Ok so Dinosaurs and Volcanic eruptions just makes me ask one question. WHY has it taken this long for the JP series to put these two themes together?!
Story seems "so so" and does raise the question of why they are pitching a huge expedition to save these dinosaurs when, in theory, they've go the technology to restore them. One can only assume that the original DNA samples collected for the original creations are starting to run out (which is to say limited samples lost in several major disasters). So I'd be down with that line of thinking as to why they have to save these dinosaurs and relocate them and not just let them be killed off and breed up some more.
That said its a very different direction to what I thought they were going to go in after the end of the last film (I was getting ready for Trex riding soliders with tank guns; or Mission Impossible Raptors).
I must say I'm glad they're not going the military route the last film hinted at, that would just be throwing out the JP identity for a quick cash grab.
As for the rescue mission, given that the existence of the dinos is now public knowledge, perhaps they're considered to be endangered species by various official bodies rather than just 'products' or something created in a lab. That would explain why they're mounting a mission to get them to safety to preserve them.
The hint in the trailer suggests it could go either way. Either an official international mission of rescue or a "rag tag" group manages to get hold of some of the old gear laying around and rush in to do their own rescue (paid for by some unseen super rich company/benefactor)
Heck they might even be getting military money (we don't want to work with them but we have to save them - to save Blue - and T-Rex!)
One thing I'm really enjoying hearing about this is apparently about 75-80% of the Dinosaur work is animatronics over cg. So that should look good on screen.
I would hope after the number of films they've made that they are amounting quite the collection of animatronic devices and dinosaurs. Although Hollywood being what it is, it wouldn't surprise me if more than a few have been lost over the years as well (dumped, sold off, converted to other uses).
Often makes you wonder what they do do with old stuff, we don't tend to see many "Robby the Robot" situations these days with props.
I imagine most of them are still around. The advantage of animatronics/model work/practical effects is that you can take a T Rex head from the original JP and put it in a film in 2017 and it'd still look just as good. A CGI one from then, not so much!
Though I expect a fair few of the smaller pieces from the older films will have been sold off to collectors or museums ect.
To be fair, the cgi from the original JP holds up extremely well. I only watched it last weekend and there is really nothing to make it look out of place.
And in regards to the original Rex body, I remember watching a doc for JP3 and apparently in it's fight with the Spinosaurus, the Spino apparently ripped the Rex robot to pieces. So that's not the original Rex anymore.
Yeah, JP has always put its visual presentation first and foremost and presenting as realistic a spectacle as the technology allows. Much like Star Wars, visual and practical effects work across the industry wouldn't be as good as they are without JP having pushed the boundaries as far as they'd go.
Now I think about it, it's criminal that I've never actually seen one in the cinema, so I shall be rectifying that oversight with Fallen Kingdom for the spectacle if nothing else.
Okay they kind of lost me at the volcanic eruption thing, cause that just screams someone walked into their "planning for a new Jurassic Park meeting" with absolutely no idea what they wanted to say and just thought something up on the spot.
But I like Blue, and I'll probably go see it just cause I want to see what happens there XD
Lord of Hats - or they were watching classic dinosaur films in the pre-JP era. Loads of those "lost world" type films had volcanic eruptions. Often as not near the end it was that final race to escape the volcano and the dinosaurs and the cavemen/evil scientist all before the boat left!
I've liked all of the JP movies so far, despite the flaws. The first one is obviously the best, but all have been decent at least. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one after seeing the trailer. I did enjoy Chris Pratt's character from JW, so it's nice to see him coming back, plus they are bringing Jeff Goldblum back in, so that'll be cool. The visuals look good, but that's par for the course for a Jurassic Park movie.
ZergSmasher wrote: I've liked all of the JP movies so far, despite the flaws. The first one is obviously the best, but all have been decent at least. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one after seeing the trailer. I did enjoy Chris Pratt's character from JW, so it's nice to see him coming back, plus they are bringing Jeff Goldblum back in, so that'll be cool. The visuals look good, but that's par for the course for a Jurassic Park movie.
Eh, I'm with TotalBiscuit - Jurassic World was a better film and a better execution of the concept than the original(which was good, don't get me wrong).
I'm in two minds about Fallen Kingdom - it sounds an interesting idea, but I was actually kind of looking forward to seeing some of those weird plot concepts they were floating around right after World came out, like the tech being leaked out and "open sourced" and the consequences of that. FK seems like it might end up being a mashup of JP2&3, which is, you know, fine.
Up till now the dinosaurs were always isolated on that single island; barring one incident they've not been removed from it either (and that incident likely ended any idea or plot to remove them).
Perhaps the idea of this plot arc is to break the island thus forcing the dinosaurs to be relocated. Then in the resulting chaos we might see them split up. There could be more than one interested party in launching a rescue mission to capture them on the international scene.
