Boardroom biz meets Mummy man and the wrecked vacation house

This one just made me laugh -



How could T-rex even catch them with that tail dragging? It's just all over the place.

Is this some sort of pirated copy? Where did you find this?

Because on ISFDB, the covers tend to be T. Rex skeleton, movie poster with same and occasionally T. Rex. Never any people, because people aren't what we read/watch dinosaur books/movies for.

It's small as T. Rex go, isn't it?

I'm also boggled at how the head of the guy lower right is attached to his body, and the size/perspective of it.

GSS @Bookmarque!

Since you don't have books cataloged, you don't have the module on the home page that shows covers for your books uploaded by other people. Since I've cataloged J.P., it turned this up today because someone added it to their catalog. Sometimes it turns up beauties, other times, head scratchers.

>3 Bookmarque: Ah! Thanks for passing it on to us.

I stand by everything else I said.

The first edition of the book I saw, back before the movie came, had a somewhat similar cover with a green retro-carnosaur, though no people that I recall. It may have been this:

After the movie came out, Swedish editions simply kept the English title, since that was what everyone was calling the movie, but early ones, as you can see, were called Urtidsparken, lit. "The Primeval Park".

The banality of mediocrity. It's not even awful, it's just ... meh.

It is interesting to think that the book was written and published in a time where a publisher could assign it a cover by the same illustrator for The Three Investigators books rather than use Hollywood iconography.

In my recollection, the US hardcover edition (published in 1990) artwork was adopted BY Spielberg et al not the other way around. Rightfully so since it's so great and is pretty much instantly recognizable to either the book or the film (released in 1993).

>8 Bookmarque: Bookmarque: It is a very striking piece of art. I didn't read the book till after the movie came out, but I think you might be right. Certainly the T-Rex skeleton was there from the beginning. First edition: https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/pl.cgi?19218 There's also a wraparound photo where you get the back part of the dino.

@EndofDiskOne: LOL! It really does look like a juvenile/YA except for the dead guy, ripped clothes, and looks of terror.

@Andreas: That's a serviceable cover. Dinosaurs, various flora.

I'm still amazed at the adequate art skills (except that one guy's head) but the decision to put a Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew-esque cover on a book that features people getting eaten on the regular is... odd. Not to mention using that art style any time post-1990.

>1 Bookmarque: I can just hear what T. rex is thinking:

"Carrion? Yeah, I like carrion, but c'mon! You're giving it to me half-dead/undead? Never mind, I'll just hunt fresh."

>10 Hammy_JLK: There's always the business-suited duo down right; still fresh and on the hoof.

I thought everyone but the dead body should dash away if/when T(iny) Rex's head is turned away from them, and then I remembered that like their feathery, flappy descendants, they've got eyes either side of the head. It can watch both Buff Mummy and Boardroom Biz.

I used to have a FOAF online who got hysterical IN ALL CAPS when anyone referred to her beloved flock of backyard chickens as dinosaurs. So of course I did, often. Whereas an actual friend loved it when I called her chooks that. Her husband was a vet in a Midwest exurb, so they had many abandoned animals living on their property. Including many cats, a dog, a llama, and a herd of thundering guinea pigs.*

I can only conclude that HYSTERICAL WOMAN knew no science and also had never looked a bird of prey, parrot, or cockatoo in the eye.

*I saw a video.

>1 Bookmarque: Dinos draggin' their tails used to be standard in old paleoart: I guess the artist hadn't kept up with the times.

https://www.christies.com/img/LotImages/2012/NYR/2012_NYR_02603_0089_000(charles...

@GSSex-noob: was the woman a creationist?

>12 bam2001: She wasn't, AFAIK; just had a fixation on chickens. My actual friend liked that her chickens were relict dinosaurs.

There's no excuse for the tail dragging for a book cover printed after 1990. Maybe the artist didn't read it or see the movie, and simply went on a description and had only seen 1950s art. Would explain the tail and retro styling. Although the woman's hair could be 60s or 70s.

The characters bottom right look as though they have been literally cut-and-pasted into the image. That's as in 'real scissors' cutting and 'real glue' pasting.

>14 RobertDay: Dude's head particularly looks that way.