Talk:Jurassic Park (film)/Archive 1

It's Unix

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)

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)

BOX OFFICE info?

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)

Chaos Theory

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)

Agreed, this guy is a fool, the movie is a classic. -- unsigned by 204.69.190.75 21:33, December 5, 2005 (UTC)

Whilst it may be interesting to discuss the philosophical implications of the orginal Crichton novel, I dont think it is necessry to launch into this in the first paragraph, when it sounds, frankly, pretentious.

Dinosaur creation from DNA extraction

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)

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)

Dinosaur Breeding

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)

To explain a bit more, in the book they had a system to count the number of dinosaurs using video cameras that covered 80 or 90% of the park. This system told them they had the right number of dinosaurs out there and thus they didn't believe they could be breeding. Not all the dinosaurs breed either - only the ones which have frog DNA in them (although Crichton contradicts it in the sequel where they're all breeding). I short to fully appreciate it and understand it you'll need to read the book.

Biological Issues

Could someone properly include some comments on the problems that make Jurassic Park impossible to happen(at least for now)? Some considerations on bioethics from the novel would be nice too. --Rend 15:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I have deleted two paragraphs from the bottom of the 'biotechnology' section because they are patently pseudo-scientific. 'Reverse engineer an ostrich' (into a velociraptor)? Sorry to the author(s), but this is terrible science! The mitochondrial DNA of neanderthal fossils has been extracted and some molecular sequences determined. If someone knows more about this, please add it to this article, as it is the most appropriate scientific reference there is. A reference to dolly the sheep would also be good, perhaps with some reference to the problems with cloning from differentiated adult cells with epigenetic methylation of the DNA. --ChrisJMoor 04:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the last paragraph gets deleted. This is really speculative. But considering that the probability of extracting intact fossil DNA being nihil, the only realistic way of obtaining morphological dinosaur-look alikes is by manipulating bird DNA (cladistically, birds are dinosaurs). This is something any biologist would acknowledge. I'm not telling it is happening now, but it would be certainly possible in the future. I used the word "reverse engineering". Bad wording. I did not mean backtracking every mutation until we reach the common ancestor of the maniraptorans. With Velociraptor I referred to: any generic small coelurosaur. I'm not talking about t-rexes, carnosaurs, sauropods or bird-hipped dinosaurs. What I am referring to is: changing the ostrich's morphology in such a way it would resemble a GENERIC maniraptoran dinosaur. It could pass close external scrutiny. This animal would be based on our paleontological understanding of maniraptorans. Therefore, it would still be a bird.

• pygostyle>tail vertebrae

• repress pennulaceous feathers (down, protofeathers or scales?; these are choices, not the real thing). Of course, we don't even know how protofeathers looked like in detail, so that's probably not an option. (oops, the ostrich has no pennulaceous feathers)

• ornitschian hip>saurischian hip (but external resemblance is what matters)

• unkeeled sternum> no problem (ostrich has it)

• details on shoulder girdle (scapula and coracoides)

• beak>teeth (I'm sure you're familiar with repression of teeth primordia in Aves (see [1])

• alula>thumb (look at the hoatzin)

• wing>tridactyl hand

• head morphology>elongation; eye sockets smaller; less kinetic skull,... This definitely is the most difficult part. Luckily, all skull bones are still present (compare to reorganisation in mammals).

About the first paragraph you deleted: You call this pseudoscience? Why? How would you build a vertebrate from naked DNA? Consider that this is probably the path they followed in the movie, that the link I provided elaborates on this method, and that the first thing any biologist would think about is this. Also, you remove the Dolly comment, then ask for a Dolly reference?

Anyway, you're always welcome of improving text, the Neanderthal reference would be very good, but realize that the time frame is incomparable. What do you mean with "cloning from differentiated adult cells with epigenetic methylation of the DNA." In the case of dino's, we have no differentiated cells. What is epigenetic methylation? Is it relevant to molecular paleontology? Phlebas 12:30, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the first paragraph (can't think why I deleted it, it is essentially correct - sorry). The second paragraph did trouble me some, but I understand what you meant by it now. More when I have the time...--ChrisJMoor 02:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, as you say, this would require decades (centuries) of research in an intensive breeding and cloning program. Phlebas 22:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We might be surprised how quickly it becomes possible (or gets done):>.Early predictions of how long it would take to sequence the human genome were usually large overestimates, for example. It must, however, be stressed that the method is either impossible at present, or absolutely impossible.--ChrisJMoor 00:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other Dinos

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)

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)

There are other dinosaurs located on the original island as well. The list for them is in the Jurassic Park section itself. This is only for what is present on Isla Nublar. -- Tyrannosaur 18:19 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Content duplication on Ian Malcolm and List of characters in Jurassic Park

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)

Template

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)

The character section is incorrect. Ian Malcom does not die in Jurassic Park as if he did then he wouldn't have made a return as the main character in The Lost World}. RasstheLenek 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you're reffering to. If you mean in the book, then yes he did. If the movie, no he didn't. However, as much as I'd like to, the whole topic about splitting this topic is in a different area. 1:27, 24 March 2006 (CST)

Split the article

This article should be split into two different ones, one for the novel and one for the movie. Coffee 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, the arguments against feasibility should be on another page. I would like to think I'm not the only person who wants to learn about a movie when I look one up. Having arguments about the ridiculousness or questioning the probability of something is nice for some, but the theory behind media shouldn't take away anything from the media's significance; I feel the arguments do just that. If nothing else, they should be moved to the end of the article, as should the notes just because notes don't belong in the body of anything written, because there is no justifiable reason for an article about a fictional universe to have a section about real-life mechanics listed before any subsection of that universe (in this case, the games). User:Dudewhiterussian

I agree —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.23.188 (talk • contribs) .

