Jurassic Park 4 [Jurassic World] (no spoilers)

[Gwangi]

I guess it comes down to perception. I would rather avoid miseducating ala, lets create something that did not exist rather than not create at all, because it draws attention to the topic. The issue with that is then you are forced to go back and remove the very misconceptions you create, before you can proceed. Misinformation is far worse than no information in my opinion.  Also, people attend movies for various reasons and some do use them as an educational avenue, as entertainment or for whatever purpose they choose. Your own takes from a movie are not everyones, and to this day when I discuss dinosaurs with people I meet, they are still in shock when they learn Dilophosaurs did not spit poison or the species of raptors used in the movie were not that large or that Spinosaurus was more likely a fish eating dinosaur. While the movies did create a dinosaur renaissance they are also singly resonsible for misinforming an entire generation what dinosaurs were and were not. Good with the bad.

I understand your frustration but how seriously the public interprets a movie is not nor should be the concern for the creators of these movies. It sounds to me like you're saying that any movie regarding science or history or basically any topic would have to be dismissed completely on the grounds that it wasn't accurate. Name any science fiction, history or biographical film and chances are they're completely inaccurate. Do you like movies Amarga? Serious question because I'm sure there are some you like because they entertained you, movies that would not exist if movies were created by your strict standards. Movies are made to entertain, that is their primary goal. It is up to the public to educate themselves on topics brought up in the movies should they find themselves compelled to do so and if people watch movies in an attempt to get educated well, that's a stupid thing to do and I have no sympathy. Sorry, movies should not come with a disclaimer that they're made for entertainment. Common sense should tell people that already.
Where dinosaurs are concerned few people give a crap about them as anything except movie monsters. With or without Jurassic Park the general public would remain completely ignorant of them. What we can hope for from these movies is that they generate interest, in my case they have. Paleontologist Ken Carpenter (ankylosaur expert) cites the original "Godzilla" as his motivation for pursuing paleontology as a career. "Godzilla" had less to teach about dinosaurs than "Jurassic Park" but in at least one case a child was inspired enough by its story and realism to seek out an education and create a career out of it. Movies are works of art and fiction and nothing more, the public needs to understand that and if they can't than it is to bad for them.

Finally the egg versus blood cloning issue. Research the topic a bit further please. They have already by altering the genetics of an unborn embryo managed to add extra vert to the tail of a chicken and if I remember right they also managed other changes which are progressing towards ultimately creating a dinosaur from an embryo.This is KNOWN and documented science that has a chance of yielding results , as opposed to such idiotic concepts as cloning from blood from a mosquito.

I've read Horner's book "How to Make a Dinosaur" as well as additional literature and I'm sorry but all you would get from a modified chicken is a...modified chicken. You cannot turn a chicken into a dinosaur, the chicken is already a dinosaur. All the chickenosaurus project would do is make a chicken look like a non-avian dinosaur. It would still be a chicken and indeed when bred would only produce normal chickens. I don't see how a movie based on that premise would make any sense at all, especially if you wanted traditional dinosaurs like Triceratops and Brachiosaurus in it. That would require some serious chicken alteration and since chickens and Triceratops don't share a common ancestor with Triceratops traits you couldn't do it anyway, it is not in the chickens genetic makeup.  The best you can get from this project is a chicken with a tail, teeth and clawed hands but it would still be a chicken in terms of behavior and at best resemble the last common ancestor of birds and the theropods that they split off from. Making a "Jurassic Park" with that back story is an idiotic concept.

As to the collagen angle, also please read further. THey have been successful in extracting partial albeit very small DNA sequencing from soft tissue inside fossil bone. This is also something that is documented science and not the wildly abstract method used in the movie franchise.  Science, not fiction.

I don't need to read further, I've been following the issue since the discovery was made in 2005. No DNA was found in the fossils you're talking about, only proteins. To my knowledge no actual DNA for any dinosaur has been recovered. Keep in mind that the JP movie came out in 1993 and the book was even older, no one knew at that time you could find proteins in dinosaur bone. This discovery in 2005 was completely new and unprecedented. Surely you cannot expect Crichton to have been capable of seeing into the future.

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I guess then it comes down to what method you prefer your idiocy served. I did not care for the mosquito method for all the obvious reasons and far prefer the established scientific methods which have provided small albeit REAL results, that are tangible, documented and known. I also disagree with the Jurassic park before science was known angle...  I disagree with you entirely about movies and the responsibilty that comes with them. If we could seperate from the anything for a buck and thrill mentality the entire industry would be far better served and I do feel film producers have some responsibility for their final out put. I do enjoy some films, but I generally tend towards movies that are more factual, more well based, or provide just a bit more consideration to the garbage they might be spewing out for kids to base their thinking on.
Paleontologist Bob Bakker cites an issue of time magazine with the painting ..."The Age of Reptiles" as his inspiration for becoming a paleontologist. So it does not require a poorly made movie to attract someone to study dinosaurs right?
"All the chickenosaurus project would do is make a chicken look like a non-avian dinosaur. It would still be a chicken and indeed when bred would only produce normal chickens. I don't see how a movie based on that premise would make any sense at all, especially if you wanted traditional dinosaurs like Triceratops and Brachiosaurus in it. That would require some serious chicken alteration and since chickens and Triceratops don't share a common ancestor with Triceratops traits you couldn't do it anyway, it is not in the chickens genetic makeup.  The best you can get from this project is a chicken with a tail, teeth and clawed hands but it would still be a chicken in terms of behavior and at best resemble the last common ancestor of birds and the theropods that they split off from. Making a "Jurassic Park" with that back story is an idiotic concept.
  Sad to say but there is enough money and effort being spent that I think the scientists working within this project are somewhat more aware what can be done than you are stating.In any event, the science there is no more idiotic than the Jurassic park concept, seriously, and it at least has its grounding in solid FACT rather than pure and complete speculation.
  As for the DNA recovery debate, I will let someone else chime in with the rest of it. From what I have read and understand it has been far more fruitful than you are putting forward here. In  any event it is far more plausible than the idiotic mosquito approach

[Gwangi]

I guess then it comes down to what method you prefer your idiocy served. I did not care for the mosquito method for all the obvious reasons and far prefer the established scientific methods which have provided small albeit REAL results, that are tangible, documented and known. I also disagree with the Jurassic park before science was known angle...  I disagree with you entirely about movies and the responsibilty that comes with them. If we could seperate from the anything for a buck and thrill mentality the entire industry would be far better served and I do feel film producers have some responsibility for their final out put. I do enjoy some films, but I generally tend towards movies that are more factual, more well based, or provide just a bit more consideration to the garbage they might be spewing out for kids to base their thinking on.

You're comparing the science of a fictitious movie made twenty over 19 years ago to scientific findings within less than a decades time. I don't know how you can do that, I don't know how you could expect the writers of Jurassic Park to have been able to foresee future scientific breakthroughs. The fact that you're so caught up on this is frustrating to say the least as the how behind Jurassic Park is not even the important part of the story, which was of course the cost and implications of genetic meddling which was a big controversy of the time (still is). I'm curious to know which of these more factual movies you've been willing to donate your dollar to because I'm sure like every other movie ever made they've done their share of garbage spewing. You seem to think it is the obligation of everyone else to teach the public what is what but it's not. It's nice if they do yes, but how the public decides to learn what they want is entirely up to them. I cannot imagine a world where the only movies that ever got green lit were those with an educational element that never delved into fantasy or imagination. If movies were based on your criteria we would have no "Star Wars" due to the entirely fictitious modes of space travel. There would be no "Titanic" or "The Gladiator" or "Braveheart" because of their incorrect portrayal of historical events. There would be no talking animals in kids movies because of the anthropomorphism required to make them appealing to their audience. And since this is how you prefer your movies I can only guess you feel the same for books and novels and any other form of artistic expression. We are free people, capable of making our own choices. We don't need movie industries to tell us how the world works, if we're curious about that we can do it on our own.

Paleontologist Bob Bakker cites an issue of time magazine with the painting ..."The Age of Reptiles" as his inspiration for becoming a paleontologist. So it does not require a poorly made movie to attract someone to study dinosaurs right?

Come on man, of course that is not what I'm trying to suggest. What I'm suggesting is that other forms of artistic expression such as film are capable of doing the same thing as a mural or poem or piece of music or any other artistic medium. The fact that a cheesy monster flick can have that effect on someone is a good reason to justify its existence.

Sad to say but there is enough money and effort being spent that I think the scientists working within this project are somewhat more aware what can be done than you are stating.In any event, the science there is no more idiotic than the Jurassic park concept, seriously, and it at least has its grounding in solid FACT rather than pure and complete speculation.

No, I'm telling you what they're telling you. Maybe you just don't understand. Read Horner's book, he says these things himself, a modified chicken is still just a chicken. You cannot turn a chicken into an extinct animal! I don't know where you're getting the notion that anyone has said otherwise and the above just shows me your lack of understanding in the fields of genetics and evolutionary development. I know these things because I sought out to understand them, I certainly didn't rely on a movie to do it for me.

As for the DNA recovery debate, I will let someone else chime in with the rest of it. From what I have read and understand it has been far more fruitful than you are putting forward here. In  any event it is far more plausible than the idiotic mosquito approach

Go ahead and let someone else chime in, or do the research and find for yourself whether what I said is true or not. Just like with movies your expecting someone else to do the work for you. Find out for yourself.
Regardless of what you say the DNA encased in amber is still less laughable than getting a Triceratops from a chicken no matter what your illusions may be and oh yes...Jurassic Park is nearly 20 years old and these discoveries were made fairly recently. Are we forgetting this fact?

[amargasaurus cazaui]

Fair enough if thats how you see it. I find the insults and attempts at a personnal attack a rather poor way to conduct a discussion and choose to withdraw. It honestly defeats the purpose of a chat forum to offer an opinion and then be dissected and insulted for it. Sorry.

[ajax]

Anyway, as for the movie (that's all it is) I hear that the great fight scene at the ends involves a T,Rex and a people friendly Stegosaurus, apparantly the Stegosaurus charges the T,Rex just as Rex is about to chomp down on some of the main characters.

[Takama]

Anyway, as for the movie (that's all it is) I hear that the great fight scene at the ends involves a T,Rex and a people friendly Stegosaurus, apparantly the Stegosaurus charges the T,Rex just as Rex is about to chomp down on some of the main characters.

I bet its in CGI. I can just see that happening now. But a people friendly stegosaurus? I would think its a mere plan to get the hungry beast off of the main characters backs by luring it to a creature that could defend itself against old Rexy. That would be smarter then going cliche with the YES THERE SAFE BECAUSE A STEGOSAURUS WAS INCONVENTLY THERE

It was rumord that there was a scene planned were a guy rides a motorcycle with a pack of raptors running after him. I don't know if thats possible, but then again a Liger can run 60MPH

[Brontozaurus]

If there is a fourth movie they should have the humans put guns on the dinosaurs and turn the whole thing into Dino-Riders because that would be amazing. It would also complete the downward spiral into B-movie territory that the franchise has been experiencing since The Lost World, but whatevs. 

On a somewhat more serious note, I'm not sure if they should introduce new species in a future sequel, especially any aquatic reptiles. The whole resurrecting-dinosaurs-from-amber thing is stretched enough already without having to introduce the question of how a mosquito managed to suck the blood of a marine reptile.

[DinoToyForum]

Admin - Gwangi, you did adopt an aggressive tone there, which wasn't necessary. No formal warning or anything, but please be mindful of how you compose your posts 

[Blade-of-the-Moon]

I had understood the movie had a rather novel feature to make it much better...Horner free!!!

Horner was involved, why do you think a scavenging Tyrannosaurus was killed by Spinosaurus? 

"OMG DID YOU SEE THE LATEST JP FILM? THEY NOW HAVE THIS BIGGER DINOSAUR CALLED SPINOSAURUS TAKE DOWN THE T_REX"

I imagined that is what the film makers were expecting to come out of the un-dino educated  part of the audience.

on a unrelated note

Dilophosaurus was a little too similar to the other dinosaurs without adding the frill/venom gimmick.

For peak sakes. If they wanted to not have it simalar to the others, then just make the crest a shiny red color, they could of done that with the venom still intact. What makes Dilophosaurus any simalar to the others with just the two crests?

Funny thing is that in Jurassic Park the Game, It redeems those spitten lizards by giveing explanations for the inaccuracies on the Dilophosaurus in the very first film.

"The Dilophosaurus got its image due to a possible splicing error, with the amphibian DNA".

It evean goes a little far explaining that the real Dilophosaurus did not have the frill or venom, and it was over 20 feet long in the past.

I always assumed the Dilo in the film was a juvenile female..explains a couple things..like the size and color difference from the novel.

Something I did notice..the Dilophosaurus's head at least looks like the Raptors head only scaled down and crests added..lol

[Gwangi]

Admin - Gwangi, you did adopt an aggressive tone there, which wasn't necessary. No formal warning or anything, but please be mindful of how you compose your posts 

Thanks admin and I apologize to the forum. This is supposed to be a fun discussion and well...I'm an arse and can't help it sometimes, those pesky human emotions. I'm passionate about the things I love and I don't mean to offend anyone but I'm aware that I can get out of hand at times and should know better.  You know how those Star Wars fan get when they defend those movies? That's like me and Jurassic Park. 

[Metallisuchus]

Regarding raptors, the 'official' species name for JP raptors is Velociraptor antirrhopus, not to mention the size was exaggerated in real paleontology because Ostrom didn't have all of the bones, and assumed the legs would be longer - something to that effect.

[Harry_the_Fox]

I can agree with most of this, CGI is often so overused that it is no longer believable, like in the War of the Worlds scene. Other instances that come to mind are a few scenes in the newer King Kong movie such as the Brontosaurus stampede (I hated that part) but overall the movie still looked damn good. The scene in the latest Indiana Jones flick where his son is sword fighting with a leg on two different cars and is swinging through the forest with the monkeys....terrible. But I think these are things film makers would have done in any era...if they could have, but the technology didn't permit it. The goal in these movies is to entertain and judging by their popularity they do. 

Shudders- yeah, you're right there. On a side note, I find CGI is a very fragile medium if the animators aren't extremely good- especially in scenes where the monster leaps, and instead of a realistic jump (eg a chimp or a cat) it looks more like a parabolic Mario jump- though these are mostly from movies a few years prior- most CGI movies these days actually avoid doing it (and admittedly, Apes did quite well).

The amphibian DNA notion was always considered bogus, no less so in the 90's I would think. It was used so that the writers had an explanation for the sex changing dinosaurs. Most documentaries suffer from the same flaws as movies and the information they give you is negligible if you've already done studying up on dinosaurs or watched any older documentaries. They always rehash the things we already know (with a few exceptions). They may look good but they still look more like video games than they do big budget movies. I'm also just a huge movie nerd so I'm certainly biased, I do love movies.

Hmmm, true. Though in the case of contemporary inaccuracies, less people were clue-ey about science outside actual scientists- who had no medium to tell us what's baloney back then
I guess my possible fears are that while docos and TV series make dino shows on the assumption that dino nerds like ourselves expect some 'authenticity' (and are often made by dino nerds anyway, so (relatively up to date) authentic dinosaur representation is intrinsic and doesn't affect the plot), I have a suspicion there may be a  conflict between dino authenticity and more 'hollywood' motives (apparently producers are really pushy and hard to ignore- the guy who did Mimic said his original plot would have been better- while Hellboy he managed to talk them out of making Hellboy a normal human kid who had a 'devil dog'). I guess there is the difficulty of balancing the 'sweet spot' between entertaining non nerds (a polite description for the majority of movie goers) and substantiating proper science for nerds- and then the sweet spot between the good ol' days when dinosaurs were still lizards (which I think most audiences want), and the modern expectation that they weren't (which is a huge risk, but could be pulled off).

Chimp maulings do happen, I don't see how this movie makes the reality of them any worse to grasp. Most of the nation is fully aware of this, at least in Caesar's defense he had a good reason.  Actual chimp maulings are just awful but I'm aware they are not the animals fault. The attack in the movie was necessary for the story they were trying to tell. Also hopefully a good warning to anyone wanting to keep chimps as pets and a reminder that these are wild animals that should remain so. Anyway, I haven't heard of any public outcry against apes due to this movie and it has been about a year now since its release. If you have any figures for a drop in primate popularity after the release of the film please share it otherwise you're just stating an option on the matter with nothing to back it up. I don't think any apes have died due to the release of this film.

Apparently the times it happens, the chimp is being administered medication (that one that crippled that lady had apparently been given anti-depressants or something). In the wild, chimps vary from having a scare/kill intruder mentality, to completely passive toward humans, depending on the tribe- in most cases they aren't particularly vicious, and ironically the biggest and smallest are the least aggressive (Bili Chimps and Bonobo (also chimp depending on who you ask)). That alternate message that people shouldn't keep chimps as pets is actually a good one. I suppose I get reactionary in the same vein as when I see Jaws, and some unintentional messages these movies could implicate when a conservation-reliant species is in the spotlight, and another shark attack occurs in some remote island or obscure time of day.

You clearly weren't paying attention if that is how you thought the events transpired in the film. In the film one of James Franco's co-workers is exposed to the airborn ALZ-113 (not 112) and gets sick from it. The co-worker goes to Franco's house spitting up blood and coughing when he encounters the neighbor and gets him sick. The neighbor contracted it from the infected scientist, not Caesar. Look at that, your plot hole does not exist. You misinterpreted what you saw and now the movie is to blame.

I'm not sure- it implied the neighbors missing finger got infected, and that not being the case, it rendered the scene unnecessary as it did contrast too much from the rest of the movie. (if the neighbor actually roughed the grandfather up a bit in a mad attempt, and the chimp pummeled the snot out of him, then I could go along with it; the way it played out seemed disproportionately malicious for simply pulling him out of the car and talking to him)

I think you're getting a little too analytical with these movies.

You're probably right (grumble).

[Harry_the_Fox]

Now guys, Jurassic Park 3 was awesome!! . You just have to suspend your disbelief when:
-the boat passes through the cloud and the drivers vanish for some reason (it's obvious, the cloud ATE them, then corrected the boat's steering)
-the stepdad kinda just 'dies' in the tree for some reason (we theorize that the same cloud managed to find him and ate him in the tree- but because it had just eaten, it could only manage his skin)
-The 'intelligent' raptors that the movie kept reminding us were intelligent had accidentally left their entire nest unguarded (or unburried)
-The Spinosaurus shows us its awesome 'forearm' power by using its forearms to remind us that Spinosaurus had forearms. A whopping 2x the length of T-Rex's I might add. Well, theoretically. And... they're kinda at the wrong angle but that's beside the point!!
-The pterasaurs attacked the people with pecking power! And carried people off in their rear legs...

To it's actual defense, it was the first time it had a kid who was NOT annoying, and the raptors looked quite lifelike (the bug-eyed ones from the first film kinda throw you off). Overall it was definitely entertaining, and beats the snot out of the second movie, and gives the first a run for its money- although I'd prefer if the parents died and the Mercs survived

[Gwangi]

I guess my possible fears are that while docos and TV series make dino shows on the assumption that dino nerds like ourselves expect some 'authenticity' (and are often made by dino nerds anyway, so (relatively up to date) authentic dinosaur representation is intrinsic and doesn't affect the plot), I have a suspicion there may be a  conflict between dino authenticity and more 'hollywood' motives (apparently producers are really pushy and hard to ignore- the guy who did Mimic said his original plot would have been better- while Hellboy he managed to talk them out of making Hellboy a normal human kid who had a 'devil dog'). I guess there is the difficulty of balancing the 'sweet spot' between entertaining non nerds (a polite description for the majority of movie goers) and substantiating proper science for nerds- and then the sweet spot between the good ol' days when dinosaurs were still lizards (which I think most audiences want), and the modern expectation that they weren't (which is a huge risk, but could be pulled off).

I'm much more critical of documentaries over movies and unfortunately a lot of them are not much better. People watch movies to be entertained (I've said that in almost ever post lol) but documentaries are expected to educate. Though they too aim to entertain the people watching them do expect them to be accurate and correct with the information they present. The state of documentaries saddens me deeply but there are luckily some very good outs out there (many by the BBC).

Apparently the times it happens, the chimp is being administered medication (that one that crippled that lady had apparently been given anti-depressants or something). In the wild, chimps vary from having a scare/kill intruder mentality, to completely passive toward humans, depending on the tribe- in most cases they aren't particularly vicious, and ironically the biggest and smallest are the least aggressive (Bili Chimps and Bonobo (also chimp depending on who you ask)). That alternate message that people shouldn't keep chimps as pets is actually a good one. I suppose I get reactionary in the same vein as when I see Jaws, and some unintentional messages these movies could implicate when a conservation-reliant species is in the spotlight, and another shark attack occurs in some remote island or obscure time of day.

I understand, I was actually thinking about Jaws while reading your previous post and responding to it. Jaws without a doubt put a black mark on sharks back when it came out. It is a shame as the movie itself is terrific, my all time favorite movie in fact. I think things are getting better where sharks are concerned though. Even though countless sharks die in commercial fishing operations I think the public is taking notice of their plight and Jaws may actually help that to some degree. I know many shark scientists working today cite Jaws and the character in the movie Matt Hooper as inspiration for wanting to work with the animals.

I'm not sure- it implied the neighbors missing finger got infected, and that not being the case, it rendered the scene unnecessary as it did contrast too much from the rest of the movie. (if the neighbor actually roughed the grandfather up a bit in a mad attempt, and the chimp pummeled the snot out of him, then I could go along with it; the way it played out seemed disproportionately malicious for simply pulling him out of the car and talking to him)

Honestly if I was that neighbor and saw someone bumping my car I would flip out in much the same way but I think the movie tried to show the neighbor as an a**hole in general. I'm not even sure the finger was bitten off or had just been bitten. I know he contracted the virus from the sick scientist though (I've seen the movie 3 times now). I can agree with you that the attack seemed disproportionately malicious but maybe it was supposed to?

[tyrantqueen]

Now guys, Jurassic Park 3 was awesome!! . You just have to suspend your disbelief when:
-the boat passes through the cloud and the drivers vanish for some reason (it's obvious, the cloud ATE them, then corrected the boat's steering)
-the stepdad kinda just 'dies' in the tree for some reason (we theorize that the same cloud managed to find him and ate him in the tree- but because it had just eaten, it could only manage his skin)
-The 'intelligent' raptors that the movie kept reminding us were intelligent had accidentally left their entire nest unguarded (or unburried)
-The Spinosaurus shows us its awesome 'forearm' power by using its forearms to remind us that Spinosaurus had forearms. A whopping 2x the length of T-Rex's I might add. Well, theoretically. And... they're kinda at the wrong angle but that's beside the point!!
-The pterasaurs attacked the people with pecking power! And carried people off in their rear legs...

To it's actual defense, it was the first time it had a kid who was NOT annoying, and the raptors looked quite lifelike (the bug-eyed ones from the first film kinda throw you off). Overall it was definitely entertaining, and beats the snot out of the second movie, and gives the first a run for its money- although I'd prefer if the parents died and the Mercs survived

Haha this made me laugh XD

I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park, and the thing that really enjoyed about the movie was concept of bringing back extinct animal species, and being able to see how they would have behaved and looked in a modern environment. The scene where you first see the Brachiosaurus and the feeling of wonder it invoked is a good example of this.

I feel though by the third film, the series had jumped the shark, and was evolving into a slasher/thriller type film. Basically using bigger and scarier monsters and inventing the most gruesome ways possible to kill off the characters. Obviously there was an element of this in all the JP films, but was taken to an extreme in the third film.

[Harry_the_Fox]

I'm much more critical of documentaries over movies and unfortunately a lot of them are not much better. People watch movies to be entertained (I've said that in almost ever post lol) but documentaries are expected to educate. Though they too aim to entertain the people watching them do expect them to be accurate and correct with the information they present. The state of documentaries saddens me deeply but there are luckily some very good outs out there (many by the BBC).

That too- I gotta admit I think Walking with Dinosaurs, celebrated as it is, jumped the shark a few times trying to grab people's attention (25m Leopleurodon, later a 33m Leedsichthys were massively unprofessional IMO- it is like insinuating that there was a 22m Triceratops, and just implying it was 'a rather big specimen'.

I understand, I was actually thinking about Jaws while reading your previous post and responding to it. Jaws without a doubt put a black mark on sharks back when it came out. It is a shame as the movie itself is terrific, my all time favorite movie in fact. I think things are getting better where sharks are concerned though. Even though countless sharks die in commercial fishing operations I think the public is taking notice of their plight and Jaws may actually help that to some degree. I know many shark scientists working today cite Jaws and the character in the movie Matt Hooper as inspiration for wanting to work with the animals.

I could accept that- generally I recoil when major hollywood films are about "Attack of the Killer (insert endangered species here)"- although ironically I never really care when B-grade movies do it- as I think everyone knows they're 'taking the piss' so to speak

Honestly if I was that neighbor and saw someone bumping my car I would flip out in much the same way but I think the movie tried to show the neighbor as an a**hole in general. I'm not even sure the finger was bitten off or had just been bitten. I know he contracted the virus from the sick scientist though (I've seen the movie 3 times now). I can agree with you that the attack seemed disproportionately malicious but maybe it was supposed to?

That was kinda the problem for me- they tried to imply the neighbor was a douche, but the only times you see him he freaks out about two rather distressing situations, and behaves not much more severely than I would be expected to :/
The flipside is that after Caesar mauls him you are made to sympthatize with him in the scenes afterward- which I kinda didn't. I mean I felt sorta sorry for him when the blonde kid keeps tormenting him- minus the fact that the stuff the blonde kid was doing was arguably not quite as bad

Haha this made me laugh XD

I remember the first time I saw Jurassic Park, and the thing that really enjoyed about the movie was concept of bringing back extinct animal species, and being able to see how they would have behaved and looked in a modern environment. The scene where you first see the Brachiosaurus and the feeling of wonder it invoked is a good example of this.

I feel though by the third film, the series had jumped the shark, and was evolving into a slasher/thriller type film. Basically using bigger and scarier monsters and inventing the most gruesome ways possible to kill off the characters. Obviously there was an element of this in all the JP films, but was taken to an extreme in the third film.

Cheers!
And I agree- Jurassic Park 3 I reckon the producers decided that with the plot firmly established, and the second movie boring people senseless; audiences simply wanted to be entertained with some action and some newer, more potent (or more exotic) beasties- and in their defense I reckon they were right.

[Gwangi]

I could accept that- generally I recoil when major hollywood films are about "Attack of the Killer (insert endangered species here)"- although ironically I never really care when B-grade movies do it- as I think everyone knows they're 'taking the piss' so to speak

I'm a sucker for creature features, B-grade or not. I am fully aware that some can generate a negative mindset regarding the creatures they depict but since I know better I still enjoy them, unfortunate side effects aside. In defense of Jaws however it was the first movie of its kind. One of the first "Attack of the Killer" movies that featured a real animals. I don't think Peter Benchley or Steven Spielberg knew what harm it would do for sharks. In fact Peter Benchley was horrified by what his book had done and spent a good portion of his life advocating shark conservation. There was actually a documentary for Shark Week a couple days ago called "How Jaws Changed the World" that highlighted the negative and positive effects the movie had. 

That was kinda the problem for me- they tried to imply the neighbor was a douche, but the only times you see him he freaks out about two rather distressing situations, and behaves not much more severely than I would be expected to :/
The flipside is that after Caesar mauls him you are made to sympthatize with him in the scenes afterward- which I kinda didn't. I mean I felt sorta sorry for him when the blonde kid keeps tormenting him- minus the fact that the stuff the blonde kid was doing was arguably not quite as bad

The neighbor was a douche, he over reacted to every situation he was presented with. No, he was not a bad guy and that is not to say I wouldn't do the same but I think I would be a little more sympathetic to an old man with Alzheimer's and a confused young chimpanzee (I hope I would be anyway). He could of handled each situation less dramatically and ultimately his temper turned around and bite him, well, on the finger I guess.
That movie must have had a different effect on me because I felt nothing but sympathy and empathy for Caesar. He was the confused by-product of human meddling and greed. I think that is why they had the attack sequence to show that despite how intelligent he was Caesar was still a chimpanzee in a human's world and couldn't fit in, and then he is thrust into a world of apes and has a hard time fitting in there too.

EDIT: LOL, JP3. The guys abandoning the boat and the step-father dead in the tree always make me laugh. I mean seriously, we see that the guy landed in the tree alright. He wasn't eaten either. That kid must have just said screw you and ran off.

[Harry_the_Fox]

Gwangi- sounds fair.

On JP3- I may have a semi-alternative scenario for the dad in the tree;
Maybe, the stepdad was super-happy that his stepson was finally bonding with him; but then when the stepson said 'screw you I'm outta here" he died of a broken heart??
...Nah, the cloud ate his skin- it's my theory and I'm sticking with it!!!!

[amargasaurus cazaui]

I have been somewhat avoiding posting this thread to avoid any argument type things, but I would offer my view on the entire cloud and tree thing for what it might offer, and no offense intended to anyone at all . This is simply how I interpreted the two things.When I viewed it, I felt the cloud was intended to somewhat mask the presence of one or more of the Pterodactyl types . Relying on memory only, I had thought the two in the air had the cloud like thing between them, and when it cleared the boat crew had been killed. (eaten by the Pterodactyls.)Subsequently the older man is tangled in the tree and eaten alive by one of the Pterodactyls. Later in the course of the movie, we see the bridge, again obscured in a cloud, as it lurches as if something massive has landed on it. Then we get to see our first view of the Pterodactyls in the movie.I felt the cloud was a rather obvious way to hide and keep the suspense about using the Pterodactyls, which If I had understood were special as they were named after Spielberg or some such.That was how my mind interpreted the various shots and their meaning, for better or worse.

[Gwangi]

A good theory but my take on the movie was that the pterosaurs were locked up in the aviary until Grant and company accidentally let them out. I realize there is a problem with my theory as well because we can see pterosaurs flying free at the end of TLW. I wonder if that is just a continuity error though because it seemed like they put a lot of emphasis on the pterosaurs escaping in JP3.