What do you think would of happened if the movie had a little more. I think they might have got of the plateau and in a few years time, the baby "Tyrannosaurus Rex" might have got big and terrorised London. What do you think would've happened?
share[deleted]
I suggest you read the novel again. They bring back a pterodactyl which escapes and scares a few people before flying out to sea in an attempt to get home and drowning on the way, apparently.
In the 1925 film version of The Lost World, they took an apatosaurus back to London (it was inaccurately called a brontosaurus in the film.) It got free and blundered around for a while before falling into the Thames and swimming off. Being a vegetarian it didn't want to eat anyone which rather ruined the suspense, although the spectacle must have been terrific in 1925.
Merian C Cooper borrowed this idea for King Kong and brought the giant ape Kong back to New York where it famously escaped and caused havoc before being killed by aeroplanes. This was remade twice, of course and Toho studios got in on the act and spiced it up by throwing Godzilla into the mix.
Steven Spielberg saw the 1960 Version of The Lost World as a child and grew up wanting to remake it with the sequel featuring a Tyrannosaurus on the rampage and with Jurassic Park I and II he pretty much got his way.
Zoe
Brontosaur was the correct name at the time the movie was made, and up till fairly recently, when they changed that to the classification of the group and re-named the old Brontosaurus the Apatosaurus.
shareWell, no that's wrong. Apatosaurus was the correct name at the time the movie was made. And the rest of your statement is wrong too. The mistake in naming - 'brontosaurus' instead of 'apatosaurus' was made - and corrected - about twenty years prior to the release of 'The Lost World' but due to an oversight by the US Mail Service, the name 'brontosaurus' was the one put on their commemorative series of 'dinosaur stamps'. It was thus popularly known as 'brontosaurus' to the public. And, it cannot be denied that the translation of the name, "Thunder Lizard" was a vivid description while, "deceptive Lizard" is not.
Incidentally, and ironically, the name, 'apatosaurus' or 'deceptive lizard' was chosen because the original find was mistakenly identified as a mososaurus. It was thought 'deceptive' in the sense of easily confused with another.
Still, the name 'brontosaurus' was not changed "fairly recently" to 'apatosaurus' - it was apatosaurus all along. There were two skeletons, originally: one was named, 'apatosaurus' and the later one 'brontosaurus' - so apatosaurus had the prior claim. Soon after - 1903 - the claim for 'brontosaurus' was rejected and the name 'apatosaurus' became standard. 'Brontosaurus' continued in popular (i.e. uninformed) use and one factor in this was the researchers for the 1925 movie 'The Lost World' did not do their research properly or - more likely - did not care, and so the name was - as I said - inaccurately - used in the movie and this made it harder than ever to convince the public that 'apatosaurus' was the correct name.
So, 'brontosaur' was NOT the correct name at the time the movie was made; and they did NOT change the name or classification fairly recently; and they did NOT re name the old 'brontosaurus' to 'apatosaurus'; rather the public became better informed recently after a plethora of dinosaur themed educational TV programmes and books. Most educated people know the correct name is 'apatosaurus' and accept that fact with good grace.
I have answered at some length and in detail. Please do not bother to reply to this (I won't have time to reply). Instead I suggest you do some research of your own. There's a book you should read; "Bully For Brontosaurus" by Stephen J. Gould that clears this up and is an interesting book in its own right.
Best wishes,
Zoe
Actually, thanks for the clarification which corrects what I was taught in college, in a geology class about 40 years ago, so I appreciate it. Always good to get better information from better informed sources, but my intent was amiable, and was correct as far as I knew at that time.
sharein the book, the take a Pterosaur (flying dino) but the film changed it to a 'Brontosaur'
sharein the book, they take a Pterosaur (flying dino) back to London, but the film changed it to a 'Brontosaur'
share[deleted]
All I can say is that all of the dinosaur books my parents found for me in the Fifties and Sixties never mentioned the apatosaurus, only the brontosaurus. So, for many decades, that's the name I used.
It wasn't until "Jurassic Park" that I saw creatures who resembled "my bronty" given another name.
I must say that, in later years, I never found any books about paleontology that would have corrected my thinking. Perhaps if I had been able to study that subject in college, as I thought I would be doing... I can understand the misunderstanding.
(W)hat are we without our dreams?
Making sure our fantasies
Do not overpower our realities. ~ RC