Jurassic Park IV

[ShadowFireLance]

Steven Announced that the release date of this movie is June 13th, 2014, So, Who's Excited?

[GenericGuy]

Is it going to be that one with dinosaur/human/dog hybrid super soldiers?:smalltongue:

[MLai]

Are the dinosaurs going to have feathers. This raises 2 opposing problems:

(1) For a franchise that implicitly prided itself on "realistic dinosaurs", not having fully-feathered dinos now that the concept has graced magazines and newspapers, would be like a modern movie still having lizard-like dinosaurs.

(2) But the opposing problem is "reality is unrealistic." Feathered dinos are going to look like funny giant turkeys. Which they are. But that's beside the point. Also, it would conflict with the earlier films to the point of immersion break.

However, the franchise does have a technobabble explanation for it, wisely forseeing the problem I guess. They can say instead of splicing frog DNA, this time they have more advanced techniques and have spliced avian DNA.

[Kitten Champion]

I didn't think Jurassic Park II was at all necessary... or I didn't after seeing it.

I wasn't enthralled by Terra Nova so much, but I would prefer it over this -- it's too redundant a formula, one that never really captured the spirit of the original.

I'm guessing the major selling point will be the 3D.

[Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins]

Easy explanation is that the dinosaurs of the original park only look that way because InGen made them that way to conform to the public perception of the time. The first couple batches probably had feathers before the marketing department swept through.

Also giant velociraptors and dwarf dilophosaurs.

Site B's crested raptors would be descended from an earlier or later batch.

[Avilan the Grey]

I didn't think Jurassic Park II was at all necessary... or I didn't after seeing it.

I wasn't enthralled by Terra Nova so much, but I would prefer it over this -- it's too redundant a formula, one that never really captured the spirit of the original.

I'm guessing the major selling point will be the 3D.

Terra Nova was horrible. Especially the dinos, which were about 40 years behind actual science AND they had to "invent new ones" because the actual ones from the era were not Wolverine enough. :smallsigh:

Plus the story and most characters sucked.

[Kitten Champion]

Terra Nova was horrible. Especially the dinos, which were about 40 years behind actual science AND they had to "invent new ones" because the actual ones from the era were not Wolverine enough. :smallsigh:

Plus the story and most characters sucked.

If the lack of scientific accuracy and integirty in science fiction bothered me, I suspect I'd be terribly disillusioned by the genera right now.

But yes, it was pretty sucky. I just liked the premise, of a time travelling human colony fighting for survival, and hoped against hope that they might eventually invest in writers who were adequate. They could have made it, at minimum, as good as Eureka.

Still better than Jurassic Park II through III though.

[Avilan the Grey]

If the lack of scientific accuracy and integirty in science fiction bothered me, I suspect I'd be terribly disillusioned by the genera right now.

I liked the first 2 episodes because of the great potention of the setting. Then it all fizzled out.

[hamishspence]

Easy explanation is that the dinosaurs of the original park only look that way because InGen made them that way to conform to the public perception of the time. The first couple batches probably had feathers before the marketing department swept through.

Also giant velociraptors and dwarf dilophosaurs.

Giant velociraptor was partly justified by the discovery of Utahraptor partway through filming (much to the relief of would-be palaeontologists on the film team).

The issue of changing the dinosaurs to conform to public expectations does crop up in the book- but Hammond nixes it.

"Amphibian DNA used to fill in the gaps" is a good alternative explanation for the featherless dinosaurs.

[Traab]

I dont see it. Why would there be a 4th jurassic park? Why does that place still effing EXIST?! At this point, the only justification i can think of is, The military has moved in and sealed off the site. The dinos live only because of research opportunities and possible applications. The theme of this movie is a fairly standard "oh god, there is a problem at the labs" type of thing where a team of soldiers gets sent in to mop up the mess. While inside we learn about all the genetic engineering being done there as mutant dinos and various hybrids attack our gun toting soldiers, who resignedly deal with the fact that the site is more important than their lives, which is why they cant "nuke the site from orbit, its the only way to be sure."

But even then its less a jurassic park and more a DOOM style movie or first resident evil type of scenario. Less grandeur as we see the giant dinos, turning to horror as they break loose and kill everything, and more survival horror start to finish.

[mangosta71]

With any luck, 4 will be a reboot. The best thing they could do with the franchise would be ignoring the three movies in favor of making one that follows the original novel. That's pretty much the only way I'll be interested in this project at all.

[Caesar]

Feathered dinos are going to look like funny giant turkeys..

If turkeys or even chickens were giant, the world would be a terrifying place. Ever toss a mouse into a chicken coop?

As for a good plot reason for the continued existance of the island? Chinese spies stole the tech and tried to hatch their own research in Asia. Only, they didnt use an island, they tried to do it in an isolated valley. Dinosaurs get out. Cue godzilla scenes.

[hamishspence]

(2) But the opposing problem is "reality is unrealistic." Feathered dinos are going to look like funny giant turkeys. Which they are. But that's beside the point.

Well- that is what the kid said near the beginning of the first movie, when looking at the raptor skeleton:

"That doesn't look very scary. More like a six-foot turkey."

Cue explanation as to why raptors are scary from Grant.

The Birds could be an interesting source to draw from, to give it a more sinister feel.

[Dscherro]

With any luck, 4 will be a reboot. The best thing they could do with the franchise would be ignoring the three movies in favor of making one that follows the original novel. That's pretty much the only way I'll be interested in this project at all.
This.
I ove both, the novel and the first movie for what they are, but considering the recent trend in making everything darker and edgier a reboot with the plot of the original novel would make sense. AND I could maybe finally see some other pterosaurs than those boring pteranodons (who are always portrayed horribly wrong). At least the cearadactyli from the novel didn't carry any humans away to eat them or crap like that, they were trying to chase them out of their territory with divebombing and biting instead. And they looked much cooler than pteranodons. (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0M8IhV7WxvM/T5siTM4414I/AAAAAAAACYI/hW3roL4GHMY/s1600/Cearadactylus_atrox.jpg)
Also, whats up with Isla Sorna from the movies? Why are the dinosaurs not extinct yet? The island couldn't be bigger than a few square kilometers, how could this ever support stable populations of the seven trillion or so species they decided to add to the movie universe? Really, everything thats left after a few years should be the really small critters, like procompsognathus.

[Saph]

With any luck, 4 will be a reboot. The best thing they could do with the franchise would be ignoring the three movies in favor of making one that follows the original novel.

Thirded. I always thought the book was much better than the film.

[hamishspence]

More variety, more action- Genarro is a hero of sorts, rather than a villain- could definitely see it.

[Kitten Champion]

Not a reboot, a remake maybe, but this isn't a franchise which needs to exists. It simply recycles itself with immediate diminishing returns.

It's like a zombie movie where idiotic people travel -- purposefully -- to zombie island for whatever reason and are apparently shocked by the results.

[Avilan the Grey]

Not a reboot, a remake maybe, but this isn't a franchise which needs to exists.

Which is true for... all movies, ever.

[Kitten Champion]

How very... Zen.

[Ravens_cry]

The trouble is a lot of the wonder is gone. Back then, it really felt spectacular because this was something that really wouldn't have been possible to do in a movie that long before. Now, CGI can do quite close to just about anything if you throw enough money and artists at it.
It just doesn't feel as special any more.

[warty goblin]

The trouble is a lot of the wonder is gone. Back then, it really felt spectacular because this was something that really wouldn't have been possible to do in a movie that long before. Now, CGI can do quite close to just about anything if you throw enough money and artists at it.
It just doesn't feel as special any more.

I think the bigger problem is that Jurassic Park is a one-trick pony. Take dinosaurs, add people, stir and let simmer until all non-major characters have lost at least 25% of their limbs.

Don't get me wrong, it's one hell of a trick, but we've kinda seen it. At this point the only reason to be interested in that it contains dinosaurs - dinosaurs being of course interesting a priori - but then the actual action movie bits just get in the way.

Now if it was called Jurassic Park: In Which a T-Rex Eats Wildlife I'd be thrilled.

[MLai]

Now if it was called Jurassic Park: In Which a T-Rex Eats Wildlife I'd be thrilled.
I'd go watch it, if it was Jurassic Park: Knut & Papa.
Watching the Youtubes of Knut and Dorflein made me cry like a MF, knowing what happened to both of them. ;________;

[Mewtarthio]

Thirded. I always thought the book was much better than the film.

I felt the film did a lot of things right. For instance, I liked film-Hammond's role more: The story works a lot better when the guy behind the park is a kindly old man who just wants to see dinosaurs instead of an arrogant corporate jerk making a short-sighted grab for money. Book-Hammond's archetype is just way too overused, in my opinion.

Plus, the movie is scored by John Williams.

[TheThan]

clearly, Jurassic Park IV needs to be based off of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpuhLkh358Y

either that, or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr2iQ96em2w

[Dscherro]

clearly, Jurassic Park IV needs to be based off of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpuhLkh358Y

either that, or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr2iQ96em2w

Can't we do both?

[dps]

While it was not without flaws, one thing the first movie got right was the thing that it absolutely had to get right--there had to be a sense of wonder about the dinosaurs. All the actors did a good job of showing their characters reacting to the dinosaurs not as something mundane, nor as special effects, but as something incredible. The second film was burdened by a heavy-handed and, frankly, stupid plot, but even worse, there was almost no sense of wonder about it--as one review I saw said, Pete Postlethwaite was the only person in it acting like he was on an island with dinosaurs, and not reading lines on a sound stage. The third film actually had a better plot than the second, with characters that actually had recognizably human motivations for what they were doing, but the dinosaurs were pushed even further out of focus, just becoming obstacles to be overcome. In order to be any good, a fourth film would have to get back to treating the dinosaurs as something astounding, and give humans a damn good reason to be on the island in the first place--and even if it acheives that, it's still not gauranteed to be good.

[Avilan the Grey]

I agree... the first one was... amazing. The plot holes were forgivable mostly because Nedry was an idiot.

The second one, however, just had WAY too many idiot balls just lying around, and the worst part is that it was mostly characters NOT holding the idot balls that died because of them. Seriously.Those idiot balls were bigger than sauropods.

The third one... The biggest problem with this one was the whole spinosaurus subplot.
1. Spinosaurus was most likely a fish eater.
2. A fully grown T-rex would have killed the spinosaur with that neck bite.

Otherwise I enjoyed the third more than the second, because the idiot balls were held by the people who were supposed to be ignorant. Not the "experts" like in the second movie.

[MLai]

I liked King Kong's Adventure In Jurassic Park. The King took on two T. Rexes. That rocked. :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

I liked King Kong's Adventure In Jurassic Park. The King took on two T. Rexes. That rocked. :smallbiggrin:

Three. Not two. :smallcool::smalltongue:

[Karoht]

I would be extremely interested in a Jurassic Park film that followed the dinosaurs more than the people, but I have the same complaint about the Transformers films and... lets face it, that isn't likely to be resolved any time soon.

But, there are approaches they could use.
Example

The dinosaurs are doing something really odd. Any research teams sent in to observe and report, keep going missing and not reporting.
Send in military/hunter team to observe and report.
Drag along nerdy scientist kid.
And of course someone inevitably mistakes it for bring your daughter to work day, so that there is a small child there for no reason.

Now the team of people are just trying to follow the dinos. Their trials are surviving and not drawing too much attention to themselves. The dinos are the real story.

Not likely to see the above made into a film, but I can dream.

My vote is for a reboot as well, and really nail that science and exploration angle.

[Bulldog Psion]

My vote is for a reboot as well, and really nail that science and exploration angle.

That would be great; it's too bad Hollywood doesn't think in those terms, isn't it? :smallfrown:

[Traab]

That would be great; it's too bad Hollywood doesn't think in those terms, isn't it? :smallfrown:

Yep, if they DID reboot it would be to make it darker and grittier. Hammond has designed these dinosaurs to be weapons of war. Fed with the bodies of prisoners, these dino monsters are trained to tear apart anything human they see. It is up to Dr Grant, and his team of mercenary soldiers, to shut this biological weapon factory down before they can be unleashed upon the world. Watch in horror as the standard dinosaurs are dealt with, only to reveal his second generation, dinosaurs with cybernetic attachments! Raptors with fricking laser beams attached to their foreheads! T rex's with chainsaw teeth, those frilled dinos that spit poison, now spit ACID!

[Avilan the Grey]

Yep, if they DID reboot it would be to make it darker and grittier. Hammond has designed these dinosaurs to be weapons of war.

Basically it is all a just a step towards creating Krogan!

[Karoht]

That would be great; it's too bad Hollywood doesn't think in those terms, isn't it? :smallfrown:
They sort of kind of did for Promethius. I mean, yeah it's a prequel intent on taking that world a different direction from the xeno's, but it basically acted as a backdoor reboot, and they were able to focus on that exploration/mystery vibe pretty good.
Not everyone enjoyed that film, but it's proof positive that they can do it.

[Avilan the Grey]

I watched JP II on TV last night (nothing else was on, I can only do so many cooking shows without actually murdering Gordon Ramsey).

God the writing is AWFUL.

I know you all know the plot already but here is a recap:

A group of villains led by a chaos theory guy goes to a dinosaur island where they juggle idiot- and villain balls the size of brontosauruses between them at all times while deliberately getting the heroes killed. Nobody in the group feels bad about causing the death of several people because of their acts of ignorance, malice and downright enviromental terrorism. (Also, let's grab the baby T-rex and even when we realize that's a bad idea let's keep the bloody clothes. Beacuse, idiots).

...What's that? Are we supposed to root for the villains? Oh they are supposed to be the HEROES? Well the writers obviously didn't get the memo. Or they would have written them like well... heroes.

Best scene in the movie is the one where the T-rex eats the dog. Second best is the one where the game hunters shoot the idiots (no wait that didn't happen).

[SaintRidley]

Yep, if they DID reboot it would be to make it darker and grittier. Hammond has designed these dinosaurs to be weapons of war. Fed with the bodies of prisoners, these dino monsters are trained to tear apart anything human they see. It is up to Dr Grant, and his team of mercenary soldiers, to shut this biological weapon factory down before they can be unleashed upon the world. Watch in horror as the standard dinosaurs are dealt with, only to reveal his second generation, dinosaurs with cybernetic attachments! Raptors with fricking laser beams attached to their foreheads! T rex's with chainsaw teeth, those frilled dinos that spit poison, now spit ACID!

Ian's daughter now has a katana and implausible samurai skills just because. Also, she beheads an adult T-Rex in one stroke, again because.

[Avilan the Grey]

Ian's daughter now has a katana and implausible samurai skills just because. Also, she beheads an adult T-Rex in one stroke, again because.

While doing gymnastics. She is also genetically part dinosaur.

[Hopeless]

I watched JP II on TV last night (nothing else was on, I can only do so many cooking shows without actually murdering Gordon Ramsey).

God the writing is AWFUL.

Best scene in the movie is the one where the T-rex eats the dog. Second best is the one where the game hunters shoot the idiots (no wait that didn't happen).

Mine was the bit where the t-rex got his lunch in front of Blockbusters!

Yes all I can say is read the book which made more sense since it is an actual sequel but no Jeff Goldblum or his daughter for that matter as I recall it was to do with that canister a certain IT specialist dropped after he messed up the park's defences allowing the dinosaurs to escape.

They did keep some bits of the book mind you they just thought to make it more interesting for the audience... I think they explained that the failsafe they talked about in the first movie didn't work and some of the dinosaurs survived but they did explain why there was no pterodactyls in the first movie they were released in the second not the third...

God I hope I'm not forgetting something!

[Bulldog Psion]

While doing gymnastics. She is also genetically part dinosaur.

Sadly, this seems more likely than an actually interesting plot. :smallfrown:

[Avilan the Grey]

Mine was the bit where the t-rex got his lunch in front of Blockbusters!

Yes all I can say is read the book which made more sense since it is an actual sequel but no Jeff Goldblum or his daughter for that matter as I recall it was to do with that canister a certain IT specialist dropped after he messed up the park's defences allowing the dinosaurs to escape.

They did keep some bits of the book mind you they just thought to make it more interesting for the audience... I think they explained that the failsafe they talked about in the first movie didn't work and some of the dinosaurs survived but they did explain why there was no pterodactyls in the first movie they were released in the second not the third...

God I hope I'm not forgetting something!

Well first of all the failsafe was bad writing to begin with, since almost no animals can produce that protein to begin with and most edible plants on earth do produce it. Basically the scientiests reproduce a deficiency not only most likely already there (birds today has it naturally AFAIR) but that they, themselves, have already. They should know it doesn't work as a failsafe. Or they, themselves would be dead.

As for the Pteranodons: the most likely explanation is that the bird cage was already broken by the end of the second movie (the third one takes place on the same island as the second one, doesn't it?) but the characters are unaware of that fact. It might have a hole somewhere close to the bottom, where it is unlikely that the flyers would find it so only very few escaped.


Sadly, this seems more likely than an actually interesting plot. :smallfrown:

I can see it now: Malcolm's youngest son is constantly hitting him with a frying pan yelling "Not The Mama!".

[Hopeless]

I can see it now: Malcolm's youngest son is constantly hitting him with a frying pan yelling "Not The Mama!".

And I see Sam Neill's character looking over and shaking his head saying,"Is there anything you won't hit on?":smallbiggrin:

[Traab]

Ian's daughter now has a katana and implausible samurai skills just because. Also, she beheads an adult T-Rex in one stroke, again because.

No, thats hammonds granddaughter. He has been working to improve her ever since he figured out how to splice genetic material. Its a combo of island of doctor moreau, and that crippled guys daughter from the resident evil movie.

[Gnoman]

Well first of all the failsafe was bad writing to begin with, since almost no animals can produce that protein to begin with and most edible plants on earth do produce it. Basically the scientiests reproduce a deficiency not only most likely already there (birds today has it naturally AFAIR) but that they, themselves, have already. They should know it doesn't work as a failsafe. Or they, themselves would be dead.


Not sure if it's bad writing, or simply another way of showing "they don't know as much as they think they do", which was a major theme of the original book.

[Kitten Champion]

I'm sorry, but if you've successfully cloned dinosaurs -- you aren't getting a B- in biology anytime soon.

I think the Frankenstein-complex might be the most annoying SF-trope, aside from Eaglelanders saving the world from evil aliens. Too much plot convenient idiot balls have to be passed around for the whole hubris motif to come about. Besides they all miss the point Shelley was making, the science isn't evil, man's inability to take responsibility for their actions is.

[Mewtarthio]

Most of Crichton's work never really goes into "science is evil"; it's more along the lines of "unrestrained greed is evil," with science being the tool that lets the greedy people indulge their acquisitive natures without restraint. For instance, the book explicitly points out that Hammond could have used his technology to revolutionize the world of medicine instead of dino-cloning, but that he deliberately chose to build a ludicrous tourist attraction because he thought there was more money in that. The problem with Jurassic Park isn't that man is inherently hubristic and should never play God in such a manner, it's that using godlike powers on something so banal* is selfish and short-sighted and probably a very good sign that you shouldn't have godlike powers in the fist place.

*Not that resurrecting the dinosaurs is banal, but "making lots of money" is.

[Kitten Champion]

Hammond could have used his technology to revolutionize the world of medicine instead of dino-cloning, but that he deliberately chose to build a ludicrous tourist attraction because he thought there was more money in that.


So, he's stupid?

[Lord Seth]

The first Jurassic Park was good.

The second was kind of stupid. People have already pointed out all the idiot balls, but there's also the fact the heroes are responsible for every death that occurs, and the completely absurd final act where the T. Rex rampages around California.

The third one was a dumb action movie, but unlike the second, I get the feeling it knew it was just trying to be a dumb action movie, so it turned out a lot better.

[hamishspence]

The second was kind of stupid. People have already pointed out all the idiot balls, but there's also the fact the heroes are responsible for every death that occurs,

Don't know about every death- the deaths caused by the T-Rexes, maybe- but the soldier that died to compys did so more because of incompetence on his on part, and that of his teammate (listening to loud music on headphones and unable to hear any cries for help.

