Jurassic Park 4 [Jurassic World] (no spoilers)

[radman]

'Nuff said:

http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/08/7-dinosaurs-discovered-since-the-last-jurassic-park-movie-that-need-to-be-in-jurassic-park-4/

[Gwangi]

'Nuff said:

http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/08/7-dinosaurs-discovered-since-the-last-jurassic-park-movie-that-need-to-be-in-jurassic-park-4/

There is a lot wrong with that article but I wouldn't mind seeing most of those in a new JP film. Therizinosaurus comes to mind too. There are a lot of other dinosaurs to work with besides "tiny predators, large raptors, and the two largest theropods" has Harry mentioned.

Bronto, I agree with you on all points. The original film was something special, it came out at just the right time when the technology was new enough to make it not just another summer blockbuster but also a speculate to behold unlike anything else ever produced. Hopefully a new film would do this as well as the CGI technology has gotten to a point where it should blow the dinosaurs from the original film out of the water. JP3 IMO looked even less realistic in many regards than the original film. I would hope a new film wouldn't just be a chase-and-be-eaten kind of film but would also incorporate some scenes of beauty and awe which there just were not enough of in the original film. What would be really interesting to see would be a film without a focus on humans at all that focused on the life of an individual dinosaur on the abandoned island but we won't get that.
As for JP3, the more I watch it the more I actually like it and I originally hated it when I first saw it. While certainly not as good as the original film I think it may actually be better than "The Lost World" which is something I've had trouble admitting to myself but I think might be true.

[Harry_the_Fox]

I agree pretty much with what you said here. Jurassic Park was a relic of the 90s, and while it was awesome while it lasted, it should be left to die.

YES- this is what I've been trying to say; fact is the whole plot is now known to be total nonsense; Dinosaurs have as much genetic compatibility with Frogs as we do; I say let it rest in peace with as much dignity as a 'clever for its time but not now' story can bring.

The original Jurassic Park has quite a few plot holes actually. The most glaring would be the moat that suddenly appears in the tyrannosaur paddock. Jurassic Park was actually pretty poorly received by critics at the time, aside from seeing realistic dinosaurs there was little praise for the rest of the movie. Basically, critics said the same thing about Jurassic Park as they do about CGI laden movies today.  I loved it of course but it probably helps that I was a nine year old dinosaur nut when it came out.

You're probably right- sad part is that things have since gone downhill in the past decade, where CGI is overused and over-entangled in a scene. Like the new War of the Worlds move- it was awesome seeing the alien death ray rip up the neighbourhood and Tom Cruise was avoiding it simply because he was running parallel and using the building for cover- but then when he starts ducking and weaving at stray beams that "almost" touch him it looked silly. Back in the 90s they would have stuck with the first part at least (if only because they lacked the technology). The sad part is CGI still hasn't become remotely realistic save for a few cases; (yet ironically, animatronics and props prove more interesting as they look more convincing, and prove more interesting to watch (from a technical admiration).

All Jurassic Park 4 would need to make me happy is dinosaurs, I just want to see movies with dinosaurs in them. Few of the dinosaur movies ever made were truly all that good, most were B movies, Jurassic Park was probably the best. If JP4 can show me more dinosaur action I'll be pleased because aside from bird watching movies are the only thing that can deliver live action dinosaurs.

I thought that too- but I realized I don't really need hollywood movies anymore to cure that itch; BBC makes several series a year that involve dinosaurs (including a few survival thrillers). And of course there are all the CGI documentaries. All of which really do a better job anyway as they are made by science nerds who seem to know how to strike a balance between showing off their science knowledge and making a decent show. I just don't see a JP movie doing it as well- considering the premise for the JP story is now known to be kinda phoney (breeding dinosaurs through amphibians).

As for "Rise", I thought it was an excellent movie and only one ape species was demonized (it was humans). Seriously, they did a good job at giving the apes a good reason to rebel against humanity but the apes didn't even do that, they just wanted to be free. How many humans were actually killed by the apes? The humans in the film killed the humans...with the disease they created which simultaneously increased the intelligence of the apes and paved the way for their takeover. Maybe we didn't watch the same movie? Anyway, when I saw it everyone cheered for the apes, the lead chimpanzee was portrayed as a very likeable character you could empathize with. I think the real primates of the world have other things to worry about besides a science fiction movie that real poachers probably haven't even heard of.

