JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION

[dragon53]

JURASSIC WORLD---Colin Trevorrow said the next sequel will not have a city setting, "I just have no idea what would motivate dinosaurs to terrorize a city. They can't organize. Right now we've got lethal predators in wild areas surrounding cities all over the world. They don't go pack hunting for humans in urban areas.
The world I get excited about is the one where it's possible that a dinosaur might run out in front of your car on a foggy backroad, or invade your campground looking for food. A world where dinosaur interaction is unlikely but possible – the same way we watch out for bears or sharks. We hunt animals, we traffic them, we herd them, we breed them, we invade their territory and pay the price, but we don't go to war with them. If that was the case, we'd have lost that war a long time ago."
THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK featured the Tyrannosaurus Rex running amok in San Diego.





TRIVIA---in THE LOST WORLD: JURASSIC PARK, the sequel's writer, David Koepp, played the "unlucky bastard" who is devoured by the Tyrannosaurus Rex during its bloody rampage in San Diego.

[stargatedalek]

I'm really not fond of the idea of focusing on the dinosaurs as generic invasive species and I'm glad to hear it doesn't seem they're going in that direction.

Firstly, it feels unrealistic. There weren't very many dinosaurs that escaped at the end of FK, certainly not enough for many of them to establish actual wild populations.

And even if there was enough of each dinosaur, invasive species don't tend to be large herbivores or top predators (dogs being the only common exception to this). Invasive species tend to be small, highly adaptable, and fast breeding, things like toads, crabs, molluscs, or plants.

Even the Mosasaurus, what's it gonna do? We saw it eat a few people but one radio tag and that's never happening again.

An invasive species usually needs to have something to displace in order to cause harm, what are these dinosaurs competing with in California? Unless the film is prepared to pose Compsognathus as the big bad (please don't), the invasive species angle is going to feel forced at best.


Secondly, while there are definitely some invasive species out there that do serious damage (dogs, cats, green crabs, zebra mussels, etc.), all of their collective influence is a drop in the bucket compared to any one directly human influenced environmental problem. Deforestation, livestock pollution, over-fishing, shark fishing, soil acidification, air pollution, and global warming each do more direct damage individually than invasive species do collectively.

To have Hollywood movies focus their environmental themes around invasive species feels like shifting the blame.


This idea of them living like scavengers around humans sounds much more believable, and is a much better setup for any interactions than "Gotta go hunt them down because invasive meanwhile the resources we use to do so cause more environmental harm!".

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm really not fond of the idea of focusing on the dinosaurs as generic invasive species and I'm glad to hear it doesn't seem they're going in that direction.

Firstly, it feels unrealistic. There weren't very many dinosaurs that escaped at the end of FK, certainly not enough for many of them to establish actual wild populations.

And even if there was enough of each dinosaur, invasive species don't tend to be large herbivores or top predators (dogs being the only common exception to this). Invasive species tend to be small, highly adaptable, and fast breeding, things like toads, crabs, molluscs, or plants.

Even the Mosasaurus, what's it gonna do? We saw it eat a few people but one radio tag and that's never happening again.

An invasive species usually needs to have something to displace in order to cause harm, what are these dinosaurs competing with in California? Unless the film is prepared to pose Compsognathus as the big bad (please don't), the invasive species angle is going to feel forced at best.


Secondly, while there are definitely some invasive species out there that do serious damage (dogs, cats, green crabs, zebra mussels, etc.), all of their collective influence is a drop in the bucket compared to any one directly human influenced environmental problem. Deforestation, livestock pollution, over-fishing, shark fishing, soil acidification, air pollution, and global warming each do more direct damage individually than invasive species do collectively.

To have Hollywood movies focus their environmental themes around invasive species feels like shifting the blame.


This idea of them living like scavengers around humans sounds much more believable, and is a much better setup for any interactions than "Gotta go hunt them down because invasive meanwhile the resources we use to do so cause more environmental harm!".

The dinos are supposedly going to be a world wide invasive species, the ideas they are working with is all these people in different countries will be making their own dinosaurs and even new species.  The ones from Nublar are going to be the least of their worries. 

