Second Jurassic World Trailer -- AKA "Noooooooooooooo!"

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, I see that the second Jurassic World trailer is out, and -- well, I'll put my despairing observations into spoilers. :smallwink:

Here's the trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR0UaEKjp0) for those who haven't seen it yet.

Well, the idea of the intelligent T-rex -- Indominus rex? -- doesn't appall me quite as much I thought it would. They made it fairly reasonable looking, and the hands are a creepy touch without being overdone.

But then I watched the thing to the end ...

And we have the I-Rex (Apple-produced, maybe? :smallwink: ) apparently exerting psychic control over the other dinosaurs and turning them into its slaves to have some kind of gigantic "The Birds" scenario.

Really, is it necessary to go to that cliche? Really?

I was willing to overlook the grotesquely oversized marine reptile; the trained raptors; Starlord as the main character, apparently with the same personality, too; etc.

But why, oh why, ten thousand times why must they go with the "psychic control of everything within 300 miles" aspect? Can't they just have the I-rex as an extremely cunning opponent -- even as intelligent as a human, say -- without pulling out the Magic Cheap Horror Movie Monster powers?

Great zigzagging zeuglodons*. I was going to swallow my doubts and go see this in the theater. Now I'm thinking of giving it a wide, wide, wide, wide berth. My hopes were they'd recover a bit from the low points of Jurassic Park 2 and 3, but apparently not.

If ever there was a need for a facepalm smiley...

(*Personal exclamation along the lines of Tintin's "Great Snakes" :smallbiggrin: )

[hamishspence]

I was willing to overlook the grotesquely oversized marine reptile;

I've seen it - looked it up online - and apparently it's officially supposed to be only 60 ft long. And there's an analysis suggesting that it's quite a bit in the foreground when compared to the trainer.

Which may mean that it was a young shark that was being fed to it - more like 6 ft than 6 m.

[BWR]

I can hardly express how much I don't give a crap about this movie. The first one was good enough because of amazing effects, but I was not at all tempted to watch the movies that came after, and this does not convince me otherwise.

It's strange. I loved dinosaurs when I was a kid. At the age most of my classmates were struggling through simple children's books I was reading books on dinosaurs written for adults; you'd think these movies were the best thing ever for me, but they never impressed me.

[Aotrs Commander]

Also, guys, the world has moved on in twenty years... Raptors have FEATHERS. (Yes, I know they can hand-wave it away with the "frog DNA" thing, but it's still glaringly wrong.)

And again with magically carnivorous pterasaurs with super-strength... Yeesh. I'm not even Qwetzlacoatalus would actually be able lift a human and that's pretty much the largest one we know of.



The marine reptile - not quite sure whether it's supposed to be a Moasaur or a Liopleurodon (both of which have been suggested as being up to 20m long, though apparently the latter is now more in debate), so it's actually not wildly out of the ballpark of what has been estimated before. In fact, on checking, Mosasaurus maximus - which they are apparently using - is actually 18m.




It's strange. I loved dinosaurs when I was a kid. At the age most of my classmates were struggling through simple children's books I was reading books on dinosaurs written for adults; you'd think these movies were the best thing ever for me, but they never impressed me.

I suspect, for the likes of thee and me, once they "wow special effects" wears off (as it did after the first one) the fact the rest of the film is naff and the increasingly dubious science is waht does it... We know enough to know better.

[hamishspence]

While Liopleurodon itself has never been confirmed as existing in a particularly large size (being about 6m), some recent discoveries - "Predator X" and the like, would have been up there in the 12-13m range.

http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com/species/p/pliosaurus.html

[Legato Endless]

Wait, so the whole movie is just Chris Pratt playing "the Most Dangerous Game" with a psionic theropod?

That sounds like something you'd come up with 2 hours into a debauched gaming night, three sheets to the wind, the weekend after Guardians of the Galaxy debuted.

[Bulldog Psion]

Wait, so the whole movie is just Chris Pratt playing "the Most Dangerous Game" with a psionic theropod?

That sounds like something you'd come up with 2 hours into a debauched gaming night, three sheets to the wind, the weekend after Guardians of the Galaxy debuted.

Your summation is admirably pithy and accurate.

[JoshL]

Wait, so the whole movie is just Chris Pratt playing "the Most Dangerous Game" with a psionic theropod?

That sounds like something you'd come up with 2 hours into a debauched gaming night, three sheets to the wind, the weekend after Guardians of the Galaxy debuted.

and as such, no part of that sounds bad to me :smallbiggrin:

[Callos_DeTerran]

Your summation is admirably pithy and accurate.

And also completely awesome.

I don't watch Jurassic Park to see accurate science on dinosaurs. I watch it to see dinosaurs wrecking other people's stuff because 'RAWR I R DINOSAUR'. All that trailer shows me is that they gave the lead dino a reason to be as oddly organized and dangerous as it is.

Good enough for me!

[A.Shinohara]

But Jessica Chastain's sister Bryce Howard looks pretty darn cute. Seeing her trying to survive on the hot Dinos action scenes on the big screen is not really a bad thing though.:smallbiggrin:

[Kalmageddon]

I watched the trailer and I don't see where the psychic dinosaur thing comes from.:smallconfused: Where is it?

[Bulldog Psion]

I watched the trailer and I don't see where the psychic dinosaur thing comes from.:smallconfused: Where is it?

The I-rex goes and roars at the pterodactyls, they fly off immediately and start attacking the people. One that looks like it weighs about 10 pounds carries off a 130+ lb human, to boot. Also, it seems to have two large nodosaurs playing ping-pong with that rolling sphere at one point.

Sure looks like the I-rex is giving orders to the other ones to me.

ETA: They even say "They're communicating."

[Callos_DeTerran]

The I-rex goes and roars at the pterodactyls, they fly off immediately and start attacking the people. One that looks like it weighs about 10 pounds carries off a 130+ lb human, to boot. Also, it seems to have two large nodosaurs playing ping-pong with that rolling sphere at one point.

