#184 Robert 'Bobby Z' Zajonc was the helicopter pilot in both JP and TLW -- Zajonc is a verteran pilot who has worked on dozens of Hollywood films. (From: 'HammondBoy') Prev - Next
"OFFICIAL Jurassic World Reaction Thread (now with FORD BAN-O-METER)" On 6/10/2015 at 1:52:11 AM, RezForPrez started the thread: Figured it was about time for one of these...hell, if a true cinematic masterpiece like TDKR got one, then obviously one needs to be made for JURASSIC WORLD.
Would also like to keep things simple with a simple rating of "groovy" or "trash" in each posters' review (like rotten or fresh) just to keep things simple for Ford's banning. simple.
Remember, if the majority of people here find JW a positive experience, Ford gets banned.
OW! STOP HITTING ME!
Msg #21: On 6/12/2015 at 2:07:34 AM, Ostromite replied, saying: After 14 years of waiting, I really don't know what to say now. I could write ten thousand words on this, and maybe I will later, but I just got back from the theater and I'm still getting over the shock of it.
I absolutely hated this movie. I was literally shaking my head and covering my eyes and cringing in the theater. There wasn't a single scene I liked. The actors did a fine job with the characters as written, and I liked when Chris Pratt knocked that nerdy guy's toys off the desk, and, I don't know, some of the little Jurassic World background props were neat, and those weird animals in the secret lab were cool. Otherwise, I don't think I could stomach a second viewing. It was so fucking stupid and corny and insulting and smug. Everyone else in the theater fucking clapped when it was over. I don't get it. Replies: 25
Msg #22: On 6/12/2015 at 2:08:07 AM, Bryan replied, saying: Colin Trevarrow has delivered the first worthy sequel to JP. Could it have been better? Of course. But there's no doubt that Trevarrow has made an amazing follow-up, with more nods to its predecessors than I was expecting and a final 20 minutes that were top-notch fan service while also being spectacularly built up and executed. It cannot be missed.
Msg #23: On 6/12/2015 at 2:36:05 AM, Coprolite replied, saying: Sitting here with some of the shittiest seats in the house, but I'm so stoked!
EDIT: wrong theater this is much better :D. Godspeed gentleman.
Msg #24: On 6/12/2015 at 2:42:12 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: Yeah I'm sorry to anyone here who may (and predictably have) turn out the other side less than pleased, but there was no loving what I just saw more than I did, with probably my favorite climax in a movie like this in more than recent memory. Fuck me that was thrilling, and the applause at the end was infectious. Happy as a clam to see its fresh rating. More later (a lot more).
Also Paul I'm moving to Florida in 3 weeks, let's be friends
You can start getting into my pants by agreeing that this movie was fucking wonderful, even with that awful soundtrack.
Msg #25: On 6/12/2015 at 2:52:48 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #21, saying: I would have been disappointed if you posted anything other than this tbh Replies: 26
Msg #26: On 6/12/2015 at 2:53:56 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #25, saying: Regardless of what anybody here may think about me, I really wanted to like this movie.
Msg #27: On 6/12/2015 at 3:14:55 AM, Bryan replied, saying: This movie wasn't meant for everyone, Lee, and as I was watching it I knew you wouldn't be having a good time and I'm sorry that we aren't on the same page here. I know multiple viewings will expose the flaws and the rose-tinted glasses will dull and I'll be able to process more objectively. That being said, this film (and the experiences I had leading up to it) gave me the same kind of thrill watching it that JP did 22 years ago and that the previous two failed to elicit. On that merit alone, I'm happy to announce I loved it. And I fully expected to hate it.
Msg #28: On 6/12/2015 at 3:39:09 AM, PunkNerd replied, saying: I loved it, and I have to say I've never been in a theater where a film was so obviously and audibly well received. Laughter in all the right spots, cheering, clapping. People seemed to love it.
Msg #29: On 6/12/2015 at 4:26:20 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Will be seeing it tomorrow, need to catch up on Insidious 3 tonight prior to JW.
Also... will be diving into Lego JW before the movie itself... just have to avoid spoilers in that section of the game.
Anyway, definitely more excited than I was to see this, though I know I won't feel nearly as good about it at the end as I still feel about Jurassic Park. At least, I don't expect to.
The climax to Jurassic Park still gives me chills.
Msg #30: On 6/12/2015 at 5:41:26 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: The movie was good. Not great, but enjoyable. There's a nice simplicity throughout it that recalls Jurassic Park's leanness but the film lacks the crackling craft of the original. It feels a bit too rompy at times, and too jokey when it comes to Hoskin's subplot. This is when Giacchino's score suffers for me and I'm betting Trevorrow put him up to it as well. It's cool to have a film be a self-reflexive critique, but if you're going to do it, do it real. Don't have everyone but the villain be in on a joke.
The film definitely has some great CGI but also a lot of overuse. There are many shots that would have benefited from animatronics, adding heft and weight to scenes that needed the real factor.
Sadly, some things feel short-shifted. The Restricted Area gets very little screen time and only the I-Rex and Ankylosaurus get a look. The Visitor's Center is a nice touch but you can tell the production didn't have the money to actually fully realize it on screen.
Some disappointments come from the fact that very little is iconic to in the movie, and the herbivores feel short-lived. Dr. Wu is wasted, I'm afraid. Instead of one scene from the first, he gets two solid ones here and maybe one small one later on before tip-toing out to be a big plot point for a sequel. I didn't like that. It would have been better to see him actually play a part with all the bigger characters in the movie. Maybe, he had a way of attracting the I-Rex. He created the fucker, he should have served a purpose there, but alas. There's also some scenes in the beginning I would have cut for redundancy. Does Claire really have to re-explain the I-Rex and the reasons they created her to Owen?
Before I feel too negative, I found the characters to be pretty good. Pratt's Owen is better than I expected, Bryce's Claire comes into her own. I know some critics say she ends up a damsel in distress, but I haven't a clue what movie they were watching. And the kids are pretty good.
There's one huge coincidence at the end of the film that I won't spoil for people but it almost made me roll my eyes. It sort of pushes a great fight to over the top for a few seconds. You'll know what I'm talking about.
In spite of the fact that the film doesn't quite feel as real as it could have, it's still a good time at the movies and a nice way to see a vision of Jurassic Park as a working attraction. It's not as goofy as JP3, and not as dark as TLW, but it does have some serious blood-letting that it was pretty safe to assume when Spielberg was whispering into Trevorrow's ear and the MPAA's.
It's more enjoyable than the other sequels, but still miles behind Jurassic Park.
* * *
Msg #31: On 6/12/2015 at 7:24:13 AM, Coprolite replied, saying: What a fun movie, I am definitely going to put that down under groovy. The first act of this film wasn't that great, though I was smiling from ear to ear when that classic JP theme kicked in. My inner critic was going wild during the first 30 minutes or so, until my friends reminded me that I was there to enjoy it and not put it under a microscope (I'll have plenty of time for that later). I'm really glad they were there or I might have ended up sour pussing harder than I did. The elements that I thought were going to be the most annoying like the kids and Claire and Owen's relationship actually surprised me, and were far more enjoyable than I was led to believe.
Things I loved:
-the score was awesome, definitely not as distinct as JP or TLW, but it gave the flavor it needed to, and saved the classic stuff for the right moments.
-The raptors, while way too CGI heavy, were so much fun. I thought this movie was going to declaw them in a way, but they struck the right balance.
-The new Rick Arnold/JP fan analogue had me rolling, I've literally used his exact words when describing the Indominus! I think Trevorrow was listening to us ;)
-The climax, my heart was pounding in my throat when we see an old friend, holy shit was it great to see her again! I completely agree with Carnotaur though, it's conclusion was too far out there.
-The dying apatosaur was a surprisingly touching scene, and definitely a callback to the triceratops from JP. Very effective.
-The fan service, it may have been a little thick sometimes (it's injected too heavily into the dialogue for my tastes) but for the first time in over a decade, I got to feel like a spoiled fan, and that there are other people out there who are just as geeky about this stuff as me (outside of you fine folks of course).
Dislikes:
-Vincent D'Ofono's character is the worst thing about this movie. He makes his debut maybe 20 minutes in and my eyeballs started rolling into the back of my head. He sucked the life out of every scene in this movie. His subplot was idiotic, and his mustache twirling final scene was the stupidest moment in the whole franchise.
-The movie feels like a mercedes commercial, it's a smaller nitpick, and some of their vehicles were cool as hell (that sweet 6X6 got about 5 seconds of screen time!), but it's something that stood out to me. The rest of the product placement didn't feel out of place however, and was even used for comedic effect.
-The dialogue is pretty bad in spots, especially any scene with Hoskins. That helicopter banter between Claire and Masrani also comes to mind.
this movie was fucking retarded. And also really bad. I, unlike Ostro who wanted to hate this movie, am not lying to myself and others when I say I wanted to like it. I thought I would, but holy shit it was really bad.
So the I-rex somehow has a decent grasp of game theory as well as a good understanding of how the humans track is using its thermal signature. Ignoring the fact that in order to get control of its ability to regulate its own temperature it must have done it before, so they definitely should have noticed it could do that, and ignoring the fact that it somehow learned that the humans were observing that aspect of it... why the fuck would they not have a two gate redundancy on it's enclosure? They have double gates for the raptors, so that in order to enter their enclosure you need to go through one gate, have it close, then go through the next. It's a pretty basic safety measure that I think even the most basic zoos use, yet they don't realize that when keeping a highly dangerous t-rex raptor hybrid in a cage? "hey we want to know if our enclosure has any weaknesses, lets bring in an expert" that's like calling in an expert engineer to look at your new car design when you forgot to put a fucking steering wheel in. You're also gonna put a single sheet of glass between you and a monster? lol ok.
You're gonna let tourists drive glass spheres on their own with no manual override, next to gigantic horned and spiked animals? Great idea
uh... what else, those kids were unbelievable. Are we really meant to buy that a 16 year old would be more interested in his ugly girlfriend that looks way too old, than a 25 foot dinosaur he has never seen before eating a goat? Kids still get excited by lions at the zoo. This movies message of "people just want bigger, badder, faster" falls flat because clearly they don't....
wait a second... this movie is refering to itself. It's a bigger badder faster version of jurassic park, which should have been enough but it wasn't. We as a people demanded another with more cgi and dino fights... I take that back, it's genius!
Replies: 33, 35, 36
Msg #33: On 6/12/2015 at 12:35:55 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #32, saying: The Jurassic World theme park is negligently run, with seemingly no formal disaster policy or preparation, an incompetent staff and lax H&S. It’s populated by chronically stupid personnel with little to no sign of any regional Hispanic workers. Perhaps they realised it’s a death trap?
I mostly found the film a ball, more than a sniff of John Sayles bonkers ‘raptors with guns’ draft from 2005 and other development-process residuals fashioning an audience-pleasing retro feel quite unlike most of this summer’s output. It’s a Frankenstein’s monster of about twenty other films with an inexplicably Christmassy opening, multiple uses of John Williams’ themes and an endless succession of references to the original picture. Trevorrow might be pushing his luck with the more self-aware qualities, but it’s an enjoyable, dinosaur action picture that greatly improves on the two previous sequels. Messy, flawed but unashamedly dumbo monster fun.
If there’s one big miss, it just goes far to highlight how great Spielberg really is at this shit. He’s the grand master at pulling decent work from a supporting cast where Trevorrow falls headfirst at the character beats and chemistry, nailing the big awe and action technicals whilst showing a tin-ear for the cast fizz.
4/5
Msg #34: On 6/12/2015 at 1:30:19 PM, DJ Jerm replied, saying: I felt like JW was, in tone/atmosphere, a total continuation of what began in JP3. Yeah JW is better than the third one, but its still just as silly. It was like a parody of 'Jurassic Park'. I had the same feeling I got when I saw 'Snakes on a Plane'.
I really liked Simon Masrani more than I expected too, and Jake Johnson's Lowery was good too. Chris Pratt did a fine job, but Bryce Dallas Howard really sucked. I'm not even referring to the accusations of sexism (which would've been more alarming to me had the rest of the movie not felt so tongue-in-cheek)
The dinosaurs were cool. The death scenes were cool. The final battle is exhausting and outrageous (triple-team the I-rex?).
Certain things didn't make any sense. Like when Hoskins starts trying to reason with the velociraptor at the end. wtf...?
I am astonished that JW is being thought of as a superior sequel to TLW. TLW was WAY cooler.
That's all I can say now..
Oh i DID like when that one ACU dude shot the dimorphodon from the helicopter. Also when the pteranodons attack on Main Street and that one tourist shuffles away trying to balance his margaritas.
Msg #35: On 6/12/2015 at 3:49:11 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #32, saying: I, unlike Ostro who wanted to hate this movie, am not lying to myself and others when I say I wanted to like it.
What the fuck? Like, come on, dude. We finally agree on something and you gotta be like this? Replies: 58, 59
Msg #36: On 6/12/2015 at 4:06:52 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #32, saying: Whole lotta nonsense, but let's address these doozies:
what else, those kids were unbelievable. Are we really meant to buy that a 16 year old would be more interested in his ugly girlfriend that looks way too old, than a 25 foot dinosaur he has never seen before eating a goat? This movies message of "people just want bigger, badder, faster" falls flat because clearly they don't....
Well, idiot, the park has been open for a decade before the events of the film. He's clearly been there, done that, complete with a relative working on the high end of things over the years, and he's going because his little brother really wants to and hasn't been. His behavior until he saw the new bigger and more teeth attraction summarizes the point. It doesn't fall flat because clearly they do.
You're also gonna put a single sheet of glass between you and a monster? Lol ok
Did you miss the part where they explicitly show you how it wasn't just a basic sheet of glass, and more importantly, was intended for docile animals and not monsters who attempt to swallow it? Dope. Replies: 44
Msg #37: On 6/12/2015 at 4:41:28 PM, Bryan replied, saying: Narrator, I get that people opinions vary. But when you refer to the slew of us who actually enjoyed the film as being idiots, well, that's all I needed to remember that you're the next jackass who should be run off this board. Dope.
Msg #38: On 6/12/2015 at 4:59:59 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: are you idiots serious?
Why are you here?
"Also when the pteranodons attack on Main Street and that one tourist shuffles away trying to balance his margaritas."
I believe that was Jimmy Buffet holding the drinks. That was hilarious.
Msg #39: On 6/12/2015 at 5:16:15 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: I had to watch the film in a English language cinema in Malaysia, and I'm currently writing this on a slow, old phone with a questionable Internet connection. I'll probably torrent the film again and write something else when I get back from travelling SE Asia in 6 weeks.
The film was not as bad as I expected, but it was still not great. The 'dumb monster fun' might please Evilgrinch but to me, that's not what Jurassic Park was about. (But evidently, it is the focus of a park eager to boost ticket numbers.) I thought the pacing of the film in the first third was a bit weird but some individual scenes were exciting: the I - Rex escaping being one of them. The training of the raptors actually looked promising, like it could have worked really well but they bungled it. The whole gyrosphere idea looked horrible to me in the first place but it wasn't as bad as tourists kayaking down a river next to the herbivores! It's a wonder people aren't dying all the time. But the movie really took a sour turn after the aviary scene. I'm surprised the fucking Avengers never turned up for the final battle. I got really hyped going to see this: Trevorrow sounded like he had been reading my doubts and said all the right things to appease me, but the film was still mostly as I expected it. I don't get people saying it took them back, or gave them the same buzz as the original film. Sure it had the music, and the props, but it never had the soul that - hell - even JP3 kept for the most part. It's the worst in the franchise IMO. TLW is still a close second to me because it was the first Jurassic Park film to imprint on me when I saw it in theatres when I was 6.
2.5 / 5 Replies: 40
Msg #40: On 6/12/2015 at 5:19:36 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #39, saying: I'd also like to point out to Vinny that the stupid scene with the soldiers' vitals flat-lining as they watched on from the control room actually did happen, and it was embarrassing. Replies: 46
Msg #41: On 6/12/2015 at 5:38:50 PM, Cameron replied, saying: The movie was OK. Was a fun monster flick. Didn't have of the sense of awe and wonder that even the first half of Lost World did. Pratt's character and the park.owner guy were good, the rest of the characters sucked. The military dino aspect was horrid, I cringed at the Raptor HUD. But the action scenes were great.
It was a fun but extremely flawed movie. I had tons of fun with it but I wouldn't classify it was anything above "good"
But for the opening night imax enjoyability, it gets a Groovy Rez.
This was amazing and easily my favorite, yes, favorite of all Jurassic films. Many parts of this had a real Xenozoic Tales vibe, which is my favorite IP property of all time. The new music for the score was absolute trash, luckily this movie used more of the old famous Williams themes than any of the other previous movies have, even the original. Hit the right nostalgia buttons while taking everything to their next level times 10. And holy shit, Wu as a villain was awesome. As soon as his second scene in his tactile turtleneck, the tactilneck started, I knew he was a scheming little bastard. Can't wait for the sequel, but it has a very, very tough act to follow.
It pains me to say that we will definitely be banning Ford.
Msg #44: On 6/12/2015 at 8:15:44 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #36, saying: Did you miss the part where they explicitly show you how it wasn't just a basic sheet of glass, and more importantly, was intended for docile animals and not monsters who attempt to swallow it? Dope.
YOu win this round Compy
Msg #47: On 6/13/2015 at 1:23:54 AM, Mr. Chaos replied, saying: What do you guys think of the theory that Owen is the chubby kid that Alan Grant scared in Jurassic Park? The timeline works out perfectly (the actor who played the kid is only a year younger than Chris Pratt is), and would be a cool connection that he did take Alan's words to heart: he shows the raptors respect and remembered always how dangerous they truly are.
Even the director, apparently, isn't refuting the theory. Replies: 50, 51
Msg #48: On 6/13/2015 at 1:41:17 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Stupid, Chris Pratt could never be a fattie.
Msg #49: On 6/13/2015 at 1:46:34 AM, Pteranadon2003 replied, saying: I really enjoyed "Jurassic World". It doesn't touch the original (didn't think it would nor should), but I also think the second film was more solid as well. Definitely way better than part III and its heart was in the right place. Its message about nature and animals in general was actually really mature and thoughtful and made you really care about these creatures, even the "bad" ones. Chris Pratt is a friggin movie star at this point and he's definitely the best character in the film. There were several story flaws and plot points that either didn't go anywhere or were clearly left for further sequels which detracted from the main narrative. However, this one has got it where it counts and captures a bit of that magic again. See it on the big screen! Grade: B
Msg #50: On 6/13/2015 at 1:50:04 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #47, saying: I think that "theory" is stupid ass horseshit, like all other fan "theories". Replies: 54
Msg #51: On 6/13/2015 at 2:00:46 AM, DJ Jerm replied to Msg #47, saying: Why does there have to be a connection between the kid in JP and Owen?? It's not an episode of Lost..
Besides its basically established that Owen fell into his job at JW. Plucked out of the navy by Hoskins or whatever.
Msg #52: On 6/13/2015 at 2:04:49 AM, DJ Jerm replied, saying: I saw JW again this morning. It's just such an 'ok' movie. It just doesn't fit in with JP or TLW. I don't get it.
Also, Masrani says in the helicopter that Hammond's "dying wish" was for him to take over and rebuild Jurassic Park.. That is absolutely not what Hammond's wish would be. It's quite clear that Hammond was anti-intervention, anti-dino theme park by the end of the first one. And especially so by the end of the 2nd.
Msg #53: On 6/13/2015 at 2:11:19 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I think the movie fucking blew. It honestly hits a new low point in the franchise for me.
Ok, so it was mostly decent until the I Rex starts talking to the raptors. Seriously? Those raptors would have shit a brick and scattered away in that situation. But that finale...holy fuck, that shit was stupid. It felt more like a comic movie climax. None of the animals felt or acted realistically.
But beyond this movie being total shit, the most unforgivable piece is how, despite massive technical superiority, the special effects are actually far less convincing. And it wasn't a matter of one or two scenes; there wasn't a single scene in JW that matches any of the scenes in JP or TLW. And I'm even including the woefully-outdated brachiosaur scene in JP.
Msg #54: On 6/13/2015 at 2:33:17 AM, Mr. Chaos replied to Msg #50, saying: EDIT: Hit the wrong button, ignore this.
Msg #55: On 6/13/2015 at 3:36:26 AM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: It was a hell of a lot better then TLW and JP3. That last little 'coincidence' at the end, was a bit much for me though. There were a few moments where I felt totally aware that I was watching a sequel to JP. Something which Kelly's gymnastics and Tea Leon(sp?) always kept me from feeling with the other films. There is some horrendous dialogue and poor CGI at times(what the fuck was wrong with the T Rex? It didn't look right to me), but there were also moments that were pure Crichton, pure Jurassic Park.
It's worth mentioning that 'weaponized' raptors, in context, played out pretty fucking cool on screen. Especially when they turned against the security forces.
I say groovy flick, B+
-DC
Msg #56: On 6/13/2015 at 4:21:59 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: When I saw how much praise y'all were giving this film, I actually had gotten my hopes up. I say this without trying to come off as insulting, but I seriously don't get how anyone found this enjoyable.
My biggest gripe is that everything was so god damned ugly and cartoonish. (Blacked out, just in case to avoid spoilers)I wanted to be happy about the big (and very expected) reveal at the end, but was so put off by how off the T-Rex looked. It's like they didn't have a model of the original T-Rex so they went off of memory... and then slapped some awful CGI onto it.
D'Onofrio's character was a moronic bafoon (and not in any sort of entertaining way), Claire was way-too the stereotypical Corporate stiff without a clue (a trope that's been done so many times it's obnoxious to still see), and Masrani couldn't have come across anymore as a "Younger, Hipper, More Adventurous Hammond," which wasn't charming to watch in the slightest bit.
Why was it, also, that literally *every* actin-dinosaur scene that was in the movie (save for the last min) was in the trailer, to the point where, when I started to realize this, I wanted to walk out. This was over-marketed to hell and any worthwhile scene that could have been fun, I had seen dozens of times already.
Not too mention those scenes fall flat on their own, failing to capture any awe that the original film did.
Wu's speech about how the dinosaurs aren't natural was terrible and painful to watch - as was a good portion of the dialogue in the movie.
I figured the movie would be handled as if it's the first time we've seen Jurassic Park, because it's been 20 friggin years since we have, and any of that wonder was sped through in the first 15 minutes of the movie.
I just... ugh. I didn't think I'd be with Ostro on how terrible every second of this movie was, but I am. I can't find one redeeming thing to say about it. Even the music did nothing for me.
Msg #57: On 6/13/2015 at 4:35:48 AM, Compy01 replied, saying: I can't believe Claire ran round the entire park in high heels. Even through jungles and at a brisk pace, too. The T Rex definitely would have caught up to her at the end.
Msg #58: On 6/13/2015 at 4:38:39 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #35, saying:
"Well, idiot, the park has been open for a decade before the events of the film. He's clearly been there, done that, complete with a relative working on the high end of things over the years, and he's going because his little brother really wants to and hasn't been. His behavior until he saw the new bigger and more teeth attraction summarizes the point. It doesn't fall flat because clearly they do."
Yeah... when I go to the zoo, where I've been many times before and I just see a lion or tiger moving around, I look at it, not my phone, and so does everyone else. And that's because it's a gigantic predator that speaks directly to ones limbic system. If there's a 25 foot T-rex eating something I don't care how many times a person has seen it they never just roll their eyes and look at their ugly girlfriend.
"Did you miss the part where they explicitly show you how it wasn't just a basic sheet of glass, and more importantly, was intended for docile animals and not monsters who attempt to swallow it? Dope."
I was talking about the glass in the I-rexes enclosure which it tried to break. I'm sure it was real heavy duty and all, but it still managed to shatter the glass and then they just left it shattered. If you're going to put an observation room overseeing a 50 foot long massive predator, put it either real high or have at least a two window redundancy. Oh man she broke that first window, good thing we have this extra window and time to get out or put down thick steel walls in place of the window. But now that you bring it up, the stupid glass cars are an even worse idea. They can allegedly stop a bullet, but even if you're around herbivores, stegosaurus's have gigantic spikes on their tail, triceratops have gigantic horns and they're sill territorial, they're not docile. There was this one movie with dinosaurs called The Lost World where they point that out. The I-rex also punctures the glass with it's claw and a flick of the wrist, so it's not exactly safe to be letting kids manually control this thing around any dinosaur since they could easily annoy or scare one and it could hit the thing with it's tail or horned face. Dope.
At least grinch has the decency to acknowledge that the park is designed and run by morons rather than defending the horrendous lack of basic planning that a goddamn 6 year old could point out.
And Bryan, don't feel too bad, I call my girlfriend and bffs idiots for liking this too.
Msg #60: On 6/13/2015 at 4:41:29 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Yeah, what the fuck was up with D'Onofrio's performance? The man is a great actor, but he treats the character like he's a joke. Replies: 61
Msg #61: On 6/13/2015 at 5:14:55 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #60, saying: The character is a joke. He's a paper thin stock mercenary bad guy, even less original than that dude in Avatar. D'Onofrio totally phoned it in and I don't blame him.
Msg #62: On 6/13/2015 at 5:34:25 AM, Cameron replied, saying: And the inexperience of Trevorrow wouldn't have helped in regards to reigning in actors
Msg #63: On 6/13/2015 at 10:41:58 AM, Rick Arnold replied to Msg #31, saying: "-The new Rick Arnold/JP fan analogue had me rolling, I've literally used his exact words when describing the Indominus! I think Trevorrow was listening to us ;)"
Thank you, Coprolite. I'm glad that I've somehow managed to seep into the subconscious of this site. Replies: 81
Msg #64: On 6/13/2015 at 11:39:27 AM, fordprefect replied, saying: I was really hoping I would hate this, but I expected a cartoon and it was a cartoon. They basically unashamedly filmed some eight year old's fanfic from this site and it ended up being cheesy and fun.
Still a terrible film, but I enjoyed it. It's the best sequel we were ever going to get to this dumb franchise. Replies: 67
Msg #65: On 6/13/2015 at 11:48:42 AM, fordprefect replied, saying: The climax with the triple team on the IRex is the funniest thing I've seen in the cinema in my life. And then they nod in mutual respect and the raptor runs into the sunset. It's pure parody, how can you dislike this?
To be honest if they were going to use nostalgia as a crutch they should have gone all the way and blared the classic theme over the T-Rex's appearance (who can almost run faster than a jeep but not Bryce Dallas Howard in heels). And also I love how her paddock just opens up onto main street USA.
In fact I thought they were going to actually have human DNA in their IRex profile which would have fit the tone better but the secret ingredient being raptor DNA was obvious and boring. Replies: 66
Msg #66: On 6/13/2015 at 12:39:08 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #65, saying: I would have liked it if it actually was shapeless and a parody but the people who made it actually thought this garbage was a real movie, It had all the elements of a parody with none of the self awareness, like a dog wearing clothes, or Paul.
Msg #67: On 6/13/2015 at 1:19:39 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #64, saying: Stfu ford I know you're just trying to tip the scales in favor of your banning.
Msg #68: On 6/13/2015 at 4:51:41 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: Seeing it in 4 hours in IMAX.
Msg #69: On 6/13/2015 at 5:40:27 PM, fordprefect replied, saying: Are we really meant to buy that a 16 year old would be more interested in his ugly girlfriend that looks way too old, than a 25 foot dinosaur he has never seen before eating a goat? Kids still get excited by lions at the zoo. This movies message of "people just want bigger, badder, faster" falls flat because clearly they don't....
I think this is a commentary on SFX really. When the original dinosaurs appeared in JP they were industry changers . But twenty years later, after films like Transformers, Avengers, Godzilla, Avatar etc., people aren't impressed by creature effects anymore.
I'm a bit tired of the whole fractured family theme that's been present in every movie. In this one we have the parents' relationship with each other, the brothers' relationship with each other, the aunt's relationship with the kids, Pratt's relationship with the raptors, and of course the I Rex actually kills its own sibling and gets punished by the movie. This is literally a thing in every film in the franchise. Replies: 70, 74
Msg #70: On 6/13/2015 at 5:59:53 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #69, saying: $83m opening day. That's unbelievably enormous.
Msg #71: On 6/13/2015 at 6:17:48 PM, Snake Mark replied, saying: What did the Parent's divorce matter? So we could have that small bit of terrible dialogue on the monorail that served no purpose?
This, like TLW, actually suffered from the child cast. They weren't necessary, save to fill that teenager gap that the JP franchise apparently needs. The point about the Gyrosphere has been brought up already, but had they been on a track like logic would assume they'd be, their whole part in the movie would have been nixed. So, their only purpose was created out of a crappy park design.
Unless they're "Extreme Adventure" rides that cost an extra $10,000 to take part in, things like the Gyrosphere and the kayaking alongside stegos are too unbelievable to ignore. In the umpteen years the park has been open, not one dinosaur has gone a little bonkers and attached a group? Even elephants attack their trainers at some point.
Also, the I-Rex was in captivity all its life, but still could communicate with everything? Why were the raptors so quick to be on the I-Rex's side? They're pack hunters, so aren't they more likely to attack another aggressive raptor outside of their pack?
I think Ford said it best when he called this movie a cartoon.
And Wu is an evil corporate entity now? His inclusion in this movie makes me wish they gave him more screen time and characterization in the first so that his change in this movie would be even more ridiculous. Replies: 72
Msg #72: On 6/13/2015 at 7:07:59 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #71, saying: I think the bit about the kids talking about their parents' divorce was to enforce the viewpoint that the older brother cares deeply about his brother. It's a cancerous sign of a terrible script when we have to be told about how a character feels because we don't seen the relationship develop in any meaningful way as the film progresses. That scene was stupid; I'd forgotten about it until you brought it up. We don't know these characters, but then we're fed the information that they'll always be there for each other. It comes across as weak because at this point in the film we don't know enough about them to care or feel attached to them, so we just cringe at the dialogue. Not that I ever grew to like them at all. I feel like the film tried to do too much, and it would have been better had they just stripped it down. I'm just glad it's so different to the other films, even down to it's name change. I can successfully ignore this film ever existed.
But, if they intended to film a parody or a comic from the get go, why not green light and go ahead with the old script about the dinosaurs riding motorbikes with guns and stuff? I mean, why not? At times, this film feels barely above that.
The worst part is there were parts of this film, like the bit where Pratt reasons to Bryce's character, about the I Rex and how it's a confused animal in captivity. Parts like that are few and far between and felt like a genuinely good intentioned script was trying to bubble up to the surface. The training of the factors seemed good at the beginning. But it just relapsed into nonsense that I feel, no matter what you think about the JP sequels, I feel they largely avoided.
JP3 for example had some of the best individual scenes of the franchise. When the Spino grabbed Cooper and the plane struck it, and the 'it's a birdcage' scene with the pterodactyls were brilliant individual scenes. This film has nothing memorable, in a good way. Replies: 75
Msg #73: On 6/13/2015 at 7:41:14 PM, Seth Rex replied, saying: That moment when you realize a Jurassic Park fan fiction you wrote 14 years earlier had similar elements to the new Jurassic Park movie you just watched a few hours before. #IslandofChaosJurassicPark3
Msg #74: On 6/13/2015 at 8:24:45 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #69, saying: I think this is a commentary on SFX really. When the original dinosaurs appeared in JP they were industry changers . But twenty years later, after films like Transformers, Avengers, Godzilla, Avatar etc., people aren't impressed by creature effects anymore.
The wonders one can accomplish by thinking. Replies: 77, 78
Msg #75: On 6/13/2015 at 8:35:39 PM, Snake Mark replied to Msg #72, saying: Pratt is the only thing from this movie I could give some praise to. He did what he could with what he had.
Was literally the only character thay tried.
Msg #76: On 6/13/2015 at 9:10:07 PM, Mr. Chaos replied, saying: So some sites are reporting JW might beat AOU Best Opening of 2015 record and be second only to the first Avengers.
...as someone annoyed with how everyone glosses over the major issues with Age of Ultron, I have no problem with this.
Msg #77: On 6/13/2015 at 9:30:19 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #74, saying: No way, paul, was that what they were going for?
Who knows whether they were sincere or not, but this film had a woman literally run through the muddy jungle in heels, and then outrun raptors and a T Rex. It had weird hamster ball vehicles that can be driven freely by little kids around Stegosauruses and Triceratops, despite the fact that they are easily punctured, kicked about, and broken. I think the Mosasaur actually jumps onto the street to pull in the IRex in the end, which is probably another potential hazard.
It had D'Onofrio explain his villainous plot to a 7 year old child for no reason, and then try and negotiate with a raptor. It had a T Rex and a velociraptor nod at each other in mutual respect. It's just brilliant stuff really and I had a great time. Mods, ban me, I was wrong.
Msg #86: On 6/14/2015 at 1:08:59 AM, Snake Mark replied to Msg #80, saying: So, dinosaurs with guns is ridiculous and needed to be removed, but having a militaristic madman wanting to weaponize a hybrid that was created under the guise of being a theme park attraction any less ridiculus.
Msg #87: On 6/14/2015 at 5:59:11 AM, Coprolite replied to Msg #82, saying: Lol, that was amazing. I am now obligated to use the term "spank bank" at least once a week.
EDIT: I think Stuckmann's (Spoiler) reveiw hits the nail on the head for me, minus his enthusiasm for the climax of the final battle, and the I. rex comanding the raptors.
Msg #88: On 6/14/2015 at 6:04:58 AM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: I think a lot of you are taking this film a bit too seriously. If you look back at the original,(without clouds of nostalgia)there is just as much, if not more cheese. For the average movie goer the Rex breaks down the fence where a shear drop is later revealed, the spitter decides to climb into the car, and the Rex squeezes through a people sized door in the knick of time. Now I, like a lot of you have explanations for these scenes that make them believable and acceptable to me, but the average viewer sees them as holes. And don't kid yourself if the tech and money was there in 93' Spielberg would have had more ridiculous dino fights then Rampage.
Again, nothing in JW was nearly as atrocious and offensive as the entirety of TLW and JP3.
What? Replies: 90
Msg #90: On 6/14/2015 at 8:04:42 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #89, saying: Dude you don't know this plothole? There was no way for the Rex to just break in there without causing damage or being noticed. Replies: 100
Msg #91: On 6/14/2015 at 8:05:49 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I think it's pretty ludicrous to state the first JP has as many plot holes as JW though. JW is literally a cartoon as Ford said. The park is a complete joke and the characters do things that make no sense sometimes.
Like how did Owen or Masreni not know more about the I. rex or its containment? I really questioned that. What's that, you made a new dinosaur and its already fully grown and this is the first I'm hearing about it? Why am I NOT acting surprised that it has been held a secret from me this whole time?
Msg #92: On 6/14/2015 at 8:11:15 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: Anyway, as for my thoughts on the movie, I thought it was just plain fun. It was so fucking goofy. Had badass shit like Owen rolling with raptors and that climactic fight was just awesome as fuck. And Paul and I were both hoping that the T. rex would be brought out to fight the I. rex and redeem itself after JP3 had the Spino kill it in like 10 seconds. My only complaint is the Spino didn't make an appearance to be killed by the I. rex to temporarily establish the I. rex as the new king of the franchise before the T. rex reclaimed its title, lol.
It was pretty fanfic-y, but as a fan I didn't care. Fanboy me loved this movie. Sue me. I definitely was not expecting anything overly serious when I saw trailers of Pratt ruff riding with raptors. But surprisingly the main characters that we were supposed to care about did work very well for me. I agree that Hoskins character was just stupid as fuck though lol.
Rez, I would say this movie is GROOVY. Replies: 102
Msg #93: On 6/14/2015 at 9:19:20 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: I guess I'm kind of alone in thinking this is everything that a Jurassic Park movie trying to be somewhat close to the first movie shouldn't have been?
I feel like being a fanboy, for me, is precisely why this was the worst case scenario that could have happened.
Msg #94: On 6/14/2015 at 11:08:37 AM, Bryan replied, saying: From what I understand, Owen was hired by InGen and is not exactly a JW employee. His job is to train the raptors and not much else. Masrani, on the other hand, runs a company with their fingers in telecommunications, oil and a bunch of other stuff. It doesn't surprise me in the least that he hadn't yet seen the I-Rex, considering he probably has a whole lot of other stuff keeping him busy.
I think the reason this movie worked so well for me is that I already got the quintessential JP movie so anything else is icing. My hopes were so high for TLW and JP3 that they could do nothing but disappoint. For JW, my expectations were exceptionally low, and in that way I was floored by how much fun I had.
Msg #95: On 6/14/2015 at 2:03:36 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #88, saying: The rex never squeezed through anything. The whole visitor's center is missing a gigantic wall with nothing there but a clear plastic tarp. It's established early in the movie as an establishing shot of the jeeps coming to the VC and shows the Raptor coming through the tarp before they're wrecked by Rex at the end. Replies: 96
Msg #96: On 6/14/2015 at 2:54:49 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #95, saying: See, I realize what you're saying. But the bottom line is when I watch the movie with somebody who hasn't seen it they aren't going to pick up on things like that. If you're going to use that for a climatic sequence you should probably do a better job in establishing this to the general viewing public.
Jurassic Park is my favorite movie of all time but that won't keep me from seeing that the movie is absolutely littered with plotholes. I guess what I'm trying to say is you can be overly cynical about any movie. JW is supposed to be entertaining and thrilling not Citizen Kane.
There's also an equal amount of junk science in Jurassic Park and Jurassic World. The only real difference is that in the original they sell it with more of a serious tone so it was easier to buy. Whereas in the new film they say it as it is, a joke.
Jurassic World may have had more plot holes than Jurassic Park and it may layer on the cheese a bit more but at least it felt like a sequel to the original film. No, it could never touch the pure awe and scope of JP, but it definitely left me feeling like there's still hope for this franchise.
That's because whoever you're bringing over to watch it are blind people. Replies: 98, 99
Msg #98: On 6/14/2015 at 3:35:26 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #97, saying: I'm sorry man, but a still shot is not the same as when the film is in motion. that is a blink and you'll miss it scene. Even if I'm mistaken and your right and it's plain as day in your face, I still stand by my point. That the mighty Jurassic Park has its fair share of coinky dinks and plot holes.
-DC Replies: 103
Msg #99: On 6/14/2015 at 3:41:02 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #97, saying: On a side note Chase, (that is your name right?) how did your movie career do? I haven't posted on here much in the last decade or so and I remember you showed great promise with your gang movie.
-DC
Msg #100: On 6/14/2015 at 4:17:47 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #90, saying: Oh, you just mean when the T. rex shows up in the visitor's center. The way he worded it made it sound like the showed the rex going through the door on camera and I was confused.
Anyone who says the original film has as many plot holes or fuck-ups as Jurassic World is off their nut.
Msg #101: On 6/14/2015 at 4:21:08 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Darth, I think you're missing the point: there's a huge difference between minor plotholes or inconsistencies and piss-poor writing, stupid core concepts, and shitty execution. JP had some of the former, and JW had all of the latter.
What I really want to know is: do any of you actually find the effects more convincingly executed by JW than JP? I can see that they're superior on a technical level, but the way everything is shot, all of the CGI winds up looking cartoonish. Even JP3 was more convincing. Replies: 106, 109
Msg #102: On 6/14/2015 at 4:27:33 PM, Rick Arnold replied to Msg #92, saying: The Spino may not have appeared, but atleast Rexy got to make her big debut on the screen by plowing through its skeleton.
For the record, I loved the movie. It'll never top the original, sure. But it is what it is... a big dumb summer blockbuster.
And as I said above, Jake Johnson's Lowery was probably my favorite character. He's a snarky, Jurassic Park fanboy. Just imagine how he'd feel if he found out there was an entire stockpile of original JP merchandise sitting in the jungle up north.
I was also expecting a quick cut to him cheering on the original T-Rex in the control room during the final fight, but alas...
Msg #103: On 6/14/2015 at 4:31:47 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #98, saying: What you're saying makes no sense. How can you continue to argue your point when Chase has clearly shown you are wrong? Even if it is a 'blink and you'll miss it' shot, this is your favorite movie, right? You've seen it more than once, right?
Anyway, the first warning signs for me started when I found out Jurassic World was on Isla Nublar. They established in the first film that it was a poor location (tropical storms, relative isolation, etc) and reiterated that in TLW ('you don't bring people halfway across the world to visit a zoo, you bring the zoo to them!'), and I'm pretty sure the island became restricted like Isla Sorna was. If the park had been open for at least a decade, and if it is set in real time 20+ years after the events of JP, wouldn't Grant and co have been aware of this in JP3? Jurassic World opened like, one year after the events of that film. Why didn't they mention it? Obviously I know why because the film wasn't thought then, but stuff like that bothers me, because JW's backstory now means less of JP3's makes sense. Maybe if the Kirby's had heard of Jurassic World opening on Nublar they wouldn't have been confused and Cooper wouldn't have said 'you mean there are two islands with dinosaurs on them?' And Eric and Billy wouldn't have bothered dangerously paragliding near Sorna because if they'd waited a year or so they could have just gone to Jurassic World.
Msg #104: On 6/14/2015 at 4:42:01 PM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: I think they were intentionally side stepping those other awful movies. And if you read my entire post then you would know that the point I'm arguing is nostalgia forgives a lot.
Trainwreck, the movie worked for me. Flawed? Absolutely, but I wasn't expecting greatness. It seems most critics feel about the same.
That's absolutely staggering.
Msg #106: On 6/14/2015 at 4:53:25 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #101, saying: What I really want to know is: do any of you actually find the effects more convincingly executed by JW than JP? I can see that they're superior on a technical level, but the way everything is shot, all of the CGI winds up looking cartoonish. Even JP3 was more convincing.
No, absolutely not, and I would say so even if I loved everything else about the movie. When they were riding among the gallimimuses my fucking jaw dropped and I turned to my girlfriend and whispered "That looks like total shit." I know we all have nostalgic hang-ups on the first film, but I saw it twice in the theater in the past couple years and the effects still look great.
All I can chalk it up to is a lack of artistry. The technology available for Jurassic Park was so primitive, but, because of that, they had to work with people used to using practical special effects in order to figure out how to do it. Those people had much more experience working with physical objects under light and had a great instinct for what would look believable, and Spielberg was a genius when it came to shooting the film in such a way to conceal any shitty CGI without making it look like he was trying to. Now, everyone who does CGI has been doing it for years and my only guess is that they're highly skilled technically but don't have the artist's touch needed to make this crap feel real.
It seems most critics feel about the same.
LOGICAL FALLACY DETECTED! LEVEL 12 APPEAL TO AUTHORITY! Replies: 107
Msg #107: On 6/14/2015 at 5:09:58 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #106, saying: In all the years I've been on this site I don't think I've ever heard you say anything positive. Tell me, what the fuck were you expecting when you sat down in the theater? I mean once you were done complaining about the lighting, seats, food, and everything else that happened that day.
-DC Replies: 108
Msg #108: On 6/14/2015 at 5:20:56 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #107, saying: Oh, we're doing this again? In all the years I've been on this site, I don't think I've ever said anything to you at all, and I can't remember you posting hardly anything in the past four years or so. If you're so ignorant of what actually goes on on this site that you feel comfortable saying something like that, how about you just go ahead and choke on my balls?
Msg #109: On 6/14/2015 at 5:23:32 PM, Coprolite replied to Msg #101, saying: The effects were pretty awful, the worst of the four. I'd take jp3's clunky spinosaurus animatronic (which was also the best dinosaur robot of the first three movies on a technical level, but I think they tried to do too much with it) over any shot in JW. I agree when you mentioned how it looks like a superhero movie, and I specifically remember how awful that gallimimus scene looked.
EDIT: I also don't understand how Trevorrow resisted the urge to use more practical effects. How can someone watch the making of Jurassic Park and not want to work with a giant fucking T. rex robot? He's a new director, not a tired old fart like Peter Jackson. In the spirit of this topic, I think this will pique your guys' interest:
Msg #110: On 6/14/2015 at 5:32:14 PM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: I love how instead of denying your overbearing cynicism, you simply present your balls. Dan's page isn't some fluid look at cinematic and social commentary, forever growing and changing. It's a message board full of extremely opinionated and predictable albeit intelligent folks. In fact, I've always been fond of this bunch of assholes.
The real question is, whats Dan think?
-DC Replies: 111
Msg #111: On 6/14/2015 at 5:35:32 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #110, saying: I don't have to deny shit to you. Everything I've said on this board is right there for you to look up and read for yourself, if you actually give a shit, which you don't because you've already made up your mind. I have neither the time nor the inclination to defend my own character against every swingin' dick who doesn't like what I said about a movie.
Msg #112: On 6/14/2015 at 5:46:12 PM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: You see this is exactly what I'm talking about. Here I am disagreeing with you about a silly B movie, and calling you out on your message board personality, and your reacting as if I've unleashed a full assault on to your integrity and character. Your passionate, I'll give you that. If you ever find yourself in Sarasota I'll buy you a drink and we can fight about it.
-DC Replies: 113
Msg #113: On 6/14/2015 at 5:55:58 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #112, saying: You're such a smug cunt. That's fucking 12-year-old troll behavior: call someone an asshole, then act like you respect their gall when they tell you to fuck off. That is not how adults behave. Grow the fuck up.
Msg #114: On 6/14/2015 at 5:59:46 PM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Ostro is far from the only person tearing JW apart, so what was the point in attacking his negativity towards the film?
The movie was garbage, even as a blockbuster summer film. It was ugly, boring (again because marketing threw every action scene possible save for the climax down our throats a hundred times prior to release), the characters and dialogue were cringeworthy, and the plot itself was illogical and is not a far cry off from the Dinosaurs w/ Guns that everyone here was up in arms about.
There wasn't one aspect of the movie that was forgivable.
Msg #115: On 6/14/2015 at 6:02:13 PM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: Listen Ostro, you called me out first, guy. I've been very clear on how I feel, your reducing this to name calling.
Here's to looking at you kid.
-DC Replies: 119
Msg #116: On 6/14/2015 at 6:03:29 PM, Grizzle replied, saying: It was a dumb, fun, cheesy, over the top movie with plenty of nostalgia and fan service. I left the theater smiling.
Groovy. Replies: 118
Msg #117: On 6/14/2015 at 6:10:26 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: I thought plenty of the effects shots in this film were staggeringly impressive. When Owen is under the car and the I rexes jaw passes next to him might be the best, most convincing CG I've ever seen in my life.
The Rex looked how it did in the first film, but slightly better. I feel like its possible they decided to make it look how it did to match the first movie, which while the best cg for 15-20 years now looks a bit dated.
You guys saying none of the shots in this movie were as convincing as any in the other movies are literally crazy and full of shit. The gallimimus heard and the sneezing brachio in the first film are absolutely terrible. Every single spinosaur shot in JP3 is awful, the worst use of an animatronic in a major film in 20 years. The lost world is pretty solid in its FX, although there's a few head scratching moments in editing where they ditched showing dinosaurs for what I can only assume were time or budget restraints.
I really enjoyed the animatronic sauropod, looked fantastic in motion. The raptors in the containment gear were nice too, decent mix of practical and cg
I agree that the special effects were piss poor compared to JP1-3 but it felt like that's because they were just trying to do too much with them. The original JP didn't have a lot of fast motion shots using CGI, and the couple times it did it looked a little poor. This film had tons of action and thus the dinosaurs looked less real.
They still looked pretty good imo, just not as good as the first 3 movies. We've come to expect better than this is all.
Msg #119: On 6/14/2015 at 6:15:19 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #115, saying: Damn, you're right. You're a lot classier and cooler than me, and you in no way resemble every other smirking trollface jackass on the internet. I mean, you've even seen Casablanca! Replies: 121
Msg #120: On 6/14/2015 at 6:16:20 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #117, saying: Already hit post before I saw this. Right, the effects were pretty good. It's just the direction and shot use were consistently better in the original JP because they knew their limitations.
In this movie they had ideas for action scenes and felt doing them was more important than making it look as real as possible. I'm happy with their decision because that final fight was boss.
Msg #121: On 6/14/2015 at 6:23:43 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #119, saying: Once more with feeling...
I felt that Jurassic World was the best sequel made to Jurassic Park. It has lots of flaws just as its predecessors did, however I feel that it is the closest to Crichtons and Jurassic Parks tone. I also feel that you among others seem to be taking Jurassic World a tad bit too serious. This is probably hampering your ability to see how much goddamn fun this movie is.
But by all means hate away, just don't call me illogical because I found the movie generally good like most of the people I've discussed it with.
-DC Replies: 122
Msg #122: On 6/14/2015 at 6:34:01 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #121, saying: I didn't tell you not to like the movie. You're the one saying that those of us who didn't like it have a problem and tried to act like Trainwreck was a dickhead because "most people" do like the movie, which is a logical fallacy. Replies: 123
Msg #123: On 6/14/2015 at 6:37:35 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #122, saying: I have no issue with what Trainwreck said, I tend to agree with a lot of how he feels about movies. but generally speaking the movie going public enjoyed this one. Fact. B to C+ all around.
-DC Replies: 124, 127
Msg #124: On 6/14/2015 at 6:42:56 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #123, saying: It's an irrelevant fact. The only reason to mention it was to imply that Trainwreck was wrong because most people (actually, most critics, i.e. people who know more about film than he does) disagreed with him.
Msg #125: On 6/14/2015 at 7:15:13 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Man I really wonder what JPwonderballs thought of the movie, I figured for sure he would have posted about it in his thread by now. Replies: 126
Msg #126: On 6/14/2015 at 7:20:03 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #125, saying: I actually felt bad for him about that. You really put us all on the spot to choose between the two threads, and his was posted first, but I posted here because I knew everyone else would, too, and we can't have two competing threads on the same thing.
Msg #127: On 6/14/2015 at 7:26:59 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #123, saying: Fact: people don't expect much when going to see this or most other films. The public isn't very interested in critiquing the actual quality of a film. That most people like it is completely irrelevant. Replies: 129
Msg #128: On 6/14/2015 at 9:04:18 PM, fordprefect replied, saying: It was a bit weird how the only time the classic theme played was sort of sarcastically over boring resort footage, and then over a twenty second scene of them in the old centre. What was that about. Replies: 130
Msg #129: On 6/14/2015 at 9:52:30 PM, Grizzle replied to Msg #127, saying: May I ask, irrelevant to what? Replies: 131
Msg #130: On 6/14/2015 at 10:06:06 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #128, saying: I noticed it more often than that. Can't remember specific times.
Msg #131: On 6/14/2015 at 10:11:12 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #129, saying: So the number of people who enjoy a movie or not has no bearing on whether or not the movie is considered good?
Huh?
And yes I understand that there are times when critics pan or praise a film that the general public feel the opposite of but this is not a case of that.
I may feel that the Beatles are over rated, (I don't but for the sake of argument) but generally speaking they are held as one of the greatest bands of all time. I'm simply saying that for a 22 year removed sequel its really not that bad, and it appears that most people agree with me
-DC Replies: 145
Msg #132: On 6/14/2015 at 10:15:04 PM, Grizzle replied, saying: I knew what to expect going into this. Like I said above, plenty of fan service and nostalgia. But you know what, I'm a JP fan, and I got serviced (insert dirty joke here), and the nostalgia brought me back to little 8 year old Grizzle seeing the original for the first time back in '93. That being said, there were a few things I didn't like:
1) It was obviously set up for a sequel where weaponized dinosaurs are utilized in the real world. I don't really like this idea.
2) The product placement was a little much. I work at the zoo downtown, so it's generally realistic due to sponsorships and businesses advertising, but was still a bit distracting. I'm still not sure if it was supposed to be meta-commentary or not.
3) The romance between Owen and Claire. Honestly, I felt no chemistry there. I think they both did with what they could with their parts, but I just wasn't feeling it.
4) The sub-plotline of the parents divorce. It was mentioned for 2 minutes then never spoken of again. Should have just left it out, it served no purpose.
It wasn't a 10/10 great movie, but it hit most of the right notes for me. Replies: 133
Msg #133: On 6/14/2015 at 10:23:16 PM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #132, saying: I see what your saying. It could be said that Trevorrow(sp?) was a film director making a movie. And it is a bit disappointing he didn't utilize his ability to develop characters better. I'm sure that has more to do with a hodgepodge script than his direction though.
-DC
Msg #134: On 6/14/2015 at 10:29:32 PM, Vinsfeld replied, saying: I thought the movie rocked! I want to see it again. One of the positive attributes which I'll chalk up to director choice was starting the movie by following the kids to JW before introducing the other characters. It felt like you were with them experiencing JW for the first time, and when the younger brother swings the patio doors open in the hotel room and then you see Jurassic world in all its glory was spectacular. I think trevarrow hit it out of the park to appeal to fans of Jurassic park and fans of dinosaurs alike. I think he did not set out to appeal to movie critics, hence the negative reactions from some of our more movie focused members. Yeah there are flaws that you guys are pointing out, but this movie reinvigorated the franchise and was what we desperately needed after JP3. Replies: 135
Msg #135: On 6/14/2015 at 10:49:15 PM, Grizzle replied to Msg #134, saying: That's another thing that I felt the movie got right; Jurassic World felt like a real place, a real amusement park.
The other sequels were isolated, separate incidents involving specific, dynamic groups; the events of 2-3 were accidents and happenstances made by individuals who made poor choices, with innocents suffering as a result. The same could be said for JW, but it felt like it could actually happen as opposed to TLW and JP3.
Msg #136: On 6/14/2015 at 11:01:38 PM, RaptorHiss replied, saying: On Friday evening, I saw JW on a standard screen inside a packed theater. We were seated quite close, probably only five rows from the front, which is a little closer than I would have preferred. Overall, it was an excellent theater experience with a just-above-sub-par movie; a very fun time that I think is redeemable enough to warrant an I-MAX 3-D second viewing. The whole party I was with had a great time watching the movie, and the whole place definitely had a buzz to it. That being said, of course JW really screwed the pooch on a lot of things, though I think it hit it out of the ballpart on certain instances as well. I guess I'll sort of give a laundry list of positive and negative things that I thought JW contained.
Spoilers!
- From the very get-go of the film, it was pretty apparent it was going to be very CGI heavy, which was sort of disappointing. Te opening scene featured a pretty cool egg hatching dinosaur, but it was pretty obviously CGI, which seemed pretty contrary to the original Egg Hatching scene in Jurassic Park that used practical animatronics. I'm not saying it didn't work some of the time, but it certainly didn't work the entire time.
- As already mentioned, it seemed like a strange, but albeit safe, decision to go with the Broken Family narrative again, with the nerdy kid and divorced family and all. I'll admit, I did enjoy the humor from the get-go of the film, but I'll be curious if it holds up on a second viewing.
-The action pretty much starts right away, and we're on the island literally within ten minutes of the opening credits. I thought it was a sort of clunky use of the Jurassic Park main theme entrance music, as the scenes on screen didn't really seem to fit the drama of the music.
-DBH isn't bad at all in the film, but the second-best redhead in the series overall. I really enjoyed Chris Pratt, even though I had to suspend my dis-belief quite a bit to buy the majority of the film and its characters. It was an interesting and refreshing departure to make the Main Good Guy a non-scientist and just a Hubba Hubba Hunk, but I sort of went against the grain of the series.
-Jurassic Park definitely utilized special effects much more effectively, so I don't need to beat that dead horse that's been discussed already. JW was much more cartoonish without a doubt, but it seemed to strangely work, at least on Opening Night. I really did enjoy the non-stop action from start to finish, enough at least to give it a go on I-MAX 3D.
Overall, I enjoyed it as much as I thought I did. I will admit that it's not 14 years worth of quality, and some of the dialog was pretty clunky and corny. It was was legitimately frightening sometimes, legitimately comically, and certainly very entertaining.
Well, just got back. I gotta be honest with you guys, I'm really torn on this one. It's better than JP3 and I guess TLW, but after all those years in development, is that really all we should have to settle for? I mean, there was never any chance of it surpassing the first one, but I just feel like this should have been a lot better given all those years. It is too goofy for its own good, and the SFX STILL aren't as good as JP or TLW. And if you had your hopes up for animatronics....well, you're shit outta luck cuz I saw maybe three quick shots that weren't CGI. I will say there were some parts of this that worked really well, but there were others that felt like the script was ripped out of bad fan fiction. And while this has been a characteristic of all the JP films, the character development here is next to nothing. Every character is a pre-existing archetype.
I'll see it again, and despite my complaints it was great seeing Isla Nublar, the Dinos (though I really wanted to see less I-Rex and more everything else) and stepping into this universe again, complete with occasional throwbacks to Williams' score. I just wanted this to be great instead of merely good enough, which is sadly what this is to me.
I'd give it a 7 out of 10, which seems to be about where Rotten Tomatoes is sitting right now."
Vincent Johnson Free jacqueline 12 June at 11:17 · Like · 2
Msg #139: On 6/15/2015 at 1:37:25 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I think the divorce thing had two purposes... 1 was to maintain a recurring theme in the series, another was to get the brothers to bond more. I didn't mind it but I can see how some people thought it was pointless.
Also I was pleasantly surprised to hear the nerdy JP dude criticize the product placement. I thought any corporate sponsors would balk at lines like that. Clearly Verizon doesn't give a fuck and think the positives outweigh the negatives LOL. Replies: 142
Msg #140: On 6/15/2015 at 1:40:29 AM, fordprefect replied, saying: lol at everyone who thought this would be a sincere tribute to the original. Replies: 141
Msg #141: On 6/15/2015 at 1:43:57 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #140, saying: See, Ford, to me, your approach to this is far more cynical than mine, even though you enjoyed the movie and I didn't. Replies: 143
Msg #142: On 6/15/2015 at 1:44:41 AM, fordprefect replied to Msg #139, saying: They did that kind of winking at the audience a bunch of times, like when Pratt calls out BDH on her heels, and when he says "what's that supposed to mean" after she ties up her shirt around her waist.
In fact this happens all the time in movies these days. Instead of playing it straight they have to comment on the ridiculousness of a situation, as if that makes it plausible. Replies: 144
Msg #143: On 6/15/2015 at 1:51:40 AM, fordprefect replied to Msg #141, saying: I think that's fair, but I really wanted this film to be terrible so I could be smug on this board. It made me pretty happy in that sense.
Msg #144: On 6/15/2015 at 1:52:39 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #142, saying: I fucking hate it. Everyone thinks they're some master of postmodern camp now, like we can't enjoy a straightforward movie without smirking at ourselves about how ironic the whole dumb thing is. It's nihilistic.
Msg #145: On 6/15/2015 at 2:12:18 AM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #131, saying: "So the number of people who enjoy a movie or not has no bearing on whether or not the movie is considered good?"
A consensus doesn't determine how you and I feel about anything. Everything is subjective, not objective.
The self-referentialness of the film only backfires when it comes to the Villainous plot. And that's because of the acting by Vincent D'Onofrio and Trevorrow's direction for his subplot. It's just incredibly miscalculated. The tension leaves the room the moment InGen shows up. Fucking InGen, The guys had better, and more threatening presence in TLW, and they were doing all kinds of stupid in that film.
Msg #146: On 6/15/2015 at 3:31:03 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Probably the last thing I'll mention to the quality of the movie, but as fans of a fairly intelligent movie, does no one else find it a little "insulting" that we are expected to just swallow that this is a B-Movie Blockbuster?
Isn't that precisely why movies like Mad Max are so few and far between, because we are content with... well... garbage?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: If I may... um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now [bangs on the table]
Dr. Ian Malcolm: you're selling it, you wanna sell it. Well...
John Hammond: I don't think you're giving us our due credit. Our scientists have done things which nobody's ever done before...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.
John Hammond: Condors. Condors are on the verge of extinction...
Dr. Ian Malcolm: [shaking his head] No...
John Hammond: ...if I was to create a flock of condors on this island, you wouldn't have anything to say.
Dr. Ian Malcolm: No, hold on. This isn't some species that was obliterated by deforestation, or the building of a dam. Dinosaurs had their shot, and nature selected them for extinction.
John Hammond: I simply don't understand this Luddite attitude, especially from a scientist. I mean, how can we stand in the light of discovery, and not act?
Dr. Ian Malcolm: What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the rape of the natural world.
So the number of people who enjoy a movie or not has no bearing on whether or not the movie is considered good?
The number of people who like the movie has no bearing on whether or not the actual movie is good, or whether I end up liking it. All I'm trying to say is that throwing RT scores and box office numbers is not a good way to argue for a film's quality.
Msg #152: On 6/15/2015 at 2:40:01 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: All this time I thought the script had stalled because they wanted to make a genuinely good film on par with the original. Remember how pleasantly surprised we all were when we found out Trevorrow was directing and not any old big name? It sounded like Universal really gave a shit. I've often thought what I would have done if I were in charge of the screenplay, and I've not really been able to think of anything worthwhile even to satisfy my own fan boy interests. And I remember Sam Neill saying the franchise was over because there was nothing less to tell. It would have been better if they had just told us Jurassic World was a reboot, set in an alternative universe with the events of the first film still being canon. I would have enjoyed it a lot more, but I'm not buying it being a genuine sequel.
I thought the constant stalling and script re-writes meant effort was going into the movie, but it feels at the end they just gave up and went for the cash cow. Which has paid off for them, but it's disheartening to us. Trevorrow said all the right things: he was a huge fan of Jurassic Park; he wanted to keep the spirit and themes; he understood what the fans wanted. But it was evidently all bullshit. Jurassic World is a good, dumb blockbuster but a terrible Jurassic Park film. It's like they decided a few years ago that there was no reinvigorating the franchise and thought fuck it. But I suppose the chances are a film with a good message wouldn't have been as big of a hit, and the average movie goer, who doesn't visit DansJP3page, probably doesn't give a shit how it relates to the other films or what the message is. It's a shame to us, but actual Jurassic Park fans are a drop in the ocean of ticket sales.
On another note I don't understand major Hollywood productions that have glaring plot holes or contradictions or whatever. Why are they never culled in the workshop? I took a screenplay course once and every week the group would sit you down and grill you over every inconsistency. Replies: 156
Msg #153: On 6/15/2015 at 3:16:55 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I dislike throwing Trevorrow under the bus and calling him a liar. Trevorrrow has been pretty fair in his interviews. He talks a good talk because he believed in what he was doing and was passionate about it. He's a smart guy, but not a great filmmaker.... yet.
Just because you didn't like this movie doesn't make the situation some guy behind the curtain going "Gotcha! I really was here to piss you off!"
Msg #154: On 6/15/2015 at 3:17:36 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: “Jurassic World” now holds the record for the biggest opening in movie history.
The final numbers are still being tallied, but the dinosaur thriller has inched past “Marvel’s The Avengers” to become top dog, with a debut of roughly $209 million, according to insiders. The superhero blockbuster was the previous record holder with a $207.4 million bow. Universal initially estimated that “Jurassic World” would open to $204.6 million, but the adventure film had a stronger than anticipated Sunday. http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jurassic-world-box-office-record-avengers-1201519679/
Msg #155: On 6/15/2015 at 3:38:52 PM, Snake Mark replied, saying: So, I was at Target and Wal Mart yesterday - is the merchandising on JW in the shitter, because I have barely come across anything beyond a cruddy toy line, one shirt, and two posters.
I remember the flood of merchandise that came with JP.
That's a little sad if it is as bare as it seems. I hated the movie but would have bought a bunch of shit just for old times sake. Replies: 160
Msg #156: On 6/15/2015 at 4:21:18 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #152, saying: Are you serious with this shit?
This movie had so much fanservice and references to the trilogy. THE T. REX LITERALLY BUSTS THROUGH A SPINOSAURUS SKELETON AND REDEEMS ITSELF AFTER THAT SHITTY JP3 FIGHT. COLIN DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE FANS?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean Colin didn't pay a huge amount of tribute to the fans; stuff that only diehards would even notice. In fact it was almost too much.
The vast majority of the public would not give two shits about the nerdy character who respected the original Park. Yet Colin throws him in and gives him a shitload of screen time.
Here's a list of shit that was referenced... a couple things are reaching but 90% of it was intentionally in the movie: http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/39t2a7/jurassic_world_referencescallbacks_list_feel_free/ Replies: 157
Msg #157: On 6/15/2015 at 4:29:56 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #156, saying: The fan service you're talking about isn't really creative or exciting or respectful, though, and that's what Compy is saying. I don't agree with how he characterizes Trevorrow, but I do agree that throwing us a few bones to let us know he cares about us really doesn't amount to much when the rest of the film is shameless cheese. Replies: 158, 165
Msg #158: On 6/15/2015 at 9:47:50 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #157, saying: The fan reaction has been mostly positive, though. I'm only talking about things that we can objectively say, this is proof he cares about us, putting aside what you think of the movie's quality.
Msg #159: On 6/15/2015 at 10:33:52 PM, elementry replied, saying: Did anyone notice that the dino tracker in the command center had the I-Rex labeled as D-Rex? I guess they really did intend to name it Diablolus Rex in the beginning.
Msg #160: On 6/15/2015 at 11:30:13 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #155, saying: No. Its received one of the largest marketing pushes in recent years, there's aton of toys(although most of questionable quality) so your store was either totally picked over(likely) or you live in fucksville nowhere (don't know or care).
Msg #161: On 6/15/2015 at 11:52:21 PM, Phily replied, saying: It was surreal watching this begin. After all those years on those JP message boards(especially this one) and countless threads and posts and false trails and fake pictures and pseudo-real news updates... it is here.
What do I think?
A very fun, very silly, kid-friendly Jurassic Park story with decent effects and some very clever ideas. The nostalgia was abundant, the roars were epic, and the story stayed quite true to Crichton's theme of the risk in playing God.
3.5/5
Well done, Universal & Trevorrow. You've made the veterans proud and unleashed an onslaught of new fans. Completely deserving of all the broken records.
Msg #162: On 6/16/2015 at 1:32:14 AM, PaulSF replied, saying:
Poor choice of words on my half. I didn't mean to imply that Trevorrow was a liar, or that he set out to deliberately dupe anyone about this movie. Maybe he just... Misunderstood what the other 3 films had in common with each other. But yeah, Vinny, all those little gimmicks he threw in don't mean anything when he hasn't respected the series in the long run. The Star Wars prequels had plenty of 'fan service' to the originals and the films actually suffered as a result and were still terrible, terrible films. Some actually argued that they ruined the original trilogy by butchering a story that didn't need to be told (Anakin's betrayal). Didn't Trevorrow personally oversee the writing of the script? This movie didn't have the soul or spirit of the others, and hasn't respected the time line, either. Consider what I said about Jurassic World's impact on the story of Jurassic Park 3. As I said, good dumb film, very bad Jurassic Park film. Even down to what Masrani said about John Hammond's dying wish and the parks location on nublar. It's all just nonsense which is insulting to the original films. Why not just set Jurassic World another 10 or so years into the future? It would at least try to not mingle with the storyline of past works, and at least then they'd have an excuse to showcase all those ridiculous technologies like the gryosphere which don't exist in real life. And before you say anything, I know. Jurassic Park already had a lot of junk science, but we as an audience visit the cinema ready to suspend belief in the magic of cloning dinosaurs. It doesn't really work when they start throwing in all other things too because that takes us out of the 'dinosaur creation in a normal world' illusion.
While there are a few valid points, a great deal of the criticism being doled out here ranges from autistic levels of nitpicking to blatantly untrue statements.
Let's start with the Jurassic Park 3 effect.
Before I go any further let me make one thing perfectly clear: If you believe that this film is in any way worse than Jurassic Park 3, you are objectively wrong and a complete fucking idiot. Jurassic Park 3 is a terrible, terrible film- not just a bad JP film but an awful film period. I'm as big a fan of practical FX as you will find, but it doesn't matter that JP3 had a bunch of great robotics work because those making the film had no idea how to utilize them without making them look like expensive awkward puppets. There's a shot of a raptor here and there that looks good, and that slow focus on the Pterandon is cool, but other than that every single frame of the film looks like absolute trash. This is not up for debate and if you for some reason consider this film to be above this in any way, know that I and everyone else with reason look at you as a lesser person and that any so called opinions you think are worth listening to are in fact completely worthless.
If anything, Jurassic World retroactively makes Jurassic Park 3 essential viewing (whereas before it was skippable trash) simply for the acknowledgement of it's terribleness and the rousing success of restoring it's franchise star to glory. Jurassic Park 3 ditching the Rex makes the finale of Jurassic World even better- while the crashing through of the Spino skeleton is obvious, the fight itself seems to mimic much of the JP3 fight down to the I Rex towering over the Rex until Blue shows up for the team up. A cynic might call it the biggest budget "how it should have ended" in history, but this is a somewhat unique event in a franchise. While plenty of movies have done the meta commentary before, I can't remember another time where a sequel actively shits on a previous movie in such a blatant fashion. I expect this uniqueness will be shortlived when Deadpool rolls around though.
Now on to sexism, and the rise of snarky tumblr dialogue.
What sexism? Besides being a non existent argument almost as stupid as the race war(SAVE IT FOR ANOTHER THREAD BOYS), I was genuinely shocked after watching this film that anyone anywhere found anything remotely sexist about this fucking movie. Oh man, a lead male character that is in shape and flirts with women. SEXIST. A lead female character that runs an entire island and saves both the male character from death and saves the fucking day at the end of the film and.. wait, wait, what the fuck are you idiots even talking about.
I swear it seems that some were hoping this would have Bruce Jenner swing down out of a helicopter piloted by Melissa McCarthy on a rope made of tied together tampons to save the fucking day here, and still people would find something to bitch about. Probably that both of them are white.
Classifying Claire as an uptight woman who needs to loosen up as some kind of sexist oversight are completely ignoring the film. There's maybe two scenes of her appearing "uptight"- the initial greet between her and Owen, which falls perfectly in line with a flirtatious back and forth. I'm not arguing over the success or failure of this scene- I liked it, but even if you consider it terrible or great, two opposites attracting is certainly nothing out of the ordinary nor is it sexist. The only other scene that comes off as her being uptight is in the helicopter- which was done just as much if not more to show off the overly confident and ultimately too carefree nature of Masrani. He means well but without the knowledge or respect- of both the animals around him and the technology at his fingertips- he loses his life. How is this man suggesting that Claire lighten up in any way sexist when he is shown to be a casualty of his own lifestyle? He's unique in the film in that he's the only character that's presented as a good guy to bite it, but his lack of understanding and attention to detail- two important traits of Claire- are exactly what get him killed.
I enjoyed Claire's arc in the film- and the arc is not "loosen up bitch" but rather her remembering her family and more importantly learning respect for the animals around her. To go from "numbers on a spreadsheet" to realizing they are living creatures when the sauropod dies before her, to respecting them when she turns to the Rex to stop her mistake. It's neat stuff and being the one to get the Rex works far better than Owen.
Oh, and the enclosure for the Rex pen doesn't open to main street, jesus. Or did we miss the shots where she is running and then it cuts away and then she comes down a fucking alley and then shows up on mainstreet? Or the proximity of the Rex attraction to the center of the park earlier in the film? This is the kind of shit I'm talking about when you levy complaints that are this stupid and baseless.
Her in high heels does rank up with some of the more laughable things in the film, but I've known women who spend large amounts of time in heels doing dumb acrobatic shit plenty of times and it doesn't strike me as anything too crazy(musical theater anyone?). It was much more an issue in the jungle with the Pterandons than running down pavement from the Rex, but even then you see her fall behind and then Owen pulls her down, whereas the next time she runs past him in heels. It's not a dealbreaker.
Ostro, you talk about the advent of people in films unable to talk like real humans anymore. Everything is a quip, some witty banter, back and forth jokey talk. This is both valid and invalid.
I remember this first coming up around Juno, one of the most common things said about the film was "people don't talk like that." At the time, no, not everyone did. But life imitates art and vice versa and more and more there has been a push of playful banter between people both on screen and off. I'm not sure how much any of you get to interact with new people every day, but I meet hundreds if not thousands of new people every day and more and more people are full of quips and sarcasm. The modern form of masculinity was shaped over the past 15 years or so, with the "strong jock" being overtaken by the "intelligent dick" type first pushed by internet personalities like Tucker Max and Maddox. It's evolved into a somewhat more respectable field where the majority of people from young professionals on down through colleges and even highschools are now full of men and boys that constantly one up eachother with witty banter. Likewise, women have followed the same path, using playful humor and combative yet entertaining back and forths to talk to eachother and talk to men. The advent of social media has allowed quick, quippy interactions to spread like wildfire and has resulted in a large portion of the American population to talk like, well, like they're in a fucking Joss Whedon production.
This kind of script will likely feel dated a few decades down the line as times change, but everyone talking back and forth with quick, quirky quips is reflective of the times that we find ourselves in. Not everyone can pull it off, but a whole lot of people are trying.
Now let's talk about the general disappointment I'm seeing with some people over this. I'm curious as to what kind of film people actually wanted, and then realized that none of you are in agreement and some people don't even know what the fuck they are talking about in the first place. I've seen people lump together the first 3 films and say that this movie felt nothing like them. Well shit guys, bad news, the third film was nothing like the previous two films either.
I've seen people hope for a more serious film, but you're all quite vague in what this means. I remember a post where Ostro talked about what we should rule out for a respectable JP followup, and mentioned how it shouldn't be Rise of the Planet of the Apes because that movie was already made.
As soon as I watched Rise of the Apes I too had said that it would have been a perfect Jurassic Park sequel with dinosaurs instead of monkeys, but seeing as how it was made, beat to the punch, we had to look for something else.
Jurassic World is a natural progression for the series that feels like the first truly successful sequel. The working park, bigger stakes, the commentary on bigger is better and disinterest in spectacle, dinosaur hunters that actually get to hunt dinosaurs, dinosaurs getting fleshed out as characters, cooperate sponsership and greed, military application.. there's a lot to see here, and a lot to build off and flesh out in another film.
I mentioned Xenozoic Tales before and can't mention it enough, large portions of this film felt heavily influenced by and a great representation of those stories on screen. I highly recommend any JP fan to order an edition of Xenozoic from Flesk to see what I'm talking about here. Whereas the first film seemed to focus more on the aspect of playing God, and man's lack of humility before nature, this film really makes an effort of establishing a respect for nature and the animals in it much moreso than the other films. The addition of the relationship with the raptors was absolutely crucial and a fantastic way to build up the themes already present in the series while expanding on them further.
Anyway I loved this film much, much more than I expected to and am sorry for those that didn't get the enjoyment out of it that I did. I feel like Paul bitching about the Star Wars prequels here, but this really was the most fun I've had in a theater in years, and I can't wait to go yet again.
Replies: 174, 177
Msg #173: On 6/16/2015 at 8:19:50 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #171, saying: You're goddamn right.
Msg #174: On 6/16/2015 at 9:46:25 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #172, saying: I've more or less resigned myself to the fact that I simply can't understand why so many people like this movie, and I really see very little reason to even try to talk about it. I guess I understand Ford's point of view, which is just watching it as pure schlock and laughing at it, but that's not what most of you are doing. However, I figure that, after all these years, if I'm not going to buckle up and argue about this movie, I might as well leave the board.
If you believe that this film is in any way worse than Jurassic Park 3, you are objectively wrong and a complete fucking idiot.
Jurassic Park III is bad and I don't like it, and it's hard to compare two really awful movies to one another, but I'd rather re-watch Jurassic Park III than Jurassic World simply because it's more honest and innocent. Both movies are retarded B-movies with plot holes and paper-thin characters, but Jurassic Park III has no sense of self-importance and simply tries to be a straightforward adventure movie with a series of neat action scenes. Jurassic World is pandering and insulting and has a huge chip on its shoulder, not to mention that its stupid dinosaur-soldier subplot was dumber than anything yet to appear in the franchise. As I recall, basically everyone agreed on this years ago when it first surfaced, except for you, Rez, who thought it sounded hilarious and wanted the next film to be a Dinosaurs Attacks! kind of thing.
I enjoyed Claire's arc in the film- and the arc is not "loosen up bitch" but rather her remembering her family and more importantly learning respect for the animals around her.
Claire is a really shitty character and her "arc" consists of her learning to fall for Owen. Her attitude towards the kids never changes, and the one scene where she learns to respect the dinosaurs is that limp-dick moment with the apatosaurus was shoe-horned into the movie to (a) copy Jurassic Park again and (b) fool people into thinking Claire had an arc other than the romantic element. She didn't, so, yes, while it was pushed into the background by the monster movie mayhem, her "growth" was that she accepted these douchey dudebro as her mate, which means letting danger and unpredictability into her life.
We've seen this shit over and over and over and what offends me about it isn't so much that it's misogynistic (which it is), but that it's fucking lazy. I don't think the filmmakers are misogynists, but they just fell back on a tired old character dynamic either because they thought it would sell better or they couldn't think of something more original.
Oh, and the enclosure for the Rex pen doesn't open to main street, jesus. Or did we miss the shots where she is running and then it cuts away and then she comes down a fucking alley and then shows up on mainstreet? Or the proximity of the Rex attraction to the center of the park earlier in the film? This is the kind of shit I'm talking about when you levy complaints that are this stupid and baseless.
It doesn't open directly onto it, but it's connected by, what, like maybe a quarter mile of service alleys? The point is that the T. rex enclosure is right there, instead of, you know, miles away. It's obvious they put it there to allow for that fight in the CityWalk area, but it makes it seem like the T. rex is kept in a small cage instead of the big paddock it would probably need, and, after the events of the first two movies, you'd think they'd do everything possible to prevent the T. rex from escaping and killing people.
Ostro, you talk about the advent of people in films unable to talk like real humans anymore. Everything is a quip, some witty banter, back and forth jokey talk. This is both valid and invalid.
When did I mention that? I'm sure I said that about some other movie at some point in the past (it is one of the things I don't like about Juno), but I really didn't say anything at all about the dialogue in this movie.
The modern form of masculinity was shaped over the past 15 years or so, with the "strong jock" being overtaken by the "intelligent dick" type first pushed by internet personalities like Tucker Max and Maddox. It's evolved into a somewhat more respectable field where the majority of people from young professionals on down through colleges and even highschools are now full of men and boys that constantly one up eachother with witty banter.
Ohhhh, you mean douchebags. Like I said, I never mentioned the dialogue in the movie, but if the best explanation for why everyone in a movie talks like a pretentious douchebag is that most of the people in the audience are pretentious douchebags, I'd still say it's a sorry script. I love highly stylized dialogue, but, even if you're right, it would just be another example of the film pandering to the lowest common denominator.
I'm curious as to what kind of film people actually wanted
This kind of argument starts off with a lack of bad faith. Even if I didn't know what exactly I wanted, I recognize what I definitely don't want once I see it.
Jurassic World is a natural progression for the series that feels like the first truly successful sequel. The working park,
I didn't mention this because there were so many other things that pissed me off, but the idea that they could have gotten the park up and running to begin with bothered me because it was kind of the entire point of the novel: something as audacious as a theme park filled with cloned dinosaurs contains too many dangerous variables for people to ever actually get it under control, and, thus, it is doomed to failure. This movie kind of tried to stay true to that by having everything go to shit anyway, but it still seems like they missed the point.
bigger stakes,
Which were what? More people might die? That doesn't matter to me when the people are treated as anonymous, disposable dino-fodder. In Jurassic Park, every character who's killed by a dinosaur is characterized fairly extensively beforehand so we actually feel a real impact when they die (the exception, obviously, is that worker at the beginning, but that was a whole sequence designed to set the tone of the film, and even he had a name). When dinosaurs just start killing people I don't care or know anything about, I no longer believe in the film's stakes because everything feels fake. That kind of movie can be fun when it's taken to the extreme for camp or schlock appeal, but this wasn't.
the commentary on bigger is better and disinterest in spectacle,
I think I said enough on this already, but this aspect of the film was disgustingly disingenuous. They say all this shit about how the idiotic public is no longer interested in regular dinosaurs and needs more "wow factor," then they make a movie that treats the audience like an idiotic public that's no longer interested in dinosaurs and needs more "wow factor." It was cheap, simplistic, and dishonest. If you enjoy the movie, okay, I guess I can't really tell you what you think is fun or not, but this part of the film was so insulting.
dinosaur hunters that actually get to hunt dinosaurs,
That was in The Lost World, unless you specifically mean with, like, machine guns and bazookas, in which case I consider that a major negative. I don't like it when they treat the dinosaurs like monsters because it goes against the entire appeal of Jurassic Park and why it's so much better than all the other dinosaur movies out there.
dinosaurs getting fleshed out as characters,
Um, which ones? The raptors that was stupidly anthropomorphized and didn't act like animals at all? And why would you want animals to be characters in the movie? Like Congo, with the fucking talking gorilla?
this film really makes an effort of establishing a respect for nature and the animals in it much moreso than the other films.
How so? The entire first two movies are about how InGen is violating nature and that humans cannot control wild animals, and both films have several major scenes entirely about this. Jurassic World just repeats the same old shit with some extra mad scientist stuff, but it also has animals acting weird and unbelievably just for the sake of Saturday morning cartoon action, which I would say is actually disrespectful towards nature. I know you can say the the dinosaurs weren't "real" dinosaurs or whatever because of their frog DNA, but everyone here knows that's a lame, tired excuse people have been pulling out of their ass since the first movie whenever any scientific inaccuracy is mentioned.
Msg #175: On 6/16/2015 at 10:49:33 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying:
Msg #176: On 6/16/2015 at 11:19:01 PM, fordprefect replied, saying: BDH was the corporate stiff who could only relate to one of Pratt's list of animalistic urges, constantly said 'asset' as though anyone actually talks like that, couldn't remember how long it had been since she last saw her family because she's so busy, and takes a phone call in the middle of their reunion. Her whole character exists to learn how great Pratt is.
The first time the kids see Pratt he's in the middle of getting saved by BDH, and they promptly conclude that he's a badass.
Msg #177: On 6/17/2015 at 12:18:25 AM, Darth Chicken replied to Msg #172, saying: Thank you for that refreshing take. I also greatly enjoyed the movie and I also have heard nothing but praise from friends, family and customers.
I took the time to read that review by Ostro. I found it well thought out and thorough, even if I strongly disagree. In all honesty if they had made a serious, science heavy, character driven sequel it would have collapsed under the weight of all that came before.
I thought side stepping the other sequels was pure genius, Trevorrow really left it dealers choice.
"Jurassic World is a natural progression for the series that feels like the first truly successful sequel."
lol
You sound like Armond White Replies: 182
Msg #179: On 6/17/2015 at 1:05:49 PM, Maester replied, saying: This film, after 14 years of waiting has suddenly come into existence and we're all just rushing to catch up.
Colin Trevorrow did not fulfill any of the promises he made when he took on this project. It stands to reason that he probably never read, nor watched Jurassic Park. He may have, but what he came out with, and what people like us came out with from those experiences are two completely different things. Perhaps he was too busy doing the 'Movie Move' on his girlfriend and eating popcorn to really grasp the depth of what the first had tried, and failed, to compellingly relay.
I say failed because for all of its intellectual depth, Jurassic Park's message is still scientifically false. However, the intellect was there, just misdirected thanks to the poor writing of its novel's author.
Jurassic Park, for what it was, holds up so strongly because of things that it does and doesn't. Jurassic World will not hold up because of everything it forgot. It is the film that forgot what franchise it was in. Trying so hard to mirror the first that it ended up becoming a ghost of the sequels.
The plot has intellect. There is definitely something in Jurassic World that, if better developed, could have been a far more powerful film and sequel than it turned out. I have a feeling that Colin started down a valiant path and then became rushed to finish the script that he let the middle and ending get jumbled to the point that it is no longer recognizable as a Jurassic Park film.
I believe it has been so successful because it is a wild and dumb action film, which is what most people want. It is nostalgia, which people think is relevant.
I enjoyed all of the films, the third most of all. This one felt like it just needed to let some scenes breathe, and drop a few subplots to let others better formulate. Perhaps if it hadn't been rushed, shoe-horned if you will, then we would have had a more cunning and linguistic sequel.
We shall see how it goes when Jurassic Park 5 comes out. Because, with the sales of this film, it most certainly will; with or without you. Replies: 180
Msg #180: On 6/17/2015 at 5:59:00 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #179, saying: What is scientifically false about its message? Replies: 183
Msg #181: On 6/17/2015 at 6:17:22 PM, fordprefect replied, saying: Can you even like something ironically? What does it mean to like a bad film because it's bad?
Are people who claim to like things ironically only denying any responsibility for justifying their preferences, and evading any criticism of their own taste?
Am I philosophically bankrupt? Replies: 184
Msg #182: On 6/17/2015 at 6:56:06 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #178, saying: How does he sound like Armond White?
Msg #183: On 6/17/2015 at 7:14:56 PM, Maester replied to Msg #180, saying: Don't get me wrong on some things, I love Jurassic park both film and book, but as an individual of whom studies and has a deep appreciation for both paleontology and science, Jurassic Park has neither. It would have had a better bet taken on more philosophical socially ethical debates than expand upon the science of its creation.
Jurassic Park, besides the obvious inaccuracies about dinosaur physiology (Naked steroidal raptors, Tyrannosaurs unable to utilize any of its of senses, Dilophosaurus frill and vitriol) the science behind the battle of man and nature is just ridiculous. The science behind the power that built that place is way off course with reality.
I think that, ironically, the two movies people now hate the most describe the first film best when Alan said that InGen merely created an island of theme park monsters, not dinosaurs. Henry Wu in Jurassic World shot back at Masrani in saying that the man didn't want accuracy, nor did he want authentic, he just wanted entertainment and a theme park.
The inherent problem with the idea of the power going out causing the park's frankenstein monsters to come out is that the science behind the power of Jurassic Park is overkill. The creatures are contained by fences that could kill them. Animals bigger than those freak raptors have been killed by electrical fences before and on film. The movie tries to part ways between Dinosaurs and Nature. It tries to make the claim that because they died 65 million years ago that they are not animals but abhorrent mysteries that can never be understood by man. It, if I can beat it into you, makes the claim that dinosaurs are these untouchable entities that could never live in the same time as man.
That's wrong. That's inaccurate. A Cassowary is no different than a velociraptor aside from the fact that a Cassowary doesn't have the clawed hands and is a far bigger animal. A more intelligent animal as well than the velociraptor.
The power of that place was more than enough to contain the animals and even if any of them got out, the staff and the intelligence of the human collective with their technology even as basic as they had was more than enough to handle the situation. These things happen at normal zoos and a Dinosaur is no different than animal in a park, or the Savhanna.
There are many glaring and subtle inaccuracies within Jurassic Park and you have to really squint to suspend your disbelief. The book and film saves itself on the merit that it is a character piece, definitely not a realistic scientific feature. If you ignore the disregard for its own existence and enjoy the characters and their journey, which is what I think Colin Trevorrow originally had in mind and failed to come through on, then Jurassic Park is a great film and book. The intellect of it comes from the questions it tries to raise and answer, though misguided, there are parts where it works out.
In Jurassic World, the beginning presents us with a very intelligent plot and question. It's almost brilliant and natural the path it was going to take, but due to the script being written by someone that probably couldn't handle the pressure and the depth it needed, folded into a messy monster movie that lost all merit of intellect and whim. At least Jurassic Park was steady from beginning to end, never once compensating for its inadequacies, but merely stating 'well, it's kind of a ride.' Replies: 196
Msg #184: On 6/17/2015 at 8:40:10 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #181, saying: Can you even like something ironically? What does it mean to like a bad film because it's bad?
It can either mean that it's camp or that you are simply laughing at the movie for being bad, in which case you don't actually like the film itself, just the act of watching it. Either way, I don't get it when someone says "I like it ironically," which sounds nonsensical to me. What that actually means (with the adverb "ironically" modifying the verb "enjoy") is that it is ironic that they enjoy it, but that's not at all what people who say that are trying to communicate. I think it's ironic that Hitler loved Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, but I don't think these people would say that he liked it ironically.
Are people who claim to like things ironically only denying any responsibility for justifying their preferences, and evading any criticism of their own taste?
Some are, I think, though others are probably just saying to sound hip or sophisticated and haven't thought enough about it to have developed the kind of anxiety that would make someone act that way.
Am I philosophically bankrupt?
Yes, but for unrelated reasons. Replies: 185
Msg #185: On 6/17/2015 at 11:00:14 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #184, saying: Forget the word 'ironic' since it has a bit of baggage. Is it coherent to like a terrible film, even though you might find it objectively bad. How can you separate the act of 'watching' from liking the film itself?
If I enjoyed a cheap burger, even though I might absolutely insist that it's bad food, does that imply that I have poor taste, and no amount of self-awareness about it can absolve me of my poor taste. Replies: 186, 187, 189
Msg #186: On 6/17/2015 at 11:48:03 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #185, saying: Does this help explain why you took us to Nando's?
Msg #187: On 6/18/2015 at 12:56:04 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #185, saying: Is it coherent to like a terrible film, even though you might find it objectively bad.
That depends what you mean by "objectively bad." Whenever people bring up "guilty pleasure" movies, I can't think of any because all the "bad" movies I like have what I consider redeeming values. To use an obvious example, Plan 9 From Outer Space is an objectively bad movie in any way you can measure a movie, but it has a weirdness and a sweet naivete that makes it likeable. I don't think those qualities make it any "better" than the whole slew of equally shitty Z-movies from the time period, but I also don't think liking it for those qualities is inconsistent with good taste because you're positively responding to something recognizably human in it.
In other words, for me, at least, if I actually like a movie and don't just think it's funny to laugh at it (the appeal of MST3K), if I think about it long enough, I can figure out what the redeeming qualities are in it that I'm reacting to.
And, again, a lot of it is just camp. Most camp is "objectively bad."
How can you separate the act of 'watching' from liking the film itself?
A film can be irredeemable trash but still be enjoyable if you watch it with friends or with RiffTrax or in some other environment where you can openly mock it. As a counter-example to Plan 9 from Outer Space, The Room is a repulsive film and I can't imagine watching it on my own, but I do enjoy watching it with other people because of the reactions it elicits.
If I enjoyed a cheap burger, even though I might absolutely insist that it's bad food, does that imply that I have poor taste, and no amount of self-awareness about it can absolve me of my poor taste.
Again, what is "bad food"? For a burger, that could mean that it's non-nutritious and made out of that gross mass market ground beef with the ammoniated filler in it, but it can also mean that the burger actually has a foul taste, like rotten meat or poop or something. In either case, I think self-awareness of its badness doesn't need to prevent you from liking it, just from indulging in it too often. If a movie or a burger is just trying to stimulate your base senses and it succeeds, unless it also promotes something ethically questionable (like the film being racist or the burger being made of chimpanzee meat), I don't think there's anything bad about enjoying them.
"Good taste" doesn't mean only liking things that are good. It means figuring out what you like, specifically, and understanding why you like it, whether it's "good" or "bad". Replies: 188
Msg #188: On 6/18/2015 at 2:29:56 AM, Bryan replied to Msg #187, saying:
Msg #189: On 6/18/2015 at 4:37:57 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #185, saying: Just because the burger is cheap and crap compared to a gourmet burger doesn't mean it's bad. Like Ostro said, a rotten burger would be bad.
There is still some redeeming factor to the cheap burger. It's cheap, fills you up, and is just tasteful enough for your taste buds not to completely reject it.
Msg #190: On 6/18/2015 at 4:54:01 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/06/15/the-strangely-cruel-and-unusual-death-in-jurassic-world
The death of the British woman in the film felt weird to me, kind of made me feel sad and left me confused as a moviegoer for reasons I didn't quite understand. This article did a great job explaining why.
Replies: 197
Msg #191: On 6/18/2015 at 5:24:33 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I felt like Zara's death would have been better suited for Hoskins.
Msg #192: On 6/18/2015 at 5:40:06 PM, DJ Jerm replied, saying: Zara's death was weird for sure. Oddly I also felt really bad for the dude who was hiding behind the truck and got eaten by the Irex. He had it coming but fuck did he ever have loads of time to contemplate his impending death.
Msg #193: On 6/18/2015 at 8:01:04 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Lol at the Zara sympathizers. This was all a meme running on 4chan for the past weeek, I'm shocked that there's people actually making a case for her death being cruel. She's broadly painted as the biggest bitch in the film, constantly self absorbed and disinterested in anything other than her phone. She's a miserable person every second we see her on screen and a fun send up of the young 20 something power hungry bitches that I run into every day that think they are the most important thing on the planet. The entire theater cheered all 3 times I've seen this when she gets chomped. Fuck this girl and fuck any of you cucked pussiss feeling sorry for her because she's kind of hot, I guess.
Fat religious guy deserved to die because he's a lazy slob who believes in fairy tales. Maybe if he took care of his body better and respected his own life and decisions more vs hoping for a miracle from Jesus he'd still be alive. Didn't he watch Jurassic Park? Man destroys god and dinosaurs eat man.
Her death really bothered me. Same deal for the fat guy. They were just normal people who are viciously killed on screen. When the worker in the original JP dies you don't see him getting torn apart by the raptor, and the entire atmosphere of the scene does not feel at all comedic. In JW the fat guy just kinda sits there with the camera awkwardly paused on him for several seconds and then CHOMP. I dunno, maybe that one was effective because it made me uncomfortable and that's how Pratt felt.
Zara's played out like it should have been for comedic effect but she didn't deserve it at all, and it wasn't funny and it didn't make me squirm in a FUNNY way like a cheesy grossout horror movie like Hostel... her actress did a really good job of putting me in her shoes and I just imagined what it would be like if I were the one in that tank getting fucked up and it made me kinda sick.
I still think Eddie's death in TLW was the worst though. He was busting his ass and putting himself in huge danger to save these stupid fucks who brought a fucking baby T. rex into their camp. The worst part about the scene is how the camera focuses on his superawesome tranq rifle getting caught in some random ass netting so he couldn't even get it out to even attempt to defend himself. He's the most heroic character in the film and gets fucked over by stupid fuckwits and random chance. He gets torn in half on screen for his efforts while the others survive unscathed for their stupidity. What the FUCK, Spielberg? Replies: 198
Msg #198: On 6/18/2015 at 11:00:26 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #197, saying: I think that's the point. Those two deaths are two of the few things the movie gets right. You should feel bad when people die, and people who don't deserve to die, get killed all the same in horrible ways.
Same goes for Eddie. He's an awesome dude, who is more heroic than anyone else in that movie and he gets torn to bits for it. That shit happens in life. Heroism is more often than not punished rather than rewarded. Replies: 199, 203
Msg #199: On 6/19/2015 at 12:50:31 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #198, saying: The difference is that Spielberg went out of his way to show that Eddie was a likeable, heroic character, so we cared when he died. Trevorrow went out of his way to show that the assistant and the fat guy were either incompetent or unlikeable so it could be exciting and fun when they got eaten. The fucked up death of the assistant was one of the things I chose not to write about in my review because there's already enough out there on misogyny in Hollywood films, but, whether Rez is being a facetious troll or not, the horrible sexist response he describes in Msg 193 is, I think, what we're supposed to come away thinking, and that's gross. It's actually worse than Gennaro in the first film, which has always bugged me.
Msg #200: On 6/19/2015 at 1:18:49 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: I don't get it. Why is it wrong to have an unlikable character get eaten in horrible/awesome fashion? Yes, they are supposed to be unlikable. Its done quickly and efficiently through a mix of basic scripting and effective casting. Why is it sexist and full of misogony to have a woman be a bitch and get killed in a movie where plenty of people are attacked and die? Are women supposed to be immune from being anything other than shining examples that are perfect in every way and shoot rainbows out of their ass? THAT is sexist.
I've seen comments about this because she's the first woman to die in a JP film. Uh, so?! Who gives a fucking shit?! She is shown to be an asshole every time we see her and you're acting like that's some sexist garbage that should be run into the ground. Please enlighten me as to why every character needs to be a decent person, because apparently thinly draw bitches are off limits. As are cowardly whiny lawyers and lazy fat slobs. What the fuck dude. Replies: 205
Msg #201: On 6/19/2015 at 1:38:13 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I gotta agree with Rez on this one: all deaths have been men in the franchise, but the one time a woman dies, it's sexist? That's as insulting as it is baffling to me. If that's misogyny, the series has proved itself misandristic (misandric?) a dozen times over before in this area.
I'm with Narrator that the deaths should have been this shocking every time. The assistant's death was brutal to watch and reminded me of the account of Tilikum (sp? The orca at SeaWorld) killing his trainer.
Msg #202: On 6/19/2015 at 1:58:38 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I don't find it misogynist. I just feel Zara doesn't quite deserve it. Though I understand the need to provide the film with the perspective of nature plays no favorites as far as food goes. It's just that, Hoskins goes out like a silly kid who climbed over the bear enclosure. He should have had something cruel happen to him to counteract his villainy.
Msg #203: On 6/19/2015 at 2:22:17 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #198, saying: Just like everyone felt so bad when Nedry and Gennaro died? Lmao.
The movie DIDN'T get it right. She died a really awful disturbing death yet it was clearly played for laughs and a "coolness" factor. She was set up to be unlikeable.
I'm not against gruesome deaths. They should just be appropriate and make you care. I didn't care about her character, I only cared that she died in a really awful way. It was conflicting to watch.
Unless Colin is some mega meta-genius trying to get you to rethink deaths of unlikeable characters in movies and how fucked up it is to want characters to die just for being unlikeable. But I doubt it. Replies: 210
Msg #204: On 6/19/2015 at 3:08:32 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: LMAO I'M DEAD
Oh, you said she's "self absorbed" and "power hungry" because she's always on her phone, like she's some twenty-year-old at the club taking selfies and texting. She's making business calls and getting shit done that she should be doing instead of watching the little autistic kid and his dweeby teen brother.
Not to mention she actually started freaking out when the kids got lost, so it's not like she was some heartless cunt that couldn't care less about these kids' safety. Her only mistake was trusting that they would actually stay within eyesight so she wouldn't have to watch over them like a hawk.
Like, look at what she actually does in the film, instead of these grotesque stereotypes you're projecting onto her, and try to explain why she's a horrible person. I'm fine with female characters being huge assholes and women getting killed in monster movies and all that other stuff you're pulling out of your ass, but the movie is trying to make you hate this woman so it's awesome when she dies, and she does nothing wrong at all.
It's disgusting and, yes, misogynistic. It's saying she deserves to be punished for not instantly making children her top priority, even before there was any danger and even though they're not her kids. It "works" because the stereotype you're describing of a hollow business bitch or phone-obsessed bimbo is something the audience already is comfortable with, and anyone predisposed to think these things about women who fit even the slightest surface details of these stereotypes will fill in all the gaps without the movie having to actually characterize her.
I don't even know how to really describe it so you'll get it if you don't already. If you think a woman being disinterested in looking after someone's else's kids whom she doesn't even know when it's not her job and then making some phone calls to do the actual work she gets paid for makes her a miserable, power hungry, self absorbed bitch who deserves to die for our amusement, you're a fucking pig.
EDIT:
The assistant's death was brutal to watch and reminded me of the account of Tilikum (sp? The orca at SeaWorld) killing his trainer.
I can see that, but the audience in the theater I saw it in was laughing, and I think you're supposed to think it was awesome and fun, not fucked up and brutal. If that's what they were intending, Trevorrow would have had a few moments here and there making the assistant relatable (not necessarily likeable, but some kind of character detail that would make her seem like a real person). Or maybe he just doesn't know what he's doing and didn't think about it very much. In either case, my problem isn't with the fact that she was killed in the movie, but how the movie was trying to make me feel about it, and how other people are responding to it. Replies: 209
Msg #206: On 6/19/2015 at 5:13:12 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: Daww at the assistant empathy. Are you gonna be okayyy?
I was delighted by how prolonged and disturbing her death was.
Msg #207: On 6/19/2015 at 5:19:37 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: She's a bitch dude. You say I'm projecting but you are the one assigning her this "did nothing wrong" attitude where she's undeserving of a crazy death. I don't know why you're trying to defend a character that for all 5 minutes of her screen time is both written and portrayed as nothing more than a lifeless bitch. I'm not projecting anything on her, I've exactly nailed the obvious stereotype that she is supposed to be and further explained it.
I'm wagering that you don't meet enough people in a day to day basis to recognize the kind of vapid bitch that she is here, but it's a real thing and I'd gladly plunk down money to see every one of them torn apart by flying prehistoric monsters and then get chomped by a mosasaur.
Anyway, here's what's wrong with everything you said:
What is unlikable and bitchy about the assistant:
- Addicted to technology (which, besides being fucking annoying in any real world scenario, fits with the Jurassic theme of nature over science)
- Assistant to Claire but gets "Stuck" taking care of a personal task assigned to her by her boss. Is she supposed to give a shit about the assignment? Well maybe if she was actually a decent worker, sure. But she does not- most of the times we see her she is either looking at her phone or rolling her eyes, not giving a shit about anything except her own world on her phone and wishing she was anywhere else.
-Making business calls? You are projecting now dude. We only hear her on the phone once, and she's whining about how her fiance wanted a bachelor party but he's not getting one. Yeah, she's a cunt.
-Freaks out when the kids are lost... yeah, because it's her boss calling her and the task that she gave her she completely failed at.
-Plus the actress just generally acts like a bitch the entire time and was no doubt directed this way and was written this way.
If it walks like a bitch and talks like a bitch it's a bitch. Saying someone isn't a bitch because they have a job and occassionally try to do things for the job doesn't make them any less of a vapid asshole. I don't know why you're trying to argue that she wasn't a bitch because she was, and even you recognize that the movie was trying to make you hate her which it succeeded on every level except for weirdos who are making up fantasies about this being another STRONK WOMYN who DID NOTHING WRONG!(you are not the only person I've seen say this). It's a bit part in a movie that used every second of her time to establish her as an unlikable twatface who deserved a horrible death. I don't know how many ways I can say the same thing. There's nothing sexist about making one of your female characters a bitch. You are literally arguing about a made up fantasy in your head where you believe that a character who showed up in the casting call as "rude bitch" deserves some fucking medal for dealing with children that aren't hers for 10 minutes. This has to be one of the most SJW arguments I've ever witnessed and it's sickening to think that you actually believe that a 5 minute character in a movie doesn't deserve to be called a bitch because... she has a job and is a woman, I guess. It's rediculous and beyond insulting that you are literally sitting behind your keyboard thinking I'm a pig because I recognize that the "annoying bitch" character in a movie is an annoying bitch while you're trying to white knight her.
Unrelated to the specifics of any recent conversation, I'm at a point where I love it the third time I've seen it even more than I did initially. The brother dynamic is fucking terrific, and I love seeing the development between them as the story progressed with Zack putting aside himself and assuming the big brother role. That stuff gave it a lot of soul for me, in addition to Lowery who is quickly becoming a favorite character. I couldn't really be more in love with precisely how it focuses on the atmosphere and grandeur of the theme park. I don't need to hear that theme over more shots of dinosaurs; I got it the first time. I'm there with this for Hammond's vision realized, and those early scenes with the full scope of everything from the kids interacting with the baby dinosaurs, to the visitor center, monorail, gyrosphere, etc. It's gorgeous and gave me the exact right Amblin feel I'd desired. I don't even need to get into the entire third act. It remains the most fun I've had all year. What I do need is a gif of Claire running away from the Rex with that flare in hand. Glorious.
Msg #209: On 6/19/2015 at 12:52:53 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #205, saying: I don't even know how to really describe it so you'll get it if you don't already. If you think a woman being disinterested in looking after someone's else's kids whom she doesn't even know when it's not her job and then making some phone calls to do the actual work she gets paid for makes her a miserable, power hungry, self absorbed bitch who deserves to die for our amusement, you're a fucking pig.
Many of the characters in this movie and in other JP movies are stereotypes. We've had a sniveling lawyer, a fat computer nerd, a wimpy businessman, a sadistic jerk, and a fat slob who doesn't take his job seriously (Indominus' first kill). Why do you accept that it's ok to kill off or otherwise include male stereotypes but not female ones? It seems to me that the simpler explanation is lazy character writing.
And I agree that in JW they completely failed to make you care about any of the characters, and that their deaths seemed incongruent with how the filmmakers probably wanted to make you feel. But speaking of the deaths themselves, out of context, they were actually done well. If my theater was laughing at the assistant's death, I didn't notice, but I found it shocking and brutal.
What I do need is a gif of Claire running away from the Rex with that flare in hand
Right, in heels, away from a predator who's been clocked at 32 mph... Replies: 218
Msg #210: On 6/19/2015 at 2:26:39 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #203, saying: Gennaro and Nedry were both portrayed as villains. Nedry is actually the whole reason everything happened, including Gennaro's death and Gennaro abandoned helpless kids. Thats why their deaths were "cool"
The girls death in JW didn't feel like a laughable coolness thing, it felt like one of the other random dinosaur deaths that we all see from far away, but this time it was up close and actually showed the audience what they're in awe of every time they see a random person eaten in a monster movie. You're not supposed to like or hate that character, she's just there, but you know who she is and know her name. People go "woah!" when randoms are eaten or attacked all the time and not because it's something they deserve, it's because you don't know who they are. This is the same thing only you actually know the person, and that's why it doesn't feel good. And it shouldn't feel good. That is the point.
Now you have me defending this crappy movie, why do you make me say this shit?
Msg #211: On 6/19/2015 at 3:03:16 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Narrator is right. It could be the point of the filmmakers that Zara's death is meant for you to have a shocking gut reaction because nature takes no prisoners and keeps no favorites. And nobody laughed at my screening. Nobody. There's a point where an audience needs to see a huger perspective on what is being intended and not carry their own baggage in... Because sometimes that baggage can be accusatory and unfair in its assessment.
Msg #212: On 6/19/2015 at 4:30:56 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: Except several people in this thread and many others in the public got delight out of her death. So to argue as if your perspective is correct is wrong.
To people who hate her character type, they liked her death.
To people who are more empathetic, we didn't like it. It seemed too brutal.
The problem is it tread the line instead of being black and white about her death like most b-movies treat characters (and their deaths) like this.
Msg #213: On 6/19/2015 at 4:37:31 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: The bit that got me was the Moasaur clamped its jaws around Zara to get at the pteradon. So she was most probably swallowed alive. Like Chase said, it would have better had Hoskins had it that way. I don't care if someone tries to explain away Zara's death by saying 'nature/life is cruel that way...' or whatever, I don't think the writers of Jurassic World were that clever. If Hoskins has died that way, the audience would have probably cheered. Maybe. I've seen it twice now and nobody cheered when she died.
Msg #214: On 6/19/2015 at 5:04:52 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: "Except several people in this thread and many others in the public got delight out of her death. So to argue as if your perspective is correct is wrong."
To argue my perspective is wrong? IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE, DUDE BRO. All you have is your perspective. There is no objective reality here because if there was, everybody would be in agreement.
Maybe people who enjoyed the death are assholes??? Zara wasn't a really well thought out character to begin with. I didn't get much of an impression from her. But even if you take the stance of whether you sympathized with her or you didn't, the death - conceptually - is completely over the top cruel anyway and it would have been much more effective giving it to someone who really needed their comeuppance. Replies: 217
Msg #215: On 6/19/2015 at 7:09:15 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: For me every one of these needs that one brutal death you think about afterwards. JP1 was Gennaro getting audibly tenderized with every major bone in his body snapping, TLW was Eddie getting torn in half (which is part of what makes that the most memorable, intense scene in TLW). JP3 kind of failed at this despite Udesky's death coming close, but JW took up the slack with Zara. I didn't see how it was played for laughs whatsoever. It was just straight terrifying to consider, same with the fat worker who knew he was absolutely fucked, and then Owen dousing himself in gasoline right after...goddam. Yeah this is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for.
Right, in heels, away from a predator who's been clocked at 32 mph...
Rez: You sound like one of these Gamergater dickheads from Reddit or 4Chan saying "bitch" all the time like it's impressive edgy and using terms like "SJW" and "white knight".
Okay, maybe I was wrong about her making business calls instead of personal calls (I remember thinking they were business calls while watching it, but I was so distracted by how shitty the rest of it was that I might be mistaken), but so what? Like that isn't what every fucking person has ever done when they were babysitting.
Where did you get the idea that I thought Zara was a strong character? What the fuck? My entire point boils down the fact that, like you said, she is supposed to be an unlikeable stereotype, but she doesn't actually do anything wrong, or, really, anything at all. Are you arguing with me, or with some vague cluster of feminists on Twitter that you assume I'm league with?
Anyway, I won't get into all the other horseshit because, even if you're right about her character being a huge piece of shit, that still doesn't change the fact that deliberately writing a character to conform to a sexist stereotype so the audience can laugh at her death is disgusting. Nedry's and Gennaro's deaths always bothered me because those characters are carefully constructed to conform to negative stereotypes audiences have about fat people and lawyers so that their deaths are satisfying rather than horrifying, but it's worse with Zara (I guess that's her name) because the negative stereotypes around women have greater social consequences and result in actual violence in real life.
And NO, before you ask, I'm NOT saying Jurassic World encourages violence against women. It just allows people with pent up rage against annoying bitches who talk too much on their phone to get their thrills watching violence against women. It's the most offensive element of the worst slasher movies stuck into what's supposed to be a family-friendly dinosaur adventure movie. It's not like this is some cheeky dark comedy like Serial Mom.
Also, why do you always describe men you think are unmanly as "cucked"? Do you actually think a man who gets cuckolded is less of a man?
EDIT: For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think you're a pig, but you're talking like one, and you did call me and everyone else who thinks this movie is worse than Jurassic Park III a fucking idiot.
Msg #218: On 6/19/2015 at 8:11:49 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #209, saying: Many of the characters in this movie and in other JP movies are stereotypes. We've had a sniveling lawyer, a fat computer nerd, a wimpy businessman, a sadistic jerk, and a fat slob who doesn't take his job seriously (Indominus' first kill). Why do you accept that it's ok to kill off or otherwise include male stereotypes but not female ones? It seems to me that the simpler explanation is lazy character writing.
Like I said in my previous post, I don't think it's all right to kill off other negative stereotypes, but I do think it's worse to do it with one that's specifically about women (or blacks, gays, transgendered people, Jews, etc.) as opposed to one about fat people, nerds, or lawyers (or jocks, dentists, art students, etc.). That's a matter of degree, though, not principle.
I agree that lazy writing is probably the only cause, but the result is sexist and borderline hateful, even though I don't know if anyone involved intended it to be. Gennaro and Nedry, though stereotypes, are not only more fleshed out as characters with more screen time, but both are also shown making decisions that endanger the lives of others for their own benefit. Even if you don't buy into the negative stereotypes to which they largely conform, they're still unlikeable through their actions, so their deaths are dramatically justifiable. Zara never endangers the kids' lives, regardless of how inept at her job she may or may not be. Her unlikeability depends entirely on the negative stereotype. Whether they meant it to funny or just dark, the fact that she is an annoying woman is meant to be enough to justify killing her on-screen in such a horrible way.
Again, even though this bothers me, I don't actually find it offensive in and of itself, and I wouldn't have even mentioned anything about it if it weren't for the fact that so many people (here and elsewhere) think this character was a huge asshole and thought her death was awesome. Ignoring its accidental political dimensions, it's one more thing in the movie that sticks out as poorly executed and gratuituous.
Msg #219: On 6/19/2015 at 8:52:50 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I think it's a bit ridiculous to call it sexist, Ostro. I've seen annoying male characters who are self absorbed too. I don't think it is a stereotype that is focused just on women.
"For me every one of these needs that one brutal death you think about afterwards. JP1 was Gennaro getting audibly tenderized with every major bone in his body snapping, TLW was Eddie getting torn in half (which is part of what makes that the most memorable, intense scene in TLW). JP3 kind of failed at this despite Udesky's death coming close, but JW took up the slack with Zara. I didn't see how it was played for laughs whatsoever. It was just straight terrifying to consider, same with the fat worker who knew he was absolutely fucked, and then Owen dousing himself in gasoline right after...goddam. Yeah this is exactly the kind of stuff I was looking for."
Thinking about this a little more, I think it really bothers me because the rest of the characters who had brutal deaths like this were at least sort of asking for it.
- Gennaro left the kids alone to die - Nedry turned off security and caused the whole park to get fucked up. And he choose to go into a forest filled with dangerous predators. - Eddie choose to go to the island. I think his death was the most bullshit, but you can at least argue that he knew the risks. - Same deal with Udesky and the mercenaries. They knew the risks and went anyway. That's why they ask for the big bucks.
Zara did absolutely nothing wrong. She let the kids get lost because really what reason was there for the kids to run away? Was Zara stopping them from having fun? I doubt it. Also it's not like there's not other security in the park stopping the kids from getting into anything dangerous, and she knew the kids weren't stupid. It seemed like the whole thing was contrived to make her out to be shitty and deserving of a brutal death, but didn't do a good enough job of it. She even expressed distress over losing the kids. Then she is brutally eaten... possibly alive as Compy pointed out... when she is totally innocent in the movie.
"To argue my perspective is wrong? IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE, DUDE BRO. All you have is your perspective. There is no objective reality here because if there was, everybody would be in agreement.
Maybe people who enjoyed the death are assholes???
That's pretty much exactly what I said. I'm saying none of us can argue that our perspective is the factually correct one. I further explained that in the rest of my post which you did not quote. I completely agree with you. Replies: 220
Msg #220: On 6/19/2015 at 9:37:12 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #219, saying: This conversation has made me realize that as long as I'm a good person who makes all the right decisions and never messes up, the chances of me being horribly mangled in a brutal car crash or mauled by a black bear are effectively nil. Replies: 222
Msg #221: On 6/19/2015 at 9:45:27 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: I wasn't smiling because I wanted her to die. I didn't dig it because I'm a true blue asshole sadist. Jesus come the fuck on and grow some 70's/80's balls.
I didn't personally think she deserved it, but it did present her as an easy target to get offed in some sensational fashion, and in the tradition of Spielberg, and in general disaster movies, someone died a really morbid death that sticks in your brain. It SHOULD be uncomfortable. Not once did I get the impression that it was trying to get me to ROOT for her pain. More like feeling terrified for her. Nothing has the balls to do so anymore for precisely these kinds of reasons. If Jaws came out today and that geyser of blood erupted from Alex Kintner's fucking sides a half hour into the film as he dies screaming in terror and agony, people would probably be walking out at this rate. Oh, what am I saying? They wouldn't even make it past the opening. What an incredibly hateful, misogynistic opener. "This one is saying that little slut deserved it!" That girl and that poor little boy didn't ask for this in the middle of a scary horror/adventure film with a man eating beast sporting razor teeth. Not cool.
"Fuck families. Fuck the elderly. Fuck everyone." //Plinkett,KOTCK review
The fact that it was so memorable and got people talking about it is what brought on the satisfaction. I heard people squirming and groaning, especially when she was first dropped in and it cut to near silence, because you've been shown what's likely coming for her. Ugh, I love it.
Msg #222: On 6/19/2015 at 10:36:08 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #220, saying: It's a movie. Holy shit movies are intentionally directed fictionalized drama in order to make you feel certain emotions and think a certain way? I'm shocked.
Msg #223: On 6/20/2015 at 12:01:44 AM, Ostromite replied, saying: I think it's a bit ridiculous to call it sexist, Ostro. I've seen annoying male characters who are self absorbed too. I don't think it is a stereotype that is focused just on women.
It's not just the general idea of being self-absorbed, it's the specific details about how she is self-absorbed (not necessarily how she's actually depicted on-screen, but, like Rez said, how you're supposed to think she is as a person even when she's not on-screen). You couldn't just put a male actor in that role and have the character work the same way.
It SHOULD be uncomfortable [...] Nothing has the balls to do so anymore for precisely these kinds of reasons. If Jaws came out today and that geyser of blood erupted from Alex Kintner's fucking sides a half hour into the film as he dies screaming in terror and agony, people would probably be walking out at this rate. Oh, what am I saying? They wouldn't even make it past the opening. What an incredibly hateful, misogynistic opener. "This one is saying that little slut deserved it!" That girl and that poor little boy didn't ask for this in the middle of a scary horror/adventure film with a man eating beast sporting razor teeth. Not cool.
Don't be disingenuous. Nobody would say that and you know it. Jaws is a completely different kind of film and those characters die in completely different contexts. Replies: 224
Msg #224: On 6/20/2015 at 12:58:44 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #223, saying: Yeah stop it. Not having this. It's a scene with a promiscuous girl catching the eye of some dude and immediately stripping her clothes off only to be brutally mangled moments later. People would use the same crap in today's climate in twisting that into something hateful and misogynistic because she presented herself a certain way others may deem stereotypical because we're more sensitive now, daww, isn't it so sweet? People losing sleep over a fucking fictional character kicking the bucket that capped off a tense set-piece of chaos in a location of 22,000 people huddled together. It's potential successfully utilized; do something that rattles the viewer beyond people being lunged at bit at random. Chrissie "had it coming" as much as Zara in that she found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time, and they made for memorably jarring death scenes to illustrate the extent of just how grim the situation is for our protagonists in an intense, frightening movie. Mission: accomplished. I'm not responding to anyone else arguing against something blatantly true.
Unrelated, but I'm taking the time to gush. I love the themes of technology dehumanizing individuals. The obvious one is Claire and her initial disregard for the kids due to being wrapped up in "assets" and VERIZON PRESENTS: INDOMINUS REX meetings, and Hoskins and his bonkers ideas of weaponized dinosaurs, but also Zara with her face planted in her phone instead of engaging with the kids about the park, including Zach with paying more attention to his girlfriend writing cutsey messages than his little brother trying his best to forget about his parents divorcing with not a single person attempting to have fun with him. These elements developed throughout and resolve themselves beautifully in the final shots (I know, I'm sure it's simply terrible or contrived and whatever checklist word people jack themselves off with to throw at something). But fuck it, how dare they Friday The 13th slaughter this woman in a scary monster movie. It's like it was written by my dead sexist grandpa. Replies: 225
Msg #225: On 6/20/2015 at 1:24:22 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #224, saying: Two things:
1) The opening of Jaws technically contains all the details of what could have been a misogynistic scene, but none of them are played up and the entire sequence is unambiguously supposed to be horrifying. That's why, as far I can tell, nobody has ever tried to seriously argue that Jaws is a sexist film or that its opening scene is offensive.
2) The scene in Jurassic World, sexist or not, is not effective at all because, like you said, it's just one moment in the middle of this giant action scene where a one-dimensional character gets singled out for an extravagant death. It's either gratuitous sexist kicks, a poorly executed attempt at a moment of serious horror, or the single solitary moment of intentional emotional ambiguity in the entire film. Replies: 227
Msg #226: On 6/20/2015 at 2:28:35 AM, Darth Chicken replied, saying: Here's to swimming with bowlegged women.
-DC
Msg #227: On 6/20/2015 at 2:48:11 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #225, saying: However, I do want to add that I do agree that, in general, Hollywood movies now are less gritty and take less risks with violence, shocking imagery, and dark themes than those before the early 1990s. I don't think it's that audiences are more sensitive, though. I think it has more to do with studios wanting to maximize revenue by creating inoffensive PG-13 fare that can play well in any market. Replies: 228, 229
Msg #228: On 6/20/2015 at 6:36:44 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #227, saying: Terminator Genisys has been quietly given a PG-13 rating "for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and gunplay throughout, partial nudity and brief strong language." http://www.terminatormovie.com/#home
Hmmm yup.
a poorly executed attempt at a moment of serious horror
This I find totally reasonable. It's not some great scene, but I think the audiences groan of knowing what's probably going to happen next to her is all that was intended. Myself nor anyone I went with was cheering on her demise.
Now Melissa from Friday The 13th Part VII: The New Blood? The glove fits and I'm guilty.
Another week another retarded outrage at JW, once again sparked by a joke and then people start responding agreeing with it thinking it's serious. I wish the mass extinction event everyone is talking about would be moved up a couple of generations.
Oh, and as a final word about Zara, because I forgot to respond earlier, you guys are fucking idiots. Replace the thinly sketched character with a male actor and what's the difference? Nothing. It's still an unlikable part soley designed to make you go "what an ass, can't wait to see them get eaten." and then "fuck yes, die bitch." Seriously. Think about each and every Zara scene. There's nothing sexual or overly feminine about her, she's a working professional who just happens to be a dry cunt who is bored with her job, obsessed with her phone, and walks around with an attitude and rolling her eyes the entire time. You could do the same exact thing with an inept guy character, thinking the kids are stupid, not paying attention to anything, whining about his fiance on the phone.
Why is it wrong to portray a character as annoying or bitchy? Should we all just hold hands and let rude assholes steamroll the rest of us whenever they feel like it? The answer is no. But if we're following some of your logic then it seems you'd like things to be this way. You act nice and tolerant, other people act like fuckheads, and you just step out of the way and say "they're doing nothing wrong." Uhh, what? You do realize there's degress of being a shit person beyond "leaving a child to die somewhere" right? Why try to change the perspective on a negative stereotype when that stereotype is negative solely because of the actions of each individual that carries it? Rude, vapid, self absorbed, whiny.. these are not traits you should celebrate in a person. But the way you're describing it I should step back and act like "oh, well maybe they're not so bad. Maybe I'm not thinking about their day and all the troubles they are going through. Maybe I should value their opinion even though I'm being ignored or addressed with condescension." The fact that her job in the film is heavily steeped in public relations is even more telling. This is a person who is around well paying customers 100% of the time when she's at work and still is shown to conduct herself like a bitch the majority of the time. Literally the only time in the film this is not the case is when she's reminding Claire of her appointments, and that has nothing to do with her character and everything to do with Claire's. I find it laughable that such a debate has been sparked by this character because it is such a minor role in a major film, designed in the precious few minutes of screentime to be as unlikable a person as possible without being part of the "evil" plan. I've discussed this before, but major tentpole films rely heavily on recognizable character tropes to convey information to an audience in as quick and broad a way as possible.
The film does nothing wrong with Zara, she is an effectively drawn negative character who exists to showcase a fantastic death for an unlikable role. It's not a more fitting death for Hoskins because all of Hoskins' interactions are with the raptors, of course he must meet his fate with them. Her arc is handled with precision, and if this film had come out several years earlier no one would be arguing about this shit. The past few years have turned portions of the internet using populace into literal SJW retards, whining about nothing and arguing for support over this clearly a cunt of a character. If I were the filmmakers I'd be baffled beyond belief at this conversation, because it's on of the most stupid things I've read regarding film criticism in a while.
I was going to say find something new to bitch about, but as you can see at the beginning of this post above it looks like the SJWs already have. Replies: 242
Msg #242: On 6/23/2015 at 7:38:35 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #241, saying: Vinny posted that shit last week. Yeah, it's stupid, but chalking up every social media outrage over perceived bigotry to "the SJWs" is also stupid. People writing formal criticism about how a film represents negative stereotypes that constitute part of a larger, harmful pattern have nothing in common with people on YouTube and Twitter getting upset over something they misheard. "SJW" is the new "libtard".
Also, not to be snide about it, but I do think it's funny that you're telling me to find something else to bitch about when I wrote a 5000 word review about why I thought the movie sucked and never once mentioned that character. Replies: 243
Msg #243: On 6/23/2015 at 7:47:19 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #242, saying: Damn, I totally missed it. I edited the above post to talk a little more about why I hate the Zara criticism and find it baseless. I didn't single you out because it's not just you saying things about it, I truly don't understand anyone who has that viewpoint about her or her death.
You may not think it effective writing, or acting, or any combination of the execution, but I think it's undeniable that the intent is for her to be unlikable and there's nothing sexist about her being an unlikable character or her getting a brutal death when she's supposed to be an unlikable character.
And I, as always, liked your review even if it was the most I've ever disagreed with you.
Oh, and I'm not chalking up formal criticism to SJW, but rather the outpouring of "SHE DID NOTHING WRONG" that is an actual internet meme that has somehow gained traction with, again, the SJW crowd. It's a baseless argument and I promise you that 99.9% of the people repeating it haven't given the concept 1/100th of the thought that you have.
Msg #244: On 6/24/2015 at 10:20:33 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I didn't think her portrayal was sexist. I just didn't think her death was fitting especially for this type of movie. And I thought the movie was great, but the character was a very good example for all movies who have these kind of stupid deaths, and since the movie has been seen by almost everyone I think that is why it's such a huge talking point... everything about this movie has become a huge talking point because everyone has seen it.
And as a former libtard, there's a huge difference between libtards and SJWs. SJWs are fucking laughable and they're not some boogieman that doesn't exist. They do exist and they're annoying as fuck. I have several friends from high school who are now SJWs after having gone to college and they have infested tumblr. Replies: 245, 246, 247
Msg #245: On 6/25/2015 at 12:37:49 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #244, saying: Eyeroll.
Msg #246: On 6/25/2015 at 12:55:16 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #244, saying: And as a former libtard, there's a huge difference between libtards and SJWs. SJWs are fucking laughable and they're not some boogieman that doesn't exist. They do exist and they're annoying as fuck. I have several friends from high school who are now SJWs after having gone to college and they have infested tumblr.
Msg #251: On 6/25/2015 at 2:52:28 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: A "Social Justice Warrior" or the SJW is the lowest form of trash, often seen feigning outrage over non issues or whatever current hot button topic of the day. The biggest tell of an SJW is that they make the focus about their reaction over whatever perceived injustice they claim to be advocating for. It's a selfish mentality in sheep's clothing: someone who wants to appear as a decent person but in fact only spreads vitriol and intolerance all in the aim of making themselves look better, often with little to no actual knowledge or evidence to support what they think they're talking about.
I used this example the last time someone asked, but Robert Downey Jr in Tropic Thunder dressing up in blackface and then saying to the actual black guy how nigger is a bad word is a perfect example of the actual SJW mentality.
Msg #252: On 6/25/2015 at 4:13:14 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: I think the biggest talking point of Jurassic World is the CGI. Though the dinosaurs look more detailed, they look less real. It's a contradiction, but it's true!
Ostro, I enjoyed your review. When the I Rex and the sibling hatch at the beginning and don't use their snouts, it makes me wonder- did Jack Horner get plain ignored as an advisor or just not give a shit? But the Moasaur being largely scaled up didn't bother me because there are scenes where they showed they scaled up and down certain dinsosaurs to maximise entertainment value, such as the 'petting zoo' they had.
On my second viewing of the film I noticed something else that puzzled me: the bit where they fed the Rex using the goat. I understand it's a throwback to the original Jurassic Park (and I agree with Ostro that if I wanted that shit I'd watch the original film), but in the first film the Rex didn't bother to turn up because they established the Rex 'didn't want to be fed... she wants to hunt'. So I guess this is another shitty example of Trevorrow's ran service. Yes he acknowledged a scene of the original film, but he executed it in a way that was actually ignorant to the fans. Replies: 261
Msg #253: On 6/25/2015 at 4:22:38 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: So what, the rex is supposed to wait until somebody puts an animal loose in its pen? No animal is going miss an opportunity for lunch especially if it's a starving, emaciated old predator.
Also, the rex ate the chained goat in the first film, completely invalidating everything you just said. Replies: 254, 263
Msg #254: On 6/25/2015 at 4:59:11 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #253, saying: Chase beat me to it. The Rex did in fact eat the goat. The park staff must have known something, since Arnold used the word "tempt" to explain the goat's appearance, indicating the same tactic had been used before with varying degrees of success.
Plus, this new park's been running ten years. I'm sure she's got with the program by now.
Msg #255: On 6/25/2015 at 5:50:41 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Plus the scene calls back the use of the flare as something to gain the Rex's attention. While again being a call back to the first film, in this movie it is used to signal food to the animal. When Claire lights the flare and then throws it to the I Rex, it further establishes the "here eat this!" Set up of the fight. Granted, 2 apex predators fighting doesn't really need any more incentive, but still.
Msg #256: On 6/25/2015 at 7:18:34 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: No animal is going miss an opportunity for lunch especially if it's a starving, emaciated old predator.
Especially if it's mainly a scavenger! Zing!
Rez and Vinny: I know the kind of people you're talking about. I'm not saying they don't exist, and I'm not saying a lot of them aren't annoying. I'm saying they're not SJWs because that's not a real thing. "SJW" is catch-all insult used by racists, sexists, right-wing conspiracy theorists, homophobes, and other mainly white, mainly male groups online to mock a vague and diverse group of people on social media. You can try to pinpoint it all you want to make seem like a legitimate descriptor, but it's just another anti-Leftist slur, and you're implicitly associating yourself with the repulsive cretins who popularized it whenever you use it, regardless of what your own politics are. That's why it's the new "libtard", though "hipster", while less political, is another equally meaningless word for an annoying person. Replies: 257, 258
Msg #257: On 6/25/2015 at 9:22:53 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #256, saying: Saying that everyone who uses the term SJW is a racist bigot would be like me saying that everyone who takes a stance on current issues is a SJW. Which is completely untrue.
As with any relatively new slang moniker it's appropriate use can always be in flux and of questionable merit, but it is undeniably a negative connotation describing arm flailing morons. I'd say its far more reasonable to discount a few extreme individuals that shout the term unjustifiably to anyone trying to make a point than it is to completely discount the term itself, as the umbrella of people it covers is unfortunately a large one and those people deserve an instantly identifiable laughable nickname.
Oh, and while I have no actual evidence of this, the overwhelming amount of people I personally see or come in contact with that are SJW are straight white men.
Msg #258: On 6/26/2015 at 12:57:28 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #256, saying: Cmon, Ostro, when you keep labeling straight white males as the enemy so consistently, how do you expect any of us to actually listen to what you have to say?
I'm with Vinny and Rez: SJWs are fucking annoying. I've tried to engage in discussion with them online, and despite my attempts to be civil, they dismiss what I have to say simply because I fit into the wrong demographic group. Fuck that, my views on race, sex, sexuality, and whatever else are no less valid because of who I am. Replies: 259
Msg #259: On 6/26/2015 at 1:19:15 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #258, saying: I never said straight white males were the enemy. I said online communities of bigots tend to be mainly white and mainly male, depending on the specific bigotry involved, and that those communities are what started the use of the term "social justice warrior" to disparage advocates for feminist and minority causes.
Msg #260: On 6/26/2015 at 5:25:05 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: Nah, most of the people who hate SJWs I'm completely cool with, like Rez and Trainwreck.
Seriously, ask Trainwreck about the SJW fucktards I used to argue with on a daily basis. These people just blow my mind. They are sometimes worse than actual racists, like they paint a picture of minorities as being completely helpless against the system and only us fellow whities can help bring them out of that, which is demeaning. Yes "allies" are important, of course, but allies are inspired by actual minorities fighting real injustices. And don't get me started on SJWs focusing on shit that doesn't even matter and making their entire cause look like a total joke as a result, even causes I care about.
And I don't buy that SJW was started and spread only by hateful morons. Where's your proof of this? I mean just because some 4channers or whatever used it doesn't mean it was only unintelligent cretins are responsible. It's just a good, funny term to use.
Msg #261: On 6/26/2015 at 5:29:22 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #252, saying: Can we talk about Compy's point for a second?
I too noticed that they did not use their snouts, and that they used their claws instead.
TO ME, it looked like they were trying to show how alien and unlike any other dinosaur it was because it didn't use its snout. They focused so much on it that I feel like that was genuinely the point of the scene. It couldn't even birth naturally.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that no one involved in the production of the movie who watched the scene didn't go "Wait a minute, this is scientifically inaccurate". I mean it's not exactly rare knowledge to have. Thus I don't by that it was a fuck-up of the filmmakers. Replies: 268
Msg #262: On 6/26/2015 at 5:33:07 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: It's very obviously intentional.
Msg #263: On 6/26/2015 at 5:40:28 AM, Compy01 replied to Msg #253, saying: I always thought that the bringing the goat in, and Grant's remarks, were the writers' way of conveying just another addition to the list of the vacuous and poorly understood decisions that made it inevitable the park would fail. That's why they had to wait so long for the Rex to even turn up. If anything, it wasn't exactly a way of maximizing excitement for the tourists, as the Rex's immediate arrival was never guaranteed. I don't get why they hadn't just thought up of a new way of seeing the Rex; maybe using other non-existent, futuristic technologies like with every other dinosaur enclosure. Instead they copied the first film in a way that didn't really work. Of course you could argue, as Bryan did, that the Rex was conditioned over many years, but that was never explained in the movie.
Oh, but you know what? You would probably have bitched that the scene was unnecessary, since it just stated the obvious, and it only existed to treat audiences as simpletons. So, I guess, damned if they did, damned if they didn't? Replies: 265
Msg #265: On 6/26/2015 at 12:59:19 PM, Compy01 replied to Msg #264, saying: I would have, almost certainly. I almost hate everything new when it's a take on something I love, at first anyway. I hated Halo 2 when it first came out, but learnt to love it. Then I hated the third when I compared it to the second. Shit innit :(
I don't hate Jurassic World, I've said before it's an entertaining film. But I hate it as a Jurassic Park movie. I hate that it throws meaningless references to the first film, ignores the second and third, and I hate the stupid hamster balls and other make believe technologies in the rest of the scenes. I've noticed a trend of having futuristic technologies in recent films. I guess they have them because if you have a non existent - almost magical - vehicle or equipment to use, it's an easy way of moving the plot along the way you want it without the trouble of having to think of something that exists in the real world. Replies: 266, 267
Msg #266: On 6/26/2015 at 4:33:50 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #265, saying: I disagree with this idea that the film ignores the previous two sequels. None of what happened on Sorna pertains to the new park anyway, so what would be the point of referencing their events exactly, except to be even more fan service?
Even so, TLW and JP3 are alluded to in several ways:
1. Malcolm's book, referenced in JP3, makes a cameo appearance.
2. InGen is militarized now, which isn't a far cry from their efforts in TLW.
3. The Rex crashes through a spino skeleton before she fights the I-Rex, a clear spit in the face to JP3.
4. The Pteranodons appear similar and sound precisely like the ones featured in JP3.
5. A few bars of the "Malcolm's Journey" theme from TLW is played when Blue announces her return to the fight.
I'm sure I've probably missed a few but those are the ones that I had noticed after my first viewing.
Msg #267: On 6/26/2015 at 5:10:12 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #265, saying: At least we can agree Halo 1 is the GOAT. I'm a top mmmm 100-200? player in the world in multiplayer haha.
Msg #268: On 6/26/2015 at 7:06:45 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #261, saying: TO ME, it looked like they were trying to show how alien and unlike any other dinosaur it was because it didn't use its snout. They focused so much on it that I feel like that was genuinely the point of the scene. It couldn't even birth naturally.
I find it incredibly hard to believe that no one involved in the production of the movie who watched the scene didn't go "Wait a minute, this is scientifically inaccurate". I mean it's not exactly rare knowledge to have. Thus I don't by that it was a fuck-up of the filmmakers.
Well, obviously that was the point, since it was a direct reference (and contrast) to the velociraptor hatching the first film. My question is why did the Indominus rex hatch by clawing out of the egg? Because it's ~different~ ?
Uhh, okay... I don't get it. It's a hybrid of a bunch of different theropod dinosaurs, all of which hatch with egg teeth, but it doesn't, for some reason, because it's, like, an abomination or something. Was it the cuttlefish DNA? Or the tree frogs? Was clawing out of the egg supposed to look scary and bad ass? It's not like some demon baby was clawing out of a woman's womb. It was just a fucking egg shell. Replies: 269
Msg #269: On 6/27/2015 at 12:19:34 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #268, saying: No it wasn't supposed to be scary and badass. Just unusual and conveying a message that it's not like a regular dinosaur or any animal, really. The entire movie reinforces this. Replies: 270
Msg #270: On 6/27/2015 at 12:26:32 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #269, saying: Why didn't they just have it wear a party hat, then? Or fly around on big bat wings? Just having it do something different to show that it's different is stupid and pointless. Replies: 271
Msg #271: On 6/27/2015 at 1:22:51 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #270, saying: Except it wasn't different just to be different. It's showing it's not even birthing naturally. Right from the start something is wrong with it. This criticism is honestly ridiculous even for you man. Replies: 272
Msg #272: On 6/27/2015 at 1:29:30 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #271, saying: So what if it shows that it's not even being hatched naturally? It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't even look cool, or scary, or anything. It's just weird and stupid, and it's the opening image of the film. The whole movie is filled with dumb little choices like that, things that just kind of look neat or whatever but don't actually have a much purpose or thought behind them. I also don't buy that it's supposed to convey an idea of unnaturalness, anyway, because I would guess the vast majority of film-goers don't know that dinosaurs would hatch snout-first.
Msg #273: On 6/27/2015 at 2:13:39 AM, Narrator replied, saying: pretty sure it was saying that it's intelligent, because its using it's hands like humans and apes to manipulate objects, rather than its snout like a dog.
It really should have picked up a huge femur bone from the spino and fought the T-rex, and whacked around the raptors with it. That would have been more fun than the boring fight that did happen Replies: 274
Msg #274: On 6/27/2015 at 2:18:54 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #273, saying: I guess that makes a little more sense, but it wasn't supposed to be smarter than the other dinosaurs, was it? I mean, it was intelligent because it had velociraptor DNA, but they never said anything about giving it super-intelligence. Replies: 275, 276
Msg #275: On 6/27/2015 at 3:19:52 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #274, saying: Well it was somehow smarter than the people who were in charge of running the park.
Msg #276: On 6/27/2015 at 3:20:28 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #274, saying: They did. It intentionally fooled Owen and the others into thinking it clawed its way out with marks reaching the top, and then kept quite and camouflaged when they walked into its pen waiting for the right moment. It made a fucking escape plan. Owen picks up right after that just how intelligent it is, followed by it removing the tracker. Replies: 277
Msg #277: On 6/27/2015 at 4:01:29 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #276, saying: They never established that the Indominus rex had DNA from any animal smarter than a velociraptor, so there's no reason it should be super-intelligent other than the movie pandering to pre-teen fantasies about the most awesomest badass dinosaur, like, ever. Having numerous scenes where it does things that don't make sense and outwitting human characters who are deliberately written to be stupid is lame and cheap and thoughtless. Replies: 278
Msg #278: On 6/27/2015 at 4:41:43 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #277, saying: correct. It's not smarter than the dumbest actual person, but in this fantasy universe, people who are smart enough to design and run a park, and are able to function in society, aren't smart enough to check a tracking device before going into the enclosure, not smart enough to put a double door for a giant raptor when they did that exact thing in the raptor enclosure, not smart enough to have an evacuation plan... It's stupid. It's a stupid movie, paul.
Msg #279: On 6/27/2015 at 11:20:32 AM, Bryan replied, saying: Wasn't it established that only a handful of people actually knew what the animal was composed of outside of the basic Rex genome? Owen even calls out Claire for being in the dark about it twenty minutes into the film. The only ones in the film who seemed to know about the raptor DNA were Wu and Hoskins. And they weren't telling because they were actually hoping something like this would happen. I don't believe the animal's intelligence was even really discussed--in depth--by the main characters until after its escape. All they spoke about was her ferocity and her appearance. So how could they possibly have known to treat this thing like a raptor and not a Rex, which did not have the double door? Besides, Claire makes a point of saying that the paddock hasn't completed construction. Perhaps double-dooring was part of the next phase. Replies: 280, 281
Msg #280: On 6/27/2015 at 12:18:18 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #279, saying: Double dooring should be the first phase and should be a thing in every single enclosure. Actually, you should have the enclosure fully constructed before the dinosaur hatches. And if you're Hoskins, you don't need to tell any of the help what's in the dinosaur, all you need to say is "Make sure this fucking enclosure is top notch. Start by having a double door thing. Also, if you think for any reason the dinosaur is not in the enclosure, make sure by checking the tracking device we put in it first before sending in a dude"
And if you're Owen and they ask "hey this enclosure is legit, right?" say "No, put two doors in it, and also don't put glass in dinosaur range, fucktards"
Msg #281: On 6/27/2015 at 3:36:34 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #279, saying: If you find yourself trying to explain things in a movie by saying things like "Technically, they never said it wasn't this" or "They said this, so, in theory, it could mean that," you've got a poorly thought out screenplay on your hands. If you enjoyed the movie for its dinosaur action, that's cool, but making these back door excuses for its flimsy science fiction is just silly. Replies: 282, 284
Msg #282: On 6/27/2015 at 5:58:05 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #281, saying: Wouldn't want to critically think about this movie, would we?
Narrator, l agree double doors should be the standard. Clearly, they thought only the raptors required them. But Hoskins had absolutely no say in any of it. He headed up a subsidiary of Masrani who was only on the island to check up on Owen's raptors and, likely, to check in with Wu about the I-Rex. Their whole plan was to see what the Indominous could do and they weren't going to get that if the thing was kept secure. So they kept all that information classified in the hopes that a field test would run itself. Replies: 283
Msg #283: On 6/27/2015 at 6:46:05 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #282, saying: Thinking about it critically is one thing, but you're making excuses for the lazy script by drawing connections between all these loopholes that the film never indicates. One thing that doesn't make sense stands out, two forms a pattern, but a whole bunch can make it seem like there's some bigger explanation that the film never makes explicit (even when there isn't), and that kind of writing leaves it to "fan theories" and the promise of sequels to explain it all later. It's a hallmark of rushed screenwriting with too many people involved (or just Damon Lindelof), especially in big franchise movies.
Msg #284: On 6/27/2015 at 7:08:41 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #281, saying: Except Bryan is right that no one knew how smart it was.
Go back to the moment where the event occurred and what we knew about the dinosaur. Bryan is telling you to think about what the characters knew at the time, which is completely valid. You can't use a fact that characters learned later in the movie to question the decisions of characters earlier in the movie.
And improvements to security and safety happen all the time in industry after the fact. They probably didn't know how ferocious the I. rex would be either. This isn't just fan theory explanation, it's rational explanation in response to nitpicking of movie logic.
Why would they think double dooring is necessary even knowing how smart and ferocious the I. rex is? The walls were reinforced and impenetrable. The movie even shows that the I. rex had no way of getting out, it's only because they opened the doors, which is something that wasn't foreseen. Mistakes happen all the time in the real world like this, it's not just pure unreasonable stupidity that only happens in movies.
It's not like the T. Rex in the original was double doored but no one nitpicks that. It's only separated by a fence that could lose electricity at any moment. No one cares about that, it's only your dislike of the movie that is leading to your criticism of its logic. Replies: 285
Msg #285: On 6/27/2015 at 7:21:15 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #284, saying: Why would they think double dooring is necessary even knowing how smart and ferocious the I. rex is?
Let's just bury this one once and for all. The lack of a double-door is inexcusable. They have those little double-door things at fucking dog parks. The ONLY reason there isn't one in the movie was so they could have the Indominus rex escape. They knew it was wrong, but they needed that to happen, so they left it.
It's not like the T. Rex in the original was double doored but no one nitpicks that. It's only separated by a fence that could lose electricity at any moment. No one cares about that, it's only your dislike of the movie that is leading to your criticism of its logic.
We never see the door into the T. rex paddock, though. The entire fence can't be a double-door, obviously. Just the door.
Except Bryan is right that no one knew how smart it was.
You don't get it. Yes, I know that is what happens in the movie, that they underestimate its intelligence, but the big reveal that it's "part raptor" is what's supposed to explain it. The way Owen says the line suggests that its velociraptor DNA - and, thus, its intelligence - was the big secret behind its creation that they didn't want to tell anyone about, which fits with Hoskins plan to weaponize the raptors themselves.
The problem is that the Indominus rex actually seems more intelligent than the raptors, which doesn't make any sense. You can rationalize it by saying that maybe there was some other DNA in there from a more intelligent animal (a dolphin? a chimp? a HUMAN???), but that's not legitimate, purposeful ambiguity. That's just making excuses for sloppy writing.
Msg #286: On 6/27/2015 at 7:52:57 PM, fordprefect replied, saying: I thought it was going to be human DNA since I was expecting it to be a big reveal and raptor DNA is the opposite of shocking.
Instead of wandering into the paddock in the first place you'd think they'd inspect the outside on the off chance a massive ten ton animal jumping thirty feet down from the wall might have left some tracks.
Msg #287: On 6/28/2015 at 12:30:50 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Literally who cares that it's not a double door? It would have escaped anyway even if the screenwriters had the foresight to put in a double door. You can't say "oh well there's no movie if there's a double door!" because the fat guy would just open up both doors to escape or some shit and they would have had some dumbass line about it's ability to maybe leap over the second wall or some fucking shit. Complaining that the paddock doesn't make sense is literally pointless, they would have made it escape a fucking paddock with 15 layers if the concept artists had drawn something that looked cool enough. Besides since one of the plot points is literally "i don't trust this paddock, lets get an outside opinion to see how we can improve it" you guys are really reaching.
I too expected some human DNA and fully expect something of that nature to be retroactively revealed in one of the sequels. Replies: 288
Msg #288: On 6/28/2015 at 2:22:40 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #287, saying: This
Msg #289: On 6/30/2015 at 7:00:37 PM, Grizzle replied, saying: It doesn't matter matter if they didn't add a double door. If a double door was included in the construction, the screenwriters would have just come up with some other over the top way for the I-Rex to escape.
It has the strength to burst through both doors because it's genome was spliced with gorilla DNA. Or it just burrows underneath the gate because it's part mole or some weird shit. Replies: 292
Msg #290: On 6/30/2015 at 10:37:15 PM, Varan101 replied, saying: Jurassic World is completely asinine, and at times seems like it was written as a fan fiction of a 15 year old.
From the insane military guy (why the fruck would the military want to weaponize dinosaurs? Doesn't sound efficient to me) to the fact that raptor DNA magically gives the Indominous Rex the ability to communicate with the Raptors, there's so much preposterous in this movie to talk about it forever.
