Franchise Jurassic Park Discussion

Collapse/Expand Topics

11:33:06 AM Oct 11th 2015
edited by MaiaMaiden
Can we rearrange the character sheets for this franchise a bit?

Now there are a number of characters who feature in multiple movies, but only have entries in the character pages for the first movie they appeared in. This is a bit impractical, as you need to jump from page to another. Dr. Wu is a particular offender, as his main role is in Jurassic World, but his character entry is in the character page for the first film. Rexy is hit by it as well.(As JW gets sequels, the problem will only grow.)

So, could we do something like what was done with Lot R/Hobbit character pages and combine all characters from the franchise into the same character main page, with subpages for human visitors, In Gen employees, individual dinosaurs, dinosaur species, etc? All characters would be collected under the same page regardless of the movie they appear in, sorted out by their status and role.

Alternatively we could have the characters who appear in multiple movies on the main character page , and then also have separate pages for characters appearing only in individual movies. This is how they do it with James Bond franchise.

Does anyone get behind this idea? I know it sounds laborious but I can do the work.
07:45:19 PM Jun 16th 2015
Does this franchise invoke Genetic Engineeringisthe New Nuke?
05:27:59 AM Jun 18th 2015
I am going to assume it is a yes, but in a subverted way. How does this look? I am curious if I have something, and not just my mind making up something that is not there.

It avoids Gentic Engineering Is The New Nuke, since the genes are understood, not some mysterious-superpower-granting-new-science.

05:04:39 PM Apr 5th 2013
  • Karma Houdini: Nick Van Owen is a master of Karma Houdini. He is responsible for every death (most of it happened to innocent people) in The Lost World but people (in universe and out) treat him as Hero or atleast as Jerkass Hero. Not to mention Nick stealing Tembo's bullets in order to save the T. Rex Tembo was after. In the end, said T, Rex goes on a rampage in San Diego. Killing many innocent people. And it was also Nick's plan to free all the dinosaurs which the InGen people had well under control at that point. That's right, Nick Van Owen is directly responsible for every single death in the movie.

Karma Houdini is villain- only and Nick, within the movie, is a good guy.
07:34:50 AM Apr 6th 2013
edited by Rotpar
This is actually a YMMV thing: Nick is a Designated Hero and Ingen is the Designated Villain. They made the dinosaurs, their plan to exploit their property was running smoothly and they had everything under control. Then eco-terrorism ruined everything and led to a ton of deaths.

It's a commonly noted flaw with the movie. But still a YMMV matter, and is listed on the YMMV page, as Nick is supposed to be a hero and a hero can't be a Karma Houdini.

Could he be listed as a Karma Houdini on the YMMV page, for that interpretation?
07:39:02 AM Apr 6th 2013
edited by Bisected8
It could be listed under Nice Job Breaking It, Hero!?

EDIT: Looks like at least some of the examples mentioned already are....
08:11:17 AM Apr 6th 2013
edited by MagBas
^^ I am pretty sure that only pages listed as ymmv are supposed to be put in an ymmv page.
09:05:23 AM Apr 6th 2013
Karma Houdini isn't a YMMV trope, but there is a caveat attatched to it:

"In order to prevent Complaining About Shows You Don't Like, please use only actual villains as examples. It might be true that the Jerkass Hero from your show gets away with more than they should, but that's really not what this trope is about. If you see non-villainous examples for the trope don't take that as an excuse to make one yourself, instead just delete them. Thank you."

If Nick isn't an actual villain then Karma Houdini can't be applied to him like this.
09:20:12 AM Apr 6th 2013
Ok, hadn't seen that caveat before. So yeah, Designated Hero on the YMMV page, but not a Karma Houdini.
10:28:09 AM Jun 16th 2012
Hmm... I wonder about the possibility of creating pages for the books and the films since some of the franchise's video games do have their own pages. May take a while...
06:59:30 PM Jun 3rd 2012
In the first film: Anyone notice the picture of J. Robert Oppenheimer by Nedry's workstation? Anyone wonder why it's there? Is it foreshadowing, perhaps? A Freeze-Frame Bonus?
01:29:36 AM Sep 12th 2012
Most likely the natter. Nedry IS a stereotypical nerd, after all.
01:59:06 PM May 13th 2012
edited by maninacan
Even cooler than dinosaurs would be the dragonmen.
11:55:30 AM Mar 6th 2012
Why does everyone say that Genarro was asking if the JP scientists were "Auto-Erotica"? Watching through the movie last night, it sounded more like he was saying "auto, uh, rotica?" He was trying to find the proper words for automated, slipped, and substituted "mated" with "rotica" (which isn't a word but it sounds like something robot-like), with the "uh" indicating he wasn't sure. Therefore, "Are these guys auto, uh, rotica?" It just rubs me the wrong way that people keep thinking he said "auto-erotica".
12:00:55 PM Mar 6th 2012
The way he says it is, "Auto...erotica?"

Also, what the hell else could "rotica" be? It's not a word, and it's not part of any other word that could possibly fit there except "erotica".
05:16:13 PM Mar 6th 2012
edited by Xenomoose
But why in God's name would he even be saying "Erotica"? It makes no sense whatsoever! And there's still that slight pause between the "e" and the "rotica" that sounds to me more like "eh" or "uh". Again, he was searching for the right word to say and came up short. It doesn't matter if it's not a word. People will make up appropriate-sounding words if they can't think of the real one. That's how tropes like Buffy Speak came to exist!

EDIT: And before anyone asks how "rotica" sounds appropriate, imagine it as a butchered "robotic" or a mix of that word and "animatronic" with an "a" at the end. Makes more sense to me, at least.
07:21:00 AM Mar 7th 2012
He's saying it because he doesn't know what the right word is—that's the whole point. He apparently had heard the term "auto-erotica" before, but wasn't sure, so he paused mid-word. Happens all the time in real life.
11:44:38 AM Mar 7th 2012
Well, that makes sense, then. I still don't like the "auto-erotica" thing, but now it actually makes sense, so thanks for clearing that up. Case Closed.
03:03:39 PM Jan 17th 2012
I was watching through the series, and caught an interesting little tidbit in the opening scenes of the second movie. While the mother and daughter on the beach are arguing, it takes a pause and you can hear the waves crashing in. but listen closer: there's a dinosaur roar in the wave. pretty clever.
01:18:10 AM Nov 18th 2011
The Somewhere, a Paleontologist Is Crying entry claims that from the time the film is set in, the fact that Brachiosaurs don't live in swamps has been accepted for decades. Thing is, I've seen a few not-too-old biology textbooks that still portray them this way. More an observation than a correction, I guess.
01:49:19 PM Aug 27th 2011
Am I the only person who looks at the HONF picture and thinks "Jazz hands!"?
03:00:49 PM Mar 22nd 2011
Something I just noticed about the recent edits that were moved to YMMV...

The Alternative Character Interpretation trope is being misused to point out the differences between the same characters as portrayed in the books as opposed to the movies. While the differences themselves aren't YMMV (they're pretty much objective fact, just as much as Composite Character) and could probably return to the main page, it's the trope name that doesn't really apply. Alternative Character Interpretation is all about how the audience sees the character, and how it might differ from canon, which is exactly why it's YMMV. But is there another trope that could better describe how the book versions of some characters are different from the same characters in the movies?
07:15:30 PM Apr 27th 2010
Conversation in the Main Page:

  • The Scrappy: The scene with Malcolm's daughter killing one Raptor with her uneven bars routine doesn't sit well with some people, but YMMV.
    • A lot of fans really hated that mother in the 3rd movie.
      • And her son.
    • Are you kidding? This troper thought everyone except Sam Neill and the kid were this trope.
      • Just Sam Neill.
    • This troper hated the novel version of Lex so much I was willing her to be eaten for most of the novel.

07:13:14 PM Apr 27th 2010
Conversation in the Main Page:

  • Science Marches On: A lot of the incorrectness, like Deinonychus being a Velociraptor, is due to this. It was what was believed to be true in 1992...
    • Both Deinonychus and Velociraptor are now known to have had feathers. Granted, the reptilian-looking ones in the movie are scarier without; modern reconstructions tend to make them look like demonic turkeys.
      • Your Milage May Vary; we now know maniraptors were capable of "WAIR" (wing assisted incline running), which means that they'd be more deadly if they had arm feathers; whereas JP raptors weren't good climbers, RL ones would had been...
      • The common perception that feathers take the "edge" out of these animals is unfortunate. Is it the loss of the Reptiles Are Abhorrent factor? Suffice to say, anyone who seriously thinks dromaeosaurs resemble domestic fowl needs to meet more avians...
        • If it helps the disillusioned: Think of a speedy ground-running hawk the size of a timber wolf, with a beakful of knifelike teeth, huge claws on all four limbs, and a taste for something bigger than mice and rabbits...
    • Lumping the genus Deinonychus into Velociraptor was primarily advocated by paleontologist Gregory S. Paul; it was never commonly accepted. Incidentally, Paul was one of the first paleoartists to draw maniraptors with extensive feathers — and they look Bad Ass.

07:11:30 PM Apr 27th 2010
Conversation in the Main Page:

  • The Film of the Book: The third film is composed 95% of anything from the two novels they didn't put in the previous movies (aviary, cloning lab, river chase...)
    • If only they'd worked the Carnotaurus in somehow...
      • They did. While Grant and William H. Macy (!) were wading past a pile of dino-doo. Sadface...
        • Sorry to make you sadder, but it's in fact a Ceratosaurus they meet. They never worked the Carnotaurus into the movies.
      • In a way, I'm glad they didn't have the chameleon Carnotaurus in the movie. Considering how it was done in the arcade game (where the Carnotaurus actually cloaked instead of color-changing and had some really goofy bugged-out eyes), I don't think the movie version would have been much better.

07:09:49 PM Apr 27th 2010
Conversation in the Main Page:

  • Designated Villain/Designated Hero: One of the main criticisms of Jurassic Park II: The Lost World:
    • The 'villain's" plan was working cleanly and safely, until the "heroes" intentionally release several multi-ton wild animals into their camp, take the slugs out of the best anti-T. rex weapon, and more. The "heroes" are directly responsible for every death in the film.
      • Not all the heroes. Just Nick & Sarah.
      • The others have to take some of the blame for not stopping them or even raising a word of protest.
      • They're not responsible for the deaths in San Diego, however.
        • Actually, they are. If Nick hadn't taken the ammo from Roland's gun, he would've killed the T. rex outright instead of just tranquing it. Thus, no T. rex in San Diego, and therefore no deaths.
          • Wrong. Nick stopped him from killing the T. rex, sure, but the protagonists had nothing to do with the greedy nephew's decision to transport the T. rex out. Sure, he couldn't have if it wasn't tranqued, but it still falls squarely on his shoulders.

09:09:28 AM Jun 21st 2010
Agree wholeheartedly. Sarah also got Eddie Carr killed through her recklessness. And the strangest thing is, they're never reprimanded for their actions, in fact, they have the nerve to criticize everything the mercenaries do.
05:03:03 AM Oct 16th 2010
Except that no, that's not the end of it.

And now we have an entry that's blatantly untrue, but we're not allowed to edit it.

"Directly responsible" is not true. Even "arguably" is rubbish. The heroes cause all the problems on the island, but why does everyone forget the last half hour of the film (other than it's the worst part of the franchise. I try my best to forget it as well)?

Ludlow planned to move the dinosaurs from the island onto the mainland (and into the middle of a heavy-populated area! What the hell?) all along. That was the plan of the villains from the beginning. Whether the heroes interfered or not, dinosaurs would've wound up going to San Diego.

And that had nothing — NOTHING — to do with the heroes. The heroes being morons had nothing to do with the Tyrannosaurus getting loaded onto the boat. The heroes had nothing to do with the Tyrannosaurus waking up and eating the crew. They also had nothing to do with the Tyrannosaurus breaking loose and going on a rampage in downtown San Diego (Ludlow was the one who shouted, "Check the cargo hold!", which resulted in the Tyrannosaurus getting free and leaving the boat. That's two steps of this disaster that fall directly at Ludlow's feet).

While Ludlow's subsequent death was their fault (they could've shouted out a warning to get off the damn boat before Papa T. rex showed up, and they didn't. The man was an idiot, so it might not have helped anyway), they saved lives in San Diego by luring the Tyrannosaurus back to the boat. The body-count in San Diego? Entirely the fault of Ludlow, and at no point did that have *anything* to do with them. They were responsible for lowering the body count in San Diego (even though they'd significantly raised the film's body count while on the island).

Nick and Sarah's stupidity caused deaths on the island. That's not remotely the issue. And does anyone really believe that Ludlow wouldn't have tried to get a live Tyrannosaurus for the San Diego park anyway? Ian Malcolm specifically pointed out that taking dinosaurs off the island was the worst possible idea, and he was completely right.

And I'm still not going to defend the mercenary villains. Yeah, the heroes got a whole bunch of them killed while on the island, but these people were still illegally poaching endangered animals. This is grossly illegal.

So yeah, that's my beef. Saying that Nick "overwhelmingly" contributed to all those people dying is not true — not because of Nick's (or Sarah, for that matter) actions, but because a significant portion of that carnage (a half hour of screen time) had nothing to do with Nick.
04:07:44 AM Mar 18th 2011
edited by EvilestTim
Obvious issue; he planned to move the herbivores they were originally trying to capture to the mainland. It was because the heroes sabotaged the merc camp they had to take the T-Rex, and because they sabotaged Roland's gun that it was tranquilized rather than dead. They weren't even planning to look for the T-Rex, only Roland wanted to hunt one.

So yeah, that was their fault too.

Also, they were not illegally poaching, they had been asked to recover them by the company that owned both the island and the animals themselves.
05:04:26 PM Jul 6th 2011
I think it's a case of Grey and Gray Morality. While Both sides have a good reason for doing what their doing, both have caused serious deaths. The only thing that makes Nick's side the good guys is that these creatures were dangerous enough on an island where they were contained by the ocean, get them to the US and it's an all you can eat buffet for the predators, as they would be easier to catch then their usual prey. Also I say leave Nick out of the Designated Villain/Designated Hero talk. He got drag into it while trying to rescue his girlfriend. I think if he had his way he would have taken his team straight out with her, and not interfered at all.
06:53:12 AM Jul 7th 2011
I think you mean Ian. Nick was the former Green Peace guy.
07:08:03 PM Apr 27th 2010
Conversation in the Main Page:

  • Adaptation Distillation: Many side plots from the book are written out in the movie and several characters are combined and their fates change. This is justified, as the book is quite long, has a Downer Ending, and very few likable characters (and there was no way studio execs were going to let them kill Jeff Goldblum).
    • In order to avoid a Schrödinger's Cat situation, in the second novel, Crichton allows the character in question to inexplicably get better. To be fair, his death was ambiguous, though it looked very bad for him. Not to mention his first appearance in the second book is to publicly announce that rumors of his death were greatly exaggerated.
      • The Costa Rican government refusing to allow Malcolm (or Hammond) a proper funeral is "ambiguous"?
        • The novel hints at, or at least seems to indulge, a modicum of Literary Agent Hypothesis — which, given Crichton's other works (The Andromeda Strain for one) might be expected. Potential Costa Rican governmental cover-ups or glossings-over might be a little more excusable if this is the case.

Collapse/Expand Topics