Sure looks like the I-rex is giving orders to the other ones to me.

That's...a smash cut type deal. Sure they follow but its also well established in Jurassic Park that the pterodactyls are extremely territorial which helps when the I-rex seems to intentially free them.

As for the nodosaurs, that looked much more like an accident. Said dinos and sphere were fleeing from something and the tails just happened to keep whacking the sphere.

Sure, it says the I-rex is communicating, but that doesn't make it psychic..

[Toastkart]

It certainly makes me more interested in the movie than the previous trailer did, although that's to be expected from a disjointed teaser.

On the whole feathers thing, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. Yeah, raptors had feathers, but they also weren't ~6' tall and ~13' long.


I watched the trailer and I don't see where the psychic dinosaur thing comes from.:smallconfused: Where is it?

Me either. Kind of curious.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, I guess if it doesn't have the noxious hypocrisy of the middle 2, and the Ship of the Dead Killed by a Tyrannosaur Who Then Politely Locked Himself in the Hold Again, it's got to be better than Jurassic Park 2 and 3. :smallbiggrin:

[Aotrs Commander]

Yeah, raptors had feathers, but they also weren't ~6' tall and ~13' long.

Velociraptors, weren't, no, but Deinonychus wasn't that much smaller than that and there are deinonychosaurs (which are the generic "raptors" that the original Jurassic Park popularised) that big, like Utahraptor.

[Gopher Wizard]

This is kind of off topic, but it does deal with the movie so I'll post it anyway. Does anyone like Chris Pratt? I can't say for certain I've seen a film he was in where I enjoyed his character. Lego Movie was just kind of meh for me. And while I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy, I found Star Lord obnoxious at times and my least favorite of the five main characters. And based on what I've seen of JW, his character seems to be too obnoxious and smug.

Where's Jeff Goldblum when you need him? Am I right?:smallwink:

[cobaltstarfire]

Meeeeh

The guy wants to see it, but it's not really tweaking my interest.



Though the special T-rex looked kind of neat what was shown of it.

[Bulldog Psion]

This is kind of off topic, but it does deal with the movie so I'll post it anyway. Does anyone like Chris Pratt? I can't say for certain I've seen a film he was in where I enjoyed his character. Lego Movie was just kind of meh for me. And while I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy, I found Star Lord obnoxious at times and my least favorite of the five main characters. And based on what I've seen of JW, his character seems to be too obnoxious and smug.

Well, I don't mind him at least. I'm not enthusiastic for his acting talents or anything, but he passed muster as "mildly likable" as Star Lord in my view. Of course, I preferred Gamora and the Walking Thesaurus. I can see how Pratt might rub people the wrong way, though.


Where's Jeff Goldblum when you need him? Am I right?:smallwink:

You mean -- you are seeking for (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/PFd3krMTR4c/maxresdefault.jpg) ... The Goldblum? :smallbiggrin:

I can't see the poor chap without an inward chuckle after being made aware of that pseudo-trope a few years back. He has become amusing to my idiosyncratic sense of humor as some sort of paleontology- (or chaos theory/mathematics)-themed Fabio wannabe. Sorry, Jeff. :smallfrown:

Edit: I'm not sure where it came from, but there's also a short clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QN3AVHGT8I) of the escape from the Indominus rex pen, for what it's worth.

[Gopher Wizard]

Of course, I preferred Gamora and the Walking Thesaurus.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Dave_Bautista_as_Drax_the_Destroyer.jpg
"I AM NOT A THESAURUS!!!"

Sorry, I had to.:smalltongue:

[Foeofthelance]

Also, guys, the world has moved on in twenty years... Raptors have FEATHERS. (Yes, I know they can hand-wave it away with the "frog DNA" thing, but it's still glaringly wrong.)


See, this doesn't bother me as they don't appear to have just left the raptors with the original color scheme. In fact, the lead raptor seems to have a wide, bright blue stripe running down its flank up near its spine. Having someone in a suit in InGen going, "You know what the raptors really need? Racing stripes! Think of the toys! We can put them on MOTORCYCLES! How awesome would that be? Call Mattel, see if they want to get in on this, maybe do a cartoon or something to go with it!" just seems totally in line with the type of thinking that leads to, "You know what T-Rex needs? Longer arms and an IQ upgrade. I mean, what good is making a twenty ton predator even smarter if we don't also give it the ability to play with its food, er, toys?"

[Killer Angel]

Also, guys, the world has moved on in twenty years... Raptors have FEATHERS. (Yes, I know they can hand-wave it away with the "frog DNA" thing, but it's still glaringly wrong.)


frankly, I don't think the intended target of the film is scientific accuracy... :smallwink:

[Ramza00]

Guys this movie does not deal with reality and our world and history. Jurassic Park may take place on a world called Earth but it is not our Earth, it is a silly place that can be fun and exciting but at times just not make sense.

Think of this as just like Eberron. The real world used to have dinosaurs, Jurassic park world made their own dinosaurs, and Eberron also has dinosaurs. Eberron and Jurassic Park have more in common than the real world and Jurassic Park.

Once you accept this that you are watching a D&D game with everything besides magic artifacts and wizards you will then stop carrying about feathers, size and length of dinosaurs, whether dinosaurs had language that can communicate abstract thought not just emotion or very basic concrete details.

If this does not help enough take a mind altering substance like getting drunk. Football to me is often boring with fun being limited to 3 minutes an hour while sober, get a little booze in me and suddenly it is no longer about how it should be or how much reality is screwing up, now it is a communal experience with shared excitement and passion.

Relax and try to have fun.


This is kind of off topic, but it does deal with the movie so I'll post it anyway. Does anyone like Chris Pratt? I can't say for certain I've seen a film he was in where I enjoyed his character. Lego Movie was just kind of meh for me. And while I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy, I found Star Lord obnoxious at times and my least favorite of the five main characters. And based on what I've seen of JW, his character seems to be too obnoxious and smug.

