Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Jurassic Park


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31-08-2012, 14:54
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,901
Jurassic Park can get away with scientific inaccuracy in the appearance of dinosaurs since it's established in the book and film series that the dinosaurs are basically imperfect hybridised reconstructions rather than exact replicas of real ones.
I agree. That and the fact that palaeontologists since the release of the book and film have unearthed (ouch, sorry about the pun) new fossils which does not agree with what researchers originally thought. That is very easy to live with as a viewer.

The revelation that amphibian DNA lead to the spontaneous changing of gender is dealt with more casuallyy in the film but Crichton does go into it in more detail in the novel including Wu's thoughts about it.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 31-08-2012, 14:55
dee123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 10,227
Fabulous film, being a huge Michael Crichton fan i'd read the book before seeing the film and wondered how it would translate to a family orientated blockbuster. Needless to say Spielberg produced a groundbreaking cinematic experience, the first sight of the dinosaurs is still my biggest WOW moment after years of cinema going.
His Lost World book is crap though. I'm glad they changed it.
(Well not about the T-Rex doing his Godzilla impersonation)
But the rest of it.
dee123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2012, 14:57
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,901
His Lost World book is crap though. I'm glad they changed it.
(Well not about the T-Rex doing his Godzilla impersonation)
But the rest of it.
Some say Crichton did it under protest. He does not like sequels but found himself under pressure to write one. It may not have translated that well to film if kept as it was.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2012, 12:41
boddism
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: South Coast
Posts: 12,961
I remember when Jurassic Park came out.

When you first saw the dinosaurs back in 1994 it was just a gobsmacking moment. Hence why the characters in the film just stand there with mouths wide open, stunned (just like the cinema audiences) Funny/clever moment created by Speilberg!

I remember being stunned & moved by the film, not the dinos themselves, not the plot certainly!

But by the fact that I was witnessing for the first time a major leap in cinematic art. Cinema history was being made on the screen in front of me.I knew this film heralded a game change and cinema would now change for ever. (which it has done) So much CGI can seem lame today, but nothing beats witnessing it in that superb form for the first time.

I saw the film at the cinema 4 times
boddism is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 18:44
lala
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 19,991

When you first saw the dinosaurs back in 1994 it was just a gobsmacking moment.
Just a slight correction. Jurassic Park came out in the summer of 1993 not 94. 1994 is when Flintstones The Movie came out.
lala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 20:03
ASIFZED
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 797
Query: how was the lycene (?) contingency (as i think it was referred to), supposed to work? Specifically, the dinosaurs already running amok.

Never quite got that.
ASIFZED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 20:35
fastest finger
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Heart of England.
Posts: 5,574
Query: how was the lycene (?) contingency (as i think it was referred to), supposed to work? Specifically, the dinosaurs already running amok.

Never quite got that.
The dinosaurs had to be regularly supplied with Lysine suppliments by the staff at Jurassic Park to survive. By witholding the Lysine the creatures would all die. It also meant that if a creature were to leave the Island it would not survive for long.

Perhaps it would normally have been distributed via fresh water supply.

I guess Hammond would have insisted that Lysine should still be available to them, even though they were loose on the island, against his colleagues advice.
fastest finger is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2012, 21:55
ASIFZED
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 797
Ok, thanks. I could potentially see how that might have worked in all the dinosaurs still safely in captivity, but just seemed that was a flawed solution to those out in the wild already.. unless they'd already been made dependent on the lysine in the first place.

Still - a great, eminently rewatchable movie. The less said about the sequels, the better.
ASIFZED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 04:44
MissDexter
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,554
Ok, thanks. I could potentially see how that might have worked in all the dinosaurs still safely in captivity, but just seemed that was a flawed solution to those out in the wild already.. unless they'd already been made dependent on the lysine in the first place.