[Avilan the Grey]

Not sure if it's bad writing, or simply another way of showing "they don't know as much as they think they do", which was a major theme of the original book.

But wasn't the lysine thing even in the book? Hence bad writing from the get-go.


Don't know about every death- the deaths caused by the T-Rexes, maybe- but the soldier that died to compys did so more because of incompetence on his on part, and that of his teammate (listening to loud music on headphones and unable to hear any cries for help.

Actually I do think the "heroes" are directly responsible for all deaths except Peter Stormare's (the compy's). He had an idiot ball all of his own. Everything else can be traced directly to the "heroes" and their idiot-ball juggling.

The thing that irritates me the most though is that the people that really should have been killed; the "animal behavior specialist" and the "greenpeace dude" never faces any consequences for their idiocracy. The little girl is dumb, but not unbelievably so; she is only what? 12?

[hamishspence]

Everything else can be traced directly to the "heroes" and their idiot-ball juggling.

Imagine they had not been there- is it at all plausible that the hunters would have managed to achieve what they wanted (including shooting a T. Rex, in their leader's case) without deaths?

[Turcano]

Seeing how The Lost World was terrible and Jurassic Park 3 was worse than deep-fried tampons, I am not at all excited for another sequel. In fact, my reaction to this thread was one of great unease.

[Avilan the Grey]

Imagine they had not been there- is it at all plausible that the hunters would have managed to achieve what they wanted (including shooting a T. Rex, in their leader's case) without deaths?

Yes. Seriously. Maybe Stormare's character would have died anyway because anyone realizing you don't sneak away to pee but stay within visual range of friends...

But yes, seriously.

Also I must add... the question is kind of odd, since wether or not they would have is irrelevant to my original statement. The "heroes" actions do not get any better, smarter or more justified because some of the hunters might have died anyway.


Seeing how The Lost World was terrible and Jurassic Park 3 was worse than deep-fried tampons, I am not at all excited for another sequel. In fact, my reaction to this thread was one of great unease.

I agree with the gist of this but I disagree with the ranking of quality. 3 was superior to 2 in all ways.

[hamishspence]

Also I must add... the question is kind of odd, since wether or not they would have is irrelevant to my original statement. The "heroes" actions do not get any better, smarter or more justified because some of the hunters might have died anyway.


True- but it might be relevant to how directly deaths can be tied to them rather than incompetence on the part of the hunters.

The deaths in San Diego, at least, can't be- they weren't the ones taking the T. rex off the island.

[Avilan the Grey]

True- but it might be relevant to how directly deaths can be tied to them rather than incompetence on the part of the hunters.

The deaths in San Diego, at least, can't be- they weren't the ones taking the T. rex off the island.

True. The reason they took the T-rex though is because they couldn't bring a herbivore anymore due to the sabotages from the heroes and needed to recuperate their losses somehow.
So the heroes were not directly the cause in this instance but they were the root of the problem. The original "shopping list" for the hunters did not include the T-rex OR the raptors, only herbivores AFAIR. Thanks to all the sabotages they had to change plans.

The other deaths that I remember (not counting the compys)...

The raptors in the grass (and afterwards)? They had to flee the T-rex because mr Karma Houdini steals the ammo from the "evil" hunter so they cannot defend themselves and ended up running into the grass in a panic. (I was really disappointed when I saw the movie the first time in the theatre that he never got a Karmatic Death for all the lives and suffering he caused others through the film. He really is either truly Evil, or really really dumb).

The guy under the waterfall? Same reason as above.

The fat guy in the jeep? Death because mr Karma Houdini picks up and drags along a T-rex baby to the trailer.

The whole T-Rex stalking issue? Directly the result of Ms "Bimbo who thinks she knows stuff but was almost crushed by Stegos in her first scene" dragging along a blooded vest filled with T-rex baby blood. (Btw how, on earth, did she manage to survive over a month alone on the island with the brain capacity of a 7 year old? Or do the camera emit a "stupid-field" that makes characters lose IQ when they are the center of a scene?)

[hamishspence]

True. The reason they took the T-rex though is because they couldn't bring a herbivore anymore due to the sabotages from the heroes and needed to recuperate their losses somehow.
So the heroes were not directly the cause in this instance but they were the root of the problem. The original "shopping list" for the hunters did not include the T-rex OR the raptors, only herbivores AFAIR. Thanks to all the sabotages they had to change plans.

In this case they might be "partly responsible" but not "liable".

If the families of the people who died in San Diego were to sue- I think that they'd have the most chance of winning if they were to sue Hammond's nephew (had he survived) or the hunters- not Nick or Sarah.

I could see the families of the hunters pressing charges against Nick, or trying to sue him in civil court, after all accounts of events had been made.

[Killer Angel]

So, he's stupid?

With great power...
Hammond was blinded by its own greediness and a god-like feeling.
To quote Malcolm on the engineers that worked on the project: "They don’t have intelligence. They have what I call thintelligence. They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it ‘being focused.’ They don’t see the surround. They don’t see the consequences".

In the book, John Hammond is the villain of the story, not the "Walt Disney wannabe" that we saw in the film.

[Avilan the Grey]

In this case they might be "partly responsible" but not "liable".

I could see the families of the hunters pressing charges against Nick, or trying to sue him in civil court, after all accounts of events had been made.

Yes, there is a difference between legally liable and actually responsible. And yes, this would cause a chain of suing, I think.

Also, the second reason they picked the T-rex was that it was already tranquelized (the main hunter guy had to shoot it with the tranquelizers because he had no real bullets).

(also, WOG: He also shot it twice, forcing the people on the boat to administer emergency procedures on it, or it would have died. Unfortunately they added TOO MUCH stimulant so it went hyper instead. Unfortunately a cut scene, because it would have explained a lot).

[Kitten Champion]

With great power...
Hammond was blinded by its own greediness and a god-like feeling.
To quote Malcolm on the engineers that worked on the project: "They don’t have intelligence. They have what I call thintelligence. They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it ‘being focused.’ They don’t see the surround. They don’t see the consequences".

In the book, John Hammond is the villain of the story, not the "Walt Disney wannabe" that we saw in the film.

No, that still doesn't make sense. However dense you may be, if your motivation is to make money and you have biotech on the level only dreamed of in science fiction, there are plenty of ways to make yourself incomprehensibly rich. Simpler, cheaper, and far more useful ideas for such sophisticated technology than forming an obscure theme-park on a remote tropical island using bioengineered pseudo-dinosaurs as the main attraction. One that would inevitably only cater to One Percenters with the scratch to travel and stay there. and probably not for very long. You can get bored of anything, including dinosaurs.

