• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Jurassic World website opens

It will be great to see a fully functioning Jurassic World instead of a bunch of stranded people wandering around a jungle trying not to get eaten- that was getting a bit old.

I guess the Dinosaurs are like Lightsabers- each film has to one up on a cool thing...
 
I think for a teaser trailer the Jurassic World did it's job.
I'm excited for it, I plan to be there opening weekend!
 
The dinosaur* in the tank was definitely a type of Mosasaur, not a Megalodon. Megalodon, we think, looked a lot like a scaled-up Great White.

As for the raptors, I don't have a problem with them being able to be tamed. Someone else pointed out to me that they are (at least in the movies) pack hunters, similar to wolves, and we were able to tame them. Okay, the wolves took thousands of years to tame, but we didn't have access to their genetics at the time.


*Dinosaurs refer specifically to land-based animals. Mosasaurs and Pteranodons don't qualify; they're reptiles.
 
Additional question for those in the know, since there seem to be more than a couple here: has the "dinosaurs have feathers" thing played out? Or is JW choosing to ignore the recent theories in favor of continuity for the franchise?
 
Additional question for those in the know, since there seem to be more than a couple here: has the "dinosaurs have feathers" thing played out? Or is JW choosing to ignore the recent theories in favor of continuity for the franchise?

It's a popular if not generally accepted theory now. The raptors in JP3 had hints of feathers on them. If they're not there in JW we could argue InGen removed them from the dinosaurs' genetic makeup in order to better fit common expectations. They're more interested in making marketable attractions. (Hammond wanted a "biological preserve" but he also may have asked the dinosaurs better fit expectations rather than true to the animals. Lack of feathers also could be due to using amphibian DNA to fill in the genetic gaps rather than avian DNA.)
 
Additional question for those in the know, since there seem to be more than a couple here: has the "dinosaurs have feathers" thing played out? Or is JW choosing to ignore the recent theories in favor of continuity for the franchise?

It's a popular if not generally accepted theory now. The raptors in JP3 had hints of feathers on them. If they're not there in JW we could argue InGen removed them from the dinosaurs' genetic makeup in order to better fit common expectations. They're more interested in making marketable attractions. (Hammond wanted a "biological preserve" but he also may have asked the dinosaurs better fit expectations rather than true to the animals. Lack of feathers also could be due to using amphibian DNA to fill in the genetic gaps rather than avian DNA.)

Yeah, it's probably a continuity thing and that seeing a T.rex covered in feathers might seem kind of goofy and Big Bird-ish to some. I'd like to see it, myself, and I think they had the perfect opportunity to incorporate the new thinking on dinosaur appearance into the film now that they're genetically modifying and breeding dinosaurs on the island (you could even do a mix of feathered and unfeathered), but oh well. I think they might have figured feathers make the dinosaurs less intimidating looking.
 
Additional question for those in the know, since there seem to be more than a couple here: has the "dinosaurs have feathers" thing played out? Or is JW choosing to ignore the recent theories in favor of continuity for the franchise?

It's a popular if not generally accepted theory now.


Yep, I have an uncle who's a paleontologist who was recently on the radio answering a similar question, and the gist is that it's generally accepted now and there isn't much debate about it anymore within the paleontology community.

As for T-Rexes, there was a travelling exhibit a few years ago that was all about feathered dinosaurs, and there was a theory that it was only the young that had feathers, that as they got older they lost their feathers, which if you think about it, makes sense in their relation to birds, as birds go through a molting process.
 
Last edited:

That was 1:15 of a great trailer, but everything starts going downhill once the awesome Mosasaur stadium scene is over. The update to the park design is excellent, the inclusion of aquatic dinosaurs is great, the new bubble vehicles and monorails are cool, and the sheer number of potential Dino-McNuggets... I mean park visitors, raises the stakes dramatically.

But then they start talking about hybrid dinos, which is looking like a mix of the T.rex with Raptor's intelligence and Spinosaurus' powerful arms and claws, complete with a mix of all three dinosaur's signature sounds, and I start tuning out. Because there are plenty of real dinosaurs they haven't used yet, ones from the books that haven't been shown on film (the chameleon dinosaurs), and there's no reason why they couldn't do new and amazing things with the dinosaurs they've used before. You don't constantly have to one-up the T.rex. The T.rex is exciting enough on its own. Now, it's not terrible ideas like the human/dino hybrids from the original JP4 concept, and it could still turn out okay, but I kind of groaned at that part. Plus, even if you're trying to grab the attention of a bored, disaffected public, I can't buy the idea that you'd create an unpredictable hybrid of your two or three most dangerous dinosaurs that's intelligent and possibly too big for your fences to contain.

I like Chris Pratt. I think he's funny in the lovable doofus sense, and think he's great in Guardians of the Galaxy and Parks & Recreation. But I can't take him seriously when he's trying to be dramatic Chris Pratt and telling us how "She will KEILLL anything that moves!" He's just not believable as a paleontologist or a wildlife expert.

Which brings us to the worst scene of the trailer. At first I thought maybe they were just releasing Raptors in some sort of cruel horse race toward food or something, to show the decadence of the park and visitors. Then Chris Pratt shows up borrowing Captain America's motorcycle. Okay. Then the Raptors start running in formation with Star Lord, and I was like WTF!? Which means he's either trained a group of Raptor friends or he's coated himself in Raptor hormones or some shit so they think he's one of them, and they're all going off to fight the hybrid like a Dino Justice League. Fuck you, trailer. Raptors don't make friends. There's no I in Raptor Team, because they clawed out your eye and ate it after setting up a decoy to distract you.

Stuff like the kids in peril thing is unfortunately just a feature the Jurassic Park filmmakers seem to consider necessary at this point, and it can go either way. There were obviously going to be kids in peril regardless since it was an amusement park again, but I don't know if it's really necessary to include them as main characters as a way for kids in the audience to relate. They'll just dig it for the dinosaurs. It's kind of weird that their parents sent them off to an amusement park without them, and then taunted the young kid with jokes about being eaten when, you know, that's something that's actually happened three times before (four if you count San Diego separately).

Wow, a lot of what you just said I wrote in my article for the Daily Dot. I swear this is the first I'm reading this. So basically... I agree with literally everything you just said.
 
So many wild animals have been trained over the centuries, who's to say a dino couldn't be?
Sure it's very unlikely. So is the entire setup of the movie!!!

I love how people just KNOW that you couldn't train a dinosaur. Ever met one? Look at tigers, or wolves? There are several examples of both animals that have been trained and/or domesticated. But yeah, sure, internet-reviewers are the most knowledgeable of all dinosaur-experts, so I'll take your word for it.

It's a movie. It's not supposed to be real, only entertaining. 70% of everything you see in movies is either exaggerated or simply not possible. Do you complain about all that to? If so, then why even bother with movies at all?
 
I'm not really bothered by the dinosaur hybrid, although I totally understand why people would be - especially with a litany of other dinosaurs that haven't even been tapped into yet by the filmmakers.

What does bother me is the retreading of the same 'ole story we've seen three times now. How scientists are supposedly smart enough to create a hybrid but not predict that by injecting this dinosaur with intelligence it is going to go crazy and do things they wouldn't expect. Yes, that was the same thing that happened with John Hammond and the first movie - but look what happened. We get it. You don't mess with evolution - bad things happen.

I don't want to write off the movie just yet because we've only seen a trailer and we only know the basic plot, but from what I have seen doesn't seem to justify the need for another Jurassic Park movie. That's just my take, though.
 
what I have seen doesn't seem to justify the need for another Jurassic Park movie. That's just my take, though.

If we applied that logic to summer blockbusters there wouldn't be very many of them.

And I doubt ones with superheroes, jedi, and/or star fleet officers would be among the ones that were made.
 
Additional question for those in the know, since there seem to be more than a couple here: has the "dinosaurs have feathers" thing played out? Or is JW choosing to ignore the recent theories in favor of continuity for the franchise?

There was an interview awhile back that asked that. None of the dinosaurs, not even the raptors, will have feathers.

That's fine, because there is growing proof that the T-Rex wasn't a hunter, and couldn't really run. Let's just make a decent movie and be damned with science.
 
what I have seen doesn't seem to justify the need for another Jurassic Park movie. That's just my take, though.

If we applied that logic to summer blockbusters there wouldn't be very many of them.

And I doubt ones with superheroes, jedi, and/or star fleet officers would be among the ones that were made.

I'd have to disagree.

With Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it's set after the original movies and pushes the story forward. If it were another prequel, I'd agree. With Batman vs. Superman, it'll be the first time we see Batman & Superman on the big screen together. Despite being a superhero film, that's something we haven't seen before in live-action.

With Jurassic World, it seems like the same exact story but just told on a larger scale: People treat dinosaurs like pets. Scientists don't think anything bad will happen. Dinosaurs are not pets. Something bad does happen. People realize dinosaurs aren't pets. Rinse and repeat. Yes, there's a fresh element with the theme park being fully operational, but to me that just seems like a stupid idea because you just know dinosaurs are going to get loose or the main characters are going to do something stupid that will provoke and/or set free said dinosaurs, etc. It's literally the same set-up as the last three movies, just told a little differently.

Then again, I could be wrong. Maybe the filmmakers are withholding some pertinent plot information that will add a fresh spin to this very familiar story - which is probably inevitably the case. Just based on the trailer I'm not convinced Jurassic World will add anything new to the franchise - which was already getting progressively worse as it was. Honestly, I don't think there needed to be a sequel to the first film in the first place - as the original is a classic and perfect film in its own right - but alas. That's Hollywood for you.
 
What does bother me is the retreading of the same 'ole story we've seen three times now. How scientists are supposedly smart enough to create a hybrid but not predict that by injecting this dinosaur with intelligence it is going to go crazy and do things they wouldn't expect. Yes, that was the same thing that happened with John Hammond and the first movie - but look what happened. We get it. You don't mess with evolution - bad things happen.

That's not what happened. What happened was InGen made Dinosaurs and those Dinosaurs were (too) real and acted as such. Something all the text books in the world couldn't predict and that's where they fell down. It never had anything to do with evolution, science yes, but evolution? Not in the slightest.
 
what I have seen doesn't seem to justify the need for another Jurassic Park movie. That's just my take, though.

If we applied that logic to summer blockbusters there wouldn't be very many of them.

And I doubt ones with superheroes, jedi, and/or star fleet officers would be among the ones that were made.

I'd have to disagree.

With Star Wars: The Force Awakens, it's set after the original movies and pushes the story forward. If it were another prequel, I'd agree. With Batman vs. Superman, it'll be the first time we see Batman & Superman on the big screen together. Despite being a superhero film, that's something we haven't seen before in live-action.

But there isn't any NEED for any of it.

Fans just WANT this stuff.

Really the only need that has anything to do with movies is the studios need to make money, which they do by releasing movies people want to see.

And the studio thinks people want to see another Jurassic Park movie, and they're probably right.

Just like Disney thinks people want to see another Star Wars movie, and they sure as hell are right.
 
That's not what happened. What happened was InGen made Dinosaurs and those Dinosaurs were (too) real and acted as such. Something all the text books in the world couldn't predict and that's where they fell down. It never had anything to do with evolution, science yes, but evolution? Not in the slightest.

"Life, uh, finds a way."

If I remember correctly, Dr. Ian Malcolm had long speeches in the original Jurassic Park about taking evolution and trying to monetize it. As did Ellie Sattler. Their argument was, "Before you can even understand what you've done, you're trying to package it and sell it."

Maybe my exact verbiage was misspoken and/or incorrect, but the basic concept of "Scientists not predicting something bad was going to happen..." and then that very something happens resulting in chaos is a story that's been told in the first film, second film and to a lesser extent third film where Dr. Grant was crazy enough to go to Isla Sorna for a repeat experience (because I guess he didn't have enough the first time around).

But there isn't any NEED for any of it.

Fans just WANT this stuff.

Really the only need that has anything to do with movies is the studios need to make money, which they do by releasing movies people want to see.

And the studio thinks people want to see another Jurassic Park movie, and they're probably right.

Just like Disney thinks people want to see another Star Wars movie, and they sure as hell are right.

You failed to understand what I was trying to say. Of course there's no inherent need for those movies. If you are going that basic, that same mentality or train of thought could be applied to anything. We don't need movies period. We don't need music. We don't need sex - but it is fun and we like it, etc.

When I say we didn't "need" another Jurassic Park film, what I mean is that from what I've ascertained the story the filmmakers for Jurassic World cooked up doesn't seem to warrant another story. There's never a need for sequels or remakes or adaptations but usually there's something that warrants the presence of said story. That's why people get so upset at incessant remakes, such as The Amazing Spider-Man, where the "need" for that story wasn't all that compelling because we had seen the Spider-Man origin story told (and told rather well) in 2002's Spider-Man.

I want to see another Jurassic Park movie as much as the next person, so long as it is good. However, there are times when you can tell the story was worth telling (like the remake of Scarface or Insomnia or the reboot of Batman in Batman Begins that told the Batman origin story for the very first time). There are also times when you can tell there really wasn't a story worth being told at all... like the aforementioned Amazing Spider-Man reboot or Hollywood's annoying trend of taking a trilogy and turning it into a quadrilogy like most recently with the Hunger Game movies or Twilight or Harry Potter.

You won't see people complaining about a new Star Wars movie because it's been ten years since the last one and over thirty years since one featuring the original trilogy cast. While the last Jurassic Park movie was fifteen years ago, the last two installments were increasingly disappointing and I don't think there was a huge "need" among moviegoers for another. Especially not one that retreads similar ground as much as it appears Jurassic World does. Maybe if the film had taken a different approach or appeared to have done things a tad differently it wouldn't have generated the kind of "been there, done that" sensibility that people seem to be getting from the trailer.

Clearly, I'm not alone in this train of thought as others have mirrored this sentiment in this thread before I even brought it up.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top