Re: Jurassic Park

[mark@pokey.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Manning)]

For my part I had two outlooks on the movie.  For entertainment value the
movie was very good.  For accuracy with the book and technical matter, the
movie was very bad.  The first time I saw the movie I was so mad I never
wanted to see another Spielburg film.  However, my wife hadn't gotten to
see the film so I was (more or less) forced to go see it again.  We picked
a different theatre, there was a different crowd, and I enjoyed it a lot
more than I had the first time.

For people who read the book first I would strongly suggest going to the
movie more than once.  You get more enjoyment I think.

As for accuracy with the book or realism in some of the things the people
do - throw out rational thoughts and just enjoy the film.  After all, the
list of complaints I've heard just keeps getting bigger each time someone
sees the film.  In fact, let me list a few which haven't been brought up.

1. Why did everyone leave the island?  After all, they were in a secure
   bunker.  The hurricane/tropical storm wasn't going to do them any kind
   of damage there.  Instead, everyone runs out to a boat.  Boats have a
   tendency to sink in storms.  Islands don't.

2. Why did the T. Rex come into the exhibition hall?  To eat the 'raptors?
   Weren't there enough Brontys outside?  As well as the rest of the
animals?
   And how did it manage to get into a building who's largest doorway was
   only eight feet tall?  It didn't break in - no debry.

3. What happened to the Triceratops?  (Not to mention that it was a
   Stegosaurus (sp?) which was having problems in the book.)

4. How did Dr. Sattler get back to base?  (She left with the other doctor
   to investigate the Tri problem.  They never showed them returning.)

5. How could a little boy who had been zapped by 10,000 volts, with burnt
   hands, burnt feet, exploded eardrums (remember the blood?), out run a
   'raptor which (according to the beginning of the film) could run as
   fast as a Cheeta (ie: 65mph).  Best answer so far:The floor was
slippery.

6. How come the raptor jumped on top of the hunter and mauled him like a
   cat instead of slicing him open like they said they did in the beginning
   of the movie?

7. Why did the hunter go after the raptors with a gun which only had two
   bullets (shotgun shells) in it?

8. Why did the hunter go after the raptors with a gun he still had to put
   together AFTER he'd found one of the raptors?

9. Why did the hunter, who had already seen men eaten by these creatures,
   go into the forest like a lamb to the slaughter.  EVEN AFTER he had
   watched to see how they attacked things (remember him telling about
   the creatures attacking the power lines?  And remember Dr. Grant's
   description of how they attacked at the beginning of the film?).  Would
   ANYBODY with and ounce of brains do something like this?  Not me!  ;)

*sigh*  I do wish Mr. Spielburg had simply made the movie as the horror
film it would have been rather than doing what he did.  It sort of makes
the movie fall into the oxymoron category.  A cutsie/horror film.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the nights I've sat and wondered.  Why it is we waste and plunder.
This place in which we stay.  This world we've thrown away. - Mark Manning

mark@pokey.jsc.nasa.gov