CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › John Hammond is so unrealistic
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Hammond is so unrealistic - Page 2

post #51 of 72
No mention of the spotless cow harness?

Great f'in thread.
post #52 of 72
I think the biggest inconsistency in ALL the books and movies is being overlooked.

DINOSAURS AREN'T REAL, PEOPLE.

The devil put those bones there to try and FOOL us into rejecting GOD'S LOVE.
post #53 of 72
That hand on the wheel pissed me off quite a bit too. But the silly Costa Rican that was listening to his headphones, that later got stepped on? His name was Carter. A clearly full-blooded Costa Rican named Carter? Come on people. And seriously - how did Dieter get that lost? He fell down a hill. What a fuggin idiot.

And Nedry's death in the JP book was better. And so was Wu's. Oh wait, Wu didn't die in the movie. Just like all the other awesome deaths from the book. The book had Wu get jumped from the side by a raptor, sliced open, and while he was on the ground screaming and thrashing, two raptors were yanking and fighting over his intestines. Seriously fucked me up as a wee one. These really were great reads. I liked the movies, though, as retarded as they became. The Lost World is still my number one example in conversations on movies that differed from the books. I wished they'd just called it Jurassic Park II. They wrote a completely different story. At least then it wouldn't get compared to the book.
post #54 of 72
This movie will hold up even better when they actually manage to Clone T-Rex's with that tissue sample they have
post #55 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserNameIndeed
A clearly full-blooded Costa Rican named Carter?
Just watch international soccer. Names like that are more common than you think.
post #56 of 72
Watching JP1 with computer programmers usually produces a giggle when Lex says excitedly: "Unix! I know this!" Although imdb says this is incorrectly regarded as a goof, it adds "the display is not typical of UNIX systems of that era."

I read somewhere recently that they made a profit by selling the television rights before the movie was released, which is why these don't play on cable, and why I haven't seen them in so long.
post #57 of 72
You know the ROTS feeding frenzy is over when a incredibly geekish discussion of "Jurassic park"
gets booted to the #1 spot in "Franchises" on a consistant basis.
post #58 of 72
Quote:
Originally posted by dudalb

You know the ROTS feeding frenzy is over when a incredibly geekish discussion of "Jurassic park"
gets booted to the #1 spot in "Franchises" on a consistant basis.
That's a good thing dudalb.
post #59 of 72
And there's all of Jurassic Park 3...

My favorite though is that the parasail guy is unharmed when he and the kid land, but ends up a rotting corpse, hanging from the tree later. What, he was too exhausted to undo the harness?

I thought the Lost World novel was a sequel to the Movie Jurassic Park, hence Malcolm’s resurrection.
post #60 of 72
For those folks who've read the book, perhaps you can solve one of the mysteries of Jurassic Park for me. Was the bit in the film of the can of shaving cream with the dino DNA hidden inside included the book as well, specifically when all the mud falls on top of it? And if so, was it ever expanded upon?

That shot in the film was so obviously intended as a hint at what might be in store for a sequel, but instead, we got a second island full of dinos that was conveniently never mentioned in JP. It seemed to me that the most compelling idea for a sequel would be finding that can. Perhaps it becomes an urban legend of sorts, with the government and other bio companies trying to find it, but Grant and co. see to it that they never get their hands on it, and, of course, several greedy bastards get eaten alive along the way. At least, that's the JP sequel I day dreamed about after I saw the original when I was in grade school.
post #61 of 72
I remember the books were better, even though Lost World book was kinda lame. The whole T-Rex in the river sequence from the first book was awesome.

Lost World (the movie) was awful. The book explained the whole second island thing better because at the end of the first book they blew up the island with missles, etc. So it needed a reason for another island. The 2nd movie didn't and kind of make you wonder what is going on with the original island itself. This led to a great joke in JP3 were Grant explains he has never been on this other island, much to the dismay of the people who kidnapped him there.

Lost World had already lost me by the time the whole boat thing happened, than I really gave up on it. I remember people being really confused in the theater about what the hell just happened? It was a tacked on ending. Let's see the Rex in the city! But we really didn't make plotlines for that... who cares? Boat wrecks, he's loose! Let's go! I was surprised that I liked JP3 much more.

As far as the shaving cream can from the first movie is concerned, I never saw it as a sequel possibility thing. It only has so long of a freeze left in it to keep the contents safe. I alway saw it more as a symbolic thing. Here's this little can that led to all this trouble for man, swallowed up by the mud.
post #62 of 72
Thread Starter 
Couple of other goofs of note:

- Arnold's levitating disembodied arm, lying in wait for a white woman to come along to scare the bejeezus out of.

