How is this a rip-off of 'Jurrasic Park'? - Carnosaur (1993) Discussion

Sure they do, Dinosaurs. ;)

reply

[–] The_Movie_Defender 19 years ago

That's a pretty shi tty reason to call a film a rip-off.

reply

Actually "Jurassic Park" is a rip-off of "Carnosaur." Both of them were novels back in the eighties, BUT "Jurassic Park" came out after "Carnosaur" was released. "Carnosaur" by Harry Adam Knight was written in 1984. Believe me, I own a copy. "Jurassic Park" by Michael Crichton came out in 1989. Interestingly, I found the novel by Harry Adam Knight more fascinating than Crichton's. I highly recommend it. As for the movies, Corman deserves to be called a BASTARD for ripping off JP.

reply

[–] michaelcrs 19 years ago

I think they were referring to the movie. The movie isn't a rip off of the Jurassic park it's only exploited the sucsess of jurassic park. Roger Cormen learned that they were going to make Jurassic park into a movie so bought the rights to this movie. He quickly and cheaply (1 mil) produced this movie. He released is 6 weeks prior to jurassic park, toting it as a subsitute. He knew it was going to be trash and didn't care. He just wanted to make a quick buck by riding off of another movies success. He even released the DVD at the sametime as jurassic park knowing that Video stores like to group aimiliar themed movies together. If you don't believe me then what is laura dern's mother doing in a movie about dinosaurs that was released the same year as the dino mvoie she was in.

"Seek not to imitate the master, but seek what he sought."

reply

[–] The_Movie_Defender 19 years ago

Hmmmm. Mr. Corman's a clever trickster.

Don't call Corman a bastard or else I will beat you up worse than Hartigan beat up Yellow Bastard in Sin City.

"To insult a man, we call him a bestial. For deliberate cruelty, human may be a greater insult."

reply

[–] evolution_500_2 19 years ago

I don't see any reason why I shouldn't. Besides, it's called an OPINION. He made one of my favourite novels into a piece of crap of a movie. The novel was much better than the novel by Crichton. It could have been something worth seeing, but thanks to Corman (who is the equivalent to Uwe Boll), it is now the biggest piece of crap that is dull and boring.

reply

[–] The_Movie_Defender 19 years ago

Well, looks like someone doesn't know how to laugh. Let's see, Liu Kang said it in Mortal Kombat and I want to say it too you, but what was the line? Oh yeah: "I pity you, sorcerer."

"To insult a man, we call him a bestial. For deliberate cruelty, human may be a greater insult."

reply

[–] evolution_500_2 19 years ago

You meant that as a joke? Funny, because it didn't really seem to be amusing. I'm sorry that I snapped. I'm just irritated at Corman.

reply

[–] The_Movie_Defender 19 years ago

You like "Jurrasic Park" too much. Open up your mind to the beautiful world of crappy B-Movies, and you will laugh like you never laughed before.

"To insult a man, we call him a bestial. For deliberate cruelty, human may be a greater insult."

reply

[–] bobcunk 16 years ago

dont you mean vhs, dvds cam out a few years later.

reply

[–] rick-deckard45 18 years ago

I searched for Carnosaur on amazon and found a book by Harry Adam Knight, and it was also written in 1993.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_i_2/002-5647457-3139244?ie=UTF8&keywords=carnosaur&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Acarnosaur%2Ci%3Astripbooks&page=1

This is my signature. AREN'T YOU EXCITED?!

reply

[–] AirNoble 18 years ago

They both feature dinosaurs genetically-resurrected in the modern day which then escape man-made enclosures and wreak havoc on their 'creators'. They also feature two similar species - Tyrannosaurus rex and a dromaeosaur (the Deinonychus of Carnosaur and the 'raptors' of dubious affinity in Park - I say dubious because anyone who knows anything about dinosaurs knows they do not meet criteria for any known dromaeosaur including Deinonychus or Utahraptor.). Carnosaur's attack scenes may have been more 'accurate' in that there was gore and blood and stuff, but Park portrayed the animals more accurately - they were animals, not just rampaging blood-thirsty monsters.

I don't personally think that this movie is trash or worthless or anything too derrogatory, but it doesn't hold a candle in quality to Jurassic Park. It is essentially a spoof, if you will (and yes I realize the books were released in opposite order - never read Carnosaur, though I would like to). Corman likely rode the coat-tails of the much more established Spielberg and threw his picture together as quickly as possible (Spielberg's began shortly after the release of the novel in 1990.). Carnosaur was released a short time after Park and it was marketed as 'This Ain't a Walk in the Park' (perhaps not the official tagline, but marketed on posters, shirts, and in magazines from '93 dealing with dino-cinema.)...brilliant marketing if I may say so.

I can watch them both, Park and Carnosaur (though the sequels to Carnosaur are horrendously bad, almost ripping off the original, among others, and as far as Park 3...I'd rather watch cats sleep.). In my opinion, Park is a better film. It is a more accurate film in many ways, and was given alot of time and preparation to warrant its being considered a good film (every movie has goofs and continuity errors - these shouldn't be held against it). The visual effects have few rivals even today as far as quality of the CGI creatures (the wolves in Day After Tomorrow lol - we can make dinosaurs look realistic, but not *beep* wolves?) Carnosaur is to Jurassic Park what Lake Placid is to Jaws in my opinion; a fun comparison when you need a break from the A+ quality to just let your brain rest and get a good laugh. (Yes, I know Lake Placid is not a 'good' movie, but I laughed at that one...c'mon Rose from Golden Girls, letting her husband get eaten by a rogue Saltwater crocodile? And insulting the masculinity of Brendan Gleeson? That's funny. Opposed to Jaws 3-d, Jaws the Revenge, Anaconda, and Deep Blue Sea...trash.)

I wish MST3K could have gotten their hands on some of those movies...Carnosaur 2, Jaws 3-d, Alligator 2...

Again, as I stated before...these are just opinions.

reply

[–] The_Movie_Defender 18 years ago

In my opinion, Jurrasic Park and Carnosaur shouldn't be compared in the first place. They are exact opposites. Aside from the common theme of Man Vs. dinosaur, they couldn't be more different.

Smile, everyone loves a moron

reply

[–] EugeneandSasha 18 years ago

Better than Jurassic Park! Are you completely insane? Please list the reasons why you think Carnosaur is better.

These are just 10 reasons why Jurassic Park is better than Carnosaur:

1. Better Effects
2. Better Acting
3. Better Script
4. Better Plotline
5. Better Characters
6. Memorable Quotes
7. More Suspenseful
8. Better directed
9. Better edited
10. Better Music

How can you say this was better than Jurassic Park! I'm very sorry, but you have tremendously bad tastes in movies!

reply

[–] Vassago 18 years ago

If anything, Crichton would have to steal the idea from Brosnan. Of course, "Jurassic Park" is better.

reply

[–] Rooter-Man 18 years ago

The novel Westworld, written by Michael Crichton, has the same plot as Jurassic Park, written by Michael Crichton. Westworld came out in the seventies I believe.

"One thing I'm never going to give up on is hope..."

reply

[–] evolution_500_2 18 years ago

I can't help but notice a lot of similarities between the novels:
- both feature Deinonychus (though Crichton calls them velociraptors)
- both feature Dilophosaurs (Crichton's spat whereas Brosnan's didn't)
- both have tyrannosaurs (T-rex in JP but in Brosnan's novel it was a Tarbosaurus, a larger and very similar animal physiologically speaking)

Also, one cannot help but glare at these aspects:
- in JP, there were apatosaurs and no brachiosaurs whereas in Carnosaur there was a baby brachiosaurus. In the film, however, there were full grown brachiosaurs.
- the film JP3 included a Spinosaur, which is curious because in Brosnan's novel it had featured a European spinosaur known as Altispinax.

Plus, this was not the first time that Crichton had been accused of plagiarism. He was sued by a novelist who was focussed on tornadoes only to find it in the form of the movie TWISTER. Crichton won, but then again he had money to pay for the best lawyers.

Conclusion: despite these aspects, the argument that Crichton plagiarise is found to be inconclusive.

reply

[–] mderome 18 years ago

I read this book afew years ago, but don't remember all the dinosaurs in it. I think it was about 12 different kinds, plus a pleisiosaur, but does anyone know the complete list?

reply

[–] DracenWolfe 15 years ago

Deinonychus, in Jurassic Park they were called Velociraptor, despite the real Velociraptors being only one-and-a-half feet tall.
Megalosaurus
Tarbosaurus
Brachiosaur
Dilophosaur
Altispinax
Plesiosaur, properly speaking, not a real dinosaur.
Scolosaurus.

It was stated that there were ten dinosaurs (two of them being Deinonychus), eleven if you included the plesiosaur. I don't think the others were named, but I may be wrong.

At the end, two baby Tyrannosaurs were hatched.

He who lives by the sword will be shot by those who can't

reply

[–] evolution_500_2 9 years ago

There were two Deinonychus, a Scolosaurus, a Plesiosaur, a Megalosaurus, a baby Brachiosaur, an Altispinax, a Dilophosaurus, a Tarbosaurus and two baby tyrannosaurs at the end of the novel.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tribalmaggot 9 years ago

It's not - the novel came out six years before JP and the film came out slightly before the film adaptation of JP.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]