Jurassic World: Battle at Big Rock

[Shadowknight1]

On the subject of JP dinosaurs holding their hands in the correct position, but aren't Rexy's wrists held correctly for a little bit when she first escapes her paddock in JP1?  Same with the raptor that was about to pounce Grant before Rexy rudely interrupted?

[Funk]

This was more or less correct:

Keep in mind, the pronated posture wasn't known to be incorrect at the time.

[HD-man]

P @PumperKrickel

Kill a main character, then. It´s a series of adventure movies,

To be fair, it's also a "horror adjacent" series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssgi47SPJNE

@Gwangi

To be fair, the baby didn't do anything wrong. It's a baby, and no rational human should want to see a baby killed for simply being a baby.

2 things about that: 1) In retrospect, the baby was probably fake crying for attention (See 3:50: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MX3Hu8loXTE ), in which case it did do something wrong; 2) Even if the baby didn't do anything intentionally wrong, the same can be said about characters like Jar Jar Binks. That doesn't make those characters any less annoying, especially when other characters have to pay for their wrongdoings. Put another way, "If a character only causes a problem, feels no remorse about it, and contributes nothing to the solution, he should invariably get eaten by a dinosaur" (See 5:50): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPHV5QvQJIw

I've seen plenty of baby deaths on screen (Feast 2 anyone?)

Haven't seen that movie, but I'm glad you brought it up b/c I looked up the scene in question & that was some good dark humor (almost too dark, but not quite). In any case, that's the exception that proves the rule.

But the main appeal of dinosaurs is still with kids so I don't see anything like that happening.

Given how many kids are into that kind of stuff (Notice how much more violent many PG-13 movies are then R movies?), I think something like that should happen. The Parasaurolophus example is a bit too silly for me (though not impossible, given what we know about living herbivores), but so is Dinosaurs Attack! in general, so fair enough. I think I'd prefer a more serious take like how I described the baby-eating compy scene (which would make a great opening scene for JW3, continuing the tone of JW2/JW:BABR).

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[stargatedalek]

Kill a main character, then. It´s a series of adventure movies,

To be fair, it's also a "horror adjacent" series:

Yes and the early movies managed to be scary without any dead children.
The rest of your argument in support of killing babies is just bizarre. You´re comparing a toddler to Jar Jar Binks.

The main problem of the series is the anthropomorphising of the dinosaurs. They get cute little nicknames and either form friendships with humans or act like deranged serial killers.  It´s too far removed from reality to be scary, but I find the depiction of the Allosaurus in BaBR to be a step in the right direction. Now it grew up with humans, so it isn´t afraid of wondering into the camp, but it targets the baby Nasutoceratops and only gives up when the large one arrives. It then shifts it´s attention to the next easiest target and subsequently stops attacking when it gets injured. It felt much more like an animal than any of the hybrids or the Spino ever felt.

Characterization has worked well for the raptors so far (even the JP3 raptors, who have some really neat nonverbal cues where you can gauge how they interact with each other), but yah, hopefully the failing of Spinosaurus will be kept in mind next time they try it for another animal.

Tamed raptors existed since the first book. The idea that they were intelligent enough to become tame has been an idea at play since this franchises public conception. Unfair to pin this on the new movies if you don't like it.

Both hybrids are attacking wildly because they've been abused and are lashing out. There are plenty of issues with how Indominus behaves in the movie (if she was raised alone in a too small enclosure as was set up how does she know the raptor language?*), but the way she attacks everything madly isn't one of them.

*Given in-universe they are "smarter than chimps" it's fair to say raptors having a language isn't unrealistic at all, crows are smarter than chimps and they have languages.

Characterizing the dinosaurs isn't the problem, but rather the way they botched it in JP3 set a bad expectation in place. The film was written and edited around the Spinosaurus, as if they had actually treated it as a character, but the Spinosaurus wasn't given any characterization and so it drags the whole movie down.

If you look at it from the idea that they've been moving towards the dinosaurs as individual characters JP3 feels like a stepping stone in that direction (and JW[1] like a growing pain).

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[CityRaptor]

Expect that Blue is shown to be dangerous. She has killed several people, but as expected of an animal of her intelligence, she is shown to differ between friend and foe.  An example of someone mistaking a "tamed" Raptor for a glorified pet would be Hoskins:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV9vXksRp2w
The movie made it pretty clear that they are not pets, even if their handlers can work with them.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Gwangi]

2 things about that: 1) In retrospect, the baby was probably fake crying for attention  in which case it did do something wrong; 2) Even if the baby didn't do anything intentionally wrong, the same can be said about characters like Jar Jar Binks. That doesn't make those characters any less annoying, especially when other characters have to pay for their wrongdoings. Put another way, "If a character only causes a problem, feels no remorse about it, and contributes nothing to the solution, he should invariably get eaten by a dinosaur".

Even if fake crying for attention the baby is still acting on instinct, behaving according to its inborn nature. It's not intentionally doing something it knows is wrong, it's not making a choice. I agree with PumperKrickel, your argument in support of killing babies is bizarre and comparing a baby to Jar Jar Binks doesn't work.

[CityRaptor]

What I meant is that Blue is only shown killing villains, she never attacks any of the heroes as far as I remember. The movie implies she has some sort of moral compass, which to me makes her way less scary.

Let's see:
Owen: Raised her.
Claire: Blue knows she is with Owen, also helped her
Zia & Franklin: helped her
Maisie: Owen protects her, so she is presumbly a friend and does not appear to be a threat otherwise.
Remember they make a great deal about Raptor intelligence in those movies.

Like if you´re walking alone at night and meet a dog with a collar compared to a wild wolf. Both situations are potentially dangerous, but one is much scarier than the other.

Not sure about the wolf being more dangerous. A wolf would probably try to avoid you, but the dog might be breed and raised for agression.

I just prefer the dinosaurs to be depicted like (relatively) wild animals, which Battle at Big Rock succeeded in.

Well, that works for those Dinosaurs, but Blue clearly was raised differently.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[HD-man]

P @PumperKrickel

The rest of your argument in support of killing babies is just bizarre. You´re comparing a toddler to Jar Jar Binks.

@Gwangi

Even if fake crying for attention the baby is still acting on instinct, behaving according to its inborn nature. It's not intentionally doing something it knows is wrong, it's not making a choice. I agree with PumperKrickel, your argument in support of killing babies is bizarre and comparing a baby to Jar Jar Binks doesn't work.

Bizarre, maybe, but NOT inaccurate: Both characters caused problems, felt no remorse about it, & contributed nothing to the solutions; Yes, one's a baby & the other's an idiot, but the point is that them not knowing better didn't make them any less annoying, especially when other characters had to pay for their wrongdoings. Besides, is it really so bizarre to want a more realistic portrayal of JW's animals than what we've gotten so far (E.g. A movie in which kids are just as likely as adults to get eaten, maybe more so given the real-life preferences of predatory animals)? What better way to do that than to take it even further than JP or JP2 & make JW's animals more like they were in the novels? Yes, it might be too little too late at this point in the franchise, but I think it's at least worth a try. At the very least, it wouldn't be any worse a movie than JW2.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[stargatedalek]

Expect that Blue is shown to be dangerous. She has killed several people, but as expected of an animal of her intelligence, she is shown to differ between friend and foe.

What I meant is that Blue is only shown killing villains, she never attacks any of the heroes as far as I remember. The movie implies she has some sort of moral compass, which to me makes her way less scary.

Like if you´re walking alone at night and meet a dog with a collar compared to a wild wolf. Both situations are potentially dangerous, but one is much scarier than the other.

I just prefer the dinosaurs to be depicted like (relatively) wild animals, which Battle at Big Rock succeeded in.

A raptor in the first book sacrifices itself trying to make peace with the wild raptors. The idea of them having a moral compass is also not new. Nor is it unrealistic since we see this in real animals. Also, she did attack the protagonists in JW, and only turned on Indominus after it killed one of her pack. It was (IIRC) Delta who responded to Owen first.

I would almost certainly be more scared if I saw a large dog approach me than a wolf. Dogs can be territorially vicious and are trained to think of humans as animals they can form packs with, and so consider us competition. A wolf that you see coming isn't as likely to attack you as avoid you, a dog is. Heck guard dogs are so territorial they kill large prey animals and then don't even eat them (even as large as young cattle).

Perhaps a better example would have been a dog and a racoon, which, sure, I could see most people being more scared of the racoon if they didn't know what to do. But there is no reason a movie about meeting animals at night couldn't have both a dog and a racoon.

There is no reason they can't have wild and tamed animals existing together. It's not exactly a novel concept.

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[Gwangi]

P @PumperKrickel

The rest of your argument in support of killing babies is just bizarre. You´re comparing a toddler to Jar Jar Binks.

@Gwangi

Even if fake crying for attention the baby is still acting on instinct, behaving according to its inborn nature. It's not intentionally doing something it knows is wrong, it's not making a choice. I agree with PumperKrickel, your argument in support of killing babies is bizarre and comparing a baby to Jar Jar Binks doesn't work.

Bizarre, maybe, but NOT inaccurate: Both characters caused problems, felt no remorse about it, & contributed nothing to the solutions; Yes, one's a baby & the other's an idiot, but the point is that them not knowing better didn't make them any less annoying, especially when other characters had to pay for their wrongdoings. Besides, is it really so bizarre to want a more realistic portrayal of JW's animals than what we've gotten so far (E.g. A movie in which kids are just as likely as adults to get eaten, maybe more so given the real-life preferences of predatory animals)? What better way to do that than to take it even further than JP or JP2 & make JW's animals more like they were in the novels? Yes, it might be too little too late at this point in the franchise, but I think it's at least worth a try. At the very least, it wouldn't be any worse a movie than JW2.

At this point I have to think you're trolling us but I've seen enough of you around here to believe that you're being serious. I don't think I should have to explain why a baby deserves more leniency than Jar Jar Binks (PumperKrickel already did it anyway). If you don't see it yourself then I think you must be lacking something that makes us human and I hope a child is never dependent on you for protection. And yes, it is bizarre to want more realistic dinosaurs via the death of babies. There are a million other ways they could present these animals realistically without killing human babies. In fact, trying to predate on humans less overall would be more realistic.

[stargatedalek]

You´re misremembering that scene, but it doesn´t even matter.

The amount of pushback I´m receiving for saying that I PERSONALLY don´t find tamed animals as scary as wild ones is insane. Especially considering that in this very discussion somebody basically said the movies need to kill babies to improve.

- "I wanna see dead babies in the franchise".
- Yes, that´s very reasonable. What´s this? Someone is scared of wolves? What a fool!

Like, I never even said I don´t like the idea of having tame animals. I just said I didn´t like how they did it. Have the raptor pack be friends with a villainous character instead of Owen. Boom, problem solved. The comics had a storyline like this that worked well in terms of showcasing the raptors intelligence, while having them still be a constantly threatening presence.

You're issue isn't with tame animals, it's with having one as a protagonist? I understand the logic, but at this point I don't know what to say besides oh well. Like, these movies don't have to be scary 100% of the time, and I don't think either of us have any better ideas for how a raptor as a protagonist could have been done.

I perhaps came off too aggressively earlier when I said the dog wolf comparison was bad, the idea of a wild animal being scarier than a domestic animal was not flawed inherently. A better counter argument would have been that dogs are still plenty scary, or that the existence of dogs doesn't make wolves any less scary. Admittedly I used to have a near crippling fear of dogs so some personal issues probably took over there.

I honestly don't remember who it was or even if it was me who brought up dead babies but, yeah, it's gotten weird. I'll defend it as a narrative decision because it's a very clear and concise way to set the tone of a project, especially from a franchise known for recognizably invincible child characters, but this Jar Jar comparison is just strange.

Frankly even holding Jar Jar accountable for his accidents feels cruel. He's homeless and seems possibly even handicapped at the start of The Phantom Menace. Other Gungans don't act like he does.

[HD-man]

Of course it´s inaccurate. Jar Jar Binks was a fully developed person, a baby is not. Babies are incapable of knowing something they do is wrong. They can´t understand that concept yet. Is your whole point seriously just a revenge fantasy against babies for being annoying?

Apparently, you missed the "them not knowing better" part. It doesn't matter WHY they don't know better (which, from the looks of it, seems to be your issue) b/c the end result is the same: B/c they didn't know better, both characters caused problems that other characters had to pay for w/no help from the wrongdoers; If you want a non-Jar Jar Binks example, there are plenty to choose from (including other child characters like Scrappy: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheScrappy ). As for my point, I've already made it several times (I.e. They should either make the animals more realistic so they eat the stupid/annoying humans or the humans less stupid/annoying so we root for them more, maybe both, for an overall better movie). Whether you chose to see my plain-as-day point IDK. No offense, but your posts come off as if you're running on pure emotion rather than actually thinking logically about the points being made.

The Allosaurus actively tried to get to the baby specifically, that already addresses the real-life preferences of predators. It´s already realistic, is it not? Why does the predator have to be successful to make it realistic? Advertisers and sponsors sure wouldn´t like it, so that means they´d lose a big chunk of money, regardless of the quality of the film. Where´s the actual upside in killing babies? (2019 just keeps on giving...)

B/c they've already done that in ALL of the previous JP/JW movies. After a while, it gets hard for ppl to suspend their disbelief. Remember all those fake-outs in the MCU movies (See 2:00: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhbWIFDqQfk )? As for advertisers, the same can be said about many other forms of entertainment that hadn't been done before (E.g. Dr. Seuss; See 12:40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0_W6gomFA8 ).

Also (in reference to your later post), I never said, "I wanna see dead babies in the franchise". In fact, I specifically described the potential baby-eating compy scene in a way that made that clear. Obviously, seeing the dead bodies of babies on screen would be too much, but I never said it wouldn't be. Just b/c you don't like my argument (regardless of its validity) doesn't mean you can just re-write it.

I don't think I should have to explain why a baby deserves more leniency than Jar Jar Binks (PumperKrickel already did it anyway).

Again, if you want a non-Jar Jar Binks example, there are plenty to choose from (including other child characters like Scrappy: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheScrappy ).

And yes, it is bizarre to want more realistic dinosaurs via the death of babies. There are a million other ways they could present these animals realistically without killing human babies. In fact, trying to predate on humans less overall would be more realistic.

You forgot to include "IMO" at the end of that 1st part. Remember, not liking an argument doesn't make it less valid. I've already listed several valid reasons for making my argument. In any case, I'd like to see that list of "a million other ways". As for that last part, it depends. Based on JW:BABR, it seems like they're going for something similar to what happens when big cats move into densely populated areas: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/blink/cover/leopard-at-my-door/article7286078.ece

[PumperKrickel]

deleted

[stargatedalek]

This has certainly gone off the rails a bit, but I absolutely do understand how from the perspective of an audience in a film a child endangering everyone would feel obnoxious and annoying, just like any other Scrappy character. Especially in this franchise where we've had hit and miss child main characters through the franchises entire run. It's going to both make people more critical of these characters and somewhat justifiably make the audience want the latest annoying kid to pay for all the other annoying "kid moments" the audience suffered through previously.

I don't understand the insistence on necessitating this, nor do I think it would work for a film going for a similar tone to the previous ones (the best way to keep the tone as it is but be more serious is to just not have a child main character [please]), but it makes sense as something audiences would like to see from this franchise. Just like it would make sense that audiences of Star Wars might want to have Jar Jar die. It's a natural reaction to these characters becoming so prevalent within a given franchise.

Just because it makes sense that audiences would want it to happen doesn't mean it would make sense for the film to actually do it. I personally have a very strong dispassion for the brothers from JW1, and would love little more than for those characters to be killed off in the next film, but that wouldn't make any sense to have happen. Then again, they did that to poor Spinosaurus (well, a proxy)...

This kid just wasn't even that bad though, I say, as someone who doesn't even like babies. The role was almost inconsequential too, anything could have alerted the Allosaurus, like an alarm clock or the DVR recording a TV show.