Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1012 (click to see context) from:
*** The point is that the people who are ''still'' on the island might have decided (or been asked) to put the food away in the refrigerator ''in lieu'' of the catering staff, either to help out during the one-off tour or even because they might have just not wanted the food to go to waste. But since circumstances made it unnecessary, they didn't bother doing so.
to:
*** The point is that the people who are ''still'' on the island might have under normal circumstances decided (or been asked) to put the any food away in the refrigerator refrigerators ''in lieu'' of the catering staff, either to help out during the one-off VIP tour or even because they might have just not wanted the food to go to waste. But since circumstances made it unnecessary, they didn't bother doing so.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** The point is that the people who are ''still'' on the island might have decided (or been asked) to put the food away in the refrigerator ''in lieu'' of the catering staff, either to help out during the one-off tour or even because they might have just not wanted the food to go to waste. But since circumstances made it unnecessary, they didn't bother doing so.
Added DiffLines:
*** So go with that one then; both are just being thrown out as possibilities.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1025 (click to see context) from:
*** It kind of is in this case, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only real reason they're there is to help establish the setting of the scene and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
to:
*** It kind of is in this case, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only real reason they're there is to help establish the setting of the scene and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, at which in turn raises point the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film.film becomes entirely valid. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1025 (click to see context) from:
*** It kind of is in this case, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
to:
*** It kind of is in this case, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only real reason they're there is to help establish the setting of the scene and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1025 (click to see context) from:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
to:
*** It kind of is, is in this case, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1025 (click to see context) from:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
to:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; answered lest the logic of the film completely fall apart; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the narrative of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1025 (click to see context) from:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the film, and then there's nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
to:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the film, and then there's slightly nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1025 (click to see context) from:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things. There's asking questions about the logic of the film, and then there's quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
to:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. The only reason they're there is to establish the setting and you're clearly supposed to view them on that basis, not get hung up on the hypothetical catering schedules of a fictional theme park. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things. things about the film. There's asking questions about the logic of the film, and then there's nitpicky quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Actually there is a reason; so they didn't have to go into the kitchens if they needed a snack, and could just stay in the guest areas where it would be more convenient and comfortable for them to access.
Added DiffLines:
*** It kind of is, or at least is arguably being rather unnecessarily pedantic; to get to this particular headscratcher, you basically have to ignore everything else that is happening in the scene, in particular the conversation outlining the crux of the ethical issues the movie is positing and the emotional impact of a man grappling with his mistakes, his hubris and his failed dreams of glory, to instead focus exclusively on some barely-in-focus cakes and a buffet in the distant background. Nothing in this scene insists that you focus on or question the presence of the buffet, and in fact it's very clearly minimised. To the extent that this is a plot-hole, it is far from one that leaps out at the viewer and demands to be answered; you have to ''really'' focus, likely over repeated viewings, to pick up on this one, which in turn raises the valid question of whether you're really focussing on the right things. There's asking questions about the logic of the film, and then there's quibbling about set dressing, and this thread, frankly, falls decidedly in the latter category. By all means ask such questions if you must, of course, but if you're going to do so you should at least keep them in perspective.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
I was mistaken about the concession point. This is the closest thing there might be to an answer, because though the evidence doesn't support it at all and it opens up even more issues, it's still technically possible. I don't buy it, but this whole thing has gone on long enough about this question.
Changed line(s) 1015 (click to see context) from:
*** Technically true, and this point has been conceded elsewhere on this page, but it still assumes a lot of things (why were the staff never mentioned at all? Were they just left on the island to die? Why were they not mentioned in the deleted scene from ''The Lost World'' as casualties from the incident?)
to:
*** Technically true, and this point has been conceded elsewhere on this page, but it still assumes a lot of things (why were the staff never mentioned at all? Were they just left on the island to die? Why were they not mentioned in the deleted scene from ''The Lost World'' as casualties from the incident?) An unfalsifiable answer is still an answer, though, however unsatisfying it might be.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
**** Yes. So why wasn't it?
**** Everything suggests they would have done this, though. There's no indication any catering staff is still present, and that they left before the storm hit, leaving for the weekend like almost everyone else.
**** Again, the suggestion is that the catering staff left well before any problems arose. Any problems the park faced are irrelevant and wouldn't factor into their decision. That's what makes this entire question so puzzling.
Changed line(s) 1010 (click to see context) from:
*** 4. It is never actually explicitly confirmed that all the catering staff have left that I am aware, making this a mere hypothesis, not technically a headscratcher; for all the movie actually confirms, there could indeed be an unseen skeleton catering staff on the island somewhere who would have dealt with all this (and who are currently facing some dinosaur-related issues off-screen that are preventing them from doing so).
to:
**** The building is still open to the outdoors and in the middle of a jungle. Insects would be a concern.
*** 4. It is never actually explicitly confirmed that all the catering staff have left that I am aware, making this a mere hypothesis, not technically a headscratcher; for all the movie actually confirms, there could indeed be an unseen skeleton catering staff on the island somewhere who would have dealt with all this (and who are currently facing some dinosaur-related issues off-screen that are preventing them from doingso). so).
**** Technically true, and this point has been conceded elsewhere on this page, but it still assumes a lot of things (why were the staff never mentioned at all? Were they just left on the island to die? Why were they not mentioned in the deleted scene from ''The Lost World'' as casualties from the incident?)
*** 4. It is never actually explicitly confirmed that all the catering staff have left that I am aware, making this a mere hypothesis, not technically a headscratcher; for all the movie actually confirms, there could indeed be an unseen skeleton catering staff on the island somewhere who would have dealt with all this (and who are currently facing some dinosaur-related issues off-screen that are preventing them from doing
**** Technically true, and this point has been conceded elsewhere on this page, but it still assumes a lot of things (why were the staff never mentioned at all? Were they just left on the island to die? Why were they not mentioned in the deleted scene from ''The Lost World'' as casualties from the incident?)
**** That first part is exactly it. Yes, the remaining staff and guests would've had to fix their own food from the freezers and fridges. That's the obvious conclusion if the staff is leaving for the weekend. So then why was all the food left out? These two things don't mesh. There was no reason to leave the food out barring this "unseen caterers" theory.
Changed line(s) 1015 (click to see context) from:
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and on a meta level (the filmmakers are establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area, so a quick glimpse of some buffet food helps establish this quickly), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie wrong.
to:
**** If 6 is the case, why did Hammond bother setting them up in the buffet line? 6a is more plausible for just the desserts.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and on a meta level (the filmmakers are establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area, so a quick glimpse of some buffet food helps establish this quickly), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the moviewrong.wrong.
**** If we were to never question anything that happens in a film, no matter how minor, then we wouldn't have Headscratchers pages in general. It's not watching a movie wrong to ask a question about something that doesn't make obvious sense.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and on a meta level (the filmmakers are establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area, so a quick glimpse of some buffet food helps establish this quickly), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie
**** If we were to never question anything that happens in a film, no matter how minor, then we wouldn't have Headscratchers pages in general. It's not watching a movie wrong to ask a question about something that doesn't make obvious sense.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1014,1015 (click to see context) from:
*** 6a. Alternatively, the cakes are not normally part of the buffet, but have been left out to welcome the guests back from the tour as part of a triumphant little celebration. Since there is no longer anything to celebrate, Hammond -- understandably somewhat depressed at the rapid collapse of his life-long dream -- doesn't really care if they spoil anymore.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and for the filmmakers (they're establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie wrong.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and for the filmmakers (they're establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie wrong.
to:
*** 6a. Alternatively, the cakes are not normally part of the buffet, but have been left out to welcome the guests back from the tour as part of a triumphant little celebration. Since there is no longer anything to celebrate, Hammond -- understandably somewhat depressed at the rapid collapse of his life-long dream -- doesn't really care if they spoil anymore.anymore, though he may still be willing to binge on them for comfort.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) andfor the on a meta level (the filmmakers (they're are establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area), area, so a quick glimpse of some buffet food helps establish this quickly), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie wrong.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 1012 (click to see context) from:
*** 5a. The duration of the tour is unknown but, presumably once the dinosaur tour is done, there's really not much else for them to see or do; for all we actually know, the guests could have been leaving the next morning, with the buffet there to provide snacks as needed before then.
