[ 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

[dethtoll]

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

[(Anonymous)]

Apart from those paleontologists who grew up loving it because DINOSAURS!, and retain nostalgic affection for it.

[(Anonymous)]

Others (like me) can appreciate its attempt at presenting dinosaurs as living, breathing, active animals, and its attempt to integrate at least some of the recent (early 90s) findings, but still hate the incredibly long-running and very tired effect it's had on popular culture's perception of dinosaurs 20 years later. I like the first movie, both for nostalgia and good-effort, but I've come to hate the franchise.

[(Anonymous)]

"the incredibly long-running and very tired effect it's had on popular culture's perception of dinosaurs 20 years later"

Replace "dinosaurs" with "sharks" and you got Jaws.
Spielberg has that special talent of turning certain animals into pop culture icons and I don't like it.

[(Anonymous)]

AYART

Yep... my shark-loving friend has the same complaint. It's really a toss-up: on the one hand, these movies make people more interested in the animals they're showcasing, on the other, it gives people a really terrible inaccurate perception of them.

[(Anonymous)]

I love the movie, but boy do I understand the hate.
It's JP's fault that people think the Velociraptor mongoliensis was a seven foot tall motherfucker and not a cute, little attack turkey.

[(Anonymous)]

"Yeah, Deinonychus called. He's suing your turkey-ass off."

[(Anonymous)]

I wouldn't say reviled. Nostalgic annoyance, annoyance, appreciation for the potential paleontologists it brings in (can always use more).

Honestly I see Dinosaur-fans getting more irritated over it than paleontologists, but more in the sense that other dinosaur movies keep copying from it rather than taking and twisting from current science like JP did.

[(Anonymous)]

Not to mention, Crichton has flat-out admitted to making up most of the dinosaur facts to make the story more interesting. He never claimed that his book was factual.