[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: No Jurassic Park IV
I completely agree, JP 3 was the worst, JP 1 was the best.
JP3 may have corrected a few inaccuracies, with their lame attempt at adding
feathering to the velociraptors without changing the appearance too much from
the first movie, but it introduced plenty of innaccuracies of its own.
None of them ever corrected the Velociraptor name mistake, understandable for
Chriton when he wrote the book, but the movie producers obviously thought
"velociraptor" and "raptors" sounded cool, at least cooler than naming them
some sort of Dromaeosaur or Deinonychus.
pterosaurs attaching humans? Comsognathus attacks?
Spinosaurus surviving a T-rex clamping down on its neck.... I think not.
Plot....people hired to retreive a boy lost on an island, people get eaten by
dinosaurs... some escape, the end.
Compare to JP1.... JP3 is most definitely not the best
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, Mesozoico Web <email@example.com> wrote:
> From: Mesozoico Web <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject: Re: No Jurassic Park IV
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 10:57 AM
> What?? JP3, the best? Are you speaking me to the Ninja
> Spinosaur? I don't believe it! No, no, no, fellows!
> Jurassic Park (the first of the trilogy) is not only the
> best of the three, is the biggest film than I ever saw in my
> entire life!
> Daniel M. Puglisi
> T. Michael Keesey escribió:
> > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 11:23 PM, Paul Penkalski
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> >> Jurassic Park 3 was the best of the three.
> It's rare for sequels
> >> to be better than their prequels, but JP3 was just
> a better put
> >> together flick than JP or especially TLW-JP2.
> I'm keeping my
> >> fingers crossed for a JP4.....
> > How could that one be the best? They didn't even
> finish the movie!