Jurassic World

Discussion in 'THREAD ARCHIVES' started by Professor Crane, Apr 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I haven't seen a thread on here about Jurassic World. I thought I would bring it up since a new trailer came out semi-recently.

    Trailer 1 (open)

    Trailer 2 (open)

    Video of my opinion. (open)

    If you can't or don't want to watch the video, my opinion is this.

    First, it feels uncomfortably close to Jurassic park 3.

    My first real point is, admittedly, a nitpick. They have claimed that the Indomitus Rex is the first 'genetically modified' Dinosaur. All the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are genetically modified, they were all crossed with frogs.

    To get to my real complaints, In the most recent trailer there's a comment that the dinosaurs are communicating with each other. In Jurassic Park and The Lost World, it's obvious that the dinosaurs communicate, but at an animalistic level. In Jurassic Park 3 they tried to give the deinonychus Human level communication, and it didn't work, and they seem to be doing the same thing here. The problem with this comes down to the basic conflict that fueled Jurassic Park and made it world. A quick refresher for those who don't know, there are three basic types of conflict, man vs. other, man vs. self, and man vs. nature. Jurassic Park falls squarely into the third category. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park worked because they were a representation of nature, but could have easily been replaced with other animals and still worked.

    In the trailer for Jurassic World they seem to give the Indomitus Rex Human level intelligence, creating a man vs. other 'creature feature'.

    That's my main thoughts on it, what are yours?
  2. My thought is that Jurrassic Park didn't need any sequels, and I only enjoyed the first movie, probably because I was a kid with a nerd boner for velociraptors :(
  3. I want this movie to be good.

    But I feel in my balls, this movie is not going to be good.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. It looks like it's going to be a thrill movie.
    Nothing more.

    I might watch it as a "Kick back and have fun" sort of thing, but those trailers don't make me hopeful for anything better.
  5. I'm, sorry. I thought the first three films covered that the theme park was a BAD IDEA!!

    And now we're adding a mutant dinosaur? How stupid are these geneticists?

    I'm in full agreement that this is not necessary to make, and that the mutation angle is bordering on the ridiculous.

    Jurassic Park is supposed to serve as a warning not to play god, a fanciful reminder that we can't control nature, no matter how hard we try. Bringing extinct killing machines back from the dead, only for it to spiral out of control, worked fantastically. For two movies (I liked the third too, because the people weren't even supposed to be there. I find that idiocy amusing.).

    My biggest problem with the whole premise is the mutant for this specific reason. Make another Jurassic Park? Okay. Have them actually build the attractions that led to the first disaster? All mighty dollar, right? I can see that, and that alone is a suitable explanation. That's cool. All of that sets up a movie with the same message and offers new thrills. That would be fine. Crossing dinosaur DNA to make a super monster? Why? We had intelligent dinosaurs to kill us already. We had big ones that could tear through steel cages with their face. We didn't need some twisted T-Rex/raptor hybrid or whatever to get the point across.
    #5 Quiet One, Apr 28, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  6. I'm excited for it, personally. Jurassic Park is my favorite movie ever, and Jurassic World's going to show what it would be like if the park actually opened, which has been something of a dream to me. I absolutely adore Michael Crichton's novels and I'm able to keep them seperate from the movies.

    Like you said, none of the dinosaurs are actually real dinosaurs, but rather genetically engineered monsters. Some definite liberties were taken with them for the movies. For instance, there's no evidence to support diloposaurs having a retractable crest and spitting venomous spit was entirely fantasy that Crichton made up. Interestingly, the velociraptors depicted in the movie and novels weren't actually based off of a real dinosaur, but were also a creative invention. Deinonychus wasn't actually discovered until well after the first movie was released, which made it astonishing since it was pretty close to the real animal, save for how its wrists sat (remember, in JP they rested almost like a praying mantis). I can't remember who said the quote, but I think it was either Spielberg or Jack Horner, "We invented the velociraptor and seven months later, scientists discovered it." I am paraphrasing, but that's the gist.

    As for the velociraptors being able to communicate in 3, that isn't unreasonable. Humans aren't the only animals that use complex language, most birds do as well, and JP is quite fond of reminding us that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Crows, for instance, are capable of passing on information like describing a mean person in a mask to other crows; researchers did this experiment where a bunch of people would wear masks, and some would feed the crows while another would be mean and harass them. The guy in the bad mask found himself being subjected to aggression by not only the crows he first harassed but by crows that none of the other researchers had seen before. Another case of birds having language is that researchers found that some songbirds actually assign a specific chirp when addressing a specific chick in the nest; the mothers effectively name their chicks.

