Talk:Jurassic Park (film)/Archive 1

message: The best things about this movie was the special effects, the little girl saying "I know this, it's Unix", and the following joke: 
It takes place during the jeep vs. the T-Rex chase scene. The T-Rex is heading towards the jeep, the camera shot is looking out from the passenger seat towards the right side mirror where the dino and the famous 6 inch teeth are clearly visible. And of course the mirror says "objects in mirror are closer than they appear".
:on "unix":  more specifically it was irix with sgi's free 3d file system navigator.  the computers in the Jurassic Park lab were all sgi workstations (probably thrown in as a product endorsement).  the 3d computer-rendered effects were all produced with sgi hardware and software. ✈ James C. 01:13, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
::Reading online, apparently not all the computers are SGI workstations - some were Macs, possibly run A/UX and others from other vendors. Theshibboleth 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, it could be that this whole sequence in the movie is a reference to a marketing gimmick that SGI used in the 80s or 90s. Appearently, they had a young girl sitting at an SGI workstation demonstrating it while talking about it via a headset with conference attendees.  It was meant to make all the business folk at the show think "Aww, I want my daughter to be that smart".  I can't find any confirmation of this actually being used by SGI at a conference though so for now its just hearsay.  Perhaps it is the other way around, SGI this gimmick after the film. -- Suso 14:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Unix 

message: Howabout someone adding a bit of the Box Office history of this flick.  It was the highest grossing film EVER for some time!...then Titanic came along.... --Teenwriter 21:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOX OFFICE info? 

message: I am perplexed as to why this Wikipedia entry fails to cover the most important and crucial issue addressed in Crichton's book.  Namely why the park was 'doomed to failure' according to Ian Malcolm's mathematical interpretations.  I mean, come on, what makes Jurassic Park such a staggering piece of fiction was it's structure and broad philisophical commentary.  Yes, ostensibly there was some muckity-muck about dinosaurs and 'playing god' but doesn't anyone here remember the fact that both Jurassic Park and The Lost World were structured into 'iterations' playing out specific examples of complexity theory through the character's attempts to control their physical reality.
I propose that the entry be split between the actual novel and Speilberg's later film so as do credit to both.  And not obscure the whole point of Crichton's novel behind an entry that lends WAY too much importance to the b-movie.
Damn it, the crappiness of this entry is really getting annoying.  Let's get it split already.
--William Gillis 23:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaos Theory 

message: could anyone more knowledgable in biology comment on the process of ancient DNA extraction used to "create" dinosaurs in "Jurassic Park"? -- ✈ James C. 01:05, 2004 Aug 17 (UTC)
:Well? Is there anyone who knows? Scorpionman 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't now much, but it doesn't seem that blood would survive in an insect for millions of years. Pengwiin 19:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur creation from DNA extraction 

message: According to the article, the notion of the dinosaurs breeding despite the park's attempts to keep them sterile was "dropped or changed" for the movie. But that sounds just like what happened in the movie! Can someone elaborate on this, or simply erase the example if it doesn't fit? --Feitclub 22:39, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
There was a huge subplot to the novel that spoke to the idea of the animals breeding, but for the most part it was removed from the film. The only instance we see they are is when grant stumbles across the broken eggshells. In the novel, the raptors were breeding, yes, but prolifically. They covered the island in caves and caverns. So it was really downplayed in the film.--70.118.81.116 07:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur Breeding 

message: I saw it again, and I noticed 2 other dinos written on the DNA tubes Dennis Nedry steals: Stegisaurus and Metriacanthosaurus. I never heard of Stegisaurus before. They probably refer to Stegosaurus? Anybody knows why they were cut? Also, there is definately also a herd of Parasaurolophus featured. Phlebas 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Stegosaurus is spelled Stegasaurus, and Tyrannosaurus is spelled Tyranosaurus. You'd think that people making a dinosaur movie would catch the typos. Nedry is hired to steal 15 embryos, there probably wasn't room to feature them all. --OGoncho 06:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Dinos 

message: Hi all, in response to a previous VfD, I created a list of characters in Jurassic Park and replaced the following articles into redirects to this list: 
*Dennis Nedry (and its mispelling Denis nedry)
*Ian Malcolm
*Alexis 'Lex' Murphy
However, Ian Malcolm was restored, but with no additional content beyond that of the list. Rather than revert back to my redirect, I would like to get some feedback to get an idea of consensus on what to do. I would like to change it back into a redirect since this article provides no additional information that couldn't be placed in the list. A redirect in the article should sufficient information to anyone looking up Ian Malcolm. I would appreciate any feedback you can give me on Talk:Ian Malcolm. Thanks, Deathphoenix 14:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content duplication on [[Ian Malcolm]] and [[List of characters in Jurassic Park]] 

