![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
-In the novel, an atom bomb destroyed the island, and the film leaves it intact.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Dino guy 1000 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Sesame honey tart 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
-In the novel, an atom bomb destroyed the island, and the film leaves it intact.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. -- Dino guy 1000 20:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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 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)
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)
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)
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
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Sesame honey tart 06:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
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):
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)