    So, with that in mind, I don't see ot being a stretch that raptors can talk to each other, and as for I Rex talking to other dinosaurs, keep in mind we don't know the extent of it. It could simply mean they can pick up on tone and body language like most real animals do, and maybe the dinosaurs are smart enough to translate that to interspecies cooperation. After all, going way back to JP1 the very first scene wirh dinosaurs shows multiple species living together as a herd. Maybe there's more to it than just safety in numbers.

    Regardless, I'm excited for the movie and each trailer makes me more excited. I don't like to judge a movie before seeing it because I'd rather enjoy it when I'm in the theater instead of subconsciously sabotaging myself into nitpicking it.
    • Love Love x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  7. I'll probably try to see it, too. I just don't think the mutant angle is a good idea.
  8. Jurassic Park's main theme is actually about a failure of a capitalist dream because John Hammond was a greedy, vindictive man who was all too eager to remind people that he "spared no expense" while doing things like,

    -Cutting corners on staffing. Why were Nedry and Arnold the only two programmers, and why weren't there precautions taken to prevent corporate sabotage? BioSyn, the rival corporation of InGen that paid off Nedry to steal the samples, was well-known for stealing and reverse engineering other genetics corporations' shit to make a profit and they too had been trying to clone dinosaurs; InGen was about ten years ahead of where BioSyn was, which is why they wanted the embryos, Nedry had also made it clear to Hammond that he was not satisfied with his pay and was having financial issues, which they touched on in the movie. While it's possible Nedry would have jumped at the chance for the millions he was promised by Dodson regardless, it's likely he was approached after it was discovered that the head programmer at Jurassic Park was very disgruntled with his position. Keep in mind that what Nedry did was extremely illegal and negligent, and he very likely would have been facing a huge legal battle had he not been killed.

    -Not providing sufficient habitats for many of the animals or having redundant security features as a precaution in case power did fail across the park, which given that everything runs on electricity and you're in a place that gets hit with tropical storms quite often, isn't implausible even with back up generators. Even looking at the raptor cage, it was pretty much a box, and there weren't any physical barriers for the animals except for the fences and some moats, both of which proved to be hilariously inadequate once the fences failed.

    -Not studying or understanding the animals to actually see if the African bull frog DNA could actually make the animals change gender (a reminder, Dr. Grant was a paleontologist, not a biologist, and he knew that the frogs could do that), if the whole Lysine Contingency was effective (in case you forgot, basically the dinosaurs were engineered with a lysine deficiency that they could only get by their provided food. They would go catatonic and die without it. This was a security precaution). Given that years and years had passed on both Isla Nubar and Isla Sorna and there were dinosaurs left on both sites (in the novels, only Isla Sorna, or Site B, had surviving animals; Isla Nubar was bombed to shit by the Costa Rican military at the end of the first novel), it's clear that the dinosaurs adapted and thrived without it. Other problems they had were some attractions were designed without accounting for the aggression of certain animals, like the aviary with the pteranodons (which I was actually delighted to see was a thing they brought into JP3, because it was a major part of the first novel that didn't make it into the movie), the staff planting poisonous plants in public areas without realizing that they're poisonous (which falls under the "nobody actually took the time to understand what the hell they were dealing with, and instead were more interested in shoving shit out there to make a buck by cutting corners" category), and a bunch of other shit like that.

    -Not destroying extremely dangerous animals, despite knowing exactly how obscenely violent and dangerous they are. Hammond was warned repeatedly about the raptors, and given the lengths of containment they had to put them in, would have been impossible to show visitors anyways), and the lawsuit that was coming from the worker being killed by the raptors that Hammond covered up by having his lawyers claim was a construction incident. He kept the raptors anyways, despite knowing their threat and intelligence, because he didn't want to destroy a shitload of money. Other incidents that happened in the park between the staff and the animals also goes on to highlight how they really didn't take the proper precautions to understand them first. One thing I remember was the dilophosaurs feeders didn't know to wear protective masks when going near the cages because nobody bothered to find out that they could spit blinding ass venomous spit accurately from dozens of feet away, amongst other things.

    There's a bunch of other stuff, but Jurassic Park's failure wasn't because man underestimated nature, it was because man's a greedy dick who cut corners in the interests of turning a quick profit without taking the time or money to ensure the park was safe and that they understood the creatures they were creating. Hammond didn't really see the dinosaurs as animals, just property that would be an attraction. He basically put all his cards into making the dinosaurs, and didn't take nearly enough time or resources to study them before putting on the green light to get the park opened.