Where's Jeff Goldblum when you need him? Am I right?:smallwink:

Chris Patt is often extremely sexy. Yes in some things he is good looking but what makes him different is charisma. He has a personality in some movies and real life that is mesmerizing.

That said charisma is very fickle and sometimes a person who is trying to be sexy over does it or just messes up and now the experience is forever ruined and can never be recaptured.

To illustrate my point Jeff Goldblum from the original Jurassic Park, he was charismatic and charming in the car when he was flirting with Ellie Sattler with the water. Yet the same tactics, the same voice and style in the 2nd Jurassic Park movie as well as other Goldblum characters without dinosaurs is like nails on a chalkboard and the opposite of sexy.

Chris Patt is much the same thing he is at the point of silly that can be sexy or charming but one miss step and it is like a cheerleader that tells a guy do not touch me, get away from me, do not look at me for .... ewwww.

And since this is highly subjective one person ewww sensitivity may occur far faster than someone else's. It is also environmental specific.

[TheThan]

It certainly makes me more interested in the movie than the previous trailer did, although that's to be expected from a disjointed teaser.

On the whole feathers thing, it doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. Yeah, raptors had feathers, but they also weren't ~6' tall and ~13' long.

what are you talking about? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor)

I think they switched the name from Utah raptor to velocaraptor because it sounds cooler.

[huttj509]

what are you talking about? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor)

I think they switched the name from Utah raptor to velocaraptor because it sounds cooler.

Prominent Utahraptor find was in 1991 (not the first find, but the one that got publicity and more complete skeletons).

Jurassic Park book published in 1990.

Jurassic Park movie in 1993, but production started ~1990.

The design of the movie raptors was not done based on Utahraptor, but the discovery/publicity before movie release was a coincidence prompting Stan Winston to joke, "We made it, then they discovered it."

For a while, the Utahraptor species discovered was going to be named Utahraptor Spielbergi, but the donation plan fell through.

[cobaltstarfire]

Prominent Utahraptor find was in 1991 (not the first find, but the one that got publicity and more complete skeletons).

Jurassic Park book published in 1990.

Jurassic Park movie in 1993, but production started ~1990.

The design of the movie raptors was not done based on Utahraptor, but the discovery/publicity before movie release was a coincidence prompting Stan Winston to joke, "We made it, then they discovered it."

For a while, the Utahraptor species discovered was going to be named Utahraptor Spielbergi, but the donation plan fell through.

That doesn't change the fact that rather large Dromaeosaurs exist. While Toastkart was suggesting that none are larger than a velociraptor.

Even before we discovered utahraptor, we had some species that were sizeable, such as Deinonychus, about as tall as a sixth grader, and definitely longer than 6 feet.

[Gopher Wizard]

Chris Patt is often extremely sexy. Yes in some things he is good looking but what makes him different is charisma. He has a personality in some movies and real life that is mesmerizing.

That said charisma is very fickle and sometimes a person who is trying to be sexy over does it or just messes up and now the experience is forever ruined and can never be recaptured.

To illustrate my point Jeff Goldblum from the original Jurassic Park, he was charismatic and charming in the car when he was flirting with Ellie Sattler with the water. Yet the same tactics, the same voice and style in the 2nd Jurassic Park movie as well as other Goldblum characters without dinosaurs is like nails on a chalkboard and the opposite of sexy.

Chris Patt is much the same thing he is at the point of silly that can be sexy or charming but one miss step and it is like a cheerleader that tells a guy do not touch me, get away from me, do not look at me for .... ewwww.

And since this is highly subjective one person ewww sensitivity may occur far faster than someone else's. It is also environmental specific.

Well as a heterosexual man, I'd have to take you opinion about the sexy part. I can see how people find him attractive, but "extremely sexy," I'm not sure if I see it. Though again, heterosexual man here.

You man be right also. I remember I hated Chris Evans until Captain America so it might just be an issue of direction.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well as a heterosexual man, I'd have to take you opinion about the sexy part. I can see how people find him attractive, but "extremely sexy," I'm not sure if I see it. Though again, heterosexual man here.

You man be right also. I remember I hated Chris Evans until Captain America so it might just be an issue of direction.

Yeah, I can't really comment on the sexy/attractive stuff, either; in fact, it never really occurred to me to evaluate him in those terms. In my case, it's more a case of "is this someone who I'd avoid if they were at my workplace or in my neighborhood? Or would I be kind of friendly? Or would they be a friend?"

Pratt comes across as the type I'd be on generally good terms with, but who would wear thin if he dropped by regularly. He'd be fine as a casual acquaintance, but probably pretty annoying if he was around being hyper several hours a day or week. If that makes sense -- and meaning no offense to Mr. Pratt, who would probably classify me as a boring jackass. :smallwink:

[cobaltstarfire]

How do you know he'd be "hyper" in real life?

It's not really fair to evaluate a person based on the characters their playing? :smallconfused:

Is he hyper during like interviews and things? All I've ever heard from/about him is that it was really hard to get fit enough to play Starlord.

[Killer Angel]

ETA: They even say "They're communicating."

yes, but that's another scene, we don't even see if they're watching the Rex or the raptors or who knows.
and communicating may mean a wide array of things, not all related to supposed psi powers...

[Toastkart]

Velociraptors, weren't, no, but Deinonychus wasn't that much smaller than that and there are deinonychosaurs (which are the generic "raptors" that the original Jurassic Park popularised) that big, like Utahraptor.



what are you talking about? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utahraptor)

I think they switched the name from Utah raptor to velocaraptor because it sounds cooler.


That doesn't change the fact that rather large Dromaeosaurs exist. While Toastkart was suggesting that none are larger than a velociraptor.

Even before we discovered utahraptor, we had some species that were sizeable, such as Deinonychus, about as tall as a sixth grader, and definitely longer than 6 feet.

