Topic: A Trilogy of trilogies: StarWars: EPISODE 7, 8 & 9.

[mouse_clicker]

Bill, have you ever watched Jurassic Park or read the book? Michael Crichton went through an incredible amount of science to explain how the dinosaurs were cloned, so to speak- that's what he does with all of his books and it's the main reason he's one of my favorite authors. What Crichton proposed in Jurassic Park is theoretically possible, albeit not exactly in the way described. Saying "god did it" isn't quite on the same level for me.

[Ian Sane]

"Jurassic Park was believable, none of the Indy movies are."

Sure it's more scientific but it still doesn't really make that much sense (the Raptors aren't even the right size).  JP is more believable but I wouldn't say it is and Indy isn't.  I guess the only thing everyone can agree on is that movies in general are pretty unrealistic.

And the explanation for the Ark stuff is pretty sound if God exists and the Indy movies assume he does.

Edit: Here's something else I just thought of in JP that is a HUGE assumption and that's that dinosaurs are warm-blooded.  They have to be for the movie to be realistic because mosquitos don't suck the blood of cold-blooded animals.  If dinos were like reptiles there's no amber entrapped skeeters with dino DNA.

I figure you have to base the believable factor of a movie on the reality presented.  Otherwise you'll be all like "Hey toons don't really walk around.  This Roger Rabbit stuff is all phooey!"  The way I see it in the reality presented in the Indy films almost everything makes sense except the heart being torn out thing.  I have to turn my brain off for Temple of Doom in order to get past that.  I don't so much for the other Indy films.

[mouse_clicker]

Eh, the velociraptor size has nothing to do with the process used to clone the dinosaurs, man. True, they were some 3 feet too tall (a deinonychus is closer to the size of the movie velociraptors), but that hardly affected the story's credibility. Hell, if you REALLY want to get picky, you can say god, should he exist, as the movies assume, never acts directly, either, meaning you can't gloss over the story with the excuse "god did it". God would have put into motion the events that ocurred, but he would not have enacted them himself, which means there must be an actual explanation for what happened in the movies. Obviously that's not how the story work, making them far less believable in my book. No less enjoyable, though- the Indy movies are some of the best ever made, in my opinion.

[Ian Sane]

"Hell, if you REALLY want to get picky, you can say god, should he exist, as the movies assume, never acts directly, either, meaning you can't gloss over the story with the excuse 'god did it'."

Why don't people use caps for God.  It's a name.  Anyway according to the Bible, which would be the ideal source for any God-related stuff in movies, God has directly interfered with the world of man.  Parting the Red Sea for example.  Is Ten Commandment an unbelievable film because of that?

[Ms.Pikmin]

Quote
Originally posted by: Bill
Well there aren't going to be any Nazis in the next one...Does that mean it will suck?

Only if Kate Capshaw is in it.


Also, I want to say that although I think Temple of Doom stands out as the worst of this trilogy, I'm not saying that I think Stephen Spielberg is a bad director in general.  He has an amazing body of work under his belt.  There are many of his films that I like and respect.  I was just trying to point out that I didn't think he'd be good as a director of a Star Wars film.

[mouse_clicker]

I don't capitalise god because, as you said, many different religions, be they mono or polytheistic, have a very different idea of god, so in my mind it's not really a proper noun.

Anyway, the Old Testament also portrayed god as being a vengeful and wrathful one, yet the New Testament protrays a kind and loving god- obviously there are discrepancies. Still, you make a good point I can't refute. That doesn't mean I can just accept "god did it" as an explanation for anything- it's a big reason I'm an atheist. I don't like something like that being glossed over with a Because I said so attitude- I don't work that way. Seriously, though, how is Indy believable at all beyond "god did it", and how is it MORE believable than Jurassic Park, which gives a very detailed scientific explanation of exactly how the dinosaurs were cloned?

[Bill Aurion]

Even with the explanation, it doesn't make much sense how the dinos were cloned...I mean, something like 60%(I think that's the percentage used) amphibian DNA and they look "identical" to their original form?  Please...

As for IJ, it's pretty picky to say that the whole movie isn't believable because strange religious things happen in incredibly small sections of the movies...(And if you recall from Last Crusade, the supposed "spiritual traps" are shown as being quite physical)

Third edit:  The Bible was written by different people with different viewpoint/beliefs, in different time periods, so of course there are going to be discrepancies...  