Minus the part where Caesar invokes the public paranoia of chimp maulings (which are mostly induced by medication I might add) by torturing that struggling neighbour by pinning him to the ground and amputating his finger in front of his family because he gave his foster-grandfather a harsh lecturing about crashing cars. Then the movie switches back into being whimsical again and virtually pretends it never happens- but at that point it only proved that the neighbor was right about Caesar all along and makes him an evil character (actually more evil than Gollum when you think about it- as Gollum gnawed off Frodo's ring finger because he was madly obsessed with getting the ring).

As for plotholes, Jurassic Park's flaws (Aside from bad science which renders further sequels moot) are mostly continuity errors (the paddock, and the T-rex inside the museum). Rise of the Apes' entire premise that the neighbour spread the ALZ-113 virus made no sense at all, because Caesar only had the 112 virus when he bit the neighbor- which should have made him smarter and healthier :/

[Harry_the_Fox]

Checked out the links, and some good points, though I think for me, only ones I'd really want are:
Venemous microraptor (though small venemous dinosaurs were actually in the first book- and hinted at in Lost World- a feathered microraptor could substitute a pterosaur that actually WOULD believably attack people).
Mid-sized predator  (maybe or a half-sized Allosaurid).
Problem with these is that audiences don't like small things. Yet with bigger raptors than dinonychus  is that they become too big to actually follow people inside rooms, and a giant theropod would be redundant- it would essentially giving Therapod 3 (eg Giganotosaurus) its 'turn' to do the exact same things T-Rex and Spinosaurus did in the past 3 movies.

Every other dino would be kinda pointless outside eye candy, as a JP movie would only incorporate a few scenes where the survivors meet a herbivore, the herbivore looks up before ignoring them again- or stampeding because the survivors are idiots who can't keep a distance (and protagonists being stupid is just painful to watch- which admittedly made me hate the first Jurassic Park).

Speaking of painful to watch, one thing I always dread in dino movies is that predators ROAR at their prey. Erm, why? Animals roar at things they a frightened of, not something they are trying to eat :/

[Gwangi]

You're probably right- sad part is that things have since gone downhill in the past decade, where CGI is overused and over-entangled in a scene. Like the new War of the Worlds move- it was awesome seeing the alien death ray rip up the neighbourhood and Tom Cruise was avoiding it simply because he was running parallel and using the building for cover- but then when he starts ducking and weaving at stray beams that "almost" touch him it looked silly. Back in the 90s they would have stuck with the first part at least (if only because they lacked the technology). The sad part is CGI still hasn't become remotely realistic save for a few cases; (yet ironically, animatronics and props prove more interesting as they look more convincing, and prove more interesting to watch (from a technical admiration).

I can agree with most of this, CGI is often so overused that it is no longer believable, like in the War of the Worlds scene. Other instances that come to mind are a few scenes in the newer King Kong movie such as the Brontosaurus stampede (I hated that part) but overall the movie still looked damn good. The scene in the latest Indiana Jones flick where his son is sword fighting with a leg on two different cars and is swinging through the forest with the monkeys....terrible. But I think these are things film makers would have done in any era...if they could have, but the technology didn't permit it. The goal in these movies is to entertain and judging by their popularity they do.

I thought that too- but I realized I don't really need hollywood movies anymore to cure that itch; BBC makes several series a year that involve dinosaurs (including a few survival thrillers). And of course there are all the CGI documentaries. All of which really do a better job anyway as they are made by science nerds who seem to know how to strike a balance between showing off their science knowledge and making a decent show. I just don't see a JP movie doing it as well- considering the premise for the JP story is now known to be kinda phoney (breeding dinosaurs through amphibians).

The amphibian DNA notion was always considered bogus, no less so in the 90's I would think. It was used so that the writers had an explanation for the sex changing dinosaurs. Most documentaries suffer from the same flaws as movies and the information they give you is negligible if you've already done studying up on dinosaurs or watched any older documentaries. They always rehash the things we already know (with a few exceptions). They may look good but they still look more like video games than they do big budget movies. I'm also just a huge movie nerd so I'm certainly biased, I do love movies.

Minus the part where Caesar invokes the public paranoia of chimp maulings (which are mostly induced by medication I might add) by torturing that struggling neighbour by pinning him to the ground and amputating his finger in front of his family because he gave his foster-grandfather a harsh lecturing about crashing cars.

