Jurassic World discussion (spoilers)

[Doug Watson]

Intentions do not speak louder than actions. However I am very appreciative they took the chance to explain their intentions.

Hey Star I finally got to see it yesterday and I loved it. In the no spoilers thread you said you hadn't cried in a movie since  Happy Feet did you mean you cried in this movie. Did you cry for Indominus rex? I liked that the Owen expressed sympathy for I rex early on but she didn't get much sympathy in the end. It was very much the Frankenstein story with a monster being brought into the world with no say in the matter and then running amok because it lacked the skills to coexist. Just as I felt sympathy for Karloff's Frankenstein monster I felt sympathy for I rex,....but I still wanted T rex to win!

[Gwangi]

Intentions do not speak louder than actions. However I am very appreciative they took the chance to explain their intentions.

Hey Star I finally got to see it yesterday and I loved it. In the no spoilers thread you said you hadn't cried in a movie since  Happy Feet did you mean you cried in this movie. Did you cry for Indominus rex? I liked that the Owen expressed sympathy for I rex early on but she didn't get much sympathy in the end. It was very much the Frankenstein story with a monster being brought into the world with no say in the matter and then running amok because it lacked the skills to coexist. Just as I felt sympathy for Karloff's Frankenstein monster I felt sympathy for I rex,....but I still wanted T rex to win!

Just seeing that T. rex with its glowing eyes emerge from the gate with Claire holding the flair was such an awesome visual, it may have brought a tear in my eye and certainly goosebumps. Knowing the T. rex was the same character from the original and that it would ultimately be the hero again really brought out my inner 9 year old. And having her smash though the Spinosaurus skeleton was pretty epic as well. As goofy as it was, that final battle was fantastic.

I feel like the tragic angle of the I. rex story could have been fleshed out more, aside from having her go on a killing spree I would have liked to have seen a couple moments where she is just alone, wandering about in an obvious state of confusion. Or perhaps attempting to communicate and bond with either a T. rex or Velociraptors only to be shot down and rejected. That would have perhaps made us feel too much sympathy when ultimately we're supposed to side with the "real" dinosaurs. 

[DinoToyForum]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

[Gwangi]

Don't be too worried about it, a lot of people don't like it. Audiences certainly seem polarized (71% positive on Rotten Tomatoes). Even good reviews for the movie acknowledge that it's not a particularly good movie. It's a monster movie; a big dumb popcorn flick. I admit that most of my enjoyment stems from nostalgia and a love of B rate monster movies. I'll also admit that the dinosaurs look awful, the plot and sub-plots are ridiculous and yeah, it's a bit sexist too.

That said; it's a better sequel than I expected, a heck of a lot of fun to watch, fairly well acted (even if all the characters were not fleshed out) and a self aware commentary on our consumer culture and movie industry. I like those things about it, as well as all the nods to the original film which some critics would call "fan service" but I see it more as evidence for the director's love of the original. It's easily the best "Jurassic" sequel to date IMO. More fun than "The Lost World" and well...lets not talk about JP3.

If I were to give "Jurassic World" a letter grade, I would give it a B. For what it's worth; "Jurassic Park" gets an A+, "The Lost World" a C and "Jurassic Park 3" a D. Yeah, that sounds right. I might change my mind on that though.

[stargatedalek]

I cried a few times actually, the visitor center scene comes to mind but I know there were others.

[Takama]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you are a paleontologist. I heard a lot of those hate the movie

Just Kidding

I liked it, but i feel that it was a little too fast paced, like as soon as it started, its over to me. I waited all these years, to see it in theaters, and when i do, i barely have time to complain about the inaccuracys and instead enjoyed the movie.   Part of me wants to beg my mom to take me to see it again, because i felt it just was too fast of a movie and i need to see it again to fully appreciate it.

[Gwangi]

You do need to see it again. I did and had a lot of fun trying to notice the things I missed the first time around. There is a lot to look for in that movie, it has excellent re-watch value. Can't wait for the Blu-ray.

[laticauda]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you are a paleontologist. I heard a lot of those hate the movie

Just Kidding

I liked it, but i feel that it was a little too fast paced, like as soon as it started, its over to me. I waited all these years, to see it in theaters, and when i do, i barely have time to complain about the inaccuracys and instead enjoyed the movie.   Part of me wants to beg my mom to take me to see it again, because i felt it just was too fast of a movie and i need to see it again to fully appreciate it.

Ok  this movie was could be looked at as very disappointing due to it not being very original,  sticking to early 90's representation of dinosaurs, and in general not aspiring to stand alone and be more.  On the other hand, it is a fun, throwback dinosaur/monster movie, that plays on nostalgia.  I agree that this movie could have been made in a way that it would look spectacular, and even add some true terror, just by changing a few things, but it is what it is.  That doesn't make it a un-enjoyable movie, it is just a fun one. 

[SBell]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

I am in the same boat--there were so many plot and character points that pulled me out of the story. It wasn't even a matter of inaccurate dinosaurs (that's a given, because JP dinos have a particular look). Just kind of, a whole bunch of neat setpieces with a general message of "dinosaurs are lame".

I think I accidentally hit what was most troubling for me--throughout the movie, there are constant references to the 'lameness' or 'purposelessness' of dinosaurs (the older brother, the corporate head guy, Claire, Vince D'onoffrio). Dinosaurs--and references to the awesomeness of Jurassic Park--are seen as old fashioned, silly or misguided. Their way is the future--an obviously no better future, which will be followed by some sort of military-industrial complex story that complete ignores the park aspect (seeing as the genetic materials and Wu got safely off the island). Only two characters like dinosaurs for what they were, and it didn't matter because it's a horror movie.

It was all "OOhh!" and "Aahhh!" and 'Dinosaurs are dumb kids stuff' and then the running and the screaming and 3 minutes of a woman being tortured by pterosaurs...

[DinoToyForum]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you are a paleontologist. I heard a lot of those hate the movie

Just Kidding

I liked it, but i feel that it was a little too fast paced, like as soon as it started, its over to me. I waited all these years, to see it in theaters, and when i do, i barely have time to complain about the inaccuracys and instead enjoyed the movie.   Part of me wants to beg my mom to take me to see it again, because i felt it just was too fast of a movie and i need to see it again to fully appreciate it.

It's not because I'm a palaeontologist. That the dinosaurs are innacurate (and some are not dinosaurs) in this movie isn't one of the reasons I dislike it. It is called out in the movie that they are monsters. I like a good monster movie. I agree with what others have said about it being a lost opportunity, but that's a separate issue to whether the film is any good or not.

I won't pay to see it again. I don't want to encourage them by giving them more money Out of principle, not because I believe my £12 will make a difference.

[DinoToyForum]

The word 'fun' is being used a lot to describe this film. As if this has some redemptive quality. As in, and I'm paraphrasing here, "this film was awful in almost every way but it was fun, so I liked it".

This is subjective, of course, but I didn't find it fun. I'm perfectly capable or having fun, mind you, but this movie didn't deliver. I get the feeling that the parts some people found fun, instead caused me to roll my eyes. The end scene, when all the monsters attack each other, was boring and looked terrible. There was no artistry, no tension, and too much bad cgi. I had no interest or investment in which monster won, or how, and I predicted the involvement of the rex and Mosasaurus anyway, so the scene held little surprise either. For me it was the worst part of the film, just at the point when it most needed a life line. Just my opinion, I'm not saying this to wind anyone up. I don't begrudge or judge anyone who liked it, but it just wasn't for me.

[alexeratops]

The word 'fun' is being used a lot to describe this film. As if this has some redemptive quality. As in, and I'm paraphrasing here, "this film was awful in almost every way but it was fun, so I liked it".

This is subjective, of course, but I didn't find it fun. I'm perfectly capable or having fun, mind you, but this movie didn't deliver. I get the feeling that the parts some people found fun, instead caused me to roll my eyes. The end scene, when all the monsters attack each other, was boring and looked terrible. There was no artistry, no tension, and too much bad cgi. I had no interest or investment in which monster won, or how, and I predicted the involvement of the rex and Mosasaurus anyway, so the scene held little surprise either. For me it was the worst part of the film, just at the point when it most needed a life line. Just my opinion, I'm not saying this to wind anyone up. I don't begrudge or judge anyone who liked it, but it just wasn't for me.

When did they say the dinosaurs were monsters? Owen said Indominus was a monster, not the other dinosaurs. Why did you call them monsters?

[Tyrannosauron]

When did they say the dinosaurs were monsters? Owen said Indominus was a monster, not the other dinosaurs. Why did you call them monsters?

Wu said so, and justifiably. All of JP's dinosaurs are genetically engineered; if the I. rex is a monster for that reason, then so too must be the rest. The only difference between the I. rex and the T. rex (in this respect, at least) is that the latter very closely resembled our expectations of an extinct species.

[Shadowknight1]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

I am in the same boat--there were so many plot and character points that pulled me out of the story. It wasn't even a matter of inaccurate dinosaurs (that's a given, because JP dinos have a particular look). Just kind of, a whole bunch of neat setpieces with a general message of "dinosaurs are lame".

I think I accidentally hit what was most troubling for me--throughout the movie, there are constant references to the 'lameness' or 'purposelessness' of dinosaurs (the older brother, the corporate head guy, Claire, Vince D'onoffrio). Dinosaurs--and references to the awesomeness of Jurassic Park--are seen as old fashioned, silly or misguided. Their way is the future--an obviously no better future, which will be followed by some sort of military-industrial complex story that complete ignores the park aspect (seeing as the genetic materials and Wu got safely off the island). Only two characters like dinosaurs for what they were, and it didn't matter because it's a horror movie.

It was all "OOhh!" and "Aahhh!" and 'Dinosaurs are dumb kids stuff' and then the running and the screaming and 3 minutes of a woman being tortured by pterosaurs...

Lameness?  Purposelessness?  The older brother didn't say anything like that.  The only time he came close was when he derided the petting zoo as being for younger kids, basically the typical teen who would rather see a giant water lizard eat a shark or a T. rex eat a goat.  If by corporate head guy you mean Mr Mazrani, I didn't get that from him at all!  He intentionally asks about the animals' wellbeing.  Claire sees the park as numbers, statistics, and profit margin at first.  A shortcoming to be sure.  And Vince...yeah, there's no saving grace, he sees the animals as weapons, opportunities, money.

[SBell]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

I am in the same boat--there were so many plot and character points that pulled me out of the story. It wasn't even a matter of inaccurate dinosaurs (that's a given, because JP dinos have a particular look). Just kind of, a whole bunch of neat setpieces with a general message of "dinosaurs are lame".

I think I accidentally hit what was most troubling for me--throughout the movie, there are constant references to the 'lameness' or 'purposelessness' of dinosaurs (the older brother, the corporate head guy, Claire, Vince D'onoffrio). Dinosaurs--and references to the awesomeness of Jurassic Park--are seen as old fashioned, silly or misguided. Their way is the future--an obviously no better future, which will be followed by some sort of military-industrial complex story that complete ignores the park aspect (seeing as the genetic materials and Wu got safely off the island). Only two characters like dinosaurs for what they were, and it didn't matter because it's a horror movie.

It was all "OOhh!" and "Aahhh!" and 'Dinosaurs are dumb kids stuff' and then the running and the screaming and 3 minutes of a woman being tortured by pterosaurs...

Lameness?  Purposelessness?  The older brother didn't say anything like that.  The only time he came close was when he derided the petting zoo as being for younger kids, basically the typical teen who would rather see a giant water lizard eat a shark or a T. rex eat a goat.  If by corporate head guy you mean Mr Mazrani, I didn't get that from him at all!  He intentionally asks about the animals' wellbeing.  Claire sees the park as numbers, statistics, and profit margin at first.  A shortcoming to be sure.  And Vince...yeah, there's no saving grace, he sees the animals as weapons, opportunities, money.

There's actually a constant, slight thread throughout the film--several times it is mentioned that 'dinosaurs are not enough', or that people want more. There was also a lot of derision toward the original park, which is hard to miss as an attempt to leave behind the original movie (right down to demanding that the ultimate reminder--an awesome T-shirt--never be seen again).

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I'm still coming to terms with Jurassic World. I watched it just before I went on holiday for a fortnight and I spent a good part of my break (just ask Marlies!) mulling it over, trying to work out why I disliked it so much (4/10) while so many others loved it. It could be a paradox. I'm still mulling!

I am in the same boat--there were so many plot and character points that pulled me out of the story. It wasn't even a matter of inaccurate dinosaurs (that's a given, because JP dinos have a particular look). Just kind of, a whole bunch of neat setpieces with a general message of "dinosaurs are lame".

I think I accidentally hit what was most troubling for me--throughout the movie, there are constant references to the 'lameness' or 'purposelessness' of dinosaurs (the older brother, the corporate head guy, Claire, Vince D'onoffrio). Dinosaurs--and references to the awesomeness of Jurassic Park--are seen as old fashioned, silly or misguided. Their way is the future--an obviously no better future, which will be followed by some sort of military-industrial complex story that complete ignores the park aspect (seeing as the genetic materials and Wu got safely off the island). Only two characters like dinosaurs for what they were, and it didn't matter because it's a horror movie.

It was all "OOhh!" and "Aahhh!" and 'Dinosaurs are dumb kids stuff' and then the running and the screaming and 3 minutes of a woman being tortured by pterosaurs...

Lameness?  Purposelessness?  The older brother didn't say anything like that.  The only time he came close was when he derided the petting zoo as being for younger kids, basically the typical teen who would rather see a giant water lizard eat a shark or a T. rex eat a goat.  If by corporate head guy you mean Mr Mazrani, I didn't get that from him at all!  He intentionally asks about the animals' wellbeing.  Claire sees the park as numbers, statistics, and profit margin at first.  A shortcoming to be sure.  And Vince...yeah, there's no saving grace, he sees the animals as weapons, opportunities, money.

There's actually a constant, slight thread throughout the film--several times it is mentioned that 'dinosaurs are not enough', or that people want more. There was also a lot of derision toward the original park, which is hard to miss as an attempt to leave behind the original movie (right down to demanding that the ultimate reminder--an awesome T-shirt--never be seen again).

I think though that thread is what the film is railing against. " Dinosaurs. Wow..enough. " " The original Park was legit! None of these hybrid dino things."  There are so many references to the original film though, Colin said Spielburg had to restrain him from making it a fan film totally about the original. If anything I'd say it's promoting Jurassic Park as being better. 

[Gwangi]

Yeah, I'm with Blade on this one. "Jurassic World" was a commentary on our consumer culture and movie industry. The "real" dinosaurs, the original park...those are analogies for the golden age of Hollywood and the simpler time we once lived in. Lowery (guy in t-shirt) is supposed to represent us, the hopeful nostalgic, the sensible consumer. He is literally speaking for us which is why his lines are among my favorite.

That's what I mean when I say the movie is self aware. Everyone has a lesson to learn in the movie; Clare, Hoskins, Masrani. They either go through a character arc where they realize their shortcomings (Claire) or suffer the consequences. Characters like Owen and Lowery may be in the minority but they're the guys that know better and with comments like "that first park was legit, they didn't need genetic monsters, just real dinosaurs." and "are we going to start letting corporations name the dinosaurs?" and "dinosaurs, wow enough!" address what those of us in the audience with apprehensions about the movie are already thinking. They're us, watching the movie thinking "this movie isn't going to work, I should have stayed home and watched the original".

But with that ending, where the classic dinosaurs we love triumph over that new bloated monstrosity and essentially reclaim the park (the final T. rex roar) we're supposed to be cheering, happy to see the old no frills T. rex we all know and love give a big middle finger to every character who doubted its staying power and every movie goer who demands "more, more, more". This movie delivered the big budget CGI thrill ride everyone wanted to see, while also lamenting the fact that it needed to do it at all.

[Patrx]

Yeah, I'm with Blade on this one. "Jurassic World" was a commentary on our consumer culture and movie industry. The "real" dinosaurs, the original park...those are analogies for the golden age of Hollywood and the simpler time we once lived in. ... That's what I mean when I say the movie is self aware. Everyone has a lesson to learn in the movie; Clare, Hoskins, Masrani. They either go through a character arc where they realize their shortcomings (Claire) or suffer the consequences. Characters like Owen and Lowery may be in the minority but they're the guys that know better and with comments like "that first park was legit, they didn't need genetic monsters, just real dinosaurs." and "are we going to start letting corporations name the dinosaurs?" and "dinosaurs, wow enough!" address what those of us in the audience with apprehensions about the movie are already thinking. They're us, watching the movie thinking "this movie isn't going to work, I should have stayed home and watched the original".

But with that ending, where the classic dinosaurs we love triumph over that new bloated monstrosity and essentially reclaim the park (the final T. rex roar) we're supposed to be cheering, happy to see the old no frills T. rex we all know and love give a big middle finger to every character who doubted its staying power and every movie goer who demands "more, more, more". This movie delivered the big budget CGI thrill ride everyone wanted to see, while also lamenting the fact that it needed to do it at all.

That's definitely what they were going for, but it makes for uncomfortable viewing to watch a movie apologize for itself all the time.
I'm concerned about sequels, myself. Which route will they take? "Real" dinosaurs, classic JP stuff, or will they just stop apologizing and make a movie about "raptor soldiers" or something? I think the first route would be the more difficult one, and I just don't see it happening.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I wouldn't say the entire was apologizing for itself, that was just part of the story. A running theme in JP has been people coming to the realization they were wrong. As Gwangi said, they either learn or suffer the consequences.

Where to next is very hard to say at this point. We know with the money it made I'd say a sequel is a given at this point.   They could continue the trend of the "requel" and the  next film could be like the Lost World.  A story line I liked from way back was about a ranger outpost established to keep an eye on the island and study the dinosaurs.  You have poachers or something coming in and they have to track and deal with them removing dinosaurs from the island and disturbing the equilibrium the dinosaurs have created without human involvement.

Colin had said he won't be directing the next one but would oversee as a producer or in a similar capacity. He wants another new director to take a shot at it but he did setup some ideas that could be used. If the game isn't canon there is still that can of embryos that could be brought back.

I'm personally hoping to see Biosyn enter the fray and the return of the series main villain Lewis Dodgson.  His character was only very lightly touched on. The man is ruthless, devious, and murderous. A true villain is something the JP film series never really had yet.

[DinoLord]

Seeing Dodgson again would be great, though given recent events (google 'Jurassic Park Dodgson actor' if you're curious) he would have to be recast...

Personally I think something with poaching or rival companies would be a great way to go - the Masrani website mentions the former and the latter are pretty much the last part of the novels that haven't been really explored by the films.