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

Re: Disney's Dinosaur - second try!

--- "Jerry D. Harris" <dinogami@hotmail.com> wrote:
>    Not to reopen the can of worms on what is and
> isn't "fact" in 
> paleontology (especially paleontological
> restorations), any decisions made 
> that are flatly _contrary_ to the evidence are,
> simply, inexcusable.  

For legitimate science, yes.  But this is a Disney
film that doesn't pretend to be "legitimate science."

> It 
> would be like saying "Well, the story worked better
> if the elephant had 
> _two_ trunks," when we all know darned well that all
> elephants have only one 
> trunk.  You can't change anatomy to make a story
> better!


But, I think that anyone who complains (and who
complains most expecially without even having seen the
film) is forgetting in the first place that it's a
Disney film, and not something that was presented by
the National Science Foundation as _fact._

Watership Down, for example, is a story that takes
many liberties with the reality of what rabbits are. 
But, like Dinosaur, Watership Down is fiction, and no
one will mistake it for reality, or confuse it with a
legitimate textbook on the private lives of rabbits.

Will Dinosaur be seen as the latest gospel of how
Dinosaurs looked, behaved, or, heh, acted?  I don't
think so.

It's an Aesop think, making bugs, lions, and dinosaurs
talk.  It's much less a story about the animals than
it is about people, in fact.  That's the principal
reason they were given dialogue.

To confuse it with anything other than that does it an
injustice it does not deserve.

.oO=-Oscar Quill is a nom de something for Scott Elyard-=Oo.
|       Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur          |
|               www.oscarquillandcoyle.org                 | 

Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.