www.ditl.org

Unfortunately, the theme that was clear in the film was "dinosaurs can kill you and eat you." The theme of the book was an intellectually-centered math/science idea; the fact that dinosaurs were involved at all was more cosmetic or incidental.

Captain Seafort wrote:

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:Starship Troopers? Oh what a pile of fettid crap...

If you're talking about the film I heartily agree. If you're talking about the book, what don't you like about it?

The film, Seafort. I've read the book and like it. A lot. Hmm, I might wanna reread it, too.

Just checking.

To be fair, if you take the film as a an over-the-top parody of the typical gung-ho action film it's all right. It's when you try and compare it in any way to Heinlein's SST that it falls apart.

Captain Seafort wrote:Just checking.

To be fair, if you take the film as a an over-the-top parody of the typical gung-ho action film it's all right. It's when you try and compare it in any way to Heinlein's SST that it falls apart.

lol, okay.

Maybe, but I can't divorce the movie from the book. I read the book first, learned about the movie and thought it'd be at least passable. No such luck.

Mikey wrote:Unfortunately, the theme that was clear in the film was "dinosaurs can kill you and eat you." The theme of the book was an intellectually-centered math/science idea; the fact that dinosaurs were involved at all was more cosmetic or incidental.

I thought the theme in both was "cloning is bad" and "humans shouldn't try to change nature with unnatural methods" and it showed the extreme of what could happen. Well, in the first movie at least. The second movie is almost compleatly unrelated to the book.

I hate, hate, HATE the second Jurassic Park movie. It is lazy lazy writing, and chicken to boot.

Hell, take the opening scene with the girl. She gets attacked, dinosaurs are swarming over her, when her mum sees the scene she just screams in horror... it's clearly set up that the kid got eaten. But then a line of dialogue late indicates that she was just injured and is okay. That's absolutely cowardly film making. But then Spielberg lost his nerve on things like that a long time ago.

It's also lazy in terms of how it depicts the "good" and "bad" guys. For instance the capitalisty guys come and capture a bunch of animals. The eco-guy releases them, devastating the camp and throwing everything into chaos. Subsequent events lead to the death of dozens of people... and the eco-guy blames the evil capitalists for this?!?! Things were going just swimmingly for them until HE cocked it all up!

Likewise photography woman (don't remember names!) is touted as this great expert in how to get close to wildlife. She even makes a speech about how they mustn't disturb so much as a blade of grass. Which would be more believable if she hadn't walked up to a nest and started petting a bunch of baby dinosaurs not ten minutes before.

Later in the movie she comments on how wonderful a T-Rex sense of smell is. Then she wipes the baby T-Rex's blood all over her jacket and tromps it through the jungle before going to bed. This bit of stupidity leads to a T-Rex attack on the camp that kills several men. She exhibits no sign of guilt, nor does anybody comment on her stupidity. The movie gives her a free pass because she's allegedly a goodie.

In fact the company's idea of exploiting the animals for profit is held up as absurd and basically evil in this movie. But no reason why this is so is ever given. Personally I think if you spend a few billion dollars making some animals it's only reasonable to try to recoup the money off them. And while I am open to some sort of counter-argument about that... the movie never bothers to give one. It just makes capitalist dudes slimy and unlikeable, and expects us to therefore dismiss anything they say out of hand. While their opponents blunder about in incompetence and outright murder repeatedly, yet are held up as the good guys.

Wow, my rant muscle is getting exercised in this thread!

I think we can all agree that pretty much every film adaption of any book has sucked in comparison to the original book.

Rochey wrote:I think we can all agree that pretty much every film adaption of any book has sucked in comparison to the original book.

Hmmm, I can think of one or two... Contact for instance. Not as good as the book, to be sure, but I thought it was a pretty good movie.

Well, maybe I exagerated a bit. But you get my point; books rule.

I loathe the 'capitalists are EVVVVVVVVVIIIILLLL trope. I remember Twister using it. And it made no sense to me. It never makes sense for the bad guy to be a bad guy simply because he's making a profit. Yeesh!

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:I loathe the 'capitalists are EVVVVVVVVVIIIILLLL trope. I remember Twister using it. And it made no sense to me. It never makes sense for the bad guy to be a bad guy simply because he's making a profit. Yeesh!

Yes, for we all know that real scientists work for the pure pleasure of it all, taking no wage, living in cardboard boxes and eating rats and garbage so that they can remain unsullied by <spit> money </spit>.

GrahamKennedy wrote:Yes, for we all know that real scientists work for the pure pleasure of it all, taking no wage, living in cardboard boxes and eating rats and garbage so that they can remain unsullied by <spit> money </spit>.

What do you know - I must be a professional scientist!

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:I loathe the 'capitalists are EVVVVVVVVVIIIILLLL trope. I remember Twister using it. And it made no sense to me. It never makes sense for the bad guy to be a bad guy simply because he's making a profit. Yeesh!

I thought that he was evil because he stole the design for Dorthey. The hero group also seemed to be in it for helping people rather then just profits(though I doubt it would hurt). Was anyone in that group even a scientist, except maybe the lead characters?

Are a lot of people in 'it' for profit? Sure. But many are in 'it' to help people.

I can't speak to thsi particular point - I was so fed up with the first Jurassic Park that I never had any interest in the sequels.

Sorry, Sir Richard.

ChakatBlackstar wrote:Are a lot of people in 'it' for profit? Sure. But many are in 'it' to help people.

So if you told them their pay was being reduced to $0, these people would carry on working in those jobs?