Jurassic World

@Bocaj: Pretty much-one of the major knocks against Crichton's work is that he clearly knows better, and sacrifices the accuracy of easily identified elements to fit the story. Which would be a negligible criticism if the same points were not 1. usually hard science and therefore not mutable, merely understood/not understood, and 2. That these easily disprovable points become major, crucial plot points that hinge the story.

edited 26th Apr '17 9:05:00 AM by ViperMagnum357

The sequel has officially been titled Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.

Sounds fearsome.

Dang, that's deep.

Well, Disney World is the Magical Kingdom. Makes sense for Jurassic World to be some kind of kingdom as well.

Just imagine if Jurassic Park was made at Disney under Miramax or Touchstone.

Or they could stay with Universal & call it something like Islands of Discovery.

Technically, the Jurassic World park contains at least one "kingdom" — namely, "Tyrannosaurus Rex Kindgom".

They should call it Queendom, since Rexie is female and the reigning queen of the island.

Tyrannosaurus regina.

Long Live the Queen Baby.

Film snobs are out in force (at least on Twitter), attacking this movie and anyone who plans on enjoying it. That kind of thing really gets to me, even though I know it shouldn't.

Really, though, is Jurassic World as dumb as everyone says? I don't think so. It's certainly simple and straightforward, and isn't really interested in big ideas like Jurassic Park, but I don't think a movie needs to be cerebral to be good.

I've said it before, but while the original Jurassic Park reigns supreme, all four sequels are pretty good too. Even Jurassic Park III is immensely charming, in my opinion. I kinda hope Fallen Kingdom brings back the Spinosaurus.

Say, what dinosaur species are you guys hoping to see in this one?

Jurassic World is a deeply flawed film, but also a very fun and engaging one with a central theme that resonated very strongly with me. There is a lot to dislike about this movie, but also a lot to like.

It's certainly flawed, but deeply flawed? I'm not so sure. In my opinion, its only real sins are A) that it's kinda shallow compared to the original; and B) that Owen Grady is kiiind of a Gary Stu, but Chris Pratt is such a lovable bro that it didn't get in the way of my enjoyment.

I also think the movie doesn't get enough credit for making Henry Wu the surprise Man Behind the Man villain. It's pretty ballsy for such a beloved franchise to pull a Face–Heel Turn like that.

edited 23rd Jun '17 7:38:40 AM by ThriceCharming

It looks like he will be featured more in the sequel, and it makes me wonder if he's going to get eaten by a dino this time. I know in the novel he was killed off by the raptors he created, so I am thinking it would be a Mythology Gag if he was eaten by a raptor in the next movie.

Also as people said I wonder as well how he became a Fallen Hero.

He was a 'bad' guy in the original novel. Although it was the Crichton yells at clouds version of bad, the 'you were so busy thinking about whether you could that you didn't bother thinking of if you should' and that means you deserve horrific death.

And when the could is bring back dinosaurs the should is always yes.

There's nothing particularly bold about Henry Wu becoming a villain. He's a tertiary (at best) character in the first film who barely has any lines or character and then vanishes off the face of the earth before becoming an Ascended Extra during Jurassic World.

Jurassic World's chronic issues aren't really anything sophisticated. It's a fun little film but it keeps running headfirst into brick walls by having utterly generic, one-dimensional characters saved primarily by the actors being charismatic, a nonsensical plot, some Unfortunate Implications (Owen's kind of a sexist dick and the movie doesn't care about it, the ending also implies women are only fulfilled in life if they have kids) and just some damn weird choices (the raptor squad being ultimately useless, Indominus random grab-bag of powers).

Yeah, calling Henry Wu a Fallen Hero is a huge stretch. Wu himself points out in JW that creating the Indominus is literally doing the exact same goddamn thing he has always done for his entire career as a character. The dinosaurs were never natural, they were never meant for any kind of great purpose, and they've always been genetic chimeras. The Indominus is just the first time they've done it without any pretenses.

This is more explicit in the novel, but no less true in the first film, despite the efforts to turn John Hammond from the villain of the piece into a kindly old grandpa. As Dr. Grant said in the third film, "What John Hammond and InGen created at Jurassic Park were genetically-engineered theme park monsters. Nothing more and nothing less."

Hammond got Wu for cheap 'cause you don't have to pay college students as much as you do professionals - spared no expense! - and then unlike the book, he actually lived to continue making theme park monsters.

edited 23rd Jun '17 11:51:15 AM by TobiasDrake

The reason I called him a hero, is probably due his Demoted to Extra status in the original movie. Back then he was more of a bit character, who was just doing a task that was questionable in motive. I don't think novel Henry Wu was as morally repugnant as the current movie version, who has survived to create more monstrosities.

As an aside, even before this movie was a thing, Wu's point about all of their dinosaurs being unnatural has long been one of the most brilliant elements of the franchise: it has a built-in excuse for Science Marches On. Any and every scientific discrepancy you can find in the dinosaurs can be excused by chimera genes and InGen's ignorance.

Why does Rexie have movement-based vision? Chimera genes. Why are deinonychus labelled velociraptors? Dumbass college students. Why don't the deinonychus have feathers? Chimera genes. Why is the spinosaurus so huge? Chimera genes.

I agree it is a built in excuse, along with the fact that they can get things wrong due to how often current theories on dinosaurs can change and new discoveries. It's the greatest Author's Saving Throw for the franchise, when a dinosaur doesn't really look like the current portrayals put out by the paleontologists. As the dinos are made for entertainment, I Ngen also caters to the public perception of what these creatures are like.

That reminds me that can explain a lot about why the Spinosaurus in the third movie wouldn't look like what the Spinosaurus actually was. Some theorize that the Spinosaurus was a protoype for the Indominous Rex. I certainly think they altered the Spinosaurus to be more like a bigger badder T-Rex, even though it was more of a water dweller who snacked on aquatic prey instead of being a super predator and is now said to walk on all fours.

edited 23rd Jun '17 12:01:31 PM by firewriter

I think turning John Hammond into a genuine man of vision who's also the world's sweetest grandpa was one of the original film's best decisions, to be honest. Jurassic Park didn't go to shit because Hammond was a bad, greedy man who did bad, greedy things; it went to shit because it had no choice but to go to shit. I don't necessarily mind a morality play, but I think the film is much more interesting as a thoughtful treatise on humanity's relationship to nature

@Thrice

Yeah, it's easy to go the route of greedy, bad decisions leading to disaster, but I think it's more powerful to convey someone who has a sincere dream and think they can find control over something that can't truly be. As said in the movie, a lot of the characters were sucked into the place and then were hit with reality that these creatures are beyond what man can fully control or understand.

Also speaking of novel Hammond, I really thought he was one of the most despicable characters in the book. The guy really comes off as sociopathic to me, and it's often times unsettling how he's still committed to the idea of Jurassic Park even when it's clear it can never work. It's no wonder he had to die, because he would still go through with his plans and wouldn't care about the damages caused due to his greed.

I'd like to add a subsection to "Chimera genes", namely, "Deliberate tampering". Wu also said they made the dinosaurs according to people's out-dated assumptions, even when science had since done it's marching. Rexie having movement vision is probably just chimera genes, the original raptors having no feathers, and subsequent designs having short feather-like ridges going down their heads and backs, is the park scientists deliberately altering the DNA to fit park attendee expectations.

The thing is, John Hammond is still a greedy, bad man who did greedy, bad things. The film just doesn't hold it against him. We still see shades of the original character inside the external Santa-like shell.

We see it in his dining room argument with Dr. Sattler, where she has to explain to him that the survival of their loved ones is a higher priority than retaking control over the park, a scene directly lifted from the novel.

We see it in this exchange with Dennis Nedry:

• Nedry: Or cheap? You know anybody who can network eight Connection Machines and debug two million lines of code for what I bid for this job? Because if he can, I'd like to see him try.
• Hammond: I am sorry about your financial problems, Dennis, I really am, but they are your problems.
• Nedry: You're right, John, you're absolutely right. You know, everything is my problem.
• Hammond: I will not be drawn into another financial debate with you, Dennis, I really will not!

The focus of the scene is on how much of a greedy shitbag Nedry is, but in the course of depicting that, we also learn that the entire reason he's here is because he came cheap. Hammond hired his workforce based not on quality but on the lowest bid. This establishes in-movie that everything he keeps saying about "spared no expense" is complete bullshit.

We see it in the scene where Dr. Sattler volunteers to go find Mr. Arnold, when Hammond feels compelled to mention that it should be him going, "Because I'm a...and you're a....", but doesn't actually make any move to do so. His sexism is conquered by his cowardice.

It's even in the premise of the movie, where the death of a contractor is treated like an obnoxious nuisance that Hammond wants to put behind him so he can get his park back on schedule. Hammond himself is the one to point out that the only person who agrees with him is "the blood-sucking lawyer" - great job biting the hand that feeds you, there - and despite taking the moment to criticize Gennaro that the park is "not meant to cater only to the super-rich", he seems entirely pacified by the lawyer's "Coupon Day" suggestion.

Hell, literally his first scene has him setting down a helicopter on an archaeological dig site. Who cares if he's potentially harming the site? John F*cking Hammond does not walk or drive. He parks his copter right outside your home and invites himself to your finest expensive beverage.

Really, the only major difference is that this depiction seems to genuinely love his grandchildren. Apart from that, he's the same greedy asshole he is in the book; he's just so outwardly charming that it's easy to forgive him for being an egotistical, self-centered shitbag nearly any time he's onscreen.

edited 23rd Jun '17 4:12:32 PM by TobiasDrake