Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Also, Malcolm is a provocateur who likes to put things on a pole and throw it back in people's faces and watch them squirm to come up with a retort worth his time.
Jurassic World
- Thread starter Lutso
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jurassic park
If Hammond was advancing science just for advancement's sake, why did he build Jurassic Park with the intent to show the world that Dinosaurs exist again? And wasn't the real hazard just simple human greed? Hammond not paying Nedry enough for his work, and Nedry wanting more money?
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Seriously, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing. It's all there in the movie. That's Hammond's argument, to which Malcolm throws it back in his face, because he sees right through it.
No. I just don't like characters preaching about how wrong something is when it's not even the direct cause of the problems. Nothing is perfect, things go wrong, but why does that mean we have to quit? I'm sure zoos and amusement parks have plenty of accidents, but they still keep things open.
I just don't want another "The Lost World" where our heroes are the cause of all the chaos that happens but we still have to cheer for them. That was just bad.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
And any of those problems hadn't happened at that point, so, again, your argument fails. Up until that point only dino related accidents had happened, where workers had been killed by the creatures.
There really is no point to recreate long dead animals other than: because we can. They will never be free, they will never be allowed to act normal, they don't have parents or adults to guide them to become what they are supposed to be. They are just sideshow freaks and there's nothing ethically acceptable about that.
Hammond is all pumped by what they've created and will use any argument, reason and excuse to defend it, but anyone can see right through it, and Malcolm throws it right back in his face. It is an amateur setup using the most advanced technology and there really is no one who can predict what will happen and the likelihood of something going wrong is just exponentially unacceptable. They think they are in control, but they really aren't. They are ethically and morally in the wrong, yet, what they created is still beyond fantastic, but any and all repercussions of that action is completely ignored by the sequels.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not following your argument that just seems so left field and just for the sake of arguing. I'm done.
Than why are they breeding? Wasn't that a big plot point in the film that the dinosaurs aren't supposed to breed? I'd take that as a clear sign that they are free because they're acting outside of what the scientists designed them to be.
Westies14
Master Member
Except when Pirates of the Carribean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
You have a limited view of freedom. And you are arguing things that are clearly stated and explained in the book and movie - go watch that and you'll have answers to all your questions. I'm done with feeding the troll.
When the film starts, the animals are kept in isolated areas. Pretty restrictive and not very 'free' I'll admit. But by the end the animals are now roaming free on an island all to themselves doing things that the scientists didn't anticipate they would do. Are you implying that animals that live on islands don't have as much freedom as animals that live on larger land masses? If islands restrict how much freedom something has, why do people live on islands like Hawaii?
Because I'm the one calling you names and saying that your arguments fail. I'm no troll. Just a viewer with an opinion that you don't agree with.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
You talking about Isla Nublar? In case you forgot Satler turned on the power and thus the electrical fences work again. The only free animal is the Rex as the other "free" creatures got killed. They are still fenced in. In the book not all of the dinosaurs were able to breed, so several species were still "neutered" and couldn't produce offspring and would eventually die out. All were bred to be lysine dependent and would die out if they didn't get the supplement in the administered food. So yes, they are not free.
Are they free in Lost World... sure, you can say that. But that's a crap movie anyway...
All the answers are in the movie and the book.
Are they free in Lost World... sure, you can say that. But that's a crap movie anyway...
All the answers are in the movie and the book.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
If it was simply a differing opinion, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. But arguing for the sake of arguing, when all your questions and arguments are answered right there in the movie and book, why waste people's time with them? That speaks to me of trollish behavior - to argue just to **** people off.
I could be wrong, though, and reading too much into what you are saying than what you actually mean and if that's the case, then I apologize. I'm just not seeing it as such.
Now that the island is abandoned, I doubt they would be on forever.
I know this argument will come off as closed minded, but I'm trying to be sincerely honest here. This is the movie I'm talking about, not the book. And as a rule I follow, I do not give a movie credit for something that's included else where. Wasn't one of Malcolm's points in the movie that science can't control how a creature works and that somehow life will find a way? If the dinosaurs are able to breed, who is to say that they will no longer become dependent on that isolated element in their food? It's speculative, yes, but it's not impossible. The movie and it's sequels don't openly state that all the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar are dead.
Now if they had just kept that deleted scene in Lost World, I would certainly be on a different page. But as I said about the book, I'm not going to give the film credit for something it didn't use.
You're right. It was a very crappy movie. It tainted my teenage years because that was the first movie I ever saw as a teenager. The only thing liberating about The Lost World was when the Nostalgia Critic reviewed it. And Grant saying "Or the events in San Diego, which I did not witness" was a cheering point for me in JP3.
Riceball
Master Member
While not explained in the movies the books explained that some of the dinos were able to breed because of their hybrid DNA, the amphibian DNA allowed some of the dino species to change sex because that's what the host DNA specie(s) do when in an area where all of the individuals are of one sex. As for the lysene dependency, it's also explained in the books how some species, notably the raptors I believe, were eating lysene rich foods such as beans (I believe) but I think that was towards the end of the book and talking about some of the escaped dinos, mostly small theropods, possibly the raptors.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Well, talking strictly about the movies, yes, it is NEVER explained what happened with the dinos on Isla Nublar. They are simply forgotten and ignored. You'd have to guess what actually happened to them and why they don't make another movie taking place there. Assumption suggests they all died out because of the safe guards that were in place - electrical fence, lysine dependency, extermination by eating each other to death, or natural disaster. Regardless, they are not mentioned. And yes, it's something I've wondered about.
Just because one genetical aberration arose with the dinosaurs due to their spliced-in amphibian DNA causing them to breed does not result in other things changing that are not inherent within that DNA. If it is also explained that those same amphibians used are able to magically alter something like lysine dependency, then that's another matter.
Going further into the absurdity of using DNA material from other animals to create dinosaurs... well... things fall apart very easily... so, seeing as it is a science fiction movie with extended plausibility, let's not go into those.
Also, another thing to ponder. The footprints from the babies coming out of the eggs in the first movie were clearly raptor prints. However, during most of the movie, the raptor pen was still powered. There's no indication that there are more raptors than there are within the pen, so... HOW did raptors get pregnant and lay eggs outside the pen - in fact, outside in the area where the herbivores exist. The prints didn't look like Gallimimus prints as they were two toes (indicating the third was raised) and the Gallimimus has Ostrich - three-toed - prints. THAT's a question I've never seen answered.
However, all this still points to the fact that it was unethical to create the dinosaurs as they would be nothing but sideshow attractions - they were never meant to be free - and they were bred in such a way that they were controlled. THAT is what Malcolm is arguing about - that living, breathing animals are bred solely for entertainment. The fact that he's not raging against zoo's and such in the movie is one thing - he did rage against the notion of manipulated dino pets. He still has a point. Even with humans control over nature and its species... bringing a species back purely as a product to make money off of them is fundamentally wrong.
Every other attempt to resurrect a long dead species or re-introduce a long gone species to the world is to allow them to live free and roam wild. Dinosaurs are just way too big and uncontrollable for that. Which means that they have no natural purpose in this world other than to be someone's plaything and make them rich. That's something most only accept for electrical appliances - not living animals, even though all that is a bit hypocritical considering the whole pet and food industry.
So what's my argument again? Sure, I'd love to see a dinosaur. But honestly, even with genetic manipulation and cloning it won't be much different than the animatronic dinosaurs we see at dinosaur exhibits - they are just as fake. So... when it isn't even the real animal you are getting anyway... why waste the time and eventually tear down ethical notions of what you can and what you shouldn't do.
Just because one genetical aberration arose with the dinosaurs due to their spliced-in amphibian DNA causing them to breed does not result in other things changing that are not inherent within that DNA. If it is also explained that those same amphibians used are able to magically alter something like lysine dependency, then that's another matter.
Going further into the absurdity of using DNA material from other animals to create dinosaurs... well... things fall apart very easily... so, seeing as it is a science fiction movie with extended plausibility, let's not go into those.
Also, another thing to ponder. The footprints from the babies coming out of the eggs in the first movie were clearly raptor prints. However, during most of the movie, the raptor pen was still powered. There's no indication that there are more raptors than there are within the pen, so... HOW did raptors get pregnant and lay eggs outside the pen - in fact, outside in the area where the herbivores exist. The prints didn't look like Gallimimus prints as they were two toes (indicating the third was raised) and the Gallimimus has Ostrich - three-toed - prints. THAT's a question I've never seen answered.
However, all this still points to the fact that it was unethical to create the dinosaurs as they would be nothing but sideshow attractions - they were never meant to be free - and they were bred in such a way that they were controlled. THAT is what Malcolm is arguing about - that living, breathing animals are bred solely for entertainment. The fact that he's not raging against zoo's and such in the movie is one thing - he did rage against the notion of manipulated dino pets. He still has a point. Even with humans control over nature and its species... bringing a species back purely as a product to make money off of them is fundamentally wrong.
Every other attempt to resurrect a long dead species or re-introduce a long gone species to the world is to allow them to live free and roam wild. Dinosaurs are just way too big and uncontrollable for that. Which means that they have no natural purpose in this world other than to be someone's plaything and make them rich. That's something most only accept for electrical appliances - not living animals, even though all that is a bit hypocritical considering the whole pet and food industry.
So what's my argument again? Sure, I'd love to see a dinosaur. But honestly, even with genetic manipulation and cloning it won't be much different than the animatronic dinosaurs we see at dinosaur exhibits - they are just as fake. So... when it isn't even the real animal you are getting anyway... why waste the time and eventually tear down ethical notions of what you can and what you shouldn't do.
Timmythekid
Sr Member
What does "the intent to show the world that Dinosaurs exist again?" this even mean? Was there some doubt that dinosaurs had become extinct? Did anyone not believe that he had done it? Was there ridicule of his ideas? No, there's nothing to support what you seem to be trying to say. All you've argued is that he did it...to do it essentially, which is advancement for the sake of advancement. Oh, and perhaps hubris - great justification there. Look, there's no grand idea on Hammond's side of the equation - he did it because he liked dinosaurs and thought it'd be neat to see them - period. Did you miss "Yeah, but your scientists were so preocupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should!". It addresses the problem right there. There is literally NO justification for the choice to clone the animals, no answer to the 'should' question.
Besides all of this, clearly, it was Hammond's intention that the dinos escape, be free, and breed. Clearly.
Last edited:
tgreco
Sr Member
actually all of that info was covered in the films
though I did always wonder why they would use frog DNA to fill in the gaps when bird DNA would be much more closely related
and the lysene contingency failed because the herbivore dinos ate lysene rich vegetation (they altered their diets) and the carnivores fed on the herbivores
the issue that was never addressed in the films is why the triceratops got ill
in the book, it said that the tri's were getting ill every six weeks because they were accidentally injesting east indian lilac when they were replenish their gastroliths...
personally I can live without a JP4
Still standing by my "No credit" rule, there is an answer to their illness in the script. Since the Triceratops doesn't have any teeth, they use a gizzard stone method of eating. They actually swallow stones that are used to crush food in their stomachs. The issue is that over time, these stones become smooth and the animal regurgitates them out, forcing it to find new, rough stones. What they uncover is that these stones are what's causing them to be sick, because they're in close proximity to the poisonous berries.
Lutso
Sr Member
Simple, because in 1993, dinosaurs were commonly thought to be more closely related to reptiles and amphibians than birds. That concept didn't arise - or at least become household - until several years later (which is why in JP3, the raptors have feathers).