Thus setting the stage for a 3rd film whereby the idea of dinosaurs off the main island and in different regions is already established; thus paving the way to continue the military application angle.
This film also brings Blue back and the concept of trained dinosaurs so based on who is undertaking the rescue that also sets the ground work for a further film whereby the trainers have taken a selection and, by virtue of how they work with the dinosaurs, have started training in general once more as part of how they resume keeping the species alive and potentially viable economically (new theme park - ride the dinosaurs or such - or just with the angle that fully trained livestock is less likely to escape and eat everybody!)
welshhoppo wrote: So we have a mix of JP2 ( possibly a rag tag bunch of guys) JP3 (The abandoned park.)
Yeah I'm in, I've like Dinosaurs since I was 5. Surprised that T-Rex is still going strong. Thing has been alive since the early 90s.
Hey, he's only 24. He shouldn't have even hit his prime yet
They reckon Sue the T-Rex was about 28, and she was pretty old.
Unless they somehow modified its lifespan.
They stated several times that they have modified lots about the dinosaurs to make them fit the public perception so no feathers etc - if they used modern reptilian dna as well aging is less likely to be an issue - crocs and turtle etc live a long time growing all the time.
welshhoppo wrote: Well seeing as T-Rex were actually pretty small unit about the Age of 15, I assume they also have rapid growth.
I know it's not "canon" but in operation Genesis (the best park building game ever) the maximum life was only a few years.
Totally offtopic somewhat but interestingly many species can have short lifespans in captivity until specific missing criteria for keeping them healthy is found. Fish are often a good example as the water qualities and temperatures can be quite complex for some.
That said, yes, the Jurassic Park dinosaurs are indeed heavily genetically modified, which is great because it means that changes in study of real dinosaurs doesn't make them any less or more "real" plus we can have Blue style raptors with an intelligence we can more relate too
That said, yes, the Jurassic Park dinosaurs are indeed heavily genetically modified, which is great because it means that changes in study of real dinosaurs doesn't make them any less or more "real" plus we can have Blue style raptors with an intelligence we can more relate too
On the other hand, it'd be quite amusing to have an 'expert' character spend a good chunk of the film irritatingly pointing out to everyone how these aren't 'real' dinos because they don't have feathers and the raptors are too big ect... then have him get eaten by one while he tries to explain how inaccurate it is...
'That T. Rex is not realistic! Not at all! It's too short, and it should have feath-' CHOMP 'Huh... realistic enough. RUN!'
I'm kind of excited about this, because movies about dinosaurs are in my wheelhouse, so to speak. That being said this specific trailer didn't really do anything to make me more excited.
The novelisation of the second film addresses the difference between real dinosaurs and these creations; Alan Grant is bemoaning the fact that funding for paleontology is drying up because people think it's easier and better to just observe the living dinosaurs, but he points out that their behaviour and genome is artificial, and can't tell you much about how real dinosaurs behind in the past.
welshhoppo wrote: Well seeing as T-Rex were actually pretty small unit about the Age of 15, I assume they also have rapid growth.
I know it's not "canon" but in operation Genesis (the best park building game ever) the maximum life was only a few years.
Totally offtopic somewhat but interestingly many species can have short lifespans in captivity until specific missing criteria for keeping them healthy is found. Fish are often a good example as the water qualities and temperatures can be quite complex for some.
That said, yes, the Jurassic Park dinosaurs are indeed heavily genetically modified, which is great because it means that changes in study of real dinosaurs doesn't make them any less or more "real" plus we can have Blue style raptors with an intelligence we can more relate too
I thought it was impressive how the writers threw in that comment in the last movie about how many of the dinosaurs would look quite different if they weren't hybrids.
trexmeyer wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this trailer looks absolutely awful?
No. I love this property and JW 1 was a fantastic homage to the originals while adding new concepts, but this looks like Rehash 5: The Bride of Rehashening. The Episode 7 of Jurassic Parks, if you will.
ZergSmasher wrote: I've liked all of the JP movies so far, despite the flaws. The first one is obviously the best, but all have been decent at least. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one after seeing the trailer. I did enjoy Chris Pratt's character from JW, so it's nice to see him coming back, plus they are bringing Jeff Goldblum back in, so that'll be cool. The visuals look good, but that's par for the course for a Jurassic Park movie.
Eh, I'm with TotalBiscuit - Jurassic World was a better film and a better execution of the concept than the original(which was good, don't get me wrong).
I'm in two minds about Fallen Kingdom - it sounds an interesting idea, but I was actually kind of looking forward to seeing some of those weird plot concepts they were floating around right after World came out, like the tech being leaked out and "open sourced" and the consequences of that. FK seems like it might end up being a mashup of JP2&3, which is, you know, fine.
JW had the potential to be better than JP, I can set my nostalgia glasses aside that much. But then the pterosaur stuff happened. That was just... really really bad.
ZergSmasher wrote: I've liked all of the JP movies so far, despite the flaws. The first one is obviously the best, but all have been decent at least. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one after seeing the trailer. I did enjoy Chris Pratt's character from JW, so it's nice to see him coming back, plus they are bringing Jeff Goldblum back in, so that'll be cool. The visuals look good, but that's par for the course for a Jurassic Park movie.
Eh, I'm with TotalBiscuit - Jurassic World was a better film and a better execution of the concept than the original(which was good, don't get me wrong).
I'm in two minds about Fallen Kingdom - it sounds an interesting idea, but I was actually kind of looking forward to seeing some of those weird plot concepts they were floating around right after World came out, like the tech being leaked out and "open sourced" and the consequences of that. FK seems like it might end up being a mashup of JP2&3, which is, you know, fine.
JW had the potential to be better than JP, I can set my nostalgia glasses aside that much. But then the pterosaur stuff happened. That was just... really really bad.
Eh, I think there were issues with actually connecting the characters. It could really have used a "Everyone Meets" scene. But yeah, pterosaurs picking up humans with their feet... that was just bad.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:You're saying they did to this franchise what they did to the people of color on the island?
Challenge for ya: Name a paleontologist who isn't white. Top Google results don't count.
Challenge for ya: Name a paleontologist who isn't white. Top Google results don't count.
I bet you the average person can't even name ONE palaeontologist of any race/colour/background. Whilst dinosaurs always grab peoples attention there aren't many within the field who appear often enough on TV or in other media to be commonly known to the average person.
It's odd but of all the sciences, physics seems to get an edge in the TV world; or at least has more presenters than other areas of science.
There's a vast world of science out there, yet there's probably less than a handful of scientists who make it onto the TV enough to be a known name. Heck consider that when most major studies are revealed to people through the media its often under the title of "major institute revels new discovery through study" rather than giving any name (which to be fair isn't bad because often as not most major discoveries are the result of team work)
Overread wrote: It's odd but of all the sciences, physics seems to get an edge in the TV world; or at least has more presenters than other areas of science.
There's a vast world of science out there, yet there's probably less than a handful of scientists who make it onto the TV enough to be a known name. Heck consider that when most major studies are revealed to people through the media its often under the title of "major institute revels new discovery through study" rather than giving any name (which to be fair isn't bad because often as not most major discoveries are the result of team work)
It's a matter of ego. Physicists are the surgeons of the academic sciences, god complex etc - and I can say that because I studied to be one - so they have a higher proportion of people who think they "should" be out there bringing religiosity to the fuzzy-wuzzies as it were.
As to the general dearth of scientific voices in the media, for that you can blame the media. They assume their audience are morons and so rarely put up *actual* experts, preferring to put a layer of "analyst" type people between the viewer and the actual information(this is also handy for putting whichever is their preferred political slant on the coverage), and on top of that on the rare occasions they do permit actual experts on the screen/pages, they almost always go with an adversarial "interview" format where the "interviewer" is really only there to prompt the actual expert and whatever coo-coo-cachew nutball/paid industry shill they have on to provide "balance" to have a big ol' argument.
Serious, rational people giving measured, evidence-based opinions aren't compatible with the modern corporate "infotainment" media format.
EDIT: As to the pterosaur issue - eh, I file that under the same category as "they should have feathers", and it's been adequately and plausibly handwaved by the genetic hybrid argument along with all the other oddities of appearance and behaviour. Maybe they had to use some Eagle DNA to stabilise the pterosaur genome they had and that makes them hunt like birds of prey because Science Is Magic or whatever.
I think when the main "baddie" of the film is a hyper-intelligent super-duper T-Rex/Raptor hybrid that can basically turn invisible, stretching your suspension of disbelief to "pterosaur hunting behaviour isn't 100% accurate to the present scientific consensus" isn't really that much to ask eh
Sadly its true, even big groups like the BBC Wildlife department have shifted far from telling detailed stories. Many of the TV they produce now jumps from species to species so fast they can only show a little bit of each one. Granted they are aiming to try and shift away from people knowing 3 kinds of African animal (and demanding more lions) to showing a lot of species variety that might otherwise just not get the demand to be shown.
But I do get annoyed at the casual level of information displayed. Of course the science community doesn't help itself much either; a lotof higher level journals/publications are often priced very high and there's often a genuine lack of good middle-ground comprehensive publications.
So you end up with nothing to lead people from those coffeebook style casual books (which are mostly picture books) easily into more advanced understanding. Indeed just finding some good publication can take quite a bit of research to find.
Challenge for ya: Name a paleontologist who isn't white. Top Google results don't count.
I bet you the average person can't even name ONE palaeontologist of any race/colour/background. Whilst dinosaurs always grab peoples attention there aren't many within the field who appear often enough on TV or in other media to be commonly known to the average person.
I'm pretty sure the characters I referred to were a CEO and an assistant. An assistant who spent all day with the boys and must have been the redhead's right hand at the office day after day. An assistant who died in a particularly horrific way and was never mentioned again by anyone, not even out of sympathy for her traumatizing last moments on earth or to ask about the whereabouts of her body.
Overread wrote: Sadly its true, even big groups like the BBC Wildlife department have shifted far from telling detailed stories. Many of the TV they produce now jumps from species to species so fast they can only show a little bit of each one. Granted they are aiming to try and shift away from people knowing 3 kinds of African animal (and demanding more lions) to showing a lot of species variety that might otherwise just not get the demand to be shown.
But I do get annoyed at the casual level of information displayed. Of course the science community doesn't help itself much either; a lotof higher level journals/publications are often priced very high and there's often a genuine lack of good middle-ground comprehensive publications.
So you end up with nothing to lead people from those coffeebook style casual books (which are mostly picture books) easily into more advanced understanding. Indeed just finding some good publication can take quite a bit of research to find.
On top of that, many scientists don't tend to be great public speakers.
It's why David Attenborough narrates the BBCs work because he has the voice for it.
I was going to say David Attenborough was a presenter rather than a scientist by training, but that's not correct; he has a degree in Natural Sciences.
Other than him, I can name Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Jim Al-Khalili and there's several historians whose names are on the tip of my tongue (the Scottish one from Coast and Vikings, for example, and a couple of women). David Bellamy, too, although I've not seen him in a while.
The problem is the repetition, for audiences with low attention spans; "coming up, here's a thing"; "the thing"; "before the break, we showed you this thing". 20 minutes of material stretched over 45 minutes.
I often wonder how much repetition is actually needed VS how much marketing/management theories "think" is needed. Plus if it one of those positive feedback loops in that the more you repeat the more your tester audience expects and then demands repetition and thus the more you repeat.
I also think its a shame that they cannot mix and match more so; having simpler shows and then more complex and in-depth ones.
Overread wrote: Sadly its true, even big groups like the BBC Wildlife department have shifted far from telling detailed stories. Many of the TV they produce now jumps from species to species so fast they can only show a little bit of each one. Granted they are aiming to try and shift away from people knowing 3 kinds of African animal (and demanding more lions) to showing a lot of species variety that might otherwise just not get the demand to be shown.
BBC nature documents used to be best of the business by far but they have too evolved into 'fancy' formats, 'racy' editing to make it look more 'exciting' and result is usually crap. Not to mention outright faking: there was a document about Ural mountains and bear scenes were from Western Europe. Or a document about Canadian wildlife where eagle attacking a Caribou scene was actually from Lapland.
Look at the evolution of the Walking With Dinosaurs brand. First series were simply like regular nature documents only with Dinosaurs and stuff with them. Sure maybe they exaggarated a few things (25 metre long pliosaur?) but overall it was well designed stuff which took its time to show us animals and tell about them. Compare it to more recent stuff: kids movie with talking dinosaur, a time travelling idiot trying to avoid getting eaten, "the fiercest/biggest/most evilest dinosaurs ever". Everything is 'extreme' with flashy "infoboxes" and swirling futuristic graphics. It is awful. Complete and utter garbage.
But surely I am just an old geezer who should go back listening gramophones and watching mute b&w movies? You know who really love the original WWD series? The kids. Walking with dinosaurs/beasts, Ballad of Big Al, they watch them over and over again. Newer stuff? Meh.
BBC nature documents used to be best of the business by far but they have too evolved into 'fancy' formats, 'racy' editing to make it look more 'exciting' and result is usually crap. Not to mention outright faking: there was a document about Ural mountains and bear scenes were from Western Europe. Or a document about Canadian wildlife where eagle attacking a Caribou scene was actually from Lapland.
There has always been a lot of creativity in wildlife documentaries. Many species its hard to get a continuous series of video of just one individual or a group of them. Hence why many have often been combinations of multiple groups which are then crafted into a single story, both for entertainment and because its mentally easier for people to follow and learn off a single story than off multiples.
There's a reason that you get things like the old "Big Cat Diaries" and "Meerkat Mannor" from Africa, but you don't see similar styles of show done on wolves or bears. The African plains make it a lot easier to track individuals and heck some african wildcats are so used to jeeps and trucks that cheetahs will lounge atop them. Meanwhile your average wolf won't be anywhere near most peopled things unless they are very isolated from human activity. Add into it the hilly, woody terrain and you've got a very hard situation to track.
That said there are liberties; eg grizzly bears hardly "roar" yet when audio has been done many were given lion roars to go with the motion; meanwhile there's that infamous scene that was faked of lemmings leaping over the edge of cliffs (actually a guy with a bucket tossing them over a rise and the camera to simulate it).
I think its fine to combine film from different individual animals to a single series provided that the behaviours shown are authentic. It can allow for a high quality story and show to be produced whilst remaining factual and true. I think the issues come when what is shown is outright faked/made up or guessed at in the extreme.
Also there's some fake stuff that is fake through simplification. For example a lot of nature documentaries talk of snakes dislocating their jaws; when in actuality they don't dislocate, but instead have a jaw structure adapted to allow them to open much wider than is normal for most species. One is a quick said phrase that likely started as "Well its like they dislocate their jaw" and quickly got shortened even more through time. Chinese Whispers can be a huge issue for education material as once a bad comment or two slips into a popular reference book or other material, it can quickly take root for a long time before its finally pushed out. Esp when the material is circulated to those who view it as entertainment more than knowledge - and thus inaccuracies can persist because of a lack of fact checking or cross referencing etc...
BBC nature documents used to be best of the business by far but they have too evolved into 'fancy' formats, 'racy' editing to make it look more 'exciting' and result is usually crap. Not to mention outright faking: there was a document about Ural mountains and bear scenes were from Western Europe. Or a document about Canadian wildlife where eagle attacking a Caribou scene was actually from Lapland.
There has always been a lot of creativity in wildlife documentaries. Many species its hard to get a continuous series of video of just one individual or a group of them. Hence why many have often been combinations of multiple groups which are then crafted into a single story, both for entertainment and because its mentally easier for people to follow and learn off a single story than off multiples.
There's a reason that you get things like the old "Big Cat Diaries" and "Meerkat Mannor" from Africa, but you don't see similar styles of show done on wolves or bears. The African plains make it a lot easier to track individuals and heck some african wildcats are so used to jeeps and trucks that cheetahs will lounge atop them. Meanwhile your average wolf won't be anywhere near most peopled things unless they are very isolated from human activity. Add into it the hilly, woody terrain and you've got a very hard situation to track.
That said there are liberties; eg grizzly bears hardly "roar" yet when audio has been done many were given lion roars to go with the motion; meanwhile there's that infamous scene that was faked of lemmings leaping over the edge of cliffs (actually a guy with a bucket tossing them over a rise and the camera to simulate it).
I think its fine to combine film from different individual animals to a single series provided that the behaviours shown are authentic. It can allow for a high quality story and show to be produced whilst remaining factual and true. I think the issues come when what is shown is outright faked/made up or guessed at in the extreme.
I don't mind if they combine some footage to make up for gaps (for example they need a good closeup from bear feeding and can't acquire it from authentic location). However if whole thing is made up from segments filmed in somewhere else, or even trained animals, then it is outright fakery. If filming bears in Urals is too hard, maybe not make a documentary about bears of Urals? Why not make a documentary about bears in Scandinavia if that's what you can film? It's same species of bear anyway. Only problem is that it lacks the 'exotic' location...
Problem is that documentaries are nowadays so obsessed about making 'stories' so they become 'gripping' that they are all written in advance, all the cuts and angles planned out in a storyboard, before any footage of the actual animals is captured.
LordofHats wrote: This. Seriously. I don't think I've ever met anyone who liked dinosaurs so much that they could actually name a real paleontologist...
I think everyone knows who Robert Bakker is at a minimum, no?
Because man, if you don't, go get yourself a copy of Raptor Red and enjoy a read.
Honestly I'm pleased to see it taking that turn of story twist. It's also very bold for the producers as well since most franchises try to remain true to their original concept. Which is great, but honestly there are only so many times that you can make "team of people isolated on island and hunted by raptors and T-Rex" before it gets just too old a method. Seeing them take the technology further toward warlike intentions is a very neat evolution of the franchise content.
I think it also gives them more freedom to be creative with the dinosaurs; and in a very nice way it also leaves the market quite open for another JP Original style film using more up-to-date dinosaur understanding and studies (feathers).
I'm also all for them taking this further and further through film after film until we have a T-Rex with "a frekking laserbeam on its head".
This warlike story also has the potential for some really emotional and deep segments when you consider that the original film had the use of the tech being for restoration of condors right at the very end; we never saw it done or heard it was done, but we saw them as a hint at the very end.
Weaponized dinosaurs is such a dumb, dumb idea I sure hope they don't keep running with it. I am sure they will, though.
Also loving the intro. Jurassic Parks are usually kind of adventure movies, except JP3 - which is the only one, IMO, that is what they should be: survival horror.
Actually JP 1 is outright classified as a horror. All the others are action flicks.
But i do hope they keep with the weapon idea to a certain extent. As i said earlier, it will become the family friendly version of alien and i am alright with that.
Ouze wrote: Weaponized dinosaurs is such a dumb, dumb idea I sure hope they don't keep running with it. I am sure they will, though.
To be fair, so is building a theme park full of dinosaurs a decade or so after several incidents of islands full of dinosaurs eating a whole bunch of people. JP jumped way over 'dumb' when they decided that another island with even more dinosaurs on it would be a good idea. So bring on more dumbness, I say!
To be fair weapon or entertainment - where else are you going to get the finances for your dinosaur project from? War weapons isn't so daft when you consider how much technology we use today is funded by or partly by the military. Heck WW2, for all its horrors, was a massive revolution in technology and technology investment and application.
In modern days entertainment is also a massive money earner. So it stands to reason that entertainment and war would be two key big investment opportunities.
Also don't forget the first island only failed because of a hacker; if the power hadn't been cut totally from the island it would have worked; meanwhile the other two films were more about bringing and working with the animals outside of containment.
So really the only dinosaur sparked escape was in the 4th film with a genetically enhanced dino. So technically speaking the dinosaurs wereo nly the problem once out of four times.
.
Of course the next evolution of the series is likely going to be a second or even several companies starting up their own breeding and modification programs. The DNA and technology is in the JP world so it stands to reason that other companies might not be too far behind.
And lets face it a dinosaur park - if you run one of those with real dinosaurs you are going to be earning vast amounts very easily.
Overread wrote: To be fair weapon or entertainment - where else are you going to get the finances for your dinosaur project from? War weapons isn't so daft when you consider how much technology we use today is funded by or partly by the military. Heck WW2, for all its horrors, was a massive revolution in technology and technology investment and application.
This always grinds my gears a little tbh. There is no "military funding", there is public funding being spent by military officials. There's zero reason we need to be allowing the military to act as gatekeepers deciding which things are funded by public cash, and zero reason to have any kind of gratitude or similar sentiment towards them for deigning to pass on a tiny, tiny fraction of the benefit of all the tax money they hoover up.
But yeah, weaponised genetically-enhanced dinosaurs is exactly the kind of willy-waving vanity project I can see the military engaging in at the public's expense.
Ouze wrote: Weaponized dinosaurs is such a dumb, dumb idea I sure hope they don't keep running with it. I am sure they will, though.
To be fair, so is building a theme park full of dinosaurs a decade or so after several incidents of islands full of dinosaurs eating a whole bunch of people. JP jumped way over 'dumb' when they decided that another island with even more dinosaurs on it would be a good idea. So bring on more dumbness, I say!
Jurassic World (in the new film) had been operating for years without major incident - its all about risk versus reward.
We have all seen the films but who here wouldn't go if they made a real one?
In short, it's good. I think on balance I just prefer the last one, but Fallen Kingdom really does deliver everything it promises to. The spectacle is certainly there, the action is intense, it's genuinely rather unnerving at times with some good jumpscares/sustained spookiness and the plot is engaging, with a couple of genuine emotional beats among the dino rampages, volcanoes and super-raptors.
Off the top of my head, that version of the theme isn't actually in the film, or if it is, it's only over the title screen.
The score on the whole is actually pretty damn good, between these and Rogue One Michael Giacchino is doing a solid job of continuing the legacy of Williams' work while adding his own flair to proceedings.
i didn't care for Giacchino's work on R1 (which I understand was very rushed). His scores for JJ's Star Trek movies have some OK moments, however (although I dislike the movies).
It was ... OK. Some fun set pieces, but the plot stringing them together was rather nonsensical. I enjoyed it, but out of all five, I'd just as soon watch the first one again.
Saw it and it was basically a remake of "Lost World" in the same vein as "Jurassic World" was a remake of "Jurassic Park". Plot didn't make much sense, but that is common with nearly all JP movies. And the premises behind the plot are incredibly stupid (dinosaurs weaponized and being invasive species).
The movie was awfully recycled, even by Hollywood franchise standards. There wasn't a scene, plot twist or concept or even a character which was in any way original. It has been all seen before, most multiple times. (Well I guess the brachiosaurus scene was kinda new and even bit touching, credit for that). But seriously you could make a drinking game out of that, but it would be unwise to play as one would die of alcohol poisoning long before the movie is over.
If you just looked it as a standalone movie, never seen any of the other JP movies, I guess it would rate as **1/2 or even ***. However as a part of JP franchise, point where it became parody of itself is now long past, and rated such it is one star movie, at best.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: No nannies or well-meaning interns terrorized for lulz, then? Maybe I'll give it a shot.
I was definitely hoping for some powerless intern who didn't really do anything to deserve it to suffer a lengthy and unwarranted death, far and away the most brutal of the entire series. I guess I'll see it anyway but disappointed already
RiTides wrote: I had to double check the release date after seeing the title - we've still got 3 days to go here in the US! I can't wait
Yeah I plan on catching this on Thursday. Our of all the movies coming out this year this is one of the ones I am the most excited about despite the fact from the trailers, it doesn't look very good, and I am pretty sure they are going to double down on that inane "dinosaurs as biological weapons" storyline.
But it's so, so hard to not like a movie where dinosaurs are killing people, ultimately. Just a single shot of a Velociraptor running through a jungle and jumping onto a person from 15 feet away apparently will wipe away a lot of cinematic sins for me.
The island action was OK. I did think it a bit lame that you knew great white hunter bro was going to be a bad guy literally within 2 seconds of seeing him, just like Avatar. Still, the actual volcano sequences were terrific. the sequence where they were trapped inside the bunker with an Allosaurus (I think) were great.
The whole second half of the movie was pretty damn dumb though. Beyond the "dinosaurs as weapons" trope which is honestly just stupid AF, they had to introduce such cheesy, over the top evildoers like a Russian arms dealer. A little on the nose, don't you think
I thought the whole point of the super raptor was it was supposed to latch onto Blue and be subservient? That idea seems to have been dropped for no reason. I also thought it was really original how Blue came to the rescue again, just like the last one, and how they essentially recreated the end of Jurassic Park for the Sega Genesis.
I didn't hate it but it had a pretty bad second half.
Ouze wrote: I didn't hate it but it had a pretty bad second half.
That is what I have been hearing. You can see they put a ton of money into the CGI and so it is pretty but the story peters out with the first half being enjoyable enough and the last half being painfully stupid.
The island action was OK. I did think it a bit lame that you knew great white hunter bro was going to be a bad guy literally within 2 seconds of seeing him, just like Avatar. Still, the actual volcano sequences were terrific. the sequence where they were trapped inside the bunker with an Allosaurus (I think) were great.
The whole second half of the movie was pretty damn dumb though. Beyond the "dinosaurs as weapons" trope which is honestly just stupid AF, they had to introduce such cheesy, over the top evildoers like a Russian arms dealer. A little on the nose, don't you think
I thought the whole point of the super raptor was it was supposed to latch onto Blue and be subservient? That idea seems to have been dropped for no reason. I also thought it was really original how Blue came to the rescue again, just like the last one, and how they essentially recreated the end of Jurassic Park for the Sega Genesis.
I didn't hate it but it had a pretty bad second half.
The first one was just the prototype. Blue was intended to mother and teach the next one they made.
I think I actually preferred the second half, to be honest!
As stated, visually impressive, but probably wait for video for most folks because the rest is pretty lacking. I'm glad I saw it just for the visuals, though - the dinosaurs were amazing
Meh. Found it rather predictable, and the environmental message was a little heavy handed at times.
I feel that they really missed an opportunity. They should have just let the dinosaurs get gassed. That would have been a gut-punch, and not really changed the sequel potential (Mososaur, Blue and genetic material would all survive).
The idea of dinosaurs as an invasive species was pretty stupid. Even though they apparently rescued breeding pairs from the island (other than Blue, and I didn't see another T-Rex), such a small number of large conspicuous animals would be easy to remove from nature. Ok maybe Compys might be tad harder.
Crazy_Carnifex wrote: Meh. Found it rather predictable, and the environmental message was a little heavy handed at times.
I feel that they really missed an opportunity. They should have just let the dinosaurs get gassed. That would have been a gut-punch, and not really changed the sequel potential (Mososaur, Blue and genetic material would all survive).
Oh yeah, I could see how that would have gone over really well with the younger audience and the parents
Backfire wrote: The idea of dinosaurs as an invasive species was pretty stupid. Even though they apparently rescued breeding pairs from the island (other than Blue, and I didn't see another T-Rex), such a small number of large conspicuous animals would be easy to remove from nature. Ok maybe Compys might be tad harder.
The Mosasaurus might be tricky, and the smaller more numerous ones could hang around like scaly wolves, but ueah, the rest? Well, there was only one of each of them, so they won't be a long-term problem.
Spoiler:
But then again, the T. Rex at least is one of the original generation, so can she reproduce parthenogenically, or would she need a male on hand? Still, not the first time San Diego has had a T. Rex infestation
I'm not sure how to read that closing montage; we're being told to feel sorry for the dinosaurs as some sort of representative of the current anthropogenic mass extinction event, but on the other hand, we're shown the Mosasaur about to eat a dozen surfers, the T. Rex in San Diego Zoo and Blue about to start hunting in a southwestern suburb (not bad going to get there from ... Oregon? Northern California?). They're gong to get taken out by Animal Control pretty quickly. The big herbivores might get left alone in the forests, depending how much of an effect they have on the landscape. That plot line worked much better in the two novels, where the smaller dinosaurs (possibly including raptors?) made it to the central American mainland before the park was even complete, so they could disappear into the rainforest.
Honestly, I think it was my second favorite after the original. It captured the “man playing God” aspect that Jurassic Park is all about at its core, had nothing truly stupid like Claire outrunning a T-Rex in heels, and actually felt like a survival horror mixed with the adventure that the first one was. It also felt like a natural progression of the series (honestly, something other than being on the island HAD to happen at SOME point!) that dealt with man’s desire to weaponize anything possible. I walked out not being able to nitpick anything. Which is a rarity for me. And it concluded for a follow up movie that makes me really want to see the next one. Definitely second best after the original.
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, I think it was my second favorite after the original. It captured the “man playing God” aspect that Jurassic Park is all about at its core, had nothing truly stupid like Claire outrunning a T-Rex in heels,
No, but she, the computer nerd and Owen are apparently fireproof, and Owen can run at 500mph.
But then again, the T. Rex at least is one of the original generation, so can she reproduce parthenogenically, or would she need a male on hand? Still, not the first time San Diego has had a T. Rex infestation
Actually, the first gen problem was that the dinosaurs randomly changed sexes. So little risk of that.
No, but she, the computer nerd and Owen are apparently fireproof, and Owen can run at 500mph.
That was real stupid. Owen would have been deep fried in real life, he was actually surrounded by the cloud.
Reminds me from one of the most idiotic scenes of all-time (and that's saying a lot), I think it was 'Behind Enemy Lines', protagonist of the movie ran through a Claymore mine field and emerged unscathed "because he ran so fast" even though the audience was shown how the mines exploded RIGHT AT HIM, like they were designed to do.
Actually, the first gen problem was that the dinosaurs randomly changed sexes. So little risk of that.
I think that the male of the pair was killed by Spinosaurus in JPIII.
So what's next for the franchise you ask? Well, the answer is obvious. We saw the Russians, Arabs etc acquiring dinosaurs. There is only one way forward...
Jurassic Wars.
Dinos were good and the two leads are engaging,
Glad someone actually called out Claire on the whole making dinos for money is bad when other people do it.
Afetrwards we did wonder if the new super raptor was going to have a link to the grandaughter - there are two scenes when it stretchs out its hand to touch or stroke her hair rather than just leap and devour her in the bed. and there is the "something in her eye". Maybe a plot line they thought about but never persued.
Amusingly stupid bad guys and Dr Wu will doubltess return - and plenty of others now hav dinos to play with.
Agreed that letting the gas work would have been a more interesting ending, Mosaurs are great - needed more of it and the T-Rex.
Jeff Goldblum was a bit weak as he was in Thor tbh.
Humble Guardsman wrote: Did anyone else leave with the impression that Blue is a bonafide action hero? I'm keen for the next movie, "Jurassic Park: Jason Blue".
timetowaste85 wrote: Honestly, I think it was my second favorite after the original. It captured the “man playing God” aspect that Jurassic Park is all about at its core, had nothing truly stupid like Claire outrunning a T-Rex in heels,
No, but she, the computer nerd and Owen are apparently fireproof, and Owen can run at 500mph.
The lava thing is something you always see in movies, and it really grinds my gears. Lava is HOT! Like really hot. Like, getting within 20 feet of the amount seen in JW:FK would be quickly fatal as a person's skin and hair would probably catch fire. The pyroclastic flow thing was pretty dumb too, but again movies always get the speed of those things wrong. It wasn't that Owen ran 500 mph, it's that the flow must have only been moving like less than 20 mph and contained no solid rocks or lethal gas. Another thing is, most volcanoes that make nice pretty lava flows like that don't even generate a pyroclastic flow. See footage of the recent eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii for that (no pyroclastic flows anywhere). Volcanoes that make pyroclastic flows are a different type, and usually blast their lava into the air in a huge explosion (where it rains down as ash and volcanic bombs).
All that said, I did enjoy the movie. Blue was awesome as Raptors always are, and of course I find Bryce Dallas Howard to be very easy on the eyes. It'll be interesting to see if there is another movie and where they will go with it, as they left plenty of room for more stories.
Honestly my only real thought on it was the realization that the premise of Jurassic Park has basically been stretched to its limit.
Agreed. I enjoyed the movie. It was fun. But the island and the dinosaurs has reached the end of it's life. It's bio-weapons and environmental damage now.
)
The lead characters work well together, the dinosuars are great - look forward to it.
- so they have a higher proportion of people who think they "should" be out there bringing religiosity to the fuzzy-wuzzies as it were.
