Reviews Film / Jurassic World

As stated in the film, the public generally wants them 'bigger, louder, more teeth' - there's not many new dinosaurs that can top their biggest attractions, ie Rexie and the Mosasaurus. Plus it's not something they made up; it's more-or-less a metaphor for today's society, along with CGI

Also, it doesn't matter even if it's dinosaurs; eventually people will lose interest in something, as 'wonder' turns to 'interest', then 'expected', than finally 'mundane' (or worse) - it happens over periods of time for new discoveries. If anything though, the fault is more in the investors, who treat even the little drops in visitors as a big deal, thus leading to the chain of events

I don't buy that at all. People still go to zoos all the time and lions haven't been a new thing for a few thousand years.

And not only are Dinosaurs < Lions, but there's literally only one park in the world that can satisfy that demand and they probably can't process more than 10,000 people a day? So if no new people are born ever, it would still take the park being open 100 years before less than 1.5% of the world has seen a dinosaur - if no people are born and no-one ever sees one twice.

It's like saying that in ten years time no-one will want to pay to go to space anymore because SpaceX will have been running for a while and so people will be bored of being in space.

• Oops Dinosaurs > Lions

Your numbers pretend that anyone would be able to pay for SpaceX or going to Jurassic World.

For people able to afford that, it will get old fast, at least for some of them. Hell, some people who can afford it probably wouldn't. The training required to go into space is not something for everyone.

It's always amusing how the ones who claim that movies like this are unrealistic tend to be the ones most disconnected with reality.

Jurassic World doesn't exactly requires the same training than going to space, so yeah, that counter-argument doesn't really work. You could make the argument only rich people can go to Jurassic World, but even then new kids will be born eventually and want to go. And again, there is only one Jurassic World, which makes it hard for this to become "common". Granted, it would move from "wonder" to "interest", but to pretend it can go to "mundane" or below is as absurd as saying this could happen to say, the Eiffel Tower. More ridiculous is that people getting bored of Dinosaurs is an Informed Attribute in the movie: the park still has plenty of clients, most characters whose reactions are seen seems to be impressed, and the exchange between the lady and her boss suggest the park still has success.

Well yes Theokal3, it was a bit overreacted to in-universe - their numbers had only gone down 'somewhat', and the investors took even that seriously. No doubt 'losing interest' was just the generalization made, while people had simply become used to dinosaurs, if not to 'woah!' levels anymore outside of feeding shows

But it doesn't mean that people wouldn't get used to dinosaurs - I'd feel the same way, if done over the same period. Sure, I wouldn't really lose the sense of 'wow, these guys are cool', but it would have degenerated into moments of cool, rather than a constant awe. After ten years experiencing Jurassic World (minus the breakouts), it'd be mundane that way, even with said moments of excitement (same as with the Effiel Tower or any other famous landmark, if I could visit them on a semi-regular basis)

@Tomwithnonumbers Actually, the park regularly handles numbers of over 20,000 - the monitoring screen during Claire + Lowery's conversation shows how many people the park has at any given time.

@Theokal3 "Jurassic World doesn't exactly requires the same training than going to space, so yeah, that counter-argument doesn't really work. "

Because you say so? It doesn't work that way, you didn't even try to disprove it. The other guy simply tried to use Space X as an analogy and I pointed out how (and specially *why*, which you didn't) THAT doesn't work.

As for what you say about the Informed Attribute: Congrats, you've hit the nail in the head, people are not actually that disenchanted with the park and the reviewer and the other person (townwithnumbers) didn't seem to get that. The problem was, as usual for this franchise, the unabashed greed of the people in charge, for whom "low nineties satisfaction" just wasn't enough.

"Because you say so? It doesn't work that way, you didn't even try to disprove it. The other guy simply tried to use Space X as an analogy and I pointed out how (and specially *why*, which you didn't) THAT doesn't work."

