Jurassic World

Claire was the park's manager. As in, the manager of the park. She was in charge of this one branch of Masrani's corporation.

Masrani, in turn, was CEO of a corporation that, according to Hoskins, is so large that he doesn't even know what all he owns.

There are a lot of levels of executive management between site manager and CEO. So far as the shareholders and board of directors are concerned, she'd be the big fish in one of a thousand small ponds, and having her pond turn into toxic waste on her watch isn't going to do her any favors.

Claire is in a perfect position to be scapegoated for the disaster at Jurassic World. It's completely out of the question that Jurassic World would be declared such an overwhelming success that they'd kick her up a dozen pay grades and put her in charge of the whole organization.

Nobody's coming out of JW smelling like a rose and Claire has the unfortunate quality of being the highest-ranking person involved with the fiasco that's still alive to be punished for it. By all rights, she should be handing in her resignation and clearing out her office by the end of the week, despite how entirely unfair that is.

edited 12th Dec '17 7:30:40 AM by TobiasDrake

Completely different circumstances though. Jurassic Park failed partially due to sabotage, and the number of casualties dwarfed Jurassic World's. It's possible to pass of the Park as an isolated accident that spiralled out of control and whose consequences were, fortunately, limited. World likely opened by explaning how they took all those new safety precautions so that what happened at the Park can't happen again.

Jurassic World meanwhile reaffirms to the public consciousness (and the public is dumb) that what happened to the Park wasn't a one off. There's thousands of survivors who can talk about seeing their loved ones killed by flock of murder birds. Ingen's CEO died. Most of the asset contaimnent people have been killed by I-Rex or the Raptors. And these were likely something Ingen touted as one of the reason their park couldn't fail. "We got those guys on site, any Dino steps out of line, our experts got them". Well those guys are all dead. There's no coming back from that PR Disaster. Heck, this is the smart phone era. Unlike Jurassic Park, there's probably Youtube videos of people getting killed by Dinosaurs for the world to see in Jurassic World.

Now yeah, they might try to salvage stuff (Don't know enough about the new movie to see why they didn't). But the concept of the Park is FUBAR. There's not an investor on earth who'd believe you'd be able to get asses into seats in a park that has twice turned into a rampage of dinosaurs.

edited 12th Dec '17 8:08:00 AM by Ghilz

I mean, it did work. For like ten years, it worked. It only went awry because one asshole was embezzling corporate resources for an unapproved pet project.

Sure, Masrani wouldn't want that info getting out. Legally speaking, the iRex probably doesn't exist, since it never got to have its public unveiling before the disaster struck. Which means they'd need to blame the failure of the Park on something else aaaaaaand I just defeated my own argument.

Fair enough. Official word is probably that the park failed because everyone involved f*cked up and Claire's ass is on the chopping block.

edited 12th Dec '17 8:14:42 AM by TobiasDrake

It doesn't matter how long it worked for. What matters, in PR terms, is that the park idea failed for a second time, and in even more spectacular fashion this time.

So going "you're 0 for 2 when it comes to creating dinosaur parks where the dinosaurs DON'T get lose and start eating people, and the CEO of the entire company died this time to boot. Perhaps you need to STOP trying to do the whole dinosaur theme park thing again" is to be expected.

Ian Malcolm could spend the entire film going "I told you so" to everyone and it'd be completely fitting.

Jurassic World is a zoo. Animals escape from zoos sometimes. It's a thing that happens and it sucks when it does, but you don't shut down the whole zoo and declare zoos to be an unworkable premise when it occurs.

The only person who'd be able to call it unapproved is dead. As Wu himself points out, he had all the signed orders from Masrani for everything he did. The only one who can say Wu went beyond the spirit of those orders is Masrani. Plus with Wu and his research having been evacuated from the Island in a higher priority than the guests, it makes making that claim rather idiotic and likely to turn into the company. If Ingen tries to throw Wu under the bus, it's likely he can bring them right along with him.

Animals that escape from Zoo rarely ever leave a trail of body behind. Even when it's tigers. And they don't take out the Zoo's entire security force.

edited 12th Dec '17 8:28:42 AM by Ghilz

Assuming the company's acknowledging the iRex, there are witnesses who can vouch for the fact that the security force in question was sent after it with nonlethals. Consequentially, the argument that those people died because dinosaurs cannot be contained would be immediately refuted with the argument that those people died because of improper decision-making on behalf of their superiors.

And then they'd point once again to the fact that the park worked just fine for ten years.

Yes. and why would the public trust the company who both sent the men, equipped them, and allowed this to happen when they re-open a park? "This time we'll probably send the guys with real guns. Probably. I mean, if it's financially viable"

"But it was Claire's fault" Ingen Might say

"So you didn't have independent reviews of the all important asset containment processes after the events of the first park and left all those to one Manager with no experience with animals? To make sure business decisions didn't put the park's clients in danger?" Public will respond.

Those same people in the room who saw Asset Containment get butchered will also point out that Owen warned them against using non-lethal gear, and that he was both ignored by Masrani and Claire. Sure, Masrani is dead, but his company will keep the blame. It's how things go.

And I doubt Ingen can bury the Irex angle. First besides needing to silence god knows how many people, they were ready to have Verizon stick their name on it, so there's people who know Ingen had some sort of super dinosaur.

And people will watch the videos of people, families, thorn apart by murder birds. Sensationalism trumps statistics every time. And that's without counting that Jurassic World was likely kinda pricey. Like, if you go to disney, you can at least find cheap hotels. Jurassic World was on an island it owned. the only cheap option is an hours long boat ride away in a different country than most visitors are from. So asking people to pay extra for a destination where people got butchered on "Trust us, the security will probably not fail this time" is tenuous.

Plus even ignoring all that: Jurassic World's premise is that the park's attendance is declining. So Ingen would have to send people to reclaim ALL the dinosaurs (which isn't gonna be cheap as you'll need temporary enclosures while everything gets inspected and repaired), and do clean up and re-open the park, do a MASSIVE PR push to undo the damage, all these expenses so their attraction which was already waning can go back in operation.

Calling it a loss isn't insane.

edited 12th Dec '17 9:06:48 AM by Ghilz

I mean, it happens literally all the time. A bad thing happens and everyone's mad at the company but then the company says, "Totes wasn't our fault," and everyone's like, "Okay, sure, whatever." Six months later, everyone's still buying their products and nobody cares anymore.

Public outrage has an expiration date. Marketability does not. Masrani can literally sit back, wait for people to shut the f*ck up and move on to the next terrible thing to be mad about, and then announce their grand reopening to thunderous applause.

That's basically how we got the JW park in the first place.

edited 12th Dec '17 10:46:44 AM by TobiasDrake

It helps to be the only game in town. But what it all comes down to is how badly people want to see dinosaurs. *I* want to go to Jurassic Park, because even if I do get torn apart by raptors, what a way to go, right? But what about normal people? Exactly how mainstream are dinosaurs in 2017?

We raise them for food and they constantly crap on our cars. Is that mainstream enough?

Why fly anywhere, when you can cover yourself in suet and birdseed and get eaten alive by dinosaurs in the comfort of any major city?

I have one that says hello to me when I get home. He's adorable.

Apparantly enough that people were getting bored of them in Jurassic World.

edited 12th Dec '17 11:55:43 AM by Ghilz

I mean, if you hang out with them long enough, they are just big animals to you, which is exactly what they are.

You should teach them to say "Alan"

edited 12th Dec '17 12:40:28 PM by RAlexa21th

Malcolm addresses this in the book. He says the concept of Jurassic Park is unworkable, unlike a zoo, because it claims simultaneously that it can perfectly recreate the prehistoric past AND perfectly control it without any breakouts. He points out that zoos do the opposite, they don’t claim to recreate nature and have breakouts all the time.

His problem wasn’t with zoos; it was with automated machine systems that claim to be infallible.

Well Dr. Grant and Dr. Sadler also kind of address that in the first film. They both point out that Hammond and co were taking dinosaurs and humans, two species separated by tens of millions of years and trying to shove them together to interact. And no one can have any real idea of what would happen in that scenario.

What they didn't mention but is also worth noting is that the dinosaurs in JP come from different periods and many never interacted with EACH OTHER either.

So it was a disaster waiting to happen basically.

Why didn't they mention that? You would think they would. Shame on them.

Well Pterodactylus and Mosasaur aren't even dinosaurs at all. At this point, with that idea, they could have sabretooth tigers show up and it wouldn't be completely out of place.

It still blows my mind that the gap between Stegosaurus and Tyrannosaurus is greater than the gap between us and Tyrannosaurus.

Eh, at least pterosaurs & mosasaurs fit the broader theme of “big Mesozoic reptiles” (and pterosaurs are fairly close to dinosaurs anyway).

Relevant xkcd as always.

edited 13th Dec '17 5:23:27 AM by Spinosegnosaurus77

Yeah, but Grant's also talking out of his ass and deserves to be punched for that obvious trailer line. The animals that were brought back are still animals. They aren't eldritch species from the planet Klatoon-5 that feed on sulfur or shit. Grant makes it sound like the raptors are going to start shooting lasers out of their eyes and shitting plutonium.

What you can expect is that herbivores gonna herbivore, carnivores gonna carnivore, and nature will happen in the exact same way it always does, but bigger. Hell, the biggest unexpected occurrence nobody could have predicted is the dinosaurs switching sex to breed, and that is explicitly identified as a product of their chimera genetics and not of them being dinosaurs.

Grant is full of shit and literally nothing that went wrong in Jurassic Park had anything to do with dinosaurs being inherently uncontrollable by virtue of being dinosaurs.

edited 13th Dec '17 7:34:22 AM by TobiasDrake

Well, they did bring back one species and then discover: “Oh crud, it’s poisonous.”

Wasn't that a plant?

Where did they even find amber-mosquitos that had drank the blood of plants? The film never explains where that prehistoric fern Sattler's nerding out over in the beginning came from, and I don't recall if the book ever addresses it.

I remember Sattler was pissed off about a poisonous plant in the book, but that was because it was sitting by the poolside and demonstrated the complete lack of f*cks Hammond gave towards actually understanding the nature he was trying to control. He picked it 'cause it looked pretty, but it was a toxic fern hazardous to skin contact sitting by the pool.

edited 13th Dec '17 8:03:56 AM by TobiasDrake

Dilophosaurus

Which you could still attribute to the genetic grab bag if you wanted since there are poisonous frogs and lizards that shoot BLOOD OUT THEIR EYES.

And maybe... seeds stuck in amber? I know they've found viable seeds in Egyptian pyramids. So that would be only slightly more ridiculous.

edited 13th Dec '17 8:05:02 AM by Bocaj

Not to mention birds with poisonous feathers and/or meat.