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

Re: No Jurassic Park IV

Raptorial Talon wrote:

> "-in JP2 Bakker's copy was killed and shown as a faint-hearted bozo."
> Yeah, but IIRC he also said something about T. rex exclusively being a
> scavenger, so . . . style over substance? Regardless of how he looks,
> his argument was not Bakker's . . .

I suppose you are right, because that Bakker's copy was somewhat
orthodox at these times in saying dinos did not cared their children.
But it is clear what the style and physical similarity tried to point
towards. I am suspecting perhaps Bakker didn't want to help Spielberg
with this movie and then Spielberg, in revenge, showed him defending
theories contrary to those he held and being coward.

> "And I'm going to be controversial, and say that I was
> glad that the Lost World deviated from the book,"
> I was too. The book's villains were poorly organized and few in
> number. Frankly, an island full of dinosaurs is something every major
> corporation on *Earth* would be fighting to get their hands on, given
> the potential profit, so the large-scale operation in the film made
> more sense to me.
> As to other aspects where they were different, some were good, some
> not. Oh well.

You may be right, but in dinosaur/monster movies, unlike Bond movies,
I at least care little about the human baddies. Although I admit that
chase scene was some of the most memorable parts of the movie.

Perhaps with all the talking about of the "Pleistocene Park" we can
finally see a Pleistocene mammal movie, which is not little. Gigantic
bears, sabertooths, crazy ground sloths throwing pawswipes everywhere,
glyptodonts breaking things, packs of mega-hyaenas. Two problems: it
will be difficult to make it look much different from JP, and furballs
do not seem to scare so much in screen as non-mammalian faces.