Jurassic World: So, Apparently, It's Good

[Leliel]

Currently sitting at a nice 71% freshness at Rotten Tomatoes, right between the original and The Lost World.

Given what I know of the film before seeing it, though:

It was probably smart to keep ye old I. rex the villain instead of her indirect creator, because Hoskins...

This is the best image of his last ever CAT scan I could find. (http://memegenerator.net/instance/62905124)

Thankfully he's called out as stupid in the film, too.

[Cikomyr]

Its really good. Its a fantastic blend of hommage to the original, while being its own thing by expanding concepts to a certain.. natural development, human-wise.

I mean, i can see a Dinosaure Theme Park making up specie to keep interest. I can see them trying to see if you can train raptors.

The movie was filled with easter eggs regarding the old movies, yet entertaining in its own damn right. I had a blast, and want to see it again.

[danzibr]

Yup, I loved it. Ties the original in and has epic fight scenes.

[huttj509]

While I've seen better movies, the number of movies where I've had that much fun, and was grinning that hard, were few.

The callbacks to the first actually didn't feel forced for the most part. They fit in the movie, with added benefit of "hey, remember this bit?"

It helps that I've had a soft spot for Mosasaurs for 25-30 years or so. Loved the shark scene. (And I'll give them a pass on making their dinosaurs bigger, that dates back to the raptors).

If they had Coelophysis as well it'd have made this New Mexican's year. 2 fond memories of the Albuquerque Natural History Museum.

[Avilan the Grey]

Make no mistake, I will watch this, but I am nowhere near as hyped for this as for Mad Max: Fury Road*. In my mind, I guess, I kind of assume this will be compared to the original as Episode I to Episode IV, if you know what I mean. In other words it's a "Must See because it's a Jurassic Park Movie" not a "OMFGTHATLOOKSAWESOME".

*That still holds 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, btw

[Killer Angel]

I was planning to see it, and I'm glad it's enjoyable. Tnx guys! :smallsmile:

[Ricky S]

I saw Jurassic World and loved it. It was really well done and had the perfect mix of story and dinosaur action. It was cool, contained all the elements that you would want it to have and even had a few laughs to break the tension at times.

It is not a 5 star movie but is thoroughly enjoyable and I would recommend it.

Spoiler Alert
The scene where you first see the indomitus Rex was done really well. It was creepy and you could feel the predatory nature of the dinosaur. I liked that it was a chameleon and no-one seemed to really know it except for the scientists who created it. The owner of jurassic world even commented "its white" not expecting it to be. The fact that you could just see its mass moving through the foliage.

Chriss Pratt was cool and I liked that he was ex navy, it gave him an edge in dealing with the animals. Him controlling the raptors also worked much more than he seemed to in the trailer. Ie it wasnt as over the top. He didnt have total control and they were actually really dangerous. The indomitus rex being part raptor worked out quite well as well. There was a big worry that the indomitus rex was psychic but its not. Its just part raptor hence why it can communicate.

I particularly liked the scene where the indomitus rex was camo'd and the Animal control team were ambushed. It was really aggressive and brutal. I love seeing the humans getting killed. So while the original movie was awesome it didnt contain as much dino on human action

[Drascin]

Yeah, it doesn't have the suspense of the first movie, but it's most definitely the second best entry in the franchise. The action was fun, and I'll agree that the introduction to the Indominus was done in the best Jurassic Park tradition.

I did wonder why the hell all the pterosaurs went straight to assault all the humans. Like, all species flew together in a straight line for the visitor center instead of scattering in flocks or anything. And a couple of those species were insectivores and brittle enough for an adult man to break in half - it seemed like a really bad feeding deal for the pterosaurs when there should be plenty of other options less risky for them. Maybe the Jurassic World pterosaurs, like crows, are smart enough to hold a grudge at the humans and went at it purely out of spite.

I did like that the kids were surprisingly resourceful without kicking around dinosaurs or anything.

[huttj509]

Yeah, it doesn't have the suspense of the first movie, but it's most definitely the second best entry in the franchise. The action was fun, and I'll agree that the introduction to the Indominus was done in the best Jurassic Park tradition.

I did wonder why the hell all the pterosaurs went straight to assault all the humans. Like, all species flew together in a straight line for the visitor center instead of scattering in flocks or anything. And a couple of those species were insectivores and brittle enough for an adult man to break in half - it seemed like a really bad feeding deal for the pterosaurs when there should be plenty of other options less risky for them. Maybe the Jurassic World pterosaurs, like crows, are smart enough to hold a grudge at the humans and went at it purely out of spite.

I did like that the kids were surprisingly resourceful without kicking around dinosaurs or anything.


I remember a similar issue with the Lost World.

"they're on an island, and eat fish, why are they attacking the people?"

[Drascin]

I remember a similar issue with the Lost World.

"they're on an island, and eat fish, why are they attacking the people?"

Well, in the book they do mention that there was an unforeseen problem with the dactyls. Namely, that while they ate fish, they were massively territorial and considered humans a threat, so they kept attacking any worker that went into their aviary. But that only applied in their area - the pterodactyls attack Grant and the kids while they're going through their preserve, but leave them alone after they leave. Here they just beelined all together for the big human center, though.

[Bulldog Psion]

Okay, I'm regretting not seeing Mad Max in the theater.

In the considered opinion of the forum, will I regret it if I don't make the time to go see this in the theater, too?

[sktarq]

See it big screen, the bigger the better, 3D if you can. Why? It is not a great movie, it is barely good. It is, however, very fun (just don't ask why about anything in the story) and rather spectacular. Bigger and louder really helps this movie. It has flaws that experience of a theatre can really help with.

I'd still recommend it as it is fun as a triceratops ride

[SaintRidley]

Well, in the book they do mention that there was an unforeseen problem with the dactyls. Namely, that while they ate fish, they were massively territorial and considered humans a threat, so they kept attacking any worker that went into their aviary. But that only applied in their area - the pterodactyls attack Grant and the kids while they're going through their preserve, but leave them alone after they leave. Here they just beelined all together for the big human center, though.

Of course, they might well have been rounded up about ten years ago after about ten years of free reign on the island. Perhaps the grudge thing is at play?

[Chen]

About the pterosaurs
Yeah them going and attacking a group of thousands of humans is just massively unrealistic. That was the only real part that was really dumb. No animal is going to go attack a huge swarm of other animals that are roughly the same size as you are (or bigger in many cases).

It also seems that along with all the other DNA and stuff they spliced in some GPS tracking devices into that I. Rex that let it track down plot relevant characters and always be where they were.

Though even with that and some other nitpicks it was a very entertaining movie. Nothing spectacular plot wise or even acting wise, but just overall enjoyable.

[Binks]

It was enjoyable even as someone who wasn't really a fan of the first one. It has a lot of really dumb moments, but it moves fast enough that you can ignore them and just enjoy the ride.

Entering the I Rex's cage though? That's #140 on the Evil Overlord List for crying out loud! You do not go into the prisoner's cell just because he doesn't seem to be in there anymore! And going in there just to touch some claw marks? Really?

Not to mention the lack of any defense in depth against dinosaur escapes ('He's out of this one cage! He could be anywhere!'...why is this the only wall? Where are the security cameras watching the walls so you could check the footage? Why is the thermal signature not being constantly tracked with an alert set if it's lost? Why was the wall between the restricted northern area and the guest areas so terrible? That wall should have been stronger than any single wall on the northern side. You don't build a really powerful front line of defense and back it up with a sign saying 'keep out'...

So many dumb moments in that one scene. Feels like the writers wrote themselves into a corner with needing to show the Jurassic World crew were good at their jobs of keeping the animals safely away from people and needing to have the I. Rex escape. In any reasonable world the precautions would have been enough to keep it from escaping, but that's the plot for you.

Also...why did one random security guard have the password to open the cage and let the most dangerous creature on the island roam free? Seems like the sort of thing you'd want to keep at a higher level to me.

[Logic]

Jurassic World is merely the latest in a list of movies that I had low expectations of, yet still wanted to see anyway. Some due to bad trailers, some due to being burned by previous installments.

I'm not sure which 'return to the series' sequel I like better, Mad Max: Fury Road, or Jurassic World.

[Cikomyr]

I know which Classic 80s Crossover i want.

"Beastmaster goes to Jurassic World"

[slayerx]

It was enjoyable even as someone who wasn't really a fan of the first one. It has a lot of really dumb moments, but it moves fast enough that you can ignore them and just enjoy the ride.

Entering the I Rex's cage though? That's #140 on the Evil Overlord List for crying out loud! You do not go into the prisoner's cell just because he doesn't seem to be in there anymore! And going in there just to touch some claw marks? Really?

Not to mention the lack of any defense in depth against dinosaur escapes ('He's out of this one cage! He could be anywhere!'...why is this the only wall? Where are the security cameras watching the walls so you could check the footage? Why is the thermal signature not being constantly tracked with an alert set if it's lost? Why was the wall between the restricted northern area and the guest areas so terrible? That wall should have been stronger than any single wall on the northern side. You don't build a really powerful front line of defense and back it up with a sign saying 'keep out'...

So many dumb moments in that one scene. Feels like the writers wrote themselves into a corner with needing to show the Jurassic World crew were good at their jobs of keeping the animals safely away from people and needing to have the I. Rex escape. In any reasonable world the precautions would have been enough to keep it from escaping, but that's the plot for you.

Also...why did one random security guard have the password to open the cage and let the most dangerous creature on the island roam free? Seems like the sort of thing you'd want to keep at a higher level to me.

Honestly, i think you are giving the dinosaurs too much credit. A dinosaur may be more deadly than a typical animal but they are STILL animals. They don't typically have the intelligence and drive to do anything that doesn't have to do with their natural instincts. Any enclosure that works for animals should work on dinosaurs aswell; you just need to make the enclosures bigger and stronger. Like the walls/fences. If they are strong enough to keep the animal out, the animal isn't normally gonna just keep pounding on it to break through it; They'll just go somewhere else. Why would they pound on that wall when everything they could want is on the side of the wall they are already on? I mean, lions and tigers will attack a human that enters its cage, but if they don't the predators will just wonder around their enclosure, even when their are tasty humans right outside their cage. They won't plot and scheme and try hard to break out; only way they are gonna leave is if someone opens the door for them or leaves it unlocked. Not to mention that even if they did get out, they are only gonna eat till their full and/or when threatened; they won't go all monster movie on people (which is why all the flying dinosaurs going straight for all the people felt silly and contrived). Heck even in the first movie the only reason the park fell into disaster was because someone went and turned the security off, which effectively freed the animals, rather than them escaping by pure accident

With I-Rex, the main flaw there was that they treated it like a normal animal when it was MUCH smarter. They had no reason to think it could climb out of the cage (which it couldn't), they didn't know it could camoflauge, was smart enough to stay silent, or could hide from heat sensors. If I-rex was only as smart as a typical animal, that enclosure should have been more than enough to hold it. That's the whole point really; I-rex was a monster that was far smarter and more capable than they ever imagined it would be... i mean you criticize them for going into the cage by why should they ever think that I-rex was capable of hiding from all forms of detection, much less being smart enough that it could set a trap for humans that involves them using deductive reasoning? Why should they think it was smart enough to think "If i put claw marks here, and hide myself, they'll think i escaped and come inside?", no animal aside from a human is THAT smart.

When it comes down to it, the security they had was enough to keep the park running without a major incident for years. The wild card was the I-Rex which was much more than even the scientists ever thought it would be.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Honestly, i think you are giving the dinosaurs too much credit. A dinosaur may be more deadly than a typical animal but they are STILL animals. They don't typically have the intelligence and drive to do anything that doesn't have to do with their natural instincts. Any enclosure that works for animals should work on dinosaurs aswell; you just need to make the enclosures bigger and stronger. Like the walls/fences. If they are strong enough to keep the animal out, the animal isn't normally gonna just keep pounding on it to break through it; They'll just go somewhere else. Why would they pound on that wall when everything they could want is on the side of the wall they are already on? Heck even in the first movie the only reason the park fell into disaster was because someone went and turned the security off, which effectively freed the animals, rather than them escaping by pure accident

With I-Rex, the main flaw there was that they treated it like a normal animal when it was MUCH smarter. They had no reason to think it could climb out of the cage (which it couldn't), they didn't know it could camoflauge, was smart enough to stay silent, or could hide from heat sensors. If I-rex was only as smart as a typical animal, that enclosure should have been more than enough to hold it. That's the whole point really; I-rex was a monster that was far smarter and more capable than they ever imagined it would be... i mean you criticize them for going into the cage by why should they ever think that I-rex was capable of hiding from all forms of detection, much less being smart enough that it could set a trap for humans that involves them using deductive reasoning? Why should they think it was smart enough to think "If i put claw marks here, and hide myself, they'll think i escaped and come inside?", no animal aside from a human is THAT smart.

When it comes down to it, the security they had was enough to keep the park running without a major incident for years. The wild card was the I-Rex which was much more than even the scientists ever thought it would be.




That the scientist knew what the I-rex was capable off, it is heavily implied that it was designed from scratch as a super-weapon for InGen. I'm not sure where I read it, but it was theorised that Hoskins orchestrated the I-rex escape in order to test the Raptors, if they managed to kill the I-Rex, then he could sell the raptors, but if they failed then he could sell the Indominus template (which we see in the scene just prior to Hoskins' death).

[slayerx]

That the scientist knew what the I-rex was capable off, it is heavily implied that it was designed from scratch as a super-weapon for InGen. I'm not sure where I read it, but it was theorised that Hoskins orchestrated the I-rex escape in order to test the Raptors, if they managed to kill the I-Rex, then he could sell the raptors, but if they failed then he could sell the Indominus template (which we see in the scene just prior to Hoskins' death).


Y'know i'm rather unclear on how much of the escape was planned and how much the scientist knew about what I-rex is capable of. I mean, as far as i can tell I-rex escaped all on its own... though i guess hoskins might have been plotting to somehow let the thing loose anyway. And While the scientist was clearly in on their scheme to use dinosaurs as weapons, i'm not sure if he factored in EVERYTHING it would be capable of. It was a bit unclear how much they knew... Though if the scientist did know, then the idiot ball is on him, and no one else since he clearly did NOT tell anyone else what the thing was capable of (granted if escape was intended, then all the more reason why he would make sure the cage wasn't secure enough by denying them info)

Though mentioning it now, i DID think the whole idea to use dinosaurs for the military was really stupid and the movie could have done well enough without it; a dinosaur escape would have been good enough for a movie. Really, dinosaur's may be deadly, but the military wants something that is both deadly AND reliable. Really stupid plan.

[Cikomyr]

Militarized Dinosaures makes for a good sequel hook, as well as explains lots of plot holes..

Also, theres too much stock put into Dr Wu's actual knowledge of the I. Rex's capabilities. He just threw the genetic dice to make them morw intelligent, there was no way for him to know the actual extent of the animal's applicable intelligence. Thatd require an animal expert more than a freakkin' geneticist.

[Dire Moose]

My thoughts on this as a paleontologist (reposted from a different forum):

Let's get the bad stuff out of the way first:

Why didn't they check the Indominus's transmitter _before_ sending people into its pen? That would have saved everyone a lot of trouble.

Also, something that dangerous and they can't be bothered to put a gate that can close quickly on its pen? Serious design oversight.

No mosasaur that big has ever been found; the largest topped out around 18 meters.

I still would have preferred properly feathered dinosaurs.

How would an animal that was raised in isolation know how to communicate with other dinosaurs, and if it was so antisocial as to kill its own sibling, why would it bother instead of just killing them?

For that matter, why would a group of raptors that were imprinted on humans switch sides after being roared at by an unfamiliar yet threatening dinosaur? And if they were just too scared to fight it, why would they obey it instead of just running away?

Pteranodon was not really strong enough to lift an adult human, and its feet are not built for grasping. For that matter, why pterosaurs would automatically attack people on sight is a mystery.

Extremely minor nitpick: There are no known ankylosaurs that have both a tail club and lateral spines.

Good stuff:

Loved having the T. rex regain its badassery after the third film. I especially liked its symbolically destroying the Spinosaurus skeleton.

One of my university's specialties when it came to fossils was mosasaurs, and I've always found them to be really neat. They've always been unfairly overshadowed by pliosaurs like Liopleurodon when a threatening marine reptile was called for. Jurassic World gave them some much-needed publicity for once. I'm sure my old school will be proud to say they have the animal that killed the Indominus on display in their museum.

I found the concept of trained raptors as shown to be believable. Using the closest modern equivalent, it is certainly possible to train predatory birds, but only if you really know the specific bird well and have invested a lot of time into getting to know it.

While I still don't like the lack of feathers, I do at least appreciate that there was an in-universe explanation for it.

Most of the animals shown (with the exceptions mentioned above) were very accurate to their real-world counterparts.

Overall, Jurassic World is definitely better than Jurassic Park 3 by a long way, but I still think the first two were better.

[hamishspence]

No mosasaur that big has ever been found; the largest topped out around 18 meters.

Which is roughly how big that thing is supposed to be - 60 ft or just a fraction over 18m:

http://jurassiraptor.tumblr.com/post/104208746012/in-defense-of-jurassic-worlds-mosasaur

It wouldn't be a huge jump. I seem to recall reading that the T. rex prop in the first movie was a little bigger than "Sue" (50-odd ft long to Sue's 43 ft).

[Logic]

I still would have preferred properly feathered dinosaurs.

I have three things to say about this:

Continuity: None of the dinosaurs were feathered in previous installments.
Meddling: None of these creatures are "pure" dinosaurs, as they had frog DNA spliced in.
Humor: Warning! NSFW: LANGUAGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwHELWXtB0)

[SaintRidley]

Loved having the T. rex regain its badassery after the third film. I especially liked its symbolically destroying the Spinosaurus skeleton.

I found the concept of trained raptors as shown to be believable. Using the closest modern equivalent, it is certainly possible to train predatory birds, but only if you really know the specific bird well and have invested a lot of time into getting to know it.

To the first point, that was actually the skeleton from the end of the first movie that Dr. Grant, Ellie, and the kids were hanging onto during the final raptor attack Spinosaurus was on a different island, Isla Sorna (Lost World and JP III took place there, JP and JW took place on Isla Nublar).

Absolutely. My spouse has experience with raptor training and handling, so I've seen it up close. No reason it couldn't be done with dinosaurs like JP's velociraptors (best to just pretend they say that because Deinonychus would be too hard for kids to say).

[JadedDM]

I have three things to say about this:

Continuity: None of the dinosaurs were feathered in previous installments.
Meddling: None of these creatures are "pure" dinosaurs, as they had frog DNA spliced in.
Humor: Warning! NSFW: LANGUAGE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwHELWXtB0)

It's been a long time since I watched it, but weren't there some feathered dinosaurs in the third movie? I could swear I remember some raptors (or something) with a few feathers on their heads.

[SaintRidley]

It's been a long time since I watched it, but weren't there some feathered dinosaurs in the third movie? I could swear I remember some raptors (or something) with a few feathers on their heads.

As a nod to the feathers, some of the raptors who had become male had a very small crest of quills on their heads.

[Logic]

To the first point, that was actually the skeleton from the end of the first movie that Dr. Grant, Ellie, and the kids were hanging onto during the final raptor attack Spinosaurus was on a different island, Isla Sorna (Lost World and JP III took place there, JP and JW took place on Isla Nublar).

Absolutely. My spouse has experience with raptor training and handling, so I've seen it up close. No reason it couldn't be done with dinosaurs like JP's velociraptors (best to just pretend they say that because Deinonychus would be too hard for kids to say).
The "Velociraptors" in Jurassic Park are closer to a Utahraptor (not to be confused with the Mega Raptor) than a Deinonychus. The latter is not as tall as the movie dinosaur while the former is. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Dromie_scale.png) Velociraptor is just a cooler thing to say than either term.

It's been a long time since I watched it, but weren't there some feathered dinosaurs in the third movie? I could swear I remember some raptors (or something) with a few feathers on their heads.
I honestly cannot recall.

[Binks]

Honestly, i think you are giving the dinosaurs too much credit. A dinosaur may be more deadly than a typical animal but they are STILL animals. They don't typically have the intelligence and drive to do anything that doesn't have to do with their natural instincts. Any enclosure that works for animals should work on dinosaurs as well; you just need to make the enclosures bigger and stronger. Like the walls/fences. If they are strong enough to keep the animal out, the animal isn't normally gonna just keep pounding on it to break through it; They'll just go somewhere else. Why would they pound on that wall when everything they could want is on the side of the wall they are already on? I mean, lions and tigers will attack a human that enters its cage, but if they don't the predators will just wonder around their enclosure, even when their are tasty humans right outside their cage. They won't plot and scheme and try hard to break out; only way they are gonna leave is if someone opens the door for them or leaves it unlocked. Not to mention that even if they did get out, they are only gonna eat till their full and/or when threatened; they won't go all monster movie on people (which is why all the flying dinosaurs going straight for all the people felt silly and contrived). Heck even in the first movie the only reason the park fell into disaster was because someone went and turned the security off, which effectively freed the animals, rather than them escaping by pure accident

With I-Rex, the main flaw there was that they treated it like a normal animal when it was MUCH smarter. They had no reason to think it could climb out of the cage (which it couldn't), they didn't know it could camoflauge, was smart enough to stay silent, or could hide from heat sensors. If I-rex was only as smart as a typical animal, that enclosure should have been more than enough to hold it. That's the whole point really; I-rex was a monster that was far smarter and more capable than they ever imagined it would be... i mean you criticize them for going into the cage by why should they ever think that I-rex was capable of hiding from all forms of detection, much less being smart enough that it could set a trap for humans that involves them using deductive reasoning? Why should they think it was smart enough to think "If i put claw marks here, and hide myself, they'll think i escaped and come inside?", no animal aside from a human is THAT smart.

When it comes down to it, the security they had was enough to keep the park running without a major incident for years. The wild card was the I-Rex which was much more than even the scientists ever thought it would be.
They already had the example of the Raptors from the first park constantly testing the security to realize that some of these animals want to escape above all else. When you're building security for anything, you assume the worst case scenario (this thing wants out).

I'd criticize them for going into the cage even if it wasn't in there. That was a stupid decision and one that should have been vetoed by any sane person the moment it was thought up. If there had been some good reason to do it, maybe. But just to take a closer look at the claw marks? Really? You're betting your life on the thermal sensors for the sake of touching some marks on a wall?

It doesn't matter if the animal was setting a trap, actually had escaped, or the sensors just randomly failed you DO NOT GO INTO THE DINOSAUR CAGE UNTIL YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS! Rule #1 of keeping something prisoner, do not go into its cage until you know where it is. How many zoo officials go wandering around lion dens scratching their heads and asking themselves where the lion is you think?

I understand it's a movie and the I. Rex had to escape somehow, but that was the dumbest part of the entire movie IMHO.

[RossN]

It is good! It doesn't quite have the sheer charm of the original but it is a lot of fun.

My only real issue was: the death of Zara (Claire's PA) which felt gratituously cruel for a character who didn't do anything to deserve it - Hoskins had a quicker, less traumatic end! It felt out of place in the movie. No major problems with her being eaten but the way she went was just too nasty.

Mind you I'm a huge fan of the actress so I am biased there.

[huttj509]

It is good! It doesn't quite have the sheer charm of the original but it is a lot of fun.

My only real issue was: the death of Zara (Claire's PA) which felt gratituously cruel for a character who didn't do anything to deserve it - Hoskins had a quicker, less traumatic end! It felt out of place in the movie. No major problems with her being eaten but the way she went was just too nasty.

Mind you I'm a huge fan of the actress so I am biased there.

I waqs wondering if the actress had kicked the director's dog or something.

[Bulldog Psion]

Well, I went and watched it. I'd say that I'd rate it about a 6.5/10 -- fun, if occasionally facepalm-prompting, entertainment.

I found the people more tolerable than the ones in the other films; in particular, I found the 2 kids in the original film obnoxious beyond belief. These 2 were a bit easier to stomach, and the other people were fairly tolerable, too.

I have to admit that I like that it didn't come across as too preachy. And there was nobody in it like that wretched terrorist the filmmakers wanted us to like to #2, so that's a big plus.

I liked seeing the dinosaurs. What can I say? I'm a simple man with simple tastes. Bonus points for the T-rex; still my favorite Jurassic Park franchise dinosaur.

Heck, I didn't even mind the weird abruptness of the Claire/Owen relationship; humans are romantic critters at bottom, and like to see people pairing up in a movie for it have full satisfaction most of the time. And it's pretty hard not to be a bit contrived with 2 hours of runtime and other stuff going on; it's just a limitation of the medium.

Now for the things I didn't like:

-- The dunderheads going into the pen even before they check on the tracking beacon. I know they had to get the Indominus out somehow, but sheesh.

-- The pterodactyls going all "The Birds" after being released. Why would they make a mass beeline to a distant point with animals too large to be their prey there, and attack them, rather than just dispersing over the landscape?

-- Did the Indominus give the pterodactyls orders before they went out? That would make even less sense, if possible, than just spontaneously going "The Birds."

-- The idiotic militarization of raptors thing. Lions, tigers, and bears (oh my!) can be trained, too. But they still make really lousy military assets. The chance of their attempting anything with raptors, particularly on such short notice, is so stupid that you sort of blink before it in a stunned manner. "Hey, let's get rid of trained sapient troops with ranged weapons in favor of large, violent, totally unpredictable pack animals who can only fight at melee range and can't use vehicles, open doors, report back on what they see, and who will stop and lie around bloated for a few days after they've killed something and gorged on it!" I don't think even the North Korean military would be wacky enough to think that was actually a good idea.

I wasn't expecting anything deep, so I wasn't disappointed in that regard; nor do I have such a case of nostalgia that I view the original as some kind of pedestal-mounted masterpiece that can't be sullied by following films. It was a fun popcorn film with dinosaurs; this was a fun popcorn film with dinosaurs.

My rankings overall:

JP1 - 6.5/10.
JP2 - 5/10.
JP3 - 3/10.
JW - 6.5/10.

[Philistine]

They already had the example of the Raptors from the first park constantly testing the security to realize that some of these animals want to escape above all else. When you're building security for anything, you assume the worst case scenario (this thing wants out).

I'd criticize them for going into the cage even if it wasn't in there. That was a stupid decision and one that should have been vetoed by any sane person the moment it was thought up. If there had been some good reason to do it, maybe. But just to take a closer look at the claw marks? Really? You're betting your life on the thermal sensors for the sake of touching some marks on a wall?

It doesn't matter if the animal was setting a trap, actually had escaped, or the sensors just randomly failed you DO NOT GO INTO THE DINOSAUR CAGE UNTIL YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT IS! Rule #1 of keeping something prisoner, do not go into its cage until you know where it is. How many zoo officials go wandering around lion dens scratching their heads and asking themselves where the lion is you think?

I understand it's a movie and the I. Rex had to escape somehow, but that was the dumbest part of the entire movie IMHO.
Pretty much, yeah.
That whole sequence, from "Where is it?" to the the critter busting through the door, actually made me angry. First, we've got Claire reaching for her car keys when she ought to be reaching for her phone: in the time it took for her to get to her car, buckle in, start it, get (unknown) distance down the road, and finally contact the control center, she could have already received confirmation that the critter's tracking signal was still inside the enclosure. The importance is that if she'd had the sense to get on the phone first, she might have been able to end Owen's Idiot Expedition before it started.

And of course Owen is the real problem there. It looks like he was right to wonder why anyone would want his opinion on the security arrangements for the critter, because without his incredibly poor decision to wander into the lair of the Incredible Disappearing Hyper-Aggressive Super Predator, the door to the critter's lair doesn't get opened - and the critter doesn't get out. (Not then, anyway; and if it doesn't get out on that try then it's going to be a lot harder the next time(s), after tipping its hand and showing its keepers some of its best tricks.)

And here's an amusing thing that only occurred to me in hindsight: Hoskins was presented as a cartoonish villain, his evil rivaled only by his own ineptitude, and it's true that he said and did a number of very stupid things over the course of the film. But the really catastrophically bad decisions, the ones that escalated the situation from bad, to worse, to disastrous, to nightmarish? Those overwhelmingly came from the people presented by the film as the Good Guys. In contrast, Hoskins originated the plan that ultimately saved the day (once Claire doubled down on it by adding an angry, hungry Tyrannosaur to the mix), and rammed it through in the face of Owen's scoffing. If the filmmakers actually realized that, I should give them more credit for adding an unexpected layer of depth and complexity. But somehow, my feeling is that they probably didn't.

[Bulldog Psion]

And here's an amusing thing that only occurred to me in hindsight: Hoskins was presented as a cartoonish villain, his evil rivaled only by his own ineptitude, and it's true that he said and did a number of very stupid things over the course of the film. But the really catastrophically bad decisions, the ones that escalated the situation from bad, to worse, to disastrous, to nightmarish? Those overwhelmingly came from the people presented by the film as the Good Guys. In contrast, Hoskins originated the plan that ultimately saved the day (once Claire doubled down on it by adding an angry, hungry Tyrannosaur to the mix), and rammed it through in the face of Owen's scoffing. If the filmmakers actually realized that, I should give them more credit for adding an unexpected layer of depth and complexity. But somehow, my feeling is that they probably didn't.

You know, that's an excellent point. Owen basically fouled everything up that went wrong through most of it; continued to add problems; and it was only Hoskins' plan, amplified by Claire, that got the job done. If it had been left up to Owen alone to fix things (after he fouled them up royally -- no, imperially -- to begin with), it would have ended in an incredible bloodbath. He would have died, the kids would have died, Claire would have died, and possibly quite a few of the visitors would have ended up slashed to bits, too.

By the way, what's with shutting off the power at the end and abandoning the place? They leave just when the main problem has been dealt with? :smallconfused:

[hamishspence]

The "Velociraptors" in Jurassic Park are closer to a Utahraptor (not to be confused with the Mega Raptor) than a Deinonychus. The latter is not as tall as the movie dinosaur while the former is. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Dromie_scale.png) Velociraptor is just a cooler thing to say than either term.


I think that Crichton rationalised it as "Deinonychus is now considered to be a Velociraptor species, rather than a genus".

In Bob Bakker's "Raptor Red" it actually mentions that some of the movie staff were a bit troubled by the fact that the animal was too big to be a Deinonychus - and that no deinonychosaurs that size had been discovered yet. And, when Utahraptor was discovered, they said "You've found Spielberg's raptor" because it was almost exactly the size of "The Big Female" (head of the pride) in the movie, albeit with somewhat different proportions.

[SaintRidley]

The "Velociraptors" in Jurassic Park are closer to a Utahraptor (not to be confused with the Mega Raptor) than a Deinonychus. The latter is not as tall as the movie dinosaur while the former is. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Dromie_scale.png) Velociraptor is just a cooler thing to say than either term.


Huh. I guess I forgot that the JP raptors are as big as Utahraptor. I always thought they were just a bit bigger than Deinonychus, but not ludicrously so.

[huttj509]

Huh. I guess I forgot that the JP raptors are as big as Utahraptor. I always thought they were just a bit bigger than Deinonychus, but not ludicrously so.

*cough* the Utahraptor dig had not been publicized before the movie raptors were designed. It came between start of production, and when the movie came out, as a nice coincidence.

[Bulldog Psion]

Picking "velociraptor" was a smart bit of marketing on Crichton's part, really.

It flows off the tongue smoothly, and it even sounds like something that chases you down at high speed and eats you.

"Deinonychus" sounds like a fungal infection of the navel, or something."I'm afraid you have deinonychus, Mr. Squoggins, but fortunately it's nothing a good round of topical fungicide won't cure." :smallwink:

I'd even go so far as to say that Crichton boosted the success and memorability of the book and the subsequent movies quite a bit by picking "velociraptor." IMO, etc.

[Foeofthelance]

You know, that's an excellent point. Owen basically fouled everything up that went wrong through most of it; continued to add problems; and it was only Hoskins' plan, amplified by Claire, that got the job done. If it had been left up to Owen alone to fix things (after he fouled them up royally -- no, imperially -- to begin with), it would have ended in an incredible bloodbath. He would have died, the kids would have died, Claire would have died, and possibly quite a few of the visitors would have ended up slashed to bits, too.

By the way, what's with shutting off the power at the end and abandoning the place? They leave just when the main problem has been dealt with? :smallconfused:


I think blaming Owen for everything is a little heavy handed. Granted, going into the enclosure was stupid, but then he also had no reason to believe it was still in there, considering everyone else "aware" of the creature's capabilities was convinced it had gotten out.

Then, when they all get back to the command center, the conversation goes something like this:

OWEN: "Its large, smart, and sociopathic. Mount the biggest gun we have on the helicopter and kill it now."
HOSKINS: "RAPTORS!"
MASRANI: "No, its too expensive. Send out the ACU with orders to capture, not kill."

*ACU all gets eaten*

CLAIRE: "My nephews are out there!"

*Claire and Owen run off*

HOSKINS: "RAPTORS!!"
MASRANI: "No, I screwed up. Now we're going to go get the biggest gun we have and shoot the thing before it gets close to the park."

*Helicopter explodes*

HOSKINS: "RAPTORS!!!"
HOSKINS: "Ha! Called the home office, now I get to use the raptors!"

Really, if Owen, Claire, and Masrani had known up front what the Indominus was capable of, and what its genetic donors were, the entire thing might have been avoided. Instead Hoskins and his backers had kept the entire thing so hush hush that the guy who owned the park wasn't allowed to know what he was keeping. While I don't put any stock in the idea that Hoskins deliberately masterminded the escape in order to use the raptors as a field test, the simple fact is that you don't try to cook up a bioweapon in the middle of a theme park.

[Reddish Mage]

By the way, what's with shutting off the power at the end and abandoning the place? They leave just when the main problem has been dealt with? :smallconfused:


That much is clear They continually stressed at the beginning how expensive the park was to run, and then when the Ultimate-killing machine got out, they mentioned a few times that a few deaths or even just an (orderly, precautionary) evacuation could cause the park to shut-down.

[Jayngfet]

In terms of Owen's plan, it's important to remember how much of it only failed due to happenstance and employer incompetence. His plan to get the mounted gun on a helicopter and kill the thing quick would very clearly have worked. But then the CEO felt like waiting around until it got near cover then playing hero and delaying the shot until it was too late. If a professional pilot had launched five minutes earlier and the bullets connected the monster would have died then and there.

Even then it's pretty clear that if the helicopter had zigged instead of zagged at any point, or any of those situations had changed, they'd probably have lived. If that one dinosaur hadn't hit the windshield or they'd pulled up a second earlier the crash would never have happened.

The plan they actually went with was pretty terrible even presuming the raptors behaved the entire time. The size difference between them was too great and it was ambiguous if even raptors plus a T-Rex could have handled it. You also can't trust even a squad of gunmen to handle the creature, since it can cloak through anything they can track it with otherwise and is armor plated and fast enough they'd never be able to bring it down in time to guarantee a good victory.

A helicopter out of tooth range taking a clear shot with a gun big enough to pierce it's hide cleanly is the optimal plan. It's just that it was badly executed and only really failed because it was super early on in the film and they needed it to fail to ratchet up tension.

[Bulldog Psion]

Yes, I suppose I should just be thankful that weaponry actually affected a few dinosaurs like actual animals, rather than immune-to-anything-but-silver horror movie monsters. The pterodactyls, at least, actually died when shot, which is a real first for any Jurassic movie. (Interestingly, the humans kill most of the raptors, if not all of them, through various means in the original novels.)

I guess it's hard for me to give Owen any credit for anything after having his role in the movie ripped to shreds by most of the reviewers and critics I've come across. They made me despise the character for the sins of the director, as it were. :smallfrown:

By the way, since I didn't quite see and don't feel like getting another ticket just to figure it out -- did the Indominus rex survive a direct hit from a shoulder-launched missile, or was it just a near-miss that knocked it flat?

[Jayngfet]

I'd say making Owen the posterboy for the movie's flaws is hardly fair. Especially since he embodies so few of them. You can blame the upper middle class white family for shoehorning in suplots about the important of having kids or getting a divorce where it doesn't belong. Or the fat, arrogant villain so marked for death even the token black guy is laughing his ass off at it. Or the executive for constantly flip flopping if he's supposed to be the free spirited voice of reason or an out of touch nut. Heck, I'd even say blame moustache guy for being an out of place gag character that exists so the story can feel safe mocking previous movies and it's own logical holes.

Chris Pratt's character, despite everything, is pretty much consistent in how he treats things and how he's supposed to be "right". He understands these animals and exactly what it takes to keep them under control.

[Avilan the Grey]

Sidenote: Anybody but me wishes there was a dino movie that was up to code, science wise?

[hamishspence]

Sidenote: Anybody but me wishes there was a dino movie that was up to code, science wise?

Maybe a "movie-ification" of Bob Bakker's Raptor Red novel, only with them updated to have feathers, would be a good idea. No talking dinosaurs. No time travel. No genetic modification.

[Cikomyr]

I just wondered, if they had a freakkin' bazooka, why they didnt opened with that instead of first firing with rifles.

Goddamnit, you do an alpha strike with your heaviest weapons!

[Killer Angel]

I just wondered, if they had a freakkin' bazooka, why they didnt opened with that instead of first firing with rifles.

Goddamnit, you do an alpha strike with your heaviest weapons!

It's the Super Robot syndrome. You never start with your best weapon.

(there's probably a trope about it, but i'm lazy to check)

[Starbuck_II]

About the pterosaurs
Yeah them going and attacking a group of thousands of humans is just massively unrealistic. That was the only real part that was really dumb. No animal is going to go attack a huge swarm of other animals that are roughly the same size as you are (or bigger in many cases).

It also seems that along with all the other DNA and stuff they spliced in some GPS tracking devices into that I. Rex that let it track down plot relevant characters and always be where they were.

Though even with that and some other nitpicks it was a very entertaining movie. Nothing spectacular plot wise or even acting wise, but just overall enjoyable.


I saw the Pterosaurs as a homage to The Birds. Did no one else get the similarities?
Remember in The Birds, something was messing with their nests, so they attacked all the humans in agitation/retaliation. The P-saurs did the same.


But yeah, I loved the movie. And we can have a sequel due to those dudes escaping.

Anyone else loved the dialogue between the raptor and hunter dude. It was like after the big battle, "go back with you now pack leader", hunter dude shakes head no, and it runs off to be alone.

[Logic]

Sidenote: Anybody but me wishes there was a dino movie that was up to code, science wise?
How much up to code? Because I basically already said

FU SCIENCE* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFwHELWXtB0)


*NSFW: Language

EDIT: I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm assuming you mean feathers. I disagree with feathered dinosaurs for aesthetic reasons, as they weren't known to be feathered when I was growing up. For anything else, science can only speculate, so would you care to clarify your position?

[The Troubadour]

Fun movie, I especially liked the showdown at the end. I could have done without Grady's obnoxious sexism and the kids' inexplicably immediate devotion to him, though. I almost wish they had added a scene with Claire taking him down a notch ("See? I was more useful than you even while wearing these 'ridiculous shoes' "), except the whole thing was so completely unnecessary nothing of it should have been added in the first place.

[Bulldog Psion]

Fun movie, I especially liked the showdown at the end. I could have done without Grady's obnoxious sexism and the kids' inexplicably immediate devotion to him, though. I almost wish they had added a scene with Claire taking him down a notch ("See? I was more useful than you even while wearing these 'ridiculous shoes' "), except the whole thing was so completely unnecessary nothing of it should have been added in the first place.

Yes, the showdown was good. The fact that I'm talking about it still shows that I enjoyed the movie a lot; I usually don't talk about films I don't enjoy. So I, at least, would recommend it to anyone still on the fence.

And yes, the sexist stuff was not only irritating, but unnecessary and pointless. Had they cut it out and just had Owen and Claire interact normally, rather than with the sniping on Owen's part, it would have been a real relief. Fortunately, though, it didn't take up a lot of screen time, so there's that at least.


I saw the Pterosaurs as a homage to The Birds. Did no one else get the similarities?
Remember in The Birds, something was messing with their nests, so they attacked all the humans in agitation/retaliation. The P-saurs did the same.

Actually, I did specifically mention "The Birds" in my post up the page a bit with the 6.5/10 rating. :smallwink: Having never actually seen "The Birds," though, I was unaware that the cause was something messing with their nests. If that's the case, then it's definitely an homage.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if the pterodactyls managed to kill anyone directly other than the luckless military guy strapped in beside the boss in the helicopter, and the even more luckless Zara. The rest seemed to be just injuries and a bit of terror.