Disprove what? I am just pointing out that you can't compare going to space and going to Jurassic World. Which is a fact: you don't need to train kids to go to a zoo in Real Life, I don't see how that zoo containing dinosaurs would change anything to that. As for the fact it doesn't work, that's just me giving my opinion. If you can't stand people expressing different opinions than yours, then maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet.

As for what you say about the Informed Attribute: Congrats, you've hit the nail in the head, people are not actually that disenchanted with the park and the reviewer and the other person (townwithnumbers) didn't seem to get that. The problem was, as usual for this franchise, the unabashed greed of the people in charge, for whom "low nineties satisfaction" just wasn't enough.

Yeaaaaaaah, except none of the characters involved in this whole thing (except the scientist and the military villain) are portrayed as particularly greedy either. The director seemed more concerned with keeping Hammond's legacy alive and the woman was just doing her job. And even assuming you're right, then that still leaves us with the issue that we have seen this a thousand times before.

"Disprove what? I am just pointing out that you can't compare going to space and going to Jurassic World."

That's exactly my point, buddy. You seem to think I was the first person to make that comparsion in this thread. I wasn't. I merely replied to the person who made it.

"If you can't stand people expressing different opinions than yours, then maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet."

I don't care about your opinion, I care about the fact that you endearingly tried to dismiss mine without even trying to give a counterargument.

If you're going to pretend your opinion is enough to convince anyone of anything, then, well...

"Yeaaaaaaah, except none of the characters involved in this whole thing (except the scientist and the military villain) are portrayed as particularly greedy either."

They want people more involved and want to be thrilled (I'm talking about the suits Claire was talking to at the beginning), ignoring the fact that people are mostly satisfied with the park. How is that not a greedy portrayal? What did you want? For them to just talk about money and money and more, etc? Telling instead of showing is tiring.

And, oh geez, "greed is bad" is part of a cliché storm (which isn't itself a bad thing, since no movie made nowadays is original; there are only so many stories, seven, that can be told). Maybe we should teach our kids to be greedy instead? Huh, maybe you're onto something.

Oh, I forgot Masrani. In his introduction he pretended to want to keep Hammond's legacy and to care about the animals...

Yet when he talked to Wu, Wu specifically rebuffed him by telling him that he also wanted "more teeth". Plus he also refused to outright kill the Indominus Rex, at first, because they had invested 20 millions in it, which is peanuts for someone as extremely rich as he seems to be.

So, another greedy portrayal that amusingly flew over your head because it wasn't hilariously overstated.

"That's exactly my point, buddy. You seem to think I was the first person to make that comparsion in this thread. I wasn't. I merely replied to the person who made it."

Then you might want to reformulate your sentence. You clearly mentioned the difficulties of going to Jurassic World as well. Which are pretty ridiculously low compared to Space. Which doesn't really help your argumentation, really, though again that's my opinion.

"I don't care about your opinion, I care about the fact that you endearingly tried to dismiss mine without even trying to give a counterargument."

Again, if you don't care about people's opinion, you are in the wrong place, pal. And THAT was my counter-argument: that the comparison doesn't really work.

"They want people more involved and want to be thrilled (I'm talking about the suits Claire was talking to at the beginning), ignoring the fact that people are mostly satisfied with the park. How is that not a greedy portrayal? What did you want? For them to just talk about money and money and more, etc? Telling instead of showing is tiring."

Nope, that's not greed. That's dedication to their job and a sympathetic motivation, unlike greed where they would only be concerned with money. And no, of course I don't want telling instead of showing, my point is that if they were supposed to look like the bad guys and being wrong for what they were doing, then the movie did an awful job at it, because just like Hammond before, I could sympathize a bit with them. Granted, the stupidity they displayed in how they handled it killed my sympathy for them soon after, but I don't think that was the writers' intention...

