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.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Wow. That escalated quickly...

I do have one positive thing to note. There are no kids in the trailer. No kids means the dinosaurs can be really, REALLY scary again, and not watered down to spare the children.

But is there a stand in character for the writer’s ex girlfriend who gets killed in a ridiculously drawn out sequence?

As I've heard it, the story behind this is that it was written for this movie's despicable lawyer character as a callback to the toilet scene in the original, but the character got cut after the VFX team already had done most of the work on it, so they had to find someone else to die that horrible death.

 Vulcan wrote:

I do have one positive thing to note. There are no kids in the trailer. No kids means the dinosaurs can be really, REALLY scary again, and not watered down to spare the children.

Isn't that a kid at the 1:39 mark? A few seconds before that closeup, there's a side profile shot of him/her on some sort of dock and they look smaller than the rest of the folks.

And at around the 2 min mark there seems to be an adult holding a kid tightly on the ship that's getting surrounded.

Your point still stands though, just 1 kid means 99% of the cast sans ScarJo (unless they go hardcore) is on the menu for the dinosaurs.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

I do have one positive thing to note. There are no kids in the trailer. No kids means the dinosaurs can be really, REALLY scary again, and not watered down to spare the children.

Isn't that a kid at the 1:39 mark? A few seconds before that closeup, there's a side profile shot of him/her on some sort of dock and they look smaller than the rest of the folks.

And at around the 2 min mark there seems to be an adult holding a kid tightly on the ship that's getting surrounded.

Your point still stands though, just 1 kid means 99% of the cast sans ScarJo (unless they go hardcore) is on the menu for the dinosaurs.

According to Variety, there's the traditional shipwrecked family in the film:

Manuel Garcia-Rulfo (“The Lincoln Lawyer”) plays Reuben Delgado, the father of the family that’s been shipwrecked, which includes Luna Blaise (“Manifest”), David Iacono (“The Summer I Turned Pretty”) and Audrina Miranda (“Lopez vs. Lopez”).

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Wow. That escalated quickly...

I do have one positive thing to note. There are no kids in the trailer. No kids means the dinosaurs can be really, REALLY scary again, and not watered down to spare the children.

But is there a stand in character for the writer’s ex girlfriend who gets killed in a ridiculously drawn out sequence?

The writer's ex is the flesh eating dinosaur which really wants to devour the male hero.

 aku-chan wrote:
Mixed feelings.
On the one hand I've yet to see a Jurassic Park movie I didn't enjoy.
On the other hand this is what, the third or fourth secret dino island Ingen had? It really feels like they're struggling to come up with a new story idea.

Pretty much the same - I like dinosaurs - although IMO we need some zombie ones and Mila

Alright, so they're starting to lean into the more genetic monstrosities that the books alluded to. I can get behind that.

It can't be worse than the last one, so there is that. If it manages to be an okay action flick it will be a significant improvement already.

They've been trying to do dino-human hybrids in this franchise since the 90s.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
Have to say, I'm not feeling it. More a 'flogging a dead horse' than a rebirth. I'd rather go back and watch the original.

That's about how I feel

 LunarSol wrote:
They've been trying to do dino-human hybrids in this franchise since the 90s.

https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Human-dinosaur_hybrid

I hate it.

trexmeyer wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
They've been trying to do dino-human hybrids in this franchise since the 90s.

https://jurassicpark.fandom.com/wiki/Human-dinosaur_hybrid

I hate it.

I always thought they were a horror gag for Halloween Horror Nights. Never thought they were going to put it in JP4.

I've read a fair bit about aborted sequel concepts from the 80s/90s and they're consistently cuckoo.
Human-Dino hybrids is exceptionally nutty. I'm surprised it went so far as to garner concept art.

Sounds like Hollywood thinking to me.

"If we can make dinosaurs, we can make anything. If we can make anything, let's make super soldiers."

Mad science and power hungry military themes feature in so many movies it shouldn't be surprising that the Jurassic Park setting would attract that kind of thinking.

Besides, if the movies we have prove anything, it's that the makers want monsters that chase the protagonists relentlessly, not animals who'll happily let the two-legged morsels walk past them because their bellies are already full. Weaponized hybrids aren't much of a leap from there.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:
Wow. That escalated quickly...

I do have one positive thing to note. There are no kids in the trailer. No kids means the dinosaurs can be really, REALLY scary again, and not watered down to spare the children.

But is there a stand in character for the writer’s ex girlfriend who gets killed in a ridiculously drawn out sequence?

Didn't say it WOULD be good, or even scary. Just pointed out that without kids involved the opportunity is there again. Up to the studio if they run with that opportunity.

I do like the medical angle. Reminds me of when someone made sharks smarter, so they could cure alzheimers. I do wonder how they explain these particular dinosaurs being so different from the others. Because in universe, dinosplicing is a very thoroughly understood and exploited technology. It seems like you'd just start engaging in medical trials with dino dna enhanced drugs, rather than needing to hunt down wild, but still lab created dinos.

Yay! Let the slop fest continue!
Jurassic product coming to your cinemas soon!

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I do like the medical angle. Reminds me of when someone made sharks smarter, so they could cure alzheimers.

Deep Blue Sea, best noted for a shark jumping out if a moon pool and dragging Samuel L. Jackson to his death after making an inspiring speech

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I do like the medical angle. Reminds me of when someone made sharks smarter, so they could cure alzheimers. I do wonder how they explain these particular dinosaurs being so different from the others. Because in universe, dinosplicing is a very thoroughly understood and exploited technology. It seems like you'd just start engaging in medical trials with dino dna enhanced drugs, rather than needing to hunt down wild, but still lab created dinos.

The most obvious answer would seem to be that it's a spontaneous mutation that has happened in the wild and nobody has managed to replicate it in a lab yet. Given that's the reason the dinos even exist in the wild in the first place, it fits the established universe.

Of course, given that it's movie 7 in a franchise that only really has limited potential plot options, it's also possible that it's just something that someone thought up as a handy macguffin, and nobody bothered to think through the ramifications of it and whether or not there would be an easier way to obtain the necessary dinosaur bits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

Deep Blue Sea, best noted for a shark jumping out if a moon pool and dragging Samuel L. Jackson to his death after making an inspiring speech

AKA: The most telegraphed death scene in movie history...

We also have to remember these aren't actually dinosaurs but something of a "sort of dinosaur": they are all made from incomplete DNA mixed with other creatures DNA.

 insaniak wrote:
... given that it's movie 7 in a franchise that only really has limited potential plot options...

Good reminder that we are slowly getting to the one where they send a raptor into space.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
It can't be worse than the last one, so there is that.

True. On the other hand, that's what I thought after 'Fallen Kingdom', and look at what it got me.

Angronsrosycheeks wrote:
It can't be worse than the last one, so there is that.

Great. You've doomed us all.

It was great ngl, you see people talking down abt it but that gak was peak in recent trailers. Can't wait for the D-Rex and new cast to see if they don't mess this one up. There's potential to see some good come out of this, a new perspective of the cast and not just the people working on it, it's people finding all the messed up weird stuff. Hope good ol' green mouth gak boy is still doing great. Who knows, this is kind of a third trilogy to be honest. As long as they keep Owen and the others out of it but still able to be referenced, The OG cast in the same light, and everyone's favorite space slave owner.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ahtman wrote:
We also have to remember these aren't actually dinosaurs but something of a "sort of dinosaur": they are all made from incomplete DNA mixed with other creatures DNA.

that's literally what they've been making a point, if it was full, we would get animals that would probably die of starvation with a day, Indominous was made of snake and chameleon so the new one could had been even more saw dust for dough since it's now canonically the first "mutant/hybrid" back in the early days of all this. Watch it have a 5 minute monologue of explanation of it's DNA and how it's their first "water in the soap dispenser" dinosaur.

 insaniak wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Deep Blue Sea, best noted for a shark jumping out if a moon pool and dragging Samuel L. Jackson to his death after making an inspiring speech

AKA: The most telegraphed death scene in movie history...

Actually no, I saw it in its initial run and it was quite a shock. First, it was Samuel L. Jackson, biggest star in the movie, you really didn't expect him to be eaten so soon. Second, he didn't actually finish his speech: they dropped hints something awful had happened to him during a mountaining expedition years ago, and he was just in the middle of spilling the beans about it, but never got to finish. Third, one of the characters warned him about being too close to the pool earlier...usually when film-makers try to surprise you, obvious danger potential is somehow ignored.

Backfire wrote:
Third, one of the characters warned him about being too close to the pool earlier...

I mean, I'm usually just about the most oblivious guy on the planet when it comes to foreshadowing, because I'm just along for the ride... but that was exactly why it was so obvious, for me, combined with the scene going to great lengths to show you how close he was to the pool. From the moment he started giving his 'buck up, chaps, we'll all be fine!' speech in front of the pool, it was only a question of how much of his speech he was going to get through before the shark appeared.

I saw Deep Blue Sea in the cinema, and I loathed it. So many daft things.]

Like Sharks being made more intelligent means they can just suddenly adopt new tactics, like ramming the poor sod on the gurney against a window to break it (I’ll grant the intelligence to learn how to do that, but we never see the source of that knowledge)

And the whole…

“Did you genetically engineer these sharks?”

“Noooooo”

“Are you sure”

“We did a bit”

“What exactly did you do”

“We gave them biggerer Brians”.

I’ve watched it since, and it’s not improved any in my opinion.

My favourite part was how making them more intelligent let them swim backwards...

Indeed. Though I think I since learned some Sharks can close their gills?

Cursory google says that, like my parallel parking skills, they can do it, they just suck at it.

Anyways. JP.

I usually find the movies daft fun, with varying levels of daftness. But I can go another one.

 insaniak wrote:
My favourite part was how making them more intelligent let them swim backwards...

Or how they knew that humans could see them through cameras...
For me biggest problem of the movie are CGI sharks, however, they were bad even for the era. But I like nevertheless same way I like Jurassic World, it's dumb and plot doesn't make much sense, it's downright cringeworthy in many places. Yet good scenes in it are suspenseful and well done, and I watch it for those and my brain blanks out the stupidity. Indoraptor's super intelligence is certainly not less absurd than that of DBS mako sharks.

I haven't seen the sequels, AIUI they have pretty much nothing to do with the original.

As far as I remember Deep Blue Sea 2 is pretty much a remake of the original and Deep Blue Sea a followup on those events. I didn't find either very memorable. I do like the original one, though.

Back to Jurassic Parkworld, Jurassic World Evolution 2 got a DLC that adds megalodons to the game. If we're lucky we get enough Jurassic World movies that they eventually run out of ideas and make a megalodon versus mosasaurus movie before the Meg series beats them to it. I'd pay to see that.