Talk:Jurassic Park (novel)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jehummer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Difference between novel and film to be added

-In the novel, an atom bomb destroyed the island, and the film leaves it intact.

• John Hammond dies by a baby T-rex attack.

Wrong, he is killed by a horde of compies. Do not confuse! -andy 77.7.113.142 (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

and in the novel, the Costa Ricans do not use an atomic bomb to destroy the island. They use napalm and conventional explosives.TheBaron0530 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

"Jurassic Park" series' box

I want to make some suggestions about the 'Jurassic Park series' box which lays currently at the bottom of this article. Now, while this article refers to the JP novel, the box only includes a list of the articles related to the films. I'd suggest changing the name of the 'Parts:' list heading to 'Films:', and adding a second list, headed 'Novels:' or something like that, with links to the Jurassic Park and The Lost World articles related to the novels (this new list may be preferably presented before the one about the films, considering how the novels are the basis of the franchise). Also, I think the 'Various:' list of links could be better presented...

(I couldn't do any of these changes right now because I don't know how to edit that kind of box...) [Edit:Now I know how to edit the template, but I still don't want to do so without knowing if people will agree or if it will fit Wikipedia standards better after the changes] --gonzy 23:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Half of the items under "trivia" are clearly relating to the film and not the book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.172.153 (talk • contribs) .

I moved some to Jurassic Park (film). Garion96 (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassicpark.jpg

Image:Jurassicpark.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 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the relevance of Mbz1's image of insects in amber

User:Mbz1 claims this image is relevent to the article since the story refers to a mosquito in amber. However, I and it appears User:Mgiganteus1 too, believe that the image is inappropriate for the article as it is only vaguely demonstrative of the concept in the story and not actually directly relevent to the story, particularly in its current state where it doesn't explain its relevence in the caption which says, "A mosquito and a fly in Baltic amber necklace are between 40 and 60 million years old." - as such it only mentions details relevent to the image itself, not its relevence to the article (of which there is little).

I'd like to form some sort of consensus about this as Mbz1 is continually reverting my removal of the image from the article. As a background to this issue, the image was originally submitted by Mbz1 to Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates where I believe Mbz1 has quite a history of being argumentative and stubborn refusal to see the logic of some of the opposition to their FP candidates and this is again being seen here. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I second Diliff's sentiments - it's an image of an amber necklace! It simply doesn't belong. Unquestionably this image has little or no relevance to the article; but in fairness to Mbz1 I think a shot like this Image:Ant in amber close up.jpg (but obviously with a mosquito rather than an ant!) with the main focus clearly being the mosquito containing amber (rather than jewellery) could be useful in the article. --Fir0002 07:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your suggeestion to an extent - it would have to have a good caption explaining that this isn't actually THE mosquito in the amber from Jurassic Park (obvious perhaps but still necessary), and is merely indicative of the concept. As it is, the image/caption are quite irrelevent and misleading. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course you agree. I've never doubt that users Diliff and user fir0002 are agree in everything. I believe I'd rather to hear from viewers and readers of the article, not from wikipedia editors, but I doubt I will because very few readers are going to the discussion page. Yet I believe the readers had their say, by not removing the image from the article. I'll try to take a better picture of mosquito only and let fir0002 to write the caption as he wishes. I hope it could be satisfactory for all involved. I also like to offer to you to include a template of the image relevance, which will direct readres to the talk page, in the article. I would have done it myself, but I do not know how. --Mbz1 13:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

The image has been changed for this one . This is my last comment for this discussion. You could do with the image as you wish(please, if you could, try avoid comments on its quality simly because it is not FP nomination). I'm not going to restore , if it is removed from the article once again. I've done what I could to show the Wikipedia readers how a mosquito in an amber could have looked like. Now it is up to you to prevent Wikipedia viewers and readers from seeing it or to let the image stay in the article.--Mbz1 15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Should we mention Carnosaur?

