User Avatar Image

Who is the biggest JP fan here?

posted by Silverwolfpet on - last edited - Viewed by 331 users

Hey guys and girls,

I need to talk privately with someone who is a really big fan of the JP movies. You can reply to this thread and I'll PM you, or you can PM me directly. It's important and secret :)

Thanks!

SWP

43 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Kaldire said: I loved the horribly hard arcade shooter.
    One in LV moved when you got in it.. not just sat there like most of the others
    It was like you were IN the jeep!!!

    ahhhh
    player two shoot the raptors ill get t-rex in his mouth!





    You mean this one
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6I-4CcKAXo

  • @ManicMan said: Can't be me.. I found the first film good, but not the best thing ever.. the second was a big let down, and the third.. i don't wanna talk about..

    But then.. I'm a fan of Michael Crichton's work and love the two books.. and once you have read the books, the films are sooo weak compared to them... you can't turn Crichton's work into an action film.. you lose way too much.

    Probebly why my Fav JP game was for the Snes.. it was an adventure game that was more based on the book then the film, but with film actor pictures (okay, okay.. trespasser is high on the list too)

    Yes the books are much better, but the biggest disappointment for me is that the science is so bad and it wasn't corrected in the movies. If I'm not mistaking Crichton has T-Rex unable to see you if you freeze in the first book, and in the second Malcolm is horrified when a character thinks he's invisible as long as he doesn't move. Okay, that's forgivable... what about claiming that "all vertebrate dna is inherently female"? BIRDS are, if anything, inherently male since that's what happens with the absence of the W chromosome (the opposite to X-Y chromosomes in humans), or the fact that even with complete dino dna you also need dino proteins to use the dna. Or the fact that the mosquito in the amber in the movie isn't even from the right time-period as the dinosaurs, let alone would it have been able to suck dino blood (they could have at least shown the correct "mosquito"!) Of course we know now that there's no insect dna inside amber fossils of that age anyway, let alone any other dna (they've tried it). You wouldn't be able to extract the dna with a syringe, don't be riddiculious they should have known better, you have to crush the amber up and destroy the fossil in order to extract any organic material. And the idea that they would use FROG dna instead of bird dna is just astounding. Especially since they dinosaurs are shown hatching from eggs, not developing from tadpoles.

    Crichton made a lot of mistakes in the book, they should have been corrected in the screenplay. They should have used a dino-era insect/"mosquito" amber, I'm sure they could have borrowed one for the movie. Reading his books makes me certain that I wouldn't have listened to his public scientific views, I'd take them with a grain of salt. I mean I'm a "global warming sceptic too"; difference is I can prove it using science, whereas Crichton uses about as much real science as Al-Gore... in other-words: not much!

    Anyway, for the record if I was to write a novel about genetic engineering I would use chaos too; but I would point out the complexity of DNA. Just because you can change one thing in the DNA "program" to obtain a specific result does not mean you really know what you are doing. It's like this: you know that a certain part of the DNA strand is responsible for a certain characteristic; but you don't know how that part or for that matter how the DNA strand itself is interpreted by the various proteins that use it; in other words changing something to obtain a desired result is all very well until you realize that when you changed one thing you "accidentally" changed something you didn't want to change.

    Anyway he does use science well in some respects, such as the raptors fighting each other to death because there are no "parents" to tell them otherwise. It's just astonishing how he can get somethings right while making massive blunders... oh well.

    I hope telltale is reading this, so you remember to correct the science as you go. [/rant]

  • That's why they call it Science Fiction.

  • I was a big Japanophile! :)

  • @Aractus said: Yes the books are much better, but the biggest disappointment for me is that the science is so bad and it wasn't corrected in the movies. If I'm not mistaking Crichton has T-Rex unable to see you if you freeze in the first book, and in the second Malcolm is horrified when a character thinks he's invisible as long as he doesn't move. Okay, that's forgivable... what about claiming that "all vertebrate dna is inherently female"? BIRDS are, if anything, inherently male since that's what happens with the absence of the W chromosome (the opposite to X-Y chromosomes in humans), or the fact that even with complete dino dna you also need dino proteins to use the dna. Or the fact that the mosquito in the amber in the movie isn't even from the right time-period as the dinosaurs, let alone would it have been able to suck dino blood (they could have at least shown the correct "mosquito"!) Of course we know now that there's no insect dna inside amber fossils of that age anyway, let alone any other dna (they've tried it). You wouldn't be able to extract the dna with a syringe, don't be riddiculious they should have known better, you have to crush the amber up and destroy the fossil in order to extract any organic material. And the idea that they would use FROG dna instead of bird dna is just astounding. Especially since they dinosaurs are shown hatching from eggs, not developing from tadpoles.

