Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
* ScienceMarchesOn: While reasonably accurate for its day (The book, not the movie, there is nothing remotely accurate about the movie), ''Carnosaur'' is still over 30 years old, so....
to:
* ScienceMarchesOn: While reasonably accurate for its day (The book, not the movie, there is nothing remotely accurate about the movie), ''Carnosaur'' is still over 30 40 years old, so....
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* DeletedScenes: Many scenes from the first movie had to be cut down across production due to the budget being diminished as much as it was.
** A scene of the ''Tyrannosaurus'' destroying an airplane was cut out entirely from the climax.
** A pterodactyl prop was made for the film to be used in an ending scene showing some of Tiptree's creatures survived and will spread, carrying the virus with them in a DownerEnding. The prop later found its way into other productions.
** A scene of the ''Deinonychus'' breaking into a home and slaughtering a family, similar to a sequence from the novel, was also cut out. While unconfirmed, this likely was to be the Sheriff's family and, if true, would explain his lack of shock seeing the dinosaur later alongside him angrily calling it out to face him.
** A subplot, mentioned by some crew members involved in the script, of something "much more sinister" and worse than the dinosaurs was also cut out or altered. Whether this was in reference to the virus or the dinosaurs having some human DNA, both of which are still in the film but the latter is hardly touched upon; is unknown.
** A scene of the ''Tyrannosaurus'' destroying an airplane was cut out entirely from the climax.
** A pterodactyl prop was made for the film to be used in an ending scene showing some of Tiptree's creatures survived and will spread, carrying the virus with them in a DownerEnding. The prop later found its way into other productions.
** A scene of the ''Deinonychus'' breaking into a home and slaughtering a family, similar to a sequence from the novel, was also cut out. While unconfirmed, this likely was to be the Sheriff's family and, if true, would explain his lack of shock seeing the dinosaur later alongside him angrily calling it out to face him.
** A subplot, mentioned by some crew members involved in the script, of something "much more sinister" and worse than the dinosaurs was also cut out or altered. Whether this was in reference to the virus or the dinosaurs having some human DNA, both of which are still in the film but the latter is hardly touched upon; is unknown.
Added DiffLines:
* ExecutiveMeddling: The film adaptation was initially supposed to have a budget of $10,000,000, very high for a Roger Corman production and the script was made with this in mind. Then the budget got slashed to $5,000,000 during pre-production, and then again down to only $500,000 for production. Sources do differ on the exact numbers, but virtually all of the crew confirm the budget wound up being somewhere between 1/10th to 1/20th the size it was supposed to be. Because of this and the production time of the movie being pushed into a smaller and smaller window, numerous scenes, creature effects, and even whole subplots had to be carved down.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** The novel's method of reviving dinosaurs (altering the germ cell DNA of chickens so that they produce eggs with dinosaur embryos in them) is much more realistic than the method portrayed in ''Franchise/JurassicPark'' (somatic cell cloning, where the artificially fertilized egg cell is implanted into a vacant uterus). Whether or not the author actually knew at the time is unclear, but it's now known the latter method is basically impossible for animals with shelled eggs. In mammals, cloning is relatively simple, since the egg cell automatically implants itself into the womb's wall, but animals that lay eggs can't do this, and it's even harder to implant the embryo into the amniotic sac without damaging the eggshell. Meanwhile the former method is theoretically doable and has been seriously considered for reviving extinct bird species.
to:
** The novel's ''Carnosaur'''s method of reviving dinosaurs (altering the germ cell DNA of chickens so that they produce eggs with dinosaur embryos in them) is much more realistic than the method portrayed in ''Franchise/JurassicPark'' (somatic cell cloning, where the artificially fertilized egg cell is implanted into a vacant uterus). Whether or not the author actually knew at the time is unclear, but it's now known the latter method is basically impossible for animals with shelled eggs. In mammals, cloning is relatively simple, since the egg cell automatically implants itself into the womb's wall, but animals that lay eggs can't do this, and it's even harder to implant the embryo into the amniotic sac without damaging the eggshell. Meanwhile the former method is theoretically doable and has been seriously considered for reviving extinct bird species.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 6 (click to see context) from:
** The novel's method of reviving dinosaurs (altering the germ cell DNA of chickens so that they produce eggs with dinosaur embryos in them) is much more realistic than the method portrayed in ''Literature/JurassicPark'' (somatic cell cloning, where the artificially fertilized egg cell is implanted into a vacant uterus). Whether or not the author actually knew at the time is unclear, but it's now known the latter method is basically impossible for animals with shelled eggs (in mammals, cloning relatively simple, since the egg cell automatically implants itself into the womb's wall, but animals that lay eggs don't have this mechanism, and how does one implant the embryo into the amniotic sac without damaging the eggshell?), while the former method is theoretically viable and has been seriously considered for reviving extinct bird species.