I support this split for the reasons given. It will however be a lot of work since most of the text assumes both the film and book are covered in the article, which would no longer be the case if the article were split. --Happynoodleboy 14:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I support the split. --Every1blowz 09:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I also support. Tobias087 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I support. And I agree that the arguments against feasibility should be on another page or another article. I'm tired of reading about a science-fiction/horror film and reading why they can't do something in such detail. --MPD01605 19:36, May 2006 (UTC)

I support the split, on account that the film and book are two different things. --Lord Tau 13:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Movie and novel are pretty close, comparing to other remakes. That is why its nice to keep the base of the JP universe in one neat article. Seperating them is waste of space and time, it won't bring anything new. Article is already properly divided, and of course I won't stand against re-aligns to prevent main issues and technobabble clash, but eventually anyone smart enough to use the Contents index will do just fine. hudd 04:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the split. --EIRIK\^talk 17:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the split, based on the fact that the movie's plot differs from the book more than I feel it should have. --Neo16287 16:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the split, I agree with Neo16287.Seperate them based on the film and the novel.

-- koolboi141 12:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the split. The novel series is vastly different from the film series in many ways. --Tyrannosaur 15:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the split. The book and movie vary widely in many areas, and having seperate articles can keep out some confusion. --Mike 05:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have split the article (as part of another ongoing project) and welcome any cleanup others wish to do. I've read the book and seen parts of the film; I hope I have done both articles justice. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Great job! --Tim 10:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Too many external links

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)

Dinosaur species original research

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)

Questioning the remark about the mosquitos

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)

Arguments about canonicity between media

I recently made a significant edit[2] to a section in this article formerly titled "Continuity separation", currently titled "Differences between media". In it, I removed a lot of unsourced arguments about canonicity issues between the films, novels, games, comics, and theme park rides. (The edit summary reads "Retitled section to match content. Removed unsourced attempt to argue canon issues. Reduced confusing verbosity".) Since then, I have been engaged in a lengthy discussion with Tyrannosaur on our talk pages (mostly mine). The correct place to hold this discussion, however, is here on the article's talk page.

In short, I felt I removed a good bit of material that appears to be original research, not backed up by reliable sources, and left only information that appears to be verifiable by anyone observing actual occurrences within the various media (as opposed to deducing their meaning and implications). To be precise, I did not personally verify these statements of apparent fact, leaving this to interested readers and editors. I will let Tyrannosaur state their case on their own, but the gist of the argument has been that Tyrannosaur feels the deleted information was carefully researched and provided on a respectable website, without mentioning what website or providing any links or other published source information. I have encouraged Tyrannosaur to provide such sources to make it possible for Wikipedians to evaluate the situation themselves, as is standard practice. I repeat the request here ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed you have done a great many edits to this entry on the grounds of the NOR policy. I do believe a lot of information that you have cut from the article could be beneficial should it be re-inserted into the article. Just because the information was not published in the New York Times or Entertainment Weekly does not mean that the information is not accurate. Most publications would not cover this information, thus leaving a massive gap in knowledge people could obtain on these subjects. I've found several websites that are highly respected with thier content on the subject of Jurassic Park. The main website I found was Jurassic Park Legacy. From what I could find, all information on that website is gone over by a number of website staff members before being posted and is open for discussion. It is factual information free from bias, even though it is written by fans. From what information I've gathered, it could easily be transposed into an encyclopedia should the creators obtain permission from the owners of the properties. Why would information such as this not be considered a good reference? Especially considering the fact that a number of people review it on a daily basis. People use websites as reliable sources for essays and assignments every day. They get grades and pay raises from using websites as references. When a website is pointed out as being a reliable source of information by a number of persons, then why should it not be considered a reliable source of information to Wikipedia? I am offering this website as a way to help verify information. As a reference, what have you to any information that may not have been given references already as much of the information on the subject seems to be covered on that website. If anyone else cares to check and say that www.jplegacy.org 's information is highly regarded, I can see no harm in that and would encourage anyone who wishes to do so. If that's not acceptable to whoever is continuously cutting information from this article, then I encourage people to go to an "unreliable" fan web site that can offer them all the information they seek on the subject in a comprehensive and unbiased manner.

I moved this guest's post here from the Questioning the remark about the mosquitos because it fits with this subject. The site of which this guest speaks is my website where I present the Jurassic Park Enyclopedia in my attempt at deducing canonicity and accuracy of the Jurassic Park franchise altogether.

Allow me to point out the numerous inconsistancies between the media in the Jurassic Park series and why, it was decided by myself and my website staff, to seperate the movies into their own canon.

Michael Crichton's Original Novels: These are not considered movie canon because there are too many altered events, not the same dinosaurs as seen in the films, different characters, different island structures, and the dates are not the same. For example in the movie Hammond lives while Muldoon dies, but in the novel Hammond dies and Muldoon lives. These are just a few examples out of many from dinosaur species found on the islands on down to different character discriptions and personalities seen in the films. Even Isla Sorna's geographical features were transfered from the original novel to the film's version of Isla Sorna. Another example of this is Hammond's demeanor in the novel as opposed to how he was in the films. So therefore the novels are their own canon and shows us that the films are in fact loosely based off of the novels.

Jurassic Park Adventures (Novelette Series): This series is based off the films, so therefore they are obviously not novel canon. We have yet to read to see if they're loyal to the movies and if JP4, if there is one, will aknowledge it. For now they aren't considered movie canon because there is no Jurassic Park 4 to confirm or deny this series. Even though they are looked at as expanding the film series they will be given their own canon like the other Junior Novelizations before them, which are more like a complete adaption of a final script than the actual film.

Topps Jurassic Park Comics: The JP Comics series coincided with Jurassic Park the movie so therefore consideration for the novels won't be given. These aren't considered movie canon mostly for the simple fact there is no acknoweldgement of any of the expeditions from the comics within the films themselves either by comments made by characters that re-appeared in the film series. one such event for example, Muldoon is brought back to life in the comic series Jurassic Park Raptor, Raptors Attack, and Raptors Hijack, but in a cutscene with Peter Ludlow in The Lost World Ludlow clearly states that Muldoon is on the deceased list. This series has been granted it's own canon as the species on Isla Nublar also seem to fluctuate and massive artistic liscense is taken.

Universal Studios Jurassic Park Rides: This universe is tricky because we can count part of it as movie canon and yet we can't count the rest when it comes down to the rider experience. The rides do indeed serve as a spin-off of the movie series and anything in reference to the films, for example, Isla Nublar had such and such and other information pertaining to the movies may be withdrawn here somewhat safely. The rides are however not recomended to be the primary source of debates or arguements when pertaining to Isla Nublar's functions or even species. Speilberg was involved with the rides, but when it comes down to the rider experience, animals created specifically for the Orlando or Hollywood attractions, or the overall story for the rides creation it cannot be counted as canon events for the films. As no movie has aknowledged a park in Orlando or Hollywood. If there was something here that would contradict anything in the movies then the rides would be off the list entirely of safe sources for the films. Also, worthy of a note is that both rides contradict each other when it comes to rider experience itself as key moments within the ride itself are different at the Orlando or Hollywood theme parks.

Kenner/Hasbro Jurassic Park Toys: Great for play, but not great for movie, novel, comic, or noveltte (JP: Adventures) canon. According to the toy series Nublar has 23 species inhabitting the island while in the movie there are only 15. Truthfully, the only way to make these more movie canon is to switch out the over-sized "Tranq bazooka" guns, made-up characters, have the character likenesses/clothing match the actors, eliminate made-up vehicles, and also eliminate the extra dinosaurs that were not in the film. A fair amount of "fluff" was added to these toys for the value of play.

Trespasser & Other Jurassic Park Video Games: Trespasser is more of a movie/novel hybrid. For instance it says JP took place in 1989 instead of 1993. In TLW, which is confirmed as being in 1997 according to Trespasser, that the incident at Nublar was 4 years ago. If JP took place in 1989, according to Trespasser, then logic dictates that 4 years later would be having TLW take place in 1993. Clearly we know TLW did not take place in 1993 because Jurassic Park did. There are some other inconsistancies with the maps of Isla Sorna as well, the Isla Sorna map pictured in TLW differs the one pictured in Trespasser. Even though there was a tid-bit of involvement from Spielberg it cannot be considered canon for either source because it mentions the San Diego incident and that did not take place in the novel universe.

The reason why none of the video games are considered movie or novel canon is that too many Dinosaurs and events are altered slightly for each console version of each adaption of the game. For example, Sorna was destroyed in TLW Game for Sega Genesis, which means the events of Trespasser wouldn't have happened at all! Jurassic Park Operation Genesis is set in 1999/2000 as the starting year and has Peter Ludlow, Robert Muldoon, and Ray Arnold alive and well in it which contradicts what is shown in the films. The games extremely contradict each other as well as the movies and novels and as such are considered media off shoots of the films and novels.

Summary: Every "universe" deserves to be looked at seperately because of the fact that the other material have different events, time lines, characters, dinosaurs, and island structure contained in their material.

It was found that every universe contradicts one another in some way. When speaking in terms of movie canon you should always count the movies themselves as the primary source followed by the "making of" books, official magazines, and other various informational material. For the Novel canon only stay close to the books preferably the original versions. The comics and novelette series have been granted their own canon, but the video games and toys are too disorganized to warrant their own canon.

You can reference this information, and more, from Jurassic Park Legacy's: JP: Enyclopedia Introduction Page here. --Tyrannosaur 02:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'd have to agree with Tyranno. Many times I've come into debates with people about events purely based in one genre--film, book, game, etc.--in which they are convinced the events in one reflect completely on the views of another which is sorely mistaken.

Tyrannos explainations could be key to helping people to understand these things rather than being vague and stating one or two pieces of the argument.

Is there no way to use those explainations within the introdcution. It would be most beneficial to helping people to understand things. It can be backed up by the films and by the books with numerous examples, and not to mention the fact that it says here on wikipedia that someone cannot simply copy paste information, they have to put it in their own words. That's what he did.

Also, JP Legacy is an amazing resource for Jurassic Park information, research, canon debates, and such. It is extreamly well put together and has almost everything you could ever want to know about JP. --Voyager1 22:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate Tyrannosaur finally providing a website name and link to establish source reliability. Unfortunately, this site has no Alexa rating and yields only 184 distinct Google hits, making it roughly twice as well-represented as unnotable me and seriously undermining claims that this site is "highly regarded". Furthermore, s/he reminds us that this information is fan-written, and continues (from our talk page discussions) to ask why this information shouldn't be included, when I've already both explained why and even provided links to the relevant Wikipedia policies. I cannot help someone who refuses to attempt to understand the purpose and practices of Wikipedia. I admit that this information is probably quite interesting, and may even be true, but that's not the point, as is clearly stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability, which explains the idea behind Wikipedia:No original research. If this information is as valuable as Tyrannosaur and Voyager1 claim, the website that has painstakingly compiled it will no doubt grow in popularity and fame until it has a respectable Alexa ranking and Google presence, and may even be written about in the mainstream press, which would help a case to have it treated as a reliable source. Until then, it's still original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 04:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't stating information that takes place in a film, book, or comic verifiable. Anyone can verify it by looking at said media? -- AnGeL X 17:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not the statement of things that are observable in the specific media that is at issue here. It's the drawing of conclusions about canonicity that is unsourced original research. Fan websites are not recognized as authoritative sources, no matter how meticulous their work is, except when they achieve a verifiable (not merely attested) notoriety within the story's real-world establishment (like The Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5 for Babylon 5). (This assumption of canon-determining authority is a serious issue for all fictional-universe articles, including those of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which AnGeL X and I are both involved in.) Even this level of notoriety can be dismissed by other Wikipedians who consider the wealth of fict-verse material being added to WP as a heretical abuse of the grand encyclopedic vision, and have the WP policy pages to back up their concerns. That's why it's important to build up WP-style reliable sources for this kind of material. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ironically I think Jeff Q here is taking the literal meaning of Wikipedia:No original research way off target of it's apparent intended purpose. Realistically, anything can be classified as "Original Research" restating a synopsis from the back of a film box, summarizing ideas, etc. Now the ironic thing, apparently Jeff Q here must have only skimmed across the article to just tell me I was wrong, but this article clearly states that and I will quote:

"The phrase "original research" originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history" [1]"

Some who completely understand why Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new, may fail to see how the same thing applies to history. [2]

Clearly, we are not discussing the subject of Physics or another academic field here, but the intended purpose of the NOR policy apparently was to prevent some random person, who may have watched a Science-Fiction show a bit too much, coming in pretending they know about the subject and quoting something off the wall and then saying it's valid because such-and-such character used technobabble to explain it on whatever television show. Even that itself would only apply to a fandom based media's definition of something. I would really like to remind my fellow editors, that are hopefully fans of the Jurassic Park series here, that yes we are not discussing astrophysics or such and we are discussing something that is considered common place among Jurassic Park fans today when it comes to movie and novel separation in their respective canons. Oh and there's more too:

What is excluded?

An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is:

it introduces a theory or method of solution; or

it introduces original ideas; or

it defines new terms; or

it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or

it introduces an argument (without citing a reputable source for that argument) which purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; or

it introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source; or

it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source.

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.

The role of expert editors

"No original research" does not mean that experts on a specific topic cannot contribute to Wikipedia. On the contrary, Wikipedia welcomes experts. We assume, however, that someone is an expert not only because of their personal and direct knowledge of a topic, but because of their knowledge of published sources on a topic. This policy prohibits expert editors from drawing on their personal and direct knowledge if such knowledge is unverifiable. If an expert editor has published the results of his or her research elsewhere, in a reputable publication, the editor can cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. They must cite publications, and may not use their unpublished knowledge as a source of information (which would be impossible to verify).

Otherwise, we hope expert editors will draw on their knowledge of other published sources to enrich our articles. However, such experts do not occupy a privileged position within Wikipedia.

Now, I believe I am right when I say that Jurassic Park Legacy, the staff and myself and even some other fans of the series, would be very highly-identified as experts when it comes to all things considered in the Jurassic Park series. We're not publishing anything that could be considered "original research", since we're only sharing what's already known from the canon sources of the novels, film, games, rides, etc. I would like to argue that anyone with a bit of time and that is a fan of the series can read through these verifiable sources and realize the differences and know they all belong in their separate canon. Such sources are, for example, but not limited to: Michael Crichton's novels and the movies brought to us by Universal Studios and Amblin Entertainment, along with some very well established, published, and very accessible paleontological evidence when it comes to dinosaurs shown in the films, which is very verifiable by anyone at anytime if they really want to look for themselves, and they don't even have to look very far at all.

Oh, one more thing before I forget, I want to point out the fact Alexa's software is also prone to give the user spyware and that's why we have selected not to submit Jurassic Park Legacy to it. I should know this because of this article here from the SpyWare Guide website as well as other detectionary engines for it such as Lavasoft Ad-Aware SE and SpyBot S&D, as well as numerous people at my college campus claiming it is from where I am currently earning my degree as a computer programmer at. Search engine ratings don't mean a site is verifiable as being accurate or not, you must read the content and verify said content by yourself if there is a doubt. As they measure popularity, if anything else, and a very good use of Meta Keywords; however, that's obviously dependent on the type of rating system though.

In closing, where do you go to get information about a particular media franchise or cult-following? You go to the source and it's own respective fandom to find out the information. In this case the Jurassic Park fans as we are speaking about the Jurassic Park series. We are not a Physics, we are not a Biology, and we most certainly are not a Political Science. The NOR policy, from what I can gather, seems to apply more to these academic fields than a fandom based media system. Jurassic Park Legacy does indeed cite it's sources on why there is a difference in the films between canons and does provide examples. If you cannot accept the fact others, possibly more qualified as experts about Jurassic Park exist then we would like to insist by all means chop up the other articles for various fan series like Star Wars, Stargate, and other various science-fiction cult followings like Jurassic Park as everything they present is in some form or another infringing on the apparent NOR Policy by stating common place technical analysis from their fans one way or another. This is the only way to justify the removal of anything pertaining to separation of canon and the removal of information from the Jurassic Park article dictated in part from JPLegacy's accurate research. After all information referenced is in fact information sourced. --Tyrannosaur 05:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur, this is getting very tiresome. I appreciate your finally reading the policy, but you appear only to have done so to create sophistic arguments that appear to deliberately miss the point. You keep asserting your own and others' expertise without providing any evidence of such. Alexa ratings are certainly far from perfect, but you provide no other objective source. You not only ignore Wikipedia's patently reasonable concerns about objectivity and reliability of fan-written data, you trumpet such data and require editors to evaluate its accuracy, directly in contradiction to the policy you cite above. You use a historical explanation of the source of the WP:NOR policy as if it describes the only two cases in which WP:NOR applies, which is totally disingenuous. And you ignore my earlier point that all articles are subject to this rule (including "Star Wars, Stargate, and other various science-fiction cult followings". (I cited one of my favorites, Buffy.) If you devoted one-tenth the effort to establishing proper Wikipedia:reliable sources that you do to your lengthy discourses, you could really help your case (which one hopes is to provide verifiably accurate information rather than promote personal theories). Instead, all you are doing is making arguments that are transparent attempts to promote a website with no WP-recognized credentials (yet). This is most unproductive. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what?

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)

In the movie, in order to restart the main power at the breakers they had to shut down all the power, this included the raptor fences, which as BethEnd said, Nedry kept on. In the book however, after the system restart the auxillary power came on instead of the main power and eventually auxillary power was lost and all the fences turned off. Also, the raptors loose in the park were babies or young infants, they were probably to busy trying to survive than destroy the humans. I believe it said in the novel that the raptors somehow got the eggs outside of the paddocks..through the gaps of the fence..as in the novel they were in a paddock, not an small enclosure.

Failed GA

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)

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)

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)

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)

Advertising vandalism

It seems users 67.83.174.135 (talk · contribs) and 65.8.76.213 (talk · contribs) are vandalizing all Jurassic Park related pages by adding advertisement to thier websites. Said websites do not add to the article and in fact, jpdatabase.net, one of the websites which is constantly being added, has absolutely no content whatsoever -- none of the links work. Even worse, the aforementioned website's forums are not even viewable until one becomes a registered member...there's a dead give away for you. This spamming obviously does nothing to further a readers experience as the external links section is cluttered with websites that are completely useless.

Secondly, W2JP, the other link which is repeatedly being adding, is merely another Jurassic Park forum, like many, many others out there. It is not notable in any way other than claiming to be "nearly five years old" which in itself is not impressive in the least as most JP communities are at least as old or older.

These users never explain their reasons for editing the page, or why their links should be included. At this point it seems to me this is nothing more than advertisement, which violates several Wikipedia policies; vandalism, we're not a mirror or a repository of links, and our advertisement policy.

This spamming has previously been removed although these users have kept re-adding it, which further violates our three-revert rule. I tried to temporarily semi-protect the page although even that was removed. Something needs to be done until this is leared up.--Life is like a box of chocolates 12:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want a page to be protected, you have to report it here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Only admins can (semi) protect a page. In this regard I think it's easier to just remove the links then to protect the page. Garion96 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Hello, I don't see how my site, www.jpdatabase.net, being added back is advertising vandalism. It was previously on Wiki for about 6 months prior to being removed. JPlegacy.org webmaster alerted me about my site being removed from the Jurassic Park page, so I added it back along with the forum. Sure nothing worked for a little while, no one really complained because there was an active forum to browse. I really can't help the fact nothing worked because I was away at college for about 9 months.

I'm out for the summer now, working 2 jobs to pay for the New Jersey tuition hike; thanks to John Corzine. Not many people know this, I choose not to tell them either. As for the site, I've released the new design I've been working slowly on. Some of the content it up, but not all. It's being brought back as quickly as I can, with little time I have to be on the computer. I'm not too sure if many people know www.jpdatabase.net is one of the oldest, but not the oldest, remaining Jurassic Park sites out there. Even the JPL webmaster worked on there for some time.

A note on the forum: it was hacked twice about 3 weeks ago. The kid was able to log in using an admin username, where he purged 600 members from the once existing 1600 member database, and planted a java applet containing an executable virus. To step up security a bit I had the guests log in first before they could view or post on the forum. I would say that is only fair to protect the architecture of the forum and it's members. I was able to report this to the cyber-crimes division thanks to a friend of mine. There we found out the attacked originated from a high school. The ability to view the forum as a guest has been restored as of this morning.

Thank you~Jon

---

Hi, I’m the owner of Welcome to Jurassic Park, and I would like to just say this: my purpose for posting the link to my message board on the Jurassic Park Wikipedia pages is because it provides a wonderful service for people that are interested in Jurassic Park or dinosaurs in general. Through my forum, people can explore their interest and fascination of dinosaurs and learn from each other about them and the theories surrounding these magnificent animals. Along with the purpose of exploring the greatness and meaningfulness of the Jurassic Park franchise through group discussion, my forum has helped to bring people together that may have never met, both online and offline. We also work with other well known Jurassic Park websites on the Internet to keep fans of the series up to date regarding Jurassic Park IV. If anything, Welcome to Jurassic Park has served the fan base positively, promoting respectful discussions and bringing people together.

I also take great offense in your unjustifiable remarks that my community is “not notable” and that it isn’t impressive that we have been around for five years. Your remarks are a great insult to me, a person who has put countless hours into my community and conversed with so many great people. We may not have made a great impact on the Jurassic Park Internet community, but my community has worked to help keep the spirit and love for Jurassic Park alive and well in the years that the fan base has lost a significant portion of its followers. We have helped to renew, and expand, peoples interest in Jurassic Park, and some of our members have become much more involved in online Jurassic Park activities. Our forum has respected and embraced the messages and morals of Jurassic Park and survived for almost five years without a website, and I am proud of it! I am proud of the fact that a then-sixteen year old teenager could create a brand new community on EzBoard, start out with zero members and no real form of advertisement or attractions could go on to manage a successful forum that is continuing to provide consistent satisfaction and new community services for both longtime veterans and newcomers alike. I am proud of the contributions that I have made to the effort to keep the fan base for Jurassic Park alive, and I even prouder that I have been able to make a difference in the lives of my members! I am proud, regardless of what you have to say about my community - and that is all that matters to me.

You now have one less “not notable” and “not impressive” link cluttering up your precious space, because I consciously choose to never place a link to my forum on Wikipedia again. My forum has proven that I certainly don’t need it for traffic purposes (in which you seem to think I am only interested in). Congratulations though on curtailing the potential spread of the fan base. -EyeofGenesis

---

Hi there I'm not representing any site in particular, although I am a staff member of JP Legacy, a long-time regular of JP database, and a member of Welcome to Jurassic Park as well as several other Jurassic Park sites. I feel the need to vouch for the both Jon and EyeofGenesis, as I think that it is quite absurd that you belittle their sites/forums as insignificant or unimpressive. All the sites I have mentioned are pillars of the Jurassic Park fan community and have been for many years. If anything was vandalism, it was the removal of the sites from the Wiki in the first place. --Beeurd 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm only going to say it once and I'm not going to say it again. Jurassic Park Legacy has provided some of it's content, particularly the dinosaur bestiaries (some that aren't even available on the site yet!), as well as making sure said pages are filled with the proper information. As I said before, fan sites are important to these articles as we are the experts to the Wikipedia page over the JP information. If someone removes the site as an external link again I will be removing all of the content I provided to Wikipedia. Quit doing a disservice to the fans immediately please! Edit: Also if you do not believe me that work is being done on a Novel Database entry it's because we are researching this information by ourselves and you can find our work, since this issue came about now available here. This information is only a prototype of what will be on the site in our Jurassic Park Encyclopedia, that is well respected in the community, and I only did it to prove that fact a novel database is being developed! Like it or not the sites that have provided content for these pages such as JPDb has had it's links unfairly removed as Jon has provided a number amount of content to this site. Personally I cannot believe the lack of concern from Wikipedia itself over this apparently, one-sided, issue. If it's possible to aggrivate an entire community, congratulations, you have done your job well.--Tyrannosaur 09:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I just want you all to know that this whole issue only became an issue because of one person: Cyclops Raptor aka Joe Zierer. He is a part of a group of people that continue to do a dis-service to the Jurassic Park community. After being banned from JPL, he promptly came onto here and removed many JP sites deeming them unworthy and beginning this belittling of sites. While some complaints have merit, the idea that the advertising of 4 sites is vandalism is absurd. Vandalism is when every fan made JP site forum wants a link. The sites now removed have done nothing but continue to build up the fan base and continue to give it a place to go while many a site has been abandoned or killed out by people like CR.

I just want you all to know that you are being played as pawns in his game. He is taking you into his hands and dancing you marionetts into the furnace. You are doing a dis-service to the community through said actions. If you don't believe me, look who started this all in the film area. He removed the same sites from the film area saying it was vandalism, which sparked the interest in every area.

And then tell me why we are even arguing the semantics of four links. Four of how many links total? There's following the rules to a T and having no conscience, and there is doing a greater good by not type casting and generalizing and wiping the slate every week or so.

I cannot speak for most of the sites removed, but I can speak for JPLegacy. We have a novel research section. Due to personal reasons of the person who was researching it, it has been slow comming but because you have removed us, we have put it up--incomplete--but available for usage.

Again, I emplore you: please see the larger picture in this. You are being danced down a path carefully laid before you by a person who cares not for this site, or any site... but rather his own personal enjoyment.

Check for yourself: JoeZierer [3] --User: GoodMusician 10:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for links. Since this is obviously something you people do not understand let me quote an official policy for you...

“ Links normally to be avoided...A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. ”

Frankly, it makes no difference to us whether or not JPDatabase has historically been a "pillar" of the JP community. As of right now it provides no useful content whatsoever to any reader other than what they can find in this article. This same goes for W2JP (Wikipedia policy states "forums should generally not be linked to" unless the article is about the forum itself), and most other fansites. When this is looked at from a completely unbiased point of view one begins to question the relevance of these links and the intentions of the webmasters who are advertising it. Let's get something clear here, Wikipedia is not a "gateway" to the JP community (this violates Wikipedia's social networking policy).

Here's another guideline:

“ on articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. ”

That says including one link, maybe two, but not every message board and site out there, which is exactly how things are looking right now ("JPLegacy", "JPDatabase", "JPDatabase forums", "W2JP", "JPAftermath", and on The Lost world page "Jurassic Kingdom", "Jurassic Chaos", and, probably the most absurd of all, "JPToys" on the Jurassic Park Visitors Center article, etc.) Clearly, the Visitors Center has nothing to do with Jurassic Park toys, and clearly JPLegacy.org is enough links.

If you think for a moment that just by adding content to Wikipedia that you somehow earn a right to link your sites then you need to think again. All of you are violating Wikipedia's reliable sources policy, no original research policy and verifiability policy. This means that you cannot research something on your own and then add it to Wikipedia if your sources are not already reliable and published, and I take it many of your contributions are not since your main references are in fact your own websites. This in turn violates Wikipedia's point of view policy and the list just goes on and on. So many policies are being violated here it makes my head spin.

Thirdly, you cannot remove what you've already contributed. Like I stated before if it's on Wikipedia then it is no longer yours but Wiki's. One of the agreements a user makes is that his/her contributions are no-strings attached. That means you cannot blackmail us and say you're going to remove your contributions if we do not advertise your website. You contribute to Wikipedia on your own time, and when you contribute something you no longer own it. The same way you do not own your user page, it is a part of Wiki and can be edited by anyone. If you do not like it, then don't come here. It's as simple as that.

On JoeZierer (talk · contribs); his troubles with your communities do not concern me. All of his edits have been very objective from what I’ve seen, and it did bring attention to a greater underlying problem, particularly this edit. --Life is like a box of chocolates 12:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to comment that I agree that some of the sites don't have material that would be needed to remain here in the novel section, but the problem I have is that you didn't contact anyone about it.

If you want to make some blanket rule that if someone doesn't have something, they're out... that's wiki's decision and not mine. But I personally would have liked to have been contacted and asked about why we put our name there. JPLegacy is on there because we have articles...we have information and we have verifiable information. You need but read the book or watch the film to know that the content is true...and it is based solely in those microcosms of the Jurassic Park story. We adhere strictly to that in the seperation of information by "canon."

The information we have on the site is collected by people--yes--but collected directly from the source: ie the film or the novel. It states only what they state and perhaps some background information on what the director/art team/etc. has stated if it is relivent.

I personally take offence that there wasn't greater effort taken by someones part to look into this or to contact the parties involved. This is the continued problem/grevience I have with Wikipedia. They claim to be a site run by the fans that 'anyone can edit,' but in all the incidents I've been involved in, they have never once attempted to contact anyone. You may claim that there are simply too many edits...too many problems to contact everyone... well... don't make excuses for poor etiquette. It's not hard to contact 4-5 websites.

JPL has a novel section. It's being put together and has been slowly put together over two years. We want to be thurough. The information is now available on the forum. The main site is in the midst of also being updated and the novel information will be presented along with/but seperate from the film information in the encyclopedia.

You may claim this is "fan research" but its directly from the source...direct quotes... direct evidence... direct proof. There is a page on possible theroies but is seperated from the actual facts.

I agree that certain sites must be taken off of the links because they don't fit the criteria for being in the Film or Novel sections... but JPLegacy.org shold not be lumped in there.

I ask you to please reconsider allowing the sites to resubmit if they are valid.

--User: GoodMusician 12:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I don't think any objective and fair Wikipedia editor will have a problem with allowing one good, major fansite on the external links section. We could even stretch that limit a bit and say two is fine.

I'm sure there are many valid Jurassic Park fansites out there, however, not all merit inclusion...there needs to be a limit where we can say "hey, enough fansites already".

We need to reach a consensus here, but we need to follow policy as well. Here are the rules we need to be aware of before voting...

1. Forums should not be linked to unless the article is about the forum itself (unfortunately, that immediately disqualifies W2JP and JPDatabase forums).
2. Websites which have no immediate content should not be linked to (no content = no use to our readers...we don't care about the website's history).
3. One major fansite is enough (we can probably get away with two, but no more).
4. The fansites listed need to be directly related to the article (no more JPToys on the Visitors Center article).
5. Sites that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the online community cannot be linked (in this case, websites that require registration to view content).
6. A website that you own or maintain cannot be linked to, unless a neutral user decides it should be linked. This is to avoid bias.

Of the websites I listed ("JPLegacy", "JPDatabase", "JPDatabase forums", "W2JP", "JPAftermath", "Jurassic Kingdom", "Jurassic Chaos", "JPToys", etc.) we need to narrow down the list and choose two sites to link in each article. For example, just through casual browsing of the sites I'd say JPToys and JPLegacy disserve inclusion on any Wikipedia article concerning Jurassic Park toys. JPLegacy could also probably fit into most other Jurassic Park related articles since they have much information. Using archive.org I can see that yes, JPDatabase used to be an excellent site, however, they have no content and have had no content for over a year. When that changes they can link to their site.--Life is like a box of chocolates 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

I feel that is all quite reasonable. Thank you for putting this out there. I personally agree with it all... The hope of this site is to compile information and have links to information. Fan sites are nice but unless there comes a time when Wiki puts a section called "fan sites" then I think that links to sites with navigable information should be included...

--User: GoodMusician 13:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Horror?

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

Carnosaur is the demented version of Jurassic Park.--Triple-Quadruple 16:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Jurassic Park Score

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)

Someone give me one good reason why the link to the score of Jurassic Park and small mention of John Williams contributionw as removed? What... you can't good. Because I'm putting it back. --70.119.50.167 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction?

--> I dont see why its been listed as contradicting itself?

The Raptors

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)

You also have to realize that the size and name was used by Crichton in the novel. His reasons were because during the time he was studying for the novel, he came across a new find saying Velociraptors grew much larger than they use to say (on the scale of a Dynonychus). He used this in the novel, to say "Look, there are things we don't know about dinosaurs. We may think it is one way, but this is really how it is." After the book was published, the find was latter renamed a Dynonycus. Speilberg changed the heigh slightly because he felt it was far scarier to have a predator on the size of man, as opposed to the size of a T-rex.

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)

The rifles

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))

I thought it wasan Italian Franchi SPAS-12 shotgun? LordHarris 16:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

--> They both utilize the M-16 and SPAS-12 in the film. --Tyrannosaur 19:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus Image

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)

---

Hello. My name is Oshronosaurus, known as such on Jurassic Park or other dinosaur sites and as just Oshron on every other site, such as YouTube. Anyway, while not relating to the dilo's(Dilophosaurus, commonly nicknamed "Spitter") appearance, there has been a huge debate of how the Jurassic Park dilophosaurs attack and hunt, since we never see how that one in the film(a juvenille, I'll add) spits its poison at Dennis Nedry, and also why the dilophosaur's spit is poisonous to begin with. It is mainly presumed(on JPL, at least) that the dilos can spit poison and have their frills as a result of gene splicing, but we don't know how their saliva(or, to be a bit more accurate, mucus) is posionous in the first place. We have determined, through debate and speculation alike, as well as comparing the dilophosaurs in JP with those in real life and other poison spitting animals, such as the spitting cobra, we have determined that the dilophosaurs spit their poison unlike we(humans) would by puckering our lips and forced air out, and not like the spitting cobra either, but, rather, by throwing its head back and "throwing" the poison at prey, like how someone would throw a rock from a sling(but without the spinning, of course), and that the dilos use their needle-like teeth(these can be seen in the film and in fossils) to literally saw through flesh ad take away big chunks of flesh at a time(many thanks to JPL User Dilly Dilophosaur for his input on the articale and vast knowledge of Dilophosaurus, wetherelli and venenifer alike).

This is all the input I have for the time being. You can view the entire debate in the Jurassic Park Legacy forum titled "The Films" in the topic "How Does the Dilophosaurus Spit Poison?"

"Life will find a way." - John Hammond, The Lost World: Jurassic Park

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)

Importance discussion

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)

all things which apply to star wars episode 1, terminator 2 and numerous other films. none of which claim to be "top" importance. dont't stamp whether it's *your*own favourite. anyway importance-high is a reasonable compromise.

The Phantom Menace let a lot of people down. I certainly love this film but I know why it's top importance, certainly over the sequels. Wiki-newbie 16:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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).

