Michael Crichton - R.I.P.

Dades

October 23, 1942 – November 4, 2008

This sad news must have got lost in the furor of the US elections.
I'm posting this here as I was a big fan, and from what I can gather MC was a non-believer.

Michael Crichton wrote:

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

He also had some really interesting views of Environmentalism as a religion, which anyone who has read State of Fear would have noted.

Michael Crichton wrote:

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.

More on wiki.

Zombrex

wow, he was only 66 ... very sad

MrPudding

Yes, very sad. I always enjoyed his books. State of Fear was very interesting, as was a lot of his earier work.

MrP

CerebralCortex

Never read any of his stuff but I'll never forget the experience of Jurassic Park not sure how much he was involved in the adaption but that was a classic movie.

death1234567

RIP, Great Writer.

Zillah

Dinosaurs are cool.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055413313

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Never read any of his stuff but I'll never forget the experience of Jurassic Park not sure how much he was involved in the adaption

He was very involved apparently.

Goduznt Xzst

I've read most of his books. They have all been poorly adapted for screen. The true Jurassic Park book, including Lost World are a lot darker than the Spielberg movies. Also, I was so disappointed with the movie Timeline as his book was fantastic. Although the science was a little hammy

Interesting fact from that wiki page, he actually has a dinosaur named after him, how cool is that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crichtonsaurus

Dades

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The true Jurassic Park book, including Lost World are a lot darker than the Spielberg movies.

I thought the Lost World book was poor, compared to the first.

Though how anyone could say the Jurassic Park movie was a poor adaptation, I don't know! Popcorn it may have been, but for pure entertainment it was awesome. The T-Rex scene still hasn't been beat in 15 yrs of CGI advancement for monster fun.

Asiaprod

death1234567 wrote: »

RIP, Great Writer.

+1, always enjoyed his books.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

I thought the Lost World book was poor, compared to the first.

Though how anyone could say the Jurassic Park movie was a poor adaptation, I don't know! Popcorn it may have been, but for pure entertainment it was awesome. The T-Rex scene still hasn't been beat in 15 yrs of CGI advancement for monster fun.

The Lost World was poor when compared to the first book, but superior when compared to the adaptation (where was the cameleon dinosaur, the pterodactyls.. etc) There was also no T-Rex "king kong-esque" rampage in the book.

The movie was excellent and still one of my all time favorites. Just hearing the words "Jurassic Park" has me humming the theme tune in my head. However, I felt the book was superior due it being a lot darker. Hammonds character in the book is the antithesis of what Spielberg made him in the movie.

MrPudding

Did anyone read "airframe?" I really enjoyed it. Also, can't remember the name, but one of his very early books about abortion, very good.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

I've never read any of his books, but The Andromeda Strain was a very enjoyable film.

Dades

MrPudding wrote: »

Did anyone read "airframe?" I really enjoyed it.

Yup, enjoyed that one a lot.

BTW, Fanny, I tried to get a copy of Roadside Picnic in town yesterday with no joy. Interweb it is!

GothPunk

I read that he died on BBC news last night, and texted the girlfriend to let her know, we're both big Crichton fans. I was surprised to hear he had died, very sad indeed. One of the modern sci-fi greats methinks.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Also, I was so disappointed with the movie Timeline as his book was fantastic. Although the science was a little hammy

Nice to see I'm not the only one who enjoyed Timeline.

robindch

GothPunk wrote: »

I read that he died on BBC news last night

Gosh, Paxman at it again with the lead piping?

Goduznt Xzst

robindch wrote: »

Gosh, Paxman at it again with the lead piping?

*groan* wah wah waaaah

Daemonic

Read most of his books and enjoyed them all. While Jurassic Park was great movie entertainment some were made into awful movies, Sphere & Congo come to mind.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

Dinosaurs are cool.

Quoted for great truth.

Zillah wrote: »

He was very involved apparently.

Yep, himself and David Koepp both wrote the screenplay. He is believed to have been very pleased with how the film turned out and liked the cahnge to the ending.

It's not particularly well known but he also produced and directed several films as well as being an accomplished novelist.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Interesting fact from that wiki page, he actually has a dinosaur named after him, how cool is that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crichtonsaurus

I believe he's had a couple, but Crichtonsaurus is the only genera named after him.
BTW, that picture is an Ankylosaurus as depicted in Walking With Dinosaurs. I cant find any good art of Chrichtonsaurus, but here's a skeleton:

Dades wrote: »

I thought the Lost World book was poor, compared to the first.

Ditto. i always found The Lost World book to be a bit overrated.

Daemonic wrote: »

Read most of his books and enjoyed them all. While Jurassic Park was great movie entertainment some were made into awful movies, Sphere & Congo come to mind.

Congo is a surprisingly good book. pity about the film.

Goduznt Xzst

Galvasean wrote: »

BTW, that picture is an Ankylosaurus as depicted in Walking With Dinosaurs.

Did you read the wiki entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crichtonsaurus

Quote - Crichtonsaurus is a genus of dinosaur named for Michael Crichton, the author of Jurassic Park. It was a thyreophoran, specifically an ankylosaur, and it lived during the late Cretaceous Period.

rainbow kirby

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've never read any of his books, but The Andromeda Strain was a very enjoyable film.

Airframe and The Andromeda Strain were very, very good.

Galvasean

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Did you read the wiki entry?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crichtonsaurus

Quote - Crichtonsaurus is a genus of dinosaur named for Michael Crichton, the author of Jurassic Park. It was a thyreophoran, specifically an ankylosaur, and it lived during the late Cretaceous Period.

Do you know I know my dinosaurs????

Yes Crichtonsaurus was an ankylosaur, but certainly not an Ankylosaurus. The ankylosaurs were a reasonably diverse group, with Ankylosaurus being the largest known genus within the group and the animal which the family is named after.
Main differences between Chrichtonsaurus and Ankylosaurus were that Chrichtonsaurus was roughly one third the size of Ankylosaurus, much less heavily armored and lived in Asia as opposed to North America.

Here's a pretty good starting point for anyone who wants to learn more about ankylosaurs:
http://tolweb.org/Ankylosauria

toiletduck

Daemonic wrote: »

Read most of his books and enjoyed them all. While Jurassic Park was great movie entertainment some were made into awful movies, Sphere & Congo come to mind.

I thought they were quite good

L31mr0d

Galvasean wrote: »

Do you know I know my dinosaurs????

Yes Crichtonsaurus was an ankylosaur, but certainly not an Ankylosaurus. The ankylosaurs were a reasonably diverse group, with Ankylosaurus being the largest known genus within the group and the animal which the family is named after.
Main differences between Chrichtonsaurus and Ankylosaurus were that Chrichtonsaurus was roughly one third the size of Ankylosaurus, much less heavily armored and lived in Asia as opposed to North America.

Here's a pretty good starting point for anyone who wants to learn more about ankylosaurs:
http://tolweb.org/Ankylosauria

:rolleyes:

*note to Goduznt Xzst, check if the user mods a forum that deals with the point in question before rebutting*

Galvasean

L31mr0d wrote: »

:rolleyes:

*note to Goduznt Xzst, check if the user mods a forum that deals with the point in question before rebutting*

Honest mistake. There aren't any good restoration pics of Crichtonsaurus online that I can find. Also, a lot of the descriptions found online are quite vague.

studiorat

I'll pray for his departed soul...
Oh, wait a minute...:eek:

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

The T-Rex scene still hasn't been beat in 15 yrs of CGI advancement for monster fun.

This kicks the JP scene's ass

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

This kicks the JP scene's ass

Waitaminute... dinosaur... caveman... same time and place...

CREATIONIST! :eek: