Jurassic Park 4 [Jurassic World] (no spoilers)

[Gwangi]

Ha that is funny and makes good sense> No I wouldnt pay to see that either, I see your logic there entirely.
I did wonder at one thing you said..the Brachiosaurus rearing? To me that was a huge epic fail, especially given the neck design and how the dinosaur is shaped specifically for high browsing without rearing. It of all sauropods is least well designed for this and I was shocked at the choice. Had they used Diplodocus with its tail that is entirely lined with small sleigh like chevrons I would have considered this a major visual score...but as it is, another badly flubbed scene. Take a quick glance at how the diplodocus is equipped for it versus brachiosaurus. It took me a long time to figure out the scene was meant as a backhand directed at Bob Bakker about rearing sauropods in his book, and the choice of Brachiosaurus , the least likely possible choice.
I dont consider it a nitpick, I found this particular thing particularly poorly chosen, of all the scenes. I dunno...thoughts?

I dunno, I was 9 when I went and saw the film. I didn't care that the Brachiosaurus reared up, I was too ecstatic about seeing what looked to me like a real dinosaur. I guess that is the generation gap between you and me. Had I been the seasoned dinosaur enthusiast I am now it may have bothered me more but without Jurassic Park would I even be the same dinosaur enthusiast I am now? I like to think so but I just don't know. And that's the thing about Jurassic Park. Say what you will about any scientific inaccuracies or bold assumptions the movie made, no dinosaur flick prior had tackled dinosaurs in a serious manner like JP did. All of the previous movies were far more outdated B-movie caliber stuff (no insult meant towards Harryhausen's creatures). Before JP my favorite dinosaur movie was "Planet of Dinosaurs", so yeah, I cut JP some slack. I'm not even up to speed with where the science was at the time as far as Brachiosaurus being able to rear up. With JP being the critically acclaimed blockbuster that is was/is, I don't think too many other people cared much about it and so yes, I would call it a nit pick. No offense meant BTW, just my thoughts. We actual hardcore dinosaur buffs represent a very small (but hopefully growing) segment of the population. Before JP, everyone still thought dinosaurs dragged their tails (some people still do). JP changed all that and for that as well, I cut it some slack.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Ha that is funny and makes good sense> No I wouldnt pay to see that either, I see your logic there entirely.
I did wonder at one thing you said..the Brachiosaurus rearing? To me that was a huge epic fail, especially given the neck design and how the dinosaur is shaped specifically for high browsing without rearing. It of all sauropods is least well designed for this and I was shocked at the choice. Had they used Diplodocus with its tail that is entirely lined with small sleigh like chevrons I would have considered this a major visual score...but as it is, another badly flubbed scene. Take a quick glance at how the diplodocus is equipped for it versus brachiosaurus. It took me a long time to figure out the scene was meant as a backhand directed at Bob Bakker about rearing sauropods in his book, and the choice of Brachiosaurus , the least likely possible choice.
I dont consider it a nitpick, I found this particular thing particularly poorly chosen, of all the scenes. I dunno...thoughts?

I dunno, I was 9 when I went and saw the film. I didn't care that the Brachiosaurus reared up, I was too ecstatic about seeing what looked to me like a real dinosaur. I guess that is the generation gap between you and me. Had I been the seasoned dinosaur enthusiast I am now it may have bothered me more but without Jurassic Park would I even be the same dinosaur enthusiast I am now? I like to think so but I just don't know. And that's the thing about Jurassic Park. Say what you will about any scientific inaccuracies or bold assumptions the movie made, no dinosaur flick prior had tackled dinosaurs in a serious manner like JP did. All of the previous movies were far more outdated B-movie caliber stuff (no insult meant towards Harryhausen's creatures). Before JP my favorite dinosaur movie was "Planet of Dinosaurs", so yeah, I cut JP some slack. I'm not even up to speed with where the science was at the time as far as Brachiosaurus being able to rear up. With JP being the critically acclaimed blockbuster that is was/is, I don't think too many other people cared much about it and so yes, I would call it a nit pick. No offense meant BTW, just my thoughts. We actual hardcore dinosaur buffs represent a very small (but hopefully growing) segment of the population. Before JP, everyone still thought dinosaurs dragged their tails (some people still do). JP changed all that and for that as well, I cut it some slack.