message: Hi folks,
Max Terry has reverted the Spielberg template back to the vertical format, which I think gives too much white space on either side of the box. Could we please reach a consnsus at Template talk:Steven Spielberg's films. Cheers, The JPS 21:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: There are too many promotional external links in this article. If there is no dissent, I'll probably remove a number of them when I get around to it.--Moritz 12:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many external links 

message: I removed the following note in the "Dinosaurs featured" section because it screams original research:
: Note: In reference to the last two species on Isla Nublar, while there is no direct film quote to back this information up, Universal provided an substantial evidence to suggest these were on Isla Nublar. Ignoring such evidence would be a severe oversight and compromise the integrity and credibility of any project set out to research the species lists for the movies. Why look to this evidence? Simply, Universal has no interest in returning to Isla Nublar to reveal the great mystery as the primary focus has been Isla Sorna. Universal, however, has left us with information from various sources, within the realm of movie canon, pertaining to such information from The Dinosaurs of Jurassic Park Exhibit in 1995, the Introductory video at Jurassic Park: The Ride in Hollywood, and on down to subtle hints in the movie like the mural in The Lost World: Jurassic Park depicting Pteranodon's presence on Isla Nublar among dinosaurs that were present in the movie.
I've included it here to make it easy for editors to research reliable sources for such deductions. That means mainstream publications, not fan websites and discussion boards, however well-written and thoughtful. It is explicitly not Wikipedia's province to "research the species lists for the movies", because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dinosaur species original research 

message: There is a comment under the Biotechnological Background that says "The mosquito had to have had just one species of dinosaur as its food source to avoid a mix-up." This is not necessarily true because a mosquito generally intakes one serving of blood before the body breaks it down. By the time the blood has been broken down (virtually) completely, it then goes for the next animal for nutrition. This means that the mosquito would have only had one portion of blood from one animal inside itself. Proving that the movie's idea still works.
: That may be true, or it may not be for a Cretaceous-era mosquito. ☺ Either way, this information appears to be sourced (from Cano et al., as listed in "References"). If there is a published source to contradict the statement, we should add it and note the opposing view. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the remark about the mosquitos 

message: I've got a few questions about the raptors in the novel. First off, where did the raptors loose in the park come from? I know the raptors where breeding, but all the adult raptors where kept in their pen. Second, why didnt the raptors loose in the park ever attack the visitors center like the 8 original adults did? And lastly, If the electric fences where outfor a good twelve hours due to everything running on axilery power, why did the raptors in the pen only escape when the auxilery power went out?
 
I believe it says in the article that Nedry left the raptor pen electrified deliberately, because he knew how dangerous they could be if loose. But when they shut down the auxilery power, they cut power to EVERYTHING, raptor pen included BethEnd 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, what? 

message: This article suffers from listmania, as it contains too many little details not enough analysis and key points.  Remember Wikipedia is not a repository of..... stuff!  Keep it encyclopedic guys!  For example:
*You don't need to list every single little difference between the novel and the film.  Just concentrate on the major details, and get rid of all the minor stuff.  For example, stuff like "Dr. Grant wears a beard in the novel and is somewhat shorter and paunchy."  is completely unncessary for an encyclopedia.
*Get rid of the trivia, either move it to other parts of the article or delete it altogether if the stuff doesn't fit nicely.
*I question the encyclopedic value of listing all the tracks and trying to match them to when they occur in the movie.  Is that really necessary?  I'd trim it down, if I were you guys.
Also
*Far too few references.  Get some inline citations in there, especially at points like Legacy and Reception.
*The plot is totally underdeveloped.  It needs to be expanded.
*Expand the lead to reflect the article
*I could say a lot more, but those are the major ones for now.
If you need help as to what feature articles and good articles look like, check out this link here:
Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Film_articles_by_quality/1
Good luck guys.--P-Chan 04:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree with this assessment. I already put a cleanup tag there a while ago although I don't think it's possible to clean up it up. Any objections if this section Jurassic Park (film)#Changes from the novel (except perhaps the infobox) is removed? Garion96 (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't remove it entirely.  There is a need to compare a differences between the two versions, but it should be kept on the main points.  Substance at the expense of details.  Focus on things like central themes, messages, feel, major events... rather than on trivial details like Dr. Grant's waistline. :) --P-Chan 16:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've edited the main page, some things will need to be rewritten. Please revert if unhelpful, thank you--Dragon Helm 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed GA 

message: The Jurrassic Park series isnt horror.  What are you guys thinking of, Carnosaur?--Triple-Quadruple 16:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horror? 

message: Hi, I'm saddened if not sickened by the lack of information as far as the score to the film is concearned. I made many contributions to several other John Williams scores but Jurassic Park has some of the most complete information available.
I would like to add some information, but I'm sure it will be removed because it's not 'that pertinant to the film and clutteres the site'
I've made an article but it is not easily accessable except by the internal links menu. Is there a way to incorporate it into the "Jurassic Park Series" box?
Thanks
--Voyager1 09:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jurassic Park Score 

message: The velociraptors aren't velociraptors in the film, like the article says, nor are they Deinonychus. They are Utahraptors. Robert T. Bakker discovered them before filming because Spielberg was looking for a much larger and meanacing predator and Bakker turned in the Utahraptor. It says this in the prologue of Bakker's novel, "Raptor Red". I'll try to cite the acutal line in a few days time.
:James Kirkland discovered Utahraptor, not Bakker. It was discovered before the movie came out but well after they had started making it (and certainly after the book came out). Bakker likes to claim Utahraptor was the dino in the movie (I remember he says this in the JP Sega CD game), but it's just fanwanking.Dinoguy2 04:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Almost right. In 1988, Gregory S. Paul wrote a book (Predatory Dinosaurs of the World) in which he said Deinonychus (all old finds, not a new find) belonged in the same genus as Velociraptor, and since Velociraptor was named first, that was the "true" name for Deinonychus (similar to the apatosaurus vs. Brontosaurus situation). That book is what Crichton used as a reference, in fact, he has Grant summarize this situation when talking about raptors in the book. Paul turned out to be wrong, but they kept the name Velociraptor when making the movie because Spielberg liked it better, and it lent a better nickname ("raptor"). If he'd switched back to Deinonychus, the characters would have to have reffered to them as "onychs" or something ;)Dinoguy2 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Raptors 

message: Does anyone know what the rifles are in the movie? Like the one Peck [almost] uses to kill the raptor? Blast 16,01,07 0439 (UTC -5)
--> Its an M-16 A2 iirc. (Warriorofrovac 16:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rifles 

message: I added a image towards the plot of the film. The image is of the Dilophosaurus in the film. Adam 1412 10:45 20th January 2007
Not particularily useful though for this article, but good enough for Dilophosaurus. Wiki-newbie 11:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the movie doesn't mention the subject, it shouldn't be in the article. "Filling in the gaps" of where the producers left off, explaining things they left unexplained, etc., is the job of fan fiction, not an encyclopedia. Dinoguy2 03:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dilophosaurus Image 

message: This film helped start the common use of CG, spawned two sequels and remains one of the most successful and popular films ever made. Don't stamp whether it's your own favourite. Wiki-newbie 16:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: another pov statement.
I notice you're doing it for other articles. Stop it: consensus for these articles has been decided upon. Jurassic Park is essential for an encyclopedia. Wiki-newbie 16:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: your opinion = consensus? no.
Nobody objected until you. Now stop trying to enforce yourself onto something accepted. Wiki-newbie 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: From looking at :Category:Top-importance film articles, I think this film is in between. I agree it's important but as important as the other films in that category, no. I wouldn't mind this film being in there, but I also wouldn't object to its removal. Garion96 (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: accepted by whom? it appears you have insufficent understanding of wikipedia policy. See, for example, WP:OWN. when a dispute occurs, discussion should occur to establish consensus. i may have to report you if you continue to revert unthinkingly. and as you can see there are other who accept a reclassification. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.139.211 (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: indeed, and importance=high reflects that. however, wikiproject films true "Top" articles should bear in mind the problem of Wikipedia:Recentism, and it is difficult to evaluate such recent films as "Top" class without a great deal more distance. Which is why I move to reclassify as Importance=High rather than Importance=Top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.139.211 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The importance scale is highly overrated.  Someday I'll get WikiProject Films to remove the scale from film's talk pages. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance discussion 

message: I noticed the entire merchandise section was deleted. While I agree that things should be cited I also think that too often editor think that just because they don't find it on Google there is no citation or source for the information. There are these things called libraries, they have stuff that isn't digital, like books, magazines, newspapers, journals, etc., I think it would be more productive to put information like the merchandise info here on the talk page and try to cite it, instead of wholesale deletion when it can't be looked up on Google. Think McFly.A mcmurray 19:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the diff if you want to dig up some citations for the Merchandise section yourself. :) —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchandise deletion 