Still - a great, eminently rewatchable movie. The less said about the sequels, the better.
Neither sequel is as good as the original but they don't deserve "less said about them the better"
They both have great stand out moments and have a lot of talent on show.
MissDexter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 06:23
earsnot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Jacinto
Posts: 8,749
I'll just leave this here lol

http://thegoodjokes.com/wp-content/u...e-comment1.jpg
earsnot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 08:12
Big Boy Barry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 21,745
I guess Hammond would have insisted that Lysine should still be available to them, even though they were loose on the island, against his colleagues advice.
Probably.

The novel makes it pretty clear that Hammond is a nutjob, who constantly ignores precautionary advice from his experts.

Gennaro expected 12 animals on the island. Hammond bred 200+. Wu wanted to make the dinosaurs more docile and controllable. Hammond insisted that they be wild. Muldoon wanted to be armed to the teeth. Hammond originally insisted on no guns anywhere on the island. Nedry designed a computer system that even Arnold said was excellent, but Hammond made excessive further demands on him that drove him into financial ruin, causing him to accept a bribe from a rival company

They tone Hammond down in the film, but he's still a misguided old tool
Big Boy Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 14:16
tokenting
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 547
watched this at the cinema when i was 13 , there was a huge buzz about this film and i was so excited , it didnt dissapoint.
tokenting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2012, 23:56
ASIFZED
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 797
Neither sequel is as good as the original but they don't deserve "less said about them the better"
They both have great stand out moments and have a lot of talent on show.
Disagree, though don't wish to detail this appreciation thread. JP2 was the point of Spielberg downturn as a director; simply an awful, lazy, vicious and insipid film with annoying characters and one of the worst tacked on illogical endings I've ever seen in a film. Hate JP2 with a passion. One of the worst sequels ever. JP3 was a poor tv-movie effort, with even more annoying characters (take a bow, Ms Leoni). Sam Neill must have done it purely for the paycheck.
ASIFZED is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 00:20
Johnny Clay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,603
^ I liked JP3 the best

A straightforward, no-fuss monster film with none of the original's overblown pomposity, and a blessed relief after the deeply boring first sequel (has Spielberg ever seemed this disinterested? Mind you, everyone was phoning it in here).

Oh, and Pteradactyls rule.
Johnny Clay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 00:22
Bester
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Staffordshire Moorlands
Posts: 8,275
I remember initially I was a little disappointed that the movie wasn't as good as the novel. That rapidly subsided though, and on subsequent viewings I've always found it to be a cracking film on its own merits.
Bester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2012, 15:39
Big Boy Barry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 21,745
^ I liked JP3 the best

A straightforward, no-fuss monster film with none of the original's overblown pomposity, and a blessed relief after the deeply boring first sequel (has Spielberg ever seemed this disinterested? Mind you, everyone was phoning it in here).

Oh, and Pteradactyls rule.
JP3 had two major problems.

A poor ending. It should have ended with raptors vs the spino, or raptors vs the pteranodons. The raptors running away after getting their eggs was a dud ending

The second problem was Tea Leoni. She was even more annoying than Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore in JP2, and seemed intent on actually trying to get killed.
Big Boy Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2013, 23:35
Bluray
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 647
Jurassic Park IV due to be released June 13th 2014, filming in 3D unfortunately but I'll book my ticket in 2D.

Spielberg producing.

No more details as yet.
Bluray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 01:43
Abomination
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,267
Jurassic Park is my favourite film of all time - I was less than two years old when it came out, and watched it a number of years later. It is such a strong film, that admittedly deviates from the novel, but then both are brilliant and it allows you to enjoy the experience twice, essentially.
- The cast of the movie was fantastic on all fronts, and the toned down turn of John Hammond from Lord Richard Attenborough made the character almost loveable... it added a solemnity and warmth to the sort-of messages of the film.
- The plot is something that many people undersell these days. Whilst it has probably dated more than any other aspect, the concept of dinosaurs being more like birds than reptiles was a new slant on prehistory - even long after its release, people were laughing at such an idea but now it seems so natural that we take the film as a very simple one for pointing out that scientific advancement. Truth be told, the storyline isn't too taxing all the same, but it doesn't need to be. There's always enough going on to keep it interesting, and to keep it from falling into the territory of a high-budget b-movie.
- Most praised and rightly so are the effects. I recall hearing that less than 16 minutes of the whole film actually contains effects, which emphasises the films other strengths but also the films clever decision to not overdo the CGI. Many films today look impressive, but the CGI is so often over done for shock appeal and 'cool factor'. Age has done these effects no harm, for they still look the part and blend brilliantly into natural backgrounds. The shots of the T-Rex and the raptors stood out particularly well, and even today that Brachiosaurus at the beginning delivers a real sense of awe when you watch it.