This is like developing the first jet engine -- 20 to 30 years before anyone thought it could even come close to happening -- and then using that knowledge exclusively to sell a line of very expensive jet packs. Whimsical certainly, and you might earn a bit of money, but at no point do you think someone would say "yeah... no, that's asinine" and list other more profitable uses.

Hammond as an eccentric yet benevolent rich dude makes sense, he isn't putting forth a business strategy but a childish dream. He's kooky as Willy Wonka, but I can understand an obsession. A greedy person is usually not the most creative out-of-the-box thinker, because they don't care about what they're doing so long that they get more out of it than they put in.

[hamishspence]

Could have been a bit of both- the park was the "showcase" to get people's attention and lead to making money via genetech other ways- pets, marketing to the military, and so forth.

[Hopeless]

With great power...
Hammond was blinded by its own greediness and a god-like feeling.
To quote Malcolm on the engineers that worked on the project: "They don’t have intelligence. They have what I call thintelligence. They see the immediate situation. They think narrowly and they call it ‘being focused.’ They don’t see the surround. They don’t see the consequences".

In the book, John Hammond is the villain of the story, not the "Walt Disney wannabe" that we saw in the film.

He also died in the book version as I recall...

[hamishspence]

Yup. So did Malcolm- but in the sequel this was changed and Malcolm survived - he was only mostly dead :smallamused:

[Kitten Champion]

Could have been a bit of both- the park was the "showcase" to get people's attention and lead to making money via genetech other ways- pets, marketing to the military, and so forth.

If you could revolutionize medicine -- clone organs, tissue, and people. -- who'd care? Some products sell themselves without excessively contrived and expensive ploys, these definitely would. Cloning domesticated pets would be a snap, no dinosaurs involved.

I doubt any military would be best pleased that their potential bio-engineered killing machines are available to be viewed by the paying public, even less so for them to be kept on a private island. People who do such things tend to be Bond villains, not military contractors.

Reviving dinosaurs for modern zoos and theme parks might come up -- just as robots eventually developed into animatronics for the entertainment and tourism industry -- but this would be extremely low on the priority list for the Scrooge McDuck's of the world. Probably.

Again, he's stupid,

[hamishspence]

It's possible Michael Crichton is not that good at psychology.

Still, a greedy person with a childish dream isn't all that implausible- greedy people can dream too.

[Kitten Champion]

It's possible Michael Crichton is not that good at psychology.

Still, a greedy person with a childish dream isn't all that implausible- greedy people can dream too.

Sure, but that would put him more into the Disney-fied version than the callous corporate douchebag with dollar signs dancing in his eyes. The park would be an end in itself, not just a means to the end of making filthy lucre.

[hamishspence]

The book version did seem a bit obsessed with making the dinosaurs as "real" as possible- unwilling to listen to Wu's suggestions of making them physically slower.

Conversely- a case could be made that the movie version had a greedy streak- it just wasn't as overt.

Maybe the book and movie versions of Hammond aren't as different as they would appear on the surface?

[mangosta71]

He also died in the book version as I recall...
Yup. There was a LOT more death in the book. If you recall the boat in the movie that evacuated the staff before the crisis occurred... in the book, that didn't happen, as there was no reason to evacuate yet because the crisis hadn't occurred. And there was a much larger staff working frantically trying to get the park back online. Damn near everybody died. If you recall the helicopter evacuation at the end, half of the characters in that scene in the movie were dead in the book - Grant, Sattler, and the kids were pretty much the only survivors.

I've mentioned this before on the forums, but in the book the raptors were scary as hell. Big part of that was that there were bunches of them (37 iirc). Multiple packs, you never knew when they were gonna pop up. The movie makes a big deal about Grant finding raptor eggs on the island, but nothing ever comes of that - there are never more than the 3 they started with. (And seriously, one coming along and killing most of the rest? Doesn't make sense - no animal does that. It might fight and kill the alpha of the pack to establish dominance, but the only others that die would be the alpha's offspring, which doesn't apply in this case.)

If you think the movie was good, I recommend you read the book. Just the first book, though - the second was a silly bit of retconning that makes no sense in the context of the novel, but they forced Crichton to write it so they could make another movie "based on" one of his novels.

[hamishspence]

Just the first book, though - the second was a silly bit of retconning that makes no sense in the context of the novel, but they forced Crichton to write it so they could make another movie "based on" one of his novels.

A case could be made, that the park is way too small to support the cloning of that many animals- hence there must be a proper cloning facility elsewhere.

[Karoht]

I always got the impression that the park was created more out of desire for legacy than just cash. Mind you any park of that scale will always be about ROI rather than just the awesomeness of it's attractions.
Still, to spend, what, 30 years researching dino-cloning to just build a theme park? The premise seemed a touch odd from the onset.

Again, I'm more interested to see if they can make a Jurassic Park film that doesn't rely on dinos as monsters, but since that seems to be the schtick of the entire franchise, my expectations are rather low.

[Traab]

It's possible Michael Crichton is not that good at psychology.

Still, a greedy person with a childish dream isn't all that implausible- greedy people can dream too.

Except was it greed? In the books did hammond keep repeating that "spared no expense" line? I always took that as a sign that greed had nothing to do with it. He had his dream, and he wanted to make it as perfect and excellent and wonderful as he could. If a concrete block would do, he would replace it with carved and shaped concrete to look beautiful. If a cafeteria was good, one with 5 star chefs is better. Everything had to be as good as possible and money was no object. He wasnt worried about profit, he wanted to share this amazing thing with people. HE HAD BROUGHT BACK DINOSAURS! I mean holy &*^$% this is incredible! I want everyone to see this! And whats more, I want everything about this experience to be incredible. *&^%*profit!

[hamishspence]

Nedry: "Don't get cheap on me, Dodgson. That was Hammond's mistake."

Hammond to Nedry, when he hints that he's grossly underpaid:
"I don't blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them."

[Traab]

Nedry: "Don't get cheap on me, Dodgson. That was Hammond's mistake."

Hammond to Nedry, when he hints that he's grossly underpaid:
"I don't blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them."

Yeah, but was nedry honestly underpaid? Or was he just a fat greedy bastard out to squeeze as much cash from the cow as he could manage?

[hamishspence]

Who knows? The dialogue seems to imply some kind of "mistake" on Nedry's part in the past.

The book also showed a bit more of Hammond's early career- with him using a natural dwarf elephant to convince people that he could genetically engineer dwarf elephants.

[Drascin]

Yeah, but was nedry honestly underpaid? Or was he just a fat greedy bastard out to squeeze as much cash from the cow as he could manage?

The book hints a lot that the "spared no expense" thing only applied to the parts that were to be seen by the general public. Hammond was misering the hell out of the underbelly of the project and spending all the money on the visible parts.

