[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: WHY "LOST WORLD" MIGHT BE GOOD
> From: Jeffrey Martz <martz@holly.ColoState.EDU>
> I think "Lost World" the book was crap. Crichton was trying to write
> a sequel for Speilberg that HE could use; in other words, a flashy
> adventure story.
Brother, ain't THAT the truth. For instance, a guy who died (as
in stopped living, ceased functioning) in the first book is now,
without explanation, alive again in the book-sequel because he
doesn't die in the first movie. Oh. There are many "Monty Python
and the Holy Grail" references here that I will spare you.
> He invented an alternate reality of science of bogus
> science, screwed up more facts, and had more unlikely absurdities
> involving animal behavior then I can count.
I love the rationale for the crazed movie-villain behavior of the
"velociraptors". Did Crichton think that up *all by himself*?
> if Speilberg gives us a classic adventure story with some good acting, I am
> willing to ignore technical flaws.
All indications are that the sequel will far surpass the original
show as entertainment. The dinosaurs (with the exception of the huge
"velociraptors" and the, as ou point out, gigunda stegosaurs, are
supposed to be very accurate. A client in Hollywoodland who
knows a thing of two, but not much more, about dinosaurs says that
Mamenchisaurus is in the show! Or was that Barosaurus? What's the
difference; they're *the same dinosaur* anyway. :)
> There is
> also a scene that shows a T.rex ripping up a camp site, then chasing the
> whole camp, ON FOOT, down a gully.
Did you expect the T-rex to chase the campers on a (really big)
Harley? In a huge white Bronco? :)
"The little man went up and down
To find an eating place in town
He looked the menu through and through
To see what fifteen cents could do --
Well, he could afford but one meatball"