Talk:The Lost World: Jurassic Park/Archive 1

Novel Carcass

In the novel, Levine comes across an "anamoly" carcass on the western coast of Coasta Rica which he tentatively identifies as Ornitholestes, yet he was hardly able to look at it. Later on Malcolm goes to the San Diego Zoo (I think...) and talks to a biologists there who says that the skin sample sent by Levine (the sample with the "Site B" radio tag) had cameleon-like skin cells where it seemed the animal could change the tone of its skin. Since there is no evidence of there being any Ornitholestes on Isla Sorna, wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the carcass was that of a Carnotaurus? This is because we know they were located on the island and, in the novel, could change their skin tone/colour to match their surroundings.--SOCL 19:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

THIS ARTICAL IS WRONG ABOUT MELCOMES DEATH

Melcome is seemed to have died in the 1st book but in the second book he tell the reader he only died a little but harding revies him. so this make the part SOME HOW he is alive incorrect seeing im not laoud to edit it i hope someone will in this error

It is a explained by Malcom himself to his scholars in the novel, that his comrades were ittentionally missinformed about his fate after the treatment for his injury. He also makes a sarcastic joke about his academic rivals' reaction to the fraud "good-news".

-To the dude who wrote this note originally: the reason you might not be able to edit might have something to do with the fact that you don't spell check. There's at least 10 errors in your original comment.--PokeHomsar 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)PokeHomsar

Raptors???

I have been trying to figure this out since the movie came out 10 years ago. What happened to the crew members in the boat. The Rex could not have fit in there and the baby rex was transported via copter. Did raptors get on the boat, eat the crew, and then jump off? User:Quinlanfan2

I just watched the movie again, I'm guessing that the T-Rex, which was kept on the deck, broke out of its cage, attacked the crew members, and then one crew member sealed it in the cargo hold just before dying (that's the hand holding the control that Malcolm sees). Annie D 13:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

But I don't remember any broken glass anywhere on the ship when the team initially searches it. There were also random limbs lying inside the part encased by glass, thus the T-Rex couldn't have possibly just dove in with his head to eat the people stearing.

• I'm with the raptor idea, because the T-Rex could not have got it's head in the wheelhouse without destroying it. It was a big part in the first Jurassic Park Book when the raptors where on the boat. Could Spielburg have used this idea in JP2?

Even if it was raptors do you really think they could tear someones limbs off cleanly at the wrists and have the hands stuck grasping onto the controls? That part is just really dumb and was just an attempt by the filmakers to try and be gruesome and shocking even though there is no logical explanation for it in the plot.--E tac (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jchase.jpg

Image:Jchase.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lostworldjurassicparkt-rex.jpg

Image:Lostworldjurassicparkt-rex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible GA

I've been reorganizing the article to match Jurassic Park (film), because it's a Featured Article. The production section is finally all cited, although there isn't much there. I was wondering if anyone saw any glaring problems before I request a Peer Review on the road to GA. ColdFusion650 20:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A good article has the following attributes:

1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

Lead needs to incorporate the rest of the article. Right now it's just about what the film is, in comparison to the first film (i.e. a sequel) and a synopsis. There is a brief production section and nice sized reception section. In the least, the "impact" of the film needs to be stated in the lead. The rest is fine. It is hardly "brillaint prose" by FA standards, so I'd contact those people at League of Copyeditors, or find someone who has worked on a lot of FA literary articles, as they generally have some good insight into better wording, and flow. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate into the lead some information about the writing of the novel, the production, and reaction. I'm not sure if it's enough, but it's closer. ColdFusion650 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What's in the lead should be in the body of the article. I didn't see anything about the development of the film in the body. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. ColdFusion650 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to sources used; (b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and (c) contains no original research.