to:
*** 5a. The duration of the tour is unknown but, presumably once the dinosaur tour is done, there's really not much else for them to see or do; for all we actually know, the guests could have been leaving the next morning, with the buffet there to provide snacks as needed before then. As noted previously, under normal circumstances this would fall well within the time before the food started to seriously spoil (though it might have been a bit stale).
Added DiffLines:
*** 6a. Alternatively, the cakes are not normally part of the buffet, but have been left out to welcome the guests back from the tour as part of a triumphant little celebration. Since there is no longer anything to celebrate, Hammond -- understandably somewhat depressed at the rapid collapse of his life-long dream -- doesn't really care if they spoil anymore.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Watching the movie back, pretty much the one time we see the aforementioned food in the movie is in the scene where Hammond and Ellie have their conversation over ice-cream, which takes place well after everything has already started to go pear-shaped. There are thus a few things suggested or implied here:
*** 1. There are clearly refrigerators in the food preparation and serving areas of Jurassic Park (that ice cream had to come from somewhere) -- ergo, the intention under normal circumstances was likely to store the food away in them when there were no guests around to eat it or between meals.
*** 2. The suggestion that the food ''would'' have been cleared away sooner, but was not done so due to events spiralling out of control, cannot be dismissed so easily. Again; this takes place well after the power has been shut down, suggesting that the people responsible for clearing the food away would have done so had this not occurred and other priorities -- such as getting the power back online, treating wounded individuals, and not getting eaten by roving dinosaurs -- had not taken over).
*** 3. There is also no real ''point'' in clearing the food away at this moment; the refrigeration systems have been knocked out with the rest of the power (Hammond notes this as he eats the ice cream). At that particular moment, the food is going to eventually spoil whether it's left out or whether it's stored away, so as they have bigger fish to fry at that point they might as well leave it out until such a point that the refrigeration units are back online.
*** 3a. Related to the above, as for "properly stored", the room would presumably under normal circumstances have been air-conditioned to standard room temperature, lessening the risks of leaving the food out under normal circumstances.
*** 4. It is never actually explicitly confirmed that all the catering staff have left that I am aware, making this a mere hypothesis, not technically a headscratcher; for all the movie actually confirms, there could indeed be an unseen skeleton catering staff on the island somewhere who would have dealt with all this (and who are currently facing some dinosaur-related issues off-screen that are preventing them from doing so).
*** 5. However, if we assume so for purposes of argument that all the caterers have left, then given that Jurassic Park is still "in progress" then it is possible that the skeleton crew and guests who are still on the island would be expected to "make do" without the caterers for the remainder of their duration on the island. (Presumably the skeleton staff remaining on the island may have been expected to move everything into the fridges, had they not gotten side-tracked with the whole "park falling apart" issues.)
*** 5a. The duration of the tour is unknown but, presumably once the dinosaur tour is done, there's really not much else for them to see or do; for all we actually know, the guests could have been leaving the next morning, with the buffet there to provide snacks as needed before then.
*** 6. As for the cakes and Jell-o, unlike the rest of the buffet these appear to have been dumped on one of the nearby tables in a somewhat untidy fashion. Given that we first see Hammond in this scene glumly wolfing down melting ice cream while silently contemplating his rapidly-collapsing dreams, the presumed implication is that these have not been left out by the caterers, but that ''Hammond himself'' took these out of the now-useless refrigerators and plans to at least partly eat them himself as part of his binging on comfort food to try and cheer himself up.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and for the filmmakers (they're establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie wrong.
*** 1. There are clearly refrigerators in the food preparation and serving areas of Jurassic Park (that ice cream had to come from somewhere) -- ergo, the intention under normal circumstances was likely to store the food away in them when there were no guests around to eat it or between meals.
