Next Question
RSS
It actually does make a lot of sense for a number of reasons. Here's why:
The Jurassic period was the MIDDLE of three periods in the Mesozoic Era, which is called the "Age of Reptiles". So it really is central point in the age of dinosaurs, and finding a middle focal time point for dinosaur development and emergence makes sense since when Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler arrive at the island, the park is in the middle of its dinosaur development.
Plus, let's consider that there were many, many dinosaurs thriving in the Jurassic period:
Diplodocus
Plesiosaurus
Archaeopteryx
Dilophosaurus (in book/movie)
Scuttelosaurus
Stenopterygius
Brachiosaurus (in book/movie)
Ceratosaurus
Camarasaurus
Allosaurus
Rhamphorhynchus
http://imagecache5.art.com/p/LRG/32/3212/QHP1F00Z/dinosaurs--jurassic-period.jpg
And if that isn't enough to convince you, consider the author's poetic irony. Crichton was a very clever writer.
Consider the brilliance that the name of the park was somewhat anachronistic! The name and concept for the park was conceived by character John Hammond, who had no thorough understanding of the world of dinosaurs. The park itself was a giant anachronism. So the fact that the park was somewhat mislabeled seems to be commentary on the lack of careful thought applied to the natural boundaries of science and time.
And yes, I think Cretaceous Park would've been a fine name, too. We would've gotten used to it and still bought tickets to the movie!
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=8050&rendTypeId=4
Source(s):
http://www.prehistory.com/timeline/jurassic.htm
Tags: crichton, dinosaurs, jurassic, cretaceous, mesozoic
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Next to that 'Jurassic Park' sounds just alot of better!
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic
Permalink | Report
The reason he went with this name rather than the other is probably just because it sounds better. Cretaceous Park really doesn't sound as good. He may have talked to other people that felt the same and wanted the name to be appealing. Books and movies alike do make more money when the names are more appealing to the consumer.
Source(s):
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/jurassic.ht...
Permalink | Report
Remember, he was writing for a western audience, and with western audiences, contamination of the meanings of words as part of the marketing required to boost sales goes with the territory.
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
M$1.05
September 20, 2009 05:55 AM
Why did Michael Crichton name it "JURASSIC Park" if the dinosaurs are from the Cretaceous Period?
This came up in studying World History tonight, and my shoot from the hip answer was that it just sounded better. We found a message from the late Mr. Crichton that he was initially thinking about replicating a pterodactyl, but that wasn't a satisfying answer. So, hopefully, one of you has a better explanation! Thanks--mm
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| September 21, 2009 12:26 PM |
The Jurassic period was the MIDDLE of three periods in the Mesozoic Era, which is called the "Age of Reptiles". So it really is central point in the age of dinosaurs, and finding a middle focal time point for dinosaur development and emergence makes sense since when Dr. Grant and Dr. Sattler arrive at the island, the park is in the middle of its dinosaur development.
Plus, let's consider that there were many, many dinosaurs thriving in the Jurassic period:
Diplodocus
Plesiosaurus
Archaeopteryx
Dilophosaurus (in book/movie)
Scuttelosaurus
Stenopterygius
Brachiosaurus (in book/movie)
Ceratosaurus
Camarasaurus
Allosaurus
Rhamphorhynchus
And if that isn't enough to convince you, consider the author's poetic irony. Crichton was a very clever writer.
Consider the brilliance that the name of the park was somewhat anachronistic! The name and concept for the park was conceived by character John Hammond, who had no thorough understanding of the world of dinosaurs. The park itself was a giant anachronism. So the fact that the park was somewhat mislabeled seems to be commentary on the lack of careful thought applied to the natural boundaries of science and time.
And yes, I think Cretaceous Park would've been a fine name, too. We would've gotten used to it and still bought tickets to the movie!
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=8050&rendTypeId=4
Source(s):
http://www.prehistory.com/timeline/jurassic.htm
| Asker's Rating: |
• Thanks, again. There were a lot of good answers, but I really liked your analysis.
Tags: crichton, dinosaurs, jurassic, cretaceous, mesozoic
Helpful Answer?
(1)
(0)
Helpful: stanar
Tip gno for this answer
Reply
Other Answers (4)
September 20, 2009 07:20 AM
Well, pretty simple answer i guess. Does 'Cretaceous Park' sound any cool to you? Jurassic pretty much gives you an idea what the movie would be about an old era, an era when dinosaurs lived. Next to that 'Jurassic Park' sounds just alot of better!
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurassic
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 21, 2009 12:46 PM
Yeah, maybe "Cretaceous" would've reminded some of lobsters or something. ;-) You may be right. Thanks, robschins.
BTW, satchellmr, I love the jangling juxtaposition of your avatar next to you saying "I totally agree."
Report
BTW, satchellmr, I love the jangling juxtaposition of your avatar next to you saying "I totally agree."
September 20, 2009 08:05 AM
The age of dinosaurs actually started in the Triassic Period and last through the Jurassic Period to the Cretaceous Period. Not all of the dinosaurs from the movie are from the Cretaceous Period, such as the stegosaurs and the Brachiosaurs. Most may be because this was the period with the most dinosaurs. 
The reason he went with this name rather than the other is probably just because it sounds better. Cretaceous Park really doesn't sound as good. He may have talked to other people that felt the same and wanted the name to be appealing. Books and movies alike do make more money when the names are more appealing to the consumer.
Source(s):
http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/prehistoric-world/jurassic.ht...
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 21, 2009 12:47 PM
Thanks, solaura. That's a great site, and you may be right: it may have been that "J.P." tested better.
Report
September 21, 2009 06:05 PM
It was a marketing thing. It sounds better than Triasic Park, or Cretacious Park, or Mesozoic Park (although I would have like that last one). Remember, he was writing for a western audience, and with western audiences, contamination of the meanings of words as part of the marketing required to boost sales goes with the territory.
Permalink | Report
Reply
September 23, 2009 02:49 PM
Thanks, omicron. I don't know. It COULD have been marketing, but I still think that there must've been some other reason(s).
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
No questions found.
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- conundrum_brico..., November 27, 2009 02:18 AM
- fb_550496860, November 27, 2009 02:17 AM
- jamesbang, November 27, 2009 02:09 AM
- michaelbolton, November 27, 2009 02:04 AM
- andreaking, November 27, 2009 01:56 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
I was hoping that someone would know whether Crichton had ever actually discussed this minor-but-interesting titling question. But, I'm starting to conclude that he did not.