[Jayngfet]

("See? I was more useful than you even while wearing these 'ridiculous shoes' "

She really wasn't. Lets not get hasty here and suggest that the dude who personally trained the dinosaurs that did most of the heavy lifting was less useful than the fortysomething woman in five inch heels.

[Dire Moose]

Sidenote: Anybody but me wishes there was a dino movie that was up to code, science wise?

Definitely. I don't really see how that would have hurt this movie to be honest, aside from having to rework the pterosaur scene.

[Bulldog Psion]

She really wasn't. Lets not get hasty here and suggest that the dude who personally trained the dinosaurs that did most of the heavy lifting was less useful than the fortysomething woman in five inch heels.

Actually, Owen's raptors just made things worse most of the time. The T-rex, which was 100% Claire's work, was pretty much the game changer, in that it at least got the I-rex outside where it could become mosasaurus chow. The velociraptors could have been a positive game-changer if the guys with him fired their rocket down the I-rex's throat while it was "talking" to them, but given that the people sat there like dullards letting the enemy take the initiative ... yeah. :smallbiggrin:

[Dire Moose]

I still have a problem with the Indominus becoming the raptors' new Alpha. It's been shown that Owen had to have the raptors imprint on him first, followed by developing a relationship with them for years, in order to have them barely respect him. Which makes sense.

And then some strange animal that the raptors have never encountered before, which itself is a sociopath raised in complete isolation, somehow manages to bond with them in a matter of minutes and dominate them completely? That's really difficult to swallow. The justification that "it's part raptor" doesn't make sense either, as modern predators do not automatically respect their own kind. On the contrary, most tend to see unfamiliar members of their species as rivals threatening their territory and react aggressively.

Also, if the Indominus was enough of a sociopath to actually kill its own sibling, it doesn't make sense for it to try bonding with the raptors instead of killing them.

[sktarq]

While I did like the rocket launcher shooting the raptor, as a nice call back to the first book, I had to wonder "where have you been?"

I was also waiting for a "but backwards and in heels" reference for the 45 min of the movie-which I was mildly surprised I didn't get :smallfrown:

[Bulldog Psion]

I still have a problem with the Indominus becoming the raptors' new Alpha. It's been shown that Owen had to have the raptors imprint on him first, followed by developing a relationship with them for years, in order to have them barely respect him. Which makes sense.

And then some strange animal that the raptors have never encountered before, which itself is a sociopath raised in complete isolation, somehow manages to bond with them in a matter of minutes and dominate them completely? That's really difficult to swallow. The justification that "it's part raptor" doesn't make sense either, as modern predators do not automatically respect their own kind. On the contrary, most tend to see unfamiliar members of their species as rivals threatening their territory and react aggressively.

Also, if the Indominus was enough of a sociopath to actually kill its own sibling, it doesn't make sense for it to try bonding with the raptors instead of killing them.

Yes, that's a good point. And it doesn't really matter if it's more intelligent than they are -- you could dump Einstein in Africa and he wouldn't suddenly gain the power to command chimpanzees, even though they're our closest relatives and we could arguably be said to be "part chimpanzee" by movie logic.

Of course, the Jurassic Park franchise operates, IMO, by toned-down horror movie tropes. See, for example, the inability of anyone to ever get a solid hit on a dinosaur with a weapon, prior to this film anyway, and even this time around it was shaky.

The raptors turning was more of a "the other team members start sprouting hair in a werewolf film" or "the guy you were counting on was bitten by a zombie but hid it until he turned" situation, I suppose. The nightmare scenario of "those you trusted are really monsters inside" thing that plays out in many a horror film. Nothing to do with logic or biology, but something to stomp hard on the gibbering fear pedal down in the lizard brain. :smallwink:

Still, it's a definite weak point in the movie.

[The Troubadour]

She really wasn't. Lets not get hasty here and suggest that the dude who personally trained the dinosaurs that did most of the heavy lifting was less useful than the fortysomething woman in five inch heels.

She saved his life from one of the pterodactyls (or whatever their species was), kept her nephews safe while his own raptors (and let's remember he went along with the plan to use them willingly) were trying to chow down on everyone, and she was the one who had the idea to sic the T-Rex on the Indominus. So no, I do not believe I'm being hasty in saying she was more useful on the whole than him. ;-)
Also, how exactly are her age and choice of footwear relevant to determining whether she was useful or not, as opposed to her actions in the plot?


I still have a problem with the Indominus becoming the raptors' new Alpha.

I know almost nothing about dinosaurs other than they look awesome (yes, even with feathers!), but...

...I saw that scene as the Indominus asserting his dominance by strength and intimidation, not by social bonds.

[Peelee]

Oh man, it was so terrible. And I loved it.

OK, I don't actually mind when the dinos don't match up to real ones, so long as they're internally consistent with the rest of the series. But the T-Rex, which is clocked at 45mph in Jurassic Park, suddenly runs at human speed when the pretty lady wants it to. And the superhunter raptors, which are incredibly coordinated pack animals and have a distinctive hunting style, run up to the I-Rex and then just stand there in a straight line. Or (among all the pteranodon rage already, I'm surprised this has yet to come up) the pteranodon that tried to eat Own, despite being half his size.

The three worst things were the looks that the T-Rex and raptor gave each other after the I-Rex fight; raptors are shown the be hyper-aggressive, and will usually attack with little provocation; even assuming they were smart enough to recognize that it needed help and found an ally, the T-Rex sure as hell isn't. And the Lost World established that both animals (and holy crap especially the T-Rex) are HIGHLY territorial. That just stretched the suspension of disbelief far past its breaking point.

Second, this is a world where the dinosaurs have been known to exist for about two decades. Both children weren't even born when another T-Red rampaged through San Diego. Even if they tried to cover it up, the Isla Nublar incident had to have come to light in the obvious hearings and investigations that would have followed the Jurassic Park: San Diego disaster (and they openly acknowledge the event in the control room, implying that it is common knowledge). So when the I-Rex breaks loose, why the holy hell do they not put it down instantly? The stated response is because it cost millions to develop, but look at how many people are at the park! Thousands of lawsuits would cost far more than the setbacks in both time and money to redevelop another I-Rex, and the reputation of the company wouldn't take nearly as big a hit, since they wouldn't have to disclose anything about it. Even if they had managed to recapture it, where the hell would they put it? The thing broke the door when it escaped; the only pen capable of housing it has a gaping hole in it. What was the plan there?

Lastly, the ending. Oh my god the ending. So let's assume that the T-Rex and raptors acknowledge each other as "enemy of my enemy is my friend," and mutual respect, and what not. They look at each other and go their separate ways. They're still loose on the island. Thousands of people are packed into a few buildings waiting for evacuation, and we're told the next ship is still at least 30 minutes away (I'm assuming~15 minutes for the final battle). That's a massive buffet line for the carnivores (which are shown to almost invariably go straight for the highest concentration of people on the island). Then we just go to the mainland. There's no way it was that easy.

Unless everyone fled to the control room, which is apparently better secured the the vault at the Bellagio.

Complaints aside, it was still a delightful movie to watch; Jurassic Park is by far one of my favorite books, and I was a bit sad when Jurassic Park movies finally were able to get everything from the first book into the movies, but I like how they revitalized the park. It's easily the second best in the franchise.

Also, was anyone else anticipating the carnotaurus DNA to be spliced in the Indominus when it revealed its camouflage abilities? I figured it had raptor DNA when they said it ate its sibling (and also, it's Jurassic Park. Of course it has raptor DNA), but I got all excited about a possible Lost World book reference.


She saved his life from one of the pterodactyls (or whatever their species was), kept her nephews safe while his own raptors (and let's remember he went along with the plan to use them willingly) were trying to chow down on everyone, and she was the one who had the idea to sic the T-Rex on the Indominus. So no, I do not believe I'm being hasty in saying she was more useful on the whole than him. ;-)
Also, how exactly are her age and choice of footwear relevant to determining whether she was useful or not, as opposed to her actions in the plot?

We're talking about the same woman who refused to use appropriate measures to contain the Indominus at the initial outbreak, refused to attempt an alternate method of location immediately upon a failed one (maybe the infrared sensors glitched), and drove away from the heavily reinforced building when she was under the belief that the Indominus had recently escaped.

Also, the T-Rex failed as well as the raptors. They only prevailed together, so no, I would not say that she was more useful. Oh, and when it was pointed out that high heels, while by no means a poor decision when it was made, were highly impractical to run away from vicious dinosaurs in, she pulled up her sleeves and left the shoes on. Yeah. That was stupid.

[Starbuck_II]

Oh man, it was so terrible. And I loved it.

Lastly, the ending. Oh my god the ending. So let's assume that the T-Rex and raptors acknowledge each other as "enemy of my enemy is my friend," and mutual respect, and what not. They look at each other and go their separate ways. They're still loose on the island. Thousands of people are packed into a few buildings waiting for evacuation, and we're told the next ship is still at least 30 minutes away (I'm assuming~15 minutes for the final battle). That's a massive buffet line for the carnivores (which are shown to almost invariably go straight for the highest concentration of people on the island). Then we just go to the mainland. There's no way it was that easy.

Unless everyone fled to the control room, which is apparently better secured the the vault at the Bellagio.



Well, I saw it that they weren't the made characters so screw them. The main guys lived happy ending.
Kind of dark as an afterthought but it fits.

And where was it shown carnivores go straight for highest concentration? I. Rex did that because it was hunting for sport. The P-saurus did it because it was angry that its nest was disturbed(by both I. Rex and that helicopter) so took it out on people.
No other carnivores were shown so what leads you to this idea?

[Peelee]

Well, I saw it that they weren't the made characters so screw them. The main guys lived happy ending.
Kind of dark as an afterthought but it fits.

And where was it shown carnivores go straight for highest concentration? I. Rex did that because it was hunting for sport. The P-saurus did it because it was angry that its nest was disturbed(by both I. Rex and that helicopter) so took it out on people.
No other carnivores were shown so what leads you to this idea?


Yeah, when character actions are done for the specific reason of "we have to save these people!" and then those same people are forgotten and probably died, I'ma call shenanigans.

The I-Rex going there was understandable, as they explained that it went for the heat signatures. The pteranodons, though? Its nest was disturbed, yeah. So clearly they should all go in a specific direction, not knowing if anything's there? Things made a beeline towards the park center for no reason. The raptors also went straight for the humans - the ones with the known location first, and after the trail was lost, well, they may as well head to where they all gathered, because reasons. That accounts for all the carnivorous dinos that got loose except the T-Rex, which was already housed in the park center.

[The Troubadour]

We're talking about the same woman who refused to use appropriate measures to contain the Indominus at the initial outbreak, refused to attempt an alternate method of location immediately upon a failed one (maybe the infrared sensors glitched), and drove away from the heavily reinforced building when she was under the belief that the Indominus had recently escaped.

She wasn't attacked, so it's not as if her driving away made her less useful to anyone. In fact, considering Owen was the one who led people inside to investigate how the Indominus got away only to find out it was still there, only hidden, he was partly responsible for it actually getting away.


Also, the T-Rex failed as well as the raptors. They only prevailed together, so no, I would not say that she was more useful.

The raptors didn't just fail to kill the Indominus, they also killed lots of people, including the idiots who were supposedly security professionals, and nearly killed Claire, her nephews and Owen's friend. I think that's an important distinction to make when judging which was more useful, the T-Rex or the raptors.
Besides, even with the T-Rex and Blue teaming up, they still needed the aquatic dinosaur to actually take out the Indominus.


Oh, and when it was pointed out that high heels, while by no means a poor decision when it was made, were highly impractical to run away from vicious dinosaurs in, she pulled up her sleeves and left the shoes on. Yeah. That was stupid.

And yet, she manages to do everything in the movie while still wearing those. Heck, the movie even takes the time to point out how those shoes didn't hinder her at all when she was leading the T-Rex to the Indominus.
Completely unrealistic, yes, but that just goes to show how the whole thing was completely unnecessary to the movie.

[Foeofthelance]

I still have a problem with the Indominus becoming the raptors' new Alpha. It's been shown that Owen had to have the raptors imprint on him first, followed by developing a relationship with them for years, in order to have them barely respect him. Which makes sense.

And then some strange animal that the raptors have never encountered before, which itself is a sociopath raised in complete isolation, somehow manages to bond with them in a matter of minutes and dominate them completely? That's really difficult to swallow. The justification that "it's part raptor" doesn't make sense either, as modern predators do not automatically respect their own kind. On the contrary, most tend to see unfamiliar members of their species as rivals threatening their territory and react aggressively.

Also, if the Indominus was enough of a sociopath to actually kill its own sibling, it doesn't make sense for it to try bonding with the raptors instead of killing them.

My read of the scene was a little less complex. The Indominus was bred from partial raptor DNA, so from what I could tell was that it basically looked, smelled, and sounded like a big raptor. That was enough confusion for both sides to pause and re-evaluate. Note that the raptors all looked back at Owen, as if to say, "Ok, we found this...now what?"

At that point the troops began shooting, Indominus attacked, and the raptors scattered away from the guns. Then the humans start running around in the woods, trying not to become Indominus chow. The raptors basically see the human acting like prey, and respond accordingly. Remember, at that point all the humans with the exception of Owen and Barry are complete strangers to the raptors. When the pack does encounter one of their handlers, they paused again to re-evaluate the situation. Because, and this is important, the raptors are neither tame nor well trained.Hoskins wanted to treat them like bred circus animals, when the only way Owen could really keep control of them was by being in front of the pack during the chase. Hoskins was expecting them to just automatically attack like good little soldiers, but really, why would they? The task was to search, they searched. The thing they found wasn't prey, but was actually a threat to the pack.

Then what happens? They head back to the raptor pen, their home base, which is also where Owen headed. Except the humans are still running around like prey, so ooh! Fast food! The Indominus actually vanishes from the film at this point.

Owen heads for the visitor center, and once again the raptors follow. Delta eats Hoskins, but pretty much ignored Owen, Claire, and the boys until they started running. They finally corner the group, at which point Owen stops acting like prey and starts acting like a member of the pack again. Then the Indominus shows up, and the raptors immediately attack it as a threat to the pack, responding to Owen's cues.

[Peelee]

She wasn't attacked, so it's not as if her driving away made her less useful to anyone. In fact, considering Owen was the one who led people inside to investigate how the Indominus got away only to find out it was still there, only hidden, he was partly responsible for it actually getting away.
So you're saying that if you were in a sealed room in a zoo, and as far as you know, the tiger in the very next room escaped, you would leave the room and walk over to the administration building? Because that's basically what she did.

Also, I completely agree that Owen was partly responsible for letting the I. Rex out. There's plenty of stupid to go around. The two main factors in its escape were that the phone call to track it by other means wasn't made immediately in the building, and that the door was opened so the team could get in/try to get out. Both equally mind-bogglingly stupid, both equally at fault.



The raptors didn't just fail to kill the Indominus, they also killed lots of people, including the idiots who were supposedly security professionals, and nearly killed Claire, her nephews and Owen's friend. I think that's an important distinction to make when judging which was more useful, the T-Rex or the raptors.
Besides, even with the T-Rex and Blue teaming up, they still needed the aquatic dinosaur to actually take out the Indominus.
If the T. Rex could only bring down the I. Rex with the raptors help, then no, they are equally useful. Collateral damage was worse, yeah, and they should have tried pretty much any other means available, but but neither Owen nor Claire were in charge of that; InGen released the raptors, and it was happening with or without Owen. Dude simply tried to help minimize. It didn't help much until a good amount of people were eaten, but that wasn't on Owen. It was clear from the start the raptors weren't ready for deployment.
Oh, and the mosasaur was not needed to kill the I. Rex. They brought the thing down. The fight was over, except for finishing it off. The mosasaur was just used to make it look cool. It would have died without that intervention.


And yet, she manages to do everything in the movie while still wearing those. Heck, the movie even takes the time to point out how those shoes didn't hinder her at all when she was leading the T-Rex to the Indominus.
Completely unrealistic, yes, but that just goes to show how the whole thing was completely unnecessary to the movie.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's the completely unrealistic bit that gets me. She SHOULDN'T have been able to do that. It's ridiculous. That's my complaint. If it was completely unnecessary to the movie, then why was she in heels to start with? All that does is point out how ridiculous it is that she survives. She could have been in flats, one line of dialogue would be different, and the movie would have been the exact same. How is that not preferable to the way it actually went down?

[The Troubadour]

So you're saying that if you were in a sealed room in a zoo, and as far as you know, the tiger in the very next room escaped, you would leave the room and walk over to the administration building? Because that's basically what she did.

No, I'm saying that since there were no negative outcomes to that decision, it's irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether Claire was useful or not.


If it was completely unnecessary to the movie, then why was she in heels to start with?

Because the writers thought all good action-adventure movies need a scene where the "sensible" male lead dresses down his "silly" female companion, apparently.

[Foeofthelance]

Because the writers thought all good action-adventure movies need a scene where the "sensible" male lead dresses down his "silly" female companion, apparently.

Actually, that's flipped around. The director wanted to lose the shoes, but Bryce Dallas Howard insisted on keeping them after seeing the ground.

[Peelee]

No, I'm saying that since there were no negative outcomes to that decision, it's irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether Claire was useful or not.



Because the writers thought all good action-adventure movies need a scene where the "sensible" male lead dresses down his "silly" female companion, apparently.

Ah. That's where we differ. When determining usefulness, i don't account for dumb luck.

As for the shoes bit, it seems to me as if we're both offended in different ways. You dislike that Hollywood was doing a "silly woman, when will you learn?" moment (and don't get me wrong, thats definitely an attitude what needs changing) and I dislike that that scene existed solely to point out a needless bit of ridiculousness that would persist the rest of the movie. Seriously, a single cut line of dialogue and a miniscule wardrobe change would mean we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I still have a problem with the Indominus becoming the raptors' new Alpha. It's been shown that Owen had to have the raptors imprint on him first, followed by developing a relationship with them for years, in order to have them barely respect him. Which makes sense.

And then some strange animal that the raptors have never encountered before, which itself is a sociopath raised in complete isolation, somehow manages to bond with them in a matter of minutes and dominate them completely? That's really difficult to swallow. The justification that "it's part raptor" doesn't make sense either, as modern predators do not automatically respect their own kind. On the contrary, most tend to see unfamiliar members of their species as rivals threatening their territory and react aggressively.

Also, if the Indominus was enough of a sociopath to actually kill its own sibling, it doesn't make sense for it to try bonding with the raptors instead of killing them.

Yeah, the read I got on the situation was basically...


My read of the scene was a little less complex. The Indominus was bred from partial raptor DNA, so from what I could tell was that it basically looked, smelled, and sounded like a big raptor. That was enough confusion for both sides to pause and re-evaluate. Note that the raptors all looked back at Owen, as if to say, "Ok, we found this...now what?"

At that point the troops began shooting, Indominus attacked, and the raptors scattered away from the guns. Then the humans start running around in the woods, trying not to become Indominus chow. The raptors basically see the human acting like prey, and respond accordingly. Remember, at that point all the humans with the exception of Owen and Barry are complete strangers to the raptors. When the pack does encounter one of their handlers, they paused again to re-evaluate the situation. Because, and this is important, the raptors are neither tame nor well trained.Hoskins wanted to treat them like bred circus animals, when the only way Owen could really keep control of them was by being in front of the pack during the chase. Hoskins was expecting them to just automatically attack like good little soldiers, but really, why would they? The task was to search, they searched. The thing they found wasn't prey, but was actually a threat to the pack.

Then what happens? They head back to the raptor pen, their home base, which is also where Owen headed. Except the humans are still running around like prey, so ooh! Fast food! The Indominus actually vanishes from the film at this point.

Owen heads for the visitor center, and once again the raptors follow. Delta eats Hoskins, but pretty much ignored Owen, Claire, and the boys until they started running. They finally corner the group, at which point Owen stops acting like prey and starts acting like a member of the pack again. Then the Indominus shows up, and the raptors immediately attack it as a threat to the pack, responding to Owen's cues.



...er...very similar to this. The raptors didn't attack after the conversation but looked back at Owen as if they wanted to know what exactly they were supposed to do. He was their Alpha after all and there was a clear challenger to be dealt with, the feeling I got was they were waiting for a cue from Owen about how they should handle the problem. Then someone opened fire and the raptors decide to start killing people for probably a bunch of good animal reasons. They smelled like food, they were getting shot at, the new alpha wanted them to do it, etc. etc. Cause again, worth noting, once Blue realized she was attacking Barry she paused and didn't seem to know how to respond.

As opposed to Delta and Hoskins who didn't so much as hesitate as look offended that Hoskins was giving her the 'feeding time' signal while calling her a 'good boy' before eating her. After that, when actually confronted with the I. Rex and their old alpha in a situation where no one is shooting at them (worth noting is that Owens never shot at his raptors, only ever the I. Rex) that they decide to side with the human that imprinted on them and raised them from eggs.


No, I'm saying that since there were no negative outcomes to that decision, it's irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether Claire was useful or not.



Because the writers thought all good action-adventure movies need a scene where the "sensible" male lead dresses down his "silly" female companion, apparently.

...Uhhh...no, it was incredibly relevant with obvious negative repercussions because Claire wasn't there to actually tell Owen and company that the pen still had its lethal occupant inside. Her decision to leave actually delayed the obtaining of that vital information that let Owen make the decision to go into the pen to try and figure out anything about the I. Rex that he could.

Nor was it a scene about sensible vs Silly, it was a scene about Owen addressing how out of place she is in the jungle as well as to clue the audience in to how little she knew about her 'assets' (plus, in the meta-sense, poking fun at the mom in JP 3 that constantly ran around screaming yet never got killed). She actually thought standing in the jungle when there is a super-predator lurking around and screaming was a good idea. It was born out of worry but still!

I really don't see Owen as sexist so much as worried Claire can't cut it in this situation on her own (he's not wrong) and her proving that she's not as incapable as Owens believes her to be (and she isn't, just out of her comfort zone).

[Dienekes]

Alright, just saw the movie. Some thoughts.

Not nearly as good as the first one. But damn it, when that music starts I turn into a 10 year old again.

More specific thoughts:

Holy crap, do I not care about the relationship between Starlord and Redhead McBusinesslady. Some of the dialogue between them is downright groan worthy. Their relationship could have been entirely cut from the movie and it would have been improved for it. I mean "We should probably stick together, for survival." That's the line you're ending the movie on? That was so cheesy a Wisconsinite would try to turn it into a hat. God that sucked.

Speaking of groans, the iNGen or however they wrote it, faux military guys. How ****ing stupid can you be? "What I just saw was a bond, they follow your orders." He said that 10 seconds after the raptors tried to attack Andy Dwyer the second he turned his back on them. And that's after they went to hunt the first none Andy person they interacted with. And you want to release these terrors on a park, full of people. What is wrong with you? Maybe, if you showed Starlord had total control over them I could buy it, but they set it up to show he didn't. Fat faux military guy, you deserved to be eaten. Seriously, the villain from the first movie? The lawyer, he was at least realistic. He wasn't a bad dude, just greedy and a coward. This guy was just made to be cartoonishly unlikeable to the point it bored on humor.

And on that note, Andy just say back and watched a raptor eat him. He had a shotgun, he could have saved his life. That's cold.

Then the high heels. Ok, honestly, I probably wouldn't have even noticed if they didn't keep bring it up. But, that is so stupid. I've trekked in a jungle before. You need boots. Really. You actually are a liability if you try to do that in heels. It's idiotic. Bringing that up, I don't see it as sexist so much as basic knowledge for anyone who knows what they're talking about. But then, to top it off her "I'm ready to do this" action was to expose more skin. No. That's still idiotic. Look at the flora that has grown there in 20 years, that implies your in a very humid, wet environment, which will have a lot of insects. You want to cover your skin, especially if you're not used to moving about out there. The whole thing is just painfully dumb. As though they're trying to make her seem like some strong independent woman, but all they're showing is she has no clue what she's doing. And then, when I've almost forgotten about her stupid dressing choices, the T-Rex thing happens. In the first movie the heroes needed a car to get away from that dino. In this movie, Redhead, who seems to have no grasp on basic survival skills or any displays of athleticism up to that point, outruns the T-Rex, in heels. And they have a close up on her shoes? Why? It would take like 30 seconds for her to get more appropriate wear while they're in the jeep ride over. But they keep on focusing on her doing things obviously wrong. Just, why? Put in 1 minute of research and no screentime (seriously we don't even need to see her change, anyone with half a brain would know to put on appropriate footwear before heading into the wild) she just needs to show up in the next scene dressed appropriately. No one would have objected to that. Or, if you're too lazy for that, at least stop focusing on it.

Then just, everybody is useless. At least Starlord has enough sense to keep saying using the raptors is stupid. He goes along with it, only after he was told it would happen without him anyway, and he does have the best control over them. But there was never a doubt that using the raptors would go horrible. Because, again, they tried to eat him when he turned his back on them in his first scene. But then, for no reason they're friends again at the end. Hurray, I guess. Go power of friendship. Magic. Ponies. You know the drill. And then there's that friendship between Big T and Blue at the end. Again, hurray.

Remember when these creatures acted like terrifying wild animals, and not going through the motions of your generic "enemy of my enemy, leaves with a grudging respect" plot that you've seen done a hundred times? I do. It was awesome.

I mean Starlord's plan to use a mounted turret on a helicopter is a good one. Pity they only did it after evil fat army/corporation guy told them they had to get their asses moving. If they did that before then there would be a lot less deaths, no escaped pterrasaurs. It'd be all good. But whatever, I'm willing to see why that didn't work, the obviously workable plan needed to fail to get the story going, and the birdcage, or whatever they called it is really just placed arbitrarily to where it needed to be for the sake of plot. Fine. But why was the the guys personal pilot not there? We already know that helicopters can be used to fly to and from the island. Personal pilot is caught in the evac? How? His evac should just be to stand next to the helicopter for when his boss wants to leave. It just felt so arbitrary. But that's nitpickery, I suppose.

So, yeah, there was a lot I didn't like, or thought was downright bad in this movie. And I haven't even talked about how annoying I found the mother and the kids. I don't know why, but every line that lady delivered just seemed annoying to me. The only good interaction was when she and her husband took a few seconds to make fun of Son 1's girlfriend situation.

So, the humans, the way the dinos interacted, some just lazy writing. But at the end, I still enjoyed it. I just love watching dinosaurs do their dinosaur thing. I laughed out load when fat evil army/corporation guy and British useless nanny (who apparently wouldn't let her fiance have a bachelor party, how's that for a minor unimportant throwaway detail to make you not like her? It's ok fictional fiance man, if she was that controlling you're better off without her) were eaten. Not nearly as terrifying and suspenseful about it as the first one, but still enjoyable.

[Jayngfet]

She saved his life from one of the pterodactyls (or whatever their species was), kept her nephews safe while his own raptors (and let's remember he went along with the plan to use them willingly) were trying to chow down on everyone, and she was the one who had the idea to sic the T-Rex on the Indominus. So no, I do not believe I'm being hasty in saying she was more useful on the whole than him. ;-)
Also, how exactly are her age and choice of footwear relevant to determining whether she was useful or not, as opposed to her actions in the plot?


She didn't save him from anything. You'll notice he was actually carrying a hold out weapon on his belt the entire time. In another second he'd have gotten himself out.

The T-Rex also wasn't exactly the game changer it was made out to be. She made it clear early on that Indominus was bigger and stronger and it was actually losing soundly without a raptor to back it up and even then it would have gotten up and probably killed at least one of them if it hadn't fallen near the aquatic tank on pure luck.

[hamishspence]

even with the T-Rex and Blue teaming up, they still needed the aquatic dinosaur to actually take out the Indominus.

Mosasaurus is about as much an "aquatic dinosaur" as Pteranodon is "a flying dinosaur" - less so, even, since Pteranodon is at least an archosaur, whereas Mosasaurus is in the lizard-type group -lepidosaurs.

[Drascin]

She didn't save him from anything. You'll notice he was actually carrying a hold out weapon on his belt the entire time. In another second he'd have gotten himself out.

The T-Rex also wasn't exactly the game changer it was made out to be. She made it clear early on that Indominus was bigger and stronger and it was actually losing soundly without a raptor to back it up and even then it would have gotten up and probably killed at least one of them if it hadn't fallen near the aquatic tank on pure luck.

He was visibly NOT getting himself out, though. It took her entirely too long to come over, move it, and shoot it, and in all that time Owen hadn't made even slight progress towards removing the thing from himself.

Which is kind of silly because pterosaurs, and more particularly pterosaurs as small as the Dimorphodons that were assaulting people, were really kind of fragile and probably weighed little for their size, so the visitors should have been able to punch the **** out of them enough to make them realize there's plenty of easier targets.

But this was not working by logic rules, but by horror rules. Owen wasn't getting out without outside help.

[Foeofthelance]

Which is kind of silly because pterosaurs, and more particularly pterosaurs as small as the Dimorphodons that were assaulting people, were really kind of fragile and probably weighed little for their size, so the visitors should have been able to punch the **** out of them enough to make them realize there's plenty of easier targets.

But this was not working by logic rules, but by horror rules. Owen wasn't getting out without outside help.

While I agree on Claire rescuing Owen (having a gun is not the same as using the gun) I disagree on the topic of the people being able to fight back. You're talking about being attacked by something the size of a small child, only it has claws and teeth and you don't. In a boxing ring, with both participants standing on the ground, it looks lopsided in the humans favor. In the wild, you're talking about being struck by a 15-20 pound animal moving at speeds of upwards of 50 miles per hour in a dive, already slashing and biting. A big stick would be enough if you knew it was coming, but if you're unarmed its going to do some serious damage before the fight is over. Add in the fact that the majority of the crowd is not expecting to have to defend themselves, and you get the panic you saw.

[Bulldog Psion]

Just as a side note, my personal, rather tongue-in-cheek explanation for how Claire outran the Tyrannosaurus in high heels is that the poor old beast has arthritis, kidney stones, lumbago, and hemorrhoids, and just isn't up to the 45-mph thing any more. :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

Just as a side note, my personal, rather tongue-in-cheek explanation for how Claire outran the Tyrannosaurus in high heels is that the poor old beast has arthritis, kidney stones, lumbago, and hemorrhoids, and just isn't up to the 45-mph thing any more. :smallbiggrin:

I fully approve of this explanation.

[The Troubadour]

Mosasaurus is about as much an "aquatic dinosaur" as Pteranodon is "a flying dinosaur" - less so, even, since Pteranodon is at least an archosaur, whereas Mosasaurus is in the lizard-type group -lepidosaurs.

...Sorry, my knowledge of dinosaurs is limited to "they're awesome". :-P So the mosasaurus isn't actually a dinosaur?


Seriously, a single cut line of dialogue and a miniscule wardrobe change would mean we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Indeed! It's not only sexist, it's also bad writing - why bring to attention something you actually won't address, not even as a subversion?


Actually, that's flipped around. The director wanted to lose the shoes, but Bryce Dallas Howard insisted on keeping them after seeing the ground.

Did he want to lose the shoes before or after they had written the scene?



She didn't save him from anything. You'll notice he was actually carrying a hold out weapon on his belt the entire time. In another second he'd have gotten himself out.


...Uhhh...no, it was incredibly relevant with obvious negative repercussions because Claire wasn't there to actually tell Owen and company that the pen still had its lethal occupant inside.

It's amazing how much you two are actually re-writing the movie to reflect your personal views.

[Foeofthelance]

Did he want to lose the shoes before or after they had written the scene?


That I cannot answer, since they never elaborated beyond, "We hadn't written Claire to be running around in heels the entire time, but BDH insisted on keeping her shoes after seeing the condition of the grounds."

[Drascin]

Just as a side note, my personal, rather tongue-in-cheek explanation for how Claire outran the Tyrannosaurus in high heels is that the poor old beast has arthritis, kidney stones, lumbago, and hemorrhoids, and just isn't up to the 45-mph thing any more. :smallbiggrin:

I prefer to think she was more curious than anything. In the books, tyrannosaurs do a couple times not immediately eat someone mostly because they find them interesting, and in Jurassic World she probably was well-fed enough that she wasn't in a particular hurry to eat this little thing. The blinky thing probably was of more interest to her than the woman.

[Avilan the Grey]

...Sorry, my knowledge of dinosaurs is limited to "they're awesome". :-P So the mosasaurus isn't actually a dinosaur?

Yeah exactly. The flying ones, the swimming ones and the walking ones are three different groups, The confusing part is because back in the day they thought all was the same. Hence the "saur" bit that means "lizard" basically.

[Peelee]

I prefer to think she was more curious than anything. In the books, tyrannosaurs do a couple times not immediately eat someone mostly because they find them interesting, and in Jurassic World she probably was well-fed enough that she wasn't in a particular hurry to eat this little thing. The blinky thing probably was of more interest to her than the woman.

Yeah, but the books and movies can be inconsistent with each other. For instance, in both, Hammond's motto is "spare no expense," and in the movie he follows that to a T, while in the book, his dealings with Nedry show that he's willing to abandon that policy whenever he can (I actually felt like Nedry got the shaft in the movie; even in the book, he's still a jerk, but he at least had a pretty good reason to betray Hammond).

The movies really only show the Rex as a vicious apex predator. In Jurassic Park, she's just looking to eat the peoples whenever she can, and in Lost World, the attacks are based on maternal protection and then territorial issues.

Man, I should go read that book again.

[BannedInSchool]

Now someone selling dinosaurs as pets I could really see happening. :smallbiggrin:

(I think I heard there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild now, and many owned by private individuals.)

[Peelee]

Now someone selling dinosaurs as pets I could really see happening. :smallbiggrin:

You're a BioSyn man, aren't you?

[Dire Moose]

Just as a side note, my personal, rather tongue-in-cheek explanation for how Claire outran the Tyrannosaurus in high heels is that the poor old beast has arthritis, kidney stones, lumbago, and hemorrhoids, and just isn't up to the 45-mph thing any more. :smallbiggrin:

That actually does make sense. Bone growth studies show that T. rex took 17 years to attain its full adult size, and the oldest specimen was 28 at death, with a lot of really bad injuries. This one was definitely a full-sized adult in the first movie, and adding 22 years would put her at 39, 11 years older than the oldest T. rex specimen. Her not having died yet can probably be attributed to animals generally living longer in captivity than in the wild.

On the other hand, that brings up another problem; namely, how could such an aged dinosaur hold out against the Indominus for as long as it did?

[Dienekes]

That actually does make sense. Bone growth studies show that T. rex took 17 years to attain its full adult size, and the oldest specimen was 28 at death, with a lot of really bad injuries. This one was definitely a full-sized adult in the first movie, and adding 22 years would put her at 39, 11 years older than the oldest T. rex specimen. Her not having died yet can probably be attributed to animals generally living longer in captivity than in the wild.

On the other hand, that brings up another problem; namely, how could such an aged dinosaur hold out against the Indominus for as long as it did?

It really wasn't. It got one good bite in before the Indominus started kicking it's ass. Then Blue showed up and through the power of teamwork! (and a mosasaur) they beat the thing.

[Foeofthelance]

It really wasn't. It got one good bite in before the Indominus started kicking it's ass. Then Blue showed up and through the power of teamwork! (and a mosasaur) they beat the thing.

The other thing to add is that while Rexy is older, she's also much more experienced. Indominus had only been loose for less than a day; Rexy had more than ten years of experience hunting for food and fighting the other survivors of Jurassic Park before they locked her back up. While I don't believe there was anything else on the island in her weight class, Rexy at least would have more experience on her own limits, how to guard her flank, etc. Indominus, by contrast, was a complete rookie who only understood attack, attack, attack. She'd figured out her camouflage abilities, but there's no evidence that she'd ever really been in a fight before that. The sauropods she slaughtered don't seem to have done her any harm, and while the anklyosaur got got in a few thwacks, once she had flipped it it was over.

EDIT: Or, if you really want a scary theory, maybe some of her DNA gaps got filled in with tortoise DNA for some reason. Particularly the bits that lets them live so long. From InGen's point of view, it would be perfect. You get a dinosaur that can live for 50-100 years, keeping down those replacement costs...

[Dire Moose]

Or, if you really want a scary theory, maybe some of her DNA gaps got filled in with tortoise DNA for some reason. Particularly the bits that lets them live so long. From InGen's point of view, it would be perfect. You get a dinosaur that can live for 50-100 years, keeping down those replacement costs...

I believe that tortoises and other large reptiles live for over 100 years because they have a slow, cold-blooded metabolism. Everything is basically slowed down compared to more active warm-blooded animals and there's less strain on the body. That wouldn't work for a fast and active warm-blooded tyrannosaur.

[Dienekes]

The other thing to add is that while Rexy is older, she's also much more experienced. Indominus had only been loose for less than a day; Rexy had more than ten years of experience hunting for food and fighting the other survivors of Jurassic Park before they locked her back up. While I don't believe there was anything else on the island in her weight class, Rexy at least would have more experience on her own limits, how to guard her flank, etc. Indominus, by contrast, was a complete rookie who only understood attack, attack, attack. She'd figured out her camouflage abilities, but there's no evidence that she'd ever really been in a fight before that. The sauropods she slaughtered don't seem to have done her any harm, and while the anklyosaur got got in a few thwacks, once she had flipped it it was over.

EDIT: Or, if you really want a scary theory, maybe some of her DNA gaps got filled in with tortoise DNA for some reason. Particularly the bits that lets them live so long. From InGen's point of view, it would be perfect. You get a dinosaur that can live for 50-100 years, keeping down those replacement costs...

Well if we're assuming it's the same Rex from the first movie, who was full grown in that one and this is specifically said to be 20 years later, we're looking at a 40 year old creature with a life expectancy of only 30ish.

As to the scene itself, the experience wasn't working out for her at all. She barges in, the two sort of nip at each other for a few seconds. T gets a good bite on the I's neck (which honestly, probably should have ended the fight if these animals were in any way realistic, but whatever), but the I gets loose and starts going beast mode on T. She got grappled, dropped to the ground, bitten, and thrashed. T was going to die until Blue came to her rescue. Then the two of them brought the fight outside, and by shear luck the mosasaur showed up.

[Callos_DeTerran]

It's amazing how much you two are actually re-writing the movie to reflect your personal views.

What personal views?

What I said is pretty straight forward...

..the Indominus was thought to have escaped its pen (good reasoning for why they were all certain it had left, it was white and what are the odds that EVERY thermal sensor had spontenously failed?). Owen goes in to investigate the pen and see what he can figure out about the I. Rex while Claire leaves the pen right away despite the very possible (as far as they knew) presence of a super predator in the nearby jungle.

Its only then that she bothers to call the control room and activate the tracking beacon, revealing the fact it hadn't actually escaped yet. Memory is admittedly a bit fuzzy about if she tried to contact Owen or not at that point but if she did, the attempt failed. Meanwhile, Owen snd poor saps in tow discover the pen is NOT empty and begin the running. Rather than escape through the person-sized entramce they had come in through though, the fat guard opens the paddock doors to escape because...well the I. Rex had to escape somehow.

If Claire hadn't left the paddock though, she might have told the people inside the pen that they weren't alone faster if for no other reason than she could have hammered on the glass and yelled. Even if Owen hadn't been able to understand what she said, considering the context of the situation, most people would very reasonably decide it was probably a good idea to leave the pen as quickly as possible. Hell, the viewing area was within sight of the claw marks Owen had been looking at! Heck, she could have checked the tracking beacon before anyone had any time to go into the pen.

Would the I. Rex have still escaped? Probably, because its neither Owens fault or Claire's...its the fat guy in the hard hat's fault. All I'm pointing out is that Claire's decision to leave the paddock before calling was not the right call for multiple reasons. Because it wasn't.

[Dienekes]

What personal views?

What I said is pretty straight forward...

..the Indominus was thought to have escaped its pen (good reasoning for why they were all certain it had left, it was white and what are the odds that EVERY thermal sensor had spontenously failed?). Owen goes in to investigate the pen and see what he can figure out about the I. Rex while Claire leaves the pen right away despite the very possible (as far as they knew) presence of a super predator in the nearby jungle.

Its only then that she bothers to call the control room and activate the tracking beacon, revealing the fact it hadn't actually escaped yet. Memory is admittedly a bit fuzzy about if she tried to contact Owen or not at that point but if she did, the attempt failed. Meanwhile, Owen snd poor saps in tow discover the pen is NOT empty and begin the running. Rather than escape through the person-sized entramce they had come in through though, the fat guard opens the paddock doors to escape because...well the I. Rex had to escape somehow.

If Claire hadn't left the paddock though, she might have told the people inside the pen that they weren't alone faster if for no other reason than she could have hammered on the glass and yelled. Even if Owen hadn't been able to understand what she said, considering the context of the situation, most people would very reasonably decide it was probably a good idea to leave the pen as quickly as possible. Hell, the viewing area was within sight of the claw marks Owen had been looking at! Heck, she could have checked the tracking beacon before anyone had any time to go into the pen.

Would the I. Rex have still escaped? Probably, because its neither Owens fault or Claire's...its the fat guy in the hard hat's fault. All I'm pointing out is that Claire's decision to leave the paddock before calling was not the right call for multiple reasons. Because it wasn't.

Some quibbles

Redhead calls back to the pen right away, and the pen informs those inside. Starlord, hard hat, and token red shirt run for their original entrance, only to have token get eaten, revealing that the dino is between them and the exit. Which is when hard hat opens the main entrance in an attempt to get out.

Everyone was dumb in that scenario, Redhead was dumb to leave the safety of the pen to get to her car, Starlord was dumb to get into the pen. Though, personally, I'd say he's slightly less dumb of the two, as there was no reason to expect the Indominus would have an ability to turn off it's heat. Which is just strange.

Mostly I blame whoever thought it was a good idea to cook up a super dino, give the scientists free reign to do what they wanted with it, and not have a list of all potential possible abilities it could have. That's just stupidity on a level all it's own. So, yeah, it's Quirky Indian Boss Man's fault. I put the blame on him.

[hamishspence]

Yeah exactly. The flying ones, the swimming ones and the walking ones are three different groups, The confusing part is because back in the day they thought all was the same. Hence the "saur" bit that means "lizard" basically.

And while pterosaurs and dinosaurs are both monophyletic (each can be grouped into one family that includes all of them and excludes everything else) mosasaurs and other large swimming reptiles (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc) are not closely related.

Mosasaurs are "true lizards" - the others aren't.

[The Troubadour]

Yeah exactly. The flying ones, the swimming ones and the walking ones are three different groups, The confusing part is because back in the day they thought all was the same. Hence the "saur" bit that means "lizard" basically.


Mosasaurs are "true lizards" - the others aren't.


Huh. Then, can you guys please sum up what exactly constitutes a proper dinosaur? If it's not too much trouble, of course. :-)

[Bulldog Psion]

Huh. Then, can you guys please sum up what exactly constitutes a proper dinosaur? If it's not too much trouble, of course. :-)

I'd answer, but I've learned better than to open my mouth about animal sciences on here. :smallwink: I think I'm best advised to stick to meteorology and geology, which I think I have an edge in relative to other scientific topics, at least as far as this forum goes.

I'll add a bit to your confusion, though, by pointing out that pterodactyls aren't dinosaurs, either. :smallcool:

[Dienekes]

Huh. Then, can you guys please sum up what exactly constitutes a proper dinosaur? If it's not too much trouble, of course. :-)

Very, very generally. The land dwelling non-flying lizards/birds from the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous periods that stood upright and didn't have proto-mammalian traits.

[BannedInSchool]

We're all just fish. :smallbiggrin:

[Dire Moose]

Huh. Then, can you guys please sum up what exactly constitutes a proper dinosaur? If it's not too much trouble, of course. :-)

Dinosaurs are a specific group of animals that share a common ancestor in the middle-late Triassic Period. They share several features in common, but the main feature uniting them is the structure of the pelvic bones. In dinosaurs, the acetabulum (where the femur fits into the hip socket) is a hole that goes all the way through one side of the hips to the other (though I believe the ankylosaurs re-evolved a wall in the socket over time), and the femur fits into it at right angles in a rod-and-socket arrangement.

This means that dinosaurs stood completely upright with the hind legs held straight, and there was little side-to-side motion in the hindlimb. The forelimbs may have been sprawled in a few dinosaur groups, but their orientation is still controversial.

[SaintRidley]

Basically, look at lizards and alligators. See how the legs stick out of their sides? Dinosaurs didn't have that going on, just straight down. Mosasaurs and the other aquatic lizards had their fins and/or legs sticking out of their sides, like modern lizards and crocodilians (and other modern reptiles).

[Mauve Shirt]

O. M. G.
I just watched a velociraptor and a T-Rex team up to save Star-Lord.
I was hoping for Jurassic Parks and Recreation instead, but I've gotta say that was pretty durn satisfyingly dumb.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I still have a problem with the Indominus becoming the raptors' new Alpha. It's been shown that Owen had to have the raptors imprint on him first, followed by developing a relationship with them for years, in order to have them barely respect him. Which makes sense.

And then some strange animal that the raptors have never encountered before, which itself is a sociopath raised in complete isolation, somehow manages to bond with them in a matter of minutes and dominate them completely? That's really difficult to swallow. The justification that "it's part raptor" doesn't make sense either, as modern predators do not automatically respect their own kind. On the contrary, most tend to see unfamiliar members of their species as rivals threatening their territory and react aggressively.

Also, if the Indominus was enough of a sociopath to actually kill its own sibling, it doesn't make sense for it to try bonding with the raptors instead of killing them.

Obviously, it wanted minions, like any Evil Overlord. One wonders if it was going to grow a long mustache to twirl.

[Bulldog Psion]

Obviously, it wanted minions, like any Evil Overlord. One wonders if it was going to grow a long mustache to twirl.

Sooty mustached bat (http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/elyunque/learning/nature-science/?cid=stelprdb5270854) genes for that. :smallbiggrin:

(Man, I've always liked bats, but that is one ugly little guy.)

[Jayngfet]

Obviously, it wanted minions, like any Evil Overlord. One wonders if it was going to grow a long mustache to twirl.

That, and it's an actual dinosaur. A dinosaur that looks, smells, and sounds far closer to them.

[Avilan the Grey]

And while pterosaurs and dinosaurs are both monophyletic (each can be grouped into one family that includes all of them and excludes everything else) mosasaurs and other large swimming reptiles (ichthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, etc) are not closely related.

Mosasaurs are "true lizards" - the others aren't.

Isn't their closest living relatives snakes?

Anyway, saw this yesterday...
Pretty standard fare, as far as Jurassic Park goes. Second best in the series after the first one, though.
The only thing to complain about (scientific bullcrap aside of course) is that it does, indeed, paint women who has careers in a bad light.

[Lvl45DM!]

Obviously, it wanted minions, like any Evil Overlord. One wonders if it was going to grow a long mustache to twirl.

Or it killed its sibling when it was still developing and thats non-indicative of its personality. We see I Rex not kill Pteranodons when it had reason to. Then for the first time it hears cries that it understands, due to raptor DNA, and instinctively reacts, attempting to assert itself as an Alpha. Thats an instinct of Pack animals. The other raptors respond because its like 10x their size and raptors are smart enough to realize that. And they didnt even instantly join it, they just hesitate due to an anomaly.

[Avilan the Grey]

As for the final fight...

A few things:

1. Yes indeed, this was the original T-Rex. That was the whole point (well some of the point, at least).

2. She had experience

3. But more importantly, it is very VERY likely that mixing in Raptor and god knows what else they sacrificed bite strength. Quite a lot of it. To elaborate T-Rex has (had) the the strongest bite force ever, in nature, on a land living animal. Strong enough to crack fully grown sauropod bones x 3 or 4, AFAIR.
(This is also the reason why most think their heavy bone ridges in the face was used as proto-horns, to headbut eachothers in rank fighting as a bite would be fatal very quickly).

4. After she got her second wind (thanks, Blue) she did indeed dominate the fight. The I-rex didn't get any more punches in after Blue's interruption, and was thrown around fairly easily. The mososaur seemed to be more added for "cool" than for actually being needed to end the fight in her favor.

[Avilan the Grey]

Huh. Then, can you guys please sum up what exactly constitutes a proper dinosaur? If it's not too much trouble, of course. :-)

I suggest googling, but the short-short answer is that the Dinosaurs were as specific genetic offshoot from the reptile tree who had already developed all their "dino-specific" traits 230 million years ago, meaning we don't really have any "missing links" between reptiles and dinos.

[hamishspence]

Isn't their closest living relatives snakes?


There's much debate on that -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosasaur

(some analyses placing them as the "sister group" to snakes, some placing them slightly further away)

which doesn't really matter to this argument, since snakes fall within the larger clade, which is lizards - "squamates".

Within lizards, there seems to be a clade "toxicofera" (venomous lizards) that includes snakes.


I suggest googling, but the short-short answer is that the Dinosaurs were as specific genetic offshoot from the reptile tree who had already developed all their "dino-specific" traits 230 million years ago, meaning we don't really have any "missing links" between reptiles and dinos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avemetatarsalia

Creatures like Marasuchus fall into the "not quite a dinosaur, but almost" range, that may be what's being thought of as a "missing link".

[warty goblin]

Saw this over the weekend, and had a great time. It was particularly nice when the movie simply stopped paying attention to the humans at all, and just flat-out declared that the heroes were dinosaurs, like it should have been all along. F


This also makes perfect sense, since I have the semi-sarcastic theory that Jurassic Park/Jurassic World have one very simple theory behind them; namely that the purpose of life on earth is to be eaten by Tyrannosaurs and velociraptors. After re-engineering these perfections out of extinction, humanity has failed to understand that the only acceptable course of action is to release large numbers of them in urban areas, and let nature take its course. Thus the scenes where the velociraptors shred assorted humans are in fact absolutely feel-good moments; small triumphs at the dawn of a better world. The Indominus Rex would at first seem a fusion of the two deities of the universe, T-Rex and Velociraptor, but the universe requires the duality of the lone titan and clever pack-hunter. Thus at the end the velociraptor and T-Rex team up to destroy the abomination, and reassert the proper order. The mosasaur joins in on this, just to emphasize the truly ordained nature of this ordering.

Thus the last shot of the tyrannosaur striding across its domain, triumphant and patient, knowing it now has time to devour the tourists in leisurely fashion. The final massacre of the hubristic human interlopers is not shown; something that profound can only be implied.

[Avilan the Grey]

Thus the last shot of the tyrannosaur striding across its domain, triumphant and patient, knowing it now has time to devour the tourists in leisurely fashion. The final massacre of the hubristic human interlopers is not shown; something that profound can only be implied.

I know you are joking, but my inner need for correcting things have to have it's way:
No, that was after everyone was evacuated.

[Peelee]

No, that was after everyone was evacuated.

You misspelled "eaten by the T-Rex and/or raptors while they were waiting to be evacuated."

[Philistine]

It's amazing how much you two are actually re-writing the movie to reflect your personal views.

In re: the "negative outcomes," at least, no re-writing is required. All that's required is paying attention to the actual sequence of events.
Claire brings Owen to the I. rex paddock to inspect the arrangements, but the I. rex is nowhere to be found. Owen spots marks* on the inside of the enclosure wall and hypothesizes that the I. rex is loose. Claire's reaction to this is, "I need to get in my car and drive back to the control center;" Owen's is, "I want to walk into the enclosure and take a closer look at the marks on the wall." Shortly after that we see Claire (finally) remembering that she's carrying a phone, and using it to contact the control center; at the same time, we see Owen & co. approaching the marks on the enclosure wall. Claire's conversation with the control center staff happens simultaneously with Owen's examination of the wall - the timing is confirmed absolutely when the RF tracker places the I. rex still inside the paddock and the control center staff try to contact the Fat Guard via radio.

The key part there is "at the same time." It was already too late when Claire actually remembered she had a phone, because by that time Owen & co. had already walked into the trap. But had she gotten on the phone first, it's virtually certain that she'd have received the RF tracking information from the control center in time to stop anyone from going inside the enclosure. I'd characterize "failing to cut off the entire disaster plot at the knees" as a pretty significant negative outcome from Claire's decision to prioritize getting in her car over getting on her phone. Don't get me wrong, Owen still bears the brunt of the blame for the I. rex getting loose - even based on the information he had, going into the enclosure was still awfully stupid - but Claire could have vetoed that expedition if she'd gotten the tracking information in a timely manner, and it was absolutely in her power to do that.

It was immediately obvious that the claw marks could not have resulted from the I. rex climbing the wall. The marks were long, shallow scratches across the surface of the wall; a creature as heavy as the I. rex would have had to dig short, deep gouges into the surface of the wall in climbing, to support its weight. Also, rather than appearing as light-colored discolorations (from sunlight reflecting off the interior of the scratches), they should have been darker than the surface (because the inside of each gouge would be shadowed). And when I say "immediately obvious," I mean that was clearly visible from the viewing booth.

Paradoxically, the claw marks are more interesting when you realize they can't be a sign that the I. rex climbed the wall - because that means there has to be some other explanation for them. Like, say, "The I. rex figured out somehow that if it scratched up the wall and hid from both the visual and thermal spectra, tiny creatures (which it may never have actually seen directly since being moved out of the incubator) would come inside its pen, opening up a door through which it could get out." But if you look at them and figure out that the critter couldn't possibly have climbed up that way, then maybe, just maybe, you don't assume it's safe to go into the enclosure.

[Dienekes]

My caveat. It's not a hypothesis that the I escaped. They check straight away for any heat signatures in the enclosure and it comes back negative. There is, 0 reason to suspect that the I can mask that. For Starlord, Hardhat, and Other Dead Guy, it was clear that the pen was empty. And close. Then Redhead decided to go alone in a car while a super hunter had just escaped and likely nearby.

All of this because no one actually knew what the I was capable of, because Quirky Indian Boss Man just let the scientists do whatever without giving anyone the authorization to look at what was actually going on. The whole business was set up stupidly.

[Peelee]

My caveat. It's not a hypothesis that the I escaped. They check straight away for any heat signatures in the enclosure and it comes back negative. There is, 0 reason to suspect that the I can mask that. For Starlord, Hardhat, and Other Dead Guy, it was clear that the pen was empty. And close. Then Redhead decided to go alone in a car while a super hunter had just escaped and likely nearby.

All of this because no one actually knew what the I was capable of, because Quirky Indian Boss Man just let the scientists do whatever without giving anyone the authorization to look at what was actually going on. The whole business was set up stupidly.

There is indeed zero reason to suspect that the I. Rex can hide is heat signature. However, if it escaped, "where in the park is it" is of more pressing concern than "how did it escape," and should have been the first question answered. And that's ignoring the possibility that any one of the IR detectors could have potentially glitched, which isn't even explored as a possibility.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'm not sure if I should bother spoilering this, because nobody else is. *Shrug.* But I guess I will; old habits die hard sometimes. :smallbiggrin:

I agree, on further reflection, that while Owen was pretty dull-witted going inside the enclosure at all (what was he expecting to find, a journal with the beast's escape plans?), Claire dropped the ball possibly further.

As you say, she could have made the call right from where she was, and should have -- establishing where the Indominus is located is obviously the priority. Driving around like that, she was putting the person with a lot of the pieces necessary for coordinating action (herself) in line to become a tasty meat snack.

She doesn't need to shift from where she is to make the call and pinpoint the Indominus -- so why run off? At the very best, it's going to delay locating it by precious minutes while she hustles down corridors and staircases, gets in her car, and roars off.

Had she called, Owen wouldn't have gone in; thus, the Indominus wouldn't have gotten out. The gate breach was ultimately rooted in her totally nonsensical decision not to use her telephone immediately, even if it was Owen who took the final actions turning the Indominus loose.

A perfect storm of stupidity by the two main characters is the cause of every death in that film ...

[SuperPanda]

Saw this over the weekend with the GF who loved the first one as a kid. Her reactions in Red my thoughs in Green.

Her reactions as we watched in the trailer:
Opening with I-Rex hatching --- "Looks like chicken feet"Nice touch, especially with the bird on the snow.
Plot with the kids and the family --- mostly bored. Is this going to be at all relevant to the Dinos?
Going to the island ---- Still bored but the music did perk her up a bit. The music really is good. My sister loved this music and she was so disappointed when 2 recycled in because a new score of this caliber was all she really wanted from the sequals. 20 years later and she's still waiting.
Impatient kid "I'm tired of waiting" --- Nod Nod. Ah, so they reverse JP 1 here. Instead of Grant being the audience viewpoint and having to put up with the annoying kid - the annoying kid is the audience view point?

Raptor training --- Kinda cool... wow that Hoshkins guy is dumb, he's so gonna get eaten. Dollars to donuts he gets eaten by the raptors.
Helicopter ride --- Hahaha, uptight lady getting scared. I've already read reviews of her Arc, so I'm primed to dislike her. They really don't give her much in her favor to start with do they?
Starlord and uptight lady --- Oh please. :smallsigh: The lady has to be like-able before the flirting stuff is fun. Going for oppostites attract? There seems to be no reason for tension here. There is certainly no chemistry yet.
I rex cage --- Okay, spooky time. This film is alot more self aware than I thought. I rex is a really dumb name and this is the second time they had a character call that out.
Starlord in cage --- Oh no! The one like-able character! Ahhh... people getting eaten! Ahh... grabby claws are scary.
Fat guy behind car --- Idiot is going to die... don't show... Ahhh. Don't worry, the plot armor is strong with this one. Good thinking with the gas line - wonder if that will come back later.
Starlord escapes - monster on loose... --- Okay, had to get out somehow. Okay, had to get out somehow.

Soldier's tracking Irex with non-lethals: Yeah... they're gonna die. Slowly, one by one.
I Rex shows off new trick --- It's invisible! Ahh... don't show.... ahhh.....okay soldiers are dead. Now listen to hot guy and use guns kay? Neat effects on the Camo - if a friend buys the DvD I'll have to check to see that it really was there in earlier scenes.
Kids in Hamsterball -- Just go back, go back... nooo.... don't stay out. Bad kids. Its a JP movie, there must be kids connected to plot central characters who get in trouble.
I-Rex vs Hamster Ball - Wow, that thing is tough. Ahh! Oh okay. Why are they focusing on the phone? Ahhh! Ahh! Just jump already! On seeing the phone: Ah... thats not good. On the jump: Elan would be very proud.
Lady does her "I'm ready for the jungle" bit: What is she doing? Haha, seconds before Starlord asks the same question She's still wearing high heels! The shoes... he only directly mentioned the shows and its the one thing you don't touch.

Everything up to birds: And she's wearing High Heel shoes! Wow - the "mad scientist" comment was very self-aware. Loved the off hand reference about how the creatures should look very different. Many references to "more teeth."

The Birds: Ahh, the assistant. Tell me when its over! Now... that... that was just uncalled for. That was over-the-top brutal to a character who'd done nothing wrong (well done next to nothing at all so far). That was well beyond my comfort zone even for a Jurassic Park movie. Wait... Stop shouting... This lady is stupid, and still in high heel shoes! Eat her already! Oh, My, God... the plot armor is strong in this one. I mean... I can't think of a more obvious example of plot armor outside of a parody.

Raptor mission: If this was at all realistic they'd turn on the people and eat them. Just wait for it. They're treating the Raptors like blood hounds Dogs are much cuter and therefore "less cool" - but much easier to train. Evil guys plan would make sense in DnD world where they already use Dogs in the military - but they aren't nasty enough.
They find the I Rex Wait... are they talking to one another Right on cue with the script writer again. Oh... now they eat people Its more realistic Told you!
Raptors in the base: Evil guy going to die. The raptor seems to be looking at Hoskin's like "you want me to eat your hand? Okay... who am I to refuse a free lunch."
Raptors surround them. So everyone's dead now? They seem to remember Alpha now.
I-Rex tantrum What's going on? Finally - that whole sociopath thing comes back to bite it... Literally.
Kid says "not enough teeth" What does that even mean? She's going to get more teeth? Oh no... there is no reasonable way that this is a good idea.
Unlocking Rex: Look look! The shoes! Oh God. JP2 was right... Its godzilla! Was the monster and the "villain" and is now the hero coming to save us.
The remaining film: Typical American movie... big special effects, forced romance, very formulaic plot, happy-ish ending into the sunset. Feels very generic. Mossaurs at the end was not expected. Why did Rex leave again? Ah... so now there is room for Jurassic World 2 - T Rex brought back to San Diego to fight giant mutant moths?

--------------

For me the biggest "mind blown" moment was realizing that they throw-away joke in the end of Lost World about Rexy being Godzilla basically summed up how Jurassic world fit into the franchise. There was no reason Rex wouldn't fight/kill the raptors and the humans once I-Rex was gone apart from it being too injured to do so. T-Rex has been previous established in universe to be very territorial. The only time we see a Rex cooperate with anything is in Lost World where it is cooperating with its mate or teaching its child to feed.

It was previously shown that the flare meant food - and it hadn't eaten anything yet. So why did it let its food go? Why did it allow another predator to trot around in its territory? The answers to these questions are more human than animal - and show Rexy's portrayal as a hero instead of a monster. All of this is perfectly inline with Godzilla. The icing on the cake was that I-Rex was basically super Rex/Raptor with a handful of extra non-sense power-ups - which to my limited understanding is how the new monsters of Godzilla like franchises tend to be introduced: The new monster is Zilla+X, Y, and Z - but our hero (Zilla - who had been the monster not long ago) defeats it, sometimes with the help of other monsters.

[Rogar Demonblud]

So I watched a marathon of the first three films before going back to see this one in the theater. And I reached the following conclusions:

JP: The only people I didn't want eaten were Sam Neill and Laura Dern. Sucks to be the kids, though.
LW: I wanted everyone to get eaten. Didn't care about the kids.
JP3: I wanted everyone to get eaten, including Sam Neill for being stupid enough to get within a thousand miles of the place again.
JW: ...Yeah, I wanted all the humans to get eaten.

If they have another film, I won't be watching it at the theater.

[Dienekes]

So I watched a marathon of the first three films before going back to see this one in the theater. And I reached the following conclusions:

JP: The only people I didn't want eaten were Sam Neill and Laura Dern. Sucks to be the kids, though.
LW: I wanted everyone to get eaten. Didn't care about the kids.
JP3: I wanted everyone to get eaten, including Sam Neill for being stupid enough to get within a thousand miles of the place again.
JW: ...Yeah, I wanted all the humans to get eaten.

If they have another film, I won't be watching it at the theater.

Mostly true for me as well, except in JP I didn't Bob Peck to die either, he was the only one smart enough to realize the raptors were too dangerous to keep alive. Something that even the people in the new movie haven't figured out yet.

[The Troubadour]

Ah. That's where we differ. When determining usefulness, i don't account for dumb luck.

Oh, I forgot to comment on this. Basically, it's a fictional universe: there is no such thing as luck, dumb or otherwise, unless the narrative presents something to the audience as luck.
That said, you and others are right, there was absolutely no reason for Claire to leave the paddock, so there's plenty of stupid to go around for all humans (except maybe Dr. Wu, who's "just" a greedy and possibly insane jerk).


[...]


[...]


[...]


[...]

Thanks a lot for the explanations, guys! :-)

[Peelee]

Oh, I forgot to comment on this. Basically, it's a fictional universe: there is no such thing as luck, dumb or otherwise, unless the narrative presents something to the audience as luck.
That said, you and others are right, there was absolutely no reason for Claire to leave the paddock, so there's plenty of stupid to go around for all humans (except maybe Dr. Wu, who's "just" a greedy and possibly insane jerk).


Man, Wu also got the shaft in this movie. In the book, yeah, he was still a condescending, egotistical jackass, but that was at least a deserved attitude; he was one of the best geneticists, he joined Hammond so that he could science better than anyone else, and was all about finding the limits and then breaking them. He did was Hammond asked, and got paid well for it, but his primary motivation was to see if he could. In this one, it just seems like he's going after the money and doing his work because he can, not because he's pushing himself to be bigger and better. I do like that they brought him back, though.

[Tyndmyr]

My caveat. It's not a hypothesis that the I escaped. They check straight away for any heat signatures in the enclosure and it comes back negative. There is, 0 reason to suspect that the I can mask that. For Starlord, Hardhat, and Other Dead Guy, it was clear that the pen was empty. And close. Then Redhead decided to go alone in a car while a super hunter had just escaped and likely nearby.

All of this because no one actually knew what the I was capable of, because Quirky Indian Boss Man just let the scientists do whatever without giving anyone the authorization to look at what was actually going on. The whole business was set up stupidly.

That doesn't wash. First thing you do in a situation like that is suspect sensor failure. Because seriously, you have guards, and a giant dinosaur popping over the wall should be something they notice, or they are the worst guards ever.

And your immediate reaction to "it's not where it should be" would be "well, where is it, then?" You'd call for tracking first. Not go for a drive. In a day with cell phones, calling someone always comes before driving over to visit them.

That said, I suppose it's not even very realistic that with the in-universe history, this would be the sort of place where ignoring safeguards is even an option, let alone be the sort of place where people routinely paddle with dinosaurs that can accidentally crush them.

[Dienekes]

That doesn't wash. First thing you do in a situation like that is suspect sensor failure. Because seriously, you have guards, and a giant dinosaur popping over the wall should be something they notice, or they are the worst guards ever.

And your immediate reaction to "it's not where it should be" would be "well, where is it, then?" You'd call for tracking first. Not go for a drive. In a day with cell phones, calling someone always comes before driving over to visit them.

That said, I suppose it's not even very realistic that with the in-universe history, this would be the sort of place where ignoring safeguards is even an option, let alone be the sort of place where people routinely paddle with dinosaurs that can accidentally crush them.

We agree. I do think Redhead was dumb for going for a drive. I think Starlord was only slightly less dumb for going into the pen.

They do, after the heat signature thing say the throwaway line: They couldn't all have failed.

Which to me means they added in redundancies. So, for Starlord, who can't really do anything until Redhead figures out where it is, the one seemingly perfectly safe place to be is in the pen. Maybe he'll find something, probably not. It would have worked better if the 3 idiotic amigos in the pen had a definitive reason for being in there. But as it is, it was all just kinda dumb.

[Peelee]

They do, after the heat signature thing say the throwaway line: They couldn't all have failed.

No, but (a part of) the reason for the massive catastrophe that happened to the first Jurassic Park was that the computer system was sabotaged. Hammond knew that Nedry disabled systems, and he survived the ordeal. And Hammond wasn't known for not blaming others whenever he could. Again, knowing the history, systemwide failure should have been considered as a possibility and alternate tracking attempted before going into the pen for virtually no reason.

Also, technically, the one perfectly safe place to be is the building he's already in, since it is already established that the I. Rex cannot get in.

[Bulldog Psion]

Variations on a recycled plot, seems to be the style of those who own the franchise; meaning that the plot just keeps getting more contrived as they try to figure out even more implausible reasons for the containment to fail.

[Drascin]

Variations on a recycled plot, seems to be the style of those who own the franchise; meaning that the plot just keeps getting more contrived as they try to figure out even more implausible reasons for the containment to fail.

It shouldn't be that implausible. As every engineer knows, human error and shortsightedness is amazing at making the most redundant systems fail horrendously every now and then. You just need one idiot being sufficently idiotic.

Which in this case I suppose was meant to be Owen and the guards.

[Peelee]

It shouldn't be that implausible. As every engineer knows, human error and shortsightedness is amazing at making the most redundant systems fail horrendously every now and then. You just need one idiot being sufficently idiotic.

Which in this case I suppose was meant to be Owen and the guards.

Agreed. I mean, a throwaway line beforehand ("reception in here is terrible," for instance) could have at least given Claire reason to leave the building. And without her there, Owen mashes the colossaly stupid move of going into the dino paddock. All good, no complaints (well, one less major complaint anyway).

[Lethologica]

Haven't seen the movie--from what I hear, though, it's even a not-particularly-subtle parody of itself.

[Jothki]

Man, Wu also got the shaft in this movie. In the book, yeah, he was still a condescending, egotistical jackass, but that was at least a deserved attitude; he was one of the best geneticists, he joined Hammond so that he could science better than anyone else, and was all about finding the limits and then breaking them. He did was Hammond asked, and got paid well for it, but his primary motivation was to see if he could. In this one, it just seems like he's going after the money and doing his work because he can, not because he's pushing himself to be bigger and better. I do like that they brought him back, though.

That could just be more meta-references to the movie itself, where he parallels the role of the special effects team.

[Peelee]

That could just be more meta-references to the movie itself, where he parallels the role of the special effects team.

If it is, it's damn subtle. It relies on knowing Wu's characterization from the book, being old enough to appreciate just how groundbreaking Jurassic Park was in effects (both animatromic and CGI), and then catching the meta-joke about how the sequels were just "MOAR DINOS!"

I think it was just an easier way to write the character, based on the movie version of him (which barely got any screen time).

I think at this point it's fairly obvious that the book is one of my favorites ever. Which can color my opinion, admittedly.

[Philistine]

They do, after the heat signature thing say the throwaway line: They couldn't all have failed.

Which to me means they added in redundancies. So, for Starlord, who can't really do anything until Redhead figures out where it is, the one seemingly perfectly safe place to be is in the pen. Maybe he'll find something, probably not. It would have worked better if the 3 idiotic amigos in the pen had a definitive reason for being in there. But as it is, it was all just kinda dumb.
Maybe it's just my personal prejudices talking, but that line immediately struck me as "desperate wishful thinking" rather than "true fact." Because systems do fail sometimes, even in much less challenging environments than a tropical rain forest. In fact, that should have been Claire's very first question for the control center staff: "What's the status on the thermal sensors in the Supermax pen? They aren't picking up our Guest of Honor in there."

As for what else Starlord could have done in the interim? He could have waited. If the critter was out (an hypothesis not supported by the appearance of the scratched-up wall), then going inside just meant he'd have that much longer a response time when the thing was tracked down. If not... then cue the Disaster Movie Plot. Possibly set to "Yakkity Sax."


It shouldn't be that implausible. As every engineer knows, human error and shortsightedness is amazing at making the most redundant systems fail horrendously every now and then. You just need one idiot being sufficently idiotic.

Which in this case I suppose was meant to be Owen and the guards.
I wish I could believe that the filmmakers intended for it to be seen that way. But the way the characters were presented, I think it's more likely that it just plain didn't occur to them that Owen and Claire should both have stayed put.


Haven't seen the movie--from what I hear, though, it's even a not-particularly-subtle parody of itself.
Characters do speak plainly about the necessity to keep upping the ante in order to recapture the "Wow Factor" in the face of an ever more jaded audience, if that's what you mean.

[Bulldog Psion]

Characters do speak plainly about the necessity to keep upping the ante in order to recapture the "Wow Factor" in the face of an ever more jaded audience, if that's what you mean.

Which, if's meant to be satirical, is pretty ironic in an unintentional sort of way. The movie shows the public to be absolutely enthusiastic about "ordinary" dinosaurs, and the box office returns in the real world seem to indicate that the real public's response is also "wow! Dinosaurs!" :smallwink:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Well in-world those characters have had Dinosaurs for 10 years or so; what was the last movie that had dinosaurs?

[Bulldog Psion]

Well in-world those characters have had Dinosaurs for 10 years or so; what was the last movie that had dinosaurs?

True, but what I actually meant is that it's wrong even inside the movie. Claire is babbling on about how they need to "up the ante" with the Indominus Rex in order to get people to come again in profitable numbers; yet every single exhibit, ride, etc. is packed with happy, enthusiastic people in literally thousands, who are perfectly thrilled to be watching ordinary mosasaurs, triceratops, raptors, stegosaurs, etc.

I mean, the place is shown as bursting with tourists; if there were any more, there wouldn't be room for the dinos. And all of them look super-enthused about seeing "ordinary" dinosaurs, no I. rex needed.

Yet Claire is yammering on and on about how they need the Indominus soooo much to help their poor dropping profits because the public is so jaded.

There's a real disconnect there. It's like an auto body shop booked solid for the next 4 years, and someone is standing there on a rapidly growing pile of cash moaning, "Oh Great Cthulhu, how are we going to get more people to come in here to get their cars repaired?" :smallbiggrin:

[Dusk Eclipse]

We don't know if that is a regular thing, and given that the movie seems to be happening during Christmas holidays, it seems to me that getting so many people was a rarity. And they did mention that while they were not loosing money the park was just getting by, and that the needed to grab more attention to cover the increasing costs to keep the park running.

[BannedInSchool]

Sell dinosaurs as pets that are engineered to eat your official brand of dinosaur chow. Low overhead, constant income. Have the fertilized eggs in the gift shop and you don't even have to pay shipping. :smallwink:

[Traab]

True, but what I actually meant is that it's wrong even inside the movie. Claire is babbling on about how they need to "up the ante" with the Indominus Rex in order to get people to come again in profitable numbers; yet every single exhibit, ride, etc. is packed with happy, enthusiastic people in literally thousands, who are perfectly thrilled to be watching ordinary mosasaurs, triceratops, raptors, stegosaurs, etc.

I mean, the place is shown as bursting with tourists; if there were any more, there wouldn't be room for the dinos. And all of them look super-enthused about seeing "ordinary" dinosaurs, no I. rex needed.

Yet Claire is yammering on and on about how they need the Indominus soooo much to help their poor dropping profits because the public is so jaded.

There's a real disconnect there. It's like an auto body shop booked solid for the next 4 years, and someone is standing there on a rapidly growing pile of cash moaning, "Oh Great Cthulhu, how are we going to get more people to come in here to get their cars repaired?" :smallbiggrin:

It makes sense if, over the course of those 4 years, the amount of people showing up is slowing down. Yeah they are full to capacity, but there is a trend showing up. As an example, take 6 flags. Normally when you go there (at least the last time I went it was like this) all the rides had massive lines of people waiting to get on. Now, imagine its three years later, and the rides are still full, but the lines are getting smaller. Less people are buying tickets to come in, so even though the rides are still running constantly at full capacity, the number of people showing up is dropping. It may not be a real loss yet, but you cant sit and wait for the trend to continue growing until it DOES get bad before you start trying to reverse it.

[Lethologica]

Characters do speak plainly about the necessity to keep upping the ante in order to recapture the "Wow Factor" in the face of an ever more jaded audience, if that's what you mean.
That's the beginning of it.

The first comment I saw exploring this was here. (http://io9.com/spoiler-galore-warning-okay-in-the-theater-i-was-pis-1711060968) Tl;dr: the movie is all about how making a Bigger And Better Jurassic Park sequel is stupid and people should just cherish the original for what it is, right up to the point where the dinosaurs from the first film team up to take out the monstrosity that is the fourth film.

[BWR]

I was not disappointed but that's probably because I didn't expect much to begin with. It was better than the trailer promised, but only slightly. It was a waste of my time and money to watch it in the theaters. At best, early on when you saw dinos just waddling around, it was ok. Every single human character a pain to sit through, the humor was jarring and bad, and if I wanted a kaiju battle I'd watch a genuine kaiju movie. The only redeeming feature was seeing people actually killed by dinosaurs, but there was too little of this and the dinos inexplicably slowed down whenever a main character was around - had any of the protagonists been eaten it would have improved the movie significantly. I was literally on the verge of nodding off during the movie and not because I was a suffering from a lack of sleep. I won't say it was a bad movie because it isn't. It was just a solid meh.

[Rogar Demonblud]

So they've announced a sequel, with Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, with a tentative release date of 22 June 2018. Is anyone else underwhelmed by that news?

Also, proving I probably should have a PhD in fridge logic, I realized what the real problem was with the 'what's that scratch in the I Rex cage' scene.

They're sitting in a room dedicated to observing this new creation, and it is lacking one very important piece of technology. A simple phone with a dedicated hardline. All BDH had to do was lift the receiver, punch speed dial #1 and a voice on the other end would say "Control Center".

Apparently, InGen has taken steps to corner the market in Corporate Stupidity.

[Zmeoaice]

I want the sequel to have dinos genetically engineered to speak. I won't see it if there aren't talkng dinos.

[TheEmerged]

I'm'a just gonna leave this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXGCyjJh48I) right here...

RE: Phones. You know, it's funny, a few years ago I attended a web conference about screenwriting and one of the discussions was about the way the availability of camera phones and widespread availability was changing the viability of some standard plot tricks, so it's amusing to see the way mobile devices are mysteriously failing in films nowadays.

[Bulldog Psion]

So they've announced a sequel, with Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, with a tentative release date of 22 June 2018. Is anyone else underwhelmed by that news?

Also, proving I probably should have a PhD in fridge logic, I realized what the real problem was with the 'what's that scratch in the I Rex cage' scene.

They're sitting in a room dedicated to observing this new creation, and it is lacking one very important piece of technology. A simple phone with a dedicated hardline. All BDH had to do was lift the receiver, punch speed dial #1 and a voice on the other end would say "Control Center".

Apparently, InGen has taken steps to corner the market in Corporate Stupidity.

On top of that, they apparently have worse security cameras (that is, none) in that enclosure than they do in your average gas station parking lot.

They should have been able to play back some security tape, see the I. rex come and scrabble around on the wall before retreating into the underbrush smirking, and say "aha, so that's what happened!"

EDIT: of course, the movie's plot is just an excuse to have cool dinosaurs hunt and eat people. I figure the plot is just there to provide a bare minimum excuse for why the action is occurring at all, and isn't even constructed with the idea that it might make sense.

[BannedInSchool]

RE: Phones. You know, it's funny, a few years ago I attended a web conference about screenwriting and one of the discussions was about the way the availability of camera phones and widespread availability was changing the viability of some standard plot tricks, so it's amusing to see the way mobile devices are mysteriously failing in films nowadays.
Heh, and so then there's the Walking Dead prequel where you have scenes of people looking at videos on their phones, because that's what people would do today in a zombie outbreak.

[The Troubadour]

I'm'a just gonna leave this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXGCyjJh48I) right here...

So they parodied a movie that was already sexist, and made the parody even more sexist?
You know, the sad part is, I can't even say I'm surprised.

[Zmeoaice]

So they parodied a movie that was already sexist, and made the parody even more sexist?
You know, the sad part is, I can't even say I'm surprised.
....

How was that in any way sexist?

[Dienekes]

....

How was that in any way sexist?

From earlier in the thread. Troub thinks pointing out high heels are stupid to wear in a rain forest like area is sexist.

I don't get it either.

[Bulldog Psion]

So they parodied a movie that was already sexist, and made the parody even more sexist?
You know, the sad part is, I can't even say I'm surprised.

While I agree that high heels are fundamentally sexist footgear (women make themselves better-dressed by wearing shoes that render them partly unable to move??? Wtf, humanity?) I don't see anything fundamentally sexist about that parody.

High heels are pretty much an emblem of oppression as far as I can see anyway, and wearing them is just internalizing and accepting the sexism, unfortunately. Kind of like skirts and the like. I have to admit that I can no longer view most clothing women are forced to wear without a sort of deep philosophical pain. It's getting so I can't look at historical pictures, either, unless I want to get depressed.

Be that as it may, making a joke over a high heel breaking off isn't sexist, IMO; it's more just mocking the impracticality of sexism, since the footgear is a sexist and oppressive item just one step away from bound feet.

And for Pelor's sake, put on some boots. Wearing those heels in that situation is like Starlord deciding to discard his motorcycle for a pogo stick.

Especially since all of the criticisms in that "HISHE" episode are so hilariously spot on. :smallbiggrin:

[BannedInSchool]

While I agree that high heels are fundamentally sexist footgear (women make themselves better-dressed by wearing shoes that render them partly unable to move??? Wtf, humanity?) I don't see anything fundamentally sexist about that parody.
Hmm, there's not too much distance between "this is why it's stupid to depict a woman in high heels" and "this is why women are stupid for wearing high heels".

[Traab]

Can the parody really be considered that sexist if only two of the huge honking mistakes were made by women? Just because the character who suggested going outside before calling the control room happened to be female doesnt mean its a knock on women. As for the high heels, well, high heels are stupid. But again, thats less of a knock on women being dumb than it is a knock on THIS woman being dumb.

[warty goblin]

Hmm, there's not too much distance between "this is why it's stupid to depict a woman in high heels" and "this is why women are stupid for wearing high heels".

I'd argue that when fleeing from a predator the size of a bus while waving a 'dinner is served sign' wearing high heels is, in point of fact, stupid - even conditional on wanting to get seven tons of meat-eater to chase you. It seems excessive to me to avoid calling something stupid just because society codes it as feminine and a woman is doing it. That leads us to the equally untenable conclusions that either women never do anything stupid, or that so long as one is doing stupid things according to gender lines calling it stupid is entirely off-limits.

