Jurassic Park call-backs in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (trailers + movie)

[stargatedalek]

I acknowledge what Trevorrow intended to be saying with JW, but it's still hard to shake the impression the film gives you when you first think critically about it. And frankly the intention wasn't all that great either, it's just more "technology is bad it's gonna kill us all" shtick, but this time applied to a zoo/animal theme park which gives it hints of anti-cap propaganda already.

But that is  hallmark of the entire franchise?  Messing around with Nature leads to trouble.  That message hasn't changed in the films from what I can tell since the first one or even the book.

The original movie was more along the lines of "nature is dangerous, don't underestimate it" and even TLW was more like "be respectful to nature, be careful you treat it right". This is a good message to have, it reminds us that nature and science are powerful things and that we need to be careful around them. Just saying "science is bad/dangerous", or "progress/technology is bad/dangerous" is absolutely not helpful, it fuels anti-science rhetoric which is what causes people to not take scientific findings seriously and encourages opinionated or even partisan claims over informed ones.

Fallen Kingdom is about people trying to save animals from a natural disaster by bringing them to captivity only for them to be "abused". This is a pretty disgusting and underhanded attack on zoos and animal shelters, saying; "oh it doesn't matter why animals enter captivity they will be abused no matter what". And no I am absolutely not reaching here, read this quote from Trevorrow:

https://screenrant.com/jurassic-world-2-animal-abuse/
"The dinosaurs will be a parable of the treatment animals receive today: the abuse, medical experimentation, pets, having wild animals in zoos like prisons, the use the military has made of them, animals as weapons. The second part will be a very different movie that will explore new paths. For that reason, it was clear that it needed to be Bayona who would direct it, in order to have it grow and evolve with his very personal vision."

Here is clearly one of those people who thinks having any pet besides a cat or dog constitutes animal abuse. Frankly I'm uncomfortable supporting movies with themes like this. It's not just a case where I disagree, it's a case where these claims are not founded in science or reasoning, and are already doing very serious damage to animals, wild and captive, and to our society.

I don't see an attack in comparing a zoo to a prison.  Past zoos did used to look a lot like a circus wagon for their animal enclosures.  Many have changed now are more like sanctuaries.  They do still keep exotic animals in places against their will,  with artificial environments . Some can only survive in these environments.  Zoos are beneficial to us in that they teach us about places we've never been and the world around us.  That said they are still places of containment.  Perhaps that is more what Colin meant?  The fictional DPG does have some aggressive messages  on the old JW site, I mentioned that in the other thread.  Maybe he's illustrating these real life examples of extremism?

It is an attack, especially coupled with the plot of the movie. Animals are only kept against their will in extreme cases, most animals when given the chance choose to stay in their enclosures because those enclosures are designed to best suit their needs. Very few animals can't be kept completely happy and healthy in captivity, and that's either because of their extreme size being cost prohibitive or because we don't know enough about them. Captivity alone is not enough of a connection to justify comparing zoos to prisons, animals in zoos are kept enriched and entertained, are often healthier, and in most cases live decades longer than they would in the wild.

The whole anti-captivity concept is based on a fallacy that "the wild" is some wonderful Disney magic infused place where all animals live happily. There is never mention that most animals die slowly and painfully, eaten alive by predators, or from curable or even preventable diseases. And that's completely ignoring deforestation, vehicle collisions, pollution, and poaching which are not a threat to captive animals.

I doubt given what he himself is promoting that he actually considers groups like PETA or Greenpeace as extremists the way someone who knows about animal husbandry and zoology does, but let's say he does, he's still putting those groups on the same level as actual rescue organizations.

[Appalachiosaurus]

So someone says they like bad films, that they can turn their brain off, that at least the effects and some action sequences were good? I'm not going to say 'good for you, YMMV' because they all but admit they're distracted by shiny things. They make me wonder how often that off switch is used. They make me wonder if the off switch ever made much of a difference anyway.
It ruins the film for people? It was already ruined. Setting aside Doug's reaction of going to support a bad film out of spite**: it might make someone go and watch the film one less time out of umpteen dozen. It might be a thimbleful taken out of the rushing flood of punters going to justify the millions spent on bad storytelling, and I feel that's worth it. It might make a moviegoer more aware of the blatant flaws, watch the film with a more critical eye, and - God forbid - maybe even watch it with their brain turned on.