I saw the original the friday morning it opened and  I had " liked " dinosaurs before that but afterward I LOVED them ! It really kicked me into over-drive as I suspect it did for many of us. Just as King Kong inspired so many of that generation I think JP had the same effect.   We often point out the differences in our JP Raptor and our realistic Velociraptors, but it's nothing harsh, just a product of the times.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Yeah hey no offense taken there Gwangi, I actually was asking your feelings about it and thanks for sharing. For me the entire thing has a different spin, because as you suggested the age difference and perceptions. For me the first serious dinosaur movie and one that cemented my love for them, was Valley of the Gwangi, which I saw perhaps 45 years ago as a kid . Back then I am sure if someone had said, those dinosaurs wouldnt drag their tails and so forth I would have said many of the same things you are, cause to me that was the first movie that really showed dinosaurs to me.
   My feelings towards Jurassic park were caused as much by the media blitz and marketing done for the movie, as the product itself. I dont think any movie ever made could have matched the hype given this one. A key difference for me however was in 1992 I was around 30 years old .....had been a dinosaur fan my entire life. I already had my ongoing love affair with dinosaurs and the movie was not the genus for it. Seeing the movie, I was impressed with some aspects, but some of the horrid science made me frown. I had gone to see a movie I was led to believe was going to showcase dinosaurs as they really should have been and instead found myself in the midst of a policy statement about warm bloodedness and so forth. That for me was a massive turn-off. Seeing the agenda imbedded throughout the movie was distracting and somewhat lessened it for me.
The Brachiosaurus scene bothered me not so much because it was a political statement aimed at Bob Bakker, but because I knew seeing it, that it as incorrect at a very basic level. Why would an animal designed as a high feeder, be rearing ?It was a great visual for the movie, but it bothered me . ( this is the age thing, I can see where a kid would go wow look!!!)
     My most amusing Jurassic park sequence is actually in the second movie where Horner had them feed Bob Bakker to the t-rex. The storyline that goes with it, said when Bakker saw the movie , and went home he called Horner and said...See, they did Hunt !!! Hilarious.....

[John]

So Trevorrow confirmed it, the mutant idea is 100% true.

Will there be crossbred dinosaurs or new species created for the movie?

...I know the idea of a modified dinosaur put a lot of fans on red alert, and I understand it. But we aren't doing anything here that Crichton didn't suggest in his novels. This animal is not a mutant freak. It doesn't have a snake's head or octopus tentacles. It's a dinosaur, created in the same way the others were, but now the genetics have gone to the next level. For me, it's a natural evolution of the technology introduced in the first film...

Make of that what you will.

I make of it like this: "Crocosaurus vs. Sharktopus"
But I still can't help but wonder if all this is just a Carnotaurus or something with the color changing abilities from the second book,just explicitly being stated in the movie as being the result of "the genetics going to the next level",with DNA from more modern animals than just frogs being used to fill in the gaps in the latest batch? And simply making more big meat eaters fit the bill for "corporate mandate of big,bad and more teeth" I don't see any confirmation of it being literally a combination of more than one dinosaur species.Maybe one of the characters who's not that big into dinosaurs sarcastically refers to it as "Diabolus rex"maybe? Like "Tricycleoplotz" for Spinosaurus the last time?

[Gwangi]

Yeah hey no offense taken there Gwangi, I actually was asking your feelings about it and thanks for sharing. For me the entire thing has a different spin, because as you suggested the age difference and perceptions. For me the first serious dinosaur movie and one that cemented my love for them, was Valley of the Gwangi, which I saw perhaps 45 years ago as a kid . Back then I am sure if someone had said, those dinosaurs wouldnt drag their tails and so forth I would have said many of the same things you are, cause to me that was the first movie that really showed dinosaurs to me.
   My feelings towards Jurassic park were caused as much by the media blitz and marketing done for the movie, as the product itself. I dont think any movie ever made could have matched the hype given this one. A key difference for me however was in 1992 I was around 30 years old .....had been a dinosaur fan my entire life. I already had my ongoing love affair with dinosaurs and the movie was not the genus for it. Seeing the movie, I was impressed with some aspects, but some of the horrid science made me frown. I had gone to see a movie I was led to believe was going to showcase dinosaurs as they really should have been and instead found myself in the midst of a policy statement about warm bloodedness and so forth. That for me was a massive turn-off. Seeing the agenda imbedded throughout the movie was distracting and somewhat lessened it for me.
The Brachiosaurus scene bothered me not so much because it was a political statement aimed at Bob Bakker, but because I knew seeing it, that it as incorrect at a very basic level. Why would an animal designed as a high feeder, be rearing ?It was a great visual for the movie, but it bothered me . ( this is the age thing, I can see where a kid would go wow look!!!)
     My most amusing Jurassic park sequence is actually in the second movie where Horner had them feed Bob Bakker to the t-rex. The storyline that goes with it, said when Bakker saw the movie , and went home he called Horner and said...See, they did Hunt !!! Hilarious.....

I can completely understand where you're coming from as an older dinosaur enthusiast being let down but what you hoped would be an accurate dinosaur movie. Like I said, at the time I wasn't really into the science behind the dinosaurs. I was already a dinosaur fan since age 3 (according to my mother) so I loved the movie even before I saw! And now it certainly has nostalgic value for me. A lot of the dinosaurs like Velociraptor, Dilophosaurus and Gallimimus I had never even heard of.

You weren't the only adult dinosaur fan unimpressed with the inaccuracies of Jurassic Park. Check this out. Even in 1993 Darren Naish was bothered by the lack of feathers on the Velociraptor.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2008/05/21/my-old-sad-tshirt/

[tyrantqueen]

I can't believe he wore that T-shirt in public.

[Gwangi]

I can't believe he wore that T-shirt in public.

I know it, it's so dorky. I guess from Naish I'm not really that surprised.

[Takama]

AWWW I want one of those Shirts     I would ware it to JP4 and make sure my big belly shows it off to see how many Scaly Raptor fans get angry at me

[bigbear]

Heeeeeyyyy... I grew up with Pyro kits and Plasticene models and a pink dinosaur character called Dopeydokus in the Beezer, or maybe Topper comic, so who am I to criticize a rearing Brachiosaurus? Those super accurate Pyro kits kick started my interest - passion - for dinosaurs, so I could suspend belief and enjoy JP anyway.

I'd love to know what an astrophysicist thinks of one of the most widely enjoyed TV sci-fi series around - Space:1999! :-)

[DinoToyForum]

Just seen the new movie stills. Can't quite put my finger on the reason for my waning interest and hope.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

Lack of dinosaur pics ? lol

A lot of the extras are saying nothing but good things about it, many are JP fans so I'm trying to hang on !

[DinoToyForum]

Lack of dinosaur pics ? lol

A lot of the extras are saying nothing but good things about it, many are JP fans so I'm trying to hang on !

To be honest, that isn't it, I don't mind the dinos being a surprise. I don't expect the dinos to be the problem with this film. The characters and tone is what I'm worried about, and the general look and feel of the film. I'm just not getting a good vibe from the publicity material so far, it isn't resonating with my Jurassic Park heart. For example, the generic hunk with a motorcycle looks more like something out of transformers than JP, and that is most definitely a bad thing in my eyes!

The extras are gonna be biased, of course. I still have hope for JW but it is draining the more I find out. I suppose I care too much about the first film and have a preconceived idea about what a JP film should and shouldn't be. Is it just me? Is anyone really excited by these stills? 

Also, the memories of the butchered WWD Movie remain very much in my mind.

[John]

Lack of dinosaur pics ? lol

A lot of the extras are saying nothing but good things about it, many are JP fans so I'm trying to hang on !

To be honest, that isn't it, I don't mind the dinos being a surprise. I don't expect the dinos to be the problem with this film. The characters and tone is what I'm worried about, and the general look and feel of the film. I'm just not getting a good vibe from the publicity material so far, it isn't resonating with my Jurassic Park heart. For example, the generic hunk with a motorcycle looks more like something out of transformers than JP, and that is most definitely a bad thing in my eyes!

The extras are gonna be biased, of course. I still have hope for JW but it is draining the more I find out. I suppose I care too much about the first film and have a preconceived idea about what a JP film should and shouldn't be. Is it just me? Is anyone really excited by these stills? 

Also, the memories of the butchered WWD Movie remain very much in my mind.

The stills don't tell me enough either way,being out of context as they are. Besides,the real stars of these movies are not the people,but the dinosaurs.

[Gwangi]

Lack of dinosaur pics ? lol

A lot of the extras are saying nothing but good things about it, many are JP fans so I'm trying to hang on !

To be honest, that isn't it, I don't mind the dinos being a surprise. I don't expect the dinos to be the problem with this film. The characters and tone is what I'm worried about, and the general look and feel of the film. I'm just not getting a good vibe from the publicity material so far, it isn't resonating with my Jurassic Park heart. For example, the generic hunk with a motorcycle looks more like something out of transformers than JP, and that is most definitely a bad thing in my eyes!

The extras are gonna be biased, of course. I still have hope for JW but it is draining the more I find out. I suppose I care too much about the first film and have a preconceived idea about what a JP film should and shouldn't be. Is it just me? Is anyone really excited by these stills? 

Also, the memories of the butchered WWD Movie remain very much in my mind.

The actor is Chris Pratt who would seem to be a rising star of a celebrity. Haven't seen enough of him in movies to say either way. He'll be in the upcoming "Guardians of the Galaxy" movie and from the trailer it looks pretty goog to me anyway. I'll be keeping a close eye on how well he performs.

And no, I'm not really excited by the stills. That said, I don't want them to give out too much info. As much as I'm following the progress of this movie I would still like to avoid spoilers if I can.

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I can understand your point, that on epic of him on the motorcycle did have TF vibe to it...might be the shooting style?

The pic with the two kids felt a bit more JP to me, reminded of Tim and Lex quite a bit.

There was a pic of an extra in makeup shows a big slash across her face that is supposedly from a " raptor ".  Blood and gore in JP have been kept to a minimum in the past..could be we will get some shock moments in this new film.

[tyrantqueen]

When was the last time we had a good, memorable dinosaur related show or movie? Seems like there's been a drought as of late. And no, Godzilla doesn't count (I wouldn't count it as anything incredible anyway, just middling). The last dinosaur related documentary I remember really liking was Dinosaur Revolution/Dinotasia, which was ages ago.

I was hoping that this new JP and The Good Dinosaur will help to turn that around...hmm.

Also, Chris Pratt who? Let's hope he doesn't live up to his name

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

There have been shows and movies but they weren't that good to many. I think as we age things have less impact on us. Kids I meet see Dino Dan and Dinosaur Train and that sort of thing, most aren't watching Discovery or Nat Geo to get a dinosaur fix. After JW should it be a hit we might get more movies and such.

[brandem]

I'm very willing to give Chris Pratt a shot in this movie, not for parks a rec which he is great in a not for guardians which is also looking pretty good but for zero dark thirty, where he instilled a bit character with so much heart and reality it stood out in an otherwise drab movie.

[Gwangi]

I'm very willing to give Chris Pratt a shot in this movie, not for parks a rec which he is great in a not for guardians which is also looking pretty good but for zero dark thirty, where he instilled a bit character with so much heart and reality it stood out in an otherwise drab movie.

Chris Pratt was also in the movie "Her" which was an excellent movie but he didn't have a very big role.

[brandem]

I'm very willing to give Chris Pratt a shot in this movie, not for parks a rec which he is great in a not for guardians which is also looking pretty good but for zero dark thirty, where he instilled a bit character with so much heart and reality it stood out in an otherwise drab movie.

Chris Pratt was also in the movie "Her" which was an excellent movie but he didn't have a very big role.

That's one I haven't seen but if I have to imagine what role he's done before that might relate most closely to this one I'd think that would be it,