Dinosaur 13: comparing my reflection with a published review


My reflection of dinosaur 13 compared with a published review
                I compared my reflection with Kenneth Turan’s review of Dinosaur 13 ('Dinosaur 13' richly details how huge find devolved into grief). Kenneth Turan writes for the Los Angeles Times. The movie review was a nice read. It included the brief descriptions of major events with key specifics of the major events included such as the possible punishments Peter Larson faced when he got into legal troubles. I think this is a key difference between my reflection and the review. The review highlighted key specifics about events while I glossed over them. Another difference I noticed was it was in chronological order for the most part while mine was rather all over the place. Another difference I noticed was the writer announced how he perceived and felt about certain events a lot more discretely while I announced how I felt very directly. This leads into a similarity between us both, being we announced how we felt about some key events. I’ve also noticed that I have an error in my knowledge of the film in which I thought the excavation of Sue took a lot longer than I thought I heard from the documentary. I thought I heard it took 11 months to complete the process of retrieving Sue from the ground when Turan states the film said it only took 17 days to excavate and an additional 2 years to restore and properly preserve the fossils which is a huge error I will be looking to fix in my reflection I posted. Another difference I noticed while reading the review is he didn’t mention what happened to Sue after the litigation battle ended and how she ended up in the field museum. It is a review however, therefore, it makes sense that he didn’t include how the whole situation ended. I thought it was kind of odd however that he released some key details about such key events and then didn’t at least mention anything about who won the litigation battle or at least that Sue ended up at the field museum in Chicago.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Pg. 14 infograph exercise analysis

1.) The audience for this document are american citizens. This document would be on display in education buildings such as elementary schools, high schools, and college/universities along with health care buildings such as clinics and hospitals. 2.) The infograph appears to have 2 main purposes that being physical activity is important and why physical activity is important. These two purposes are shown from all the statistics that are given about diseases and what physical activity can help prevent these statistics. It does try to convince it's audience to make a change and motivate them with a list of benefits to oneself and even the community. 3.) The document is addressing the lack of physical activity culture in the united states. The document does not state any clear solutions besides saying physical activity is good for yourself and others. Maybe an argument can be made that the images show various physical activities being performed such as biking and playing tennis or ...
Read more

Dinosaur 13 Reflection

Jacob Bostick Dr. Bonnie Lenore Kyburz ENGL 308 8 September 2018 Dinosaur 13: Reflection                 Dinosaur 13 was a documentary about Sue the T rex. I had originally thought that it would be about some scientific facts about Sue and how much of a fantastic discovery she was to the paleontology community. I was so wrong with my prediction. What ensued was a tug of war litigation battle between three sides and really is a roller-coaster of a ride.                 Two specific scenes really stood out for me. When the FBI showed up to seize the fossils and take sue away. To only throw her in a warehouse for the time being. I felt anger during this process in the documentary. The FBI stripped the black hills institute of their remarkable discovery for science. They spent roughly 17 days just extracting her from the ground m...
Read more

Ch. 4 Document Analysis assignment

Jacob Bostick Ch. 4 Document analysis The Tone of the comments are kind of degrading in my opinion. The use of “you” as a finger pointer at the writing I could care less for. Along with calling things useless. They could be improved by being constructive and talking about the actual writing. The collaborator does well in the second and fifth comment but the first, third, and fourth the collaborator provides no help really. The collaborator addresses the writer more than the writing. Some of the comments would bother me if I was receiving them. Three out of five comments are kind of pointless and out of place in a professional environment. The first has the right Idea but something like,   “I didn’t really understand what you were saying here and maybe others will have a problem too. Could you clear it up a bit and explain more?” would be better than the original comment. The collaborator did a poor job keeping comments focused on the goal of the document and did...
Read more