[ SECRET POST #3241 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3241 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05. [posted twice]


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07. [too big]


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Working late again, sorry!

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #463.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

02. http://i.imgur.com/p3ecxBN.jpg

[kallanda_lee]

I was also a bit disappointed by the indominus rex. Because really it was just T-rex pus, which was fan service, yeah, but there were other deadly prehistoric animals!

[(Anonymous)]

I've been reading "indominus rex" as "indominus sex" and thought the new Jurassic Park had dinosaur sex. Which was surprising, considering I didn't hear much about it and figured it would have had been an uproar.

[(Anonymous)]

IA with so much.
I like the movies, but the books are great and seeing them so ignored has always disappointed me.

I specially love The Lost World and a remake that followed it closely would be like a dream come true for me.

[philstar22]

I do love Jurassic Park (and Jurassic World), but I'd love to see a more faithful movie adaption where Hammond is as awful as he is in the book and gets eaten the way he gets eaten in the book.

I wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park more faithful to the book.

[(Anonymous)]

Though I really still enjoy the original movie, you're right, the book was gorier and there were some character nuances (and characters) that the movie didn't have.

But I don't think The Lost World was all that well written. Of course, I didn't think the movie was very good either.

I'm half with you.

[kamino_neko]

*twitches involuntarily at mosasaurs being called dinosaurs*

They're not even archosaurs! They're squamata!

[sarillia]

I need to review my taxonomy and phylogeny. It makes me sad that I don't remember these things as well as I used to.

[dinogrrl]

saaaaaaaame 8|

[(Anonymous)]

+1

[ninety6tears]

I enjoyed the first half of the book but when the dinosaurs started attacking I...got bored. I know, but. Yeah.

[gobbledigook]

Not gonna lie, when watching the movie I could barely tell the Indominus Rex from regular T-Rex. When they weren't showing it but the characters who saw her were scared I kinda expected more than a slightly pointier T-Rex. :^|

Google now shows the Indominus is white, which I didn't see in the movie at all for some reason.

[dethtoll]

I won't lie, I do like Crichton's books more.

[(Anonymous)]

The thing is, while the books work for books... What people go to see in a movie is not the same as they want in books. It's why extremely faithful adaptations are boring. They don't actually account for how things will look on a screen, but instead how it'll look in someone's head.

[(Anonymous)]

"Advanced reader"? Seriously? I read those books when I was THIRTEEN. They're popular fiction, not Derrida. People are calling you elitist because your snobbery is totally misplaced.

[(Anonymous)]

OH THANK GOD I was seriously about to say the same. Crichton uses big science words--gasp, who could ever learn those without being an advanced reader?!-- but is a terrible writer in many ways.

[(Anonymous)]

That's what I was thinking. I read those books as a teen, too. They're not everybody's cup of tea, obviously, but it's easy enough for people to just skim over the pseud-science and focus on the plot (kinda like I do with overly-complicated fantasy names).

[(Anonymous)]

Also the science in them is pretty awful, and having it rely so heavily on jargon makes it glaring in a way that the (equally unrealistic) science in the movies isn't.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I'm kind of worried that there are people out there who think this is challenging literature. It's not meant to be, and if it is... wow, someone's education was seriously lacking.

[(Anonymous)]

Did anybody else think the twist was going to be that the I. Rex was part human?

[(Anonymous)]

I thought the Indominus rex was kind of boring, too. Maybe it's the lack of dinosaur geekery in me, but for all the movie's effort to explain why it was different than the T. Rex... yeah, didn't matter. I totally agree, the Mosasaurus was way cooler.

[(Anonymous)]

(anon from above, hit post comment too soon)

Oh, and the idea that a Michael Crichton novel is too science-heavy for a mainstream audience makes me really, really sad.

[caerbannog]

The books are vastly superior... And indominois a bit of a let down.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Jurassic World but I liked the Jurassic Park movie better than the book, not because of the science (which wasn't that hard to understand), but because I felt the movie versions of the characters showed more emotion than the book ever indicated.

However don't get me ranting about Sphere again. That's a Crichton book whose movie did it a terrible disservice.

[diet_poison]

I don't think it makes you elitist to feel this way if you're not constantly looking down your nose at people who prefer the movies.