[Traab]

The book hints a lot that the "spared no expense" thing only applied to the parts that were to be seen by the general public. Hammond was misering the hell out of the underbelly of the project and spending all the money on the visible parts.

Hmm, that would explain the total lack of security beyond electric fences. Seriously? THAT is your big way to protect people? Anchor chain sized electric fencing? It might keep a t rex from brushing up against it more than once, but if he sees a big tasty human on the other side and charges, thats an awful lot of force being brought to bear. Why do you think so many lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) cages at zoos tend to have double walls and/or be in pits?

[Karoht]

Hmm, that would explain the total lack of security beyond electric fences. Seriously? THAT is your big way to protect people? Anchor chain sized electric fencing? It might keep a t rex from brushing up against it more than once, but if he sees a big tasty human on the other side and charges, thats an awful lot of force being brought to bear. Why do you think so many lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) cages at zoos tend to have double walls and/or be in pits?
I was at the zoo on saturday, and I saw a monkey walljump to get to a higher branch. I'm pretty sure said monkey could probably parkour his way out of the enclosure, if it didn't have a top on it.

Now I'm picturing a T-Rex parkouring. Thanks for that Traab.

[mangosta71]

Yes, the park was meant to be a tourist attraction for extremely wealthy clients. The type of clientele he was expecting would be used to 5-star accommodations and dining, hence he "spared no expense" on the things that they would experience. They even make reference to that in the movie - "we can charge whatever we want and people will pay it." Book Hammond doesn't have a philanthropic comeback about how he wants everyone to be able to visit his little petting zoo. Also, wanting to automate the whole thing to run on minimal staff? That line's been used since the Industrial Revolution to pinch pennies. It's more subtle in the movie, but yes, Hammond is all about raking in the dolla dolla bills, y'all.

[Avilan the Grey]

Yeah, but was nedry honestly underpaid? Or was he just a fat greedy bastard out to squeeze as much cash from the cow as he could manage?

Depends on how you look at it, I think.

I got the impression that Nedry first of all deliberately offered his services for below market price (the first comment he makes in that discussion, something along the lines of "nobody else can do this to the price I am charging you) but then gets greedy and starts to re-negotiate the terms (begs for more money than he signed on for).

[Traab]

Yes, the park was meant to be a tourist attraction for extremely wealthy clients. The type of clientele he was expecting would be used to 5-star accommodations and dining, hence he "spared no expense" on the things that they would experience. They even make reference to that in the movie - "we can charge whatever we want and people will pay it." Book Hammond doesn't have a philanthropic comeback about how he wants everyone to be able to visit his little petting zoo. Also, wanting to automate the whole thing to run on minimal staff? That line's been used since the Industrial Revolution to pinch pennies. It's more subtle in the movie, but yes, Hammond is all about raking in the dolla dolla bills, y'all.

Yes he did, in the movie, as the lawyer was rhapsodizing over how much money they could charge, hammond was talking about how he wanted the park to be accessible to more than just the filthy rich, and lawyer boy fired off a glib, "well then we can have some sort of "family day" or "coupon" for that, hur hur" (Yes he said hur hur, or maybe it was heh heh, I dont care, the man was a dink) Basically blowing off what hammond was after. I got the feeling he let it go because this discussion wasnt about ticket prices but about the safety of the park. But meh, I may have missed the subtext.

[Welf]

Ian's daughter now has a katana and implausible samurai skills just because. Also, she beheads an adult T-Rex in one stroke, again because.

And from inside.


Seeing how The Lost World was terrible and Jurassic Park 3 was worse than deep-fried tampons, I am not at all excited for another sequel. In fact, my reaction to this thread was one of great unease.

#3 was kind of average, but an okay film if you didn't have anything better to do imho


No, that still doesn't make sense. However dense you may be, if your motivation is to make money and you have biotech on the level only dreamed of in science fiction, there are plenty of ways to make yourself incomprehensibly rich. Simpler, cheaper, and far more useful ideas for such sophisticated technology than forming an obscure theme-park on a remote tropical island using bioengineered pseudo-dinosaurs as the main attraction. One that would inevitably only cater to One Percenters with the scratch to travel and stay there. and probably not for very long. You can get bored of anything, including dinosaurs.

This is like developing the first jet engine -- 20 to 30 years before anyone thought it could even come close to happening -- and then using that knowledge exclusively to sell a line of very expensive jet packs. Whimsical certainly, and you might earn a bit of money, but at no point do you think someone would say "yeah... no, that's asinine" and list other more profitable uses.

Hammond as an eccentric yet benevolent rich dude makes sense, he isn't putting forth a business strategy but a childish dream. He's kooky as Willy Wonka, but I can understand an obsession. A greedy person is usually not the most creative out-of-the-box thinker, because they don't care about what they're doing so long that they get more out of it than they put in.

Well, out it that way:


Disney's parks-and-resorts unit led the way among the company's divisions in terms of percentage gains for both quarterly and annual profit and revenue. Its fourth-quarter operating profit totaled $497 million, an 18 percent increase from a year ago, on a 9 percent increase in revenue to $3.4 billion. For the year, operating profit jumped 22 percent to $1.9 billion, as revenue rose 10 percent to $12.9 billion. Source (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-11-08/news/os-disney-earnings-4th-quarter-20121108_1_iger-record-revenue-theme-parks)

Half a billion is a lot of money. Back in the 80s - when the book was written - Michael Eisner saved Disney with a simple trick: he increased ticket prices. And people still paid. Theme parks are a money source. And since this park has limited capacities, he can focus on rich customers and get an even higher profit per ticket. And there's merchandising, TV and movie rights, later spin-offs and and and. And that without the risks and regulations of the health care industry.


Now I'm picturing a T-Rex parkouring. Thanks for that Traab.

THAT would be one extra-scary T-Rex.

[Turcano]

I agree with the gist of this but I disagree with the ranking of quality. 3 was superior to 2 in all ways.

To each his own, I guess. Environmentally-motivated stupidity is a fairly common thing in this kind of movie, but communicating with velociraptors by playing a 3D-printer copy of a velociraptor nasal cavity like a recorder is a very special kind of stupid.

[Kitten Champion]

And from inside.
Half a billion is a lot of money. Back in the 80s - when the book was written - Michael Eisner saved Disney with a simple trick: he increased ticket prices. And people still paid. Theme parks are a money source. And since this park has limited capacities, he can focus on rich customers and get an even higher profit per ticket. And there's merchandising, TV and movie rights, later spin-offs and and and. And that without the risks and regulations of the health care industry.


Lipitor, Pfizer's cholesterol medication, make 12 billion annually and is just one drug -- and this level of biotech makes pharma look antiquated. A bit of red tape? Again, who cares?