None of you are wrong, however, the book specifically calls them out as velociraptor mongoliensis. I was also not suggesting that other dromaeosaurs of various sizes don't exist, merely that the specific one depicted already does not match the real thing. Let's not forget that their dilophosaurs had a frill for some reason.

[Bulldog Psion]

None of you are wrong, however, the book specifically calls them out as velociraptor mongoliensis. I was also not suggesting that other dromaeosaurs of various sizes don't exist, merely that the specific one depicted already does not match the real thing. Let's not forget that their dilophosaurs had a frill for some reason.

Hm, it's been a while since I read the book -- I forgot that they gave the specific name so directly. That. then, is just plain wrong, like calling the tyrannosaur "allosaurus" or some such.

I guess Crichton either botched his research, or liked the sound of "velociraptor" so much that he chose it despite the obvious problems. :smallbiggrin:

[Berserk Mecha]

Keep in mind that Crichton did not have the internet to check his work and there were major raptor finds being uncovered while the book was being written and the movie was being made.

This new trailer has me excited. It definitely looks like there are some editing tricks a play to make it look like the Indominus is ordering the pterosaurs around. My guess is that the I-rex is just manipulating the other dinosaurs into doing what it wants. Roaring at pterosaurs to direct them out of the aviary and to the populace, herding anklyosaurses towards potentially hostile humans, etcetera. The "They're communicating," line might not even be directed towards the I-rex. It could be meant for the raptors.

[Ricky S]

I have to say I for one am extremely excited for this movie. I loved the first three. The first one obviously being the best! Who can dislike dinosaurs, Sam Neil and Jeff Goldblum combined! The thing that all the movies lacked was a large amount of people being eaten by dinosaurs. Yes The lost world had a quite a bit of it but not nearly enough to satisfy my needs. It appears the new movie will have exactly what I wanted to see and fulfill that need. This is what Jurassic Park should have always been building up to.

I am honestly surprised that there have been negative views on this film at all, it'll be awesome! Yes the raptors dont have feathers but its a sci-fi film about genetically engineered dinosaurs not actual dinosaurs as say something like "Primeval" has. It never was meant to be a realistic dinosaur movie in terms of historical dinosaurs. They are genetically engineered. It is a work of fiction and for me who was born in the 90's it is a strong reminder of my childhood.

As to the I-rex being psychic I am pretty sure that it is not. The entire problem with basing opinions off trailers is that they specifically combine random scenes to give the audience the most exciting view of the movie, it doesnt necessarily mean that is what is actually going to happen in the film. What I think is more likely to actually happen in the film is the I-rex escaping, breaking down barriers to other dinosaurs and then they too get released and act as dinosaurs do, and eat.

It'll be interesting as always to see what people have predicted now and then to see what the actual movie will hold.

[cobaltstarfire]

I liked Jurassic park for the dinosaurs, not for the mayhem and violence, even as a 2nd grader I could appreciate the dinosaurs looking like the restorations in the dozens of books I had, and moving in a believable way. The books too had interesting speculations in them, even if many turned out to be wrong or off base.

They made an effort to make them quite realistic and accurate at the time for the first movie. (weird things aside like venom spitting dilophosaurs, and raptors larger than were known yet)

So yeah, I am disappointed that suddenly they aren't even trying to make an effort to make their dinosaurs up to date.

I think I could even ignore the naked raptors if they at least got some the anatomy correct, but no, they can't even do that. Even the third movie made an effort to incorporate new discoveries/understandings into their models.

This movie is a step backwards in the things that I enjoyed about the first one (and the books), and for me that is highly disappointing.

[J-H]

Who is this "Starlord" character? You guys keep talking about him as though he's an established character from another source. All I can tell is that he's some sort of dino-hunter bro-dude.

[huttj509]

Who is this "Starlord" character? You guys keep talking about him as though he's an established character from another source. All I can tell is that he's some sort of dino-hunter bro-dude.

Starlord was the main character of Guardians of the Galaxy. Same actor. I liked the character, but I don't think I'd fault anyone for not feeling the same way.

[J-H]

Ok, thanks. Totally unfamiliar with that IP.

[Avilan the Grey]

Still have a feeling little big fishy will be important to the plot.

[Bulldog Psion]

Who is this "Starlord" character? You guys keep talking about him as though he's an established character from another source.

This is unintentionally funny because it mirrors something in Guardians of the Galaxy almost exactly: :smallbiggrin:


Peter Quill: There's one other name you might know me by... Star Lord.
Korath the Pursuer: ...Who?

[GloatingSwine]

So yeah, I am disappointed that suddenly they aren't even trying to make an effort to make their dinosaurs up to date.


They're making them look like the ones in the first movie because they don't even care, and they assume the audience also does not care but remembers the "clever girl" line from the first movie because internets love it even if they weren't born in 1993 when it actually came out.


I guess Crichton either botched his research, or liked the sound of "velociraptor" so much that he chose it despite the obvious problems.

Michael Crichton was never one to let trivial things like facts get in the way of "what hath science wrought we are all doomed by our hubris". Which is the plot of basically his books. All of them.

(Jurassic Park is literally Westworld with a dinosaur instead of Yul Brynner, because Michael Crichton is also not one to let having done it before get in the way of doing it again)

[cobaltstarfire]

They're making them look like the ones in the first movie because they don't even care, and they assume the audience also does not care but remembers the "clever girl" line from the first movie because internets love it even if they weren't born in 1993 when it actually came out.



Yeah pointing out they're making no effort kind of implies that I understand that they don't care.

Them and others not caring doesn't mean I'm not allowed to be disappointed, or that it is wrong for me personally to feel that way.

[Ricky S]

I don't think the designers of the movie are being lazy when they don't give raptors feathers. The research that they have feathers was inconclusive in the sense they didn't know to what extent they had them. They did give some feathers to the raptors in jp3 but it wasn't as widely recieved as the raptors in JP. Mainly because JP raptors had already set the precedent for what a raptor looked like.

