He says, “…you twit!” not ‘idiot’.
And it’s “Call off Christmas!”
Sorry…I have that movie memorized. I love it, unashamedly.
The burden of proof lies the other way – The book and film make the claim that the Jurassic Park T. Rex’s were only sensitive to moving objects. In the book it was because they’d filled in gaps in the dino DNA with frog DNA, which is a pretty wacky explanation. In the film (even though they had the bit about splicing in frog DNA) they had it that the dinosaurs had a motion-based visual system (Sam Neill’s character explains it that way before he even knows Jurassic Park exists).
It’s a screwy concept, and as far as I can tell was only introduced for the sake of suspenseful scenes (which work very well in the movie). But I don’t buy it for a minute. And the T. Rex didn’t have much of a problem eating the lawyer, even though he was sitting on the toilet and not moving.
Nobody knows much about dinosaur vision, after all, but claiming such an odd visual setup is what demands some justification, not the claim that they DIDN’T have it. On top of which, I’d like to see some cite about cats having motion-based vision systems. I don’t buy it.
Wouldn’t the T-Rex bump in to trees and rocks all. the. TIME?!?!
It’s weird for a paleontologist to claim to know how a Tyrannosaur’s vision worked without studying a live specimen.
But it certainly isn’t weird to claim that predators respond to motion. It’s a common feature of visual systems that moving objects are easier to see. This is why so many prey species will have a freeze response. If you think a predator might be around you keep as still as possible, and it might not see you. Move, and suddenly the predator notices you.
So it’s kind of stupid for Sam Neil to tell the kids to freeze because he’s a paleontologist and therefore knows that’s the best way to fool a Tyrannosaur, but it wouldn’t be stupid to tell the kids to freeze because it might make it harder for a generic predator to detect them.
Skydiving scenes are generally way off the mark. People pulling the wrong handles, ludicrously long freefalls, people talking in freefall, someone doing fancy stuff on their first jump, canopies changing from round to square during cuts, people wearing harnesses with no canopy (I’ve seen several movies where the 3-ring harness at the shoulder has only one ring…the other two are on the risers of the main canopy).
Not that this made a movie like “Point Break” less fun, but my skydiving buddies and I had a couple of good laughs.
Me= in mah bunk.
I would think that even if the T-rex had vision based on movement, it also would’ve had a good sense of smell. There’s no way it would have stuck its face right up to some tastey human treats and not smelled them. Whether you subscribe to the predator or scavenger theory, if the T-rex is going to be a predator it’s going to need a good nose.
Charleston, SC, is built on a coastal plain and has almost no natural rock. There’s none for many miles inland. In the movie The Patriot there’s a scene in which Mel Gibson manages to not only pick off half the British army with single-shot muskets, but he does so outside of Charleston while hiding behind granite boulders. (He also refers to Cornwallis as a military genius, which he wasn’t at all.)
One of the funniest stand-up moments I’ve ever seen was Blake Clark, comedian and character actor and Vietnam vet, was dissecting the Rambo movies. I can’t remember the details of the weapons, but he’s talking about the recoil and backfire of these weapons and how the kids Rambo just saved by firing a bazooka in front of them would be saying “Gee thanks Rambo! Now if only these third degree burns would go away we’d be home free!”
But that’s not the claim – he was saying that the T. Rex would ONLY notice you if you were moving, and that if you were still you were effectively invisible. Which is why Sam Neill and the kid froze.
I actually find it hard to believe that even frogs have ONLY this type of vision. There used to be an exhibit at the Boston Museum of Science. It displayed only things that had moved (within the past x seconds) on a TV monitor. It’s a very restrictive method of seeing.
The idea’s shown up in science fiction before (see Frederick Pohl’s Man Plus for instance), and was apparently prompted by work with frogs.
Also, in one movie scene, the kids are being chased by the T.Rex and then stop suddenly. They’re suddenly invisible now?
The funnny thing about using frog DNA is that nobody said, “I wonder if we’ll have parthenogenisis?”
Funnier things are “Gee, I wonder if they’ll hop?” or “Gee, I wonder if they’ll be amphibious?” TYhe likelihood of a viable organism resulting from such grafting seems vanishingly small to me, let alone the profuction of a dinosaur with a desirable amphibian trait. I think you’d b more likely to produce a canerous mass of improperly differentiated tissue, but that’s just me.
True, but no one laughed at the idea that dinosaurs might hop or swim.
Not to mention, turn around.
M. Fawh Sis Myan
Would that be a musical mass?
This one doesn’t require specialized knowledge, just a normal grounding in reality: in the movie After the Sunset, Pierce Brosnan’s character has a magical remote control that lets him turn an ordinary car into an RC toy just by scanning its VIN. WTF?
Yeah, I agree that as presented in the movie it’s pretty damn stupid.
But they could have salvaged it with just a bit of dialog tweaking:
“Don’t move! Predators tend to respond to motion! If you freeze he might not notice you! Of course, if he sticks his snout next to you he’s damn sure gonna SMELL you. But don’t worry…you probably don’t smell much like a typical prey item for a Tyrannosaur, so he’ll be confused! So if you don’t move you’ve got a slim chance of not being eaten, and he might be distracted by movement somewhere else. I know it’s not exactly a sure thing, but, y’know, he’s right there and for damn sure you’re not gonna outrun him, and this is the best idea I’ve got!”
…unfortunately, the T.Rex turned out to have excellent hearing.
This might be a little on the easy side of things, but in the opening scene of the DaVinci Code — whaddya mean you didn’t see it? — the albino monk snigger shoots the museum curator giggle once with an automatic handgun. Then he realizes he is out of ammo.
Who the hell loads their magazine with only one bullet? It’s not like he was in a fire fight! And obviously he KNOWS he only has one round because he loaded it!
I don’t know why the mention of Sharon Stone brings to mind the phrase “Adjusting the manhole.”
Even better is the what the curator does after being shot. Fatally wounded, with only minutes to live, he scribbles an obscure clue for his niece and the unfortunetly coiffed Tom Hanks. Secure now that he has baited the hook for them, he draws a large circle on the floor in his own blood, strips naked, and lies spread eagled in it. It’s not clear if he took the time to position the spot light shining on his genitals himself, or if the cops did that after they arrived on the scene. I’m not sure which version I like better. Having him do it himself increase the bizarrity of the scene immeasurably, but I can also imagine the investigating detective arriving on the scene and immediatly berating a uniformed cop for not sufficiently illuminating the victim’s testicles. “Have you never worked a crime scene before, you imbecile? I want a spot light in here, I want it bright, and I want it aimed right at the old man’s John Thomas. And I want it there yesterday! This is a homicide, people! Let’s try to act like professionals!”