Jurassic Park kitchen scene with scientifically accurate raptors.

We all know the rules: due to biomechanics; giants can't exist...not birds, not people, nothing...except dinosaurs of course.

Yes, it's very weird how they seem to be exempt from the rules of gigantism.

There are wilder fringe theories about the Earth's gravity being lower back then. (Don't ask me how that would work.)
 
The problem artists run into is that if they follow modern feather coverings, the raptors just end up looking like birds. So there's a disincentive there.

View attachment 1892070

View attachment 1892071

They probably did look just like birds.

That first picture looks like a real animal to me, the second one not so much.

All in all, I suppose we were lucky Michael Crichton came up with Jurassic Park exactly when he did, right before the advent of CGI, and with Spielberg able and ready, mere years before our understanding of dinosaurs removed all exoticism from them. It's one heck of a story that really works best with that in between look halfway from the classic monster depiction and modern realistic takes.
 
Yes, it's very weird how they seem to be exempt from the rules of gigantism.

There are wilder fringe theories about the Earth's gravity being lower back then. (Don't ask me how that would work.)
Earth's gravity must have been lower because Earth was bigger so that the animals and insects could be bigger. But the earth cooled and must have shrunk.

Shrinkage. Everything hates shrinkage.
 
They probably did look just like birds.

That first picture looks like a real animal to me, the second one not so much.

All in all, I suppose we were lucky Michael Crichton came up with Jurassic Park exactly when he did, right before the advent of CGI, and with Spielberg able and ready, mere years before our understanding of dinosaurs removed all exoticism from them. It's one heck of a story that really works best with that in between look halfway from the classic monster depiction and modern realistic takes.

JP also hit genetic engineering at the right time.
 
Chrichton's idea was brilliant. The effects were state of the art. The execution of the film is what was unimpressive.
 
I certainly like JP. But it was an all-ages version of the story, for better and worse.

The original book was an R-rated horror story. Put it on the shelf next to 'The Thing' and 'Alien.' It was not only more violent but it also spent more time on the grownup end of it. The abuse of scientific power, the bad judgment and mistakes that created the situation, etc.

To be fair, some of the book's advantage was just the medium. It would take a 5-hour miniseries to do it justice. Speilberg only had 2 hours.

I don't think the movie was inferior, so much as it was made for a different crowd. The book certainly had its flaws. The movie spread Crichton's scientific morality lessons farther, in a more digestible size, than Critchton's own version ever could have.

Side trivia:
Crichton expected the book to get a movie deal when he wrote it. He was friendly with Spielberg. Afterwards he wrote the sequel book for the JAWS/BTTF reason: "Look, this movie is getting a sequel. You can either stand back and let it suck or you can try to help."


I think the JP movie could have used more star power. Sam Neill is a good actor but he doesn't have a leading-man level of screen presence. Especially in an action role.

IIRC Spielberg considered Harrison Ford for that role early on. At the time Ford was perhaps too big for it. He was just coming off the Indy movies. He went back to playing an overmatched every-man in 'The Fugitive' (to great effect) but that didn't come out until after JP was filmed.

IMO somebody like Tom Hanks would have nailed it. Or Kurt Russell. Liam Neeson. Etc.
 
Last edited:
Jurassic Park the movie is better than Jurassic Park the book. It's more focused on the elements that make the story work, and, sorry, but a dinosaur amusment park should make for an-all ages story, not a gory thriller for adults only. Spielberg made the right call.
 
Jurassic Park the movie is better than Jurassic Park the book. It's more focused on the elements that make the story work, and, sorry, but a dinosaur amusment park should make for an-all ages story, not a gory thriller for adults only. Spielberg made the right call.

Meh. Maybe. I mean about "the movie should be for kids." I think a more grownup version could have worked too.



Think of the times. In the 1980s it was hard to conceive of a non-grownup version of the story.

The idea that dinosaurs are normal animals, not vicious evil movie monsters? The idea that you can put them on the screen, call it "genetic engineering" and the audience will accept it? This stuff is all post-JP thinking.

Also, Crichton was writing it before CGI effects. When he imagined a "movie version" he probably pictured Luke Skywalker battling the Rancor monster, the 1970s King Kong remake, etc. I'm not saying the VFX would have sucked, I'm saying they would have deemed most of the novel unfilmable without even trying. The book was guaranteed to get a major rewrite for the movie.
 
Last edited:
James Cameron's version would have been more adult.

And birds are dinosaurs.