They are genetically engineered, mixed with frog DNA so I am more interested in the movie rather than scientific accuracy. Crighton seemed to be pretty accurate in his books anyway. He even mentioned in the lost world that trex babies have a fluffy down. So he seemed pretty with it, with the scientific advances.

[Kitten Champion]

I've always had a harder time accepting that people - rich educated people - would dedicate themselves to reviving dinosaurs via complicated genetic engineering experiments merely to supply attractions for a futuristic theme park, rather than any of the innumerable beneficial and profitable purposes that time, energy, and resources could have gone to. I get there are eccentric people with money out there, but... well, that's Willy Wonka territory.

Then, after the inevitable horror ensues, the theme park is decimated, and numerous deaths -- they decide to revive this idea years later as a monument to human stupidity.

...

Anyways, I'm kinda happy with the direction they're going - it's closer to Alien based on the trailer than the other Jurassic Parks - but with mutant dinosaurs and Chris Pratt. No idea if it'll be any good, only the first one was and thinking about The Lost World still kind of annoys me.

[Giggling Ghast]

Are you sure about the psychic control thing? It just seems like the I-Rex is just super smart and knows letting out other dinosaurs will cause havoc.

As to why the pterandons (pterodactyls?) attack people, that's what ALL the Jurassic Park dinosaurs do. Humans are like dinosaur crack.

[Avilan the Grey]

They're making them look like the ones in the first movie because they don't even care, and they assume the audience also does not care but remembers the "clever girl" line from the first movie because internets love it even if they weren't born in 1993 when it actually came out.

They are, according to WOG, making them look like "1993's models" because that is still what people think they looked like.
Seriously, if you are not into dinosaurs you still, IRL, think the T-rex look like that (and that is not the movies fault, I am talking people who never saw the movies either). Heck, most people still think they were cold blooded lizards.
The park is just milking that concept and genetically engineer them to look like people expect.

[Ricky S]

I've always had a harder time accepting that people - rich educated people - would dedicate themselves to reviving dinosaurs via complicated genetic engineering experiments merely to supply attractions for a futuristic theme park, rather than any of the innumerable beneficial and profitable purposes that time, energy, and resources could have gone to. I get there are eccentric people with money out there, but... well, that's Willy Wonka territory.

Then, after the inevitable horror ensues, the theme park is decimated, and numerous deaths -- they decide to revive this idea years later as a monument to human stupidity.

...

Anyways, I'm kinda happy with the direction they're going - it's closer to Alien based on the trailer than the other Jurassic Parks - but with mutant dinosaurs and Chris Pratt. No idea if it'll be any good, only the first one was and thinking about The Lost World still kind of annoys me.

Well if you read the books they explain a lot more than the movies do. Yes they made it into a theme park only to show investors that they would have an immediate return on their money, however there was a lot of planning to use it for bio research and other ideas. One comment from Dodgeson in "The lost world" is that they could effectively own the animals and therefore wouldnt have to worry about testing lab rats and dogs and things because they could test it on dinosaurs who are already classified as extinct. It opens up so many more legal loopholes in terms of research and stuff like that. There were plans for hunting parks, safari parks, you could eat dinosaur steaks probably. There was a host of money making ideas far beyond simply "running a themepark"

As to why they revived the themepark idea I am pretty sure it is because they are still keen to make a profit off the dinosaurs and this offers an immediate return of quite a high yield. I think the storyline for the movie is that it has been a successful themepark and people are even getting bored of the dinosaurs so that is why they create this new breed to revamp the themepark. Its not actually that stupid. Assuming they have proper procedures in place they should be able to run the park properly.

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't think the designers of the movie are being lazy when they don't give raptors feathers. The research that they have feathers was inconclusive in the sense they didn't know to what extent they had them. They did give some feathers to the raptors in jp3 but it wasn't as widely recieved as the raptors in JP. Mainly because JP raptors had already set the precedent for what a raptor looked like.



Look, I never suggested they are being lazy. I'm just responding to your "I can't believe there are people who don't like this".

You're allowed to be excited for the movie.

I am allowed to have a differing opinion and be disappointed that they made a conscious effort to get these animals wrong, when in the past they made a conscious effort to get things right. You know what would be really exciting for me? Seeing a super well animated fluffy dinosaur behaving fiercely.

I'm not interested in rationalizing or coming up with excuses for why they should have hamster claws, and lack feathers.

[Kalmageddon]

Are you sure about the psychic control thing? It just seems like the I-Rex is just super smart and knows letting out other dinosaurs will cause havoc.

As to why the pterandons (pterodactyls?) attack people, that's what ALL the Jurassic Park dinosaurs do. Humans are like dinosaur crack.

Yeah, that's how I interpreted it too.

[Legato Endless]

Well if you read the books they explain a lot more than the movies do. Yes they made it into a theme park only to show investors that they would have an immediate return on their money, however there was a lot of planning to use it for bio research and other ideas. One comment from Dodgeson in "The lost world" is that they could effectively own the animals and therefore wouldnt have to worry about testing lab rats and dogs and things because they could test it on dinosaurs who are already classified as extinct. It opens up so many more legal loopholes in terms of research and stuff like that. There were plans for hunting parks, safari parks, you could eat dinosaur steaks probably. There was a host of money making ideas far beyond simply "running a themepark"


That...wouldn't work. An animal formerly being extinct wouldn't somehow let you dodge the legal ramifications of animal testing. The law isn't that philosophical. This would just get dragged to court again by someone who didn't follow the lines of that weird temporal ethic and past precedent would almost certainly inform whatever new decision was made, which would likely look a lot like the existing standards. The idea the corporation would have carte blanche would be extremely unlikely, and certainly not worth gambling on. It would be cheaper just to set up a facility and simply lie about your practices. I'd definitely like to try T-rex steak though.


