Jurassic World

BlitzKrieg · 21-06-2015 11:31pm

Mitch Connor wrote: »

its supposed to be the same t-rex from the first park? Or the second one? really? So its over 20 years old?

I figured the talk of it being the same T-Rex was based on the scars seen in some of the pre-movie images. The scars then, while similar to original movie, were caused in the fight with the I-Rex at the end of JW - where it rips at its flank.

Also, still, loved Jurassic World.

nope its officially the same dino

link here: http://uk.jurassicworldintl.com/park-map/tyrannosaurus-rex-kingdom/

DarkoT · 22-06-2015 12:15am

I just saw Jurassic Park and in my opinion it's nice movie, it brought me back into my childhood. 7 out of 10

Chip Whitley · 22-06-2015 2:02pm

Saw it last night, in 3D which wasn't my first choice, but was only show I could make because of timing. I loved it. And I say that as a huge fan of the original. One of the first films I can remember watching in the cinema. I lived and breathed dinosaurs and all things JP for years afterwards. I also loved The Lost World except for the gymnast daughter obviously. I was hugely disappointed in JP3, I remember leaving the cinema gutted that Sam Neill had returned only to be in this pile of muck.

Last night though, I left the cinema with a huge ****-eating grin! So many good set-pieces, the music was great, the park looked great. The nods to the original. The detour trough the old visitor centre. The return of the T-Rex to the top of the food chain were all things I loved. I never noticed bad CGI, I don't look out for these things when I'm watching a movie, I just enjoy the experience.

I did have reservations going in about how the raptors would be handled, it seemed a bit hokey to me but I thought they explained it well enough and demonstrated that animals can create bonds with humans with some mutual respect and training. At first I was disappointed that Chris Pratt wasn't wise-cracking more as that is his strength, but on reflection, I'm glad he didn't because then he'd essentially just be himself in everything; JW, GotG, Indiana Jones... None of the other characters bothered me, although I will say Vincent D'Onofrio did seem a bit under-utilised. The two brothers were far less annoying than the kids in the first movie, they were pretty good representations of kids these days in fairness and they never threatened to go all Bear Grylls like the kid in JP3 either despite their mechanical-motor knowledge.

After watching this I felt the same as I did after watching 28 Weeks Later, similar, but different to the original, bigger and noisier but in all the right places. Two thumbs up from me.

PhiloCypher · 22-06-2015 2:52pm

Chip Whitley wrote: »

Saw it last night, in 3D which wasn't my first choice, but was only show I could make because of timing. I loved it. And I say that as a huge fan of the original. One of the first films I can remember watching in the cinema. I lived and breathed dinosaurs and all things JP for years afterwards. I also loved The Lost World except for the gymnast daughter obviously. I was hugely disappointed in JP3, I remember leaving the cinema gutted that Sam Neill had returned only to be in this pile of muck.

Last night though, I left the cinema with a huge ****-eating grin! So many good set-pieces, the music was great, the park looked great. The nods to the original. The detour trough the old visitor centre. The return of the T-Rex to the top of the food chain were all things I loved. I never noticed bad CGI, I don't look out for these things when I'm watching a movie, I just enjoy the experience.

I did have reservations going in about how the raptors would be handled, it seemed a bit hokey to me but I thought they explained it well enough and demonstrated that animals can create bonds with humans with some mutual respect and training. At first I was disappointed that Chris Pratt wasn't wise-cracking more as that is his strength, but on reflection, I'm glad he didn't because then he'd essentially just be himself in everything; JW, GotG, Indiana Jones... None of the other characters bothered me, although I will say Vincent D'Onofrio did seem a bit under-utilised. The two brothers were far less annoying than the kids in the first movie, they were pretty good representations of kids these days in fairness and they never threatened to go all Bear Grylls like the kid in JP3 either despite their mechanical-motor knowledge.

After watching this I felt the same as I did after watching 28 Weeks Later, similar, but different to the original, bigger and noisier but in all the right places. Two thumbs up from me.

What set pieces stood out to you just as a matter of interest, because for me there was nothing on the level of the Trex escape/chase & raptors in the kitchen from Jurassic park or the Trex attack as the trailer hangs off the cliff and raptors in the long grass from Lost world. Similarly with the music outside the reprises of the original themes nothing stood out to me , and i say this as a massive Michael Giachianno fan.

constitutionus · 22-06-2015 10:00pm

seen it again today to check out the 3D version.

enjoyed the film itself just as much if not more the second time around and came away thinking "this is gonna make a great "christmas" film" as in itll bear up to being played again and again and again on TV. Better in fact than the original and its sequels as it really is a far more fun affair whereas the others are really quite dark.

and the 3D didnt suck.

parts in the jungle were actually brilliant and as good a use for the format that ive seen. im STILL not a fan but at least it wasnt a "clash of the titans" level of a waste of time for the gimmick.

DrumSteve · 23-06-2015 11:14am

I must be out of the loop here but this film bored the pants off me.

I really was expecting more.

Looper007 · 24-06-2015 3:17am

DrumSteve wrote: »

I must be out of the loop here but this film bored the pants off me.

I really was expecting more.

If you read back on the thread you aren't alone plenty have been disappointed with the film, its definitely the most split opinion film so far this year.

Bacchus · 24-06-2015 8:17am

Another thing occurred to me to add to my list of stupid things in this... why is there no tranquilizer gun to take down the hybrid? Surely that would satisfy the non-lethal approach to containing the "asset" and would be far more effective than some tazer guns and a net. One or two high dose tranq darts and it's sleepy time for the hybrid.

Beefy78 · 24-06-2015 10:24am

Bacchus wrote: »

Another thing occurred to me to add to my list of stupid things in this... why is there no tranquilizer gun to take down the hybrid? Surely that would satisfy the non-lethal approach to containing the "asset" and would be far more effective than some tazer guns and a net. One or two high dose tranq darts and it's sleepy time for the hybrid.

Hmmmmm how big would that tranq dart be? It takes a very long time to tranquilise a large animal like a bear or even a lion. It would take a huge amount of tranquiliser and a lot of time to make a 50ft monster slow down, let alone pass out.

They tried non-lethal ways of subduing the I-Rex, there's no reason to think a tranquiliser gun would be any more effective and would still have to deal with the fact that the the time it takes to fire the dart will probably see the shooter get eaten.

Bacchus · 24-06-2015 11:00am

Beefy78 wrote: »

Hmmmmm how big would that tranq dart be? It takes a very long time to tranquilise a large animal like a bear or even a lion. It would take a huge amount of tranquiliser and a lot of time to make a 50ft monster slow down, let alone pass out.

They tried non-lethal ways of subduing the I-Rex, there's no reason to think a tranquiliser gun would be any more effective and would still have to deal with the fact that the the time it takes to fire the dart will probably see the shooter get eaten.

They set the precedent though in JP2. A T-Rex was taken down with tranq darts... twice. At the very least it would have slowed the hybrid down.

Beefy78 · 24-06-2015 1:39pm

Well that's a problem with JP2 being "stupid". Not fair to criticise a different set of writers and director for that.

Bacchus · 24-06-2015 2:21pm

Beefy78 wrote: »

Well that's a problem with JP2 being "stupid". Not fair to criticise a different set of writers and director for that.

I don't think it was JP2 being stupid at all. They set the precedent that there is some concoction strong enough (after a few shots) to knock out a T-Rex. Within the JP world, that worked just fine. It may be unrealistic but so is entire premise of bringing back dinosaurs to life on a theme park island.

On looking back on JW, it seems stupid now that noone even tried to use tranquilizer darts on the hybrid. Almost a stupid as having 1 heavy artillery gun available.

.ak · 24-06-2015 4:25pm

Shooting a large animal with a tranq dart seems a lot more believable than a bunch of lads trying to use cattle prods at point blank rank with a giant 50 foot monster...