message: Hey I really think this article meets GA criteria now, it should definately be nominated. The only thing that needs work however is the cultural reference section. As theres so little about it, perhaps it would be better to merge it elsewhere in the article, maybe production? LordHarris 20:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vote to either delete, or include in a more general Trivia section. Dinoguy2 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Reference 

message: Doesn't it bear mentioning that THE T-REX HAD GODZILLA'S ROAR? Because, y'know, it kinda did. 
66.224.229.18 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GODZILLA ROAR 

message: What do you think? The films differences from the book is not a touchy subject and a lot of these changes could come across as original research. WikiNew 18:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, nice improvement btw over the much earlier list. Talk about toyotas instead of Landrovers or something really trivial like that. Garion96 (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can avoid original research so long as you don't interpret things. Like the swapping of characteristics between Hammond's book counterpart and Gennaro's book counterpart, etc. are things that might need a source for (e.g. the writer or director explaining the change). It would be good to explain all the changes, and if you can't explain them (via reliable source of course) then maybe think of just dropping those particular tidbits. IMO.   BIGNOLE    (Question?)  (What I do)  20:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Changes from Book with Production 

message: With just a quick glance one of the images doesn't have a fair use rationale, and the others are relatively short. I'd recommend something like what I have at :Image:Bluesbrotherend.JPG or :Image:Shanghai Noon Bar Brawl.jpg. Just wanted to let you know before somebody quick-failed the article. --Nehrams2020 18:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA comment 

message: Nicely done, well referenced.  Automated peer review suggestions are:
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
:OK. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Passed GA 

message: The article on Jurassic Park the novel had the following among its trivia section, whch I think pertain more to the film:
*Jurassic Park is also a b-side of the Pull Tiger Tail single, Let's Lightning.
*"Weird Al" Yankovic's album Alapalooza contains a song parody of "Jurassic Park" (named "MacArthur Park" ) which recaps the plot of the film; the claymation music video for the song continued this theme, inserting "Weird Al" into various scenes. The album's cover sleeve parodies the Jurassic Park movie poster.
I didn't want to mess up the prose and didn't find any place to reasonably insert these in the present article. If others think they're important enough, they could be worked into one of the sections. If not, I'd just leave them here. Dinoguy2 03:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for checking here.  However, trivia sections are usually discouraged because of the reason that you mentioned -- they don't have a strong place in the rest of the article.  This usually indicates that the content may not be very encyclopedic for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 04:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Just one thing I'd like to be revised, this sentence about the ride: "The Universal Studios theme park rides themselves act as a kind of sequel to the films. They supposedly contacted Hammond to rebuild his park at their ride location."  It seems awkward to say "a kind of sequel" -- why not say "continuation" or something like that?  And the second sentence could be cleared up.  I assume that it was the official "story" for the ride, that the studio hired the fictional Hammond to build it?  It's not as clear as it could be, I think. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We could just say "The Universal Studios theme park rides have been designed to support the film's plot" and leave the bit about Hammond out altogether. Pasi 17:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like that. It's short and sweet, right to the point.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the article now. Someone may want to further refine that sentence but I think it's definitely more encyclopaedic now. Pasi 23:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence revision 

message: Congratulations on bringing this article up to the FA status! Any further comments shall be welcomed. Sjones23 19:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA 

message: Should something about the soundtrack be included?
There is. And sign your comments. Alientraveller 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something more is needed about the music in the article. I've seen featured articles for much less notable films have sections for music that seems barely relevant. I've always thought that the John William's score for Jurassic Park is very well known among the general public... it often appears on albums of "best loved Hollywood movie scores" and stuff like that, so I think there should be more about it in this article. Just respectfully throwing my opinion out there.... --RainbowWerewolf (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soundtrack 

message: Jurassic Park has inspired films and documentaries such as Godzilla So, nothing to do with the 40-odd year history of Godzilla films at the time Hollywood dropped it's pants and pooped out it's version? Optimus Sledge 03:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Jurassic Park had more on an influence on the 1998 Godzilla than the original films did. Alientraveller 11:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since that sentence links to the 1998 Godzilla film, it's obvious that that is the one we are talking about and not the Jap series. ColdFusion650 12:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the '98 fillm about a giant lizard created by atomic testing wrecking a city was more influenced by a film about a zoo than a series of films about giant lizards created by atomic testing wrecking cities? Yeah, not quite seeing the reasoning there. Optimus Sledge 14:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well just go with the citation. The new Godzilla film egged much of Jurassic Park, from its design of the monster to all those raptor-style babies. Alientraveller 14:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The original Godzilla was not created by atomic testing. It was naturally occurring. And to say that Jurassic Park is nothing more than a movie about a zoo, come on. Besides, watch the T. rex rampage through San Diego and tell me there's no a similarity. ColdFusion650 15:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would require me watching the sequel to an already tedious movie. As this article is about Jurassic Park, not the sequel, that comment has no relevance here. Besides, are you seriously saying the idea of a giant monster rampaging through a city in the sequel wasn't inspired by Godzilla?Optimus Sledge 12:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

