Best film ever!

LION KING! Cheesy, childish, and so touching.

Fantomas, you've got the funniest sig ever, don't change it EVER.

1800iareyay wrote: ^ I forgot to mention the first Jurassic Park. Very different from the book, but still captures Crichton's disgust at humans playing God. If that is the real plot to JP4, I think I'm going to sob

Jurassic Park suffers from its impossible plot. Let's take it for granted that people may somehow be able to find the original genes for some dinosaurs and be able to grow them. Then some questions arise:
1) How could they survive? All animals rely on symbiotic activity with all kinds of other animals, plants and bacteria; do we still have the necessary environment for dinosaurs? Doubtful.
2) What's even more important: How long do you think it took a dinosaur to grow to full size? They probably grew all throughout their lives, just as their closest living relatives, the crocodiles, do. But it takes a crocodile decades to grow to full size; a Nile crocodile of a length of 9 or 10 meters is around 70 years old (you hardly find them of that size anymore because sadly they are usually shot before they reach that age). If someone discovered the secret of breeding them, he would have to wait for decades. But no, in that movie (as in the book) someone discovers the secret to breed them, and presto, here they are full size already. Ridiculous!


Edited by BaldFriede - August 22 2007 at 04:29

Teh LORD OF THE RINGS suckS BEcaUSE GAndalF DOES magic, AND EVERYOne KNows THEres no sUCH thing AS MAGIC! SO FAKE H8D IT.

From this list, Citizen Kane.

since Blade Runner isn't here I had to go with First Blood.

Shakespeare wrote: andu wrote: BaldFriede wrote: 1800iareyay wrote: ^ I forgot to mention the first Jurassic Park. Very different from the book, but still captures Crichton's disgust at humans playing God. If that is the real plot to JP4, I think I'm going to sob Jurassic Park suffers from its impossible plot. Let's take it for granted that people may somehow be able to find the original genes for some dinosaurs and be able to grow them. Then some questions arise: 1) How could they survive? All animals rely on symbiotic activity with all kinds of other animals, plants and  bacteria; do we still have the necessary environment for dinosaurs? Doubtful. 2) What's even more important: How long do you think it took a dinosaur to grow to full size? They probably grew all throughout their lives, just as their closest living relatives, the crocodiles, do. But it takes a crocodile decades to grow to full size; a Nile crocodile of a length of 9 or 10 meters is around 70 years old (you hardly find them of that size anymore because sadly they are usually shot before they reach that age). If someone discovered the secret of breeding them, he would have to wait for decades. but no, in that movie (as in the book) someone discovers the secret to breed them, and presto, here they are full size already. Ridiculous! Oh come on, who needs science-solid background for raging blockbusters?! That DNA stuff was only the pretext needed in order to unleash the great fun and thrills put together by some great visual narration & story telling (well maybe not that great as I've seen better Spielberg films and better blockbusters, but it still was a great ride ) Maybe it wasn't very clear, but my post below this one was meant to be in reply to this. It goes: Teh LORD OF THE RINGS suckS BEcaUSE GAndalF DOES magic, AND EVERYOne KNows THEres no sUCH thing AS MAGIC! SO FAKE H8D IT.

You are comparing apples and oranges. "Lord of the Rings" does not claim to be a scientific thriller; once you accept the magical setting of the story there is no contradiction. But "Jurassic Park" claims to be based on science, and even if you accept its speculative element "we can reconstruct the genes of dinosaurs" you have to adhere to certain laws of biology, in essence the growth rate of animals.
I would have less problems with the movie if someone decoded the sequence of dinosaur genes today, they would start breeding them today, and then the movie did some kind of  fast forward of about 30 or 40 years.
Crichton used to be an interesting author; his first book "The Andromeda Strain" was a good read, but "Jurassic Park" is a humbug which made me laugh when I read it.


Edited by BaldFriede - August 26 2007 at 08:05

none of the above - the best film ever made is......

Edited by mystic fred - August 26 2007 at 05:19

BaldFriede wrote: 1800iareyay wrote: ^ I forgot to mention the first Jurassic Park. Very different from the book, but still captures Crichton's disgust at humans playing God. If that is the real plot to JP4, I think I'm going to sob Jurassic Park suffers from its impossible plot. Let's take it for granted that people may somehow be able to find the original genes for some dinosaurs and be able to grow them. Then some questions arise: 1) How could they survive? All animals rely on symbiotic activity with all kinds of other animals, plants and bacteria; do we still have the necessary environment for dinosaurs? Doubtful. 2) What's even more important: How long do you think it took a dinosaur to grow to full size? They probably grew all throughout their lives, just as their closest living relatives, the crocodiles, do. But it takes a crocodile decades to grow to full size; a Nile crocodile of a length of 9 or 10 meters is around 70 years old (you hardly find them of that size anymore because sadly they are usually shot before they reach that age). If someone discovered the secret of breeding them, he would have to wait for decades. But no, in that movie (as in the book) someone discovers the secret to breed them, and presto, here they are full size already. Ridiculous!

Actaully, according to the book they've been breeding dinosaurs for several years before the events of the book. Besides, if you can splice the genes of a frog into cultivated dinosaur DNA, and ensure all the animals are female (until the frog DNA kicks in), then it's conceivable that tehy could speed up growth. For the first point, the dinosaurs have great difficulty adapting, as evidenced by the book sequel The lost World. Dinosaurs are dying out from a disease that is passed from scavenger to carnivore then to herbivores (thsoe who survive attacks are infected). I thought the plot was extremely thought out and Chricton deserves props for proposing the idea of dinosaur revival in a manner that seems scientifically feasable

BaldFriede wrote: 1800iareyay wrote: ^ I forgot to mention the first Jurassic Park. Very different from the book, but still captures Crichton's disgust at humans playing God. If that is the real plot to JP4, I think I'm going to sob Jurassic Park suffers from its impossible plot. Let's take it for granted that people may somehow be able to find the original genes for some dinosaurs and be able to grow them. Then some questions arise: 1) How could they survive? All animals rely on symbiotic activity with all kinds of other animals, plants and bacteria; do we still have the necessary environment for dinosaurs? Doubtful. 2) What's even more important: How long do you think it took a dinosaur to grow to full size? They probably grew all throughout their lives, just as their closest living relatives, the crocodiles, do. But it takes a crocodile decades to grow to full size; a Nile crocodile of a length of 9 or 10 meters is around 70 years old (you hardly find them of that size anymore because sadly they are usually shot before they reach that age). If someone discovered the secret of breeding them, he would have to wait for decades. But no, in that movie (as in the book) someone discovers the secret to breed them, and presto, here they are full size already. Ridiculous!

In the movie/book, ancient plants were somehow reproduced, though the oxygen levels propose a problem. At least he ensures they don't live long. It's a great read and a fun movie. It's no more farfetched than any other Crichton novel