And they can look awesome done right.

3d12fe77b666a93342f775d275a2fb32-416041485.jpg


And can be done pretty damn scary.

 
And back when Chrichton wrote the book, Deinonychus was considered to be part of the Velociraptor family. So he wasn't just using the name for no reason.
 
There is a partial explanation for that.

When researchers guess what the living dinos looked like, they try minimize the body weight on the bigger ones. It's because the gigantic weights of the big dinosaurs don't make sense with what we know about bio-mechanics.

The researchers' habit of erring on the lean side makes the dinos look more scary as a side-effect. The limbs & claws & jaws stick out more.
Guess you haven't seen much newer stuff like is shown in Prehistoric Planet on Apple TV streaming.
 
And the movie works better because it doesn't have star power. Just look how unreal Jurassic World feels in comparison. You don't buy the story happening to real people.
 
Guess you haven't seen much newer stuff like is shown in Prehistoric Planet on Apple TV streaming.

No, I haven't seen that stuff. Care to elaborate?

And the movie works better because it doesn't have star power. Just look how unreal Jurassic World feels in comparison. You don't buy the story happening to real people.

I think there was a better balance to hit.

Spielberg rejected Charleton Heston for Chief Brody in JAWS because he was too big. He probably rejected Harrison Ford for JP for the same reason. But I think Roy Scheider had more screen presence in JAWS than Sam Neill had in JP. And look at Richard Dreyfuss in 'Close Encounters' or Dustin Hoffman in some of his 1970s roles.

Screen presence is an intangible thing. It's not dependent on perfect looks or muscles, or fame/recognition, or even acting ability. Some people grow into it or out of it after a while. But it matters. I just don't think Sam Neill had enough of it in JP.


Heck, Jeff Goldblum had a lot more screen mojo in JP. He could have done Alan Grant if he had toned down the cocky/jokey attitude and played a more straight-laced academic. (Like, if he kept the signature-Jeff-Goldblum one-liners to a minimum.) He's done that in earlier stuff like 'The Fly.'

Goldblum becomes a harder sell (to play Alan Grant) as you look later in his career. He became too comic & identifiable later on. But JP came out in 1993. We hadn't seen him play Ian Malcolm yet, or the 'Independence Day' role.
 
Last edited:
Prehistoric Planet season 1 and 2 is probably the best dinosaur ducumentary that has come out so far.

20230608_015419.jpg
20220708_225104.jpg
20220528_231720.jpg
20220528_231002.jpg
20220526_232809.jpg
20220524_234720.jpg


Sorry... these were photophraphed off my tv with my phone when I had poor settings on my tv.

The series will maybe be topped by the upcomong Walking With Dinosaurs season 2.

The point of Grant was that he should be upstaget by Malcolm, so I don't follow your point.

And I like Sam Neill in that role and don't agree with your opinion on that, so for me he works and helps elevate the movie.

I am not a fan of Jeff Goldblum just playing Goldblum in most roles, but he fits as the obnoxious dude who's full of himself in that movie... but in the second he just feels boring.
 
Prehistoric Planet -

I see a more accurate picture than the JP movies. But I don't see the body-size issues being addressed. Mainstream science rarely tackles it.


Goldblum -

He's not my first choice. I'm just making a point that he has screen presence regardless of what character he plays. (BTW, Goldblum was upstaged by Will Smith in 'Independence Day.')

IMO Sam Neill wasn't a bad choice. But I don't think he was a strong point either. He's kind of bland for an adventure that big.

Look at Gary Oldman. People don't even recognize him half the time because he disappears into roles so well. But he STILL has tons of charisma.
 
Last edited:
Just check out the show. You'll see massive looking animals. Not shrink-wrapped monstrosities.

I don't currently have a subscription, so I cannot take more pictures.

If you are a first time user and you have a Playstation you may still be able to get 6 months free if you sign up through the Playstation. If you sign up elsewhere, you miss out and can perhaps get about a month.
 
That's again the point of the Grant character. He should be the every-man and Sam Neill delivers with his charming calm demeanor. I was introduced to that actor through Jurassic Park and thought he was one of the highlights in the movie and sought out his other movies. He sells the realism for me.

I like him in JP3 even though it was a kinda crap story and they made him say crap things sometimes. But again... the highlight for me in that movie. Didn't see the last Jurassic World movie because none of those movies show dinosaurs or them acting like animals. They are plot points and dumb movie monsters.
 
Back
Top