Character mistake: Sarah is a trained expert with predatory animals. But when her jacket is covered with blood (and not just any blood, the blood of the infant T-rex), and they're in a forest surrounded with carnivorous dinosaurs, and she knows that they need to pass through Velociraptor territory, and she thinks that the T-rex might follow them, she doesn't think to take the jacket off. And the others, who also happen to be hunters who would surely know that the blood would attract predators, don't say anything about it.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997)
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Julianne Moore, Jeff Goldblum, Vince Vaughn, Richard Attenborough, Peter Stormare, Pete Postlethwaite, Arliss Howard
Doesn't have the captivating drama of the first film but is a good film itself. Could of been better
Suggested correction: While you are right, it's still not that much of a mistake because not only does it tie into the Butterfly Effect from the first movie, but also maybe Roland used it to his advantage, meaning an opportunity to shoot the Buck Rex since using its baby didn't work.
You're really grasping at straws on this one. The top priority for everyone at this point is to find safe shelter. A bunch of dinosaur experts aren't going to jeopardize that by allowing someone in their group to walk through dangerous territory with blood-soaked clothing, and Roland isn't going to risk the lives of other people to hunt the T-rex. This is just bad writing by the filmmakers, plain and simple.
What butterfly effect?
He's talking about when Ian Malcolm was exposing chaos theory and used the term "butterfly effect." But like Phaneron said, the person was really grasping as straws and this scene has nothing to do with what Malcom was talking about.
Suggested correction: I don't think this is actually a mistake. Yes Sarah's jacket is covered in blood from the baby T-Rex, but as you say they've got to pass through Velociraptor territory. In JP3 it was noted that the T-Rex pee keeps smaller dinosaurs away but actually attracts the Spinosaurus. The scent of the T-Rex blood could actually also have the same effect as the pee at keeping the smaller dinosaurs away.
Ian Malcolm: Mommy's very angry.
Trivia: Hammond doesn't appear in the second book (though he does in the second movie). This is because, in the book series, Hammond was killed in the first book. He slipped, broke his ankle and was fatally attacked by compies.
Question: Malcolm asks Roland why he'd kill a T-Rex. Roland proceeds to tell a story about a guy that went up a mountain and came back barely alive, and when asked 'did he go up there to die', responded 'no, he went up there to live'. I sort of get the point of the story, but could somebody clarify it for me?
Answer: It's basically about facing one's own mortality. Many humans feel that they 'feel the most alive' when facing (and overcoming) dangerous situations, the more challenging, the better. Roland is a big game hunter, to him, the ultimate challenge would be to hunt the biggest and (presumably) most dangerous predator ever to exist. Facing the danger of the T. Rex would make him feel better and mightier than he had ever felt in his life.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.