Oh and Herc, there must be someone in the AICN staff to write a more respectful article, man. There was more soul in my local news site. That was some cold shit, dude.

RIP Mike....you left a ton of great work behind.

Prayers go out to his family and fans...

Now excuse me while I read Atlas Shrugged (because of the Obama win) concurrently while rereading Jurassic Park.

Now that is what it means to be FIRST!

EATERS OF THE DEAD!

EATERS OF THE DEAD!

EATERS OF THE DEAD!

EATERS OF THE DEAD!

Maybe it's not that weird..

Honestly, I don't want this to become my fucking catchphrase.

but to have done that, Jurassic Park and ER is a real legacy.

Perhaps if at least one of these scientists is experienced but emotionally unstable under untestable circumstances and if one of the scientists is a hot lady and if one is a outsider maverick in his field....maybe, just maybe this crack team, perhaps funded by a retired zillionare or marginalized military program, could find some new shit at one of the places I mentioned that would reincarnate the ##1 M.C.

Any way of getting this Smithee fellow banned for life?

I was quite disappointed in 'the Lost World' adaptation straying so far from the book as to dismiss the giant chameleon dinosaur at the end. That could have been quite cool.

As a rather prolific author, I think only Crichton and King rival one another for worst adaptation of very good works. Sphere and Congo were such great summer reads for me, and then the movies were 'wow' bad. 13th Warrior is a loose adaptation that I actually really like, and I must be mocked for it. Rising Sun was a great read and could have been done much better in it's translation to screen - look at the different approach to linear storytelling well done in L.A. Confidential and see how it could have been managed better.

He was an accessible junk science fiction writer who could really engage the reader in his narrative and pacing. Maximized a 'what if' scenario into very good entertainment. I liked his work quite a lot.

Great film, though!

Ruined a bloody good book, that did...

Wow

What I'm trying to say is....

FUCK OFF.

The adaptations of these properties were not so consistent, but when they were good - they were GOOD!

Don't forget to pay the ferryman...

My view is that climate change is real and has happened regularly for hundreds of millions of years. Whether this latest spell is natural, man-made or a bit of both, I don't know.

What I do know is that me being told to buy energy-saving bulbs by politicians who travel the world in jets is fatuous and insulting. Being shamed into rolling your dimmer switch down just as half of India lights up a coal-fire is laughable and I can't believe so many gullible people are falling for it.

If saving energy is so important to the future of the planet, then can I take it that every office block in every city will be dark tonight? Or will they simply carry on leaving all the lights blazing when no-one's there?

Do as you're told and stay asleep, little people. The Big Boys know best...

Interesting to read the thoughts he's provoked on here about scientific consensus and the Real World Modern Day Scientist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe the height of scientific consensus once had the world convinced the Sun revolved around the Earth and that the HEART was where thoughts came from (the brain was just a useless lump of fat; nobody knew what it was for) - among other gems, of course...

Don't get me (or him) wrong tho - I'm not knocking Science - or "Climate Change" - the whole POINT is that someone can come along and say "you guys have got it all WRONG - light is both a wave AND a particle!" and consensus will shift and entire libraries of useless old theories will get thrown out.

Try doing THAT with a popular myth about, say, a boat and some animals and some unusually heavy rain...

In March 2006, the real Crowley wrote an article strongly critical of Crichton for his theories about global warming in "State of Fear". There's little doubt that Crichton was making a poisonous counter-attack on Crowley in "Next".

All joking aside, he was a fantastic author and a brilliant thinker. One of the few men in the world willing to openly challenge Al Gore's global warming hoax.

The first Jurassic Park novel, Timeline, Sphere, and Andromeda Strain should be required reading. His more recent books suffered from being a tad overly preachy, but still enjoyable. I've yet to read "NEXT" (been meaning to pick it up in paperback, but haven't gotten to it yet). I must have read the first JP novel close to 100 times since I first got it back in '90 (I've since gone thru 3 JP books... two hardcovers and 1 paperback).

Agreed regarding CONGO and SPHERE. Both were tremendous reads. The movie versions paled in comparison.

