Jurassic Park... the thread!!!

**jeddah** · 01-09-2002

Hi EL Chuxter.

Nice point about Horner (and everyone else that mentioned him), I can't see many of my 'colleagues' in the UK even knowing who JH is, let alone Edwin Dobb and Bob Bakker (apologies of course to anyone in the UK who I offended above)

Having said that, I wonder if anyone here has read his book The Complete T-Rex or if a lot of the opinions come from watching Discovery Channel-type documentaries. The book makes some very compelling arguments for him being an opportunist (as opposed to a scav') and I must say I kinda agree

I think it is a shame the T-Rex is demystified in this way, but it may be true, just look at the early pics of the Iguanadon with his thumb on his head

I also thought the film was crap, but like the above forummer, I enjoyed it because I like Dinos.

jeddah

**LTBasker** · 01-09-2002

Originally posted by Starfig873
Not to mention the couple is from OKLAHOMA! Hee hee hee...

And to think I've been to Enid....stupid baseball tourneys, they were one-sided. Yep, dinosaurs would fit right in there without notice!

Ya know it's rather odd.... Linda Park is the woman who tells Ellie about someone being on the phone, and of course Oklahoma is mentioned in the same film, well Linda Park is the communications officer on Enterprise, and on the pilot episode for it, the first scenes took place in Broken Bow, OK. Wierd huh? Oh yea, back onto the movie!

If you look when Macy's character is falling off the crane into the firey water, the human cgi falls way too fast.

Jurassic Park: They are able to get off the island thanks to the T-Rex taking a bite as a raptor was just about to jump on'em thus giving them a chance to escape.

Lost World: They get off the island by Nick going into a building and being able to restore power and call in a chopper and they're just able to get to the building and get to the chopper... Not to mention they still have to out-smart the T-Rex at the end to get him back on the boat.

Jurassic Park III: After a CALM meeting with raptors who don't do anything but scare the pants off'em for a couple of eggs, they can measly walk off thanks to the marines showing up with a limo driver and 4 amphibians (which would hardly be able to take out a T-Rex without alot of damage being done to a few if not all of them) and then they just casually leave.

Something I just now noticed... At the end of Lost World they show herds of dinos and such, and they show Pterydactyls flying around Freely on Site B and yet in JPIII they're on Site B, and they're caged up? I know InGen took control of everything from Hammond, but after the whole expidition thing there in Lost World, it's obvious even they wouldn't take the chance of trying to take over the dinosaurs.

**master jedi** · 01-09-2002

What I don't get is how that kid could have survived on the island that long by himself.
That was very believable. Not.

**El Chuxter** · 01-10-2002

Originally posted by master jedi
What I don't get is how that kid could have survived on the island that long by himself.

That's because the dinosaurs didn't vote for him!

LTBasker, I wondered the same thing about the pterosaurs. Also, why would they have Quetzcoatlus in LW:JP and Pteranodons (apparently mutant specimens who have somehow grown teeth) in JP3?

jeddah, I picked up The Complete T-Rex a few years ago but have yet to read it. From looking through it, it seems to be fairly well grounded. Horner recently hosted a special on Discovery, though, that presented "evidence" in direct opposition to all the other "evidence" anyone else is putting forward (such as T-Rex not built for speed, T-rex has weak teeth, etc). It came across as "no one's believing this, so I'd better try to convince folks who probably don't know better and will take my word since I'm a scientist." Opportunist, yes--most carnivores are. Giant vulture, I can't buy.

I don't mean to speak ill of Horner. Most of his work seems to be sound--the discovery of Maiasaura alone is enough to warrant him going down in history--but I don't agree with his T-Rex "vulture" theory. And he comes across as trying harder and harder every day to defend this theory.

Of course. . . I could've said the same thing about Bakker and warm-blooded dinos twenty or so years ago, so maybe there's some truth to it.

**jeddah** · 01-10-2002

he he El C,

Are you picturing that painting from the book whe you refer to the vulture

One of the (childish, I'll admit) things that made me laugh when I read the book was the name of the lady who discovered the T Rex; Kathy Wankel; Horner keeps referring to the complete T-Rex fossil as the Wankel Rex and - bearing in mind what that word (or near as damnit) means in the UK - I cracked a smile every time I read it

I wish we got these kinda documentaries in the UK, however bland or misguided

jeddah

**SithDroid** · 01-13-2002

I liked JP3 for some of it's aspects.

1. This story has a lot of similar plot lines as in the original book, ex. Pterodactyls chasing them, them having to stick to the river

2. We finally get to see Pterodactyls (not including the shadows of them in JP2, which doesn't follow continuity?)

3. Grant is back in this film

Things I didn't like:

1. There is no Malcolm. He was the coolest character of the series. He should have been in it.

2. Those raptors that surround them would have torn them apart instead of staring at them for 5 minutes debating over it.

3. I'm supposed to buy that they could escape from all of these deadly creatures without the use of guns or firepower. They can't even out run them. Stupid if you as me.

As far as the theory of the T-Rex being a scavenger, I've seen the Discovery Channel Documentary, but would now like to read the book before I make any decisions. I can't rule out anything.

Those are my opinions. Anyone agree?

**Wolfwood319** · 01-14-2002

Actually, taking into account Horner, Bakker, and the rest of them, you can see the evolution of Dinosaur theory, in just less then a decade, by watching the films in order.

In the first film, they have the discussion of T-Rex's vision based on movement. You don't move, it won't see you. Go now to LW:JP,(movie and book) and they refute that theory, and say that T-Rex was a hunter, and his vision wasn't based on movement, they defend their baby, etc. Now go to the 3rd film, and they go back to the vision/movement thing and bring him back even further by going the "scavenger" route.

I'm not criticizing the paleontologists who worked on the films, but it just goes to show how fast thoeries change about these creatures.

I've read part of Horner's book, and it is a somewhat sound theory, but how long is it going to be before another "sound" theory comes out.

And if you watch the "behind the scenes" and "making of" documentaries on the DVD, Horner lays on the Scavenger theory pretty thick.

**jeddah** · 01-14-2002

The T-Rex visual acuity/movement postulation is no 'theory' it is a dramatic contrivance to get Grant and the kids out of danger - how 'fun' would the film be if the T-Rex was unstoppable

Either Spielberg or Crichton were responsible for that. There is no way that palo's could've extrapolated that kind of data from bones.

jeddah