I feel like I should hate this movie, yet for some reason I just cannot bring myself to do it.
Msg #291: On 6/30/2015 at 11:02:34 PM, Siir replied, saying: I thought it was a fun movie. A completely idiotic movie, no doubt. But fun.
There is a whole lot wrong with it, and I feel like it just ignores TLW and JP3. For instance Hammond apparently wanting Masrani to fulfill his dream, when in TLW he had control of Ingen taken from him and was very much against the idea of starting another park.
Masrani himself goes from not caring about the profit margins and talking about the happiness of the visitors and "sparing no expense" to turning around and not wanting to kill the Indominus, because of its cost.
I mean, the big action set piece at the end was so incredibly stupid, but I couldn't help but find it entertaining.
But it just seems like a completely different kind of film from the first. They've been playing JP and TLW alot on TV, and when I sit down and re-watch those, those feel very much like they are partially grounded in reality. They are more realistic. JW felt more like JP3 action, but with more nostalgia.
I'm baffled that this movie shattered any records. I'm not going to run out and see it again and I'll freely admit that it is just absurd, but I was entertained.
I'm not sure where they're going to take a sequel, other than more military dinos via Wu. So I anticipate the franchise to get more and more goofy.
Oh, and yeah, as someone else pointed out. The security was absolutely idiotic. Having worked in a zoo, I can say that carnivores are given many redundancies to eliminate the chance of a keeper accidentally walking into the exhibit while the animal is inside, or of an animal getting out. This includes an area to shift the animal to (an indoor holding area) in order to clean the exhibit, or to perform maintenance, or to get them out of bad weather (the first movie was missing this too).
I mean it was extremely stupid to have a section of glass window separating the Indominus from the viewing area, and having it clearly being partially broken through, yet nobody did anything about it. And for that to be repaired, you'd obviously need some place to put the Indominus while maintenance crews fix or or (more intelligently) put up an electric barrier.
But there are also little "catch cage" areas for predator exhibits, and these were actually depicted in JW (minus the power gate) with the raptor enclosure. Where you will go through one gate, and be in a little enclosed cage, and then have to proceed through another gate to enter the exhibit. And even in the off exhibit holding areas, there might be redundancies.
For instance, the lion building holding area was composed of a series of cells that were divided by guillotine doors that could be opened or closed by pulleys from the keeper area. When closed, the pulley would be locked in position.
So for instance, if I needed to clean one chamber, I could lock the lions in an adjacent chamber, shut the door to lock them in. And then when I was finished cleaning, I could shift them over to the now clean chamber. Lock them in, and then clean the chamber that I had initially locked them in (usually indoor cleaning would be done while the animals were locked out on exhibit).
But when it came time to clean out on exhibit, the lions would always be locked one chamber over from the chamber with the door leading out onto exhibit. This was to eliminate the chances of another keeper coming along and letting them out onto exhibit while another keeper was cleaning.
There were a lot of redundancies or safety procedures in place, and while accidents still could happen (I never experienced any, but you hear about them in the news of say one keeper letting a cat out onto exhibit while the exhibit was being cleaned). The Indominus enclosure and the Tyrannosaurus enclosure just seemed like the most idiotic things ever. But again, the originally JP had stupid exhibit designs too, since you'd never leave a predator out in severe weather like that. And really, no animal would.
Some animals, like the carnivores or primates had adjoining buildings where they could be led inside at night, or in the event of bad weather. Some animals like the alligator, and some of the birds did not. In the event of bad weather, they had to be caught and moved inside to a location not joined to their exhibit.
But having a massive door just open from the exhibit onto a public area is just mind numbing.
Msg #292: On 7/1/2015 at 8:27:47 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #289, saying: It matters. When you write a movie about a monster, you definitely need to make sure the monster could not have been thwarted by basic planning .
Dumbing down the characters to make the monster seem smart, makes the monster look lame and the people like prime darwin award candidates.
The raptors in the first movie were terrifying. They were enigmatic, mysterious, and their intelligence was largely unknown. But in this movie, they know that raptors are smart and that they can open doors and try to outwit captors.... And they know that raptor dna is in the I-rex so this is definitly a possibility. There is no reason for marsani to not say "hey you dickheads, put a double door on the fuckin thing. don't ask me why just do it I'm the boss" But he doesn't because he's literally unbelievably stupid like everyone else in the movie. I don't mean "really stupid" I mean his and everyone elses stupidity is absolutely cartoonish. There's no way that level of incompetence gets you a job running a park, or success of any kind. Replies: 294
Msg #293: On 7/2/2015 at 2:14:43 AM, fordprefect replied, saying: A "Social Justice Warrior" or the SJW is the lowest form of trash, often seen feigning outrage over non issues or whatever current hot button topic of the day.
The funny thing is the main internet communities on reddit/4chan all get massively upset over things like picture links being banned on r/atheism, or r/fatpeoplehate being banned, internet freedom, or some minor issue about EA/Valve/gaming. Then these same communities become irritated at 'Tumblr' and SRS for complaining about social issues.
I've got to agree with Ostro here, SJWs are a bizarre internet strawman and I'm not convinced they exist even after seeing TumblrInAction and the other subreddits like it. Replies: 299
Msg #294: On 7/2/2015 at 12:45:22 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #292, saying: I still don't get what you're complaining about. As you said, the enclosures in the first film were just as poorly designed- actually worse. I volunteered in a zoo for nearly 5 years and this has never bothered me because for any of the movies to work the animals have to get out.
In this film the only enclosure we see enough of to judge is the raptor paddock, which actually has all the modern day redundancies that you describe. The other two we see are bits of the Indominus and Rex enclosures, but who is to say there aren't other aspects of the enclosures we didn't see? I think it's unlikely for the Indominus to have another large section, but again, the poorly designed paddock was literally a plot point. We never see the entrance the people use to get in, and the large door is rarely opened and we don't know under what circumstances other than fat guy panic.
My point is that the one enclosure they bothered to really detail to the viewer- the raptor one, was quite well thought out. Replies: 295
Msg #295: On 7/2/2015 at 8:05:47 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #294, saying: I thought the enclosures in the first film were just fine as long as the electricity was on.
Msg #296: On 7/2/2015 at 11:39:10 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I always found every enclosure in the original JP movie baffling. You can't see shit except jungle, all the way up to the fence itself, and in the tyrannosaur paddock, they place the goat like 6 ft away from the fence. The raptor pen was way too tiny for three 12 ft long animals, especially with all those fucking trees too.
The book's description of the animal pens was much more logical. Replies: 297
Msg #297: On 7/3/2015 at 2:57:55 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #296, saying: That's actually a good point about the foliage in the paddocks, though it doesn't really have anything to do with how easy it would be for the dinosaurs to escape. I did always find it odd that they didn't have have a cleared out area near the fence so people could, you know, see the dinosaurs, but I always kind of figured that one reason for that was so Spielberg could hide the special effects more easily.
The raptor pen is also pretty small, but dogs can live in a kennel of comparable relative size, and, since it was a practical set, I'm willing to cut Spielberg some slack because it would have been a lot harder to build something three times that big for only two scenes. I actually think the Indominus rex pen looked just about as small for how big the animal was. Replies: 298
Msg #298: On 7/3/2015 at 4:02:07 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #297, saying: Well, if you put the Rex's food so near the fence, I'd imagine you're just tempting fate. What if the fences go down and it inadvertently brushes it as it's feeding?
Nah, that wouldn't happen! But while I agree with you about the reason Spielberg went with those designs, I always felt they undermined the cinematic experience for me slightly. I just can't help but think, "this design is stupid, this park is stupid, why are trees right up next to a 10,000 volt fence?"
I-Rex's prison looked even smaller than what the raptors had. Holy cow, what a dumb design.
Msg #299: On 7/3/2015 at 4:11:28 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #293, saying: You don't have a bunch of dumb American youth polluting your facebook feed dude. They exist.
And there's been a huge outpouring of news stories and interviews of teachers and comedians who don't feel safe in a college environment because anything they say or any joke they make can be labeled offensive and their career could be thrown in jeopardy over it. It's absolutely insane and it's real.
And not everyone who criticizes SJWs goes to 4chan or reddit.A good chunk of people on those sites and in r/Atheism are definitely fuckheads that I think are just as bad as SJWs.
Msg #300: On 7/3/2015 at 5:43:54 PM, Narrator replied, saying: well if "SJW's" are people the type of people that fire Tim Hunt fired for making a comment, while accepting money from saudi arabia, and other such shit, then sure, But I've never seen people like that called SJW's, and I've always just called them pieces of shit.
I've only ever seen the term refered to by "not racist" people who say things like "Some races are just more intelligent than others, it's a biological fact, it isn't racist" and "women are evolutionary designed to be submissive caregivers not logical thinkers " Replies: 302
Msg #301: On 7/3/2015 at 6:34:43 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: SJWs exist, folks, and it's not a term I'd apply to anyone with liberal views. It's for the particularly annoying, half-informed, always-upset crowd. They're usually know-it-all millennials who are 'profoundly upset' by the outrage-of-the-week. All SJWs on Facebook currently have a rainbow profile picture, but not everyone who has a rainbow profile picture can be classified as an SJW. Most SJWs can't accept most forms of humor that aren't completely sanitized or aggressively liberal.
I really don't see the resistance to using the term. I use similarly condescending terms for people of all persuasions and across all kinds of topics:
- Bro-scientists: barely-literate meatheads (usually men, hence the term) who clog up message boards on bodybuilding.com with health advice they swear works - Mommy-scientists: scientifically illiterate parents (usually women, hence the term) who preach about the dangers of GMOs, gluten, non-organic food, vaccines, and child safety seats regardless of the evidence - Religitards: people who push their religion aggressively but seem to have never questioned it or even thought its basic implications through - Conservatards: people who push their conservative ideology aggressively but seem to have never questioned it or even thought its basic implications through - Libtards: people who push their liberal ideology aggressively but seem to have never questioned it or even thought its basic implications through - Tea-baggers: Michelle Bachmann
Msg #302: On 7/3/2015 at 6:45:49 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #300, saying: The Tim Hunt scandal is a perfect example of the SJW at work. Pathetic stuff.
And TW you hit the nail on the head, I'm not drinking coffee but if I was I would have spit it everywhere when you mentioned that all SJWs are currently sporting a rainbow profile picture. Replies: 303
Msg #303: On 7/4/2015 at 1:45:05 AM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #302, saying: Hahahha same
Msg #304: On 7/4/2015 at 10:22:02 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: Not that anyone presently cares about the movie anymore, but I just saw it& really liked it. It's not amazing, but easily better than 3 and even TLW.
The raptor training and military utilization was handled a lot better than I thought. Owen says repeatedly that they are neither tame nor safe, and, just like he predicted, it comes back to bite InGen's military force in the ass. Literally.
I can kinda buy Claire outrunning the rex in a series of L-shaped alleyways, that type of path isn't gonna let it get to full running speed anyway. Malcolm out-ran it until he was headbutted into the bathroom huts where Genarro was hiding.
Regardless of whether or not it's sexist, I think it can be agreed on that Zara's death was needlessly uncomfortable & brutal - first it's the pteranodons trying to eat her, then she's trying to be forcefully drowned, then pecked at, before finally being swallowed whole by the mosasaur. It's a scene that quickly stands out for its brutality.
I enjoyed JW for the most part, but I'm truly afraid for the direction the sequels would likely be heading.
Msg #306: On 7/5/2015 at 5:49:58 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #304, saying: It's definitely not better than TLW you take that back.
And at no point was Ian even close to outrunning the T-rex. He started running from it while he was still ahead of it, but in a few steps it had caught up. Replies: 307
Msg #307: On 7/5/2015 at 6:29:34 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #306, saying: It was more than a few steps. Another example would be the Mama Rex chasing the InGen team into the waterfall in TLW - I know one dude gets pancaked, but it's after he fell. How does everyone outrun the rex? Replies: 308
Msg #308: On 7/5/2015 at 7:17:37 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #307, saying: They weren't in heels, that's how Replies: 309
Msg #309: On 7/5/2015 at 7:22:45 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #308, saying: Oh ffs. I know girls who can run in heels. I know men who can run in heels.
Msg #310: On 7/5/2015 at 9:14:13 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: Something I just realized that was never addressed in JW: the wild raptors that got out of captivity and bred in the first movie. Where'd they go? Were there only the two killed by the rex at the end + the one Tim froze? Still doesn't explain where the hatchlings went. Replies: 311, 312
Msg #311: On 7/5/2015 at 10:53:20 PM, fordprefect replied to Msg #310, saying: They swam to Isla Sorna and hijacked the boat from the Lost World, before successfully integrating into San Diego society.
Msg #312: On 7/6/2015 at 1:53:37 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #310, saying: There were only three captive raptors during the events of JP. According to Muldoon, they had eight originally but the Big One killed all but two of them. It can be assumed that this was prior to the move to the pen, and that they were in their initial paddock (which can be considered canon as the outline for it appears on the screen as the fences fail) when all of this went down. Now, assuming that the tracks Grant discovered were in fact raptor, then it's something that I would have liked to see addressed in the film. Hell, they freaking teased it in the Mondo poster. Maybe it's being saved for a sequel, where Blue finds the wild raptors.
Or here's my fan theory: clearly, one of the preparations for Jurassic World was rounding up some of the loose animals. The rex is proof of that. What if Owen's raptors were wild eggs that were discovered and taken from their nests? That allowed Owen to imprint on them, explains the Mondo poster's implications and deals with what happened with the loose raptors, which is likely that JW exterminated them. Replies: 313
Msg #313: On 7/6/2015 at 6:56:55 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #312, saying: It would certainly make sense that JW would terminate wild raptors they can't 'tame' - but the InGen military personnel all seemed horrendously ineffectual, & would likely have their asses handed to them by wild adult raptors who know the terrain better than they do.
Msg #314: On 7/6/2015 at 10:52:33 PM, Bryan replied, saying: That's true, they don't seem to know what to do when Owen's raptors go rogue. Ignoring the likelihood that none of the (theoretical) original poachers would be on InGen's crew during the events of Jurassic World, I'd wager then that the wild raptors still roam free and that Blue will reunite with them during the events of the next film.
On the subject of a sequel, there are so many avenues to take. If they were bold, they'd take the story off-island, and all the implications of Wu's betrayal will manifest themselves in the whole military angle. If they were to play it safe--and I think they will (everyone's biggest complaint about TLW, after all, is the San Diego sequence)--I'd say we will remain on Nublar. We might see an effort to reopen the park, or at least have InGen scrambling for information that never left the island. Seeing as how Pratt is contracted for several films, a subplot may focus on his attempts to track down Blue or perhaps his covert observations of Blue now that she has reassimilated with the wild raptors.
But really the sequel should be a world hopping adventure with elements of both novels and all the films, and in fact get quite close in structure to the famed script that originally introduced the raptor squad.
You can open with the book related plots of dinosaur attacks happening in fairly remote/third world areas in the world. This can set off a kind of greatest hits task force being assembled to track down the animals and who is behind them.
Wu and InGen have militarized dinosaurs in a world where they are no longer the only people making dinosaurs. World building events like the establishment of small modified pet dinosaurs and perhaps a new "good" company that focuses on accurate preservation of extinct species(feathers!) and humanitarian efforts so we can have a base of operations for the good guys that still features dinosaurs in some capacity.
Our team of heroes can travel across the globe to various areas of attack as well as multiple dinosaur lab facilities run by different companies to both show us this new world described above and set up the players for the le epic showdown.
Speaking of heroes, it should be a greatest hits cast of the franchise. Owen would be the lead, but it would be great to get Tim back as a co-lead considering the status of the actor and the viability of the character. JW played heavily on nostalgia so they have to up it even more this time around, and the best way to do that is more of the original cast. Grant & Malcolm can show up in JW Wu sized parts during the world hopping in the first half of the film. Owen can go around asking them for help, and while they help in their own small ways they decline to be part of it further. This can lead to their Han Solo and Chewbacca-esque savior at the climax of the film, where they both charge in riding a T-Rex saving the day. Ok, too much, but they should show up in some capacity at the climax to help and have the audience cheer. They come face to face with the old Rex and Malcolm quips "I WONDER IF SHE REMEMBERS US?" before getting out a bazooka filled with flares and shooting it towards the genetics department bathroom where Wu is currently peeing sitting down like all respectable asian gentlemen.
Speaking of climax, the film should be world hopping but return to Nublar for the second half of the film. The dinosaur attacks can be more feild tests and failed experiments that ingen has tried all over the world. It can be some shit where Wu and InGen have returned to lock down the island as a secret testing facility(GREEN FLAME?! FUCK YES!) and Owen, Tim & Co finally track it back to where it all began. This also allows us to keep the dinosaurs as characters that return through the movies, keeping the original Rex and Blue in play.
Dinosaurs can go all over the place in this film- we can see scientifically accurate ones via other companies' labs(that Owen has trained dino riders style and airlifts in for the finale? fucking parachuting triceratops?!), frankenstein monster chaos effect monstrosities via InGen and Wu, a pack of mini raptor indomninuses vs the OG raptors, the list goes on and on.
FIGHT ME FAGGOTS, you know this would be the perfect movie.
Movie 2: RETURN TO JURASSIC WORLD, plot seen above in detail.
Movie 3: JW EXTINCTION!! After barely escaping the nuclear explosion of Isla Nublar in the climax of the last film, Owen, Tim, Blue, Old Rexy(known now as SASHA), and Grant with Malcolm strapped to his back C3P0 style all share a life boat life of Pi style in the ocean. They must come to terms with eachother without resorting to cannibalism while navigating back to shore. Just fucking around, they'd be on a boat and stop on Sorna for a while. Claire is desperately organizing a search party but it's tough as the world around her is crumbling in the Clone Wars. The rampant monster attacks from the last film have been made public and sparked World War 3 among nations that were all developing the animals as weapons of war. Everything leads to a large scale battle with tanks, jets, and a bunch of militarized dinosaurs. The finale sees Claire and Owen about to reunite when she is unexpectedly killed. But wait.. all of this cloning technology might be good for more than just Dinosaurs, he thinks. As the film closes we close up on a cloned Claire coming out of an incubation chamber.. her eyes open and they are RAPTOR EYES.
This completes the new trilogy on an epic cliffhanger and leads into the hard sci fi fantasy adventure of the next trilogy:
JURASSIC PLANET.
This will be a Mad max/Dawn of the Planet of the Apes post apocalyptic film that is basically just Xenozoic Tales(even more than JW already was lol). It initially will feature no recurring characters and people will wonder wtf is going on. Mighty cities have crumbled and dinosaurs have retaken the world. New characters travel the wasteland trying to survive and discover the key to what happened so many years ago. They come across a warn down, ragged wanderer and his companion... OWEN AND BLUE. Owen has learned a deadly form of hand to hand combat that consists of wild kick spins with long razor sharp sickle knives attached to his boots. He has learned much from Blue, but not without sacrifice. Owen leads our new band of heroes to a launch station HIDDEN UNDER ISLE SORNA!!! "Up there lies all your answers" he says, and Blue chirps something or other... the message is clear: they are staying behind. SUDDENLY ALL THE MUTANT HYBRIDS CONVERGE ON THE STATION! They have to leave now or be destroyed. Owen, Blue,and a whole bunch of new faces climb into the rocket ship just as their position is overrun with super dinosaurs and blast off into space. TO BE CONTINUED IN..
JURASSIC GALAXY
YOU ASKED FOR SPACE DINOS, YOU GOT IT. It is revealed that humans have advanced far beyond their former states and now everyone is a mix of genetic hybrids. They left the planet behind to the genetic monsters and weak humans to become something more. Clone Claire is one of the key figureheads of a new space travelling society that has colonized Mars, made various space stations, and is working on interstellar travel. She has all the spunky sass of a strong yet sexy woman and all the deadly cunning of a raptor. She has formed a romantic bond with the OG Rex, SASHA, who now has cybernetic implants. Everything seems to be going right for the happy couple until a rocketship arrives from Old Earth and with it come Claire's old badass boyfriend Owen and Sasha's original frenemy Blue. Owen has learned to be more like the raptors in hopes of winning Claire back. But what does Sasha think of that plan?
JURASSIC UNIVERSE
They fucking write themselves at this point boys. The love quadrilateral that's been building for 6 films reaches it's explosive conclusive, but not before we run into hostile aliens during interstellar travel. But there's one thing the aliens didn't count on, and that's super intelligent hybrid robotic cloned dinosaurs. The battles get pretty crazy until a small boy who loves wearing all white discovers some ancient evidence that he holds the key to the survival of the entire universe... humans alone could not defeat the aliens, but only the hybrid humans with dinosaur dna and their cyborg dinosaur mounts. He must travel through time to get the ball rolling on cloning way back in the early 90s of old earth. His name is JOHN HAMMOND. Disney creates the ultimate image of Starlord riding a T Rex around fighting off aliens as young Hammond escapes backwards through time. Not just to destroy the world.. but to save it.