"And, oh geez, "greed is bad" is part of a cliché storm (which isn't itself a bad thing, since no movie made nowadays is original; there are only so many stories, seven, that can be told). Maybe we should teach our kids to be greedy instead? Huh, maybe you're onto something."

One: just because it's hard to make things original nowadays doesn't excuse making cliché after cliché. There's nothing wrong with doing some classic, but you need give them your own spin instead of just rehashing them. Two: There are plenty of OTHER things you can teach to kids aside from "Greed is bad", which has already been taught a thousand times before. Now you are just trying to find excuses to defend this movie.

"So, another greedy portrayal that amusingly flew over your head because it wasn't hilariously overstated."

Or more likely because I was too concerned by the mind-blowing stupidity the characters were displaying to pay attention about that.

Oh, and one last thing to clarify: I don't hate Jurassic World, I just feel it was a really not very remarkable movie, climax aside.

"Now you are just trying to find excuses to defend this movie."

For one who thinks he/she has the authority on how anybody should behave on the internet (as a web developer myself, it's never not funny when laymen try that), that's a terribly odd statement.

I liked the movie and we're discussing it... Why are you whining about me defending it? What did you want me to do? To just agree with you just because of your tantrum throwing? Again, opinions don't work that way.

"Or more likely because I was too concerned by the mind-blowing stupidity the characters were displaying to pay attention about that."

You didn't actually pay attention to the movie and resort to blanket statements you think are proofs. I'm shocked, but also glad that you said it yourself.

Anyways, I liked this movie well enough, but not enough to continue a discussion with someone who complains in a debate about my defending my position. Man, that's really gold.

Cheers.

For one who thinks he/she has the authority on how anybody should behave on the internet

I fail to see what gave you this impression. Then again, considering I see this accusation in internet comment sections everyday (including some where I don't take part), maybe this is just a standard accusation.

"Why are you whining about me defending it?"

... Because I am not whining? Seriously, I have been very calm since the beginning of this conversation. All I did was giving my opinion and say I was more on the review's writer side than yours. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am throwing a tantrum; I am just giving my opinion and defending it. And in this case, I am just pointing out the argument you give is kinda flimsy, which gives me the impression you are just looking for excuse. Of course, I might be wrong, but that's the feeling I got.

"You didn't actually pay attention to the movie and resort to blanket statements you think are proofs. I'm shocked, but also glad that you said it yourself."

Not really. Actually it's simple: when you watch a movie, you can easily be focused on one aspect and fail to notice another as a result. People were so shocked by how bad the Star Wars prelogy was they frequently didn't notice its good part. They were so impressed by Kingsman The Secret Service in term of humor and special effect that they didn't pay attention to the fact the plot was cliché as hell. This is the reason opinions aren't the same according to individuals: we all notice or do not notice different things. In my case, I was more focused on how stupid the characters were acting and less on the greedy part you describe. It's as simple as that.

"Anyways, I liked this movie well enough, but not enough to continue a discussion with someone who complains in a debate about my defending my position. Man, that's really gold."

Wow, talk about overreacting. Have it your way. If you consider the action of pointing out flaws in your reasoning as "complaining about your opinion", then that's your problem entirely. You are the one who said "I don't care about your opinion", yet you are accusing me of dismissing yours. Hypocrisy, much?

Honestly, I think my biggest disappointment was the sheer lack of ambition. Should have actually mentioned that in the review, but I hadn't pinpointed that in my head yet.

When I first saw the title, I thought we were going to get a wider reaching moving dealing with the after effects of the previous films. Instead, we got a retread.

Really, you could have done all kinds of stuff with that. What if Ingen's rival company had been reverse engineering the dinosaurs, to get access to the genetic engineering tech? If they did it in South America, you could have the dinosaurs (and plant life) get loose, cause ecological collapse, disease and dinosaur killings across an entire continent. Then, you get all the juicy questions about Ethics and response.

Instead, we just got another JP sequel, one with week characters and brutal but meaningless carnage.