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


> Because, in my opinion, many of the pre-1970s paleo exhibits depicted
> dinosaurs in very static, non-exciting ways.  Also, movies and other
> media tended to just use them as the old monster that smashes through
> town -- no thought, no complex motivations, just rampage.  What
> documentaries, or stories about digs were really available before 1970
> that dealt with all the ins and outs of dino paleontology? And what did
> they show?  Paleontologists were depicted as stogy old taxonomists
> pouring over dusty old bones, IF they were depicted at all.  That inertia
> is hard to get over.  Maybe people thought that even folks who liked
> dinosaurs were as cold-blooded as their subjects.  

      I'm advocating the depiction of reality, not the pre-1970s
sterotype.  Nor am I saying that Jurassic Park was more bad then good.
I'm simply saying that there is room for improvement, and that the
improvement is improvement, not diminishment.  I think the assumption is
being made that an intellectually fascinating film that is also pretty
exiting (a criteria that Jurassic Park the book met pretty well) is going
to appeal to the public less then an intellectually devoid film with a lot
of misinformation and cheap thrills. Even if it is true, I think it is a
pretty sad price to pay to get people interested in science. 

LN Jeff