Chimp maulings do happen, I don't see how this movie makes the reality of them any worse to grasp. Most of the nation is fully aware of this, at least in Caesar's defense he had a good reason.  Actual chimp maulings are just awful but I'm aware they are not the animals fault. The attack in the movie was necessary for the story they were trying to tell. Also hopefully a good warning to anyone wanting to keep chimps as pets and a reminder that these are wild animals that should remain so. Anyway, I haven't heard of any public outcry against apes due to this movie and it has been about a year now since its release. If you have any figures for a drop in primate popularity after the release of the film please share it otherwise you're just stating an option on the matter with nothing to back it up. I don't think any apes have died due to the release of this film.

Then the movie switches back into being whimsical again and virtually pretends it never happens- but at that point it only proved that the neighbor was right about Caesar all along and makes him an evil character (actually more evil than Gollum when you think about it- as Gollum gnawed off Frodo's ring finger because he was madly obsessed with getting the ring).

As for plotholes, Jurassic Park's flaws (Aside from bad science which renders further sequels moot) are mostly continuity errors (the paddock, and the T-rex inside the museum). Rise of the Apes' entire premise that the neighbour spread the ALZ-113 virus made no sense at all, because Caesar only had the 112 virus when he bit the neighbor- which should have made him smarter and healthier :/

You clearly weren't paying attention if that is how you thought the events transpired in the film. In the film one of James Franco's co-workers is exposed to the airborn ALZ-113 (not 112) and gets sick from it. The co-worker goes to Franco's house spitting up blood and coughing when he encounters the neighbor and gets him sick. The neighbor contracted it from the infected scientist, not Caesar. Look at that, your plot hole does not exist. You misinterpreted what you saw and now the movie is to blame. I think you're getting a little too analytical with these movies. They are meant to entertain, you're supposed to suspend disbelief which is why the genre is called science fiction. If serious films are what you like, they make several of those a year too, often they end up winning Academy Awards.

EDIT: Doing a Google search of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes Controversy" and so far I've found nothing. The only issues this film seems to have brought up are the theft of black political imagery, the evolution vs. creationism debate and the fact that Andy Serkis should get an Oscar for his role as Caesar. Oh yes...and there is this, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/aug/15/rise-planet-apes-endangered-primates
Your fears are ill founded.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

To my eyes the third Jurassic park installment was the best done of the three, over any of the others hands down, mostly due to plotholes and idiotic science that failed badly to explain things. I was alright with the scene where they were practically standing on the Tyrannosaur nose, and it could not see them..but in the second movie they are trailed clear across the island by smell alone, ugh. The stegosaurs were made twice the size they were naturally for instance. And , something I always wonder about with this franchise of movies. Todays buzzword for dinosaurs is the term warm blooded, which most scientists seem to endorse. The Jurassic park movies go so far out of their way to underline this idea, that if , god forbid, it is ever proven erroneous, the movies will look idiotic from that perspective alone. And then there is the dinosaur dna from mosquitos....which assumes of course the DNA within the dinosaur blood had not begun to be broken down or consumed prior to the mosquito dying.
  A new Jurassic park with new dinosaurs, that were not known during that time...sure !! You could use any dinosaur you wanted, just make them accurate this time, rather than engage in highly speculative and somewhat unlikely actions.
  My vote is of course for a colony of Psittacosaurs, and an appearance by Amargasaurus or Oviraptors, but oh well.

[ajax]

Is the new movie in 3D?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I had understood the movie had a rather novel feature to make it much better...Horner free!!!

[Gwangi]

To my eyes the third Jurassic park installment was the best done of the three, over any of the others hands down, mostly due to plotholes and idiotic science that failed badly to explain things. I was alright with the scene where they were practically standing on the Tyrannosaur nose, and it could not see them..but in the second movie they are trailed clear across the island by smell alone, ugh. The stegosaurs were made twice the size they were naturally for instance. And , something I always wonder about with this franchise of movies. Todays buzzword for dinosaurs is the term warm blooded, which most scientists seem to endorse. The Jurassic park movies go so far out of their way to underline this idea, that if , god forbid, it is ever proven erroneous, the movies will look idiotic from that perspective alone. And then there is the dinosaur dna from mosquitos....which assumes of course the DNA within the dinosaur blood had not begun to be broken down or consumed prior to the mosquito dying.
  A new Jurassic park with new dinosaurs, that were not known during that time...sure !! You could use any dinosaur you wanted, just make them accurate this time, rather than engage in highly speculative and somewhat unlikely actions.
  My vote is of course for a colony of Psittacosaurs, and an appearance by Amargasaurus or Oviraptors, but oh well.

I don't understand how you can fault the first two movies for inaccuracies, plotholes and the like but not the third. The third movie has its share of issues. The Spinosaur with the ringing phone in its gut who like the Tyrannosaurs in the TLW pursues the humans across the island. The hyper intelligent Velociraptors and the Velociraptor call that Grant carried. How about everything about the pterosaurs.  There is so much wrong with that movie I've barely even touched on. The reason it is more enjoyable than TLW however is that it knows its silly and does not take itself too seriously. There is lot of dinosaur action, some entertaining banter between the characters and it isn't too long either.

Again I say, this is a science fiction film and I think people are taking it a little too seriously. Of course there is sloppy science, it is a movie about cloned dinosaurs! The issues you mention about the blood decomposing in the mosquito well...duh! Would you rather JP have started and in the first scene they said "we tried to clone dinosaurs but it was impossible...the end". Because cloning dinosaurs is impossible, the cloning issues aside no one is even thinking about the ecological issues. Could a dinosaur eat and digest our flora? Could it survive our parasites? Could it handle our low oxygen content? But again, it a fiction movie made to entertain and in order to appreciate it you have to suspend disbelief. How else were they supposed to make a movie about bringing dinosaurs back to life?

As for the warm blooded dinosaurs, the JP films sought to show dinosaurs as we understood them at the time. It may eventually look silly due to our modern way of viewing dinosaurs (naked dromaeosaurs already make it so) but so what? It is a two decade old movie! Of course they may be wrong with their portrayal of dinosaurs, just as every tail dragging dinosaur movie from before it was. Sure they're silly now but they're still entertaining and at least nostalgic. So far the movie has stood up decently in terms of both science and accuracy for the last 20 years, that is not a bad run.

[Gwangi]

I had understood the movie had a rather novel feature to make it much better...Horner free!!!

Horner was involved, why do you think a scavenging Tyrannosaurus was killed by Spinosaurus? 

[Patrx]

I must say I essentially agree with Gwangi on everything here. Yes, the technology and logistics behind Jurassic Park would not work in reality, but I daresay it's better-thought-out than your average sci-fi popcorn movie; if for no other reason than Michael Crichton's original concept. Flawed or not, Chrichton always had a way of making things sound plausible by mixing his fiction with real ideas and research. In the end, it's still fiction, but it's educated fiction. Even the dinosaur designs were very forward-thinking for the time, and their innacuaracies are, for the most part, due to new research, not Hollywood pseudoscience - at least, in the first movie. Past that, the outdated dinosaur designs have had to remain fairly consistent for the sake of continuity.

I too have gained more respect for JP3 in time, but I'd never be tempted to call it the best in the series. I am astounded by the animatronics in the film, probably the best I've seen given that it was the last major work Stan Winston did. There are several shots wherein the animatronic raptors interact directly with the CGI ones, and I cannot tell one from the other until the CGI starts walking or similar. Still, there's much to gripe about - the ending is sloppy, the animal behavior is unconvincingly villainous, and worst of all is the Spinosaurus. It, more than any dinosaur in the series, is an exaggerated super-monster built on shoddy research - not to mention Horner's anti-Tyrannosaurus attitude. The spinosaur alone cheapens JP3 for me, and makes the whole thing feel like an expensive B-movie. Fortunately, I like B-movies.

If a sequel does indeed appear, I'm not sure what to expect from it. Strange though it may seem, I'd be pretty unhappy if they decided to give the raptors their feathers. It'd make little sense in the context of the film universe (the quilled ones in 3 are confusing enough) and JPs giant, clever, 90's-tastic raptors are a big part of the series for me. That said, it might be cool to bring in some venomous, feathery Sinornithosaurus. Yeah, the venom idea is pretty unlikely, but it's just possible enough that I think JP could use it. Regardless of how the movie works, I'd love to see a return to form as far as the big, high-concept grandeur that the first movie had. That may be difficult to recapture, but it just seems to suit the series better than the popcorn-action attitude that 3 had.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I had understood the movie had a rather novel feature to make it much better...Horner free!!!

Horner was involved, why do you think a scavenging Tyrannosaurus was killed by Spinosaurus? 

Uh Gwangi, you did not read the context of the remark. He was asking if the NEW Jurassic Park was filmed in 3D to which I responded it was filmed with a new feature called Horner Free........right?

  As to my other remarks it might be better serving if you read them more carefully before commenting. I did not say I loved the third movie and found no flaws or issues with it. I said I liked the third movie far better than the other two and then went on to point out some of the more glaring issues that bothered me about the first two. I then went on to illustrate some of the underlying issues with the franchise itself. In popular terms I believe that is called an opinion, something I should have a right to have.
  As for the cloning issue, I feel to suggest that if you cannot use the mosquito blood angle to recreate dinosaurs , you have to abandon the plot is absurd. There has been promising research into altering chicken embryos, prior to hatching for instance, to make a more Dinosaur-like result. There has been limited success in extracting soft tissue, from which collagen has been removed, from dinosaur bone. They were able to provide the color patterning and sequencing for some dinosaurs from fossils as well. The dinosaur mummies Dakota and Leonardo both seem to be logical canidates for DNA research as well. These are methods all built on actual science that was being undertaken and remains in the realm of possibility, and in most cases were possible even prior to these movies.
"So far the movie has stood up decently in terms of both science and accuracy for the last 20 years, that is not a bad run."
It has? The science is absurd and has failed to stand the test of time, and the inaccuracies are so numerous and always were as to make the movies seem ludicrous. And the first installment is NOT even twenty years old yet, let alone the sequels.
LOL Pixelboy don't get me started on Spinosaurus again. As I have documented in the forum in other places, I myself do not even believe the dinosaur existed as it is presented so..I did like the idea of shifting to another super predator other than raptors or the Tyrannosaurus but it could have been done so much better.

[Patrx]

Hey, I think I speak for everyone when I say nobody's particularly offended at your appreciation for JP3 It is a fun movie, and indeed you are welcome to share your opinions without fear of rebuke. Disagreement, perhaps, but I doubt anybody meant to invalidate your opinion, only to share our own and compare thoughts. For example, I myself would hesitate to regard the science of Jurassic Park as "ludicrous". "Impossible", perhaps, and exaggerated significantly, but, for many, it was plausible enough to suspend disbelief for a couple of hours. Have you had an opportunity to read the original novel? As I said, Crichton was capable of mixing the impossible with the genuine in a surprisingly convincing way, and I assure you, he did plenty of research. By modern standards, it seems much less valid, but it was the cutting edge in 1993 - especially with regard to the dinosaurs themselves. Warm-blooded, active, and birdlike dinosaurs were pretty far from popular media back then, and Joe Average had never even heard of Velociraptor or Deinonychus, even by the time the first film had been made. I do find it somewhat unfortunate that the now-invalidated reconstructions have stuck around so long, but I suspect that without JP, we'd still be seeing a lot more tail-dragging tyrannosaurs in pop culture. Additionally, I should note that I doubt the movie's "raptors" could even have been done with feathers if the producers had wanted to. JP was the first time animals had really been done in CGI, and feathers are still very difficult to get right today. At the time, feathered dinosaurs were very much a fringe idea - even the ones in the book were bald - so there was really no reason to try.

All that said, you're very much welcome to dislike the movie, nobody ought to hold that opinion against you. I, for one, simply want to make sure you've given the film a fair shake

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Hey, I think I speak for everyone when I say nobody's particularly offended at your appreciation for JP3 It is a fun movie, and indeed you are welcome to share your opinions without fear of rebuke. Disagreement, perhaps, but I doubt anybody meant to invalidate your opinion, only to share our own and compare thoughts. For example, I myself would hesitate to regard the science of Jurassic Park as "ludicrous". "Impossible", perhaps, and exaggerated significantly, but, for many, it was plausible enough to suspend disbelief for a couple of hours. Have you had an opportunity to read the original novel? As I said, Crichton was capable of mixing the impossible with the genuine in a surprisingly convincing way, and I assure you, he did plenty of research. By modern standards, it seems much less valid, but it was the cutting edge in 1993 - especially with regard to the dinosaurs themselves. Warm-blooded, active, and birdlike dinosaurs were pretty far from popular media back then, and Joe Average had never even heard of Velociraptor or Deinonychus, even by the time the first film had been made. I do find it somewhat unfortunate that the now-invalidated reconstructions have stuck around so long, but I suspect that without JP, we'd still be seeing a lot more tail-dragging tyrannosaurs in pop culture. Additionally, I should note that I doubt the movie's "raptors" could even have been done with feathers if the producers had wanted to. JP was the first time animals had really been done in CGI, and feathers are still very difficult to get right today. At the time, feathered dinosaurs were very much a fringe idea - even the ones in the book were bald - so there was really no reason to try.