As someone who is practically an expert at "turning off" my brain, I can say that I do enjoy a good thought provoking or emotional movie. However, something that I think you are missing is the absolute fundamental purpose of a movie, and that is to entertain. Complex characters, a cleverly written plot, a well made morale? Every single one of those are only add-ons the the movie's overall goal, get you entertained enough to give the company your money. In the 50s it was men-in-suit monster movies, in the 60s it was westerns, now it's expanded universes and lots of explosions. That is what puts people's buts in the seats, and if people stop going to see Jurassic World, the companies will just move on to robots or spacemen or robot spacemen. I know that you, and many others, want deep and thought provoking films, but the general audience does not, and the general audience is the one with the millions of dollars to spend. If you aren't having fun, tough luck. There are tons of indie films out there for you to enjoy, but Universal and every other media company doesn't care about the hipsters, they want the people with the money, so unless you want to be angry all the time, learn to turn your brain off every once in awhile and enjoy yourself before the movie going experience goes extinct for good.

[Simon]

To me, the wonder of the first couple of JP movies was the amazement generated at seeing, for the first time ever on screen, "real" dinosaurs, behaving, more or less, like real animals.  (If you read Spielberg's interviews from that time, you'll see that is what he was going for.).

The last JP movie was more in the "Superhero" vein, accuracy was sacrificed and the creatures did not look as lovingly "made" as they were in the first two movies (too much cgi, not enough attention to detail).

Having said that, the last movie was enjoyable as pure entertainment, but it had none of the wonder of the original couple of JP movies.  I'll be skipping this one because frankly it looks like more of the same.

If I get bored I'll pop in a DVD of BBC's "Walking with Dinosaurs".  That's the kind of dinosaur "footage" that I would pay to see in a theater ...

[DinoToyForum]

I think a lot of these are a stretch but I can see the reasoning behind why you chose them, except for one. How does Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard separated between a pane of glass even remotely remind you of Julianne Moore about to fall to her death?

Oh, both involve being pressed up against a pane of glass during a perilous situation. It has become a bit of a JP staple by now, the T. rex coming through the top of the explorer being the first example:


You know, I wouldn't be surprised if the JW:FK scene doesn't involve the glass cracking slowly, a la The Lost World. Time will tell.

[Reptilia]

Agree with SuperiorSpider, JP haters are all over the place. Not just here, I mean on the whole internet. No offense, but when I see someone on Youtube, over a blog, or a forum, overcriticizing movies (not only the JP franchise, in general) I feel a bit sad for them. It's like those people don't have the ability to enjoy blockbuster movies for what they are, or simply ignore and let go. I guess it is how the modern age works, everyone wants to voice an opinion about everything, and usually being negative makes much more scene.

[stargatedalek]

and usually being negative makes much more scene.

While I generally agree with the sentiment that a lot of movies get hate just for not being rose tinted, this feels highly uncalled for. People have a right to complain about something or even someone that they don't like, or that they don't agree with, so long as it isn't harassment or hate speech. To say that people only complain about things for attention is illogical and frankly condescending, people like to share their opinions, it's in our basic psychological nature, whether those opinions are positive or negative.

[DinoToyForum]

I've been thinking about the "turn your brain off" and "enjoy it for what it is" statements and I can't make sense of them. Taste isn't a choice. Wouldn't it be like telling someone who doesn't like olives to "turn your taste buds off" and "enjoy olives for what they are". Easy for someone to say who finds olives delicious, but impossible for someone who finds olives vile to put into practice.

We can all do a simple thought experiment. Think of a movie you didn't enjoy. Now, ask yourself "why didn't you just enjoy it for what it was"?

[Reptilia]

Well, but if I don't like olives I just don't eat them, I do not bother explaining why I don't like them, or how they should be to meet my taste. I actually think that with most JP detractors the point is different. It's not like they simply despise the franchise, it's more like they consider any of the sequels a sort of betrayal. Some go even further in considering everything JP related as a big betrayal, because JP dinosaurs are not real dinosaurs, you know. As if Hollywood blockbusters could constitute some kind of menace for paleontology, or mislead people with false beliefs.

[stargatedalek]

Well, but if I don't like olives I just don't eat them, I do not bother explaining why I don't like them, or how they should be to meet my taste. I actually think that with most JP detractors the point is different. It's not like they simply despise the franchise, it's more like they consider any of the sequels a sort of betrayal. Some go even further in considering everything JP related as a big betrayal, because JP dinosaurs are not real dinosaurs, you know. As if Hollywood blockbusters could constitute some kind of menace for paleontology, or mislead people with false beliefs.