The sequels weren't in the same league, no. But they were decent films all the same.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park could have used more interesting characters - even Ian Malcolm disappointed a little, though his one-liners were most welcome. The effects were again impressive, but more awesome than beautiful, aside from that Stegosaurus scene early on. The plot was a decent enough one, though wreaks of 'sequel' and 'merchandise'.
Jurassic Park 3 was a very simple affair that probably could have used a bit more fleshing out. The acting talent is there once again, even if I think that Ellie should have been back on the island to liven things up a bit. A few too many things were rehashed from the second film, and there wasn't really a massively memorable CGI moment - the pterosaurs and the Spinosaur/Rex fight were brilliant though. The biggest crime though was the sudden ending of the film - it was half hour shorter than the other two, and all so that they could use a real military landing in the shoot. There had been script problems previously, but selling the film out without a proper ending was rather sad, especially seeing as it's been the ending of the trilogy for eleven years so far.
I look forward to the new film immensely - hopefully they'll announce an interesting cast for the piece. Whilst I think it'd be a mistake to get back any familiar faces on the island, a nice cameo from Attenborough would be lovely to establish some familiarity. I hope they don't totally overdo it on the effects and deliver something a little different to the so far similar efforts in the sequels. It's Jurassic Park with a producing Spielberg..it's potentially in very good hands
Abomination is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 01:57
treefr0g
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 7,513
imo,the T-Rex attack has never been bettered as far as cgi is concerned.

They didn't just make a dinosaur movie. They sat back and came up with the recipe for the best dinosaur movie that will ever be made.
treefr0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 03:01
jenzie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: BUDDIETOWN
Posts: 15,455
REALLY hope they actually move the story along, and not just rehash it AGAIN!!!
jenzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 07:50
PJ68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,556
i'm a bit confused here - they're rereleasing JP in 3d in april... wasn't it rereleased in 3d last year too?? i swear i saw it at the cinema in 3d..
PJ68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 09:27
Bluray
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 647
i'm a bit confused here - they're rereleasing JP in 3d in april... wasn't it rereleased in 3d last year too?? i swear i saw it at the cinema in 3d..
It wasn't 3D on its rerelease last year
Bluray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2013, 12:42
Big Boy Barry
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Barry's Manor
Posts: 21,745
The story for Jurassic Park 4 should be set on Isla Sorna

The movie should show what happened when that hurricane wiped out Site B. Scientists battling for survival, animals escaping etc...

In essence, it would be a "mid-quel" between Jurassic Park and The Lost World.
Big Boy Barry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 21:19
Abomination
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,267
I would love for them to move away from the 'ruined island' concept that we saw in The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 - tonally, they're too similar, and I far preferred the shiny and new approach in the first film. That being said, I have no idea how you'd work around that now.

And my Great Nan presented me with a late 21st birthday present the other day... it's one of the original 100 Jurassic Park books, signed by Michael Crichton. She has been saving it all this time, and considered it an amazing coincidence it ended up being my favourite movie
Abomination is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-01-2013, 21:34
Bandit1200S
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 53
I would love for them to move away from the 'ruined island' concept that we saw in The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3
I've read that JP4 will have the Dinosaurs on the mainland this time.

As for the original JP, great film and as always the book is much better, actually listened to the audio book of it the other night, what I liked about JP the film as much as anything was the sound though, especially the T-Rex scene, this film prompted me to get my first home cinema surround sound system, recently bought the JP Blu Ray boxset, and again the sound is incredible, looking forward to JP4 in 3D and 2D this summer and eventual Blu Ray release too.
Bandit1200S is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:37.