Jurassic World discussion (spoilers)

[Sim]

Oh no, it's not official. I can't remember who made it but I saw it referenced somewhere just yesterday. I'll try to find out who made it.

Thanks for clarifying that, Gwangi.  On this page: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/marcs-jurassic-world-review-not-your.html the person who made that picture is credited.  There's also a better quality version of that picture as well as another one they edited.

[Crackington]

Interesting article on sexism and the film:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jun/10/is-jurassic-world-sexist-assessing-the-films-key-females-of-the-species

Personally, I don't think it was any more sexist than the usual Hollywood blockbuster and the (non-human) villains were all female I think, so interesting twist!

[CityRaptor]

Indeed, as far as non-humans go, both the heroines and the villains were female. The article misses Rexy and the other Raptors.

[Gwangi]

Oh no, it's not official. I can't remember who made it but I saw it referenced somewhere just yesterday. I'll try to find out who made it.

Thanks for clarifying that, Gwangi.  On this page: http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/marcs-jurassic-world-review-not-your.html the person who made that picture is credited.  There's also a better quality version of that picture as well as another one they edited.

Oh yes, that's where originally saw it. Thanks!

[alexeratops]

When the characters first went into the Innovation Center, on the hologram globe with little white dinosaurs on the continents, you could see the first CGI test for the Gallimimus in the first movie; the Gallimimus running skeleton.

[Appalachiosaurus]

Stumbled upon this wonderful image posted by @JurassicWorld_ on Twitter. Don't know about you, but feathered raptors look very menacing to me.

I prefer this one:

[SBell]

Interesting article on sexism and the film:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2015/jun/10/is-jurassic-world-sexist-assessing-the-films-key-females-of-the-species

Personally, I don't think it was any more sexist than the usual Hollywood blockbuster and the (non-human) villains were all female I think, so interesting twist!

But non-human don't count.

Sadly, that is the main thrust--it's no more sexist than any other movie, which is kind of damning with faint praise. Seriously--it ends with a dramatic 'family is together and I guess happy again?' cliché? They did that in JPIII too, and it was stupid there (but at least the parents had been on screen to 'grow' as characters). But as long as the most important employee working directly at the park learns that she won't be happy until she has kids (not if) then we can all pretend that hack writers weren't involved  .

And I will 'thumbs up' Amargasaurus' comment--I actually couldn't remember that I'd watched it on Saturday, that's how little impact it actually had. Busy weekend, but still, it should stick in my head when I saw it. But you could almost feel the FOUR credited writers (plus who knows how many ghost and uncredited writers) plus the marketing committee as plots bounced around into set pieces.

Of course, my son wants to know why, on that one day, when her nephews were there, everything went wrong when it ran so well before. Suspension of disbelief is in short supply in our household.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I keep seeing, I think its Alexceratops' quote...so you just decided to make a new species of dinosaur...probably not a good idea, and trying to remember but isnt the remark being quoted a bit out of context with quite a bit of dialogue missing in between the question and response?If I remember correctly he did not say...probably not a good idea till further along in the discussion ...am I forgetting or does anyone else notice that?

[SBell]

I keep seeing, I think its Alexceratops' quote...so you just decided to make a new species of dinosaur...probably not a good idea, and trying to remember but isnt the remark being quoted a bit out of context with quite a bit of dialogue missing in between the question and response?If I remember correctly he did not say...probably not a good idea till further along in the discussion ...am I forgetting or does anyone else notice that?

You are correct, although I can't remember the exact context--I cannot even remember if the I. rex was involved (like I said, the movie just didn't stick in my head).

[Pachyrhinosaurus]

I keep seeing, I think its Alexceratops' quote...so you just decided to make a new species of dinosaur...probably not a good idea, and trying to remember but isnt the remark being quoted a bit out of context with quite a bit of dialogue missing in between the question and response?If I remember correctly he did not say...probably not a good idea till further along in the discussion ...am I forgetting or does anyone else notice that?

You are correct, although I can't remember the exact context--I cannot even remember if the I. rex was involved (like I said, the movie just didn't stick in my head).

Owen said "Probably not a good idea" to taking the indominus rex out to socialize after he made his point about it being in isolation.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I keep seeing, I think its Alexceratops' quote...so you just decided to make a new species of dinosaur...probably not a good idea, and trying to remember but isnt the remark being quoted a bit out of context with quite a bit of dialogue missing in between the question and response?If I remember correctly he did not say...probably not a good idea till further along in the discussion ...am I forgetting or does anyone else notice that?

You are correct, although I can't remember the exact context--I cannot even remember if the I. rex was involved (like I said, the movie just didn't stick in my head).