That's not even scratching the surface of the possible applications -- bio engineering can (and is) applying to industrial processes, military technology, food production, and the development of new forms of energy (advanced biofuels). On this level? Of reviving dinosaurs? You're talking about an innovation on par with the wheel, gunpowder, the steam engine, flight, or computers here. That's the import of this. Half a billion? Seriously?

Let's ignore that for a moment.

Disney's parks don't require decades of research and ungodly amounts of money to start. Even if you discount that, given the expense of operating a private island without access to existing infrastructure, maintaining a zoo with dinosaurs, and providing all the amenities of a hotel resort, you've got quite a budget to balance there. I wouldn't be surprised if they're nearing the price point Russia has for civilians to land a place on the Soyuz.

Disney is something a middle class family can afford comfortably, even with the raised ticket prices. They can profit from the park because they deal with huge volumes of people, charge for most of everything, and aren't stupid.

Why am I arguing this? I mean, it's obvious...isn't it?

[Avilan the Grey]

To each his own, I guess. Environmentally-motivated stupidity is a fairly common thing in this kind of movie, but communicating with velociraptors by playing a 3D-printer copy of a velociraptor nasal cavity like a recorder is a very special kind of stupid.

Well yes. But to me it was less irritating since it was a single occurance and it wasn't "communicating" on a higher level anyway. It's done in real life too.

[Dscherro]

To each his own, I guess. Environmentally-motivated stupidity is a fairly common thing in this kind of movie, but communicating with velociraptors by playing a 3D-printer copy of a velociraptor nasal cavity like a recorder is a very special kind of stupid.
He, reminds me of Mike J's review of JP 3 (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/mjtv/ss/37971-shameful-sequels-jurassic-park-3), where he subbed the raptors' "dialogue".

One thing I always found amusing in JP 2 (movie): the "good" guys claim to protect nature, despite the dinosaurs are artificially created invasive species that probably destroyed Isla Sornas ecosystem. The very real thread of some escaping to the mainland and causing more environmental catastrophes never occurs to them (and dinos in JP seem to be quite hardy and adaptable). Especially the small species are a hazard. Because realistically there should not be enough members of the bigger species for a stable breeding population anyway.

[Karoht]

Mix one part crazy old guy
one part DINOSAURS ARE AWESOME childish joy
one part 'it can make decently large sums of money'
one part 'I am going to die some day soon and want to leave a legacy and a revenue stream for my heirs'

And you sort of kind of get the motivation that Hammond seems to have. I'm willing to handwave it because he is an old guy hanging out with his grandkids, dinosaurs are indeed awesome (if kitty brain is a thing, and puppy brain is a thing, I imagine dino brain is a thing too) bringing dinosaurs back from the dead is one of those prestige projects that attracts investors just because you did it first. And hey, dinosaurs.
, old guy instincts wanting to leave a legacy, and in order to secure funding it had to make money in the first place. If I was an old guy with cloning tech nearing the end of my life, aside from doing things like cloning myself (which I'm pretty sure Robin Cook wrote a few other books on that topic) I would want to do something fun as well.

Plus, I imagine that InGen had other projects going on. A biotech company placing all of its raptor eggs in one basket? Highly unlikely. (unless that is stated in the books, in which case I retract that assertion).


InGen:
"We brought back the Dinosaurs.
Beat that Microsoft!"

[Mewtarthio]

Why am I arguing this? I mean, it's obvious...isn't it?

It's perfectly obvious. Thing is, the book isn't exactly a well-researched treatise on economics that intends to put forth a practical argument on the risks and benefits of resurrecting dinosaurs. It's a thriller about dinosaurs that eat people due to corporate greed with a bit of handwaving to make the greed seem at least somewhat plausible. Or, if you want to be more scholarly, it's an allegory about the dangers of corporate greed with the more subtle negative externalities represented in an obvious, exaggerated fashion as gigantic man-eating dinosaurs running amok. Either way, Crichton just needs to justify it enough that I can suspend my disbelief (which I'm quite ready to do, because dinosaurs).

[Kitten Champion]

It's perfectly obvious. Thing is, the book isn't exactly a well-researched treatise on economics that intends to put forth a practical argument on the risks and benefits of resurrecting dinosaurs. It's a thriller about dinosaurs that eat people due to corporate greed with a bit of handwaving to make the greed seem at least somewhat plausible. Or, if you want to be more scholarly, it's an allegory about the dangers of corporate greed with the more subtle negative externalities represented in an obvious, exaggerated fashion as gigantic man-eating dinosaurs running amok. Either way, Crichton just needs to justify it enough that I can suspend my disbelief (which I'm quite ready to do, because dinosaurs).

I recognize that, but I think the aforementioned points would lead to movie Hammond being a more believable character with a motive that doesn't stretch you nearly so far (because dinosaurs). However, the connotations change as a result, leading back to my point about the Frankenstein complex, and my vexation with it.

[Bhu]

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2013/02/19/jurassic-park-4-kennedy/

[Hopeless]

I was at the zoo on saturday, and I saw a monkey walljump to get to a higher branch. I'm pretty sure said monkey could probably parkour his way out of the enclosure, if it didn't have a top on it.
Now I'm picturing a T-Rex parkouring. Thanks for that Traab.

Now I'm picturing the T-Rex pouncing after a certain green clad archer, thank for that!:smallbiggrin:

[JustSomeGuy]

I watched jp1 last night, and a line of dialogue struck me as a little odd. It was when nedry was talking with the rival company guy: he says that in 15 minutes (how long he shuts down the park for to esc with the embryos), the other company will catch up on 10 years of research... So either they were a rival team who couldn't get off the ground, or they're latecomers to the game trying to muscle in. Perhaps it ain't I'mportant to film one, but o think a mysterious rival setup would make a better start point for film 4 than some other reserve hammond island. Just to allow asome creator ity I'm the plot if nothing else

[Drascin]

Hmm, that would explain the total lack of security beyond electric fences. Seriously? THAT is your big way to protect people? Anchor chain sized electric fencing? It might keep a t rex from brushing up against it more than once, but if he sees a big tasty human on the other side and charges, thats an awful lot of force being brought to bear. Why do you think so many lions, tigers, and bears (oh my) cages at zoos tend to have double walls and/or be in pits?

Yeah.

Oh, also, on the Nedry thing, I've been rereading the book a bit, and he has a much better reason to be angry there. Basically, Hammond was straight-up the kind of thing every software engineer dreads. Nedry never got actual details for what the things he programmed were supposed to be used for, just "design a database with X field entries", "prepare an animal control program", and so on - and then when things didn't work exactly to the especifications he was never given, Hammond would yell at him and force him to "fix it" without additional pay. His entire several-day visit to the island would have been unpaid overtime, basically.

I can understand he'd be a tad miffed and willing to screw over the big company after a couple years of that.

