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

Re: The Lost Child...



tlford@ix.netcom.com (Tracy Ford) wrote

>And we 'true' dinosaurist have to tell people over, and over and OVER
>what is factual and what is fiction. For istance, I was at a Dinosaur
>park in Utah, I was standing next to a Dilophosaurus, I overheard some
>women say thats not Dilophosaurus, it dosen't have a frill. How many
>paleontologist have to WASTE there time CORRECTING people, over and
>over and over. It gets frustrating. Thanks to Creaton and Spilberg!

Uh, Tracy, no you don't have to tell her anything if you don't want to. If
her deepest level of interest in dinos is the movies then it doesn't
matter, she's sure to have many, many, many other dino misconceptions.
Hell, she wouldn't know the word Dilophosaurus if it wasn't for Chrichton
or Spielberg.

William C. Ward wrote:

>interesting. Heck, there's a yahoo who posts on way too many newsgroups who
>thinks he has the skull of a human giant from the Carboniferous. You just
>have to smile and walk away. : ) There are much better ways to spend your
>time than trying to convert these folks.

Yes! Yes! What is the point to this whole argument about Jurassic Park
spreading innacuracies. What does it matter if the basically uninterested
layman holds misconceptions? They don't really care whether Dilophosaurus
had a frill or not. Personally, I thought the frill was lame and I wouldn't
haven done that to accomplish the filmmakers point. I think his purpose was
to point out that if we could bring dinosaurs back to life we would
discover things about them that the bones alone hadn't told us. I can
accept the frill because I understand the metaphor. I didn't like it
though. My choice would have been to illustrate the point another way.

>But I did enjoy the movie because I KNOW it was just a move and if IT
>was done more correct it would have been even better. I'm NOT looking
>forward to the new one. I HOPE the Carnotarus aren't chamelon like like
>it was in the book.

If you enjoyed the movie, why would you not look forward to the next one?
Lost World is going to make Jurassic Park look like a training film. Don't
cut off your nose to spite your face. There's no value in being a cynic.
Yes the chameleon Carnotaurus was not a good idea and thankfully Spielberg
didn't think it was a good idea either. There is no Carnotaurus in the
film. The movie really bears very little resemblence to the book. The plot
is completely different. There were alot of things that annoyed me about
the book and 99 percent of them were cut out of the movie.

William C. Ward wrote:

>If it helps, the creatures in the movie and book aren't really
>dinosaurs. They're dinosaur/modern amphibian hybrids, and their
>uncharacteristic behavior and appearance are mutations.

Good point. Ultimately, these films are fantasy/dinosaur movies and my mind
boggles that anyone who loves dinosaurs would deprive themselves of the
experience just because the fantasy doesn't completely conform to reality.
Be nice to yourselves and enjoy the gift because you're probably not going
to see a real dinosaur. And there's probably not too many more "gifts" like
this coming along in this life...

S.S. Lazarus