[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: The Lost Child...
> It's truly sad to witness the rearing of the ugly head of a cynic! Must we
> kill the joy of the child in becoming adults?
No, why? Why does turning a "Bakkerian Superbeast" into a
remarkable animal have to involve killing joy? Again, I think it is sad
to assume that reality is so incredibally dull that we have to lie to make
it interesting. Dinosaurs weren't boring. Why do we have to embellish to
make them more exiting?
Since when should art (yes it
> is art and pop culture at the same time) be judged on its scientific
> acuracy anyway? And since when is science so accurate it that it becomes
> dogma. I remind you Brian that no paleontologist alive can show you a one
> hundred percent accurate dinosaur. Maybe we should get out the barf bags
> for Star Wars (easy Darren, I'm a big Star Wars enthusiast) because the
> fighters don't obey the laws of physics.
I think the beef that Brian and I have with Jurassic Park is that
Jurassic Park is SUPPOSED to be a fairly realistic movie, and the
dialougue and plot and such (correctly, in the case of the book) strongly
imply that the movie has a sound scientific basis. Star Wars is a space
fantasy, and doesn't pretend to be anything but. Jurassic Park is
misleading pseudoscience deliberately masquerading as realism. Speilberg
described the film as being "something that will probably happen"; George
Lucas makes no such allegations. People going to see Jurassic Park are
supposed to think they are seeing a realistic movie.
> Spielberg's, The Lost World, is quite a departure from Chrichton's book and
> it is going to be spectacular.
Since the book Lost World doesn't meet the book Jurassic Park's
deliberate (Crichton did his homework on Jurassic Park) standards of
plausibility OR plot, this might be one of those rare cases where the
movie is better then the book.