iMan
Well-Known Member
True lol. I was just stating it for the people who thought Spielberg just added the dinner scene when it was pretty close to the book version.
Jurassic World
- Thread starter Lutso
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jurassic park
True lol. I was just stating it for the people who thought Spielberg just added the dinner scene when it was pretty close to the book version.
But it will select you to die.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Just because you can do a thing, doesn't mean you should.
StarWarsFan88
New Member
Love JP, although I do hope it's a significant improvement over 3. My least favorite of the films.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
THIS.
They really softened Hammond (and the other characters) in the movie. In the book, Hammond was a pretty crotchety old man out to make money - in the movie he was basically just a very rich grandpa who seemed to have a higher purpose than "just making money" (though there's still a bit of that...).
The book got into a lot of stuff in more detail, especially Malcom's reasoning for why he thought the park would fail. The discussions of right and wrong came from a LOT more angles than just "Nature vs. Technology" (such as competence vs. incompetence and why creating minature dinosaurs as pets was a bad idea). I LOVED how Sattler and Grant basically called Hammond incompetent even before the shutdown (because he didn't know anything about the world he was trying to create).
It was also interesting because we didn't have the same reveal we had in the movie. In the book, Grant knows he's going to see Dinosaurs before he even gets to the island.
The movie, of course, had to truncate a LOT of the book (otherwise we would have ended up with a 12 hour movie and probably STILL not covered everything... not that I would complain!!!). I think they did it pretty well. Speilberg had a LOT to show the audience and I think the level of preaching in the film was appropriate for a mass-market movie.
TheDoctor
Sr Member
Of course, as a race we (humans) still haven't learned that lesson. At all.
iMan
Well-Known Member
Good posting. Michael Crichton even wrote the screenplay so if he approved of that dinner scene, I approve of it. :lol
Colin Droidmilk
Sr Member
Destined to be crap next to JP1 and probably JP2 as well.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Yes, if you are not strong enough to adapt and stay alive, you will die, but it is due to your own shortcomings and failure as a species, or, if you are hit on the head by an asteroid. Barely anything much survives that. It's not nature exactly selecting you, but it's just easier to say that, than going into an indepth explanation as to why you went extinct. It's easier to just say: "nature selected you to die!" As if it had any interest or care what-so-ever whether you live or die at all.
But that's not scientific. The very basis of that argument stems from the idea that there is this 'grand plan' that has been laid out before us that we should not meddle with. The problem is that if there was a plan, why are we capable of breaking it? After all, if nature can willingly choose to wipe out a whole species on the global scale, why do we as humans have the power to survive things that would other wise cause us to die naturally?
TheDoctor said:
"Just because you can do a thing doesn't mean you should" can go both ways. You can do something natural (let the disease do whatever it wants) or you can do something unnatural (take medication to treat the disease). We can as a race choose not to allow the natural course of things to interfere with our lives, or we can. Here's one example something natural that the United States has fought against and still to this day celebrate in overcoming. Slavery. Did you know that there is a species of ants called Polyergus Breviceps who also hold the title "Slave-Making Ants"? These ants will raid and enslave other ant colonies to do their own work. It's a natural act, but in today's society we view slavery as morally wrong. Since some people treat the interference of natural events as a very bad thing, why doesn't anyone view the end of slavery in America as a 'Rape of the natural world" since slavery occurs naturally in other species INCLUDING humans?
ThrashWolf
New Member
So long as they stick to animatronics+CG, rather than going all out computer generated, I'll be plopping myself down in a cinema seat.
iMan
Well-Known Member
Man, you must really like Jurassic Park for it to prompt you to post. You have been a member for three years and have only 3 posts!?!? That's one a year.
I guess I'll see you next January. :lol
ThrashWolf
New Member
I have a bit of an ulterior motive behind posting
Besides, it's only been two years and a few months!
iMan
Well-Known Member
I have a bit of an ulterior motive behind posting
Besides, it's only been two years and a few months!
Oh. I read Jan 10. Man, that's the second time I have been corrected today.
Welcome....I.....guess.... :thumbsup
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
If there is a grand plan then everything we do is part of it, so there's no breaking it. And that's where ethics come in.
If there isn't a grand plan, then everything we do is on us to decide whether we actually should. And that's where ethics come in.
Anyone can kill someone else, doesn't mean you should. That's the point of the argument made in the movie, only in reverse. It's the Frankenstein's monster dilemma that cloning is touching on, not at all slavery or anything else. It is the power over life and death. Not medication to prevent someone from dying, but the power to raise someone or something from the dead. Very different things.
Last edited:
I seem to recall that in some medical emergencies that a patient can actually die and be brought back to life. As far as the doctors are concerned, there is no dilemma over whether they should stay dead or be brought back. They'll do their best to bring a patient back to life even if all essential functions have stopped. How is that not power over life and death?
Also, we're not talking about bringing a dead dinosaur corpse back to life using black magic. We're simply allowing a new one to be created and born. Kind of like when a woman takes sperm from a male donor to fertilize her eggs to make a child. Using science to help create life. Whatever comes after the starting process will occur naturally.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Magic is simply science not yet discovered.
You simply do not introduce something back into existence just because you can. Only a child would do so without thinking. And Hammond and his team were acting like children. Greedy little children. Sometimes something is just too unethical to pursue, and they certainly never thought of any of the consequences.
Your argument opens up for cross-species contamination and experimentation. Why not cross a lizard and a cow or a eagle and a fish, or better yet, splice all good genes from all Earth's plants and animals into humans to create super humans who never physically age into old age deterioration, can regrow limbs and heal even severe wounds and live for thousand of years. And so on. All these things are within our world. Open the door just a little to bring back something as childish as dinosaurs will rip apart all reasoning and warning and apprehension and all borders to pursue these things as well. That's your argument. That it should just be allowed to ruin what we are in order to just do as we please - again, like children who doesn't think of the consequences.
You simply do not introduce something back into existence just because you can. Only a child would do so without thinking. And Hammond and his team were acting like children. Greedy little children. Sometimes something is just too unethical to pursue, and they certainly never thought of any of the consequences.
Your argument opens up for cross-species contamination and experimentation. Why not cross a lizard and a cow or a eagle and a fish, or better yet, splice all good genes from all Earth's plants and animals into humans to create super humans who never physically age into old age deterioration, can regrow limbs and heal even severe wounds and live for thousand of years. And so on. All these things are within our world. Open the door just a little to bring back something as childish as dinosaurs will rip apart all reasoning and warning and apprehension and all borders to pursue these things as well. That's your argument. That it should just be allowed to ruin what we are in order to just do as we please - again, like children who doesn't think of the consequences.
Last edited:
Timmythekid
Sr Member
You've taken that out of context - Malcolm at that point is addressing the concept of 'scientific advancement' in general, not the specifics as they apply to JP. Hammond says its scientific advancement, Malcolm says you can't use that as your sole justification, because advancement often comes with a great deal of pain. Advancement for the sake of advancement alone is unwise and unjustified.
Timmythekid
Sr Member
I see it as a metaphor, not Malcolm espousing belief in the universal watchmaker. The whole reason for involving a mathematician specializing in chaos theory is that it's really a mathematical system they're talking about, not an actual "PLAN" per se. The random variations (asteroid, this animal was fastest to the food, etc) in the system once set in motion meant certain lines were "selected" for success, and other extinction. Reintroducing those eliminated along the way into the system after it had had several tens of millions of years to continue morphing and evolving was a BAD idea.