It also seems a very broad reading of an observation that running away from giant man-eating dinosaurs in heels is stupid to wearing heels ever is stupid and anybody who wears them is stupid.I certainly have a hard time making that particular jump from A to B.

[Bulldog Psion]

Hmm, there's not too much distance between "this is why it's stupid to depict a woman in high heels" and "this is why women are stupid for wearing high heels".

No, women are socially pressured to wear high heels. It really bothers me, because they're basically forced to for the sake of work (dress codes, written or unwritten) or in order to look more "attractive" when they are interacting with someone relationship-worthy.

In short, the expectations of other people are forcing them to conform to something which is, in itself, pretty stupid -- a foot-torturing shoe that is impractical and serves only as an emblem of an infantilized construct of "femininity."

Like Abraham Lincoln, I believe that necessity overrides free will in most cases. The shoes may be grotesque, but that doesn't mean that those wearing them are stupid; just as men compelled by social pressure to exude a macho aura of some sort aren't morons, they're just mortals helplessly caught up in a construct they need to conform to, or suffer pointlessly while defying. Generally, stuff can only be changed gradually; in the meantime, most people are forced to comply with the "norm" just in order to lead a relatively normal life.

In Claire's case, though, it's personal stupidity rather than something she's being forced into. She has no obligation to not put on boots once the chips are down. Her failing to do so is an individual failing, not a collective failing -- similar to my hypothesized pogo stick with Starlord.

[Lethologica]

Not exactly sold on the "high heels exist for sexist oppression and anyone who wears them has internalized sexism" line. That said, "We're going to have this character wear heels while running from a dinosaur because WOMEN WEAR HEELS OKAY" is definitely sexist, and pointing out the stupidity of this idea is not.

[Bulldog Psion]

Not exactly sold on the "high heels exist for sexist oppression and anyone who wears them has internalized sexism" line. That said, "We're going to have this character wear heels while running from a dinosaur because WOMEN WEAR HEELS OKAY" is definitely sexist, and pointing out the stupidity of this idea is not.

Well, actually, I think a more realistic appraisal than I gave would be:

1. Cavalry wore boots with high heels to keep the stirrup from catching around their ankle/heel in combat, possibly resulting in them being dragged to death or unable to escape a collapsing mount.

2. Cavalry were high-status troops, so the boot became a symbol of status/fashion as well as a practical piece of military wear.

3. As the economy continued to expand, shoemakers began to make high-heeled shoes for upper class women to indicate their status and stylishness.

4. As the economy expanded more, middle-class women could afford high heels also, for example for their "Sunday best." It probably didn't spread to the men as much because horses were still expensive; the riding-boot was superfluous to them, while the female high-heeled shoe was already detached from any practical function.

5. Eventually, high-heeled shoes for women evolved from a "yes, I want to look like an aristocrat" into a "must-have" symbol associated withe gender rather than social rank.

6. Like a lot of stuff with no ties to its original function or meaning any more, the whole thing became grotesquely exaggerated, with people wobbling around on 6 inch spikes and such. Or worse.

And thus, at the end, we come to the point where I agree with you that it's sexist writing (and, in-universe, a pretty bad decision on Claire's part that only plot armor protected her from) and fair game for the HISHE chaps to take a jab at.

(After all, they also took a well-deserved jab at Mr. "Tough Guy" Starlord taking off on his motorcycle and leaving the luckless security chaps to their fate, which is pretty much how it went down in the movie, too, even though they tried to hide it. :smallbiggrin: )

[Dienekes]

Not exactly sold on the "high heels exist for sexist oppression and anyone who wears them has internalized sexism" line. That said, "We're going to have this character wear heels while running from a dinosaur because WOMEN WEAR HEELS OKAY" is definitely sexist, and pointing out the stupidity of this idea is not.

More interesting, to me, is, if we take the idea that women wearing high heels in dino infested jungles is sexist. In which way is it sexist?

While anyone with an ounce of reason can point out why wearing high heels in the context of the situation is an idiot. The actual character remarkably succeeds at everything in which high heels should give her a distinct disadvantage. The high heels can be taken as the male gender enforcing their ideology on the women, in the form of Starlord telling her to change her shoes. Or it can be seen as the female gender rising above the criticism of the male and ultimately proving them wrong.

Or, and this is my favorite interpretation by far, we can say: They're just ****ing shoes. It was a dumb story element and the writers and directors were not trying to form a feminist critique in their movie about dinosaurs murdering people.

[Bulldog Psion]

Or, and this is my favorite interpretation by far, we can say: They're just ****ing shoes. It was a dumb story element and the writers and directors were not trying to form a feminist critique in their movie about dinosaurs murdering people.

Though they probably should have gone the whole hog in that case, just for the sake of the hilarity, and had her wearing these:

http://g04.a.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1P5YaGpXXXXchXXXXq6xXFXXXa/221586995/HTB1P5YaGpXXXXchXXXXq6xXFXXXa.jpg

[Infernally Clay]

Complaining about her shoes? Really? Considering that she hardly had time to go change her clothes, what with her nephews missing and a giant goddamn monster running around eating people, would folks have considered it more realistic to run around barefooted?

I swear people will complain about anything these days.

[Bulldog Psion]

In all the time it took them to argue over using the raptors and set up that whole wacky plan, it doesn't seem impossible to me that she could have found time to grab a pair of boots in a place that is basically one gigantic safari camp.

If they DON'T have footgear, clothing, communications devices, weapons, flashlights and spotlights, imaging gear, portable power sources, first aid equipment, climbing gear, tools, etc. stockpiled in readily accessible locations, the park's organizers are even even bigger buffoons than the movie makes them out to be.

[Dienekes]

Complaining about her shoes? Really? Considering that she hardly had time to go change her clothes, what with her nephews missing and a giant goddamn monster running around eating people, would folks have considered it more realistic to run around barefooted?

I swear people will complain about anything these days.

She actually had 2 opportunities to change clothes, into reasonable footwear. The first is before she goes off trekking after her nephews in the first place. It would take all of a second to grab shoes and change in the car. But it's reasonable to say she wasn't thinking straight in that situation.

The second was when she was with her group of rangers in preparation for the battle with the I.Rex. In which she had plenty of time to do so, but just didn't.

The actual problem of the shoes isn't so much that she was wearing them. It was that attention was repeatedly drawn to them. The whole Starlord scene dressing her down brings up that shoes are a terrible thing to wear. Now having been in the jungle and the rain forest myself I can confirm, that is an incredibly stupid thing to wear. First off, they will be ruined, secondly, they will snag, and thirdly, the ground will not be even, you want some ability to put weight on all parts of your foot or you will slow everything down.

Then, you have her 'I'm a strong women ready for anything' moment, where she fixes her top, or something, and for the sake of the story we'll just say sure, let's ignore the shoe thing and get on with the movie. I've ignored bigger details for my own enjoyment.

Then the T.Rex scene happens, and she outruns it. Unbelievable really, as we saw that big ole girl catch up to a car in the first movie. But then, they do a close up on her in high heels running, and it is just silly watching her run in them. If they just didn't mention or focus on them, they would not have mattered, no one would be even having this conversation. But they bring them up as a legitimate problem, and they are, then ignore any opportunity to correct that problem, then keep shoving it in our faces that the problem is still there, unaddressed.

It's just poor storytelling really. But, I thought that was par for the course with the movie. The only good thing I can really say about it, is that the dinos killed things, and that was what I wanted to see.

[warty goblin]

Complaining about her shoes? Really? Considering that she hardly had time to go change her clothes, what with her nephews missing and a giant goddamn monster running around eating people, would folks have considered it more realistic to run around barefooted?

I swear people will complain about anything these days.

Honestly? If my last ditch plan was to run a couple hundred meters as fast as possible with fourteen thousand pounds of hungry dinosaur hot on my tail, I'd choose barefoot over just about anything but my actual running shoes. Seems like the sort of scenario where a person'd want good balance and long strides, you know?

[Rogar Demonblud]

In all the time it took them to argue over using the raptors and set up that whole wacky plan, it doesn't seem impossible to me that she could have found time to grab a pair of boots in a place that is basically one gigantic safari camp.

If they DON'T have footgear, clothing, communications devices, weapons, flashlights and spotlights, imaging gear, portable power sources, first aid equipment, climbing gear, tools, etc. stockpiled in readily accessible locations, the park's organizers are even even bigger buffoons than the movie makes them out to be.

You're talking about the same people who couldn't find time to install an office phone any time in the last couple decades, right? Actually, has anyone checked to see how many entries in the Evil Overlord List these baboons morons dodos carbon-based lifeforms have infracted?*




*Must avoid gratuitous group attacks on baboons, morons and dodo birds.

[The Troubadour]

How was that in any way sexist?


[...] I don't see anything fundamentally sexist about that parody.

They left Claire's "dumb moments" (not calling from inside the pad control room - with OWEN being the one to call her out on it, running in high heels) intact, while conveniently changing Owen's "dumb moment" of leading the raptors without a contingency plan and not firing when the I-Rex was "talking" into him taking the lead and being smart while everyone else was left just as dumb as in the movie. I REALLY doubt that was a coincidence.


As for the high heels, well, high heels are stupid. But again, thats less of a knock on women being dumb than it is a knock on THIS woman being dumb.

In the words of Adrian Monk, here's the thing: Claire is a fictional character. She can't decide for herself to wear high heels or not, the writers did that, and they did that for no reason other than adding a scene where the "manly man" dresses her down exactly for wearing those heels. It didn't lead into any sort of character development or plot complication; it was there just to rehash the old, trite and offensive "women, so dumb, am I right?" trope for the sake of comedy (for a given value of comedy, any way). Considering the whole movie had several moments of that (starting, I think, with her boss - the same guy who got himself killed, lost their best bet at taking out the I-Rex and released the flying lizards), I don't think it's unfair, in the specific case of this movie, to see the way the only female character of any importance is treated as a representation on how career women as a whole should be viewed.

Or, as others put it in a better manner:


Hmm, there's not too much distance between "this is why it's stupid to depict a woman in high heels" and "this is why women are stupid for wearing high heels".


That said, "We're going to have this character wear heels while running from a dinosaur because WOMEN WEAR HEELS OKAY" is definitely sexist, and pointing out the stupidity of this idea is not.

[Dienekes]

In the words of Adrian Monk, here's the thing: Claire is a fictional character. She can't decide for herself to wear high heels or not, the writers did that, and they did that for no reason other than adding a scene where the "manly man" dresses her down exactly for wearing those heels. It didn't lead into any sort of character development or plot complication; it was there just to rehash the old, trite and offensive "women, so dumb, am I right?" trope for the sake of comedy (for a given value of comedy, any way). Considering the whole movie had several moments of that (starting, I think, with her boss - the same guy who got himself killed, lost their best bet at taking out the I-Rex and released the flying lizards), I don't think it's unfair, in the specific case of this movie, to see the way the only female character of any importance is treated as a representation on how career women as a whole should be viewed.

Or, as others put it in a better manner:

Except, that didn't lead to the complications that it was supposed to. On the contrary, Claire is shown to be just as competent as Owen, saving him once at least, despite wearing these ridiculous shoes. The entire scenario can be taken as an empowered female character succeeding despite the man dressing her down. They show her outrunning a T. Rex in them, which should be downright impossible.

Of course, that doesn't change that it was actually a stupid decision, and those shoes most definitely should have screwed her up. But, I won't get into that again.

Your critique sounds closest to a women should never be told their wrong in a movie, which is just as blatantly sexist as the other route.

[The Troubadour]

On the contrary, Claire is shown to be just as competent as Owen, saving him once at least,[...]

And despite that, her nephews specifically say (paraphrased) "Oh, no, we don't want to stay with you, we want to stay with HIM" shortly after that scene.


The entire scenario can be taken as an empowered female character succeeding despite the man dressing her down.

I could see that. Except - once again -, here's the thing: why was there sexism in the movie in the first place? Again, these are fictional characters, and not particularly organic ones at that, so they can't make decisions on their own. That the writers added those scenes for no purpose other than "comedy" is what I find offensive (in addition to being lazy writing).


Your critique sounds closest to a women should never be told their wrong in a movie, which is just as blatantly sexist as the other route.

Not at all. I'm saying women should never be told they're wrong just for being women.

[Dienekes]

And despite that, her nephews specifically say (paraphrased) "Oh, no, we don't want to stay with you, we want to stay with HIM" shortly after that scene.

Yeah, that was dumb writing.


I could see that. Except - once again -, here's the thing: why was there sexism in the movie in the first place? Again, these are fictional characters, and not particularly organic ones at that, so they can't make decisions on their own. That the writers added those scenes for no purpose other than "comedy" is what I find offensive (in addition to being lazy writing).

There was no comedy when Redhead outran the Rex in heels, but they still decided to do a 5 second close up on her shoes while she was running. If that wasn't trying to show that the women was above the criticisms I don't know what else would do.

Now, don't get me wrong, her doing so is stupid and poorly written, but I don't see how her proving the man wrong is sexist. Sure, they did a little joke beforehand, so what? You're allowed to poke fun at your characters from time to time, hell, Starlord gets called out for his misunderstanding of adequate clothes as well, only his misunderstanding was a date and not being in the jungle and surrounded by animals trying to eat you.


Not at all. I'm saying women should never be told they're wrong just for being women.

Except the scene was not about her being a women, the scene was about her having inadequate footwear for the jungle. Which she had, which was entirely reasonable for her to have in her previous situation, but would be detrimental for her current one. She was not properly prepared for a trek into the wild, a wilderness expert points that out to her. That's all it is.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Honestly? If my last ditch plan was to run a couple hundred meters as fast as possible with fourteen thousand pounds of hungry dinosaur hot on my tail, I'd choose barefoot over just about anything but my actual running shoes. Seems like the sort of scenario where a person'd want good balance and long strides, you know?

And that's just the point that everyone keeps ignoring in favor of being OFFENDED. By the script, she is barefoot by then. In fact, I'd guess the scene where she pushes up her sleeves is where she's also supposed to kick off the heels.

The problem being, the ground wasn't the kind of stuff you want to be barefoot on, and BDH refused to lose shoes. And rather than simply say "Okay, Claire has a pair of flats* in her go bag for when she has to be in the field" (which, in character, would make sense), the production team had her keep the heels.

I suspect most of the shots of her in heels in the second half of the film were just payback for BDH being difficult. Maybe she also kicked the director's puppy.



*or sneakers, or boots, or what have you

[warty goblin]

And that's just the point that everyone keeps ignoring in favor of being OFFENDED. By the script, she is barefoot by then. In fact, I'd guess the scene where she pushes up her sleeves is where she's also supposed to kick off the heels.

The problem being, the ground wasn't the kind of stuff you want to be barefoot on, and BDH refused to lose shoes. And rather than simply say "Okay, Claire has a pair of flats* in her go bag for when she has to be in the field" (which, in character, would make sense), the production team had her keep the heels.

I suspect most of the shots of her in heels in the second half of the film were just payback for BDH being difficult. Maybe she also kicked the director's puppy.



*or sneakers, or boots, or what have you

Huh, see that I did not know. That's interesting, thanks.

[Lethologica]

They left Claire's "dumb moments" (not calling from inside the pad control room - with OWEN being the one to call her out on it, running in high heels) intact, while conveniently changing Owen's "dumb moment" of leading the raptors without a contingency plan and not firing when the I-Rex was "talking" into him taking the lead and being smart while everyone else was left just as dumb as in the movie. I REALLY doubt that was a coincidence.
This is probably laziness: "Claire's heels break" is a much easier joke to execute in an actually funny way than "Claire outruns the dinosaur because she's wearing sensible footwear."


And that's just the point that everyone keeps ignoring in favor of being OFFENDED. By the script, she is barefoot by then. In fact, I'd guess the scene where she pushes up her sleeves is where she's also supposed to kick off the heels.

The problem being, the ground wasn't the kind of stuff you want to be barefoot on, and BDH refused to lose shoes. And rather than simply say "Okay, Claire has a pair of flats* in her go bag for when she has to be in the field" (which, in character, would make sense), the production team had her keep the heels.

I suspect most of the shots of her in heels in the second half of the film were just payback for BDH being difficult. Maybe she also kicked the director's puppy.



*or sneakers, or boots, or what have you
Ugh. So, either sexist, or ridiculously petty. Boneheaded either way.

[Traab]

They left Claire's "dumb moments" (not calling from inside the pad control room - with OWEN being the one to call her out on it, running in high heels) intact, while conveniently changing Owen's "dumb moment" of leading the raptors without a contingency plan and not firing when the I-Rex was "talking" into him taking the lead and being smart while everyone else was left just as dumb as in the movie. I REALLY doubt that was a coincidence.



In the words of Adrian Monk, here's the thing: Claire is a fictional character. She can't decide for herself to wear high heels or not, the writers did that, and they did that for no reason other than adding a scene where the "manly man" dresses her down exactly for wearing those heels. It didn't lead into any sort of character development or plot complication; it was there just to rehash the old, trite and offensive "women, so dumb, am I right?" trope for the sake of comedy (for a given value of comedy, any way). Considering the whole movie had several moments of that (starting, I think, with her boss - the same guy who got himself killed, lost their best bet at taking out the I-Rex and released the flying lizards), I don't think it's unfair, in the specific case of this movie, to see the way the only female character of any importance is treated as a representation on how career women as a whole should be viewed.

Or, as others put it in a better manner:


In the words of adrian monk, heres the thing. You are choosing to attribute sexism to the whole shoe thing, when they could have just as easily had some male exec in fancy (really crappy treaded) dress shoes and had the exact same discussion. Only instead of a heel breaking off, its his feet sliding out from under him. Is the joke now sexist towards men? It was the exec wearing inappropriate footwear for jungle survival (because they had no reason to be prepared for jungle survival) and wearing terrible shoes for the movie that was the joke, not, "Hur hur, women are morons who wear moron shoes! Hur hur!"

[Legato Endless]

I want the sequel to have dinos genetically engineered to speak. I won't see it if there aren't talkng dinos.

Chris Pratt vs. Dr. Dinosaur from Atomic Robo would be all kinds of amazing.

[The Troubadour]

Except the scene was not about her being a women[...]

Wasn't it, though? Can you imagine that exact same scene, without changing anything else, only with a male character in Claire's place?


[...] when they could have just as easily had some male exec in fancy (really crappy treaded) dress shoes and had the exact same discussion.

Maybe they could have, but they didn't - which makes all the difference. Also, using general, gender-neutral fancy shoes most definitely wouldn't have the same meaning as using a type of footwear specifically geared towards women.
Finally, one point you seem to be ignoring is that the problem wasn't just that scene on its own, but that it was basically the cherry on top of a whole movie littered with sexism. Really, it seems disingenuous to say "Oh, it was just a joke, it wasn't sexist" when the entire narrative up to that point had been pointing out there's something wrong with Claire for choosing to focus on her career.

[snowblizz]

You're talking about the same people who couldn't find time to install an office phone any time in the last couple decades, right?
Landlines are dead technology, haven't you heard? There's even a thread in another section asking "seriously, does anyone use these at all?".

My university has fairly recently gotten rid of all landlines. And that's the IP-telephony landlines, not like real copperwire phones. They don't even bothered with company mobiles. BYOD.
It actually kinda makes sense that in a jungle environment they'd prefer the wireless technology. Of course, for a movie which has a strong streak of "technology won't help you when a prehistoric killing-machine goes bonkers" it actually makes a lot sense to me. Things like this is what I think about when old systems are dismantled to make way for cheaper and easier but more vulnerable new systems.

Of course I was thoroughly enjoying myself with a friend in the theatre going "ooh, don't go in there!", "that's not going to come back and bite you...", "that guy better get eaten", "yeah fly it yourself, what could EVER go wrong with that". I can tell that was a way better attitude to view this movie than "OMG social issues are not adequately considered in-between dino chomping".

[Bulldog Psion]

Landlines are dead technology, haven't you heard? There's even a thread in another section asking "seriously, does anyone use these at all?".

My university has fairly recently gotten rid of all landlines. And that's the IP-telephony landlines, not like real copperwire phones. They don't even bothered with company mobiles. BYOD.

Yes, that's true. But she had her cell phone with her anyway, and Starlord probably had a cell on him, and neither one of them thought to place a call from there. She'd have better reception there, you'd think, than in a car zooming along a jungle road.

