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


On Fri, 21 Feb 1997 10:48:45 -0700 (MST) Jeffrey Martz
<martz@holly.ColoState.EDU> writes:

>      I'm advocating the depiction of reality, not the pre-1970s
>stereotype.  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 
>being made that an intellectually fascinating film that is also pretty
>exiting (a criteria that Jurassic Park the book met pretty well) is 
>to appeal to the public less then an intellectually devoid film with a 
>of misinformation and cheap thrills. Even if it is true, I think it is 
>pretty sad price to pay to get people interested in science. <

I agree with you about depicting reality;  my point was that people
outside paleo in the pre-70's had their own ideas of what the Paleo world
was like, and did not think it was exciting enough to bother with. 
Non-scientists just don't get it.  It may be a sad price to pay to get
people's attention, but in this
plunk-your-kid-in-front-of-the-TV-for-a-baby-sitter age, it may be what
we have to deal with. 

So, why don't you write "an intellectually fascinating film that is also
exciting?"  I don't have the time!!  I'm spending a lot of time
correcting all the mis-information for our volunteers!!

Judy Molnar
Education Associate
Virginia Living Museum