Jurassic World

Can't wait to see Rexy fight 2 giant prehistoric bugs in San Francisco

For the three minutes that they're onscreen, anyway. But we're mostly just going to hear them fighting offscreen while a middle-aged man whines about his family drama. Either his parents didn't hug him enough or he's having marital problems or his kids don't respect him... y'know, the usual.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 21st 2024 at 10:16:13 AM

Boo.

I still gotta see the Extended Version of Dominion at some point soon.

Hey, I said, if nothing else.

x4 Clearly, you’ve never seen Rogue One or The Creator.

Rogue One is a top three Star War for me. If Gareth Edwards can bring that magic to Jurassic Park, I'm sure we're in for a treat.

I liked it. Dominion is a lot of fun and gets such a bad rap.

The difference between Rogue One and Godzilla 2014 is that they're both movies that are first and foremost about people and their relationships, both to each other and to the world they live in. For Rogue One, that worked pretty well because the film could center its appeal around the Rebel Alliance. For Godzilla, less so because the film's main appeal is the giant monsters, and the film was too busy examining people to show much of them.

To my ears, a Gareth Edwards Jurassic Park film sounds closer to Godzilla 2014 than Rogue One. It sounds like a film with plenty of character drama and a complex web of relationships, both political and emotional, for the protagonists to navigate.

But people aren't here to see a dissertation on the importance of family. They're here to see a T-Rex bite a man in half. Gareth Edwards's films tend to play up the complexities of the human experience and play down the fantasy elements of the sandbox he's playing in. I don't know how well that will work out in a Jurassic film.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 22nd 2024 at 6:13:04 AM

I dunno, this is the one "monster" franchise where the human characters are as important as the monsters. The original Jurassic Park is a treasure because Grant, Hammond and the rest of gang are much more richly drawn than the material really called for.

After at least two movies where the focus is squarely on the dino action (which, again, I enjoyed!), I wouldn't say no to something a little less bombastic.

Edited by ThriceCharming on Feb 22nd 2024 at 11:11:40 AM

I wonder if Gareth Edwards could make as cool a theme park as the first World movie did.

Seriously, I rewatched the World movie recently, and all I could think of was wanting to go to the park.

Pretty much everyone agrees the first one is the best—though I for a brief period back in 2013 when I first saw the original trilogy actually thought Lost World was the best at the time. I still say with all the imperfections that both Fallen Kingdom and Dominion have, JP III still ranks below them. That movie was too dumb and simple for me.

Would it be appropriate to say that JW's probably the second best in the whole series after the first one? I know Lost World has its fans certainly and I do like that one too of course.

I agree that JW1 is the second best, as it's the only one aside from the original that's actually about something. It has themes and shit.

For me, it's like this: JP > JW > JW:D > JPIII > TLW:JP > JW:FK

Had they had to try to reignite the passion and love of past fans while bringing in new fans was something that JW did really well. The first JP I at first thought was maybe a little slow while the second one I thought had more of a pulse—though in the years since I see the first one as a better thought out film while Lost World I can at least appreciate trying something different to step things up. That JW felt like a logical return to how things first began did make it truly feel like a great foundation to return to the franchise with without a doubt.

Oh, I agree, but it's a different kind of "richly drawn".

Jurassic Park isn't about character drama. It has some, but it's mainly about high-minded ideas of political and social commentary. Specifically, it's about the corrupt and abusive relationship that capitalist ideology has towards scientific innovation and the natural world.

The dinosaur carnage that the franchise is known for is a visceral representation of what happens when rich people who only care about wealth and ownership are able to take control of scientific processes they do not understand, governing vast systems they do not respect. Practically every word of dialogue in the first Jurassic Park is, in one way or another, an examination of this.

The first Jurassic World did so well because it played to similar themes. Again, there was some character drama, to be sure. But its main focus was a criticism of modern 'disposability' culture. It took the commentary of the first film and bolted onto it a statement about the shiny new iRex, only $799, IN STORES NOW! And covered in ads! So many ads! HEY I HEARD YOU LIKE PRODUCT PLACEMENT SO I PUT PRODUCT PLACEMENT IN MY PRODUCT PLACEMENT!!!

Jurassic World 1 understood the assignment, is what I'm getting at.

Rogue One is a good movie. Godzilla 2014 less so. But neither "Let them fight" nor "Rebellions are built on hope" speak to a very deep understanding of complex socio-political, ecological, and economic issues. And that concerns me. What Jurassic Park is, is people being eaten by dinosaurs as a metaphor for anticapitalism.

I trust Gareth Edwards to do a really good job with, say, a divorced dad estranged from his son who's trying to reconnect with him. I'm sure he could make those characters super compelling. But I have less confidence in his ability to deliver the effects-driven spectacle of dinosaur carnage, or on the meaningful political and economic themes that the dinosaur carnage embodies.

Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 22nd 2024 at 9:46:20 AM

They named it I. rex just for that reference, didn’t they? Somehow I never got that before.

Me neither, though probably because most people call it Indy rather than anything else.

For me, the thrill of the Jurassic movies has always been having that sense of wonder we get from seeing people and dinosaurs together. Watching Grant, Saddler, and Co.'s jaws drop when they see the brachiosaurus for the first time, them seeing the baby velociraptor hatch, Grant and the kids getting sneezed on, even Rexy's first appearance was as awesome as it was scary as she broke out if her habitat.

And that's probably why I liked the first World movie better than all the others except JP 1. We get some of that magic back. I loved the idea of a Gentle Giants Petting Zoo, or using those balls to get up close to their bigger brethren. Even some of the passing dialogue invoked this, with the people in the control center complaining about how one of the pachys have broken out of their habitat. Again. And now they have to go grab it for the upteenth time.

That they killed off most of Owen's raptor squad and didn't use the idea again for the other World movies made me so disappointed.

Yeah, I feel like the World movies sorely misjudged Owen's character appeal. The lead protagonist is a guy whose main distinguishing feature is being an honorary velociraptor pack leader. Are you kidding me? That's SO COOL.

But then the first movie made a mistake in killing off most of the pack, and the sequels have him really dragging his heels about having anything to do with his one surviving raptor pal. Like, he'll do stuff with Blue but he wants everyone to know that he's only associating with her under duress.

I don't care about Chris Pratt mugging for the camera. If you're going to keep bringing Owen back then I want him to be doing cool raptor stuff. That's the one good thing about his character!

Edited by TobiasDrake on Feb 22nd 2024 at 3:29:10 AM

That bugged me in Fallen Kingdom when Claire had to convince Owen to help her save Blue and the rest of the dinosaurs, while he was reluctant to do so.

Because... it feels like it should be the other way around? Like, Owen should've been the one spearheading the campaign the save the dinosaurs given his close bond to Blue, while Claire should've been the more reluctant one since she saw the dinosaurs more as park assets and would have more incentive to brush her hands of everything after the havoc that happened in the last movie.

Like, there would've been so many lawsuits.

Claire did start seeing the dinosaurs as living creatures in a particular painful way when she saw the field of dead or dying apatosauruses Indy had slaughtered. You can tell that hit her hard. So I do think it makes sense that she still felt a sense of responsibility for the animals of her park.

But I join you in bafflement that Owen had to lectured onto helping. That bit where he changes his mind after watching old recordings of him and Blue was touching, but you could just as easily have put that scene in prior to Claire showing up and so Owen would have been primed to join her.

Hollywood Reporter is confirming Scarlett Johansson is in talks to lead the new movie.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/scarlett-johansson-new-jurassic-world-movie-1235856099/

I still feel like Dominion was a huge missed opportunity. Silly as the set up for dinosaurs in the wild may have been, there was a lot of potential in where they could go with it, but it was pretty much just a sideshow. Why is the main threat in a dinosaur movie bugs? And not even killer bugs!

Hopefully, we get that from this new movie. And the Camp Cretaceous sequel if we get it. I have no clue what is happening with the DreamWorks tv unit right now…

Bumping with Chaos Theory trailer:

I was already at Shut Up And Take My Money status so I can't exactly say the trailer hooked me but it looks good and I'm interested all the same.

That being said, I'm afraid I have to give this trailer a 0/10 for insufficient Brooklynn.

There better be a body count or it's worthless.