talk!!!"...not a fan of that tactic.  Either you agree with the quote or you don't.

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but when it's someone like Gilliam, or any other known director, starts talking and analyzing another director, you do more then just agree or disagree with the quote.  Not to mention, that quote, being how Gilliam FEELS, has to do with himself because it is, HIS opinion... the WHY of opinion is just as important as the opinion itself.   If Gilliam was to say "Spielberg can create some powerful scenes" and leave it, that's one thing.  Gilliam saying what he said, is more then a fat girl calling another girl fat.... it's a professional, giving a strong opinion on a fellow professional.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Sorry, but when it's someone like Gilliam, or any other known director, starts talking and analyzing another director, you do more then just agree or disagree with the quote.  Not to mention, that quote, being how Gilliam FEELS, has to do with himself because it is, HIS opinion... the WHY of opinion is just as important as the opinion itself.   If Gilliam was to say "Spielberg can create some powerful scenes" and leave it, that's one thing.  Gilliam saying what he said, is more then a fat girl calling another girl fat.... it's a professional, giving a strong opinion on a fellow professional.  

If you want to stay hung up Gilliam knock yourself out.

Catch Me If You Can works pretty much all the way through.

I'm in the "T-Rex" totally had feathers camp. Lots of them.