Then, after the inevitable horror ensues, the theme park is decimated, and numerous deaths -- they decide to revive this idea years later as a monument to human stupidity.

The real absurdity of this whole affair is that the Park is called Jurassic World. There's no way in the wake of a series of high profile tragedies that claimed dozens of grisly deaths does a company not engage in significant rebranding.

[Ricky S]

Look, I never suggested they are being lazy. I'm just responding to your "I can't believe there are people who don't like this".

You're allowed to be excited for the movie.

I am allowed to have a differing opinion and be disappointed that they made a conscious effort to get these animals wrong, when in the past they made a conscious effort to get things right. You know what would be really exciting for me? Seeing a super well animated fluffy dinosaur behaving fiercely.

I'm not interested in rationalizing or coming up with excuses for why they should have hamster claws, and lack feathers.

It was meant more in jest than me being actually surprised that people could dislike the movie. I realise that this movie will not be everyone's cup of tea. Just remember that it is sci fi and honestly if you can look past the scientific inaccuracies I am sure it will be a really fun movie. Personally I am glad they dont have fluffy dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are supposed to be scary. (Now I am imagining fluffy hamster sized dinosaurs).


That...wouldn't work. An animal formerly being extinct wouldn't somehow let you dodge the legal ramifications of animal testing. The law isn't that philosophical. This would just get dragged to court again by someone who didn't follow the lines of that weird temporal ethic and past precedent would almost certainly inform whatever new decision was made, which would likely look a lot like the existing standards. The idea the corporation would have carte blanche would be extremely unlikely, and certainly not worth gambling on. It would be cheaper just to set up a facility and simply lie about your practices. I'd definitely like to try T-rex steak though.

The real absurdity of this whole affair is that the Park is called Jurassic World. There's no way in the wake of a series of high profile tragedies that claimed dozens of grisly deaths does a company not engage in significant rebranding.

I think the point made in the book is that they were patented and therefore owned. I am sure there would be a whole new facet of law coming out regarding the use of dinosaurs in testing. Even if the current laws would still cover the use of dinosaurs, the law is quite a ponderous ... beast? and it would take some time before they could do that. Plus even if they can't do that there are a host of opportunities for profit. Ivory from triceratops, t-rex steak (which I too would like to try), raptor skin shoes and purses etc.

[Avilan the Grey]

That...wouldn't work. An animal formerly being extinct wouldn't somehow let you dodge the legal ramifications of animal testing.

Actually it sounds to me that the animal testing part is the only part that is troublesome with that paragraph. All the other stuff... If we could clone rhinos and then hunt them for fun, the WWF could not argue against it. For example. If we could clone mammoths, the illegal ivory trade would probably die out for the same reason...

[Kitten Champion]

The real absurdity of this whole affair is that the Park is called Jurassic World. There's no way in the wake of a series of high profile tragedies that claimed dozens of grisly deaths does a company not engage in significant rebranding.

To be fair, Jurassic Park never exactly took off in the first place. I doubt there was much of a brand to have been tarnished in the eyes of the public.


Though, yeah, they're really not doing themselves any favours by drawing attention to it.

[huttj509]

Dinosaurs are supposed to be scary. (Now I am imagining fluffy hamster sized dinosaurs).
.

That was your great great great great etc grandmother that was small and fuzzy.

Dinosaurs were hissing charging bundles of teeth and feathers ready to stabilize themselves while eating you alive.

[hamishspence]

All the other stuff... If we could clone rhinos and then hunt them for fun, the WWF could not argue against it.

Plenty of people would argue that "hunting an animal for fun is immoral" though - even if it were a common pest species. Look at foxhunting and how frowned-on it's become.

[Bhu]

Apparently the T-Rex from JP1 is supposed to be a recurring character, replete with scars and aging...

[Talya]

1) This board seems to take great pleasure in being the "anti-internet." Like if Internet-Geek-Culture has a consensus of opinion, the most vocal people here will disagree with it as a matter of principle. Everyone I know --online and IRL--has gotten more excited about this movie with each trailer. This is actually the first negative opinion I've seen stated about it.
2) You also seem to get far more out of a trailer than I do. Psychic Dinosaurs? Really? I didn't see that at all...
3) Chris Pratt is awesome.
4) I'm totally seeing this movie.

[J-H]

Is there anything in the trailer that rules out this simply being a reboot/AU of JP1?

They rebooted Spider Man and the F4 after, what, 10 years? 12? JP1 is over 20 years old. Why, it's practically wearing a tie-died t-shirt, peace sign, and bell-bottoms!

[Chen]

Is there anything in the trailer that rules out this simply being a reboot/AU of JP1?

They rebooted Spider Man and the F4 after, what, 10 years? 12? JP1 is over 20 years old. Why, it's practically wearing a tie-died t-shirt, peace sign, and bell-bottoms!

http://www.slashfilm.com/jurassic-world-plot-details-colin-treverrow/

There's a point where he says the film picks up 22 years after the original Jurassic Park.

[Avilan the Grey]

Is there anything in the trailer that rules out this simply being a reboot/AU of JP1?

They rebooted Spider Man and the F4 after, what, 10 years? 12? JP1 is over 20 years old. Why, it's practically wearing a tie-died t-shirt, peace sign, and bell-bottoms!

This is pure sequel. Same asian scientist in the lab as back then, even.

[Legato Endless]

I think the point made in the book is that they were patented and therefore owned. I am sure there would be a whole new facet of law coming out regarding the use of dinosaurs in testing. Even if the current laws would still cover the use of dinosaurs, the law is quite a ponderous ... beast? and it would take some time before they could do that.