Except that they do mislead people with false beliefs. If a fictional movie about a great white shark killing people can cause international hysteria to the point we are still suffering the environmental aftermath of shark culls done specifically because of said films influence it's more than fair to say that Jurassic Park could at the very least leave a lasting misconception about dinosaurs in the public's eye.

I'm not trying to say science fiction should not be able to use real life animals, extinct or extant, as models for their monsters but the claim that such films never mislead people is simply false. As is the claim that it can't do any real damage.

If you never said beforehand that you wanted your order without olives you might have to deal with them being served to you. Better to speak your mind than to play along up until they serve you olives then just not eat them. That's a waste of food, and a waste of time for everyone involved, they may even bill you extra for the olives that you never intended to eat.

[Faelrin]

I have to wonder though, in JP's specific case, does this misinformation actually harm society at all? This is actually something I've been wondering for a while now. I mean sure some people are going to think these "where" the real animals, in how they behaved and looked, and not just movie monster adaptions, but those people are probably unlikely to be really interested in the real extinct animals as it is, to go out of their way and educate themselves on them (as much as possible even), and I don't see them getting in the way of paleontology much, since well they haven't to any large degree, beyond maybe toys and films.

In Jaw's case that did have real harmful lasting effects (Finding Nemo too, come to think of it with their 'all drains lead to the sea' nonsense that led to many clownfishes unnecessary deaths, etc. Probably many other movies have had a negative impact like this too), but I'm not sure I can see or understand how someone that might end up being 'anti-feathers' or whatever, is a problem, unless they were anti-science to begin with?

For a while I've been wanting to correct things that are incorrect (aka people using T-Rex instead of T. rex), but I'm starting to wonder if there's really no point, since I can't possibly correct every incorrect thing said, and on top of that, does it even matter with this subject to begin with, aside from the fact that I'm passionate about it?

[Appalachiosaurus]

I've been thinking about the "turn your brain off" and "enjoy it for what it is" statements and I can't make sense of them. Taste isn't a choice. Wouldn't it be like telling someone who doesn't like olives to "turn your taste buds off" and "enjoy olives for what they are". Easy for someone to say who finds olives delicious, but impossible for someone who finds olives vile to put into practice.

We can all do a simple thought experiment. Think of a movie you didn't enjoy. Now, ask yourself "why didn't you just enjoy it for what it was"?

I think you misunderstood. Using the olives metaphor, what WarrenJB was saying is that because he doesn't like olives, everybody should stop eating anything with them so that restaurants are forced to stop serving them. If you don't like olives, you don't need to eat them. There are lots of dishes without them, and when the restaurant adds a new option to the menu which is just your favorite salad but olives in it, don't complain to the people who enjoy it, just eat the meals you enjoy and move on.

Basically, if someone doesn't like blockbusters, they shouldn't look down on the people that do.

[Syndicate Bias]

my opinion to all of this is simple. Why do you care if people have the misconception? you don't, and those that care enough about dinosaurs will know eventually and will go out of their way. i remmeber when i first saw a giganotosaurus in a video game called dino crisis 2. it was like twice the size of at.Rex and i was passionate from that moment to learn about it. and i went out of my way to learn that its actual size was overexaggerated in the game and i accepted that because i love dinosaurs. the general public in general doesn't care like we do. just saying so why waste time debating about people who don't care about our passions?

[DinoToyForum]

I've been thinking about the "turn your brain off" and "enjoy it for what it is" statements and I can't make sense of them. Taste isn't a choice. Wouldn't it be like telling someone who doesn't like olives to "turn your taste buds off" and "enjoy olives for what they are". Easy for someone to say who finds olives delicious, but impossible for someone who finds olives vile to put into practice.

We can all do a simple thought experiment. Think of a movie you didn't enjoy. Now, ask yourself "why didn't you just enjoy it for what it was"?

I think you misunderstood. Using the olives metaphor, what WarrenJB was saying is that because he doesn't like olives, everybody should stop eating anything with them so that restaurants are forced to stop serving them. If you don't like olives, you don't need to eat them. There are lots of dishes without them, and when the restaurant adds a new option to the menu which is just your favorite salad but olives in it, don't complain to the people who enjoy it, just eat the meals you enjoy and move on.

Basically, if someone doesn't like blockbusters, they shouldn't look down on the people that do.

Of course, I get that. I agree with any statements along the lines of "don't watch them if you don't like them" (to a certain extent, see below). I was specifically talking about "turn your brain off" and "enjoy it for what it is" statements, which is a different line of argument.

The difficulty with "don't watch them if you don't like them" is that you don't know if you like something before you have seen it. You may even think you will like it, because you liked other ones. Back to the olive analogy...

