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

[stargatedalek]

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.

No, it is not an objectively good movie.

Acting is subjective, though I agree Pratt tends to do a good job, you can't just say "acting is good" and claim that as objectivity.

Pacing is subjective, though I agree it had comparatively decent pacing. Nothing about it seemed spectacular in the way of pacing though, and some scenes didn't feel like they flowed into each other naturally.

I for one hated the visuals, I thought JW was far to reliant on wide angle "drone-shots" and other sweeping aerial camera angles. Yes this can work, but it clashed with how hard it tried to emulate the general cinematic styling of the original.

I would say the effects in JW were terrible, not just compared to previous JP films, but compared to other concurrent films that arguably rely even more heavily on CGI. Terrible effects do not equal a terrible movie, but you'd have to be bending my arm for me to call those effects good.

I wouldn't call a movie that (intentionally or not) had sexist overtones to it's main character arc one with good character development.

I think JW was a bad movie, not a bad JP movie, a bad movie. I would say JP3 was a bad JP movie, but a good movie.

Again I'm not trying to say no one should be allowed to enjoy JW or JW:FK, but it seems like there is so much backlash against criticism that people become blinded to the films faults.

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?

I care because if people have the preconceived notion in their minds that a Velociraptor looks like the ones in Jurassic Park, then what do they think when they see an accurate Velociraptor in a museum, a news article, or wherever else? They think "stupid scientists, they don't even know what they're talking about". Then what happens when that person sees an article on climate change or endangered species? They're going to think the same thing. Undermining science in any context is dangerous.

[Faelrin]

It's likely those people were anti-science to begin with if they have issues with other subjects though. At that point, I'd be less concerned with how an extinct animal is displayed in a hollywood movie (even if it can be a teaching tool, however good or bad), and be more concerned about the lack of scientific education that caused it to get to that point for those people.

[DinoToyForum]

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...

Sure, the analogy was an intentional exaggeration to explain my personal experience. It is absolutely a matter of taste. In an earlier post I said: It's art, there is no objectivity here.

So we agree on that.

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'm pointing out call backs, nods, similarities, whatever you want to call them, that's what this thread is about. Personally, I see it as derivative, which I see as a negative, but that's just my personal opinion. I'm certainly not saying, as per your suggestion, that the lead female aiming a rifle in the dark (could it be a tranquilliser?) is a reason to bash the film. I'm saying that I don't personally believe it is a coincidence. You're entitled to disagree or complain about my analysis being "tiresome" to you personally, just as I'm entitled to critique the trailers in the first place. Yay free speech.

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?

Agreed.

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.

I'm talking about the Jurassic Park franchise in general and my impressions of JW:FK from the trailer.

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're ignoring my previous response to that accusation:

It isn't blind hatred. My eyes are quite open - I'm literally responding to what I'm seeing. Blind hatred implies I would hate it whatever. That's not the case. Bitter disappointment would be a better description than blind hatred. As I said in my opening post, I find it depressing. I'm not trying to ruin the movies for other people, I'm just illustrating my personal perspective. You might view these call-backs and similarities as a positive thing. You're entitled to, it's art, there is no objectivity here.

By the way, I feel like I've touched a nerve, you're not one of the JW:FK writers or something are you?

[Reptilia]

It's likely those people were anti-science to begin with if they have issues with other subjects though. At that point, I'd be less concerned with how an extinct animal is displayed in a hollywood movie (even if it can be a teaching tool, however good or bad), and be more concerned about the lack of scientific education that caused it to get to that point for those people.

Exactly. That sounds reasonable.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Patrx]

I care because if people have the preconceived notion in their minds that a Velociraptor looks like the ones in Jurassic Park, then what do they think when they see an accurate Velociraptor in a museum, a news article, or wherever else? They think "stupid scientists, they don't even know what they're talking about". Then what happens when that person sees an article on climate change or endangered species? They're going to think the same thing. Undermining science in any context is dangerous.

Agreed, I worry about stuff like this, too. I can see why it might seem silly to be concerned, (and I also don't want to get too political here) but there is just an awful lot of anti-science going on in my area, and it's pretty alarming in all its forms.

It's likely those people were anti-science to begin with if they have issues with other subjects though. At that point, I'd be less concerned with how an extinct animal is displayed in a hollywood movie (even if it can be a teaching tool, however good or bad), and be more concerned about the lack of scientific education that caused it to get to that point for those people.

You could be on to something here, because there are people, like me, who know all about current work regarding Velociraptor, but still like and respect the JP version as a cinematic icon. But ... man, I'm not so sure these days. People are stupid, you know?

Also, it's just kind of depressing watching 90s dinosaurs be brought back to life with million-dollar VFX budgets over and over while we in the paleo-fan sector get ...The Real T. Rex With Chris Packham. (Not that it was terrible, but it was inexpensive and pretty simplistic.)

Also, I might or might not actually be Chris Pratt.

I always suspected.

[Rain]

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.

No, it is not an objectively good movie.

Acting is subjective, though I agree Pratt tends to do a good job, you can't just say "acting is good" and claim that as objectivity.

Pacing is subjective, though I agree it had comparatively decent pacing. Nothing about it seemed spectacular in the way of pacing though, and some scenes didn't feel like they flowed into each other naturally.

I for one hated the visuals, I thought JW was far to reliant on wide angle "drone-shots" and other sweeping aerial camera angles. Yes this can work, but it clashed with how hard it tried to emulate the general cinematic styling of the original.

I would say the effects in JW were terrible, not just compared to previous JP films, but compared to other concurrent films that arguably rely even more heavily on CGI. Terrible effects do not equal a terrible movie, but you'd have to be bending my arm for me to call those effects good.

I wouldn't call a movie that (intentionally or not) had sexist overtones to it's main character arc one with good character development.

I think JW was a bad movie, not a bad JP movie, a bad movie. I would say JP3 was a bad JP movie, but a good movie.

Again I'm not trying to say no one should be allowed to enjoy JW or JW:FK, but it seems like there is so much backlash against criticism that people become blinded to the films faults.

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?

I care because if people have the preconceived notion in their minds that a Velociraptor looks like the ones in Jurassic Park, then what do they think when they see an accurate Velociraptor in a museum, a news article, or wherever else? They think "stupid scientists, they don't even know what they're talking about". Then what happens when that person sees an article on climate change or endangered species? They're going to think the same thing. Undermining science in any context is dangerous.

How is any of that subjective... Other than maybe visuals, none of those are subjective or a matter of opinion.. Bad acting is bad acting, good acting is good acting.. and so on

The main cast did a good job with their roles, there was never a part where you felt as though its an actor playing a character, you felt it was the character even if some of them were poorly written. That's good acting...

Pacing once again, isn't subjective. It wasn't a rushed movie nor was it boringly wrong, though I agree with you in regards to the "flow" for some parts, the movie paced itself well.

The visuals were, once again, objectively good. YOU didn't like them, that doesn't mean they were poorly done.

Tell me how or why you think the effects were "terrible", I'm genuinely curious.

Lol, again with the whole sexism thing from 2015. Regardless of wheter you think it's sexist or not, the characters were developed well over the course of the movie.

And to clarify, I don't really care whether people like the movies or not, no sweat off my back. I'm merely stating that YOU not liking the movie, doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

[Reptilia]

Honestly my frustration goes far deeper than this thread. It´s common in this forum to bash the JP series wherever remotely possible and spam the "rolleyes" smiley. I get how frustrating it is when a movie isn´t what you want it to be, but it´s also frustrating having to read a ton of bashings when you just want to read news about the movie or it´s toys.

Unfortunately this won't ever end. There's still people argumenting their dislike for the franchise by saying that JW keeps on giving us inaccurate dinosaurs, which is like going to a China shop only to say them you won't buy anything there cause they keep on selling counterfeits. Sounds pointless, it's like ignoring altogether the nature of the subject matter, that should be well known by now.

[DinoToyForum]

Oh, I wasn´t ignoring it. You´re calling the new movie disappointing and depressing without having seen it, simply because it appears to pay tribute to scenes in previous movies. Maybe calling it blind hatred is going a little far, but I certainly wouldn´t call it unbiased either.

Okay. Well, I didn't call the new movie disappointing and depressing. This thread is specifically about the call-backs in the trailer, and that's all I was referring to. I'll judge the film when I eventually see it - maybe I'll be surprised (but I'm not holding my breath).

Of course I'm biased, the Jurassic Park franchise has given me the greatest movie going experience I've ever had...and the worst. I suppose threads like this are a kind of therapy for a jaded Jurassic Park fan like me! I obviously have a much more cynical view of these JP references than you do. Where you see "tributes", I see exploitation of the original films: a reliance on nostalgia and familiarity at the expense of creativity. We've talked a lot about olives, but I definitely don't like memberberries (do you watch South Park?). We should just accept that we're coming from different perspectives. If you or anyone else likes all these similarities, thinks they add value, or thinks many are genuine coincidence, that's perfectly fine by me.

By the way, I feel like I've touched a nerve, you're not one of the JW:FK writers or something are you?

Honestly my frustration goes far deeper than this thread. It´s common in this forum to bash the JP series wherever remotely possible and spam the "rolleyes" smiley. I get how frustrating it is when a movie isn´t what you want it to be, but it´s also frustrating having to read a ton of bashings when you just want to read news about the movie or it´s toys. The thread was just the straw that broke the camel´s back. Also, I might or might not actually be Chris Pratt.

I knew it! 

[Appalachiosaurus]

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. 

The analogy doesn't really work that way given that you can go back and watch Jurassic Park at any time, and unlike Star Wars it will be exactly the same as when you first watched it no matter how many sequels come out.

Continuing on with the olives metaphor: You just ate a big ol' bowl of olives and absolutely loved it. You want more, and on the menu you see a new item, Olive World: Fallen Fruit, and you decide to give it a try. Boy was that nasty and rancid, to you it was disgusting. The guy across from you may love it, but to you it just craps all over the idea of olives. You can still order the original meal you ate, and it is still as good as you remember, just because there are olive recipes you don't like doesn't mean you are forced to eat them.

[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. 

The analogy doesn't really work that way given that you can go back and watch Jurassic Park at any time, and unlike Star Wars it will be exactly the same as when you first watched it no matter how many sequels come out.

Continuing on with the olives metaphor: You just ate a big ol' bowl of olives and absolutely loved it. You want more, and on the menu you see a new item, Olive World: Fallen Fruit, and you decide to give it a try. Boy was that nasty and rancid, to you it was disgusting. The guy across from you may love it, but to you it just craps all over the idea of olives. You can still order the original meal you ate, and it is still as good as you remember, just because there are olive recipes you don't like doesn't mean you are forced to eat them.

Yep, that's fair.

And I would absolutely want to see a movie called Olive World: Fallen Fruit.

[stargatedalek]

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.

No, it is not an objectively good movie.

Acting is subjective, though I agree Pratt tends to do a good job, you can't just say "acting is good" and claim that as objectivity.

Pacing is subjective, though I agree it had comparatively decent pacing. Nothing about it seemed spectacular in the way of pacing though, and some scenes didn't feel like they flowed into each other naturally.

I for one hated the visuals, I thought JW was far to reliant on wide angle "drone-shots" and other sweeping aerial camera angles. Yes this can work, but it clashed with how hard it tried to emulate the general cinematic styling of the original.

I would say the effects in JW were terrible, not just compared to previous JP films, but compared to other concurrent films that arguably rely even more heavily on CGI. Terrible effects do not equal a terrible movie, but you'd have to be bending my arm for me to call those effects good.

I wouldn't call a movie that (intentionally or not) had sexist overtones to it's main character arc one with good character development.

I think JW was a bad movie, not a bad JP movie, a bad movie. I would say JP3 was a bad JP movie, but a good movie.

Again I'm not trying to say no one should be allowed to enjoy JW or JW:FK, but it seems like there is so much backlash against criticism that people become blinded to the films faults.

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?

I care because if people have the preconceived notion in their minds that a Velociraptor looks like the ones in Jurassic Park, then what do they think when they see an accurate Velociraptor in a museum, a news article, or wherever else? They think "stupid scientists, they don't even know what they're talking about". Then what happens when that person sees an article on climate change or endangered species? They're going to think the same thing. Undermining science in any context is dangerous.

How is any of that subjective... Other than maybe visuals, none of those are subjective or a matter of opinion.. Bad acting is bad acting, good acting is good acting.. and so on

The main cast did a good job with their roles, there was never a part where you felt as though its an actor playing a character, you felt it was the character even if some of them were poorly written. That's good acting...

Pacing once again, isn't subjective. It wasn't a rushed movie nor was it boringly wrong, though I agree with you in regards to the "flow" for some parts, the movie paced itself well.

The visuals were, once again, objectively good. YOU didn't like them, that doesn't mean they were poorly done.

Tell me how or why you think the effects were "terrible", I'm genuinely curious.

Lol, again with the whole sexism thing from 2015. Regardless of wheter you think it's sexist or not, the characters were developed well over the course of the movie.

And to clarify, I don't really care whether people like the movies or not, no sweat off my back. I'm merely stating that YOU not liking the movie, doesn't mean it's a bad movie.

You're contradicting yourself here, you concede the point that visuals are subjective and then say that they were objectively good.

All of that is subjective, I'm not going to get into philosophical psychology here but the simplest point to be made is that different people have different standards for what defines "good" or "bad", some people's standards might be higher or lower, and others may simply be different. Good to you might be mediocre or even appallingly bad to someone else, and what you find bad someone else may find spectacular.

I too feel like the cast did a good job with their roles, but again I feel that way, that is not objective.

I feel that the CGI doesn't look particularly life-like, the models are overly glossy, and most of them have highly exaggerated wrinkles and bulging muscles (even the small animals) which makes them look fake. Add to that most of the animals got a new coat of grey paint, and they just don't seem very believable or immersive. In some scenes the lighting on the CGI models doesn't look particularly natural to me either.

I wasn't thinking 2015 so much as yesterday:

Jurassic World is (intended to be) a movie about a successful business woman who is kicked off her throne and forced to reconnect with "love and nature". Though it was also accidentally a movie about a successful business woman overdoing herself by trying to do what her male predecessors did and collapsing her entire life, forcing her to rely on a man to save her, and forcing her to develop maternal connections to her nephews.

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.

What is objective is that many perceived the films character arc as being sexist, that is a statistic not an opinion. Whether it was sexist or not, and whether it was meant to be sexist or not, are besides the point since many people saw it that way regardless.

I will add preemptively, that Claire only starts doing "heroic" things after she acknowledges her feelings for Owen, which further proves my point. Whether you think it was sexist or not her arc was about becoming reliant on others, and fitting into socially preconceived roles (even if that part may have been accidental).

That doesn't strike me as good character development to have a character go from a successful self-sufficient person to relying on someone else for help and relying on children for emotional gratification.

I never said the movie was objectively bad, I said I felt it was bad, you're the one attempting to discredit opinions here, not me.

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. 

The analogy doesn't really work that way given that you can go back and watch Jurassic Park at any time, and unlike Star Wars it will be exactly the same as when you first watched it no matter how many sequels come out.

Continuing on with the olives metaphor: You just ate a big ol' bowl of olives and absolutely loved it. You want more, and on the menu you see a new item, Olive World: Fallen Fruit, and you decide to give it a try. Boy was that nasty and rancid, to you it was disgusting. The guy across from you may love it, but to you it just craps all over the idea of olives. You can still order the original meal you ate, and it is still as good as you remember, just because there are olive recipes you don't like doesn't mean you are forced to eat them.

I agree that the olive analogy felt odd and I didn't quite catch on, but you've managed to illustrate the exact point you're arguing against incredibly well. No one here (I think?) is trying to claim that the existence of JW somehow makes JP worse than it was before that, what people are saying is that there is good reason for them to not have enjoyed JW, and that our opinions matter and shouldn't be discounted or frankly slandered as "attempts to prevent other people from enjoying themselves".

If I order a dish with olives, and I hate it, I'm going to be very reluctant to order olives ever again even in a completely different dish. I acknowledge the potential, however unlikely, that the preparation and spices/sauces might make enough of a difference that I could enjoy it, but I don't want to take that risk so I'm cautious, or even pessimistic so as not to get my hosts hopes up. If I don't make it known that I have a general distaste for olives they may serve me olives without ever realizing.

Or let's say someone I'm with who's never had olives orders some, I'm going to tell them my opinion of olives, even if negative, and even though I hope that they do enjoy the olives should they order them.

It's important to complain about things that we don't like or don't approve of, it's the only way things are likely to change even if there is no immediate sign. Change is often slow, and consumer comment can often have just as much influence as consumer purchase.

[tyrantqueen]

How is any of that subjective... Other than maybe visuals, none of those are subjective or a matter of opinion.. Bad acting is bad acting, good acting is good acting.. and so on

The main cast did a good job with their roles, there was never a part where you felt as though its an actor playing a character, you felt it was the character even if some of them were poorly written. That's good acting...

I tend to agree with your post. Btw, I used to think all art was subjective, now I think there has to be at least some degree of objectivity (off topic, but I think modern art is absolute garbage). I think an artist should display a degree of mastery over his craft, just as I would expect from a dancer or singer or any other discipline.

[Rain]

@Stargatedalek

Apologies for not quoting you but the post will end up being way too long.


No, I'm not contradicting myself, I'm correcting myself and agreeing that maybe visuals are subjective. I don't see why you think good/bad acting is subjecting, I'm not digging that deep into it. Good acting is playing the part well, bad acting is making it obvious you're an actor playing a role. The characters weren't that complex, yes, but the cast did act well. Like I said, I'm not digging that deep into it.  Good or bad acting isn't subjective, you either do a good part playing your role, regardless of wheter it's a poorly written role or not, or you fail at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbjdAZMuEd4

Don't try and tell me this is subjective, that's objectively bad. You can tell its an actor playing a role. When I say JW has good acting, I mean just that. You're looking to deep into it.


I'd like to see said scenes you're talking about. It's clearly not perfect but it's still good compared to other block buster films. I also agree theres a few scenes in the movie where it's poorly done but it's pretty well done over all.

I personally feel you're looking way too deep into the whole sexism thing (But we shouldn't talk about that since it's somewhat political) and even if you perceive it as sexist, I don't see how thats poor character development. Once again, you're looking too far into it. I don't mean its good character development as in a character switches from being a horrible person to good one but rather the actual definition. A character changing over the course of the narrative. Regardless of whether you think it's sexist or not, you can't deny the movie actually had character development unlike the previous 2 installments of the franchise. Of which TLW didn't even have any whatsoever. You're presented with a cast of characters at the start of the movie and you end with those exact same characters. JW actually tried to shift the focus back to the humans for a change.

[Faelrin]

I honestly can't say that the acting was poor in JW even if I didn't enjoy it fully, and honestly considering the bulk of the cast that would be rather surprising to me if it counted as 'bad' acting since many of them have had many roles by then, and should know what they are doing. On the other hand I would say the writing/script/directing (which would include the dialogue), could have been done better, but this is where it is a subjective or opinionated thing. This is honestly the big thing that drives the actor's roles. The whole thing reminds me of the prequel Star Wars films. The actors can only do so much with what they are given to work with and/or if they have any freedom, especially if it involves 'poor' writing and 'poor' directing.

I agree the CGI (namely the animations/weight the dinosaurs had, not so much their models and textures, as scientifically inaccurate they are) could have been done better, although the Indominus rex seemed pretty decent/believable. I think the raptors and herbivores (except maybe the Parasaurolophus and Ankylosaurus that are seen so briefly), had it the worst since they seemed so floaty, and in the case of the raptors was probably because they were motion acted by people with raptor head hats. In comparison to the originals were there was raptor suits, which are a tangible thing that has weight to it, aside from the people within them moving them.

While I don't expect the CGI to much different in Fallen Kingdom in what I mentioned above, I'm willing to give it a chance just because there is a new director, and their specialty seems to be horror, aside from the volcanic eruption (although I can pretty much tell that won't be done correctly, if the trailers are anything to go by, but at least it can look pretty). The animatronics are also enough to get me going to see it (even if they aren't done by the Stan Winston Studio), since aside from JW's one dying Apatosaurus animatronic the franchise's films have always used them and done a wonderful job with them, and I'm hoping that is the case here too, especially from what I've seen of the leaks so far.

[DinoToyForum]

Some more for the scrap book! I noticed these additional visual/thematic similarities in the trailer 3 teaser. I've not put the images side to side this time but I have annotated each pair, and will add them to the first post, bringing me to 29. Come on, surely we can make it to 30!

"Eye see you"




Scaredy face framed by T. rex maw.




A raptor hunting people on a roof in the dark.




Close up of a toothy dinosaur slowly approaching someone scared witless in a bed (It isn't obvious from the stills, so for context, the JW:FK scene shows the 'Indoraptor' creeping slowly along the bedcovers where a scared child is cowering under the covers, while the original scene shows the T. rex creeping into the tent where a scared child is cowering under the covers).




Welcome to..Jurassic Franchise!



On the other hand, there was a scene with a mosasaur with surfers. That's something new!

[DinoToyForum]

I've also updated the original images in the first post with annotations, which hopefully helps strengthen the case that these are intentional rather than coincidental.

[mgaguilar]

Nice pointing these out! Love the little cues. They also seem to work well.

[Shadowknight1]

Honestly my frustration goes far deeper than this thread. It´s common in this forum to bash the JP series wherever remotely possible and spam the "rolleyes" smiley. I get how frustrating it is when a movie isn´t what you want it to be, but it´s also frustrating having to read a ton of bashings when you just want to read news about the movie or it´s toys. The thread was just the straw that broke the camel´s back. Also, I might or might not actually be Chris Pratt.

As a Star Trek, Star Wars, and DCEU fan, I know EXACTLY what you mean.  It's almost to a point where I hate discussing any of those things except with people I know enjoy the latest entries.  I don't care what some people may say, film is art and the enjoyment of art is subjective, not objective.  And since a film's purpose to the viewer is to provide entertainment and enjoyment, a film cannot be objectively bad.  Even some of the worst movies can provide enjoyment in some way, shape or form.

[DinoToyForum]

JW:FK trailers, the gifts that keep on giving. Here are a few call-backs/nods/visual or thematic similarities, that I spotted in the recent 'tv spots':

Pushing a heavy metal door closed on a predator's snapping jaws.



Pushed up against a barrier, head turned over shoulder, terror face.



"Just can't not touch". Shot of hand reaching out - slowly, tentatively - to touch a dinosaur's snout.



That scene in the second film when our protagonist discusses going back to the island to save the dinosaurs. The frame is composed of a head and shoulders shot on one half, with a tall curtained window occupying the other half, staged in a room in a mansion, well lit by sunlight. But she's wearing white, not black! see! It's different, it's the opposite, profound!



Raptor jumps through a window. A bit of a JP meme by now, this one. I could've picked one of several such shots.



"Not unless they've figured out how to open doors". Shot of a door handle, waggles, and then opened by clawed hand.



Running towards the camera, away from a chasing T.rex, in the dark and rain.



That takes us up to 36 'call-backs', or whatever we want to call them. I've updated the first post. I think we can agree that some of these new ones are pretty on the nose. Some are more subtle, and I admit that some may be pure coincidence (though I doubt it). Either way, they all stuck out to me.

I've also numbered them in the first post, for ease of reference!