*** 2. The suggestion that the food ''would'' have been cleared away sooner, but was not done so due to events spiralling out of control, cannot be dismissed so easily. Again; this takes place well after the power has been shut down, suggesting that the people responsible for clearing the food away would have done so had this not occurred and other priorities -- such as getting the power back online, treating wounded individuals, and not getting eaten by roving dinosaurs -- had not taken over).
*** 3. There is also no real ''point'' in clearing the food away at this moment; the refrigeration systems have been knocked out with the rest of the power (Hammond notes this as he eats the ice cream). At that particular moment, the food is going to eventually spoil whether it's left out or whether it's stored away, so as they have bigger fish to fry at that point they might as well leave it out until such a point that the refrigeration units are back online.
*** 3a. Related to the above, as for "properly stored", the room would presumably under normal circumstances have been air-conditioned to standard room temperature, lessening the risks of leaving the food out under normal circumstances.
*** 4. It is never actually explicitly confirmed that all the catering staff have left that I am aware, making this a mere hypothesis, not technically a headscratcher; for all the movie actually confirms, there could indeed be an unseen skeleton catering staff on the island somewhere who would have dealt with all this (and who are currently facing some dinosaur-related issues off-screen that are preventing them from doing so).
*** 5. However, if we assume so for purposes of argument that all the caterers have left, then given that Jurassic Park is still "in progress" then it is possible that the skeleton crew and guests who are still on the island would be expected to "make do" without the caterers for the remainder of their duration on the island. (Presumably the skeleton staff remaining on the island may have been expected to move everything into the fridges, had they not gotten side-tracked with the whole "park falling apart" issues.)
*** 5a. The duration of the tour is unknown but, presumably once the dinosaur tour is done, there's really not much else for them to see or do; for all we actually know, the guests could have been leaving the next morning, with the buffet there to provide snacks as needed before then.
*** 6. As for the cakes and Jell-o, unlike the rest of the buffet these appear to have been dumped on one of the nearby tables in a somewhat untidy fashion. Given that we first see Hammond in this scene glumly wolfing down melting ice cream while silently contemplating his rapidly-collapsing dreams, the presumed implication is that these have not been left out by the caterers, but that ''Hammond himself'' took these out of the now-useless refrigerators and plans to at least partly eat them himself as part of his binging on comfort food to try and cheer himself up.
*** 7. Ultimately, it has to be remembered that this is all just set-dressing, both in-universe (Hammond is giving his guests an impression of what the fully online park will look like, and is almost certainly willing to suck up the minor expenses of a little bit of potential food wastage in order to do so) and for the filmmakers (they're establishing for the viewer that this is the visitor centre's dining area), and is really not supposed to be thought about to any great extent. The viewer is almost certainly expected to see the food set out as a signifier for "restaurant" and focus more on Hammond and Ellie's conversation about the ethics of the park, and if they ''do'' focus on the former more than the latter, to the extent that this is possible they're watching the movie wrong.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 576 (click to see context) from:
* One thing that I just realized a short while ago, and frankly I'm surprised I seem to be the first. ''How are there so many perfectly preserved mosquitoes lying around?'' I mean, there are quite a few species between the two islands, and finding a millions-of-years-old animal that's perfectly preserved in amber isn't an everyday occurrence, let alone one that contains usable dinosaur blood. Are we to assume that there was an improbably wide variety of dinosaurs within a relatively small area, and every single mosquito in the area drank the blood of a different species, then sat on a tree and got trapped in sap? Or are they digging up these fossils all over the world? How do they know where to look? How do they know that every bug they find has dino DNA? How do they know beforehand which dinosaur the blood belongs to? Why are all of the dinos on the island famous StockDinosaurs (save for the raptors, but [[TheRedStapler as a result of the movie]] they've become Stock Dinosaurs...), and never any lesser-known or virtually unknown animals?
to:
* One thing that I just realized a short while ago, and frankly I'm surprised I seem to be the first. ''How are there so many perfectly preserved mosquitoes lying around?'' I mean, there are quite a few species between the two islands, and finding a millions-of-years-old animal that's perfectly preserved in amber isn't an everyday occurrence, let alone one that contains usable dinosaur blood. Are we to assume that there was an improbably wide variety of dinosaurs within a relatively small area, and every single mosquito in the area drank the blood of a different species, then sat on a tree and got trapped in sap? Or are they digging up these fossils all over the world? How do they know where to look? How do they know that every bug they find has dino DNA? How do they know beforehand which dinosaur the blood belongs to? Why are all of the dinos on the island famous StockDinosaurs stock dinosaurs (save for the raptors, but [[TheRedStapler as a result of the movie]] they've become Stock Dinosaurs...), and never any lesser-known or virtually unknown animals?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** "Properly stored" is the key term there, and most of that food wasn't. Jell-O and salad sitting out unrefrigerated for upwards of 12 hours? Cakes uncovered for the same amount of time? Yuck, especially on a tropical island in a building that isn't completely sealed to the outdoors. The only thing that would make sense to be left out would be uncut produce. As for a replacement catering team, that also wouldn't really work because the whole staff seemed to be leaving the island because it was the weekend; the storm wouldn't have prevented a new team from arriving because there wouldn't have been one to begin with, and the tour would've been over by Monday if no incident had occurred.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Okay, well, assuming the caterers did indeed all leave before the shit hit the fan, all of those food items mentioned are standard buffet items. They're there in case the guests feel like a bite to eat between meals when the caterers, for whatever reason, are unavailable to prepare a meal. And they're not ''quite'' as perishable as being made out; fruit and vegetables typically last about 4-7 days being left out before starting to go rotten, bread lasts about 3-4 days before turning mouldy (though it might go a bit stale), and jello can last up to ten days if properly stored. They're not going to become inedible overnight; those dates are reasonably long enough for, in normal circumstances, a new catering team to arrive, clean up, and replace the food without the guests starving or being forced to resort to cannibalism. In which case, the park failing ''is'' in fact sort of relevant, because it was presumably the storm and subsequent meltdown which would have affected the ability of caterers to arrive to replace the team that departed. Presumably in normal circumstances, a replacement catering team would have arrived long before any issues began to manifest with the food.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** The park failing is irrelevant, and only matters to this under the assumption that there was an unseen and unmentioned kitchen employee still on the island the whole time. The culinary staff presumably all left the island well before the storm hit, without an emergency to justify leaving out so much perishable food.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 499 (click to see context) from:
** This, to be fair, is probably just a consequence of the director and SFX team trying to make Malcolm getting the snot smashed out of him by the T-rex look halfway convincing with the practical model and doing the best they can with what they've got. The idea is clearly supposed to be that the T-rex is shoving Malcolm into the restroom with her snout as she crashes into it, but that was almost certainly the best or only way they were actually able to depict it under the circumstances; it's not a literal T-rex, after all, and Jeff Goldblum isn't likely to consent to genuinely getting seriously injured just for a movie effect, so they didn't really have much choice than to get him to squat on the head while some crewmembers pushed it into a wall and hope that, with the wonders of camera positioning and movie editing, it would look halfway convincing on the screen. And really, the fact that you have to "frame-by-frame" it in order to make it "extremely obvious" is testimony to the fact that it actually isn't ''that'' noticeable at all, and that they did the best they could to make the effect as natural and seamless as possible. But they're not literal magicians; acting like the filmmakers were genuinely trying to give the impression that Malcolm was sitting the T.rex's head despite this making no sense and then complaining that this doesn't make sense seems somewhat disingenuous considering that it's clearly not what they're actually going for and that what they're actually going for is incredibly obvious within the context of the scene. At some point we just have to accept this is just a limitation of the production process, and give them credit for what they were attempting within the limits of what they could achieve rather than acting like the fact they didn't get it perfect is a plot hole that needs to be pedantically taken apart.
to:
** This, to be fair, is probably just a consequence of the director and SFX team trying to make Malcolm getting the snot smashed out of him by the T-rex look halfway convincing with the practical model and doing the best they can with what they've got. The idea is clearly supposed to be that the T-rex is shoving Malcolm into the restroom with her snout as she crashes into it, but that was almost certainly the best or only way they were actually able to depict it under the circumstances; it's not a literal T-rex, after all, and Jeff Goldblum isn't likely to consent to genuinely getting seriously injured just for a movie effect, so they didn't really have much choice than to get him to squat on the head while some crewmembers pushed it into a wall and hope that, with the wonders of camera positioning and movie editing, it would look halfway convincing on the screen. And really, the fact that you have to "frame-by-frame" it in order to make it "extremely obvious" is testimony to the fact that it actually isn't ''that'' noticeable at all, all without close, repeated viewing, and that they did the best they could to make the effect as natural and seamless as possible. But they're not literal magicians; acting magicians. Acting like the filmmakers were genuinely trying to give the impression that Malcolm was sitting the T.rex's head despite this making no sense and then complaining that this doesn't make sense seems somewhat disingenuous considering that it's clearly not what they're actually going for and that what they're actually going for is incredibly obvious within the context of the scene. At some point we just have to accept this is just a limitation result of limitations of the production process, process and give them the creators credit for what they were attempting within the limits of what they could achieve placed on them rather than acting like the fact they didn't get it 100% flawlessly perfect is a plot hole that needs to be pedantically taken apart.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** This one's just simple RuleOfDrama: which one provides more conflict and tension, a carnivorous dinosaur hunting out humans for most of the movie because it's hostile, aggressive and hungry, or a carnivorous dinosaur which ignores humans most of the time because it doesn't really recognise them and isn't hungry for the most part? It's a sci-fi thriller about a dinosaur park going wrong, not a paleontological lecture.
Added DiffLines:
** To be totally fair, everyone ''was'' kind of preoccupied with the whole "park systems failing and dinosaurs escaping" situation; presumably under such circumstances clearing away the buffet leftovers and putting on a better meal becomes a secondary concern if that. Presumably had the whole park not, well, started collapsing into dinosaur-related carnage and mayhem they might indeed have gotten around to dealing with this.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* ''Headscratchers/JurassicWorldDominion''
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 985 (click to see context) from:
** Well, the baby raptor sadly probably died before Jurassic World (which according to the official wiki was not opened to the public until 2005, and so the island probably wasn't retaken until at least after the third movie i.e. 2001, otherwise they probably would have mentioned it in that film). The automated feeding mechanisms would run out of food at some point in the chain without manual intervention to restock it. So said raptor's life depends on whether the surviving offscreen adults a) succesfully avoided the T-Rex b) managed to find it inside the genetic labs c) had a parenting instinct to wish to retrieve it and nurture it from that point on (worth pointing out that the one in the novel ''didn't'' and devoured the baby instead!). Same goes for any of it's young siblings.
to:
** Well, the baby raptor sadly probably died before Jurassic World (which according to the official wiki was not opened to the public until 2005, and so the island probably wasn't retaken until at least after the third movie i.e. 2001, otherwise they probably would have mentioned it in that film). The automated feeding mechanisms would run out of food at some point in the chain without manual intervention to restock it. So said raptor's life depends on whether the surviving offscreen adults a) succesfully successfully avoided the T-Rex b) managed to find it inside the genetic labs c) had a parenting instinct to wish to retrieve it and nurture it from that point on (worth pointing out that the one in the novel ''didn't'' and devoured the baby instead!). Same goes for any of it's young siblings.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's worth pointing out that just before he was attacked, Nedry flipped up the hood of his raincoat, which the dilophosaur could really only interpret as raising his frills, which she would recognize as a threat display. His body language managed to convey ''exactly'' what his words did in a way that she could understand perfectly.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** It's addressed in the movie's Flea Circus scene. John Hammond is a showman who developed cloning technology specifically to create a genuine spectacle, not a scientist who developed cloning technology and then tried to figure out how to use it and settled on "Dinosaur Zoo!" Neither he nor anyone else involved in the decision making process at any stage cares about improving the world; they care about improving their own bottom line. Not thinking through the implications of what they're doing is kind of the entire moral of the story.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Keep in mind, there is no Watsonian explanation that covers all the bases - whilst "Hammond hijacked the inspection to make it a big publicity stunt" isn't airtight, it's the explanation I think makes the most sense (it's unclear how aware the investors were of the entire shebang). However, again, this is a question to which the Doylist answer - the problem in the book was completely different (compys getting off the island) - is the only really satisfying one.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 962,963 (click to see context) from:
** It feels like we're talking past each other. Yes, contractors, union reps, etc. would have also been good choices to send. The question is why, within the context of the film's story, were those kinds of people not sent? The answer given above about the tour in the film potentially being just one of several intended inspections makes enough sense even it's not completely airtight.
** Here's a possible idea to sort-of-resolve this debate - Hammond hijacked the inspection. This is the in-story explanation that makes the most sense - Hammond hijacked what was probably meant to be an internal investigation (possibly involving contractors and/or union representatives) to have an excuse to send his hand-picked experts and turn it into a big publicity stunt for the park.
** Here's a possible idea to sort-of-resolve this debate - Hammond hijacked the inspection. This is the in-story explanation that makes the most sense - Hammond hijacked what was probably meant to be an internal investigation (possibly involving contractors and/or union representatives) to have an excuse to send his hand-picked experts and turn it into a big publicity stunt for the park.
to:
** It feels like we're talking past each other. Yes, contractors, union reps, etc. would have also been good choices to send. The question is why, within the context of the film's story, were those kinds of people not sent? The answer given above about the tour in the film potentially being just one of several intended inspections makes enough sense even if it's not completely airtight.
** Here's a possible idea to sort-of-resolve this debate - Hammond hijacked the inspection. This is the in-story explanation that makes the most sense - Hammond hijacked what was probably meant to be an internal investigation (possibly involving contractors and/or union representatives) to have an excuse to send his hand-picked experts and turn it into a big publicity stunt for thepark. park.
** That only works for Hammond's side, though. True, it makes sense that he'd be allowed to pick his own people to send and pick those likely to side with him. But [=InGen=] investors are also a party involved, represented by Gennaro, and have no reason not to send the sorts of experts originally mentioned. During the helicopter ride, Hammond seems to suggest that Gennaro himself picked Malcolm, so maybe Gennaro is just incompetent?
** Here's a possible idea to sort-of-resolve this debate - Hammond hijacked the inspection. This is the in-story explanation that makes the most sense - Hammond hijacked what was probably meant to be an internal investigation (possibly involving contractors and/or union representatives) to have an excuse to send his hand-picked experts and turn it into a big publicity stunt for the
** That only works for Hammond's side, though. True, it makes sense that he'd be allowed to pick his own people to send and pick those likely to side with him. But [=InGen=] investors are also a party involved, represented by Gennaro, and have no reason not to send the sorts of experts originally mentioned. During the helicopter ride, Hammond seems to suggest that Gennaro himself picked Malcolm, so maybe Gennaro is just incompetent?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Here's a possible idea to sort-of-resolve this debate - Hammond hijacked the inspection. This is the in-story explanation that makes the most sense - Hammond hijacked what was probably meant to be an internal investigation (possibly involving contractors and/or union representatives) to have an excuse to send his hand-picked experts and turn it into a big publicity stunt for the park.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 123 (click to see context) from:
** This is AdaptationDecay, as in the book the system had several flaws that made restoring and keeping order impossible after the fat guy's partial system shutdown.
to:
** This is AdaptationDecay, as in the The book makes it more clear, that the system had several flaws that made restoring and keeping order impossible after the fat guy's partial system shutdown.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 112 (click to see context) from:
** Pitifully for you all, [[http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/06/dinosaurs-in-the-dark/ large dinosaurs might had been quite nocturnal]]
to:
** Pitifully for you all, Plus, [[http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/06/dinosaurs-in-the-dark/ large dinosaurs might had been quite nocturnal]]
