|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 14, 2011 0:25:37 GMT
Of course the truth is that JP3 was made with a gleeful disregard to continuity. "The raptors have head-quills and round pupils and super intelligence! Pteranodons have teeth! THIS CAN MAKE US MONEY!!11!ELEVENTY!" Of course, fanon explanations for the movies' concessions to money-making popularity are always fun to read. One of the recent IDW comics tried to explain the Pteranodons-with-teeth as Ingen's 'mistakes', caused through the Pteranodons being genetic mishmashes approximating Pteranodons rather than being the actual animal. Extrapolating from this means that every inaccuracy in the movies can be explained via frog DNA. Rearing brachiosaurs? Frog DNA. Indestructible Spinosaurus? Frog DNA. Ninja skills T-rex? Frog DNA. Not just Frog DNA...several Amphibians among others were used if you read the novel...and it does explain a lot. As Grant said, these aren't DINOSAURS exactly, but genetically re-created theme park animals. We don't really enough to be able to compare anything we create to the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Mar 14, 2011 15:20:39 GMT
The novel made a much bigger deal of the animals being the artificial creations of genetic engineering, and the unexpected results (typical Crichton); the movie understandably chose to trade on the supposed scientific accuracy of the creatures, and how they were the most realistic dinosaurs yet shown on screen (which, to be fair, they were, in spite of all the dramatic concessions).
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Mar 14, 2011 18:14:43 GMT
The first novel did talk quite a bit about how they were artifical creations..but Crichton seemed to fall off on that a little in the 2nd book.
While the films took the opposite route making more statements about how they were man made as it went..Grant's quote from the third film I posted above is clearly saying they aren't real Dinosaurs to film goers. It's an odd twist to tell the audience this isn't real and then try to make them believe it.
|
|
|
Post by foxilized on Mar 16, 2011 18:01:29 GMT
Yeah, and there's also a clear subtle on that, to not take this too seriously cause "this is not a documentary on real animals, it's just an amusement movie with CGI FX so please relax and enjoy".
I've been reading a lot of old magazines and articles on the old JP movie and seems the FX were so spectacular for the time people at some unconscious level took the dinos as real. Of course nobody truly believed they were real, but the effects were so impressive that the "judgement" on the audience brain was absolutely turned off. Before JP when you saw a dinosaur on a movie you inmediately thought "it's not real, it's fx, they have probably made that with a maquette" or "it's obviously a man in a suit" or "it's clear it's a rubber puppet" but it didn't happen with JP. Amazing, isn't it? The very first time you watched JP you just thought "Oh my gosh... THAT'S A DINOSAUR!". I mean, of course all the time you knew it wasn't real but at some level these FX were more powerful than anything before. Maybe only in later views you could really start thinking "hey, they did that brachio with digital effects, or that's an animatronic" and so... But the first view impression is what it counts.
This explains why JP-fans are so "obsessed?" on dinosaur accuracies or trying to cover the plot holes and stand it as real as possible. It was the awesome effect the movie had on us.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, in the novel it was specifically said the laboratory men chose to eliminate some real characteristics on the dinosaurs -maybe things like feathers and other birdlike elements- in favour of a more "popular look and behaviour". They made them more reptilian and 80's fashion. A pretty honest add to the novel, I must say. Since there was another clear subtle there too, it was actually Crichton admiting he had done THAT on the novel. He had studied Greg Paul and Bakker, therefore he was aware of dinosaurs being feathered. Still he chose not to show them with feathers cause it was better if the dinos were more "popular looking". After all he was trying to do a best-seller.
|
|
|
Post by Meso-Cenozoic on Jul 24, 2011 22:31:10 GMT
Hey, just saw this....
At the 2011 San Diego Comic-Con, Spielberg confirmed that preparations for Jurassic Park 4 were in progress, with a story ready and a script being written. Spielberg said that it would be possibly released "within the next two or three years", with a representative from Universal saying 2013 would be the preferred deadline for completion.
|
|
|
Post by Horridus on Jul 25, 2011 17:24:57 GMT
Grant's quote from the third film I posted above is clearly saying they aren't real Dinosaurs to film goers. It could also be seen as him just fobbing off the audience, as he's so exasperated with talking about Jurassic Park. But either way, it's still the only hint at that theme we get in the movies.
|
|
|
Post by Blade-of-the-Moon on Jul 25, 2011 18:40:20 GMT
Well I can see why they didn't want bring it up too much..especially in the first one. I mean they toted it as the most realistic DInosaurs ever..and it was. But then saying in the film they aren't Dinosaurus would have threw some off I guess.
|
|