Everything checks out here, except for reference #5 (the one citing IMSDb...that's a no-no). Kind of hard to verify the authenticity of scripts that appear online. It's generally best in those situations to find interviews with the filmmakers who mentioned the changes from the original draft. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything other than multiple sites that have the same copy of the script. Would another, more reliable site work, is the old script out all together? ColdFusion650 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally, if you are going to talk about changes in the script, it's good to have an explaination, otherwise it becomes irrelevant. Did Spielberg intend to replace the ending with his, or did he just want that scene inserted somewhere. Why didn't Hammond die at the end? That sort of stuff.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed due to lack of other information. ColdFusion650 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

All good, except we need a source for when production started. Whether it's a source that says production started shortly after the book, or an exact date, either way. Also, where did you get the budget information?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping you didn't get the budget info from them. Well, it's an older film, so let's hope they are right. I generally don't like using BOM for that, because they don't say where they get their information from. Before this goes to FAC (which I assume it will when the article is fully expanded), try and find a source that quotes the studios or something, it's a little more reliable.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't get it from them. It was here when I got off the bus. I just did a Google search and found it was listed there. I guess the person who put it there got it from BOM. I also found the production start date from the British Film Institute site. ColdFusion650 02:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

For fun, search for "the lost world: jurassic park" budget. Google says it's $73 million, citing this page. I can't believe they specifically search Wikipedia and extract that kind of information. ColdFusion650 02:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It isn't detrimental to the article, it's cited at least. Making of books and special features on DVDs may have that type of stuff. I don't know if you had any intention of finding a "Making of" book on this film though. Yeah, I've seen people cite "Answers.com", which if you put in a film and go to the Answers.com page, it's this page. So, in effect people were citing themselves..lol.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Would Rotten Tomatoes be any better? They have the same figure. ColdFusion650 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. If you are that worried about it, you don't have to include it, as it isn't some intricate part of the article.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

It's broad in the effect that it contains a production section with reliable sources and discusses the cultural impact of the film quite a bit. The plot could be trimmed some. It's good in word count, but there is still quite a bit of extraneous information in there. This isn't the only one, but things like "On the island, the Tyrannosaurus family is finally reunited, along with the Stegosaurus family." aren't really relevant to the plot itself. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to cut out as much as possible. Usually people say I take out too much. This is the first time I've had this problem. ColdFusion650 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

Tried to clean up some of the reception section. Things like "an incredible" and "by far" shouldn't be in there. I didn't do the whole section, so try and read over it for things like that. Just state the facts, try not to qualify them. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Did some cleanup, as much as I could see. ColdFusion650 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[5]

You're good to go in this area. --  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.

I'd fill out all 10 criterion for fair use on all the non-free images. Watch your image placement. I moved one image down. Non-free images must be next to, or pretty darn close to, the text they are supposed to be describing. You need to strengthen the rationales for those two plot images, because I don't know why they are needed, beyond just eyecandy for the casual reader.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Eye candy is good. I like eye candy, but, alas, you're right. I removed the chase scene image, and I moved the T. rex rampage to the section dealing with the award for that scene, and I modified it's fair use rationale to that affect. ColdFusion650 01:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Is that all the awards the film was nominated for?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I added some more. ColdFusion650 01:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Passed.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Jab at US Customs?

When the adult T-Rex first escapes the ship, a car is chased by the T-Rex through the border into the US. The T-Rex even breaks the "Welcome to the United States of America" banner that clearly states "No Animals [...] Without Authorization." What is surprising is the fact that an about 5 second shot of US Customs building shows that everyone in the building, even the guards, is oblivious to what just happened. It happened like less than 10 feet from the building! I think the crew was trying to take a jab at the US Customs guards by showing, in jest, that they wouldn't even notice if a T-Rex rampaged across the border right next to their building.--PokeHomsar 03:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have wondered the same thing, thinking how did the T-Rex suddenly teleport from San Diego Harbor to (assumed to be due to the proximity to San Diego and the coast) the San Ysidro border crossing that is about 20 miles to the south. I then thought about the fact that there would be customs and immigration stations in San Diego Harbor due to cargo and passengers arriving by ship. I don't remember if you specifically see any indication of a US/Mexico border in the film or if this is just the logical leap everyone makes upon seeing Customs and Immigration sites. (unsigned - 11/14/2007) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for better information regarding Malcomb and Hammond being alive

I seem to rember that both Malcomb and Hammond both die in Jurassic Park (original novel). While I know that this article primarily deals with the film where both of these characters are alive I am wondering how in a movie based on a book deals with the fact that in the original book these two characters are dead before the events of The Lost World (novel and/or film). I would like to see a better comparison of the book and sited differences or perhaps a new article pertaining to the novel. It has been a while since I have read The Lost World and I honestly don't remember if Hammond is alive or not in this book but Malcomb is certainly a featured and living character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hammond was still dead in The Lost World novel. 207.47.224.213 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Lostworldjurassicparkt-rex.jpg

Image:Lostworldjurassicparkt-rex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)