So what exactly was wrong with the Triceratops in Jurassic Park?

[Orrex]

Aside from appearing in a film based on a shitty book by shitty Michal Crichton, god rest his shitty soul?

The damned thing is lying on its side, and Dr. Lula makes a great show of digging around in shit, but do we actually find out why it's sick?

[bluesbassman]

1. She'd been watching Pauly Shore films at the Jurrasic Park movie night.

Actually it was berries.

[Orrex]

2. Pauly Shore is enough to sicken even the mightiest

But I thought that she ruled out berries when she didn't find any seeds in the animal's shit-mountain?

[bluesbassman]

3. IIRC later they find a pile of stones that were regurgitated after being swallowed...

and used in place of a gizzard. There were berries amongst the stones.

[fizzgig]

6. damn, beat me too it

i had to comb through my battered copy to find that passage

[friendly_iconoclast]

4. It was preggers- they cut out that bit from the movie...

[fizzgig]

5. it wasn't really explained in the movie

but in the book, they find a pile of gizzard stones and concluded that they were getting the berries while swallowing fresh stones.

i had to pull my battered ass copy of the shelf.

[HopeHoops]

7. You can't call that movie "shitty" until you've seen the SECOND one.

It didn't even have a plot - all special effects they just HAD to get into the movie. At least there was a tad of substance behind the first one.

[LynneSin]

8. They explained it in the book and then did the opposite in the movie

The book had an easy explanation - plants not normally found during dinosaur times was ingested by the Triceratops and that's what she found in the crap. It actually made alot of sense in the book but Spielberg took that out in the movie? Why? No clue. I mean you have her searching thru the crap why not put the extra minute in the movie to say 'oooo he ate those berries that didn't digest properly'.

I'll be honestly, I think the first Jurassic Park movie was amazing. Shame they ruined it with the other 2 movies.

[eppur_se_muova]

10. Spielberg, like a 12yo boy, likes to force gross stuff on girls.

So the little girl has a brachiosaurus sneeze a huge gob of snot all over her, and the biologist has to dig through dino poo with her bare hands. Just for 12yo boy giggles.

I was never a Spielberg fan, if that's not obvious.

[Sans__Culottes]

16. That misogynist bastard!

It's surely because of teh PORN!

[Chan790]

11. I didn't find the third one terrible.

Considering the terribleness of the second one and how it basically left nothing to build a third movie off of. I mean JPIII at-least had a plot and a decent premise...it could have been a decent narrative trilogy if The Lost World wasn't such an utter mess.

For a notional comparison, conceptualize George Lucas rewriting The Two Towers and how that would have destroyed any viable narrative arc through the other two books of LotR.

[Dr. Strange]

9. Originally it had to do with berries and stones or some such...

but in the director's special edition, it was revealed that the triceratops was a replicant, at which point the mathematician (Jeff Goldblum's character in the movie) said, "Fuck you Ridley Scott! You didn't even direct this movie!"

[Chan790]

12. what is it with early-1980s/late-1970s directors...

and the compelling drive to re-cut their master works years after the fact and ruin them?

I'm thinking it must have been something in the cocaine of that era. (Stay away from the off-white coke.) All I know is if I hear anything about Spielberg cutting a new director's cut of ET, I'm going to shoot him and steal and destroy the masters of this recut.

For the good of humanity. For the good of all humanity.

[hunter]

13. It's a creature from the late Cretaceous, not Jurassic...

Duh.

[Orrex]

14. I complained about that very point, way back when I read the book in 91

I was condemned as a geek for bothering with the distinction. Nice to see that I wasn't alone!

[marmar]

15. She ate some plants that had been treated with Monsanto products.

nt