Carnosaur (novel) was written 6 years prior to Jurassic Park, and contains many details which seem to have been completely plagiarised by Crighton. Should a section on possible plagiarism be added?Dark hyena 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

it depends--if the author of Carnosaur charged plagerism, it's possible that a statement saying that the author of carnosaur charged plagerism is relevant (citation definitely needed to prevent exposure to libel lawsuit), or maybe if there is a credible source charging plagerism (e.g. a respected well-edited national newspaper or magazine--just a blog or homepage coul contain lots of good info, but still it could be made up and a better reference would be needed in that case.).--Todd 18:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did find this...

We chat briefly for a while about the enigma within a mystery that is Peter Roberts, and the unlikelihood of John ever getting anywhere with a possible suit against Jurassic Park for plagiarism of Carnosaur—apparently if he could afford to research and bring the case he’d be so rich already it wouldn’t be worth the bother... http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:4kCGrXosSY0J:www.gostak.org.uk/island/conv.htm+and+the+unlikelihood+of+John+ever+getting+anywhere+with+a+possible+suit+against+Jurassic+Park+for+plagiarism+of+Carnosaur%E2%80%94apparently+if+he+could+afford&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

Harry Adam Knight fears that people will think the Gollancz reissue of his Carnosaur is naughtily based on Jurassic Park, since both have similar scenes involving Mongol hordes -- sorry -- dinosaurs even though the HAK book predated Michael Crichton's novel Jurassic Park by 6 years. John Brosnan, possibly our greatest living expert on Knight, loves the sequence in Spielberg's movie where a charging dinosaur crashes into a display of a fossilized dinosaur skeleton ... which by pure coincidence (his phrase) resembles a scene found in Carnosaur but not, oddly enough, in the Crichton novel. http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:QdgqoXgAV4AJ:news.ansible.co.uk/a73.html+Harry+Adam+Knight+fears+that+people+will+think+the+Gollancz+reissue+of+his+Carnosaur+is+naughtily+based+on+Jurassic+Park&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1 Dark hyena 13:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI discussion concerning Jurassic Park Legacy

I have opened a request on WP:COIN concerning the external links to Jurassic Park Legacy and the contributor Tyrannosaur. All contributors to the articles in question are welcome to comment. --Dinoguy1000 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Differences between book and film

Should we have a section detailing the differences between the novel and the film? The lost world novel page already has one such list.--68.150.17.145 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe there should be one, as there are several very prominent differences between the two. Gecko254 (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Notability

I just wanted to point out that when people type in "Jurassic Park", most people have not even heard of the novel or the fact that it was a based on a novel. This isn't meant to be demeaning in any way, it just that the film is more notable and I think it should redirect to the film rather than the book. JTBX (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm definitely against it. Films shouldn't take prominence over a book: there will be only one book, but possibly many film adaptations (as much as I hate to say it, Jurassic Park may get remade one day). If it gets remade it can't be any worse the the original version! Alientraveller (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Alientraveller. Naming the movie article Jurassic Park, and the novel article Jurassic Park (novel), implies that the movie is superiour over the novel. This is no fair because the movie is based on it. Furthermore, I don't believe that the user-friendliness is harmed a lot here. The first sentence of the article clearly states: "For the feature film based on this book, see Jurassic Park (film)." It's just one extra click. Cheers, Face 17:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Invalid" cautionary tale

I think the line "(it is worth noting, however, that the cautionary message of the book is invalidated by the fact that similar animal attacks could occur in any similar facility housing dangerous animals, even if those animals were naturally occuring, as was the case with the San Francisco Zoo tiger attacks)." should be removed or amended. It is very poorly worded as it seems to imply that since Tigers have attacked people at a zoo in real life the "cautionary tale" of the story is actually "invalidated." Unless someone can cite some scientist that states this I would say that remark is highly inaccurate and should be removed. HotOne121 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Would the fact that other animals escape VALIDATE the message that you can't have perfect control? Megaduck, 09:28, 9 June 2008 (EST)