Anyone who thinks we have ANY long term effects on the earth has serious delusions of godliness.

I think this is easily seen today and also the progress from convenience to physical isolation and the impersonal aspects of online communication.

With the internet, thousands of us can sit in a 'virtual' room and debate politics. However, without the internet, maybe a hundred of us could debate said politics but without resorting to childish name-calling and any other nonsense issued solely due to the nature of internet anonymity.

I disagreed with him on a few things politically but his contribution to the world of literature and film is simply wonderful and he will be dearly missed.

And yes, Sphere was a terrible movie but a great book. Highly recommended. And 'The Lost World' is probably 80% completely different than the movie...all excellent reads!

RIP, Doc Crighton!

Jurassic Park curse?

The IPCC reports refute, in minute detail, all the fake science promulgated by MobilExxon but ideologues like you two keep repeating the lies.

That's not what he was saying at all. 1) Have you read his book? 2) Have you listened to his interviews? 3) Have you contacted the govnernment yet? Because I hear that they have programs for retarded people like you.

He never denied that there was climatological change, that it was man-made, or that the Earth was getting warmer. What HE DID SAY was that we should not be panicking over it; that reasonable estimates of change over the next century are .8 degrees Centigrade; that estimations of future climate, including his own, are unreliable because we cannot even predict the next week's weather, let alone the next hundred years'. On that last point in particular, your tens of thousands of climatologists would agree.

Moreover, unless you've read the hundreds of SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL articles, research papers, and carefully examined the data of global climatological change yourself, you're not really in a position to disagree with him. Everything YOU believe comes filtered through the media, Al Gore, or celebrities, and if you think their insights are worth half a crap, I pity your feeble brains. If you look at the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC DATA (and I have), Crichton's viewpoints are not invalid. For example, the warming of the Earth's surface - yeah, there's a lot of evidence that the surface temperature of New York City has risen substantially since 1850. Problem is, look at Albany NY (100 miles or so north), and what do you see? The surface temperature there has not substantially increased since 1850. The newsmedia will tell you the former truth, but not the latter, and then frame it in the context of "IMPENDING DISASTER" because idiots like you lap up that sort of news.

I expressed no view whatsoever about Crichton's opinions.

You stupidly leaped to that conclusion because you were dying to ventilate your inane, neo-con fake science opinions about climate change.

However, I HAVE IN FACT READ hundreds of SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL articles and examined the date of global Climatological change MYSELF!!!

Shocking, I know, that some people actually know how to access research materials and actually take the time to do it.

Second, NOTHING I BELIEVE on this topic comes filtered through the media, Al Gore or celebrities- nor do I think that their insights are worth a pinch of shit.

I have sufficient education to form my own views based on reading primary source materials. Unlike you, you hypocrite.

Thirdly, the hearsay data you quote from undisclosed sources about NW USA land temperatures is both incorrect AND irrelevant to the conclusions summarised in the IPCC reports - which you have evidently not read.

Fourth, your incompetent debating skills would embarrass a 6 year old. You've just effectively demonstrated your inability to engage in scientific debate.

Fuck off, grow up and read a fucking book.

We've had this debate before, and you had your ass kicked.

Contrary to your assumption, science is the one area where consensus ultimately is decisive.

All scientists have the right and obligation to contest consensus views, but since perfect proof is generally impossible, when those challenges have all failed, the consensus of scientists represents the state of the science on that point.

That is what has happened in respect of global warming.

Consensus is recorded in the most recent IPCC report.

You hate that conclusion for your own bizarre ideological reasons, but you're stuck with it unless you can prove error.

You can't.

You obviously haven't got the faintest clue about scientific method.

You've proved over and over again on these Talkbacks that you're an obnoxious cunt who'll say any spiteful thing, no matter how dishonest, no matter how contrary to fact, just to gratify your gigantic but fragile ego.

Why do you keep stinking up this place you pitiful loser?

Diabetes may get the rest of us.

Terrorism? Fuck that. Spend 200 billion on curing cancer. Fuck IRAQ. Fuck Al Quaeda. Fuck IRAN.

If America had the god damned Cure for cancer, how many counties would want to be Americas friend?