    Had Hammond really "spared no expense" like he claimed, Jurassic Park could have absolutely been a viable success. It was his hubris that doomed the park from the get go. The dinosaurs were more of a symptom, rather than the cause, of why the park failed.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Hubris, yes. Aka, tempting fate.

    I won't argue that those were all factors, but the basic message at the heart of it is a warning about playing god. Hammond wasn't god, or any other godlike entity. Even if he'd done everything you suggested, which they appear to have done in the Jurassic World trailers, things would still go wrong because he was but a man laughing at nature's power.

    I may not have read the books (didn't even know there were books) but I could tell that was the central message.
  10. Seriously, if you like reading, I can't recommend either novel enough. They actually differ a lot from the movies and certainly is where most of my arguments stem from.
  11. I'm excited, even though I know deep down it's not gonna be as good as the first three. Sad times for a dino fan. :(
  12. Actually only the first movie covered that the park was a dangerous idea. The whole plot point of the first movie was that one greedy individual in particular fucked everything over. In the second movie, the protagonists themselves were the ones who screwed everyone over. Had nothing to do with whether or not the park could be pulled off (because the antagonists never ended up succeeding in bringing the dinosaurs back). The third movie was about why it's a terrible idea to go the island. Nothing more.

    Stupid? Really? We've got geneticists all over the real world mixing DNA like it's a fucking bar. There are many things we can't anticipate, and creating a "super-intelligent dinosaur" certainly wouldn't be one of them. The plot of this movie is that tampering with nature has consequences (a plot point true to the original idea of Jurassic Park). Clearly in Jurassic World we see that the park is not impossible. Look at all the fancy technology they seem to be employing. This is a Jurassic Park of the 21st century. Mind you this means a quantum leap in containment and surveillance technology. If anything this mutant dinosaur is an homage to the current real-world issues of GMO's.

    While the "moral" being Jurassic Park was not to play god, the very nature behind humanity is that we strive to attain greater feats of power. Why would we ever turn away from such a glorious achievement as a dinosaur park? In any case if you actually read into the plot of Jurassic World, you'd be able to answer your own question as to why they made a genetically-modified dinosaur; for money.

    In the freaking trailer it's explicitly stated that every time they opened up a new attraction attendance skyrocketed. Why not make something even scarier than a T Rex, right? After all that's what made the natural variant so awesome! Make something that'll knock the socks off tourists further than they'd expected. It's for money, nothing else.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Well put!

    My biggest question is how this super I-Rex thing escapes to begin with because it looks like most of the infrastructure's still functional in the movie when shit's going down. Heck, the people running the place definitely look a lot more prepared because holy shit guns and rocket launchers.

    Although, if I remember in the first novel, I think they had like one single rocket launcher and a few firearms, but mostly tranquilizer guns. Shit's a lot more serious now, I suppose.

  14. At 1:05, Indominus is breaking out of the enclosure. I'm guessing that Pratt and the worker dude they show entered in from that wall looking for the specimen or something, and as they run it follows and breaks free before they close it.
  15. I'm guessing there might be a bit more to it than that, because trailers don't show everything, but if that's the case, that's an extremely silly way to cause a catastrophe haha.
  16. In other trailers they talk about how the Indominus literally just climbed out of its enclosure, so I'm guessing what happens is that they go looking in other enclosures for it (it's hiding), find it, then run the fuck away and it escapes through the door in the above trailer.
  17. Oh shit.

    Somebody must have dropped the Bell power up from Super Mario in there.
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Maybe it climbed the trees as stepping stones. *shrug*
  19. Reading all this....am I the only person who watches a movie to simply watch a movie? I don't care about the inaccuracies or sciences behind it, I'm watching to be entertained. Why pick someone's choice of entertainment?

    I for one am looking forward to watching it. I've been a fan of the movies since the first one came out, and plan on taking my kids to the drive in to see this one. (If it comes out at the drive in, that is.)
    • Like Like x 3
  20. I've discovered that overthinking some movies ruins them for me, so I try not to do it. I try to go into a movie with as little expectation as possible but being excited to watch it. Most of the time, I leave quite happy.

    Chappie, for instance, I enjoyed a lot until I started thinking about it, then I realized how bad a lot of it was. That's a topic for another day, but I came to the conclusion there was a great potential for story there and they completely fucked it in the wrong direction.

    Also, I miss the drive in. I don't have one here, and that's probably because in the summer, it's still light out past like 10pm.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.