News Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum all return for Jurassic World 3!

In the books, it is Costa Rica, so guessing it would be the same in the movie.

 

For context; I've had family that have worked in the childcare industry over the years, so I may be a little oversensitive and cautious on the subject, especially regarding the legalities. No, it's not illegal for a parent to leave their child with someone they trust like a neighbour or a friend. Thing is, in this case that trusted person was the Aunt, and SHE (despite not their legal guardian) pawned them off on someone who was essentially an unqualified stranger. That kind of thing if reported can at least earn you an interview with social services, if not the police. Certainly if I was the parent in that scenario, said Aunt would never be trusted with their welfare ever again.

Anyway, I think my larger point was simply that she shouldn't have been asked to watch them at all. It's not her job, and it bothers me to see employees being treated as personal servants being portrayed as normal. Even worse when the filmmakers *punish* them for not doing whatever random task they're assigned well enough.
Lets just say I feel sorry for whoever works for the writer and/or director of this.

 

FWIW: My mother runs an in-home daycare licensed by the state.

Anyway, I think given that the nephews were almost killed by dinosaurs while left in her care, I think it's pretty easy to say she ain't getting around them again.

No, they shouldn't have, but that was kind of part of the "arc" for her character. When they arrived she was unfamiliar with them, their ages, interests, or anything. And the secretary/assistant or whatever she was being treated as this "servant" was also kind of a part of the "arc" for BDH's character. But that's one (of a handful) aspects the movie fumbled on, particularly when they apparently removed the scenes that were supposed to cause us to not like her in the first place.

I mean regardless if it was "right" for her to be left with the the kids or not, in the end, at that moment they were still her "responsibility" as just being the adult who was around them. And if she was being a horrible person towards them because the character was just supposed to be a mean bitch to everyone around her (kids, subordinates in the park) then the stuff with the kids is pointless. We don't know what was supposed to make us not like her. I mean, what if there was a scene with her going into the park Starbucks, making some bizarre off-the-wall order of specifics about the coffee she wanted, she gets it, takes one sip, slams it down, and then rants to the barista about all the ways she failed at her job and that's why she's some minimum-wage underling instead of something more meaningful?

Such an encounter has nothing to do with the kids but is part of the reasons why we're supposed to dislike her. She's on the same "arc" as BDH as being a high-powered, executive level person treating everyone subordinate to them as lesser people and being self-absorbed with their own executive goals and needs, and then having to find out that's not the right person to be. Only BDH rides her arc "up" as she comes out of it as a better person, learning the importance of stuff outside of her executive life and caring for the kids, and the secretary wasn't learning anything from the arc so she's riding it down and maybe even comes out of it a worse person so her punishment is getting picked up by the Pteranodon and then eaten by the Mosasaurs.

 

And in the first season of Camp Cretaceous, it's mentioned that she was planning to send them to the camp, which would have meant that they got marooned in the jungle for months.

 

Even without that, it'd be a problem is my point. To take the example you gave: imagine if after being dropped off with your neighbour, said neighbour hands you off to someone they work with to take you around town for the day. Congratulations, now you're with a stranger that your parent(s) didn't sanction, are unaware that you're with, and indeed they currently don't know where you are. 99% of the time of course, nothing happens, but it's still a very serious risk if something *does* happen.

That alone should be grounds for a "fuck off, you're not being left alone with them ever again."

Oh I get the whole character arc idea, though it's rather flattened when you consider that she basically runs to the comically anachronistically macho dude-bro that is Starlord to fix it for her, then follows him around like a puppy for the rest of the movie. Kinda undercuts her agency, no? Indeed, it flat out repeats what she did with the PA; delegating the problem to someone else.

Compare that to Grant's "I hate kids/OK, I guess they're fine" arc in the original and there's just no comparison. For one thing they're with him the whole time, and they're isolated from the group so he has no choice but to learn to look out for them, communicate with them, listen to them. I don't remember anything like that in JW.

I'm not claiming that the babysitter incident was the one fatal flaw of the movie, just that it was the point where it lost me. Where I no longer felt that the filmmakers really knew what they were doing, or indeed has even the tiniest bit of respect for their audience's intelligence. They didn't have a clear vision of what they were trying to achieve from a story and character perspective, which is why the movie is all over the place, with multiple plot threads pulling in opposite directions all at once.

 

"Ellie Satler"

"Allen Grant"

Yeesh. Who wrote such clunky dialogue?

 

Emily Carmichael and Colin Trevorrow.

 

Also first look at Giga the new dinosaur. This shot highlights the animatronics.






Also The Lands of Jurassic World | Jurassic World

 

The Pitch Meeting always cracks me up when they get to that part:

Producer: Don't you have an ex girlfriend named Zara?

Writer: YEAH.

 

I love how the Dilophosaurus is on the Legacy Heroes cover.

 

Trevorrow claims the new dinosaur will be "like the joker."

https://www.empireonline.com/movies...e-joker-says-colin-trevorrow-exclusive-image/

Which sounds hilariously dumb if you take it literally and still kind of dumb if you don't.

 

Yeah, I saw that quote the other day, and I'm still not sure what he actually means by that.

 

How is that different from the Indominus or especially the Scorpius Rex?

 

One of the Jurassic World writers' problems is that they don't know how to give the carnivorous dinosaur species distinct behaviors. So in the original film, the T. rex moves slowly, trying to scare everyone into moving so it can see them. The dilophosaurus doesn't appear threatening at all until it decides to attack, and then it raises its frill and spits venom. The raptors are the only ones that are hyper-aggressive from the start, and this is what makes them so much more dangerous than the rest of the dinosaurs.

The Jurassic World predators all just act like the raptors, charging and roaring at the heroes even when they have no reason to. Now there are times that this works, and I think the Scorpius from Camp Cretaceous is one of them. But for something that's supposed to be a realistic animal, it's not that interesting.

 

New trailer

 

Looks very good!

 

The movie could've had the cast of "Saved by the Bell" for all I cared because Goldblum, Neill, and Dern were not the reason why I watched Jurassic Park. The stars were the dinosaurs.

 

"The doomsday clock might be about out of time."

Love seeing plenty of Ian, Alan, and Ellie. I continue to hope beyond hope that this will actually be good.

 

^My thoughts exactly. I'm glad those characters are returning, but the premise of the film (unfortunately a victim of the prior film) is so dubious to me that I have grave doubts that their return will be enough to save it.

 

Well, sure, although part of my problem with the last two films is the creation of completely fabricated dinosaurs when there are plenty of phenomenal dinosaurs they could've depicted.