[Bhu]

http://www.ifc.com/fix/2013/02/laura-dern-talks-jurassic-park-4

[Bhu]

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/hooray-humans-jurassic-park-4-director-choice-means-214542292.html

The film finally has a director

[Iamyourking]

Damn near everybody died. If you recall the helicopter evacuation at the end, half of the characters in that scene in the movie were dead in the book - Grant, Sattler, and the kids were pretty much the only survivors.

I'm sorry since this was a while ago, but that simply isn't true. "The soldiers pushed Grant and Ellie and Gennaro into seats... Tim and Lex waved to him... Grant leaned to Muldoon who shouted 'They've already taken off Harding and some workmen'" (396-397). That's Grant, Ellie, Tim, Lex, Gennaro, Muldoon, and Harding while the movie is Grant, Ellie, Tim, Lex, Hammond, and Malcolm.
Certainly more people died, since in the book Regis, Nedry, Arnold, Hammond, Malcolm and Wu died while in the movie it was Gennaro, Nedry, Arnold, and Muldoon, but seven alive, six dead isn't significantly worse than six alive, five dead. In fact, it's only 1% worse! (53% survival rate vs. 54% or 53 vs. 61 if you want to count Harding and Wu as characters in the movie and assume that they survived)

[Wardog]

Hmm, that would explain the total lack of security beyond electric fences. Seriously? THAT is your big way to protect people? Anchor chain sized electric fencing?

If I remember the book right (it's been a very long time since I read it), that was covered.

The hunter/game keeper chap had told Hammond in no uncertain terms "You have big f-off dinosaurs here. We need big f-off guns, just in case we need to take them down".

Hammond was reluctant ("What? Shoot my dinosaurs? Why would we ever want to do that?"), but had eventually been persuaded to have some heavier weapons (including a rocket launcher) in the armoury.

When the game-keeper was going out to rescue the others/fix the power, he fitted the rocket-launcher to his jeep. Unfortunately, while he was off getting some other gear, that was the jeep Nedry stole.



clearly, Jurassic Park IV needs to be based off of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpuhLkh358Y

either that, or this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr2iQ96em2w
Or alternatively, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEN9cU7ajr0

[Avilan the Grey]

Nedry: "Don't get cheap on me, Dodgson. That was Hammond's mistake."

Hammond to Nedry, when he hints that he's grossly underpaid:
"I don't blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them."

We don't know exactly what happened beforehand, but to me it seems part of it wasn't that Nedry was underpaid as much as that he had first offered his services to a lower price than the competition and then tried to get a raise after the fact.

But yes, there is also a hint that he either screwed up THERE and had to take a pay cut to keep his job, or Hammond was aware of his mistakes in the past and offered him a job, but to a (for being what he is) a low pay (I am sure he still earned a lot of money).

Spielberg also changed Hammond's personality. In the book, the line "Spared No Expense!" is for the eyecandy. He is also a much less likeable character (and gets eaten by Compys as the end of it).
In the film he genuinely is an excentric billionare who adores his grandchildren and have happened to have managed to produce the greatest Zoo the world will ever see. And is butting heads with everyone else because he have actually saved no expense and wants everyone in the world to be able to afford to come watch.

[Gnoman]

We don't know exactly what happened beforehand, but to me it seems part of it wasn't that Nedry was underpaid as much as that he had first offered his services to a lower price than the competition and then tried to get a raise after the fact.

But yes, there is also a hint that he either screwed up THERE and had to take a pay cut to keep his job, or Hammond was aware of his mistakes in the past and offered him a job, but to a (for being what he is) a low pay (I am sure he still earned a lot of money).


Some relevant quotes:


"Sorry," Nedry said. "I can't." And he had gone back and designed the control systems. It had taken him and his programming team more than a year, and it was especially difficult because the company wouldn't ever tell him what the subsystems were for. The instructions were simply "Design a module for record keeping" or "Design a module for visual display." They gave him design parameters, but no details about use. He had been working in the dark. And now that the system was up and running, he wasn't surprised to learn there were bugs. What did they expect? And they'd ordered him down here in a panic, all hot and bothered about "his" bugs. It was annoying, Nedry thought.


And partly it was insurance for the future. Nedry was annoyed with the Jurassic Park project; late in the schedule, InGen had demanded extensive modifications to the system but hadn't been willing to pay for them, arguing they should be included under the original contract. Lawsuits were threatened; letters were written to Nedry's other clients, implying that Nedry was unreliable. It was blackmail, and in the end Nedry had been forced to eat his overages on Jurassic Park and to make the changes that Hammond wanted.

But later, when he was approached by Lewis Dodgson at Biosyn, Nedry was ready to listen. And able to say that he could indeed get past Jurassic Park security. He could get into any room, any system, anywhere in the park. Because he had programmed it that way. Just in case.


While somewhat biased, it's pretty clear than Hammond royally cheated Nedry. Which is quite typical of the way Hammond operates.

[Dave Halfbreed]

I don't see why they should make a fourth. The first one was very good, the next two were terrible. The franchise is over. I can't think of any more ways you can do this besides remaking the first. I love dinosaur movies, but I think they should come up with new ideas. Let the original Jurassic Park rest in peace.

[Karoht]

I argue that new technology and new perspective could make for an excellent reboot, but it's the sequel part that has me confused. As a result I am prepared to be either blown away by a new story direction, or utterly disappointed by a generic sequel delivered way too late to the market.

[Avilan the Grey]

While somewhat biased, it's pretty clear than Hammond royally cheated Nedry. Which is quite typical of the way Hammond operates.

Ah, but you are talking book. Not movie. Hammond is a completely different character in the movie.

[MLai]

I wouldn't mind watching Dino Crisis. The same way I don't mind watching Resident Evil.

[hamishspence]

Ah, but you are talking book. Not movie. Hammond is a completely different character in the movie.

Is he really all that different, besides being a little greedier?

[Avilan the Grey]

Is he really all that different, besides being a little greedier?

From what I can tell, yes. He really doesn't come off as any worse a person than any other human being on the island. Blinded by Science! yes, but otherwise he seems a genuinely nice person. This persona is even expanded on in the sequel, though, as you know, I hate that movie.

[The Succubus]

What exactly gets old about frigging dinosaurs wrecking stuff? (http://www.qwantz.com/)

[Karoht]

What exactly gets old about frigging dinosaurs wrecking stuff? (http://www.qwantz.com/)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for dinosaurs. And wrecking things. Especially lawyers. I'm just not sure a JP sequel (rather than a reboot) is going to be a good source of it.

On the other hand, it is Spielburg directing it right? He isn't known for making terribad films, and he did a great job with the original. And they do plan on using mostly animatronics VS CG (as much as reasonably possible) for the dino effects.

I do want to give it a chance. It's just the sequel part, that's almost a dealbreaker.