Jurassic World- [SPOILERS]

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Sinful Hero**

kronk wrote:My wife and I were in agreement after the movie.

Spoiler:

The dinosaurs eating people and each other was entertaining and what I want to see in an IMAX 3D summer movie. The final fight was pure gold!

The brothers bonding bits were boring and took away from dinosaur on dinosaur hardcore action. Why does every Jurassic Park movie have to have kids?

I was sad when the ~~brontosaurus~~ Apatosaurus died.

On the bright sode, Brontosaurus is actually a dinosaur again.

kronk wrote:

Spoiler:

They should have bonded, then gotten eaten. For the irony.

Best Death: Baby sitter.

That's a bad way to go. Read a series of books that went into that(prehistoric monster eating people). It made me squirm.

**ImAGeek**

What books were they out of curiosity?

**Sinful Hero**

ImAGeek wrote:
What books were they out of curiosity?

Meg: A novel of deep terror by Steve Alton. Primarily a novel about Carcharadon Megalodon. Not going to say it was great prose, but I enjoyed it in Middle/High school. Had three sequels, one of which features Kronosaurus and. Lieropluradon(the fourth in the series ).

**KiloFiX**

As ridiculous as it may have been letting 'tourists' roam around in a 'hamster ball', wouldn't it work just like a Segway in terms of gyroscope and stopping?

**BeAfraid**

Orlanth wrote:
BeAfraid wrote:

Mono-wheels are another fiction (like AFV tanks).

They look good, but there is no possible way for them to work IRL.

Take stopping.

Cars and Bicycles stop because the front and rear wheels have an angular momentum that is separated by the chassis. So, when you apply the brakes, the chassis acts as a bar to the whole vehicle just rolling along on momentum.

BUT... If you put the brakes on a mono-wheel... All you have done is lock the passenger compartment to the outer wheel. That wheel keeps on turning due to momentum, just a little more slowly due to the added mass of the passengers suddenly being lofted (but that mass is added back to the momentum once the passenger compartment clears the top of the vehicle in rotation, and gravity returns the potential energy to kinetic energy back into the wheel).

There is literally no way to apply brakes to a mono-wheel to stop it like a car.

Just like the vehicle you mention.

You can only apply brakes slightly, such that the weight of the passenger compartment acts as a weight to slow the rotation slightly (you have to make certain the passenger compartment does not loft over the top of the wheel, but only rises slightly, putting its weight into slowing the forward momentum. . . slightly).

The Tendency of a mono-wheel to seize up during braking (or if it accelerates too quickly) even has a name:

Gerbiling

That is right, after the Hamster/Gerbil wheel (and not after the famous Richard Gere rumor)

I think the mono-wheels typically take about a hundred or more times the distance to stop as a normal vehicle due to this problem.

They also are impossible to steer at high speeds (they act as a gyroscope, and refuse to change direction - on a two-wheel vehicle, the differential angular momentum between front and rear wheels is what allows direction change, and why part of the reason counter-steering occurs on two-wheeled vehicles), and at lower speeds they fall over (or in the case of a ball, roll in odd directions all over the place).

This movie is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the Flaws of over-dependence upon CGI.

MB

Interesting, and I am glad I read the thread (and didnt spoiler myself while doing so)

Nice commentary on monowheels, I wonder if they are viable for small devices, for robotics?

They aren't.

They have been experimented with as a part of a modular system, but overall they remain just as unreliable as small robots as they do for large robots or vehicles.

You might be thinking of a "Unicycle" robot, which is different from a mono-wheel.

A Unicycle puts the cargo above the wheel, which allows for greater directional control, due to being able to rotate the wheel. Stopping is also easier due to the ability to displace the cargo forward while stopping to halt the angular momentum of the wheel. This is not possible on a mono wheel, because the cargo is INSIDE the wheel (it is a part of the wheel).

Unicycle≠mono-wheel

MB

Automatically Appended Next Post:
A small group of us UCLA Biologists (Cyberneticists, really: Computational & Systems Biology - but it's still biology) have been thinking about going to see it.

We had a fight via txt message last night over whether to waste our time on it, given that movies like this tend to be annoying to biologists.

I think there is a split vote on whether to go see it or not. Those of us in the pedant camp have a hard time suspending disbelief.

MB

**kronk**

If summer blockbusters had a pass a Scientific Panel of "Could This gak Really Happen", then summer blockbusters would suck ass.

**whembly**

kronk wrote:
If summer blockbusters had a pass a Scientific Panel of "Could This gak Really Happen", then summer blockbusters would suck ass.

I dunno... didn't they do that with Event Horizon???

Don't feth with black holes mang.... just don't!

Someday, I hope there's a future dino flick that has the same budget as these Jurassic movies, but goes full bore gore and mayhem Rated-R.

I love horror films.

But, for some reason, dinosaurs REALLY gives me the heebie-jeebies. o.O

**KiloFiX**

Dinosaurs are ho-hum.

Underwater dinosaurs on the other hand....

**timetowaste85**

I could watch a Megalodon movie every day...sad that there aren't many. And most are gone from Netflix.

**Wyzilla**

Sinful Hero wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
which was far too large for a mosasaur
Yes, but the largest known species of mosasaur could have reached near 60 feet in length, which is about the size of the animal in the film. There were also a couple of other species of mosasaur, that while not as large as the one seen in film, easily surpassed the length of an adult T. rex.

You also have to remember, the animals in the film were not true to how they would have appeared; they were reverse engineered from their closest living relative and made to appear how people wanted them to.

What ruffled my feathers was that if it was supposed to be a Tylosaurus they should have called it such!

I'm all cool with them changing the dinosaurs a bit to appease a crowd, but when I was a kid I would have called them on the size discrepancy.

Tylosaurus is too small, it was only around forty feet in size.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sinful Hero wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).

Or a Deinonychus.

Deinonychus is also too small.

**Frazzled**

Austroraptor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austroraptor#/media/File

romaeosaurid_parade_by_durbed.jpg

**Sinful Hero**

Wyzilla wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Sinful Hero wrote:
which was far too large for a mosasaur
Yes, but the largest known species of mosasaur could have reached near 60 feet in length, which is about the size of the animal in the film. There were also a couple of other species of mosasaur, that while not as large as the one seen in film, easily surpassed the length of an adult T. rex.

You also have to remember, the animals in the film were not true to how they would have appeared; they were reverse engineered from their closest living relative and made to appear how people wanted them to.

What ruffled my feathers was that if it was supposed to be a Tylosaurus they should have called it such!

I'm all cool with them changing the dinosaurs a bit to appease a crowd, but when I was a kid I would have called them on the size discrepancy.

Tylosaurus is too small, it was only around forty feet in size.

45.

Mosasaurus Hoffmannii would be a more likely candidate(59ft), which I mentioned a few posts later.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sinful Hero wrote:
LordofHats wrote:
Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).

Or a Deinonychus.

Deinonychus is also too small.

He was also around 11-12. How big is it supposed to be?

**Wyzilla**

Length has nothing to do with true size, which is hip-height and mass. Jurassic Park "Velociraptors" stand close to human height, have far larger skulls, and appear to have significantly higher mass. Deinonychus meanwhile was just the size of the largest domestic dog breeds.

**Frazzled**

Wyzilla wrote:

Length has nothing to do with true size, which is hip-height and mass. Jurassic Park "Velociraptors" stand close to human height, have far larger skulls, and appear to have significantly higher mass. Deinonychus meanwhile was just the size of the largest domestic dog breeds.

Which would have worked better for the book's sized veloraptors, as Genaro was able to throw one off of him. The movie version is substantially larger.
Having stood next to a life sized version (Austroraptors attacking a plant eater at the Houston Museum) they fell like they fit.

**Sinful Hero**

Wyzilla wrote:

Length has nothing to do with true size, which is hip-height and mass. Jurassic Park "Velociraptors" stand close to human height, have far larger skulls, and appear to have significantly higher mass. Deinonychus meanwhile was just the size of the largest domestic dog breeds.

Ah, my mistake.

**Hulksmash**

I liked it and had a good time. Granted, I don't think it would have worked at all without someone like Chris Pratt in it.

**Bronzefists42**

I was left in a strange cocktail emotions after viewing this film none of them particularly positive.

The film was a muddled mess in the pacing, plot, character and overall storytelling departments.

The worst part of the film is either the ridiculous and pathetic attempt to humanize prehistoric killing machines, the garbled rant that drones are somehow inferior to said uncontrollable animals, or that wretched last fight.

It made more of an attempt to be a high minded cyber thriller like JP1 and it had Chris Pratt so that's good.

Overall I'd put it in the same spot as Jurassic Park 3.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
kronk wrote:
If summer blockbusters had a pass a Scientific Panel of "Could This gak Really Happen", then summer blockbusters would suck ass.

I dunno... didn't they do that with Event Horizon???

Don't feth with black holes mang.... just don't!

Someday, I hope there's a future dino flick that has the same budget as these Jurassic movies, but goes full bore gore and mayhem Rated-R.

I love horror films.

But, for some reason, dinosaurs REALLY gives me the heebie-jeebies. o.O

Well your looking for some kind of fabled high budget version of "Carnosaur."

**ScootyPuffJunior**

Bronzefists42 wrote:
that wretched last fight

That was the best part because it was only dinosaurs instead poorly written humans doing things.

It made more of an attempt to be a high minded cyber thriller like JP1 and it had Chris Pratt so that's good.

As awesome as it was, Jurassic Park was neither high minded or a cyber thriller. The book on the other hand, sure... but not the movie.

**Bronzefists42**

Well it certainly wasn't as high minded but it came much closer than any of its sequels.

There has been nothing close to the concepts being exchanged in the iconic "slap it on a lunchbox and mass produce it" scene from JP1 in the franchise, particularly this installment.

The drone rant was just insulting.

**master of ordinance**

I.... I want to say that I liked it. I grew up on Jurassic Park and its sequels. I really loved them, even the third.

This film though.... It just lacked things. The Raptors apparently being human friends, the fact that no one bothered to check the tracker implant on the hybrid before they wandered into its enclosure, the afore mentioned attack of the flying dino's, most of which would avoid people and ate fish.
The fact that the hybrid killed for fun.
The attempts to re-create the old classic scenes from 1, 2 and 3 (The Trex/Raptor battle from film 1, the Raptor field from film 2 and the pterodactyl flying alongside the helicopter from 3) but 'in HD'.

There is potential. Potential for another film, but one that does not hold back and does not have that damn romance undercurrent.
Potential for one that has less of the multi dino tag team and general derpiness (T'rex and Raptors not just killing the squishy humans after taking down I'Rex(loving that name btw) and does not have a human in high heels out running a Tyrannosaur, a creature that can reach around 4 times the speed a human can in proper foot wear.)
Potential for one that has some real dinosaur hunting people horror.
And a severe lack of potential for one that involves Raptors being trained for army uses and all this bull about Drones being usless (seriously, an army of Raptors advancing would last as long as cavalry against modern firearms)

There is the potential. Its just not being realised.

**AduroT**

There's nothing wrong with the iRex killing for fun. Lots of animals do that.

**ImAGeek**

It's not like the film was proposing that Velociraptors would be better than drones, it was the character in the film, who was an idiot, and everyone disagreed with him.

**Sinful Hero**

AduroT wrote:
There's nothing wrong with the iRex killing for fun. Lots of animals do that.

Yeah the iRex getting loose was a "Fox in the Henhouse" situation.

**FacebookJunkie**

LordofHats wrote:
Better than the last two in the series, not as good as the first, but worth the price of admission. World managed to recapture the 'awe' of the first film, which I think really helped it stand out compared to Lost World (was made to sell toys) and III (made too... to). Everyone knew what this movie would be about, and the movie knew what people wanted and it was okay enough in the end.

Spoiler alert; DINOSAURS EAT PEOPLE!

Though gotta say;

Spoiler:

This film is a really big example of a movie that benefited nothing at all from the cliche'd romance subplot. Hell, it wasn't even convincing. The film was so unconvincing on it I feel like some marketers sat down and said "eh good enough" and left it at that just because they though there had to be a kiss and faux attempt at romance just cause it 'supposed' to be there.

"made to sell toys"

"some marketers sat down and said 'eh good enough'"

Sounds like a GW codex or Formation prodution meeting...

**VictorVonTzeentch**

I liked it, sure there was pacing issues and some silly things like the Drone talk (which is just a guy trying to make a bad point to further his goals) and a woman in heels out running a T-Rex.

But I went in expecting nothing, bought a ticket while at work on a whim and then went after to see it. What I got was fun that reminded me of my childhood. I know as a kid I sure would have wanted a pack of Raptors. The I-Rex, hell I think I had an idea like that as a kid. The return to the old visitors center was good, and I enjoyed Pratt as a not super serious Ex-Military man. Because you know that is a thing, most Vets I know aren't super serious.

It was good to get in there and let some of these silly things slide for once rather than being slightly frustrated at plots holes (Im looking at you Avengers 2).

**Wyzilla**

VictorVonTzeentch wrote:
I liked it, sure there was pacing issues and some silly things like the Drone talk (which is just a guy trying to make a bad point to further his goals) and a woman in heels out running a T-Rex.

But I went in expecting nothing, bought a ticket while at work on a whim and then went after to see it. What I got was fun that reminded me of my childhood. I know as a kid I sure would have wanted a pack of Raptors. The I-Rex, hell I think I had an idea like that as a kid. The return to the old visitors center was good, and I enjoyed Pratt as a not super serious Ex-Military man. Because you know that is a thing, most Vets I know aren't super serious.

It was good to get in there and let some of these silly things slide for once rather than being slightly frustrated at plots holes (Im looking at you Avengers 2).

T.Rex's max speed likely clocked out around twenty miles per hour, so it's not unreasonable for her to have left the Tyrannosaur in the dust if she wasn't wearing heels. Although considering it's top speed may have been as low as fifteen miles per hour, she may have even been able to do it in heels.

**VictorVonTzeentch**

True enough, and I guess she had had all day to practice running in those heels.

**Kanluwen**

Eli Roth is helming a film version of "Meg", apparently.

Got announced an hour or two ago.

**Ratius**

Thoroughly enjoyed it. decent plot and enjoyable subplot with the ImGen weaponisation angle, great CGI (saw it in 3D) and the characters were pretty solid.
Sure there were a few flaws (how exactly did the lead lady end up with her breasts nearly out, chest covered in sweat and her skirt right up her thigh? oh yeah gotcha) and plot holes but it was a solid romp.
Some great little homages to the original and that end fight was awesome. Managed to do more in that 10 mins than the whole of the last Godzilla film did in 2 hours.
Defo worth a watch in 3D.

**Sinful Hero**

Kanluwen wrote:Eli Roth is helming a film version of "Meg", apparently.

Got announced an hour or two ago.

Awesome.

Ratius wrote:Thoroughly enjoyed it. decent plot and enjoyable subplot with the ImGen weaponisation angle, great CGI (saw it in 3D) and the characters were pretty solid.
Sure there were a few flaws (how exactly did the lead lady end up with her breasts nearly out, chest covered in sweat and her skirt right up her thigh? oh yeah gotcha) and plot holes but it was a solid romp.
Some great little homages to the original and that end fight was awesome. Managed to do more in that 10 mins than the whole of the last Godzilla film did in 2 hours.
Defo worth a watch in 3D.

To be fair, Godzilla was supposed to be slow. It was more an homage to the original.