All that said, you're very much welcome to dislike the movie, nobody ought to hold that opinion against you. I, for one, simply want to make sure you've given the film a fair shake

I did get to read the novel both before and then again after the movie and found it more satisfying than the movie rendition. I agree with your sentiments there entirely. Crichton was always well known for his in depth research and ability to dig deeply into the known about a topic prior to writing, and I do think the book demonstrates that quite well.
  I think the majority of my issues with the movie were more based in Hollywood and Hornerism, than in the actual novel. So much of the movie and its little "takes" are little snips at the scientific community, that if you were outside the knowledge curve, it is lost on most. For instance when Horner had the rampaging Rex, eat the Bob Bakker look alike, or the Brachiosaur sneezes, or the raptor leaves a breathe mist on the window.
  My disappointment was not with feathered versus non feathered or warm blooded versus non, so much as the seeming need to intentionally butcher the film with the exaggerated size of stegosaurus, the exaggerated size of the raptors, etc. A film named jurassic park whose main stars were almost all from the Triassic or Cretaceous no less. For me at least, that alone was what I call reverse education for children, then given the idea all those animals lived together somehow. But not happy with that , they then added spitting venomous dinosaurs, with frills. There is a point where something wanders beyond impossible and into the avenue labeled ludicrous and that is why I said as much.
    On the plus side, the movie did have a Mamenchisaurus !!!
 

[Patrx]

  My disappointment was not with feathered versus non feathered or warm blooded versus non, so much as the seeming need to intentionally butcher the film with the exaggerated size of stegosaurus, the exaggerated size of the raptors, etc. A film named jurassic park whose main stars were almost all from the Triassic or Cretaceous no less. For me at least, that alone was what I call reverse education for children, then given the idea all those animals lived together somehow. But not happy with that , they then added spitting venomous dinosaurs, with frills. There is a point where something wanders beyond impossible and into the avenue labeled ludicrous and that is why I said as much.
    On the plus side, the movie did have a Mamenchisaurus !!!

True enough, all those Hollywood exaggerations really did throw me off as a kid. Looking back, they mostly make sense from an entertainment perspective - larger animals are more impressive, and the Dilophosaurus was a little too similar to the other dinosaurs without adding the frill/venom gimmick. As a filmmaking student, I understand those designs; as a dinosaur fan, I am annoyed by them. Even so, seeing the animals in the movie prompted me to learn more about the real thing, and I soon learned what was backed up by fossils and what was added. As for the name, "Jurassic Park", I think it works a bit better in the novel than in the film. Originally, it served to show how frivolously Hammond and his team were treating the park and its inhabitants, and the other characters take time to point out that the name is misleading. In the movie, Hammond isn't so villainous, and nobody calls him out on the poorly chosen name, so the point is lost somewhat.

[Takama]

I had understood the movie had a rather novel feature to make it much better...Horner free!!!

Horner was involved, why do you think a scavenging Tyrannosaurus was killed by Spinosaurus? 

"OMG DID YOU SEE THE LATEST JP FILM? THEY NOW HAVE THIS BIGGER DINOSAUR CALLED SPINOSAURUS TAKE DOWN THE T_REX"

I imagined that is what the film makers were expecting to come out of the un-dino educated  part of the audience.

on a unrelated note

Dilophosaurus was a little too similar to the other dinosaurs without adding the frill/venom gimmick.

For peak sakes. If they wanted to not have it simalar to the others, then just make the crest a shiny red color, they could of done that with the venom still intact. What makes Dilophosaurus any simalar to the others with just the two crests?

Funny thing is that in Jurassic Park the Game, It redeems those spitten lizards by giveing explanations for the inaccuracies on the Dilophosaurus in the very first film.

"The Dilophosaurus got its image due to a possible splicing error, with the amphibian DNA".

It evean goes a little far explaining that the real Dilophosaurus did not have the frill or venom, and it was over 20 feet long in the past.

[Gwangi]

Uh Gwangi, you did not read the context of the remark. He was asking if the NEW Jurassic Park was filmed in 3D to which I responded it was filmed with a new feature called Horner Free........right?

Well I guess there was a misunderstanding. You won't hold it against me right?

 

As to my other remarks it might be better serving if you read them more carefully before commenting. I did not say I loved the third movie and found no flaws or issues with it. I said I liked the third movie far better than the other two and then went on to point out some of the more glaring issues that bothered me about the first two. I then went on to illustrate some of the underlying issues with the franchise itself. In popular terms I believe that is called an opinion, something I should have a right to have.

I'm confused about all this. I never said you said you loved the third movie did I? Maybe it would serve you better if you re-read my comments. All I did was point out that JP3 was no less silly than the other movies when you claimed it was. You are entitled to your opinion but I am as well and I'm entitled to disagree with you on a public forum as it one of the purposes of this place.

As for the cloning issue, I feel to suggest that if you cannot use the mosquito blood angle to recreate dinosaurs , you have to abandon the plot is absurd. There has been promising research into altering chicken embryos, prior to hatching for instance, to make a more Dinosaur-like result. There has been limited success in extracting soft tissue, from which collagen has been removed, from dinosaur bone. They were able to provide the color patterning and sequencing for some dinosaurs from fossils as well. The dinosaur mummies Dakota and Leonardo both seem to be logical canidates for DNA research as well. These are methods all built on actual science that was being undertaken and remains in the realm of possibility, and in most cases were possible even prior to these movies.

It was a movie, a science fiction movie. Need I really say more? Would you really prefer the movie altered chicken embryos instead? Because I don't think you could get a Tyrannosaurus, Brachiosaurus or Triceratops from altering the embryo of a chicken...it would still be just a chicken. That sort of premise sounds laughable to me, more so than DNA locked in amber. You cannot clone a dinosaur from collagen either so that would have been just as implausible as using the chicken angle.

It has? The science is absurd and has failed to stand the test of time, and the inaccuracies are so numerous and always were as to make the movies seem ludicrous. And the first installment is NOT even twenty years old yet, let alone the sequels.

JP will be twenty years old in less than a year, sorry I rounded up the age of the film. I didn't think anyone would get that picky about it Sure the science is absurd, it is a movie about cloned dinosaurs! It would have been absurd regardless! But it was a movie made to entertain and it clearly succeeded very well.

My disappointment was not with feathered versus non feathered or warm blooded versus non, so much as the seeming need to intentionally butcher the film with the exaggerated size of stegosaurus, the exaggerated size of the raptors, etc.

The size of the Velociraptors was not an intentional mistake. They were supposed to represent Deinonychus but Crichton used Gregory Paul as a source of research when writing the book and Gerg Paul lumped Deinonychus as a species of Velociraptor. It mentions this in the novel if I'm not mistaken. 

A film named jurassic park whose main stars were almost all from the Triassic or Cretaceous no less. For me at least, that alone was what I call reverse education for children, then given the idea all those animals lived together somehow. But not happy with that , they then added spitting venomous dinosaurs, with frills. There is a point where something wanders beyond impossible and into the avenue labeled ludicrous and that is why I said as much.

At the time the first film came out we had a pet Canada goose that was abandoned as a hatching, I was nine years old at the time. After seeing Jurassic Park for the first time (out of 3) I went home from the theater and when I got out of the car and saw that goose I felt like I was seeing a living dinosaur for the first time, to quote the movie "I never looked at birds the same way again" and for me that is a beautiful thing. I looked at the structure and anatomy of that goose and compared it in my mind to the structure and anatomy of the movie's dinosaurs, I could see the relationship it had with Velociraptor and Gallimimus. I knew that dinosaurs were not extinct. Jurassic Park not only showed me the best looking and most accurate dinosaur up to that time but taught me to look at the real dinosaurs living outside my window. Maybe because you're older you just don't get it but speaking as someone who actually saw the film as a child I can tell you that the movie in no way damaged my education, it compelled me to become better educated. I can now tell you everything wrong with the dinosaurs in those films, but I still love them. Without the JP franchise I don't know that I would have maintained my interest in dinosaurs and know half as much as I do today.