The thing is though, that's not how patents work. A patent simply prevents someone else from making/selling/using your work. It doesn't give you 'ownership' to do what you will with what you patented, and it doesn't override existing law in such usage. Just because I won the patent to an aircraft in the US doesn't mean I can ignore existing FAA regulations in it's use. Or for a more fantastical example: say I invent a new type of android and patent the design. That stops other people from replicating it legally without my permission, but it wouldn't let me use the android for slave labor if existing legislature recognized and granted certain rights to synthetic life forms. It really wouldn't create a new facet of law, cloned dinosaurs aren't appreciably different than any other cloned animal in this sense. A better explanation would be that InGen got legislation passed that deprives clones of the rights that normal animals get.


1) This board seems to take great pleasure in being the "anti-internet." Like if Internet-Geek-Culture has a consensus of opinion, the most vocal people here will disagree with it as a matter of principle. Everyone I know --online and IRL--has gotten more excited about this movie with each trailer. This is actually the first negative opinion I've seen stated about it.
2) You also seem to get far more out of a trailer than I do. Psychic Dinosaurs? Really? I didn't see that at all...
3) Chris Pratt is awesome.
4) I'm totally seeing this movie.

1) Examples? Aside from being markedly pessimistic about DC's push to replicate Marvel's Cinematic Movie model, I don't recall much dramatic divergence in the Playground compared to what I see when I'm on Reddit.

2) One thing this forum does tend to be is fairly literal and frequently misinterprets hyperbole as a device. Bulldog made a crack at the Dinosaur communication in the trailer.

4) Snark aside, one of my friends is all kinds of excited, so I'll be seeing it.

[Bulldog Psion]

2) One thing this forum does tend to be is fairly literal and frequently misinterprets hyperbole as a device. Bulldog made a crack at the Dinosaur communication in the trailer.

Exactly. :smallsmile: Just like, as another example, I don't think that Pratt is playing literally the exact same character, Star Lord, in this film; my calling him "Star Lord" was just a bit of whimsicality with a dash of snark thrown in. :smallwink: Doesn't mean I expect to see Gamora, Drax, Groot, or Rocket.*


*Though "Guardians vs. Dinosaurs" might have some entertainment potential. :smallbiggrin:

[J-H]

Ok. This looks like good Redbox or Dollar Movie ($1.50 now, except on Tuesdays, darn the Fed and their inflationary policies!) fare.

It has to be better than JP3 was.

The books were better than the movies for both JP1 and The Lost World.

[Talya]

The books were better than the movies for both JP1...

Yes.


...and The Lost World.

So not... No no no no no.

Don't get me wrong, "The Lost World" was was not a particularly good movie. However, unlike Jurassic Park, it was not adapted from a novel. It was written as a screenplay first, and then Crichton himself adapted the screenplay into a novel. The book called "The Lost World" was just a crappy novelization of a mediocre movie.

[hamishspence]

The book is very different from the movie. Different villain (Dodgson instead of Hammond's nephew) - no T. rex on the mainland, and a lot of other differences.

The book was published in 1995 - whereas the film aired in 1997.

It's so different, it can't really be called a "novelization of the movie".

[Talya]

1) Examples? Aside from being markedly pessimistic about DC's push to replicate Marvel's Cinematic Movie model, I don't recall much dramatic divergence in the Playground compared to what I see when I'm on Reddit.

Heh, the one example you give, is one I'd say actually squares with popular internet opinion. Almost EVERYONE is pessimistic about DC's plans. (Myself included, albeit for different reasons - I think Ben Affleck is as good a choice as any. My pessimism is more about WB's aversion to live-action shared continuity in general and how it will impact their plans.) No, I see other examples. The dislike for the Jurassic World trailers was the one that set it off. The Whedon-hate here, is a second. The MCU hate is another.

I don't know, it seems every "popular" tv show or movie (and by popular, I don't mean with the neilson ratings, but with geek culture in general) gets ripped apart and put down here more than anyplace i've seen. The Avengers and the other MCU movies have been spectacularly popular with the public at large, and with us Internet geeks as well, yet here all they receive is criticism.



2) One thing this forum does tend to be is fairly literal and frequently misinterprets hyperbole as a device. Bulldog made a crack at the Dinosaur communication in the trailer.

4) Snark aside, one of my friends is all kinds of excited, so I'll be seeing it.

I should clarify - I do check aggregate reviews before seeing a movie in a theatre. If they are all kinds of bad, I wait for the video. If the reviews are between mediocre and great, and it's a subject I might like, I go see it. (If i'm on the fence about the subject, it better get overall great reviews or I'm waiting for video.) However, the trailer for this has me initially excited, so the movie is definitely on my "probably" list for this summer.

The first Jurassic World trailer won me over when Star Lord was apparently fleeing raptors on a motor bike, and the raptors were catching up to him, and then they ran past him, obviously fleeing something even worse than they were. Chills! I loved it.

[Ricky S]

The thing is though, that's not how patents work. A patent simply prevents someone else from making/selling/using your work. It doesn't give you 'ownership' to do what you will with what you patented, and it doesn't override existing law in such usage. Just because I won the patent to an aircraft in the US doesn't mean I can ignore existing FAA regulations in it's use. Or for a more fantastical example: say I invent a new type of android and patent the design. That stops other people from replicating it legally without my permission, but it wouldn't let me use the android for slave labor if existing legislature recognized and granted certain rights to synthetic life forms. It really wouldn't create a new facet of law, cloned dinosaurs aren't appreciably different than any other cloned animal in this sense. A better explanation would be that InGen got legislation passed that deprives clones of the rights that normal animals get.


I think it was more because they create the animals they are the sole owners of it so it is company property and not considered a living animal. Of course this book was written about 20 years ago now so the law would have changed considerably. At the time the book was written perhaps it could have meant they would have had free reign on animal (dinosaur) testing or yes they passed legislation regarding clones. It would be quite an interesting area to consider. I wonder if Dolly the sheep had any rights?