text: ... could that have been less relevant? Optimus Sledge 10:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll let you in on a secret: just cos it's printed doesn't mean it's true. In this case, it's pretty obviously bollocks. Optimus Sledge 10:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, where bollocks published by reliable sources is more important than truth. And truth is the 1998 Godzilla was a lot like Jurassic Park, down to the raptor rip-off babies. Alientraveller 10:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the search for fact not truth. If you're interested in truth, take philosophy. ColdFusion650 11:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Godzilla 

message: Just wondering, how is Jurassic Park of top importance? Top importance means you MUST know about it to have any understanding of film. I don't see how that's the case with this one. I'm not knocking it, just saying.--YellowTapedR 09:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It started a revolution in special effects with photo-real dinosaurs. And it's a very famous film: the encyclopedia would be incomplete without it. But the whole importance issue is really vague: it was never specified with importance is given to genres or films. Alientraveller 09:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Importance is completely subjective. So, basically, it's an unofficial vote. ColdFusion650 11:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You might be thinking of Walking with Dinosaurs81.20.187.182 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Do you want me to start writing a section about the differences between the book and the film?  --Wexer9 00:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, why changes were made is discussed in production, and far better than an indiscriminate list. Alientraveller 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, that is a pretty good section.  A list would be unnecessary.  Thanks for responding. --Wexer9 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like you to do so, or at least make a link to this article in an appropriate place.  Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a reliable source though. Again, what's important is why. Alientraveller 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor is trying to justify inclusion of differences between Harry Potter books and films without the why, hence the petition for this article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: The why is that people will likely have an interest in these kinds of differences and they concern fairly popular media.  Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree, the production section does not even cover all the major changes between the movie and the book, let alone slightly minor changes.  An "indiscriminate list" as Alientraveller puts it would more coherantly put forth changes in a format that would be easy for readers to navigate and digest.  In short, it's much more effective in getting the information across.  As to why we would do this, because people want to know this sort of thing.  You might as well ask why wikipedia is here at all. --Malacro  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.198.241.67 (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is policy. Alientraveller 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What source would you draw the differences from? Have they been listed in published media? If it is just a Wikipedia editor viewing both the movie and the book, and listing differecne, that is original research or synthesis and is not allowed. This is not a fan page--if it's not notable to have appeared in some kind of official source, it's not worth repeating here. Create a personal web site for such information. Dinoguy2 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences Between the Book and the Film 

message: On the 'cast' section it states that Dr Ian Malcolm's occupation is Mathematician, when in fact he is a chaostician... chaostician.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.199.8 (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Chaos theory is maths. I've never heard that term before either. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He was joking. It's a gag on what Malcolm said in the movie. ScienceApe (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Malcolm's occupation 

message: Please see here for relevant discussion: Talk:Jurassic_Park#Notability. - JTBX (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: The readers are dying to be let in on the "on-set joke of Spielberg's". What joke? --Milkbreath (talk) 13:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The complete sentence is: "The film was marketed with the tagline "An Adventure 65 Million Years In The Making", which was an on-set joke of Spielberg's regarding the genuine mosquito in amber used for Hammond's walking stick.[46]"So apparently Spielberg saw the amber, and said: "He, it's an adventure 65 Million Years In The Making!" As the thoughts of an artist are sometimes hard to follow, perhaps we should just say that Spielberg came up with the tag line? Or am I missing something? Cheers, Face 14:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, if you think there is a joke in there somewhere, you are missing something. And the sentence says that Speilberg's "joke" concerned the mosquito, not the amber. I do not have access to the work referenced, or I would check for myself. It would be good to get this little anecdote straight because it is interesting. As it stands, though, the sentence verges on nonsense. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Alientraveller just changed it: "this was a joke Spielberg made on set about the genuine amber with a real mosquito preserved within that was used for Hammond's walking stick.[46]"Well, you can reword it, but it's still a weird joke. Not nonsense, just strange. Cheers, Face 17:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now boldly changed it to this: "This was a joke Spielberg made on set about the genuine, millions of years old mosquito in amber used for Hammond's walking stick."I added the "millions of years old" because I think the similarity between the mosquito and the tagline is that both have a connection with something that happened for about 65 million years. Cheers, Face 18:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Distribution" section