I agree, In fact the only reason any dinosaurs escape is because Nedry shut the power off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. The velociraptors, in particular, had been digging under the fences far before Nedry shut off the power. The egg shell fragment that Grant found combined with the raptor burrow the team finds near the end is proof of this. That is the kind of thing Hammond would have said. Anyway, the point Crichton was trying to make was that just because you put up a few fences doesn't mean you have control over nature. Sesamehoneytart 06:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact remains that the dinosaurs' escape was not a failure of science; it was a failure of zookeeping (aided by intentional sabotage). That does tend to invalidate what is claimed to be the theme of the novel. It's questionable, however, whether that is appropriate matter for a Wikipedia page. Worldwalker (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Number of embryos

This edit, by an IP vandal, changed the number of frozen embryos stolen from 15 to 30. Was this a correct edit? Badagnani (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jurassic Park 4

here are for dinosaurs on jurassic park 4 tyrannosaurus rex albertosaurus tarbosaurus dipludocus triceratops corythosaurus pteranodon styracosaurus torosaurus brachiosaurus spinosaurus dilphosaurus velciraptor dromeosaurus utahraptor camarasaurus apatosaurus kentrosaurus stegosaurus gigantosaurus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.183.120 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a page for giving updates. Thank you.81.20.187.182 (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Haven't they announced that JP4 is never going to happen? Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Differences with film

Since the film is based on the book, listing the differences between them here is inappropriate. I've hacked the list out of the article to here. If anyone wishes to do anything with it, I'd suggest moving it to the article on the film, although it does seem like an excess of trivia. --PLUMBAGO 16:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Differences from the film adaptation

Main article: Jurassic Park (film)

Universal Studios paid Michael Crichton $2 million for the rights to the novel in 1990, before it was even published. In 1993, the Steven Spielberg-directed film adaptation was released. Many plot points from the novel were changed or dropped. David Koepp wrote the screenplay for the film, with Crichton's assistance.

Crichton also wrote a sequel to Jurassic Park, called The Lost World, which was also made into a film. Jurassic Park III, a film not based on a Crichton book, came out in 2001.

Some significant changes include:

• The book includes several scenes with the Procompsognathus dinosaur. Many of these sequences and references to the dinosaur were dropped from the film adaptation, resulting in significant plot differences.
• The book's opening chapter describes a young American girl on vacation at a beach shore with her family in Central America getting attacked by Procompsognathus while her parents are not looking. Instead, the film's opening showed the events that are alluded to by the bedridden patient in the book's prologue. This is because the film dropped the Procompsognathus dinosaur and also the entire subplot about dinosaurs escaping from the island; consequently the opening scene, the climax of the book in the Velociraptors' nest, and the scene with Velociraptors on the boat were all deemed useless. The sequence was later recycled as the opening of the film The Lost World: Jurassic Park, with a British family cruising to Isla Sorna instead of the mainland.
• The first Iteration (Crichton titled the book's sections as "iterations") was omitted from the film, meaning all the characters from the Iteration never appeared, most notable Dr. Martin Guitierrez.
• In the novel, Dr. Grant is described as having a love of children. In the film, he initially dislikes children.
• In the novel, unspecified Hadrosaurs are running near Grant, Lex, and Tim, but in the film, they are replaced by Gallimimus. The Hadrosaur stampede, consisting of mostly Parasaurolophus and Corythosaurs, was later used in Jurassic Park III.
• The characteristics of Lex and Tim were different in the film; in the novel, Tim is older and good with computers, although still interested in dinosaurs, while Lex is a young tomboy. In the movie, their roles are switched around, with Lex being older and good with computers, while Tim is a huge Dinosaur fan.
• Dr. Henry Wu and Dr. Gerry Harding both have major roles in the novel which were reduced to cameos in the film.
• The entire sequence involving the pterosaur enclosure is dropped from the film. Like the Procompsognathusisis scenes, this was recycled for usage later in the film series (in Jurassic Park III).
• Another sequence involving Dr. Grant and the children being chased by the Tyrannosaurus Rex down a river on an inflatable raft was also dropped from the film, However, this river raft sequence became the inspiration for the Jurassic Park River Adventure ride at Universal Studios Hollywood, a ride based on the film. This scene is also included in the video game adaptation for the Sega Genesis.
• In the novel, the tour cars are Toyota Land Cruisers, but in the film they are Ford Explorers. In subsequent material outside the films, the cars are typically referred to as Land Cruisers regardless of their make.
• In the novel, Nedry dies outside the Jeep. In the film the dilophosaurus follows him into the Jeep and kills him there.
• In the novel, Dr. Ellie Sattler disembarks from the tour to tend to a sick Stegosaurus. In the film, a sick Triceratops was used instead.
• The name of the character John Arnold was changed to "Ray Arnold" in the film, possibly to avoid confusion with the character John Hammond.
• In the novel, John Arnold was able to revive the power systems in Jurassic Park by finding the command to restore the original code on Nedry's computer in the main control room; in the film, Muldoon and Sattler had to go to an isolated power shed.
• In the novel, Hammond is killed by compys after being frightened by a recorded Tyrannosaurus roar, falling down a steep hillside and breaking his ankle. In the film, Hammond is among the survivors who escapes the island, returning in the sequel having reformed his ways, seeking to protect the dinosaurs rather than exploit them.
• Donald Gennaro does not go back to the tour cars after tending to the sick stegosaur (a triceratops in the movie) and therefore is not present for the Tyrannosaur attack. Therefore, he does not die, as he does in the film.
• In the novel, John Hammond has more cynical and greedy motivations; in the film, most of Hammond's negative personality traits are given to Donald Gennaro instead.
• In the film adaptation Robert Muldoon, the Game warden, is killed by the Velociraptors, while in the novel he survives the attack by diving into a pipe where the raptors cannot follow. In the film, it is Lex who hides herself in a pipe to escape the Tyrannosaur.
• In the book, Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler are not romantically involved, as they are in the film.
• In the novel, Dr. Grant learns that some of Jurassic Park's dinosaurs, including Tyrannosaurus, can see only movement. In the novel, he makes his discovery when he freezes during the Tyrannosaur attack on the Land Cruisers, later confirming it after waking up in a tree from which a Hadrosaur is eating. In the movie, he already knows this before arriving on the island (due to fictional palentological theory), immediately warning several other characters to sit still during the Tyrannosaur attack because "their vision is based on movement!". The scene in the tree with the Hadrosaur is reworked, omitting the theory confirmation and replacing the Hadrosaur with a Brachiosaur.
• In the novel, several of the survivors take refuge from the Velociraptors in the Safari Lodge, a guest hotel intended for the park's future visitors, and a portion of the plot is centered around reactivating the Lodge's security systems (which include electrified skylights) to prevent the raptors from getting inside. This sequence is completely omitted from the film, replaced with the much smaller-scale situation of reactivating the Visitor Center's electronic door locks to keep the raptors out of the control room.
• The dinosaur species (excluding Procompsognathus, and the non-dinosaurs Pterosaurs) in the novel, Apatosaurus, Microceratops, Othnielia, Styracosaurus, Euoplocephalus, Hypsilophodon, and Maisaura, do not appear in the film adaptation. The only Hadrosaurs observed in the first film are Parasaurolophus. Apatosaurus is replaced by Brachiosaurus, unspecified Hadrosaurs are replaced by Gallimimus, and Stegosaurus was only seen in a tube label, despite being misspelled as Stegasaurus.
• The survivors in the novel are Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler, Lex Murphy, Tim Murphy, Donald Genarro, Robert Muldoon, Dr. Harding, and several workmen. It is implied that Malcolm died, but in the sequel it is revealed he survived, although he was left with lasting injuries. In the film the survivors are Alan Grant, Ellie Sattler, Lex Murphy, Tim Murphy, Ian Malcolm and John Hammond. In the film, Henry Wu and Dr. Harding, along with all the workmen, left before the crises happened.
• The park's computer systems are updated in the movie; the novel called for three Cray X-MP supercomputers to be used for sequencing the dinosaur DNA; in the movie, the 'Mr. DNA' tour Animation reveals that the park uses Thinking Machines supercomputers, specifically eight Connection Machine CM-5s (as revealed by Dennis Nedry) and Silicon Graphics workstations. The supercomputers are not shown to the visitors in the movie, but are visible in the control room scenes, notably the Connection Machine computers, which have red LED panels that blink with usage.
• In the novel, Ellie Sattler comes across a Velociraptor with a genetic mutation that allows it to change the colour of its skin. The device is so minor it is left out of the film, as the Velociraptor in question is juvenile and does not appear again.
• In the novel Tim Murphy is quite skilled in climbing trees but in the film he does not want to climb down until the Land Cruiser starts to fall down the tree.
• The character of Ed Regis is omitted. Parts of his character are present in the film version of Genarro.
• In the novel, the only lethal weapons Muldoon was allowed to have were a pair of rocket launchers (although a shed of nerve gas grenades that Muldoon did not know about was found). In the film he opens a locker full of shotguns and AR-15's and he probably had more, because some of the members of the loading team in the beginning had guns.

Not deinonychus

I made a series of edits today that were, in my opinion, justified and constructive. These got reverted. I don't care to go through again and make them-- they were relatively minor and mostly done to improve clarity-- but I will at least restore the edit I made to clarify that it is a procompsognathus, not a deinonychus, that is found in Costa Rica. The book makes that quite clear. And I think it fair to note that there are a variety of tags on the front page of the article that suggest it needs improvement; I should probably have noted here that I was going to make an edit prior to doing it, but regardless, you aren't going to resolve the issues indicated by the tags if you revert good-faith edits seemingly without merit.98.118.13.170 (talk) 03:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Deinonychus? WTF deinonychus are what the velociraptors were based on they look nothing like procompsognathus. It's like taking an ornitholestes and calling it a Tyrannosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Biological issue and accuracy

I've cleaned up the noted section a little, but I believe it should be severely rewritten or ultimately removed. This novel was a science fiction work postulating things such as cloning and genetic research that were still largely in an adolescent stage, while information about the dinosaurs themselves were up-to-date for the time. Though that information is now outdated, at the time they were not. The entire section therefore is nitpicking. Any thoughts? Jackal Killer (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Some note to the film/novel comparison list above

In the film adaptation Robert Muldoon, the Game warden, is killed by the Velociraptors, while in the novel he survives the attack by diving into a pipe where the raptors cannot follow. In the film, it is Lex who hides herself in a pipe to escape the Tyrannosaur. Not only in the film. Lex hiding in a pipe to escape the T. Rex appears both in the novel and the film! I just finished re-reading it, so I do know. :) -andy 77.7.113.142 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Closing nearly unanimous discussion. The page has already been moved by the proposer, which is frowned upon, but it's done. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Born2cycle (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