to:
** The novel's method of reviving dinosaurs (altering the germ cell DNA of chickens so that they produce eggs with dinosaur embryos in them) is much more realistic than the method portrayed in ''Literature/JurassicPark'' ''Franchise/JurassicPark'' (somatic cell cloning, where the artificially fertilized egg cell is implanted into a vacant uterus). Whether or not the author actually knew at the time is unclear, but it's now known the latter method is basically impossible for animals with shelled eggs (in eggs. In mammals, cloning is relatively simple, since the egg cell automatically implants itself into the womb's wall, but animals that lay eggs don't have this mechanism, can't do this, and how does one it's even harder to implant the embryo into the amniotic sac without damaging the eggshell?), while eggshell. Meanwhile the former method is theoretically viable doable and has been seriously considered for reviving extinct bird species.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 15 (click to see context) from:
** It is now known that plesiosaurs cannot lift their necks above water. They also cannot move on land and therefore, they gave birth to live young rather than laying eggs.
to:
** It is now known that plesiosaurs cannot lift their necks above water. They also cannot move on land and therefore, land, therefore they gave birth to live young rather than laying eggs.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The novel's method of reviving dinosaurs (altering the germ cell DNA of chickens so that they produce eggs with dinosaur embryos in them) is much more realistic than the method portrayed in ''Literature/JurassicPark'' (somatic cell cloning, where the artificially fertilized egg cell is implanted into a vacant uterus). Whether or not the author actually knew at the time is unclear, but it's now known the latter method is basically impossible for animals with shelled eggs (in mammals, cloning relatively simple, since the egg cell automatically implants itself into the womb's wall, but animals that lay eggs don't have this mechanism, and how does one implant the embryo into the amniotic sac without damaging the eggshell?), while the former method is theoretically viable and has been seriously considered for reviving extinct bird species.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 21,22 (click to see context) from:
** The film originally was going to end with a last shot of the military trying to contain and clear up the virus, killing all of the virus carrying dinosaurs. Only for a reveal that a pterodactyl, unnoticed by them, managed to slip past them. The prop was created and the scene was planned out, but ultimately cut.
** The first film also initially had a ''substantially'' higher budget, with estimates and statements ranging from 5 Million to 10 Million [=USD=], and a much longer production time to finish the film. The final film? Made for less than 1 Million [=USD=], 10 weeks and ''$50,000'' to create the effects and scenes, and then 18 days to shoot it all.
** The first film also initially had a ''substantially'' higher budget, with estimates and statements ranging from 5 Million to 10 Million [=USD=], and a much longer production time to finish the film. The final film? Made for less than 1 Million [=USD=], 10 weeks and ''$50,000'' to create the effects and scenes, and then 18 days to shoot it all.
to:
** The film originally was going to end with a last shot of the military trying to contain and clear up the virus, killing all of the virus carrying dinosaurs. Only for a reveal that a pterodactyl, unnoticed by them, managed to slip past them. The prop was created and the scene was planned out, but ultimately cut.
cut. Like the T-Rex costume, this puppet would eventually show up in ''Film/DinosaurIsland1994''.
** The first film also initially had a ''substantially'' higher budget, with estimates and statements ranging from 5 Million to 10 Million [=USD=], and a much longer production time to finish the film. The final film? Made for less than 1 Million[=USD=], [=USD=] (though sources argue it's actually anywhere from $850,000-$3 million), with just 10 weeks and ''$50,000'' to create the effects and scenes, and then 18 days to shoot it all.
** The first film also initially had a ''substantially'' higher budget, with estimates and statements ranging from 5 Million to 10 Million [=USD=], and a much longer production time to finish the film. The final film? Made for less than 1 Million
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 22 (click to see context) from:
** The first film also initially had a ''substantially'' higher budget, with estimates and statements ranging from 5 Million to 10 Million [=USD=], and a much longer production time to finish the film. The final film? Made for less than 1 Million [=USD=], 10 weeks to create the effects and scenes, and then 18 days to shoot it all.
to:
** The first film also initially had a ''substantially'' higher budget, with estimates and statements ranging from 5 Million to 10 Million [=USD=], and a much longer production time to finish the film. The final film? Made for less than 1 Million [=USD=], 10 weeks and ''$50,000'' to create the effects and scenes, and then 18 days to shoot it all.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 20 (click to see context) from:
* WhatCouldHaveBeen: Numerous early drafts and treatments for the film existed before the final product, with some scenes and elements being cut down during production. DinoDiego explained many of these in his video essay [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrGLpaCuygg here]].
to:
* WhatCouldHaveBeen: Numerous early drafts and treatments for the film existed before the final product, with some scenes and elements being cut down during production. DinoDiego explained Paleomedia youtuber, [=DinoDiego=] gathered many sources of these cut pieces of content in his video essay essay, viewable [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrGLpaCuygg here]].