You love olives. You've just enjoyed a big bowl, delicious, you want more. You order another, but the second batch is rancid. You call over the server to complain. They tell you "if you don't like olives don't eat them" and call you an "olive hater" for complaining. 

[Neosodon]

It is an attack, especially coupled with the plot of the movie. Animals are only kept against their will in extreme cases, most animals when given the chance choose to stay in their enclosures because those enclosures are designed to best suit their needs. Very few animals can't be kept completely happy and healthy in captivity, and that's either because of their extreme size being cost prohibitive or because we don't know enough about them. Captivity alone is not enough of a connection to justify comparing zoos to prisons, animals in zoos are kept enriched and entertained, are often healthier, and in most cases live decades longer than they would in the wild.

The whole anti-captivity concept is based on a fallacy that "the wild" is some wonderful Disney magic infused place where all animals live happily. There is never mention that most animals die slowly and painfully, eaten alive by predators, or from curable or even preventable diseases. And that's completely ignoring deforestation, vehicle collisions, pollution, and poaching which are not a threat to captive animals.

I doubt given what he himself is promoting that he actually considers groups like PETA or Greenpeace as extremists the way someone who knows about animal husbandry and zoology does, but let's say he does, he's still putting those groups on the same level as actual rescue organizations.

I used to be anti captivity but the entire idea is based on a naive understanding of nature. To quote Dawkins "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored."

We as humans value freedom so the idea of captivity may seem disgusting to us. But that is precisely what is wrong with the animal rights movement. Animals aren't people and they have different preferences. The personification of the animal kingdom leads to allot of misunderstanding. To a rabbit an enclosure is a safe haven. To an albatross maybe not so much.

As for the hate the JP franchise gets. I don't think it's that people actually hate the movies, it's just that they have high expectations.   When a movie with over a hundred million dollar budget is outdone by a cheap documentary in terms of realistic dinosaur reconstructions and animations it is only natural to be slightly annoyed. But that doesn't mean I hate the movies. I still very much enjoy them despite their issues.

[Patrx]

You love olives. You've just enjoyed a big bowl, delicious, you want more. You order another, but the second batch is rancid. You call over the server to complain. They tell you "if you don't like olives don't eat them" and call you an "olive hater" for complaining. 

Come on, man, it's 2018, that's just what olives are like now! If you were a true olive fan, you'd support olives without thinking, no matter what 

[DinoToyForum]

 

You love olives. You've just enjoyed a big bowl, delicious, you want more. You order another, but the second batch is rancid. You call over the server to complain. They tell you "if you don't like olives don't eat them" and call you an "olive hater" for complaining. 

Come on, man, it's 2018, that's just what olives are like now! If you were a true olive fan, you'd support olives without thinking, no matter what 

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Rain]

You love olives. You've just enjoyed a big bowl, delicious, you want more. You order another, but the second batch is rancid. You call over the server to complain. They tell you "if you don't like olives don't eat them" and call you an "olive hater" for complaining. 

Come on, man, it's 2018, that's just what olives are like now! If you were a true olive fan, you'd support olives without thinking, no matter what 

We´re not talking about rancid olives here, because nobody enjoys eating rancid olives. We´re talking about olives that you don´t like, but a ton of people do like them. This isn´t a matter of objective quality, this is a matter of taste. Nobody told anyone to support the movies without thinking, but the bashing for ridiculous reasons like having a female holding a rifle (!) is getting extremely tiresome. I encourage everyone not to go see the movie, if you know you wouldn´t like it. Why would you pay for something you don´t like?
The olive example also falls flat, since you´d have to eat them to find out how they taste, yet you haven´t seen the new movie yet. You saw a picture of the olives on the menu, decided that they must be rancid based on the picture and then continued to open a forum thread about how rancid the olives must be. If that doesn´t qualify as blind hatred, I don´t know what does.

You beat me to it. It's not a rancid bowl of olives but rather an objectively good bowl which you just aren't fond of.

Sure, it doesn't have the magic the original had but it's still an objectively decent movie. Jurassic World still has good acting, good pacing, good visuals, good effects and good character development. Just because it doesn't feel like a Jurassic Park movie, doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

[Patrx]

This call-backs thread wasn't opened for the purpose of complaining. We had a similar thread for the previous film, discussing nifty little homages and so on in much the same manner. Just like this list, I thought that a few of the apparent references which were brought up may have been totally unintentional, while some were clearly deliberate. There's nothing inherently wrong with such call-backs.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted