Jurassic World - General DiscussionMovies
- Thread starter CodeRedR51
- 126 comments
- 9,018 views
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Well, the second movie was better than the third, at least.
Nobody on earth would've been fooled by that couple. And Grant going to Isla Sorna? Yeah, dunno, seemed unconvincing from start to finish. Plus, the oh-so-intelligent raptors were incredibly clumsy and stupid whenever the cast was in real danger... The franchise got worse with each release, imho.
Nobody on earth would've been fooled by that couple. And Grant going to Isla Sorna? Yeah, dunno, seemed unconvincing from start to finish. Plus, the oh-so-intelligent raptors were incredibly clumsy and stupid whenever the cast was in real danger... The franchise got worse with each release, imho.
- 40,843
Vince Vaughn was responsible for every single death before they left the island, and arguably all of the ones after as well. He endangered the lives of The Goldblum and his daughter and got The Guy From West Wing killed by showing that he literally knows nothing about the actual behavior of animals. He had the entirety of the InGen equipment destroyed and indirectly caused most of the deaths early in the film. He deliberately and repeatedly sabotaged the attempts of the small handful of man on the entire island who knew what the hell they were doing as well as directly antagonizing them for having the gall to save all of their lives after Vaughn put everyone in danger, leading directly to more deaths (Tembo couldn't kill the T-Rex because Vaughn stole all of his ammo, leading directly to more immediate deaths, because hunting is ew; and Tembo being forced to tranquilize it rather than kill it allowed the idiots taking it from the island). He's reinforced as being in the right for all of this, because the genetically manufactured dinosaurs in the man made caricature of their prehistoric natural environment are sort of living without human interaction (except the first scene in the movie invalidates that entire premise before the real plot starts) and thus anyone who wants to do the thing with those dinosaurs they were made to do are the bad guy.
Despite this, and despite the fact that Julianne Moore's character was equally an idiot despite the film constantly telling everyone how awesome and just and intelligent and strong she was, we are told as viewers to show sympathy to the aims of the group that in any other work would be considered eco-terrorists; and that they are the good guys. She in particular constantly sides with the guy who gets everyone killed rather than her boyfriend who came to the island to save her because he was on an island where dinosaurs were killing people before.
In comparison, we're supposed to hate the Pete Postlethwaite character because he's some hunter guy and that's bad; even after he repeatedly looks out for the safety of everyone on the island (including the people he didn't bring that were repeatedly sabotaging him) and repeatedly saves everyone's life while everyone else is panicking or abandoning The Goldblum and his cronies. Spielberg even cut a lot of his filmed scenes because people weren't hating one of the two heroic guys in the movie enough.
Even The Goldblum was a horribly pared back shell of the character that was in the original film, awkwardly forced to fit in a character role that doesn't suit him rather than writing the story to fit the character.
And it's obvious that Steven Spielberg absolutely hated the process of filming, since it has an unnecessarily brooding and pretentious tone stapled to what was essentially a high concept film; and only the first 15 minutes of the movie is written well enough to support it. It's by no means as atrociously written as the book, which was so anti-intellectual and mean spirited towards people who liked the original film and book that it seems like a parody intentionally written to piss people off; but the original book had enough backstory written into it that the people who you were supposed to root for recognized by the end of the book that everything that they were trying to strive for was a false hope from the beginning as well as recognizing their own hypocrisy.
Jurassic Park III was, in comparison, a silly stupid movie where dinosaurs kill some silly stupid people; and Dr. Grant got forced along for the ride. It's hard to take seriously because outside of one scene that lasts 30 seconds, it doesn't try to be serious.
Last edited:
- 3,871
- Chad
- kennylmao
Humans need to be riding them.
I dunno man, hybrid dinosaurs sounds stupid. Though this time the park is officially opened so we'll hopefully get to see plenty of visitors being killed by dinosaurs. 
Honestly, I'm just hyped because it's another Jurassic Park movie in a million years since the last one. Jurassic Park was my thing as a kid and it holds a very special place in me.
McLaren
Premium
- 45,585
- Texas
The movie feels like an "alternative universe" if Jurassic Park had actually succeeded the first time. Some of the characters could be seen as modern versions of 1993; Pratt is Dr. Grant, Howard is Dr. Saddler (they both hold flares
), the boys are obviously Lex & Tim (with the younger sibling showing a lot of enthusiasm for the attractions unlike the older one), even Dr. Wu & this guy is back. 
Goldblum's infamous quote on creating dinosaurs altogether could be applied to hybrid as well: "Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." But that's me.
I will go see it just as I saw every other film in the theaters & the "3D" version (a perfect excuse to revisit the film on the big screen 20 years later as I was really too young to remember the first time). This is one of my favorite franchises.
Jawehawk
Premium
- 4,652
- Denmark
- Yohansen_92
Tornado
While Vaughn is partly responsible for a lot of deaths, I think you are giving Sarah too much credit.
Had she not decided to bring the baby T-rex back to the RV, Eddie would've still been alive, and more importantly, they would still have a satellite phone, meaning they could call for help. Knowing what she knows about animals, it was a pretty damn stupid move by her.
