[ SECRET POST #2387 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2387 ⌋

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

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 046 secrets from Secret Submission Post #341.
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]

01. http://oi41.tinypic.com/2e2gqp5.jpg

[dethtoll]

Given that the movie is reviled among paleontologists, is it any surprise?

[transcriptanon]

[Picture is the outline of a Tyrannosaurus Rex's skeleton, the logo of the book/movie franchise "Jurassic Park".]

Some time ago I picked Jurassic Park to read, so I could see once and for all if it was as good as I was told it was. Since I grew up watching the movie and loving it, I knew I had to be the most open minded about it so I wouldn't let myself become biased.

And now that I finished I can safely attest, in all honesty, it was the worst thing I've ever read and some points make me seriously question if Crichton knew anything at all about dinosaurs. I mean, even admitting the time it was written, there's just no excuse for things like that Tyrannosaurus introduction.

Secret because: Apparently I'm not allowed to like the movie better.

[(Anonymous)]

Rare that I say this but the movie is much, much better than the book, OP.

As much as I really hate how the little girl is portrayed in the movie, she's portrayed much worse in the book.

[(Anonymous)]

You're definitely allowed to like the movie better. Michael Crichton is not some unimpeachable god-king of great writing or anything.

[(Anonymous)]

My issue was with Lost World... What was wrong with the T-rex entrance?

[kallanda_lee]

Look, the movie has friggin live size dinosaurs. Even if he book were good, I'd prefer the movie.

[(Anonymous)]

I find most of Crichton's stories to be better as movies, even if they're shitty movies (lol Congo). His plots are cool and his characters are unique enough to be interesting, but his writing style is very dry.

[deadtree]

worst thing EVER? Really? In all honesty?

Maybe you're just really really lucky at choosing books then.

[blitzwing]

If that's the worst thing you've read then you really need to read more.

[rbhudson]

I think most people agree that Crichton's books are never as good as the movies based on them.

[sootyowl]

Still sad that I didn't see this in back on the big screen. Would have been fun.

[(Anonymous)]

At least in the book(s) they spelled 'Tyrannosaurus' right ;)

I get you, OP. The books and movies are both awful when it comes to logic and facts, but at least the first two movies are entertaining as fuck (and the first one even manages to be sort of whimsical).

I love rewatching them and I'm especially fond of that one scene in the second movie where that girl uses gymnastics to kick a raptor off. It'll never stop being funny to me!

[ninety6tears]

I definitely liked the movie better. I actually enjoyed the book a lot up until all the horror action started and then it just wasn't scaring me so I got bored.

[(Anonymous)]

This movie is a rare example of a reversal; the movie is better than the book, and is full of really-old-outdated-bullshit. And fuckery. The movie alone is outdated, and those raptors are not Velociraptors. Lol. Plus they'd have feathers. Heaven help me if I didn't go see it in 3D when that baby came out for its 20th anniversary in theaters again, though.

The only book I ever liked of Michael Crichton's was Timeline, but I suspect shenanigans with that one too...

[(Anonymous)]

That's no surprise, really. Crichton isn't a very good writer. He has some neat IDEAS and blockbuster-worthy plots, but the actual writing ranges from okay to just awful.

LOL at all the writing critics ITT

[(Anonymous)]

How many of you have been published?

[(Anonymous)]

Chricton has great ideas for his books, but he always skimps on research or blindly ignores anything that doesn't fit into his original idea.

I don't like his writing style much, either, so I usually the screen adaptations of his books a lot better, anyways.

[kamino_neko]

Been a long time since I've either read the book or watched the movie, but I remember most of the choices concerning dinosaurs (as well as his...interesting takes on genetics and chaos theory) being present in the movie, as well. The only major difference I remember is the size of the raptors, and that, Crichton got right, and Spielberg decided interesting visuals were more important than scientific accuracy.

I also prefer the movie to the book (mostly...not keen on Goldblum's-character-whose-name-I'm-blanking-on's miraculous survival), but I find that an odd reason to do so.

[queerwolf]

I haven't read the book since before the movie even came out so I can't speak to it. But JP is one of my favorite movies and I watch it all the time.

[chlorhexidine]

The book was dross, the film was much better. Utterly ridiculous, but much better as entertainment.

[intrigueing]

How are you not allowed to like the movie better? I don't know a single person who likes the book better than the movie. The book was stupid, boring, plodding wildly incorrect bad science. The movie was fun, epic, gloriously-rendered-for-the'90s soft-scifi that made no pretense of realism. With a score by John Williams.

[nan]

Everyone I know likes the movie better.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay, I kind of liked the book, but there were some issues (seriously, dude, if you're going to use pseudo-science, keep it as vague as possible). That said, you are totally allowed to like the movie and not the book (also, totally allowed to like both or neither or the book and not the movie). Nobody gets to dictate anyone else's tastes.

Did anyone actually like the book?

[(Anonymous)]

I don't particularly care for Crichton's writing, but Jurassic Park is one of those books I've read cover to cover enough times that the spine's cracked and pages are falling out. I don't know much about science or maths (never really cared to), so the specifics of it being wrong don't bother me too much. The plot and characters are interesting enough, and there are some really excellent quotes in there.