Owen said "Probably not a good idea" to taking the indominus rex out to socialize after he made his point about it being in isolation.

Thanks, I was thinking it was something like that.....I do know as it is being quoted it is not quite what the intent seemed

[MaastrichtianGuy]

Well I have question to say why do the crests of the pteranodons in the movie are short are they female or males

[Shadowknight1]

Of course, my son wants to know why, on that one day, when her nephews were there, everything went wrong when it ran so well before. Suspension of disbelief is in short supply in our household.

I wouldn't say everything went wrong.  It comes down to human arrogance and greed, as well as the hunger for "the next big thing".  We humans are always wanting things bigger, better, and done faster.  Whether Masrani intended it or not, his memos carried that philosophy.  So, Wu created a genetic hybrid of T. rex and Velociraptor, with maybe a few dozen other predatory species, then used some frog DNA to stabilize it for a tropical environment which also gave it the ability to hide itself from thermal tracking and used cuttlefish DNA to keep the animal stable through a highly accelerated growth cycle which gave it the camouflage ability.  Claire's human arrogance was that these wild animals can be controlled, something that Hammond had to learn was impossible and was also something Masrani understood, even if at a very basic level.  InGen research dollars were probably what kept Wu from researching potential side effects from the DNA splicing, so there's the greed at work.  What it came down to was a highly intelligent animal, created in a lab and then placed in isolation with no proper parenting or positive reinforcement, who then escaped from captivity.  All the traits ingrained into Indominus's genome made it a perfect ambush predator and a predator doesn't do well behind walls.  Indominus saw that they were building the walls even higher, so she decided to escape before it would be impossible.  Her predatory traits made her nigh impossible to trap and subdue, therefore all attempts to contain her, something Asset Containment was supposed to be great at, were doomed to failure.

Basically, it's the same as the first movie.  The park concept on its own was not flawed, but human greed screwed it up for everyone.

[stargatedalek]

I've found the paleo blog communities general response to Jurassic World incredibly annoying. It feels like everyone "wants in on the action" so they grab the chance to take a well known name and ride with it to get views. Complaining about accuracy in Jurassic World (or any Jurassic Park film) is pretty much pointless, since it never was accurate, ever. But this recent "review" (that's a stretch and a half!) from Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs has gone to far.

http://chasmosaurs.blogspot.ca/2015/06/king-craptors-jur-ass-kick-world-review.html?showComment=1435180939178#c8955115364128930776

I... I'm just done. I used to come to this blog expecting to read (as much as possible) objective reviews regarding scientific accuracy, but now its become nothing but an attention grab. Spamming reviews belittling a franchise that never (yes, even back in '93) was accurate just to get attention. That was already annoying, and its not just here, the paleontology blog community as a whole is just tearing this movie apart, why? attention. Its not about critique, its not about reviews, its about throwing out a well known brand name just to rack up your own views!

Oh but this goes beyond that, at this point you aren't simply tearing apart the movie for accuracy claims it never made, at this point you are actively insulting people who enjoyed it. You can call me whatever you want, I'm just some "weeaboo otaku white trash self entitled white girl awesomebro fangirl", but I know what is and isn't accurate when I see it. Does that keep me from liking things that aren't the pinnacle of scientific accuracy? no. And it certainly doesn't make me feel entitled to go and insult people because they prefer sci-fi styled dinosaurs over the real thing. So long as someone can tell the difference between fantasy and reality what harm can it do?! honestly this is just demeaning and insulting.

[Dobber]

Hear, hear! Good for you Stargatedalek.  I agree with you.  Not to mention the movie itself even admits that the dinosaurs are not accurate due to using current species to fill in the DNA.

Chris

[Patrx]

I think you might find Asher Elbein's review on the same blog to be more agreeable

[tyrantqueen]

I think you might find Asher Elbein's review on the same blog to be more agreeable

S/he didn't like it either. Which is fair enough. It was more reasonable than that lame attempt at parody.

[Patrx]

Indeed, but his is a much more even-handed take.

[Gwangi]

Yeah, I don't see the humor in this. I love my accurate dinosaurs but I'm a movie buff too and while I may lament the lack of accurate or realistic dinosaurs I still had a fun time with this movie. Just like I can have a fun time with "The Valley of Gwangi". "Jurassic World" was a monster movie, which is basically what all dinosaur movies are. I don't care if people liked the movie or not, but that "review" was just classless.

[Sim]

Noticed the movie avoided using real names for most of the dinosaurs so you really have little confirmation on the species.

All the prehistoric species (well, genuses at least) in the film are identified on the Jurassic World website, in the "Dinosaurs" section: http://uk.jurassicworldintl.com/dinosaurs/