An adventure 65 million years in the making — but it didn't take nearly that long before the fans found out that some scenes should have been fossilized instead.
Keep in mind:
- Sign your entries
- One moment per movie to a troper, if multiple entries are signed to the same troper the more recent one will be cut.
- Moments only, no "just everything he said," or "This entire show," or "This entire series" entries.
- No contesting entries. This is subjective, the entry is their opinion.
- No natter. As above, anything contesting an entry will be cut, and anything that's just contributing more can be made its own entry.
- Explain why it's a Dethroning Moment of Suck.
- No Real Life examples including Executive Meddling. That's just asking for trouble.
- No ALLCAPS, no bold, and no italics unless it's the title of a work. We are not yelling the DMoSs out loud.
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
- Retloclive: The moment it's revealed that Nick took the bullets out of Roland's hunting rifle at some point before the T-rex attacked their night camp. Wow dude. Way to screw over the people that helped ya up the cliff, and protected ya along the way to the island radio station. Nick basically got more people killed for no legitimate reason by keeping Roland from being able to kill the T-rex. Also, what was up with Roland only having two bullets to begin with? The movie makes it seem like stealing just two bullets is a big deal as if a hunter wouldn't be stocked up on a ton more.
Jurassic Park III
- Enchanter468: In Jurassic Park III, the moment where the a Spinosaurus mauls a T-Rex. I understand Spinosaurus was slightly larger, but just think about this for a moment. The T-Rex opens the fight by running up and chomping on the Spinosaur's neck, and it only inflicts some superficial cuts!? Those things' teeth were serrated and rounded in cross section to sustain greater bite force, and fossils of their victims show that those teeth could cut right through skin and muscle and punch big fracking holes in the bones. Couple that with the dinosaur's massive jaw pressure, and that first neck chomp should have crippled the Spinosaurus for life, if not killed it outright.
- Baronobeefdip: Agreed. The whole "Spino VS. T. rex" battle was little more than for Jack Horner (the Paleontologist who helped with the so-called "accuracy" of the dinosaurs in the films) to show off his dubious "Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger" hypothesis. Apparently, the filmmakers (and Horner himself) have forgotten that there's (though limited) fossil evidence that T. rex was a social animal (It may have lived in small family groups)... which means that Spinosaurus would've had to deal with not just one Tyrannosaurus but several. All these inaccuracies just makes the "T. rex VS Spino" scene all the more a DMOS.
- Darkwing: T-Rex had one of the strongest jaws strength's in the fossil record, definitly more so that Spinosaurus. And even if it was a scavenger, that does not mean it would automatically lose the fight. Some animals steal kills from other predators, and that means they have to be able to chase the animal that made the kill away, and make sure it doesn't take it back. Even if Horner is convinced T-Rex couldn't chase down prey, that does not mean it can't win a fight.
- CJ Croen 1393: They may have been the only good part of that film, but the toothy Pteranodons are unforgivable for me. For reference, Pteranodon's name means "Wings Without Teeth". There are variations ("Toothless Wing", "Winged and Toothless", etc.) but all of them clearly describe a flying animal with a toothless beak. Say what you will about Jurassic World's Pteranodons, at least they keep true to their species' name by not having teeth. In fact, Jurassic World's Pteranodons being toothless makes this worse, because they're shown to be even more menacing without the teeth (by stabbing folks with their beaks). So there was literally no point to giving the Pteranodons in III teeth, especially seeing as they never make use of them!
- Crazyrabbits: "Alan... ALAN!" The sight of a Velociraptor speaking in a human voice (even if it is just a Dream Sequence) is so hilariously out-of-place that it's no wonder why it's used as a shorthand answer for why reviewers look down upon the film.
- fluffything: I really enjoyed Jurassic World, and I think it's one of the best movies of 2015. However, there's one major plot element that I find to be irredeemably stupid. I'm, of course, talking about the (in)famous "Indominus is part-raptor" reveal. I get that it's meant to be a dramatic twist in the film. But, good lord, are there so many problems with it. First off, why would Indominus being part-raptor be more of a threat than her being part Tyrannosaurus (a much larger and ferocious predator) or part cuttlefish (Ya know, with that ability to camouflage almost instantly with her surroundings)? Second, let's keep in mind that Indominus was said to be kept in isolation for most of her life. Apart from the sibling she ate, she has never interacted with any other creature. And, now we're expected to believe she can speak "raptor" fluently? Yes, she's smart. But, language is one of those things that requires interaction with another member of the species to learn. Notice a problem here? At best, she should only be able to mimic the sounds without having any idea what they mean. Finally, this causes Owen's raptor pack to turn on him and see Indominus as their "Alpha". Why? How? They just met her. Compare that to Owen, who had raised them since they were babies. And, let's not forget that Owen stated that raptor packs are essentially family groups. But, nope. Instead, the raptors immediately turn on the guy they imprinted as their surrogate father and start taking orders from the genetic monstrosity that just happens to know how to speak their language. There's scientific inaccuracies, and then there's this cringeworthy mess.
- Legal Assassin: For me, Zara's death was the suckiest moment in the film. She gets a long, drawn-out death scene — arguably the most horrific death in the Jurassic Park film franchise — and why? Because she didn't stop the kids from running off because she was planning her wedding on the phone. Really? Nedry's death in the first film was warranted because he shut down the park's power and ultimately started the entire plot. As was Donald Genero's, since he abandoned the kids when the T-Rex came stomping in. Both of them were more deserving of their fates than Zara was, and yet her Karmic Death was worse than both of theirs put together. Even the main villain of the movie got off easier than her and he was not only a villain but a bigger asshole than Zara was. Considering that Zara is the only human female character who dies in the franchise and that Jurassic World has a huge motherhood bent (Claire's sister pressuring her into having kids, Claire being elevated into badass when she steps up to take care of her nephews, and the reason behind the Indominus Rex's rampage being that it was never really nurtured), Zara being horribly killed for the "crime" of not being a good caretaker comes off as really sexist.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
- Crazyrabbits: The sequence where Wheatley (the hunter who has a habit of pulling teeth out of unconscious dino specimens) goes into the Indoraptor's cage after (seemingly) sedating it, and getting killed after it threatens him. Not only was is this an absolutely stupid and downright-suicidal trait on his part (he doesn't always know if the specimen he's pulling a tooth from will wake up suddenly and attack him), but he leaves the cage door open to boot. Even worse, in what is apparently the first time in the franchise, it is revealed that the Indoraptor is Playing Possum (how or why, considering it was shot with several tranq darts, isn't made clear) and gives a look to the camera as Wheatley enters the cage. If there was any hope of creating dramatic tension, it disappeared completely after this scene.
- Papyru 30: While I was suspicious when Wheatly first showed up (since I called that he was going to be a villain) the moment my suspicions were proven right when he shoots Owen made me realize that this was going to be a predictable Cliché Storm of a movie.
- DukeNukem4ever: The ending of this movie is just a convoluted mess to say the least. Long story short, the dinosaurs are about to die once and for all in their cages from a leak of some dangerous toxic gas. This would have served as a great ending since the heroes would leave the past behind and move on. But no, they are given a choice to save the dinosaurs or let them die. While Claire decides to leave them behind (the dinosaurs have been known to be extremely dangerous and deadly around people, as seen in prior films), Maisie decides to release them just because she is "one of them". Such decision is just weird, especially since the poor girl witnessed people dying because of the dinosaurs (and even being herself chased around by the Indoraptor), her decision to spare the natural predators from the past just because she is a clone is not only illogical, it is completely unrealistic. Guess which option our heroes take. As result, several dinosaurs are now inhabiting mainland, free to wreck havoc there. Worst of all, this is supposed to be a happy ending (even though the heroes later realize what have they done, yet that hardly mitigates the overall effect), but considering the ridiculous amount of Protagonist-Centered Morality through the whole movie, it's not that surprising.
- Batmany: The reveal that Maisie is a clone. Whooo boy, where to start with this convoluted mess of a twist? First off, suspension of disbelief doesn't work here since raises way too many questions in regards to the in-universe logic of the movies. For one thing, how is it that Maisie's secret was kept under wraps for at least nine years? Considering it only took three years since the first Jurassic Park to reveal the existence of freakin' dinosaurs to the world (IE: the "San Diego Incident' in The Lost World), how is it a cloned human being kept under the radar for longer? Surely someone would've accidentally let it slip, or at the very least someone would suspect something is off when it comes to her. Second, there's the ethical implications of her existence. How many failed attempts were there before Maisie was "born"? Is it possible for that sort of technology to be on the black market thanks to Wu and other Ingen geneticists? Selling dinosaur DNA is one thing, but imagine the implications of selling human DNA. However, these implications are never brought up in the film proper. No, I'm sorry, you cannot go on a tirade of why genetically-altered dinosaurs should be able to live and then brush aside the ethical issues of, and I repeat, a cloned human being. Third, why isn't Maisie more traumatized by this revelation? Yes, she is clearly upset by the reveal, but not as much as she should be. Think about it for a moment. Her entire existence, her life, everything she had ever known was a lie. That is a lot for a child to take in, and that's not even getting itno nearly being killed by a sociopath abomination AKA the Indoraptor. And the worst is the reasoning behind the reveal of Maisie being a clone. It was what ultimately caused the riff between Hammond and Lockwood. So, ultimately, this reveal was essentially pointless to her character development. It served no purpose other than to make her a plot device. No, no movie. You don't get to do that. You don't get to make a huge reveal about someone's origins, completely brush aside the implications of those origins, ignore any justified long-term trauma from the reveal, and then have it be nothing more than plot device for another character's past actions. If you're going to have a human clone in your dinosaur sci-fi movie, then you'd better do it right or not at all.