Re: JP3 Thoughts (frilled Dilophosaurus revisited)

["Ken Kinman" <kinman@hotmail.com>]

Christopher,
    I must admit that the Dilophosaurus depiction in Jurassic Park I really
made me angry when I found out later that there was no evidence of a frill
or spitting.  I knew very little about dinosaurs at that time, and naively
assumed if spitting was referred to verbally by Richard Kiley's description
and visually when the computer guy was attacked, then there must be some
evidence to back it up.
    When this turned out to be the result of someone's imagination and that
the Velociraptor's were too big, etc., I quite frankly felt a little
betrayed.  I expected some degree of accuracy and felt I had been let down.
I did not watch Jurassic Park II until it was on television (and didn't feel
I missed much), and I suspect I will at least wait until Jurassic Park III
comes out on tape and view it then.
    Special effects and action-packed sequences are not worth the bother or
expense of going to a theater.  With all the spoilers and advertisements, I
have a pretty good idea of the plot, which is apparently rather thin.  I'd
rather watch something less spectacular but accurate like Coelophysis and
cynodonts in that Discovery Channel special (whichever one that was).  That
was cool and more realistic.  Jurassic Park III sounds like mass media,
money-sucking hype, and the special effects probably wouldn't make up for
the typical "sequel" deja-vu let down and inaccuracies.
     If they get more serious about accuracy, maybe I'll go see JP IV in a
theater, but I'm not going to hold my breath.  If most people are willing to
pay for actioned-packed inaccuracy that is what we will continue to get (and
they will have to pay me if they want me to sit through that kind of stuff,
not vice versa).  I really hate dumbed-down, cookie-cutter type sequels that
are obviously meant to appeal to mass audiences and little else.
              -------Ken
*******************************************
> From: Christopher Srnka <theclaw10@home.com>
> Reply-To: theclaw10@home.com
> To: dinosaur@usc.edu
> Subject: Re: JP3 Thoughts (frilled Dilophosaurus revisited)
> Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 22:18:58 -0500
>
> While of course I agree with most of the complaints about the scientific
> faux pas of JP3, I think it has become pretty clear even from the
> movie's own disclaimer that the animals on Isla Sorna are less dinosaurs
> than they are "genetically engineered amusement park monsters." Even so,
> they are being called by dinosaur names...
>
> A lot of the criticisms levelled at the dinosaurs depicted in JP3 remind
> me of the initial wave of complaints about the pseudo-raptors and the
> frilled _Dilophosaurus_ in the original movie. I remember mentioning
> those inconsistencies to a friend, and he came back with an insightful
> observation; just because no evidence has been found to prove that
> _Dilophosaurus_ had a neck frill doesn't necessarily mean that  it or a
> similar species absolutely didn't have one.
>
> So what evidence really is there that _Dilophosaurus_ was without a
> frill or the ability to spit venomous goo? Other than the lack of
> evidence for it, I mean? Is it right for books to say that JP was
> actually flat-out wrong in depicting _Dilophosaurus_ with a frill and
> spitting?
>
> Mickey Mortimer wrote:
>
> > (generally a lot of negative things about the scientific accuracy and
> > plausibility of the movie-sorry, had to paraphrase here)

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp