Jurassic World
- Thread starter Lutso
- Start date
-
- Tags
- jurassic park
TheDoctor
Sr Member
No offense intended, but I'm glad you're not involved with the project.
That just doesn't sound like a "Jurassic Park" movie.
Malphas
Well-Known Member
TheDoctor
Sr Member
I liked all three movies.
I don't understand the "monster movie" comments. Dinosaurs (especially carnivores) ARE monsters. And, yes, carnivores WILL try to kill and eat you, given the chance. I actually think they did some great stuff in 3 by making the raptors chasing NOT about simply eating, but about the egg. I also liked how the Rex rampage was related, not just to killing/eating, but about their offspring.
I really don't know that you're going to be able to bring back the sense of wonder from the original JP. The original came at a perfect time - thanks to digital technology, Spielberg was able to evoke the same sense of wonder that his characters were experiencing on the screen - no one has ever seen "real" dinosaurs like this before. Now digital technology is second nature and everybody has seen it - there's nothing new about seeing "breathing" dinosaurs.
I don't understand the "monster movie" comments. Dinosaurs (especially carnivores) ARE monsters. And, yes, carnivores WILL try to kill and eat you, given the chance. I actually think they did some great stuff in 3 by making the raptors chasing NOT about simply eating, but about the egg. I also liked how the Rex rampage was related, not just to killing/eating, but about their offspring.
I really don't know that you're going to be able to bring back the sense of wonder from the original JP. The original came at a perfect time - thanks to digital technology, Spielberg was able to evoke the same sense of wonder that his characters were experiencing on the screen - no one has ever seen "real" dinosaurs like this before. Now digital technology is second nature and everybody has seen it - there's nothing new about seeing "breathing" dinosaurs.
Onkelpsycho
Sr Member
"They're not monsters, Doctor, they're animals." :lol
And please not again these JP3 raptors... :rolleyes
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
We have ages of National Geographic saying pretty clearly, sure, carnivores eat meat and are opportunistic, but it has to pay off more than they give in the chase. Chasing humans never pays off what such large animals put into the chase. They don't just start chasing people the moment they see them.
In the first film, though they can run fast, the raptors are shown sneaking up on their prey and distracting them while another attacks from the sides.
The crap fest in the second one has the Rexes continue to leave their offspring alone to keep chasing people? I don't know many animals who do that. The raptors in that movie - at least in the book - where suffering from a form of rabies or brain disease that explained their erratic behavior - but sorry, to me none of them were really shown as animals, but rather movie monsters who chase you regardless.
What was interesting with the first one was the repercussions of the cloning. How to keep them alive. The ethical aspects of just leaving them to basically die. Their impact on the nature around them - as it wasn't just animals that were cloned, but plants as well (though, not really spelled out too much in the movie). Not some silly sci-fi cloning horrors of splicing things, but rather genetic contamination - spreading of illnesses the scientist may have accidentally brought back to life as well, and how normal illnesses are deadly and mutate when coming into contact with the cloned species that have no natural defense built up to fight it.
There is no wonder, really, in the other movies: it's just "YAWN, when do we get to the chase scenes already."
But, sadly... most just want the boring chase movie and not something clever.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
LOL... you sneaky *******. 
Lutso
Sr Member
Don't get me wrong, the 2nd movie had high points for sure.
I also recall the scene with the raptors in the tall grass...:love
Or worse, "YAWN, when do we get to the preachy scene where our enlightened heroes tell us how we shouldn't mess with nature?".
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Well, they sorta had the preachy scenes in the first one too, though they never felt out of place, as they absolutely did in the sequels.
Lynn TXP 0369
Sr Member
I liked all three, I can't wait to see the forth.
Lynn
Lynn
EyeofSauron
Master Member
how about jurassic park 4 - the jurassening?
while i dont have any confidence in this, i still hope it will be decent and not as bad as i think
while i dont have any confidence in this, i still hope it will be decent and not as bad as i think
Last edited:
DeLorean12
Active Member
^ Exactly how I feel. JP 2 and especially 3 were not much more than monster chase movies with a plot that can slightly relate back to JP1. The first film is one of my all time favorites.
New characters would be nice, but I would also like to see some of the originals.
trappster
Active Member
Loved JP1, really liked JP2 (don't know why it gets such a bum rap, other than the stupid uneven bars, kicking the Velociraptor in the face scene), and hated JP3.
Hopefully JP4 will incorporate some type of story and character development like JP1 and JP2. I honestly couldn't have cared less if any of the idiot new characters in JP3 were eaten.
Hopefully JP4 will incorporate some type of story and character development like JP1 and JP2. I honestly couldn't have cared less if any of the idiot new characters in JP3 were eaten.
I thought they felt very out of place in the first movie. I mean, look at Hammond was doing. He was bringing Dinosaurs back into existence! And our heroes are debating on whether or not he should? They don't even bring up good arguments either. Malcolm argues in the belief that nature is actually a self-aware entity.
Dr. Ian Malcolm said:
In order for it to be rape, there's gotta be an unwilling participant. There is no sign of any unwillingness in anything, except for our heroes not wanting to get eaten. I didn't see the dead mosquito say no to having it's meal extracted, nor did I see any Dinosaurs say they didn't want to be brought back to life. And all this talk about nature 'selecting' the dinosaurs to become extinct is one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard in a film. They're actually trying to argue that if nature wants you to die, you should die. Well, if messing with nature is equivalent to rape (which is bad), and if nature wants you to die, you should accept your fate and die, why do we have doctors? Why do we have scientists working every day on finding ways around nature?
And the real kicker? All the problems that occurred in this film wasn't because of nature deciding to set the animals loose and kill people. This was about a single person deliberately sabotaging the efforts of controlling these creatures. And when Hammond realizes this, no one else cares. No one cares that it was a human that caused all of this, and not because of Hammond's lack of control over the creatures.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Well, sorry, but that argument doesn't hold water. Just because something doesn't say no, doesn't mean it is a willing participant. When something is unable to speak for itself it need others to speak on its behalf. Willing means acceptance and agreement - spoken out loud. Nature cannot really speak, so you cannot determine whether it is willing or unwilling. That is up to each individual's ethical and moral beliefs to decide.
I don't exactly remember the arguments in the book, but it seemed, as far as I remember, to go for the rights and wrongs of the technology and the use of the technology. I just seemed to think it was made very trunkated and blunt in the movie.
The argument is more valid in the first movie, where this marvel is first revealed rather than later in the other movies where it's been a part of reality for several years. There are ethical reasons for not doing it as well as reasons for doing it. It makes sense that people would be apprehensive regarding the use of the technology purely to build a theme park and to bring back long dead creatures. Hell... just look at the storm raised when Dolly the sheep was created.
And regarding the issue of control. Well, Hammond DIDN'T have control. Not just over the creatures, but his staff - the human element. There's also the mechanical and technical elements. Eventually... those elements may and can fail... and then you have mayhem running amok. Is the risk worth it? That was answered in the movie by Hammond abandoning the park - it was not worth the risk after all, because people died. But that action raised another serious question that really wasn't answered in that movie - the unethical act of creating living, breathing animals only to leave them to die in such a careless and cruel way. Sure, in the book they were bombed into extinction - and that was also mentioned in the deleted scene in the second movie... only to learn there was ANOTHER ****ing island, just completely making Hammond and the company cruel and evil.
I don't exactly remember the arguments in the book, but it seemed, as far as I remember, to go for the rights and wrongs of the technology and the use of the technology. I just seemed to think it was made very trunkated and blunt in the movie.
The argument is more valid in the first movie, where this marvel is first revealed rather than later in the other movies where it's been a part of reality for several years. There are ethical reasons for not doing it as well as reasons for doing it. It makes sense that people would be apprehensive regarding the use of the technology purely to build a theme park and to bring back long dead creatures. Hell... just look at the storm raised when Dolly the sheep was created.
And regarding the issue of control. Well, Hammond DIDN'T have control. Not just over the creatures, but his staff - the human element. There's also the mechanical and technical elements. Eventually... those elements may and can fail... and then you have mayhem running amok. Is the risk worth it? That was answered in the movie by Hammond abandoning the park - it was not worth the risk after all, because people died. But that action raised another serious question that really wasn't answered in that movie - the unethical act of creating living, breathing animals only to leave them to die in such a careless and cruel way. Sure, in the book they were bombed into extinction - and that was also mentioned in the deleted scene in the second movie... only to learn there was ANOTHER ****ing island, just completely making Hammond and the company cruel and evil.
Last edited:
iMan
Well-Known Member
From what I remember, the table scene and Malcolm's arguements were almost word for word from book to the movie. I know he said the "rape of the natural world" line in both.
I need to re-read that book.
Malphas
Well-Known Member
That's just Malcolm being Malcolm.
I think in the book the dinner scene with Hammond made a bit more sense on the "We shouldn't" side. But that's boring.