The Mosa could reproduce on it's own, or someone could make more.  We could also get plesiosaurs, ect..

Compies would make  a great scene as they did in the novel hunting in very large packs.

I think the themes from the first novel are being handled well, when all the dinosaurs escaped and mixed the island started reaching equilibrium, that's where I think the series is going to end up hopefully, a sort of dinosaurs/man equilibrium, but what will that look like? As Malcolm said you don't know til your on the other side.

[paintingdinos]

"I just have no idea what would motivate dinosaurs to terrorize a city. They can't organize. Right now we've got lethal predators in wild areas surrounding cities all over the world. They don't go pack hunting for humans in urban areas.

LOL!

How many carnivores was it again that stopped running for their lives to menace the protagonists during a volcanic eruption in the last movie? Since when has any semblance of realism ever been a factor for how these animals behave?

Boooo.

[CityRaptor]

Well, we got one Allosaurus and one Carnotaurus doing that.  Some modern Dinosaurs actually do similar things during wildfires. So it is not that unrealistic.
And then there is Rexy, who stopped to once again save some people.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Well, we got one Allosaurus and one Carnotaurus doing that.  Some modern Dinosaurs actually do similar things during wildfires. So it is not that unrealistic.
And then there is Rexy, who stopped to once again save some people.

Eh she was hand raised..so she likes people, whether to play with or save, who knows.. lol

[Appalachiosaurus]

Honestly, at this point, who knows? The only options for the series to go at this point are either ludicrously ridiculous or a problem so small the movie would be over in 20 minutes. We know so little that I feel pretty confident in saying the movie will be nothing like any of the speculation we can come up with.

[stargatedalek]

Well, we got one Allosaurus and one Carnotaurus doing that.  Some modern Dinosaurs actually do similar things during wildfires. So it is not that unrealistic.
And then there is Rexy, who stopped to once again save some people.

It's not even that bad. We see a glimpse of the Allosaurus but it's running away just like everything else. The only dinosaurs who stopped to fight anything were the Carnotaurus and Rexy. Baryonyx definitely doesn't count, it's panicked and stuck in a confined space, of course it's going to blindly lash out at anything around it.

And these are laboratory designed animals made to be as ferocious and intimidating as they could be, it's entirely possible if not likely this would give them strange, wildly aggressive behaviour when frightened or stressed.

I'm not saying there is nothing about that scene to take issue with, but almost every complaint I see is zeroing in on ridiculous "haha movie logic!" moments instead of things that actually impact the viewer experience. And this one is even completely reasonable in-universe, so "movie logic alert!" squad can sit right back down.

For example the time skip between the stampede and the poachers loading the dinosaurs aboard their ship is abrupt and unannounced, and can leave the viewer confused, but it's almost never mentioned amid a sea of "Real animals don't act like that!" and "Haha Chris Pratt actually should have died in that scene.".

[paintingdinos]

Well, we got one Allosaurus and one Carnotaurus doing that.  Some modern Dinosaurs actually do similar things during wildfires. So it is not that unrealistic.
And then there is Rexy, who stopped to once again save some people.

It's not even that bad. We see a glimpse of the Allosaurus but it's running away just like everything else. The only dinosaurs who stopped to fight anything were the Carnotaurus and Rexy. Baryonyx definitely doesn't count, it's panicked and stuck in a confined space, of course it's going to blindly lash out at anything around it.

And these are laboratory designed animals made to be as ferocious and intimidating as they could be, it's entirely possible if not likely this would give them strange, wildly aggressive behaviour when frightened or stressed.

I'm not saying there is nothing about that scene to take issue with, but almost every complaint I see is zeroing in on ridiculous "haha movie logic!" moments instead of things that actually impact the viewer experience. And this one is even completely reasonable in-universe, so "movie logic alert!" squad can sit right back down.

For example the time skip between the stampede and the poachers loading the dinosaurs aboard their ship is abrupt and unannounced, and can leave the viewer confused.

The point was the absurdity of the comments:

"I just have no idea what would motivate dinosaurs to terrorize a city" etc.

I take no issue with them being genetically engendered aggressive lab rats. I take issue with them using that to justify all of the shenanigans for 2 movies (technically all of the films in the franchise) then stepping back and saying "woah now, that's not a very REALISTIC way for an animal to act." Some tiny amount of internal consistency would be nice.

[Brocc21]

I just pray to god this movies good. I'm assuming this is the last Jurassic movie, and I want this series to end on a high note.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Well, we got one Allosaurus and one Carnotaurus doing that.  Some modern Dinosaurs actually do similar things during wildfires. So it is not that unrealistic.
And then there is Rexy, who stopped to once again save some people.

It's not even that bad. We see a glimpse of the Allosaurus but it's running away just like everything else. The only dinosaurs who stopped to fight anything were the Carnotaurus and Rexy. Baryonyx definitely doesn't count, it's panicked and stuck in a confined space, of course it's going to blindly lash out at anything around it.

And these are laboratory designed animals made to be as ferocious and intimidating as they could be, it's entirely possible if not likely this would give them strange, wildly aggressive behaviour when frightened or stressed.

I'm not saying there is nothing about that scene to take issue with, but almost every complaint I see is zeroing in on ridiculous "haha movie logic!" moments instead of things that actually impact the viewer experience. And this one is even completely reasonable in-universe, so "movie logic alert!" squad can sit right back down.

For example the time skip between the stampede and the poachers loading the dinosaurs aboard their ship is abrupt and unannounced, and can leave the viewer confused.

The point was the absurdity of the comments:

"I just have no idea what would motivate dinosaurs to terrorize a city" etc.

I take no issue with them being genetically engendered aggressive lab rats. I take issue with them using that to justify all of the shenanigans for 2 movies (technically all of the films in the franchise) then stepping back and saying "woah now, that's not a very REALISTIC way for an animal to act." Some tiny amount of internal consistency would be nice.

I think there is a very thin line here between what we've seen dinosaurs do in terms of violence on the islands and what could happen in a populated city.  I know I know, TLW:San Diego incident.  The situation there could be explained due to the drugs the Rex was on at the time amping up it's behavior from the norm.  Even then it did act realistic by just eating and drinking, walking around before the whole chase scenes.  I think what the terrorize a city comment was aimed at was it's not going to be "Dinosaurs Attack " as in they are just rampaging all over the place with no reason.  I'm sure we'll  a have a chase or two , fighting, ect..  but there should be a good reason why.

[paintingdinos]

It feels like very sloppy, inconsistent storytelling. I very highly doubt the writers who created the San Diego scene were thinking to themselves "Yeah, all this behavior is totally justifiable because the animal has been drugged and isn't acting right".

They did what looked cool and what would sell to audiences. I think I prefer the modern JP franchise better that way. The 3rd move probably suffers the most from "deranged dinosaurs going out of their way to terrorize people" syndrome but I'm perfectly fine with that... because at least it looked halfway decent and was fun at the time.

I may very well be pleasantly surprised... but considering JW:FK was supposed to be the "darker", more "serious" take on the franchise... LOL. I'm not holding my breath.

[Jose S.M.]

It feels like very sloppy, inconsistent storytelling. I very highly doubt the writers who created the San Diego scene were thinking to themselves "Yeah, all this behavior is totally justifiable because the animal has been drugged and isn't acting right".

In the movie its said that they overdose the tranquilizers so they gave it an stimulant or something to reverse that tranquilizer overdose, Sarah told them they could've killed it and now is accelerated. I agree that the saga in general doesn't have the most cohesive writing but that bit is explained like that in the movie

[paintingdinos]

It feels like very sloppy, inconsistent storytelling. I very highly doubt the writers who created the San Diego scene were thinking to themselves "Yeah, all this behavior is totally justifiable because the animal has been drugged and isn't acting right".

In the movie its said that they overdose the tranquilizers so they gave it an stimulant or something to reverse that tranquilizer overdose, Sarah told them they could've killed it and now is accelerated. I agree that the saga in general doesn't have the most cohesive writing but that bit is explained like that in the movie

I believe you that the info mentioned is part of the dialog, though frankly I didn't remember that detail at all. And I generally like TLW and have seen it many times.

Even if that explanation was planned from the beginning, does it make much different to the outcome? If they had never said anything about the Rex being drugged the scene would have functioned the exact same way and still been plausible to the plot of the movie. I certainly wouldn't have batted an eye.

We'll see what they do with it. I, personally, wouldn't be opposed to a scene reminiscent of the one in TLW were some campers get the pants scared off of them by a Rex silhouette in a tent. I will, however, be annoyed if all the dinosaurs are suddenly shy animals that go out of their way to avoid people/conflict because that's a blatant reversal to what we've seen. Dinosaurs causing mayhem is at least on brand.

If anything the animals should be extremely habituated to people. One could assume they would be MORE likely to seek people out, since people were the ones providing food/enrichment in the past.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

It feels like very sloppy, inconsistent storytelling. I very highly doubt the writers who created the San Diego scene were thinking to themselves "Yeah, all this behavior is totally justifiable because the animal has been drugged and isn't acting right".

In the movie its said that they overdose the tranquilizers so they gave it an stimulant or something to reverse that tranquilizer overdose, Sarah told them they could've killed it and now is accelerated. I agree that the saga in general doesn't have the most cohesive writing but that bit is explained like that in the movie

I believe you that the info mentioned is part of the dialog, though frankly I didn't remember that detail at all. And I generally like TLW and have seen it many times.

Even if that explanation was planned from the beginning, does it make much different to the outcome? If they had never said anything about the Rex being drugged the scene would have functioned the exact same way and still been plausible to the plot of the movie. I certainly wouldn't have batted an eye.

We'll see what they do with it. I, personally, wouldn't be opposed to a scene reminiscent of the one in TLW were some campers get the pants scared off of them by a Rex silhouette in a tent. I will, however, be annoyed if all the dinosaurs are suddenly shy animals that go out of their way to avoid people/conflict because that's a blatant reversal to what we've seen. Dinosaurs causing mayhem is at least on brand.

If anything the animals should be extremely habituated to people. One could assume they would be MORE likely to seek people out, since people were the ones providing food/enrichment in the past.

It's going to depend on which animals. The original Nublar dinos likely won't care about people or as you say actually be attracted to them as they meant food.  Of course they were also left alone on that island and had to fend for themselves for awhile too..long enough to revert back to wild? Not sure.   

New generations of wild bred dinos ( if this film takes place years later ) may indeed fear people at least some of them.

I'm more curious how all this will have played out with new species of dinosaurs or a T-Rex created in Russia?  The concept seems to be the dinos are all over the place by 3 and part of our daily lives.

[ITdactyl]

It just hit me now, we had piscivorous Pteranodon in JW:FK that flew very far inland (into desert territory) instead of staying at/near the coast.

"This is the conclusion of a story that began 25 years ago, and I think fans will be fired up when they see how much we're connecting it to the source material...
...Jurassic World 3 will be a science thriller in the same way that Jurassic Park was." - Colin Trevorrow

So, thematically similar to the first JP film, with an ending that ties to the book.  Ah, so dinosaurs being ended with bombs and compys scurrying to the forests...

...oh... wait...

[stargatedalek]

It just hit me now, we had piscivorous Pteranodon in JW:FK that flew very far inland (into desert territory) instead of staying at/near the coast.

California has some desert areas adjacent to coastlines, I believe that all of the areas shown were in California.

[Appalachiosaurus]

It just hit me now, we had piscivorous Pteranodon in JW:FK that flew very far inland (into desert territory) instead of staying at/near the coast.

California has some desert areas adjacent to coastlines, I believe that all of the areas shown were in California.

Las Vegas is in Nevada, 300 miles east.

[ITdactyl]

California has some desert areas adjacent to coastlines, I believe that all of the areas shown were in California.

Las Vegas is in Nevada, 300 miles east.

Yup, 'was referring to the small flock that ended up in the Eiffel tower replica in Vegas.

Going back to the bigger thread, I'm curious how they plan to tie this all up by having JP1 feels (tight science thriller) and still address the bigger issue of the dinosaurs spreading globally.

[stargatedalek]

I didn't remember any sort of recognizable tower, I guess I don't know many American landmarks.