    Crichton made a lot of mistakes in the book, they should have been corrected in the screenplay. They should have used a dino-era insect/"mosquito" amber, I'm sure they could have borrowed one for the movie. Reading his books makes me certain that I wouldn't have listened to his public scientific views, I'd take them with a grain of salt. I mean I'm a "global warming sceptic too"; difference is I can prove it using science, whereas Crichton uses about as much real science as Al-Gore... in other-words: not much!

    Anyway, for the record if I was to write a novel about genetic engineering I would use chaos too; but I would point out the complexity of DNA. Just because you can change one thing in the DNA "program" to obtain a specific result does not mean you really know what you are doing. It's like this: you know that a certain part of the DNA strand is responsible for a certain characteristic; but you don't know how that part or for that matter how the DNA strand itself is interpreted by the various proteins that use it; in other words changing something to obtain a desired result is all very well until you realize that when you changed one thing you "accidentally" changed something you didn't want to change.

    Anyway he does use science well in some respects, such as the raptors fighting each other to death because there are no "parents" to tell them otherwise. It's just astonishing how he can get somethings right while making massive blunders... oh well.

    I hope telltale is reading this, so you remember to correct the science as you go. [/rant]



    Who the hell cares ??? :rolleyes:

    When I watch or play Jurassic park I wanna be entertained, I dont wanna learn something about science! Extracting DNA from an amber with a syringe just looks cooler than crushing it in a machine and messing around with some kind of dust. And Raptors big like humans are just more scary than turkey sized feathered ones. Read a science book and leave Jurassic Park alone...

  • @Sadonicus said: Who the hell cares ??? :rolleyes:

    When I watch or play Jurassic park I wanna be entertained, I dont wanna learn something about science! Extracting DNA from an amber with a syringe just looks cooler than crushing it in a machine and messing around with some kind of dust. And Raptors big like humans are just more scary than turkey sized feathered ones. Read a science book and leave Jurassic Park alone...

    Yes well, the entire point of the book is chaos which is a scientific concept and Crichton was supposed to be a serious intellectual scientific mind. I don't care that they extract dna from Amber, I just don't like seeing an insect that didn't even exist in the time of the dinosaurs. As I said, at least show the correct insect - it isn't hard. And their blunder on vertebrate dna being inherently female is simply ridiculous. Get the facts right.

    As far as the plot goes, I don't understand the film version of The Lost World. I mean, the themes in the book are pretty clear - but none whatsoever are transferred in the film. The only character who is more or less the same in the book and the film is Malcolm; yet in the book he organizes the trip and in the movie he goes there against his will. It's a giant mess. If Spielberg had been more faithful to the original material then both films would have been better IMHO.
    Extracting DNA from an amber with a syringe just looks cooler
    Don't be silly. You're going to extract any organic material from a fossil with a syringe? Not only does it look stupid, the very concept is completely unbelievable. Like extracting water from a rock...

    I'm just saying that Crichton should not have made massive mistakes with his science that's all. I don't care about his unique attributes to his dinosaurs or anything like that; creative license I have no problem with. Even the Velociraptor is his creative license - I only take issue with his actual mistakes.

  • I actually felt that the film did better in creating an adventure story. I think if they would have stayed too faithfull to the book the movie actually would have been worse. Not that I didn't like the Lost World Novel. I thought it was very good but I just think that it would not have been as interesting if the film was exactly the same as the novel.

  • Jurassic Park is my favourite film of all times. It's the film that inspired me to be a film-maker. And it's one of the few films that I can watch over and over again with the same excitement as I watched the first time on the early 90's. Such a magical film. It is really amazing and outstanding movie for ever. I have never seen this type of movie before in my life. It is really wonderful movie.

  • I saw Jurassic Park 1 and 2 and it was very nice film. I had so much fun watching, full of excitement and very entertaining.

  • If you are truly the biggest fan, you would've wanted to be a paleontologist after seeing it, such as myself lol. When I was a kid to even now.

Add Comment