[Legato Endless]

Heh, the one example you give, is one I'd say actually squares with popular internet opinion. Almost EVERYONE is pessimistic about DC's plans. (Myself included, albeit for different reasons - I think Ben Affleck is as good a choice as any. My pessimism is more about WB's aversion to live-action shared continuity in general and how it will impact their plans.) No, I see other examples. The dislike for the Jurassic World trailers was the one that set it off. The Whedon-hate here, is a second. The MCU hate is another.

I don't know, it seems every "popular" tv show or movie (and by popular, I don't mean with the neilson ratings, but with geek culture in general) gets ripped apart and put down here more than anyplace i've seen. The Avengers and the other MCU movies have been spectacularly popular with the public at large, and with us Internet geeks as well, yet here all they receive is criticism.
[/SIZE][/COLOR]

Yeah, that's not the best example perhaps, though I stand by it to a certain extent based on the emphasis. Reddit at least, it's more neutral-negative to worried , to some outspoken minorities who really dig the darker tone DC has kept up with. Loathed as Man of Steel is on the interwebz, it wasn't critically hated. Which is probably the same group who abhors the significant degree of comedy in the MCU. Here it's been pretty doom and gloom since the first announcement, and while I can't say the latest trailer made me feel anything positive, the initial wave began way back before we had anything tangible.

The Whedon dislike was definitely new for me when I saw it here. I've met the occasionally person who didn't gel with his work, but the Playground is the first place I've his snarky quipping actively loathed. I see the point, though I don't sympathize. Granted, I don't esteem Whedon much when it comes to plotting, with a few *exceptions his conclusions are more often obligatory than elegant, and occasionally nonsensical, but I love his dialogue and character development.

*Dr. Horrible was pitch perfect


I think it was more because they create the animals they are the sole owners of it so it is company property and not considered a living animal. Of course this book was written about 20 years ago now so the law would have changed considerably. At the time the book was written perhaps it could have meant they would have had free reign on animal (dinosaur) testing or yes they passed legislation regarding clones. It would be quite an interesting area to consider. I wonder if Dolly the sheep had any rights?

Ah, but that's just it, they are company property. Just like any number of naturally born animals extant animals are company property. It's just that doesn't mean the company can set the lab mice on fire and watch them burn for psychotic giggles. So the point just doesn't really work, even given the time of the novel. InGen hoping that it was able to pass an interpretation that allowed them greater latitude would be fitting, but this isn't something they'd simply have based on the animals unnatural existence.

Since I don't think cloning laws were much of a thing in late 80s, the earliest I remember is the various laws in the mid 90s clarifying human cloning. But a legal void on the cloning angle wouldn't by itself allow the company to go forward. It would still be a living animal, as any appointed expert would attest. Basically, the Megacorp can't plead some strange existential matter about the abnegation of rights from a race that "had it's chance" and simply expect they won't run into a legal pit later when someone complains about their animal treatment. They might succeed in bribing the right people and somehow getting it past, but it's not something they'd just have automatically and could go forward with. At least not legally. Dolly was put to sleep at age 6 I think after declining somewhat faster than her progenitor.


Ok. This looks like good Redbox or Dollar Movie ($1.50 now, except on Tuesdays, darn the Fed and their inflationary policies!) fare.

It has to be better than JP3 was.

The books were better than the movies for both JP1 and The Lost World.

Ehhhhhh, I don't know about that. Rather like Jaws the blockbuster being superior to the novelization by streamlining the fat (such as the pointless adultery subplot), the film feels better crafted to me than the novel. The movie is one of the iconic classics and a revolutionary breakthrough in film, the book's...not bad, but it wouldn't rate in the top 100...or 200 or something science fiction novels I've read. There's a lot of side plots in the novel, and I'm not convinced they all needed to be there. There's also how long it takes the novel to actually reveal why people are dying and disappearing, a revelation that only works if you don't look at the cover, read the back, or someone remain totally ignorant of the general premise. Even before the film became iconic, this didn't really work. Nedry's betrayal is treated like some huge shock, despite him being the only possible candidate for even the most casual reader to latch onto.

The film's aged better. I saw it at a retro back in 2012 before the 20th century release, and it still holds you throughout the film, and looks markedly better to some of the movies made in the late 90s to mid 2000s. The book's long genetic rants made perfect sense when it was written, but they come off a bit long now. Hammond's character is also fuller and works better thematically with the film. Idealistic but overreaching encapsulating the dangers of meddling with nature (however silly the moral) versus the long rants we get about evil private science making evil profit with our stock evil CEO.

[sktarq]

A few things on the stuff brought up about JP1 & 2 both books and movies

As for owning the animals the medical testing thing was mentioned as a field to be explored - a couple sentences at most. The real concept was that these animals would be commodities that InGen could control all of. A lunchbox with a triceratops photo? Ingen gets paid. TV shows want to film live dinos as stock footage for a documentary on fossils? Ingen gets paid. Toys that look like "the real thing" -InGen gets paid. The park was to be the centerpiece of a disney-like empire.

In addition when the book was penned the law was pretty unclear and the book expanded on what was seen as the likely direction of law at the time. Treating the dinos like bacteria were treated at the time.


And if the Lost World book was a novelization of a screenplay then can we get a remake of THAT screenplay since it obviously had little bearing on the movie. I just figured he wrote for easy adaption and it went very wrong.

As for not updating the world as new science comes out - I get that. The science was always mixed quality and once the raptors had been established I think it breaks the world more to keep changing established animals than to explain it.

As for the preview-very not impressed. The wow factor was very much gone for me and while the new Dino thing harkens back to the Version 4 protocol from the first book It looses me as fan of actual dinosaurs.

[pendekar]

jurrasic park, one of the movie that I like
http://wigunpics.science/6/g.png

[Berserk Mecha]

Has anyone else visited the site for the movie? http://www.jurassicworld.com/ It's made to look like an actual website for the park. You can see what the weather is like on Isla Nublar, what the attractions are, how to plan your visit, and what there is to eat. My favorite touch is that the Chilean sea bass from the first movie is noted on the menu.