I didn't see it as biological clock - more like "I could have been a part of my family but I didn't make the time".
Jurassic World - Discussion and Grading
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I didn't see it as biological clock - more like "I could have been a part of my family but I didn't make the time".
finally saw this one. While very predictable, it was entertaining and fun to watch like the rest of the Jurassic series.
- This is probably my least favourite of the Jurassic films. I know JP3 doesn't get much love here, but I liked it a lot.
- JW felt more like a remake of the first film than a follow up movie.
- I wish they had used the Sam Neill Dr Grant character. He would have elevated the movie and provided a good connection with previous movies.
- Disappointed to find out that the big sea creature that played a big role here was not a Dinosaur and wasn't really that big. But since these are genetic engineered animals, they could have added Dinosaur DNA to it.
- Similarly I guess any discrepancy with real animals can be explained by decisions made by genetic engineers. i.e. the lack of feathers on Dinosaurs. Though I am not sure if I want to see feathered raptors like the ones on this page.
- This is probably my least favourite of the Jurassic films. I know JP3 doesn't get much love here, but I liked it a lot.
- JW felt more like a remake of the first film than a follow up movie.
- I wish they had used the Sam Neill Dr Grant character. He would have elevated the movie and provided a good connection with previous movies.
- Disappointed to find out that the big sea creature that played a big role here was not a Dinosaur and wasn't really that big. But since these are genetic engineered animals, they could have added Dinosaur DNA to it.
- Similarly I guess any discrepancy with real animals can be explained by decisions made by genetic engineers. i.e. the lack of feathers on Dinosaurs. Though I am not sure if I want to see feathered raptors like the ones on this page.
I'd certainly call the Mosasaurus a dinosaur and it was huge at that.
I liked this movie.. it was a perfect, contemporary popcorn summer blockbuster movie with all its predictability, stereotypes and cliches as you would expect.
It's a movie you see at the theater for maximum impact, talk a little about with your friends and only occasionally bring it up again as time passes.
One thing though is that i am happy for Chris Pratt to finally made his breakthrough and skyrocket into Hollywood's A list. I saw him first in th TV show Everwood (god i loved that show) and he was good even back then as a jock who slowly transforms over the course of the show.
Of course most know him for Parks and Rec and i still wonder how he managed to go from Andy to Starlord in Guardians of the Galaxy but i'm not complaining
Anyway.. happy for Pratt, been a fan ever since and good to see he finally is where he will get more exposure.
It's a movie you see at the theater for maximum impact, talk a little about with your friends and only occasionally bring it up again as time passes.
One thing though is that i am happy for Chris Pratt to finally made his breakthrough and skyrocket into Hollywood's A list. I saw him first in th TV show Everwood (god i loved that show) and he was good even back then as a jock who slowly transforms over the course of the show.
Of course most know him for Parks and Rec and i still wonder how he managed to go from Andy to Starlord in Guardians of the Galaxy but i'm not complaining
Anyway.. happy for Pratt, been a fan ever since and good to see he finally is where he will get more exposure.
Eh, the "media" may have blown out of proportion but we're also living in a time that's growing more and more sensitive to issues that "stereotype" people, in particular women. And the "have children, now, you work-focused cold-witch!" trope is an old, tired, one I think we could do without.
Sure, it may happen in real life, and we could argue all day on whether or not it's "right" to put pressure on women to have children (but, again, women have an end to their reproductive live and the older they are when they have children the greater chance for birth defects) but there's a time and place for those types of plot threads and I'm not sure in the middle of an action movie about dinosaurs eating people is the right place.
It was basically the writers taking a pricing-gun with various tropes set on the stamp and just plopping whatever came up on the characters.
"Work-minded woman."
"Macho, sort-of misogynistic, man's man."
"Military-minded beyond all reason and sanity man."
"Woman going through divorce."
"Asshole father who's obviously the cause of the divorce."
"Dashing Philanthropist."
"Smart Kid."
"Too-Cool-For-This Kid."
That character tidbit didn't really add much to the character or the story nor is it really resolved. It's not like at the end of the movie she goes, "Give me a child now, my Starlord!" and started grinding on Pratt. Hell, she didn't blow-off the kids because of any disinterest in children or anything like that she just had a fucking job to do! There were investors on the island to woo, the park is filled with 10s of 1000s of guests and she's in charge. She can't just drop everything and hang out with the kids and she said she'd do it tomorrow/the rest of the time the kids were visiting.
It was a plot/character tidbit that didn't add much and could have been removed at 0 cost to the story. Hell, it would have helped it because, arguably, that'd be a few minutes of screentime that could have been spent on something else.
People making too much of it? Perhaps. But, again, a tired old trope that needs to die and in 2015 we really should have better things to make female characters interesting than "needs to have children before her ovaries dry up."
Thing is, "dinosaur" is a word that actually means something. "Colloquially" the Mosasaurus can probably be called a "dinosaur" but scientifically it is not, it was a Mosasaur, a group of large aquatic lizards that existed around the same time as the dinosaurs. It has no relationship to dinosaurs beyond "sorta living around the same time." And while it was, indeed, huge the movie exaggerated its size by orders of magnitude.
This was out-right stated in the movie. When Wu is lecturing the Not-Hammond guy about the dinosaurs he says that had they bred them to more purely resemble the real animals they'd look very different. But the animals made for Jurassic Park/World were not made to replicate the real animals but to create park-attractions and, thus, were bred to more resemble the common expectation of dinosaurs (as reptilian.)
It's been a long time since I was a six year old obsessed with Dinosaurs, but if you're going to take such a literal, scientifically accurate standpoint, wouldn't that mean that there were no aquatic dinosaurs? Or were the pleisiosaurs more closely related to land dinosaurs?
As for size, that's movies. Look at the size of the velociraptors starting from the very first movi.
As I said, colloquially we could call the Mosasaurus "a dinosaur" but, scientifically, it's not. Dinosaurs were strictly land-based, even pterodactyls weren't "dinosaurs" but still in common-parlance called that.
On the Velociraptors the first movie took a few liberties with with the dinosaurs -also notable is the Dilophosaurus. Interestingly, a species of raptor was recently discovered that more closely matches the size of the "Velociraptor" seen in Jurassic Park/World, this being the Utahraptor. We could argue this is what InGen bred but mis-took finding a new species for finding a larger version of a known species and named it the same thing. Again, they were making an entertainment park, not an actual true-to-science reservation for the animals.
Right, but the original comment that started this discussion was that someone was 'disappointed' that the sea creature featured in the new movie wasn't a dinosaur. Since 'dinosaurs' in the scientific sense were all land dwelling, that would seem to me to automatically signal that this conversation was using the colloquial meaning of the term from the beginning. So I'm not sure why the scientific definition is even being brought up here.
Since I made the original comment, I did mean the scientific definition. Here we have an Dinosaur amusement park. And then at the end of the movie the big bad new Dinosaur is killed by an aquatic reptile. So finding out that creature wasn't a real Dinosaur was a little disappointing. But really not a big deal since the creature was presented to the audiance as a Dinosaur. And as I said the genetic engineers could have used some Dinosaur DNA on it to make it bigger and more deadly.
Having been obsessed with dinosaurs since about 11 or so, and things like that, I would apply the term "dinosaur" in a more broad sense than a scientific sense.
No, I don't think that that sea reptiles are classified in the same way by scientists, given the huge variety of classifications for sea mammals (dolphins, whales, porpoises) among other things.
Does it work in the context of the film? I would argue that it does because of the more theme park atmosphere that the film is trying to create. Is it the best set up and pay off? Probably not, but it worked for me in the context of the film.
No, I don't think that that sea reptiles are classified in the same way by scientists, given the huge variety of classifications for sea mammals (dolphins, whales, porpoises) among other things.
Does it work in the context of the film? I would argue that it does because of the more theme park atmosphere that the film is trying to create. Is it the best set up and pay off? Probably not, but it worked for me in the context of the film.
The Pteranodons and flying reptiles of TLW:JP, JPIII, and JW aren't technically dinosaurs either, except in the colloquial sense. They're Pterosaurs.
Technically most of the dinosaurs like T. rex, Velociraptor, Triceratops and others should be living in Cretaceous Park/World and never have any interaction with Brachiosaurs and (non-frilly) Dilophosaurs from the Jurassic period that lived tens of millions of years earlier. But "Welcome to Cretaceous Park" doesn't really have the same ring to it.
Technically Velociraptors are about the size of an angry turkey and you could probably just kick that clever girl in the face if she tries to eat you.
Technically humans are more closely related to dinosaurs than frogs are, so it's a little strange that the Jurassic Park lab techs were trying to plug frog DNA into the dino-DNA holes, unless they read the book and script and knew they needed an animal that could sometimes spontaneously change sex in order to explain their ability to procreate. Or, if you want to go a more sinister route, you could say Dr. Wu's benefactors on the InGen board always intended for the dinosaurs to breed on the island against Hammond's wishes, hence the use of frog DNA and some other genetic tinkering to speed the process along.
Technically you wouldn't find liquid blood or salvageable DNA inside mosquitoes encased in 65 million year old+ amber. It would be degraded. Same for however they got DNA of the extinct non-flowering plants that Dr. Sattler commented about on the ride in during the first film, which was never explained.
Anyway, my point was that the Jurassic Park series has always had a lot of technicalities like that. That's just a short list. It's best to stick with colloquialisms that allow cool stuff like Mosasaurs and Pterosaurs.
Awhile back I came across a web site that discussed Mosasaurs. It is now thought that they may have evolved fish like tales, as did the icthyosaurs. So a mosasaur might have resembled a giant shark.
Actual sexism is something like the pointless Alice Eve underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness. I'm still pissed at Abrams for that.
It's not pointless.. she was getting her away suit on to visit the planetoid. It was definitely important. 
Finally went out and saw this tonight because it was back in the IMAX for the week. It was still a packed theater, meaning this movie is still making a ton of money.
I enjoyed the hell out of it. It's almost as good as Jurassic Park and way better than Lost World and JP3. There were several scenes where I was almost holding my breath. Especially when Indominus Rex gets a hold on the gyroscope and starts smashing it into the ground. I'm looking forward to the many sequels that will follow.
I enjoyed the hell out of it. It's almost as good as Jurassic Park and way better than Lost World and JP3. There were several scenes where I was almost holding my breath. Especially when Indominus Rex gets a hold on the gyroscope and starts smashing it into the ground. I'm looking forward to the many sequels that will follow.
I got the Blu-Ray of this, and have watched it a couple of times. Plan on watching it again, probably tonight, with the "Audio Description" on. I enjoy those tracks more than a sighted person probably should.
But a line in it brought me back to wonder how much TLW and JPIII fit into the continuity of the movies, are they truly a part of it or not? (I recall hearing conflicting things on it.)
One thing that makes me suspect the sequels are out of the continuity is an early line from one of the kids that when the park first opened there were only "8 species" which we saw more than that between the three movies.
First movie we saw:
T-Rex
Brachiosaurus
Velociraptor
Galiamimus
Dilophosaurus
Triceratops
Parasaurolophus
And that's seven right there.
TLW brought us a Stegosaurus and Compies (and I'm sure others seen in the B/G.) JPIII gave us (off the top) Spinosaurus, and Pterodactyls (also likely others.)
So that's 11 right there, at least, from the original movies which means JW should have opened with more than 8, if we grant them they didn't have raptors on the tour.
So, does this suggest that maybe the sequels didn't take place?
But a line in it brought me back to wonder how much TLW and JPIII fit into the continuity of the movies, are they truly a part of it or not? (I recall hearing conflicting things on it.)
One thing that makes me suspect the sequels are out of the continuity is an early line from one of the kids that when the park first opened there were only "8 species" which we saw more than that between the three movies.
First movie we saw:
T-Rex
Brachiosaurus
Velociraptor
Galiamimus
Dilophosaurus
Triceratops
Parasaurolophus
And that's seven right there.
TLW brought us a Stegosaurus and Compies (and I'm sure others seen in the B/G.) JPIII gave us (off the top) Spinosaurus, and Pterodactyls (also likely others.)
So that's 11 right there, at least, from the original movies which means JW should have opened with more than 8, if we grant them they didn't have raptors on the tour.
So, does this suggest that maybe the sequels didn't take place?
^ Maybe some of the Site B (Isla Sorna) species went extinct again before World opened, and they had some trouble bringing them back?
That said, Hammond at the end of TLW seemed to have pretty comfortably renounced all intentions to have a public park ever open. I guess Masrani could have changed his mind back again, but the bigger issues is JPIII not mentioning World being open or in the works. So it seems to me that JPIII is more likely entirely out of continuity and TLW a fuzzy spot in between, which is fine with me, because to heck to with III. I wouldn't be surprised if a future movie referenced the San Diego incident as a throwaway line, though.
That said, Hammond at the end of TLW seemed to have pretty comfortably renounced all intentions to have a public park ever open. I guess Masrani could have changed his mind back again, but the bigger issues is JPIII not mentioning World being open or in the works. So it seems to me that JPIII is more likely entirely out of continuity and TLW a fuzzy spot in between, which is fine with me, because to heck to with III. I wouldn't be surprised if a future movie referenced the San Diego incident as a throwaway line, though.
That or Site B could have been placed off limits as a Dinosaur preserve like Hammond wanted as part of the deal that got Jurassic World off the ground and as such they just don't count those dinosaurs because their park doesn't have anything to do with them.
^ Ooh, nice theory! Still doesn't negate the fact that, unless JPIII takes place several years before its real-world release date (which I suppose is plausible), it's hard to square that movie's non-mention of the World undertaking with the amount of time it seems to have been open and successfully operating by 2015.
Spinosaurus may not even be repeatable, short of going to site b and taking a dna sample. It wasn't on InGen's list, so who knows if the records of its creation even survived.
And even if it could, just because those species could be bred, doesn't automatically mean they would all have been brought out to be on the original tour. Compies aren't exactly thrilling to look at. Extra large species, on the other hand, take more time to grow, and if they wouldn't be fully grown on time, they might not've been considered exciting enough for the grand opening. There could've been issues with getting proper spaces ready which meant that some species were put off till later. Also, questions of funding could lead to a choice being made to start small and build up.
But really, the biggest issue is that this movie makes no reference to site b, San Diego, or any of the political fallout of those things nor of Hammond's philosophical turn around to not wanting a park and that despite the fact that it claims the original movie only happened about a decade ago or so, which means the sequels should be in very recent memory, if they happened.
Similar threads
- Poll