- Stegosaurus is misspelled as "Stegasaurus" on the embryo container. They can CLONE dinosaurs, but they still don't know how to spell their names.

- In the scene with Nedry in Dodgson in San Jose, the ocean is clearly visible, despite the fact that San Jose is landlocked. (The book makes this mistake as well.)
post #63 of 72
- The T-Rex died during filming. Half of his scenes were played by a chiropractor. This explains why he spends much of the film holding a cape over his face.
post #64 of 72
Someone earlier had a great point and I'm glad I haven't been crazy all these years.. they totally fucked up the T-Rex/Jeep attack placement. I always thought I was just stupid for not figuring it out, but apparently there's more of us. thank christ.
I mean.. there's a dropoff so the jeep falls.. but the T-Rex is standing straight up.. does he.. jump?
post #65 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBananaGrabber
I thought the Lost World novel was a sequel to the Movie Jurassic Park, hence Malcolm’s resurrection.
mm.. But in the book they follow the fact that Hammond is dead, while in the movie sequel, Hammond is still alive.
post #66 of 72
Gennaro's death always seemed really clumsily handled. He didn't die in the books; you're supposed to laugh at him on the toilet --then he's just snapped up. My audience was still in mid-laugh as he was eaten. It just seems like a bad lawyer joke. And what was the nature of the production's hate for the palentologist who used to be in the Sega commercials and was an adviser for the first film? He has a doppelganger in Lost World who dies in a similar pathetic fashion.
post #67 of 72
Does anyone know what the Latin American digger guy says at the beginning when he finds the insect trapped in amber? It sounds like "kalin-ki-dinkus" or something! My friend and I always laugh at it cause it sounds like gibberish, but I guess its Portugese or something. Anybody know? Or did Spielberg just make it up to sound mysterious?
post #68 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Felt Pelt
Gennaro's death always seemed really clumsily handled. He didn't die in the books; you're supposed to laugh at him on the toilet --then he's just snapped up. My audience was still in mid-laugh as he was eaten. It just seems like a bad lawyer joke. And what was the nature of the production's hate for the palentologist who used to be in the Sega commercials and was an adviser for the first film? He has a doppelganger in Lost World who dies in a similar pathetic fashion.
Didn't the lawyer get killed by the baby T-Rex? It's been so long since I've read the first damn book. I just remember the cool hunter guy in the second movie was more like the Australian guy from the first one was supposed to be. Instead of getting killed by raptors like in the movie, he just gets really piss drunk and kills about 10 raptors with a shotgun before escaping the island with the other survivors.
post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Werbal_Kint
Better than the movie.

"Oh hey, guess what everyone? Dinosaurs exist! But we're going to leave them on a island and not bother them or study them at all because they should be left in peace and everyone is absolutely okay with that."

"Hey, Nick, what are those?"
"The bullets from that hunter guy's gun."
"The ones he was going to shoot the T-Rex with?"
"Yep."
"The T-Rex that destroyed the camp, killed about 8 guys, and drove the rest into the raptor field to their grisly deaths?"
"Yep."
"Wow! You're a hero because you place the life of an artificially engineered creature over 2 dozen of your fellow man, most of whom likely have families who will now become destitute."
"I'm a man of peace."
God damn did you just hit the f'n bullseye with that one. Rewatched the trilogy today. One owned, two was so damn preachy and three was a whirlwind of fun.

Notice how the two good movies of the trilogy had Sam Neill in them? Coincidence?
post #70 of 72
Not a coincidence. Sam Neill is the absolute heart of those movies. They strayed so far from the Lost World book that they should have just went one step further and brought Neill back again.

Part three, as you say, is a whirlwind of fun. My favorite of the series and one of my favorite adventure films of all time. People that criticize it harshly are probably taking it too seriously, which is a reasonable expectation after the more serious but confused tone of the first two.
post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl Zero
Not a coincidence. Sam Neill is the absolute heart of those movies. They strayed so far from the Lost World book that they should have just went one step further and brought Neill back again.

Part three, as you say, is a whirlwind of fun. My favorite of the series and one of my favorite adventure films of all time. People that criticize it harshly are probably taking it too seriously, which is a reasonable expectation after the more serious but confused tone of the first two.
And I think the best part about JP3 is that it doesn't try to be so grand in scale, it doesn't try to preach to the audience or push propaganda down its throat, it is just a good adventure movie. No more, no less. And Joe Johnson did a better job than anyone expected in filling Spielberg's (sp) shoes. My only gripe is that it could have been a bit longer and I would have liked to see some military action at the end, but otherwise, it was a really good film.
post #72 of 72
This is a great thread, funny enough I just started to re-read the book!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › John Hammond is so unrealistic