Aside from opening the cages and emptying Rolands gun, I can't think of any other scenes where Vaughn's actions results in someone dying though. Not saying he was in the right, but I honestly think Sarah's blunder had far worse consequences, at least when looked at after the events that unfolded in the Ingen camp.
So yeah, overall I agree that 2 people in the group are pretty much responsible for the deaths of quite a lot of people, I don't have a lot of problems looking past that, primarily because dinosaurs are awesome, and in the 2nd movie, they still seemed like animals. Opposed to the 3rd one, where they had human like intelligence, and ninja like skills (Spinosaurus literally sneaking up on them on an open field, and then waiting to charge until they spot it for dramatic effect). I absolutely loved the rescue scene with Eddie, even if the only reason it had to happen was because of the stupidity of others. It's just so well done and intense.
However, I don't think Roland was displayed as a bad guy. If anything, I'd say the movie displayed him as being one of two reasonable characters in the movie, the other being Malcolm. Someone who knew what he was doing, and as you point out, spend a great deal of time trying to save others.
In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed the 2nd movie, even if it wasn't as amazing as the 1st one.
While Vaughn is partly responsible for a lot of deaths, I think you are giving Sarah too much credit.
Had she not decided to bring the baby T-rex back to the RV, Eddie would've still been alive, and more importantly, they would still have a satellite phone, meaning they could call for help. Knowing what she knows about animals, it was a pretty damn stupid move by her.
Aside from opening the cages and emptying Rolands gun, I can't think of any other scenes where Vaughn's actions results in someone dying though. Not saying he was in the right, but I honestly think Sarah's blunder had far worse consequences, at least when looked at after the events that unfolded in the Ingen camp.
So yeah, overall I agree that 2 people in the group are pretty much responsible for the deaths of quite a lot of people, I don't have a lot of problems looking past that, primarily because dinosaurs are awesome, and in the 2nd movie, they still seemed like animals. Opposed to the 3rd one, where they had human like intelligence, and ninja like skills (Spinosaurus literally sneaking up on them on an open field, and then waiting to charge until they spot it for dramatic effect). I absolutely loved the rescue scene with Eddie, even if the only reason it had to happen was because of the stupidity of others. It's just so well done and intense.
However, I don't think Roland was displayed as a bad guy. If anything, I'd say the movie displayed him as being one of two reasonable characters in the movie, the other being Malcolm. Someone who knew what he was doing, and as you point out, spend a great deal of time trying to save others.
In any case, I thoroughly enjoyed the 2nd movie, even if it wasn't as amazing as the 1st one.
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Those movies are heilariousJust watched the trailer.Btw, I still need to watch the first one.
I was thinking more like this.
Edit: Changed it.
Still distracting, that avatar (not necessarily a bad thing, though
).Roland might have been displayed as a bit of a bad guy, but he actually was my favorite character from that movie. Him being on that island actually made sense - which can't be said for most of the cast. Like that new boss of Ingen. Realistically, he'd just send his employees or whomever get stuff done but I doubt someone like that would set foot on such an island. Makes it seem like the character's only purpose was to look stupid and incompetent throughout the movie.
- 40,843
I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure bringing the baby rex back was Vaughn's idea and doing to begin with (edit: just checked. Yes he did. Vaughn snuck off while the dinosaurs were wrecking the InGen camp and pulled the stake out, then carried the baby through the swamp to where Sarah was waiting with the car). Sarah objected to him doing it but ultimately went along with it and helped him. She shoulder's the blame for sure (especially when she should know better), but I did already say that she was also a complete idiot as well (she was the one running around the film with the jacket covered in the baby's blood and scent then acting surprised that the rexes were following them).
They filmed some scenes Tembo being a cool nice gentleman guy, including one where it was shown that the baby rex's leg was broken on accident and Tembo just used it to his advantage (rather than the final film which heavily implied Tembo deliberately broke its leg and then waited around for the adult rexes to come). Spielberg had both scenes cut, and I read on one of those movie blogging trivia sites (so take it with a grain of salt) that the latter cut was due to the audience reaction towards him and his group testing too positive.
Last edited:
- 9,295
- Duisburg
Well, Tornado gives a much better explanation about the second movie than I ever could (not least of all because I don't know about what scenes were cut from the movie), but I'd still like to give my impressions.
The original movie was about man's hubris being his undoing and that the question whether one can do something is no more important than the question whether one should do something. Pretty deep stuff, if you think about it.
The second movie was shot to portrait the whole "nature yay, corporations nay" thing. Hippie ideals, if I may be so blunt, and quite shallow ones at that. However, it unintentionally ended up having more depth than that; the whole thing ended up raising the question what's actually defining a human being, their actions or their intentions. While Van Owen embarks onto the island with noble intentions, his actions are ultimately despicable due to him willingly endangering and sacrificing others in pursuit of his own goals. Tembo, on the other hand, is the exact opposite; he embarks onto Isla Sorna with what could be considered despicable intentions but ends up saving others, even those who endangered him and his men. Tembo is the one actually acting noble and despite the movie's best efforts to make the audience dislike it him, I'd say that he ends up being a figure the viewer is actually siding with. It's not that the film tried to portrait him as a hero or even a reasonable character. It's just that his actions ultimately matter more than the intentions the writers attributed him with.
While unintentional, that's what's giving the second movie some depth and merit, as far as I am concerned. The third, by contrast, was just a survival flick with dinosaurs and largely forgettable because of it.
The original movie was about man's hubris being his undoing and that the question whether one can do something is no more important than the question whether one should do something. Pretty deep stuff, if you think about it.
The second movie was shot to portrait the whole "nature yay, corporations nay" thing. Hippie ideals, if I may be so blunt, and quite shallow ones at that. However, it unintentionally ended up having more depth than that; the whole thing ended up raising the question what's actually defining a human being, their actions or their intentions. While Van Owen embarks onto the island with noble intentions, his actions are ultimately despicable due to him willingly endangering and sacrificing others in pursuit of his own goals. Tembo, on the other hand, is the exact opposite; he embarks onto Isla Sorna with what could be considered despicable intentions but ends up saving others, even those who endangered him and his men. Tembo is the one actually acting noble and despite the movie's best efforts to make the audience dislike it him, I'd say that he ends up being a figure the viewer is actually siding with. It's not that the film tried to portrait him as a hero or even a reasonable character. It's just that his actions ultimately matter more than the intentions the writers attributed him with.
While unintentional, that's what's giving the second movie some depth and merit, as far as I am concerned. The third, by contrast, was just a survival flick with dinosaurs and largely forgettable because of it.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Super Bowl trailer up with new footage, not bad actually. CGI still looks a bit 2004.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
Yeah, they lost me at the whole "trained raptors" thing.
Cano
Premium
- 20,758
- Cephiro
This. The guy riding with his velociraptor friends is... just wtf.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Trailer #2 , still not hyped a lot to be honest.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,315
- United States
Like I said, they lost me at the trained Raptors. Probably going to wait for this one to hit the local RedBox.
- 6,389
- Nantes
- P308R
I just watched the trailer and well what a let down....
How is it possible that with this kind of budget and director everything looks meh. The CGI is totally not convincing 👎 and the story doesn't seem interesting at all.
How is it possible that with this kind of budget and director everything looks meh. The CGI is totally not convincing 👎 and the story doesn't seem interesting at all.
Last edited:
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Yeah, I have no idea why the CGI is that bad, the movie looks rushed, not feeling confident about this.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
I don't see the Raptors as "trained" anyway - like Pratt's character says, it isn't about control - but even if I did, it's not outside the realm of possibility going by the original book. If they can modify the animals' behaviours (against Hammond's wishes, though he's no longer around, which just strengthens that argument), then it's perfectly understandable. An outside company might've deemed that an acceptable trade-off to have the park up and running. If they didn't modify anything, then the raptors could just be tolerating Pratt in the same way they would co-exist with other predators. A mutual respect, perhaps, though going by the one attacking a man in an ambulance in the trailer, it certainly isn't shared across all humans. Also, it seems to be just these 3 or 4 that have the working relationship with him. I imagine there are more in the park that are kept separate.
What I'm more wary of is this super-intelligent "communicating" dino. If they're planning on turning it into the dinosaur version of 2014's Lucy, then it'll be a joke. As is, I'm cautiously optimistic.
What I'm more wary of is this super-intelligent "communicating" dino. If they're planning on turning it into the dinosaur version of 2014's Lucy, then it'll be a joke. As is, I'm cautiously optimistic.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Maybe I'm getting the wrong impression from the trailer, but it seems to suggest the Indominus can communicate to different species of dinosaurs. It's the only one of its kind, so "they're communicating" from Omar Sy has me wondering. Though he could just be talking about raptors - but it seems silly to tell Owen about that, as he'd know better than anyone.
- 24,553
- Frankfort, KY
- GTP_FoolKiller
- FoolKiller1979
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Maybe it's the fact this year has so many big hitters that this sort of comes out us unimpressive.
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
I saw the trailer attached to Age of Ultron yesterday, and it was the only one which didn't get any reaction from the audience. Maybe it was just mixed in with other heavy hitters like Spectre and Ant-Man and so lost its lustre. But I think it's more than that - there was nothing exciting or captivating about it.
- 51,374
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
"Don't go into the long grass!" My favorite line out of all the movies.
Okay, let's be "virtually real". A shark. Really? Why not dangle an elephant? That shark was like a sardine in those jaws. I mean, a cow was shown to be eaten alive. A shark will eat a mammal(Seal). So, I'm sure we could have grasped just how big an ampetite that water dweller has.
As mentioned, this must be an alternative universe. Anyone in their right mind that heard about California, wouldn't be going to Jireasic World.
Okay, let's be "virtually real". A shark. Really? Why not dangle an elephant? That shark was like a sardine in those jaws. I mean, a cow was shown to be eaten alive. A shark will eat a mammal(Seal). So, I'm sure we could have grasped just how big an ampetite that water dweller has.
As mentioned, this must be an alternative universe. Anyone in their right mind that heard about California, wouldn't be going to Jireasic World.
