[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Jurassic Park: good and bad



On Wed, 1 Mar 1995, Derek Tearne wrote:
 
> > The dung pile sure looked like it came 
> > from something a helluva lot larger than a Tri-C; something like a 
> > Seismosaurus.
> 
> Now, the size and shape of the dung piles _that_ was a mistake.

Crichton presumably knew about rhino middens when he wrote the book.  They
are about the same size but slope at about 2.5 degrees (or probably less) 
rather than 50.  Perhaps they deliberately made a tall, steep compost heap 
for the cinematic effect of plunging one's arm into a huge pile of manure 
rather than grubbing about in a patch of dirt.

> Well, someone was having fun making that movie.  And the shear symbolism
> of the Brachiosaurs walking out of the lake and onto the land where 
> they belong was priceless.

Shame about them chewing like mammals.  And the raptors jumped twice as 
high as I think they ought to have done.

Temperature-dependent sex determination would not have been suitable, IMHO.
Firstly, the JP dinosaurs (and especially the raptors) are definitely 
endothermic, which makes it unlikely they could tolerate and respond to 
temperature differences.  Secondly, the dino breeders would be sure to find 
out if sex was determined by temperature and they would carefully check the
sex of all the hatchlings (they'd probably need to take biopsies or scans of
the gonads) - everything about the park was supposed to have big safety 
margins.

                                                                Bill Adlam