[mouse_clicker]

Not all of DNA's effects is outwardly apparant- they filled in the gaps that dinosaurs shared with modern amphibians and reptiles (which actually may be very little). All life on Earth shares a very large part of our DNA- humans and chimpanzees have about 99% of their DNA in common. In Jurassic Park they used the DNA from supposedly the modern day relatives of dinosaurs to complete their clones. Like I said, it doesn't work perfectly (especially since it's widely believed that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds, not modern day reptiles and amphibians), but on the whole the idea of extracting dinosaur genetic material from Mesozoic mosquitos, reconstructing the DNA, and using it to clone living breathing dinosaurs very plausible and possible.

And all I'm really saying is I cannot see Indiana Jones ever happening- it makes for an extremely great movie, but I can't believe it's possible, while I can believe Jurassic Park is possible.  

[Ian Sane]

"Seriously, though, how is Indy believable at all beyond "god did it", and how is it MORE believable than Jurassic Park, which gives a very detailed scientific explanation of exactly how the dinosaurs were cloned."

Well you're letting your atheistic view get in the way of accepting the movie from the reality presented.  If the film assumes God exists (oh and "God" is the name of the Judeo/Christian god and thus is in caps or if that's not good enough he's a character in a book called the Bible and thus is a proper noun) you can't say "well I don't buy it" and then think it's unbelievable.  I mean I don't believe the Matrix or the Force really exist but I don't therefore decide that everything that happens in those movies doesn' t make any sense because of it.

And I never said that JP is less believable.  I just said that if you want to get really technical neither film is.  I think both films (aside from Temple of Doom) are believable enough for me to accept them as the films they are and not think "that doesn't make any f*cking sense".

[Bill Aurion]

Very doubtful...After millions and millions of years of evolution, the percentage of similar genes between dinosaurs and modern-day reptiles/amphibians and even birds is so miniscule that it wouldn't be possible to substitute half the Dino DNA needed with modern-day genes...Even with a small substitution of modern-day relative DNA, I find it incredibly hard to believe you would get any results...(Or at least results that end up with dinos looking the way they did more than 62 million years ago)

[mouse_clicker]

In essence I'm just referring to the idea of a higher being- really it's a minor detail. And on the subject of the Matrix and Star Wars, I love the stories of both movies, yet I in know way consider them possible. They don't NEED to be possible, they're simply meant to be enjoyed, and they excel at that. Physcially it is impossible to go faster than the speed of light, but that doesn't mean I don't like Star Wars, just that I recognize the fact that it's not possible. Same with Indiana Jones. Theoretically, if you do believe in god, you could say ANYTHING is possible, but that doesn't mean  you're going to believe everything you see or hear is going to be possible.

Bill: What basis do you have for that idea? Just musing? ALL life on Earth shares a large part of their DNA- this is a fact, you can read about it in any book covering biology. Why should 65 million years, a mere eyeblink in geological terms, bring about any complete change in that? There's huge support for birds being the modern descendants of dinosaurs- if you're interested, I suggest you read the book The Dinosaur Heresies by Robert Bakker (who was actually an adviser on the movie Jurassic Park).  While amphibians -specifically- may not work in reconstructing the DNA, the idea is possible, although difficult, but mainly lends a further explanation to how the dinosaurs reproduce on the island despite the fact that they're all supposed to be female. I'm not saying it would be perfect but entirely possible. They planned on doing the same with the DNA found in the wooly mammoth preserved in Siberian tundra they found, implanting the DNA in a modern day elephant to complete the DNA, then contiually breeding until an animal as genetically close to an actual wooly mammoth was born. When they realized how expensive it would be, though, they decided not to.

[nolimit19]

yea most movies arent that believable. and the bible makes sense if you study it. and even if dinosaurs were abel to be cloned, they would probably come out all retarded like all those sheep that were cloned. and die after a month. haha speaking of unrealistic...bad boys2 redefines the term.  

edit: i think the dna of humans and monkeys is only like 2 percent differnet or something really small. the only hting is if you get one thing wrong when cloning, you will completely mess up. life is so complicated. and i really dont think that they can ever bring dinosaurs back to life

[mouse_clicker]

nolimit: Gah, it IS possible, just not with our current technology. Genetic study is in its infancy right now, so the idea that what was done in Jurassic Park could be done NOW is not true, but in time it WILL be possible.

[Termin8Anakin]

Stop trying to argue about how dinos were cloned
No one knows for sure.

And someone should re-name this the George Lucas thread

[mouse_clicker]

How dinos can be cloned, Termin8, not were.

In any case, I myself just don't find Indiana Jones to be very believable (although it is extremely entertaining)- really it all started off as a joke. If you guys still want to debate the possibility of Jurassic Park's method of cloning dinosaurs, okay, but we're not going to get anywhere.  

[manunited4eva22]

I don't feel like getting mixed up in all this stuff, but nolimit, ask a biology teacher if it is feasable, 10:1 they will say in theory it works, as there is no actual proof either way.

[Bill Aurion]

The basis for my "musings" is actual scientific inquiry...The genetic code has changed enough that it IS NOT POSSIBLE to substitute 60% of Dino DNA with a modern-day descendant...period...

Your Mammoth/Elephant argument isn't valid because the Mammoth first appeared some 3 millions years ago...Much less time of evolution than the more than 62 million years since the last dinosaur died out...

Modern-day elephants and Mammoths belong to the same family(scale goes kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and then species if you haven't taken rudimentary Biology)...Descendants of dinosaurs aren't even close, some not even being in the same Class

Every time you branch off, you are splitting the genetic code while maintaining less and less of the original code that you started with...Because the Mammoth and modern-day elephant are still in the same family, the variation in their codes is nowhere near as significant as those of dinosaurs and their modern-day descendants...  

(Don't try to take on a Bio major in a topic about Biology...)

[mouse_clicker]

Bill, have you looked at the genetic code of these creatures? How much HAS the DNA really changed over the years? Time alone isn't the best indication- sharks have existed in their current state for hundreds of millions of years. Seriously, what they did in Jurassic Park IS possible- ask your biology professor if you don't believe me. I realize it wouldn't work EXACTLY like it does in the book or movie, and I never said as much, but the basic idea is very possible.

Besides all that, I really do suggest you read The Dinosaur Heresies- excellent book.  

[Bill Aurion]

I'm not just looking at time, but at the actual differences in the organisms...Obviously the differences between a dinosaur and a bird are going to be far, far greater than those of a shark which has evolved very little since it first came into being(basically just decreasing in size)...Because there was very little evolution going on, the genetic code between, say Carcharodon megalodon(Giant White Shark) and Carcharodon carcharias(Great White Shark, present day) is going to be very little...The thing to look for is not time, as you say, but in how an organism has adapted and evolved over the millions of years of life on Earth...(Sharks don't have nearly as many branch points in the biological family tree as other chordates, and this is caused by their lack of evolution)

And I'm not arguing that what occurs in JP couldn't be done...I know it actually can(considering you have all important code lost in later evolution)...Just not by substituting such a large percentage of descendant DNA...  

[mouse_clicker]

You bastard, Bill- you lured me in to a debate you knew I couldn't win.

Still, though, read The Dinosaur Heresies- you will not be dissapointed.

[manunited4eva22]

Well now that are we getting into this deeply.  If you could get to the dna and get the protein information.  You could very easily start building parts of the dinosaurs and start gene therapy into other reptiles to make them more simple.  The fact is that you can do it, it just takes a very long time.

[Hostile Creation]

Jurassic Park was a really cool book, and a pretty good movie.  But that's all I'm going to venture to say.

[Ms.Pikmin]

Aww, DNA Shmee NA, doesn't anyone want to debate about Kate Capshaw?  

[Bill Aurion]

mouse_clicker:  If I can find a hole in my busy schedule, I will most certainly follow the recommendation ^_^

Ms.Pikmin:  I'm willing to bet we see a cameo from Ms. Capshaw, or should I say, Mrs. Spielberg...

[Nile Boogie]

Boy you folks really know how to take a simple thought like more StarWars movie and F it all up. From Anikin Solo to the origins of life, DNA and cloned dinos. Word to ma, how did that happen I...ah to hell with it, Holla Back.