But of course, they had to have these incredibly stupid decisions made before the breakout became possible.


It actually kinda makes sense that in a jungle environment they'd prefer the wireless technology. Of course, for a movie which has a strong streak of "technology won't help you when a prehistoric killing-machine goes bonkers" it actually makes a lot sense to me. Things like this is what I think about when old systems are dismantled to make way for cheaper and easier but more vulnerable new systems.

I'd guess wireless is more resilient in a situation like that. With landline type stuff, you've got to have wires running through the ground, which is warm and saturated with moisture. All the wireless stuff can be contained dry and safe indoors, in environments protected from rain, roots, rodents, fungi, and insects.


Of course I was thoroughly enjoying myself with a friend in the theatre going "ooh, don't go in there!", "that's not going to come back and bite you...", "that guy better get eaten", "yeah fly it yourself, what could EVER go wrong with that". I can tell that was a way better attitude to view this movie than "OMG social issues are not adequately considered in-between dino chomping".

I actually envy you. I think that the thing I miss most about my previous mindset was the ability to just enjoy films and books as fun adventures rather than analyzing them to death over various social issues. Not sure if it's something I can put back in the box, though.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Actually, wireless isn't very good in any environment with 1. lots of heat 2. lots of humidity 3. lots of things breaking line of site (plants in this case, but also ridges).

Plus, they're already running all of those cables for power, water lines, etc.

[warty goblin]

Actually, wireless isn't very good in any environment with 1. lots of heat 2. lots of humidity 3. lots of things breaking line of site (plants in this case, but also ridges).

Plus, they're already running all of those cables for power, water lines, etc.

And the network strain must be vicious, what with that constant tsunami of DINOSAUR SELFIES pouring out of the park.

[BannedInSchool]

And the network strain must be vicious, what with that constant tsunami of DINOSAUR SELFIES pouring out of the park.
Now I'm imagining selfies of people about to be eaten by dinosaurs right next to the pictograph signs warning people not to climb over fences to take selfies by the dinosaurs or they'll get eaten. You know, those little silhouette blob people used on signs, one taking a selfie with it's back to the silhouette dinosaur, and people doing just that right next to that sign. :smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

The shoe thing is not sexist. It just isn't. Just like "her dumb moments". Seriously.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Now I'm imagining selfies of people about to be eaten by dinosaurs right next to the pictograph signs warning people not to climb over fences to take selfies by the dinosaurs or they'll get eaten. You know, those little silhouette blob people used on signs, one taking a selfie with it's back to the silhouette dinosaur, and people doing just that right next to that sign. :smallbiggrin:

Given how many people do that with the bison in Yellowstone, yeah, that's a given.

[Avilan the Grey]

Given how many people do that with the bison in Yellowstone, yeah, that's a given.

Reminds me of the German (Why are they always German? :smallwink:) couple that survived the Bali bombing, continued on their vacation to Australia and got eaten by crocodiles because they wanted a midnight swim in the outback (the river was along a trail (and they had a guide) and there were "Don't Swim! Crocodiles!" signs all over the place).

Yeah. Some people earn their Darwin Award nominations.

[BannedInSchool]

Yeah. Some people earn their Darwin Award nominations.
Speaking of crocodilian deaths, from Texas earlier this year (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/us/texas-alligator-attack/):

Orange County Justice of the Peace Rodney Price told CNN affiliate KFDM that Woodward ignored verbal warnings and a posted "No Swimming Alligators" sign and seemed to mock the deadly creatures before going in the water.

"He removed his shirt, removed his billfold ... someone shouted a warning and he said 'blank the alligators' and jumped in to the water and almost immediately yelled for help," Price said.

I mean, if it just doesn't occur to someone that an animal might attack them then I guess I can say it just didn't occur to them and what are you going to do if some thought just doesn't pass through your mind until it's too late? Animals at zoos aren't usually doing anything that looks dangerous, so I guess people can think they're friendly and it's okay to climb over two fences to pet the friendly polar bear that's just sitting there looking around and will probably roll over to let you rub his belly. But for some animals, like alligators and crocodiles, how can it not occur to you that they might bite? I guess people just imagine them keeping their distance or that they'll obey verbal commands to shoo? Although that above story probably also involved some alcohol. Maybe public gladiator vs animal fights would be a public service to educate people of the dangers of petting strange animals? :smalltongue:

[Avilan the Grey]

Remember the (adult) guy who's mother sued sea world after he had broken in at night to swim with the killer whale and it well... acted like a killer whale?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Heck with crocs. People get killed by rattlesnakes, a creature equipped by nature with its own 'don't **** with me' signal.

[warty goblin]

Speaking of crocodilian deaths, from Texas earlier this year (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/04/us/texas-alligator-attack/):


I mean, if it just doesn't occur to someone that an animal might attack them then I guess I can say it just didn't occur to them and what are you going to do if some thought just doesn't pass through your mind until it's too late? Animals at zoos aren't usually doing anything that looks dangerous, so I guess people can think they're friendly and it's okay to climb over two fences to pet the friendly polar bear that's just sitting there looking around and will probably roll over to let you rub his belly. But for some animals, like alligators and crocodiles, how can it not occur to you that they might bite? I guess people just imagine them keeping their distance or that they'll obey verbal commands to shoo? Although that above story probably also involved some alcohol. Maybe public gladiator vs animal fights would be a public service to educate people of the dangers of petting strange animals? :smalltongue:

I suspect a lot of people have had essentially zero contact with non-pet animals, so really don't understand that wild ones (and some of the crankier untamed domestic ones) have an agenda entirely their own. Sometimes that agenda can involve eating you, or goring you into paste because you pissed it off.

Which to me is just further evidence that being stupid will occasionally get a person killed, however thoroughly civilization tries to idiot-proof the world. In that sense Jurassic World is a very good movie, since it serves as a valuable reminder that if you are in the vicinity of giant meat eaters, every once and a while your meat gets et. It's just tragic that the supremely idiotic main cast survived the film.

[The Troubadour]

I can tell that was a way better attitude to view this movie than "OMG social issues are not adequately considered in-between dino chomping".

I blame you for Michael Bay. :-)
Seriously, though, it's your right to adopt that attitude. Don't begrudge others, though, for their own right and ability to enjoy a movie and still think about it.

[Traab]

Wasn't it, though? Can you imagine that exact same scene, without changing anything else, only with a male character in Claire's place?



Maybe they could have, but they didn't - which makes all the difference. Also, using general, gender-neutral fancy shoes most definitely wouldn't have the same meaning as using a type of footwear specifically geared towards women.
Finally, one point you seem to be ignoring is that the problem wasn't just that scene on its own, but that it was basically the cherry on top of a whole movie littered with sexism. Really, it seems disingenuous to say "Oh, it was just a joke, it wasn't sexist" when the entire narrative up to that point had been pointing out there's something wrong with Claire for choosing to focus on her career.

Yeah but the point is, that if a joke would work equally well for either gender, its sorta silly to call it a sexist joke. Heels are fancy office wear for women, just like slippery as heck dress shoes are for men and both would be equally terrible ideas to wear while running for your life. A joke doesnt automatically become sexist just because a woman is the butt of it. Im not saying its never the case, but considering this could easily be a gender neutral joke, my vote goes with no. Maybe the overall character is sexist, that doesnt mean literally everything that she does is by definition sexist.

[BannedInSchool]

Heck with crocs. People get killed by rattlesnakes, a creature equipped by nature with its own 'don't **** with me' signal.


I suspect a lot of people have had essentially zero contact with non-pet animals, so really don't understand that wild ones (and some of the crankier untamed domestic ones) have an agenda entirely their own. Sometimes that agenda can involve eating you, or goring you into paste because you pissed it off.

Heck, people often don't do well with their own pets. Dogs and cats can be essentially saying, "I am unhappy and nervous right now, leave me alone" with their behavior and people then reach to pet them or pick them up, get bit/scratched, and exclaim it's an aggressive animal attacking them for no reason. I guess some of that may be instinctive monkey grooming behavior not translating across species (Pet: "Help! I'm being molested by a monkey! Bad monkey, no!"), but people seemingly being totally oblivious to any meaning in their own pet's behavior (and also expecting them to understand human language) is just...just...arrgh.

[snowblizz]

I blame you for Michael Bay. :-)
Seriously, though, it's your right to adopt that attitude. Don't begrudge others, though, for their own right and ability to enjoy a movie and still think about it.

I'm bedrudging the idea that the only thing to discuss in the movie is shoes. I don't care about shoes, I didn't even realise there was shoe problem, but apparently that's the focus of this movie. Not everything has to be viewd maliciously, sometimes the actress insisted on having shoes while making the movie. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar. It's been a long time now that I've had to stop analysing the movies I see. I'd blame Michael Bay too but I only vaguely know what a Micheal Bay is. :smalltongue: As an aside, do people actually go see mvoies because X was director, Y producer or Z stars in it? Nothing ruins it like spotting the late act twist 10 minutes into the movie and I've done that enough. I'm saying this because I'm getting a strong wibe of "you're clueless if you don't see what I see" all over this thread.


I enjoyed the idea of the park being operational since seeing the trailer in the cinema, I would have enjoyed watching a bit more of the "live dinosaurs are so pedestrian we'll repeat the mistake of thinking this is the same as disneyworld" before getting to the chomping. It was contrasting very well with the wonder present in the first movie, which I could also share in at seeing "live" dinosaurs the first time I saw the original movie.

One of the major themes I feel they were trying to get across was "don't be soo serious ppl, try to see the wonders that exist in a world of everything must be bigger and faster" But also "don't be blinded by it". I found the top park exuctives interesting in that sense, they have lost touch with reality. The billionaire dude who still has some sense of wonder in him but it ultimately clouds his mind enough for people to work behind his back. Not to mention his inability to properly balance the two sides of wonder and reality. Really dude, you think it's going to be cheaper than 30 million if someone gets hurt? Claire (right?) I also found an interesting character, I know people like her, men and women who live for work and have very little outside that. She may be a bit overplayed in her role showcasing how out of touch those running the park are with what they are doing. Something constantly hammered in from bored summer workers (I so loved that guy, who has to star look in the manual about emergency procedure) to lax control room personel. I love how Claire constantly talks about "assets", they aren't animals and she hasn't really been on the ground enough to realise it. Her jungle is the corporate one, which of course is a point made glaringly obvious.
That may be one of the main problems really. I found Obvious Bad Guy is Obvious much more annoying than shoes. But every role is hammered into the screen with a glaring neon sign.

[Killer Angel]

I'm bedrudging the idea that the only thing to discuss in the movie is shoes.

At the 7th page of the thread, details acquire importance. :smallwink:

[The Troubadour]

I'm bedrudging the idea that the only thing to discuss in the movie is shoes. I don't care about shoes, I didn't even realise there was shoe problem, but apparently that's the focus of this movie.

Well, yeah, that's what happens when you have different viewpoints. You don't care about the shoes, other people care about seeing such blatant sexism in what should have been only a fun movie about dinosaurs eating people. You got your popcorn flick, other people wanted their popcorn flick and didn't get it, or got non-buttered, non-salted popcorn mixed in the bag. There are other opinions out there in the big vast world, you know.

[Docuzzell]

another great installment in the Jurassic series. Rating a ten for acting, story line, and good special effects.

[Admiral Squish]

I have not actually seen this movie, but it seems to me like they missed a HUGE opportunity.
They genetically modify a super-predator to try to bring more business to the park itself. In the long-term, that's not sustainable, since you have to keep making new dinos, and pay the upkeep for the standard dinos, and all the new dinos you make from now until the park dies.
A much more sustainable plan is to develop miniaturized, domesticated versions of your dinos and sell them as pets. Imagine if you could own a cat-like Velociraptor. Or a dog-sized Tyrannosaurus. A parrot-sized Archeopteryx. Or any number of other miniaturized dinos. An Ankylousaurus, a Protoceratops, an Apatosaurus... Presumably, they could just develop sterile critters, or, if concerns about escapes are too great, make them dependent on some exotic nutrient they can only get from your brand of dino-chow. I mean, if people are willing to drop thousands of dollars on a purebred puppy or kitten of one breed or another, imagine how much they would be willing to pay for dinosaurs. You could stagger development of new types to keep demand up and maintain a monopoly on the food and accessories. And best of all, the world would receive the greatest gift of all: Tiny Tyrannosaurs in tiny sweaters.

[Traab]

Heh, the problem is with domesticating them really. I wouldnt want even a dog sized t rex. I would wonder when it would decide to hamstring me. Maybe the herbivores would be tameable. I wouldnt mind an ankleosaurus that was the size of a large cat or a small dog. A good size, but not so large as to worry about getting hammered by that club tail of theirs.

[Admiral Squish]

Heh, the problem is with domesticating them really. I wouldnt want even a dog sized t rex. I would wonder when it would decide to hamstring me. Maybe the herbivores would be tameable. I wouldnt mind an ankleosaurus that was the size of a large cat or a small dog. A good size, but not so large as to worry about getting hammered by that club tail of theirs.

they could get domestication done pretty fast, even with old-fashioned artificial selection. You know that Russian experiment that made silver foxes? That took about 20 generations to get foxes properly domesticated. And if memory serves, the park had some kind of accelerated aging thing going on, so that would decrease the turnaround between generations. Even long-lived dinos could be ready for mass-cloning within a decade.

I feel like people tend to forget that pretty much any medium-to-large-sized dog is entirely capable of murdering the crap out of a person, if the chips were down. They are wolves, ultimately. Though, granted, people probably wouldn't be quite as used to glossing over the threat posed by a pygmy Tyrannosaur.
Also, herbivores are generally much more violent than predators. Predators will eat you if they're hungry. Herbivores will take you out just because you got too close.

I imagine owning a pet Ankylosaur would be somewhere between owning a miniature horse and owning a giant turtle. Which sounds awesome.

[Bulldog Psion]

I'm not sure if those tiny dinosaur brains would be amenable to domestication. I mean, something with the intellectual capacity of an ant isn't going to get very tame no matter what you do.

The only advantage to a dog-sized T-rex is that it's a lot easier to contain. I'm not sure if you could ever get it to stop thinking of you as lunch, though.

[Traab]

I'm not sure if those tiny dinosaur brains would be amenable to domestication. I mean, something with the intellectual capacity of an ant isn't going to get very tame no matter what you do.

The only advantage to a dog-sized T-rex is that it's a lot easier to contain. I'm not sure if you could ever get it to stop thinking of you as lunch, though.

Dont nap nearby it. Or wear open toed shoes. /nod :p

[Zmeoaice]

A much more sustainable plan is to develop miniaturized, domesticated versions of your dinos and sell them as pets. Imagine if you could own a cat-like Velociraptor. Or a dog-sized Tyrannosaurus. A parrot-sized Archeopteryx. Or any number of other miniaturized dinos. An Ankylousaurus, a Protoceratops, an Apatosaurus... Presumably, they could just develop sterile critters, or, if concerns about escapes are too great, make them dependent on some exotic nutrient they can only get from your brand of dino-chow. I mean, if people are willing to drop thousands of dollars on a purebred puppy or kitten of one breed or another, imagine how much they would be willing to pay for dinosaurs. You could stagger development of new types to keep demand up and maintain a monopoly on the food and accessories. And best of all, the world would receive the greatest gift of all: Tiny Tyrannosaurs in tiny sweaters.

While that would be good from a business perspective, the Indian guy wasn't concerned over money, just maintaining the park. Selling people mini dinos doesn't get more people coming to the park, and could cause less people to go due to saturation.

[BannedInSchool]

With regards to pet dinosaurs, just ask yourself WWAD (What Would Apple Do?). :smalltongue:

[Admiral Squish]

I don't think dino brains were all THAT tiny. I know troodons had brains comparable in size to birds, and crows are terrifyingly smart. In the movies, raptors have a language of sorts and complex pack behavior. T-rexes were just outside the typical reptile size range, leaning closer to birds.
Ultimately, the domestication complex of behaviors seems like it works much same regardless of brain size. If you select for the friendliest dinos, over time the species adapts toward domestication. Plus, if it DOESN'T work with small brains, maybe they just tweak them to have bigger brains.

Like I said, I didn't see the movie, but it seems to me like a fantastic marketing strategy. People are basically paying you thousands and thousands of dollars for the privilege of walking around living, breathing teasers for your park experience. If you saw a guy walking a tiny t-rex, wouldn't you want to see what it looked like full-size?

[Rogar Demonblud]

I have just enough experience working in the legal field to be able to say that the liability issues would be staggering. And that's before somebody decides mini-dinos are the new pit bull and tries to legislate the breed to extinction.

Also, the tried the restricted diet thing in the books. The dinos figured out how to get the enzyme needed (lysine, I think) from other sources. Once they started breeding, the dependency rapidly disappeared.

[Zmeoaice]

I don't think dino brains were all THAT tiny. I know troodons had brains comparable in size to birds, and crows are terrifyingly smart. In the movies, raptors have a language of sorts and complex pack behavior. T-rexes were just outside the typical reptile size range, leaning closer to birds.
Ultimately, the domestication complex of behaviors seems like it works much same regardless of brain size. If you select for the friendliest dinos, over time the species adapts toward domestication. Plus, if it DOESN'T work with small brains, maybe they just tweak them to have bigger brains.

Their brains were comparable to really dumb birds like Ostriches. Dinos were not that smart. But IIRC the raptors in JP1 were as smart as apes, so they already fixed that.


Also, the tried the restricted diet thing in the books. The dinos figured out how to get the enzyme needed (lysine, I think) from other sources. Once they started breeding, the dependency rapidly disappeared.

Well it was a pointless gene to put in because all animals don't produce lysine in the first place and can get it from food anyways. But it's well established that the Ingen workers are complete morons, so it doesn't surprise me.


If you saw a guy walking a tiny t-rex, wouldn't you want to see what it looked like full-size?

If someone had a pet T-Rex I could walk up to and pet on the sidewalk, I wouldn't bother spending thousands of dollars to see one in a park that is hot and sweaty and smells like dino crap behind a thick glass wall.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Heh. The discussion reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw some time ago.


If history repeats itself, I want a pet saber tooth.

[Avilan the Grey]

When it comes to brain size there are few truths out there that all has to be considered:

1. A bigger body needs a bigger brain. Or rather the more nerves you have the bigger brain you need. Animals with very large, or sensitive, sensory organs have much larger brains than animals that don't.
2. For every evolutionary "generation" (no this is not a scientific term just me trying to explain) has favored bigger brains. Double size, at that. Very simplistically, as far as we have fossil data, every extinction event have triggered a surge in brain size among dominating species in the next "cycle". For the most part. One example is that modern cats and wolves have twice the brain size as sabre toothed cats and the first wolf-like animals.
3. The kicker here is that despite the first two points, brain size seems to have very little to do with actual intelligence. Birds are a very good example since many species are as smart as high primates (ravens, large parrots) despite having a brain a tenth of the size. There is something else going on here as well.

[BannedInSchool]

3. The kicker here is that despite the first two points, brain size seems to have very little to do with actual intelligence. Birds are a very good example since many species are as smart as high primates (ravens, large parrots) despite having a brain a tenth of the size. There is something else going on here as well.
Brain to body ratio seems to be a good indicator of intelligence. With ravens we may be a bit fooled just because they're good at using tools (I'm forgetting what their language skills are like right now; I think they have regional dialects?). We're impressed by tool-use, but it doesn't necessarily mean intelligence in all areas. But anyway, a housecat with a brain the size of a walnut would be generally smarter than a dino with the brain the size of a walnut unless the dino was also the size of a housecat. IIRC, some of the raptors had about wolf-like brain-to-body.

[Avilan the Grey]

Brain to body ratio seems to be a good indicator of intelligence. With ravens we may be a bit fooled just because they're good at using tools (I'm forgetting what their language skills are like right now; I think they have regional dialects?). We're impressed by tool-use, but it doesn't necessarily mean intelligence in all areas. But anyway, a housecat with a brain the size of a walnut would be generally smarter than a dino with the brain the size of a walnut unless the dino was also the size of a housecat. IIRC, some of the raptors had about wolf-like brain-to-body.

INdeed, brain to body ratio is one key.
As for ravens, they do far more than tool usage (and they do PROPER tool usage, as in manufacturing the tool from scratch after invetigating the situation). They also play, understand many words (when trained) etc.