---

Jurassic Park → Jurassic Park (novel) — I think this page should become the disambig article, as I don't think the novel is the primary topic for this name. With the film article being so well known, I expect that lots of editors link to Jurassic Park without checking where it goes to. Setting it as a disambig page will make it easier to fix links that go to the incorrect article. --Lugnuts (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support, as the film is more associated with the name. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Which is primary, if any, is a matter of perspective, I suppose. As I read and enjoyed the book a couple of years before I saw the movie, I automatically think of Jurassic Park as a work by Michael Crichton. The great detail, leading edge scientific setting and poor characterizations is emblematic of Crichton's work. Crichton's style comes through in the movie as well, so I do feel that the novel is primary. I can see, however, that movie goers who are not into novels might just go for the special effects. --Bejnar (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Which topic is primary is not a matter of perspective, not for Jurassic Park, nor for any other term, unless it is not clear which topic is most likely to be the one being searched when someone enters the term in question in the search box. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: This situation reminds me of the requested move regarding the Fight Club novel and film. The novel was the primary topic for a long time, while the film was disambiguated. The request was to make the film the primary topic, but ultimately, editors supported disambiguating both. The novel article was disambiguated, leaving no primary topic and just a disambiguation page. I think that the current statistics demonstrate that readers are not a lot more likely to seek out the film than the novel. The discussion can be seen here. Perhaps the same approach can be done here to see how many people come to the disambiguation page and go on to the Jurassic Park novel or film articles? Erik (talk | contribs) 10:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: As I opposed the move on Fight Club, so I'm opposing it here, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, if both were disambiguated. I believe the source material should, in 99% of the cases, be the primary topic. A film is an adaptation of the source material which should have primacy, in my opinion. Jmj713 (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Idem Jmj713. See also my comments at Talk:Shutter_Island#Requested_move ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support: The novel and the film are on the same order of magnitude of popularity, so I don't think either should be given special treatment. See Talk:Shutter Island#Requested move. If people want to make a policy/guideline that source material is always the primary topic, let's get consensus and add it at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC instead of having it be an unwritten rule. –CWenger (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• One could say it falls under "educational value", making people aware that popular films are often based on popular books. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Educational value" is not a factor to be considered when determining primary topic. What matters is only the likelihood of the topic in question being searched when users enter the term in question. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support No evidence that the novel is the primary topic for this title. If anything, the film is the primary topic, but I don't think that's clear enough to not put the dab page at Jurassic Park. There are too many other uses listed on the dab page for WP:TWODABS to apply. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - as there's no real objections, I'm going to be bold and move it, as this has been open for sometime. Don't know how you close off this RM - I'm sure someone will sort it. Lugnuts (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Did you know? for Ivar Ekeland

Jurassic Park is mentioned for a hook at Wikipedia's "Did You Know?" section of the front page. The DYK discussion concerns the mathematician Ivar Ekeland, whom Crichton credits (page 400) as being one source for Ian Malcolm (played by Jeff Goldblum).

The [censored!] question is whether the Ekeland article should explicitly state that other mathematicians inspired Crichton; this information appears in the linked articles (where I added it).

Trivially,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 23:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Signature novel - according to whom?

That comment in the Reception section is not cited and really this would be just a critic's POV anyway; many people would say Andromeda Strain is his "signature novel," etc. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It is certainly his biggest seller. I read somewhere that about 50% of Crichton novels sold are "Jurassic Park". (I may have just heard it in bonus features on the DVD, but I'm sure there is evidence to back it up). At any rate, if it's a problem, change it to state this fact instead of using "most popular" or "signature novel" or the like. Sesamehoneytart 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Should Jurassic Park be re-classified as science fantasy?

Cloning a dinosaur is an impossibility, D.N.A. reaches its Half-Life at 520 years and becomes completely inert and useless after only 2000 years. the definition of Science Fiction is "Events that could happen if given the right circumstances" but Science Fantasy "Adds a Scientific explanation to the Impossible". since cloning from Bones that have been turned to rock or from blood that has coagulated and rotten is impossible, Jurassic Park is better classified as Science Fantasy".--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they showed it in the novel, but in the film, they show that the DNA comes from blood that prehistoric mosquitoes(preserved in amber) sucked off of dinosaurs. 72.79.142.42 (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The novel should be classified based on how reliable sources have classified it. I suspect science fiction is a more prevalent classification than science fantasy at this time. Doniago (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Velociraptor antirrhopus"

There seems to be a misconception going around that the raptors in JP are referred to a "Velociraptor antirrhopus". Whoever keeps adding this to the article needs to re-read the book. There is even a discussion between Grant, Wu, and Sattler about which species they are. Relevant quotes (pages 120 and 127-128 in the version on Google Books):

• "Velociraptor," Alan Grant said, in a low voice. "Velociraptor mongoliensis," Wu said, nodding.
• "I just excavated a raptor," Grant said, ... Ellie said, "But the animal we just saw, the velociraptor - you said it was a mongoliensis?" "From the location of the amber," Wu said. "It is from China."
• "Interesting," Grant said. "I was just digging up an infant antirrhopus."

Clearly, JP synonymies the genera Deinonychus and Velociraptor but also clearly states the species mongoliensis and antirrhopus are distinct, and furthermore that V. mongoliensis is the species present in the park. Grant was digging up a different species, V. antirrhopus (=Deinonychus) in Montana. Obviously the interviews with Ostrom prove Crichton and Spielberg both modeled the animals on Deinonychus but they simply also got the species wrong. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

NewYorkActuary's revert of genre change

Who in the world calls it horror? And since when is is techno-thriller a genre? It's an adjective. See these reliable sources. Good Reads is reliable on Wikipedia for books: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/3784.Mundane_Science_Fiction http://bestsciencefictionbooks.com/mundane-science-fiction.php 137.154.187.196 (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, IP address. Thank you for engaging in discussion. I didn't revert your changes because I preferred the existing genre listing -- I reverted because you sought to replace the status quo with an unsourced statement. If you can find a reliable source that labels the book as an example of "mundane", then feel free to add that source (though the two sources you listed above are not likely to be considered reliable for this purpose).

But even if you do find and add reliable sources, there's still the question of whether it was appropriate to remove the other listed genres. First, and despite your questioning it, techno-thriller really is a genre and it wouldn't be difficult to find reliable sources that identify Crichton as a major author in that genre. And no less an authority than John Clute's Science Fiction Encyclopedia identifies Jurassic Park as an example of horror in science fiction. And so, even if you do feel that your two sources are good enough to justify identifying the book as "mundane", you should be adding that genre to the list, and not replacing the pre-existing genres.

For what it's worth, I think the entire listing here should simply read "science fiction", because that's the only thing that's said about it in the article. If no one thinks a reliably-sourced discussion of genre is important enough to add to the article, then the infobox ought not be used as a repository of editors' individual opinions.

Thanks again for engaging in discussion. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

there's no source that cites techno-thriller as a genre; wheras both these sources are reliable enough for mundane.137.154.187.166 (talk) 06:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Costa Rican Air Force

I've restored the word "fictitious" to the phrase "Costa Rican Air Force", because Costa Rica doesn't actually have an air force. Indeed, it doesn't have any military at all. But it does have an "Air Vigilance Service" that performs police and other civil functions. Does anyone here know exactly how the air units are described in the novel? NewYorkActuary (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

They aren't, by name. There's a reference to the "Costa Rican national guard" (I don't think it's capitalised, but I could be wrong), and then the helicopters that arrive to transport the survivors and blow up the island don't get ascribed to a specific military service, other than that they're carrying "soldiers". It's definitely inaccurate to say that it's the "Costa Rican Air Force", with capital letters indicating that's the formal name of the organisation, that is identified as appearing at the end of the novel. "Costa Rican national guard" actually seems like a decent way, in English, of referring to the airborne police service you mention. Or we could just change "Costa Rican Air Force" to "Costa Rican military". Binabik80 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Copyright infringement claim

Does the copyright lawsuit by author Geoffrey T. Williams deserve a mention? https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/84/581/568472/ Thriley (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It would require media sources to establish notability, I think. Binabik80 (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Auto-archiving?

Any objections to setting up auto-archiving on this page? At least half the threads here appear to be from over a decade ago. DonIago (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2024 (UTC)