Agreed then, you should not touch it as well. Besides, Jurassic Park is an essential article to any project that wants to write about Film. Wiki-newbie 16:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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).

Btw, get this discussion over with first before we point 3rr fingers at each other. Making Jurassic Park top importance is not a case of recentism. Otherwise every film that made over $700 million would be top. JP nonetheless has an important place in film history. Wiki-newbie 17:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree and seconded, I think it should be top importance, mainly because of groundbreaking CGI. It is often amongst top 100 films, top 100 dvds to own (empire) etc and should be top. LordHarris 17:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I misreading the definition of importance in this context? The linked paragraph on the importance scale doesn't seem to deal with how groundbreaking something is, but how important it is to the understanding of a subject. A top importance article would be Film, Science Fiction film, or Special Effects, not Jurassic Park in particular. If anything, individual films should probably be ranked medium importance at best. But, again, I may have misunderstood the point of the importance ranking. Dinoguy2 18:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

thats correct dinoguy. as it stands right now Jurassic Park is as important to the understanding of the subject as Film itself.

I don't think there is a preference for genres over individual films. Wiki-newbie 19:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Film is not a genre. Neither is Special effects. Your point is unclear. If you intend to imply an individual film article is equally as important as an article describing an entire field of artistic endeavor, please supply your source for such a claim.

Dinoguy says something about Film or Special Effects would be top importance over an individual film. I beg to differ. Wiki-newbie 20:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you've made that point but neglected to explain why. Typically in a discussion an assertion is backed up by reasoning. So far this has not been forthcoming. Certainly little evidence has been provided to support your revert-warring.

Jurassic Park became the most successful film of all time, remains a pinnacle in Steven Spielberg's career, spawned two sequels and is a popular film classic. That's why I rank it Top importance: it remains the definitive dinosaur film. Wiki-newbie 20:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Titanic remains the most successful film of all time (and how do you define "success" anyway?), "pinnacle" is a WP:PEACOCK term denoting WP:POV, 2 sequels is hardly ground-breaking, and "popular film classic" is pure POV. "Definitive dinosaur film" is likely to be contested by fans, as passionate as you, of One_Million_Years_B.C. and others, who nevertheless do not attempt to abuse the importance classification system to promote their own personal favourites to "Top" status. Perhaps you'd like to discuss as WP:FILM whether your article (which, may i remind you, you do not WP:OWN), should be ranked equally to the subject of Film itself.

I've remained neutral thus far on the importance scale: now because of anons like you causing fights due to their own POV, I'm off to get rid of it. Wiki-newbie 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

This whole argument makes me laugh. Very much. C'mon, seriously. Can we all agree that Jurassic Park is important 'period,' and like, leave it at that? "Jurassic Park is important." Perhaps more than other things, perhaps less. But, uh, I say we just leave it at that. >.>

Merchandise deletion

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)

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)

Cultural Reference

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)

Yeah, I do wonder what else we can do? So I'll be brutal and ask people to vote to keep or delete the information. WikiNew 20:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote to either delete, or include in a more general Trivia section. Dinoguy2 03:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

GODZILLA ROAR

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)

Wikipedia is not a forum, and secondly I have cited it is a baby elephant. WikiNew 21:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge Changes from Book with Production

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)

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)

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)

GA comment

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)

Didn't find the frozen embryos much use anyway. WikiNew 19:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Passed GA

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)

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.^[?]
• See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.^[?]

No. WikiNew 10:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)

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

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 85 feet, use 85 feet, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 85 feet.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.^[?]

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

• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), mold (A) (British: mould), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Avoid using contractions like (outside of quotations): Don't, don't, doesn't.
• The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.^[?]

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

• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

DoomsDay349 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

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)

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)

Sentence revision

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)

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)

I kinda like that. It's short and sweet, right to the point.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

FA

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

Soundtrack

Should something about the soundtrack be included?

There is. And sign your comments. Alientraveller 09:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Godzilla

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)

Well Jurassic Park had more on an influence on the 1998 Godzilla than the original films did. Alientraveller 11:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whatever. You don't fall under WP:RS. Alientraveller 15:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

It's relevant: you're arguing with a magazine over how much the American Godzilla aped Jurassic Park. Alientraveller 10:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is the search for fact not truth. If you're interested in truth, take philosophy. ColdFusion650 11:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Importance

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)

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)

Importance is completely subjective. So, basically, it's an unofficial vote. ColdFusion650 11:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

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

As a cultural event,Jurassic Park is important as a confluence of diverse areas of human activity, ranging from science,to popular culture,achievements in movie-making,marketing and more.To appreciate the place a motion picture occupies in all its forms needs an informed cultural perspective.Sure,it made money,but it means more than that.Speilbergs fictional fantasy film put science into the minds of millions of children, and this makes it as relevant to the world as "Schindlers List", although obviously for different reasons.Ern Malleyscrub (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences Between the Book and the Film

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)

Not really, why changes were made is discussed in production, and far better than an indiscriminate list. Alientraveller 08:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that is a pretty good section. A list would be unnecessary. Thanks for responding. --Wexer9 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source though. Again, what's important is why. Alientraveller 15:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE is policy. Alientraveller 18:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

Ian Malcolm's occupation

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)

Chaos theory is maths. I've never heard that term before either. Alientraveller (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He was joking. It's a gag on what Malcolm said in the movie. ScienceApe (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See "Chaos Theory" in wikipedia or google it for more info.This was a "hot" theory and new branch of mathematics at the time and was put into the plot as an abbreviation for the competing needs of the commercial nature of the park and its supposed "scientific" background.If there is discussion of the book versus the film elsewhere, this should be an important subject in that discussion.How much talk of maths or science theory can be conveyed in book or film before the audience is lost?Keep it brief,folks.ThanksErn Malleyscrub (talk) 09:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notability

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

"Distribution" section

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)