The raptors changing alliances wasn't just for dramatic effect; it was Shown Their Work pack behavior. The I. Rex was challenging Owen, thus they look at him for orders - but before he can react, the others open fire, and they react defensively at the perceived betrayal. Later, the I. Rex shows herself to be an unreliable Alpha, whereas when they're with Owen again, he refuses to hurt them even at cost of his life (unlike 'she'), so they change sides again. There are numerous other examples of this pack behavior in their/Owen's interactions
Also, weaponizing dinosaurs is merely an aspect of the film's deconstruction on business mentalities, the real underlying theme in this film
As for the film's association with the original, I think it is deserving. I don't recall it being hyped to the point that it was to match/surpass the original (and the film itself didn't try 'that' hard), but it was a way to bring back much of the spirit of the original, to which it succeeded imo. Yes it's not perfect, but it's certainly a good deal better than 2 + 3, who are truly undeserving
The characters/plot/etc - I think they all work in their roles, more-or-less, and have a long way to go to be 'insufferable' (other than Hoskin's, but a good example of it). In particular, Claire's characterization is a big hit for it, as contrary to the Unfortunate Implications angle (which only comes from a few comments from in-character opinions, not the entire film telling/pushing her to change), Claire does everything she can to rescue her nephews without changing herself - even at the end she hasn't changed that much, other than the obvious shakiness. That's a more positive portrayal than people give it credit for imo
"The raptors changing alliances wasn't just for dramatic effect; it was Shown Their Work pack behavior."
Don't make stuff up on behalf of the movie. The Indominus was talking directly to the raptors, which isn't how "challenging Alpha status" works. You can't claim they've Shown Their Work when they haven't, especially with a movie that transparently has no clue how genetics actually works, much less has worse dinosaur recreations than its predecessors.
In any case, there's little to no insight into the raptors' turning to and fro, and apart from being reluctant to attack Owen once or twice, they basically become the Indominus' minions... until later on when they suddenly decide to turn on Indominus when Owen calmly removes the headphones off Blue. Whatever the logic is behind their actions, it's tailored to provide both the raptor killing spree and the raptors' mass attacks on Indominus. No one with even a remote understanding of animal pack behaviour is going to be impressed by what's on screen. And this is ignoring the problems with making the raptors susceptible to human alphas to begin with.
Weaponizing dinosaurs is a variation on weaponizing dangerous monsters in sci-fi, just like in Aliens. It doesn't add anything to the corporate-critical commentary, and if anything is a pointless plot thread that mostly helps set up a sequel hook.
The film IS overhyped, at least in my opinion, and don't put words in my mouth; I never said it was "to match/surpass the original". There's been a lot of build up, and more attention, box office profits, and positive reviews than I feel is proportionate to its actual content. As far as the "spirit" went, it lacks beyond the basic "science monster run amok" plot. Also, it makes little difference if it was better than 2 or 3; not only is that a low benchmark, but I don't think it goes very far ahead of either of those sequels. Even the effects seem to be a step backwards. I think its association to the original film is shallow, at best.
I said a range from "OK to insufferable", and Hoskins was definitely what I had in mind for "insufferable". I have little idea what a good example of insufferable is supposed to look like, but I found every scene he was in an unwatchable irritation, and the kids came close to that at times too.
Her characterization is bland, and hardly a big hit. The Unfortunate Implications are there: her character arc relies entirely on portraying her career-woman aspects as meagre pickings at best, immoral and dehumanizing at worst (as when Owen is shocked that she doesn't know her nephews' ages, and her sister basically guilts her because she passed them onto an assistant with VIP permits while she run a whole park), and she only gains approval when she's turned into an action girl and a better family gal. That's the case even though the events of the film have almost certainly ended her career.
Moreover, the attempts to address her gender - such as her wearing high heels, her state of clothing, and her relationship with her sister - are awkward at best. It's not even just that other characters (like Owen) poke fun at her expense, but the film does little to counter that point beyond generic You Go Girl moments such as outrunning a T-rex.
If you like it, fine. I happen not to like it.
That's just it though; the I. Rex talking to the raptors isn't what turned them. They merely turned because they were confused; that was a challenge to the state of Alpha, and they looked to their Alpha for his reaction. Owen didn't react, so he forfeited by not rising to the challenge. The mercenaries opening fire simply took the choice of how they'd react to his
There are tons more 'Fridge' on this in it's section - some work was definitely shown on this, for Owen to have any credibility in what he does, and for any accurate portrayal of a raptor pack (who are pack animals by nature). I don't make it up; it is there, even without looking up Fridge. Perhaps not entirely accurate, but it is there. We could argue this all day, I'm sure, but it doesn't mean either of us are wrong
As for Claire, only her sister's 'you'll understand when you have kids' and Owen's 'you need to get laid' comments count as Unfortunate Implications imho - the thing is, those are reflections upon Claire's sister and Owen, 'not' Claire. She doesn't think that maybe she should change; she stays true to herself. Even her better moments aren't her suddenly being an Action Girl; they're the actions of a woman who's trying her best. She doesn't stay an Action Girl either, and neither does she change at the end, despite all the pressure. I don't know about you, but that's a positive portrayal to me
Yes, I like it - not perfect as I said, but I do. I don't say that your opinion is wrong; just that I disagree with points, which I've replied to
Fair enough; the Indominus-raptor bit is ambiguous about what exactly their view of Owen is throughout, though I still feel more clarification could have been provided.