People going to these movies don't want an education, they want entertainment. If they want an education they buy books, visit museums or watch documentaries. There is nothing written that a movie should be accurate at all, nothing written that it should do anything more than entertain. Jurassic Park however is responsible for bringing the "Dinosaur Renaissance" to the public limelight and anyone (any child) with more than a passing interest in dinosaurs walked out of that movie with a greater appreciation for them and a thirst to know more. How many forum members here were children when one of the JP films came out? How many only had their interest in dinosaurs enhanced by the film? I know I'm not the only one and for that I can put aside Jurassic Park's flaws.
   

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I guess it comes down to perception. I would rather avoid miseducating ala, lets create something that did not exist rather than not create at all, because it draws attention to the topic. The issue with that is then you are forced to go back and remove the very misconceptions you create, before you can proceed. Misinformation is far worse than no information in my opinion.  Also, people attend movies for various reasons and some do use them as an educational avenue, as entertainment or for whatever purpose they choose. Your own takes from a movie are not everyones, and to this day when I discuss dinosaurs with people I meet, they are still in shock when they learn Dilophosaurs did not spit poison or the species of raptors used in the movie were not that large or that Spinosaurus was more likely a fish eating dinosaur. While the movies did create a dinosaur renaissance they are also singly resonsible for misinforming an entire generation what dinosaurs were and were not. Good with the bad.
  Finally the egg versus blood cloning issue. Research the topic a bit further please. They have already by altering the genetics of an unborn embryo managed to add extra vert to the tail of a chicken and if I remember right they also managed other changes which are progressing towards ultimately creating a dinosaur from an embryo.This is KNOWN and documented science that has a chance of yielding results , as opposed to such idiotic concepts as cloning from blood from a mosquito. As to the collagen angle, also please read further. THey have been successful in extracting partial albeit very small DNA sequencing from soft tissue inside fossil bone. This is also something that is documented science and not the wildly abstract method used in the movie franchise.  Science, not fiction.

[tyrantqueen]

Finally the egg versus blood cloning issue. Research the topic a bit further please. They have already by altering the genetics of an unborn embryo managed to add extra vert to the tail of a chicken and if I remember right they also managed other changes which are progressing towards ultimately creating a dinosaur from an embryo.This is KNOWN and documented science that has a chance of yielding results , as opposed to such idiotic concepts as cloning from blood from a mosquito. As to the collagen angle, also please read further. THey have been successful in extracting partial albeit very small DNA sequencing from soft tissue inside fossil bone. This is also something that is documented science and not the wildly abstract method used in the movie franchise.  Science, not fiction.

Just wondering, the DNA from such samples is most like very degraded. I doubt we could obtain an entire complete genome from a few bones.
And anyway, didn't you understand the message behind Jurassic Park? Just cause we CAN bring them back doesn't mean we SHOULD

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Finally the egg versus blood cloning issue. Research the topic a bit further please. They have already by altering the genetics of an unborn embryo managed to add extra vert to the tail of a chicken and if I remember right they also managed other changes which are progressing towards ultimately creating a dinosaur from an embryo.This is KNOWN and documented science that has a chance of yielding results , as opposed to such idiotic concepts as cloning from blood from a mosquito. As to the collagen angle, also please read further. THey have been successful in extracting partial albeit very small DNA sequencing from soft tissue inside fossil bone. This is also something that is documented science and not the wildly abstract method used in the movie franchise.  Science, not fiction.

Just wondering, the DNA from such samples is most like very degraded. I doubt we could obtain an entire complete genome from a few bones.
And anyway, didn't you understand the message behind Jurassic Park? Just cause we CAN bring them back doesn't mean we SHOULD

And they could obtain such a genome from mosquito blood? No, in fact they had to fill in missing gaps with amphibian DNA. So the point is at least with collagen and bone, they are using known science that has yielded some small albeit real results versus the movie method.
  And it is not a question if we should, even if we could. It is a question of are..and they ARE trying, for better or worse. There is a company specializing in cloning who even now visits every frozen Russian mammoth site, and purchases as much DNA laden material as possible. Their obvious goal, bring back Mammoths. At least god forbid they arent looking for mosquitos for the answer.