"She doesn't think that maybe she should change; she stays true to herself."
But her character arc is a typical example of the Defrosting Ice Queen persona, and this is why: at the beginning, she's an aloof and professional businesswoman, and has a vague and distant relationship with her nephews (hence passing them on to her assistant and not knowing their ages), while coming close to a panic when the midden hits the fan. As the film goes on, she's encouraged to be more badass (by Owen) and more a family person (by her sister and encounters with her nephews), and so "defrosts".
More to the point is that she's not presented favourably before her kickass moment in the jungle onwards. Her time as businesswoman receives no approving or likeable moments compared with Masrani, and he's arguably more responsible for the Indominus' existence than she is.
When you factor in that she's the one involved in the anti-corporate commentary (she's the one negotiating with sponsors and demonstrating the "bigger and badder" mindset that will lead to devastation), and when you also factor in that she must have overseen the Indominus' project for Masrani, it suggests the film is actively showing how her old career was a bad mistake and she's better off becoming a Mama Bear Action Girl. Even Masrani doesn't get so much bad treatment while he's salvaging his career and protecting the park, since he's not depicted as aloof or almost robotic for the first half. Yet Claire has to change (shown by a meaningful costume change) and "defrost" to get her redemption in this film.
Granted, it might not have been intended that way, but it feels very much like Double Standards.
Your review was fine. Also suffering from that irritating "my opinion is fact because I don't understand what facts are" that plagues so many others, but still, it was fine.
Your comment, however, wasn't.
"Don't make stuff up on behalf of the movie. The Indominus was talking directly to the raptors, which isn't how "challenging Alpha status" works. You can't claim they've Shown Their Work when they haven't"
What the hell gives you the ethos to say this without offering even an example as counterargument of what omegafire17 said? The answer is, of course, nothing.
"has worse dinosaur recreations than its predecessors."
You mean like the Spinosaurus in the third movie? Yeah, you sure know your stuff.
"No one with even a remote understanding of animal pack behaviour is going to be impressed by what's on screen. And this is ignoring the problems with making the raptors susceptible to human alphas to begin with."
You clearly have no studies on animal behavior since (as the part I highlighted shows) you are not familiar with the concept of imprinting (which was, funnily enough, specifically mentioned in the movie). So, again, what gives you the authority to say this? The answer is, again, nothing.
"It doesn't add anything to the corporate-critical commentary, and if anything is a pointless plot thread that mostly helps set up a sequel hook."
Isn't it amusing how these two statements contradict each other? Yes.
"The film IS overhyped, at least in my opinion."
Another two statements that contradict each other and become self-defeating by being put one after the other. That's why saying something is overhyped, overrated or underrated is never not pointless.
There are better ways to give your own words validation, chap, but you need to write better in order to achieve them.
"If you like it, fine. I happen not to like it."
You say fine after presenting your opinions as fact, your ignorance as the correct train of thought and the opinion of the majority as incorrect.
... I'm really not surprised but it's still highly amusing that those are the words you decided to conclude with.
but the film does little to counter that point beyond generic You Go Girl moments such as outrunning a T-rex.
I remember Russian critics had a lot of fun with her managing to do that while still wearing high heels. Confusingly, one actually thought this made the film too feminist.
Nevertheless, if you want to see something resembling an official feminist assessment, then here you go
: it gets -38 points, placing it right between The Gambler remake and Get Hard when compared to the films that came out this year. (Insurgent tops the list, while Ex Machina is at the bottom, if you were wondering.)
Speaking of the dinosaur recreations, that was specifically referenced; the in-film audience wanted 'cool' dinosaurs, not realistic ones, so they created the cool versions to meet demand (ie popular recreations from media and stuff; they didn't try for full accuracy). And even without that angle, it was mentioned how the dinosaurs they were cloning had missing DNA... to which they filled in with DNA from various other species, so the dinosaurs are different than how they would have otherwise been. This has been seen as early as the first film
The dinosaurs being different was half to-be-expected imo
Plus, it's not entirely true, them being 'worse' than the first movie (which went with what was true at the time). Some of them stay the same for continuity sake, but there are examples that go the opposite. The Mosasaurus is the most accurate dinosaur of the film; they showed the Pteranodons without teeth (unlike the other films, which were inaccurate about that) AND the fact that they can actually swim, among other examples
I don't agree with a lot of what omegafire17 says, but I'll grant he or she was at least civil. If you, phylos, don't agree with or even like what I say, fine, but don't be such a snarky asshole about it. Jeez.
"Your review was fine. Also suffering from that irritating "my opinion is fact because I don't understand what facts are" that plagues so many others, but still, it was fine."
Well, it may gratify you to know that, contrary to what you seem to have gleaned from my review, I am fully aware of what a fact is, and fully aware that at least some of what I say in my own review is My Personal Opinion(TM). I know the dearth of YMMV qualifiers after every such sentence might mislead someone reading my review, but I would have thought even an idiot could tell a lot of what I was saying was what I personally saw in the film, not what the FACT of the film is.
For instance, when I describe d'Onofrio's character as a Hate Sink, I hope it's obvious from context that I'm putting forward an opinion towards that character, and my own opinion at that. I could have written IMHO over and over, but I figured most people would understand why I didn't waste my 400 words doing that. If I seem to-the-point, it's only because I had a lot I wanted to say, and not as much space as I would have liked to say it in.
"What the hell gives you the ethos to say this without offering even an example as counterargument of what omegafire17 said? The answer is, of course, nothing."
Well, apart from his or her setting the standards by not offering any actual argument beyond a fan interpretation, how about that it's transparent Critical Research Failure? He or she claimed that the Indominus was challenging Owen, but the film makes it clear that the Indominus was talking to the raptors, not Owen, which isn't how a dominance challenge works. Any animal challenging a pre-existing Alpha would take it directly to the Alpha, either with a dominance display or with a straight-up fight. omegafire17's point is an interesting fan theory and I don't begrudge him or her some harmless fan speculation, but what it isn't is an example of Shown Their Work.
"You mean like the Spinosaurus in the third movie? Yeah, you sure know your stuff."
I'll grant you the Spinosaurus animatronic was an obvious animatronic, but the CGI for that creature was considerably better than the CGI for most of the dinosaurs in Jurassic World. I'm not going to pretend JPIII's effects were any great shakes, but the animatronic raptors - silly though the JPIII designs were - in that film were much better than the CGI equivalents in this one, which I think looked horribly fake from the get-go, and the fight scene at the end was way more cartoonish than the fight scene from JPIII (though that Spinosaur fight was much less dramatic, of course).
"You clearly have no studies on animal behavior since (as the part I highlighted shows) you are not familiar with the concept of imprinting (which was, funnily enough, specifically mentioned in the movie)."
Actually, I'm perfectly familiar with the concept, though I think it's application here is an author's-saving cop-out. The problem I was alluding to was how this was inconsistent with the raptors as portrayed in the franchise up to this point, which must have been raised by humans in the original and yet still turned out lethal. Also, it's implied - though, I grant you, not necessarily confirmed - in the first film that a raptor gains its position by killing other raptors, since that's how Big One presumably gained control of the pack according to Muldoon.
But even setting aside that fact, what gives me authority to dispute omegafire17's point about pack behaviour and human alphas? How about actually watching how animals dispute their positions in their hierarchies? They do it on a one-to-one basis, often with a pre-emptive display to discourage fighting, and actual fighting if that fails. They don't chat with subordinates to get them to turn on their master. Imprinting is largely a learning tool for young animals to learn the behaviours they'll need before they grow up, not necessarily a way for a human to insert themselves into a hierarchy. The closest to an exception is a dog and other domestic animals, and even that's not true imprinting but simple interspecies acclimatization, which aren't the same thing. This is all academic, though, as the film zig-zags over how much influence Owen has on the raptors at any one time that it can't consistently be referred to as anything other than "dramatic purposes" - though a fan can have a go filling in the gaps that were inadequately explained.
And there's definitely nothing in the raptor scenes to suggest that the filmmakers weren't using whatever concepts they wanted, and that they were approaching ethology any more thoroughly than they were approaching genetics. This is a film, remember, which among other things apparently lets a socially isolated freak hybrid killing machine suddenly speak fluent raptor on the first try. It doesn't strike me as the sort of film to go Pixar and delve deep into a topic before putting it on the screen.
"Isn't it amusing how these two statements contradict each other? Yes."
If something exists in a film solely to set up a sequel hook, then it can just as easily be removed without harming the current story. That's the case with this one: you could remove the weaponizing dinosaurs subplot and it would have virtually no impact on the events depicted, which basically amount to "monster runs amok". Even the raptors being released basically amounted to needing sniffer dogs to track the Indominus; the military brought a rocket launcher and other heavy firepower, in any case. In this context, yes, I think it is pointless.
"Another two statements that contradict each other and become self-defeating by being put one after the other. That's why saying something is overhyped, overrated or underrated is never not pointless."
I think the film is overhyped - as in, the reputation surrounding the film makes it out to be better than it actually is. That is my opinion because I don't think the film is that good. Some think it's good, possibly as good or better than the hype would indicate. That's fine, because this is a SUBJECTIVE judgement.
Are you sure it's ME who can't distinguish fact from opinion?
"You say fine after presenting your opinions as fact,"
Apart from the issue of animal ethology - and possibly CGI quality, though that one's debatable - most of my points are opinions. If you think they're facts, then that's a blunder entirely of your own making.
"your ignorance as the correct train of thought and the opinion of the majority as incorrect."
Look, I think it's becoming pretty clear that you are the one repeatedly confusing statements of opinion from statements of fact. That's a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"Some of them stay the same for continuity sake, but there are examples that go the opposite. The Mosasaurus is the most accurate dinosaur of the film; they showed the Pteranodons without teeth (unlike the other films, which were inaccurate about that) AND the fact that they can actually swim, among other examples."
Yes, those swim against the tide of scientific inaccuracies, but the mosasaur design - apart from such things as the throat jaws - fails to include the right tail shape and has a frill along its back. Not to mention it's oversized and improbably beaches itself at one point, an act that should have been more traumatizing to its body than it is. If it's going to claim the best "dinosaur" design (it's not even a dinosaur), then that's some low-hanging fruit.
As for the pterosaurs, toothless pteranodons that can (briefly) swim doesn't change the fact that they're basically skeletal death-banshees with improbably pointy beaks. I'm not even joking: they spear a pilot to death at one point and nearly do the same to one of the kids later on. Let's not even mention the dimetrodons, which don't look even remotely like the original animal.
I'm a he, for clarity's sake
Also, when I said 'best', I meant in comparison to the usual JP accuracy (ie, 'of the film'). And as I've stated, in-universe, the creatures are more-or-less only 'most' of the original dinosaur DNA (which generally includes the mosasaurus; technically it may not be one, but it's called one for convenience's sake - similar to how komodo dragon isn't a dragon, but a lizard, but they chose the former name anyway) - they have modifications, both to fill in missing DNA, and to purposeful make the 'cool' mdeia versions that in-universe audiences expect, not the entirely-accurate versions.
Expecting fully realistic dinosaurs just seems an unreasonable expectation imo, at least outside of documentaries and 'history channel' spotlights. Sure, it'd be a nice change, yet still
This review pretty much sums up my opinion about the movie. I would be slightly less positive because I at least enjoyed the climax fight in a Narm Charm way, but I agree that overall, this movie wasn't very good and was somewhat nonsensical.
Also, by the way, Aquamarine: don't worry about Phylos. Guy made the same trantrum to me on another review. Apparently merely stating your opinion counts as presenting it as fact to this person.
Leave a Comment:
Passable Monster Flick with Jurassic Park References
If you want to watch not-dinosaurs and other not-prehistoric-animals go on a rampage, you're in for a good time. The first half mainly focuses on setting up the pieces and building up your expectations before the Indominus escapes and escalates problems with traditional suspense and scares. The second half goes full-on monster carnage, starting with a helicopter crash that releases a horde of mass-murdering not-pterosaurs and only gets crazier from there. Moreover, there are several nods to the original film, which provide some good old nostalgic kicks for long-time fans.
Sadly, the film adds nothing worthwhile to the franchise. It sets up some metaphorical parallels between the park attractions and the state of the franchise, but it amounts to little more than cynical lampshading. The subplot about weaponizing the dinosaurs is cartoonish B-movie fare at best, with the raptors changing alliances simply because it's more dramatic that way. And for all the interesting talk about the dinosaurs not being dinosaurs and why, its reconstructions are worse than the first film both from a scientific and from a technical perspective, which misses a key part of what made the original so special.
The characters vary from OK to insufferable. Pratt's un-PC, far-sighted trainer is the obvious highlight, though he's not given much to do beyond that one-dimensional characterization. Howard's Defrosting Ice Queen character is average, though the way other characters treat her has some unfortunate implications. Khan's CEO is an intriguingly grey character that's wasted, Wong's critical geneticist makes fascinating points but is otherwise "meh", D'Onofrio's idiotic head of security is a charmless Hate Sink, and the kids never rise above "meh" (and sometimes sink below irritating).
Moreover, the story often relies on characters making awful decisions and having Swiss-cheese security. This was a problem with the first film too, but at least there it felt like the idiocy was part of the point the film was trying to make, and you had to dig for some of them. Here, they're obvious and serve only to enable bigger and badder destruction scenes.
Don't get me wrong; it's an OK monster film, gleefully delivering the spectacle. But it's massively overhyped, and references and easter eggs aside, its association with the ground-breaking original is undeserved.