Foxtrol · 24-06-2015 4:41pm

Everything had ran so smoothly for years and I think the point may have been that they'd become too used to and comfortable with dinosaurs (from those running the park, to the security team, to the public) meaning no one was properly prepared for what they'd created in the lab and how dangerous/vicious it was.

Foxtrol · 24-06-2015 4:46pm

.ak wrote: »

Shooting a large animal with a tranq dart seems a lot more believable than a bunch of lads trying to use cattle prods at point blank rank with a giant 50 foot monster...

I'd presume the idea for the cattle prods were to be more a defensive tool to support the guys with the guns in case the animal came close a shock would push it away or into a certain position so they could get their shot. Obviously they underestimated the new creature.

Bacchus · 24-06-2015 5:21pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

Everything had ran so smoothly for years and I think the point may have been that they'd become too used to and comfortable with dinosaurs (from those running the park, to the security team, to the public) meaning no one was properly prepared for what they'd created in the lab and how dangerous/vicious it was.

I think that's reaching a bit. You wouldn't even have those lax standards in a regular zoo or wildlife park, never mind Jurassic World.

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'd presume the idea for the cattle prods were to be more a defensive tool to support the guys with the guns in case the animal came close a shock would push it away or into a certain position so they could get their shot. Obviously they underestimated the new creature.

They were introduced as a specialist team for exactly this type of scenario. Cattle prods and nets were a very bad idea. As for the underestimating excuse, sure they could barely handle the raptors later on with live ammunition, what hope did they have against any carnivore with cattle prods.

I enjoyed the movie btw.... its just an incredibly stupid movie.

aaronjumper · 24-06-2015 5:25pm

Sure there would have been no action in the movie at all if everyone was making good decisions.

"Yeah just push that button there and everything will be fine. Is the coffee machine fixed yet? I hate Mondays". Would have been like the office but with dinosaurs and moody kids. :pac:

Mickeroo · 24-06-2015 5:30pm

Competent security contingencies and proper equipment essentially render the dinosaurs a non threat. It's pointless to nitpick over those things as there's no way a dinosaur would be a threat if both were present. They're just animals and would be pretty easy to keep under control in reality within a controlled environment like we see in the film. Same goes for the original Jurassic Park tbh.

Bacchus · 24-06-2015 5:31pm

aaronjumper wrote: »

Sure there would have been no action in the movie at all if everyone was making good decisions.

"Yeah just push that button there and everything will be fine. Is the coffee machine fixed yet? I hate Mondays". Would have been like the office but with dinosaurs and moody kids. :pac:

That's not the point though. You can still have good action and a good plot with good characters.

Foxtrol · 24-06-2015 5:37pm

Bacchus wrote: »

I think that's reaching a bit. You wouldn't even have those lax standards in a regular zoo or wildlife park, never mind Jurassic World.

If there was a wildlife park with no lions/tigers and the owners had one in secret captivity in the park and it got out I'd wager they wouldn't be prepared, especially if they were not told it was a lion when they were sent out to capture it.

They were introduced as a specialist team for exactly this type of scenario. Cattle prods and nets were a very bad idea. As for the underestimating excuse, sure they could barely handle the raptors later on with live ammunition, what hope did they have against any carnivore with cattle prods.

I enjoyed the movie btw.... its just an incredibly stupid movie.

How could they be prepared for this exact scenario when no one seemed to have a clue what they were dealing with? They specifically brought Pratt in to check the enclosure and he then started calling out things that worried him (no social interactions etc). He warned the security team not to go out with non-lethal ammunition but they didn't listen because none of their superiors informed them of what they were going to get.

Also, the team that went out originally were not the specialised team at the end with the raptors and live ammunition, that group landed on the beach after the initial interactions with the I-rex.

aaronjumper · 24-06-2015 5:40pm

Bacchus wrote: »

That's not the point though. You can still have good action and a good plot with good characters.

I know that, I was just joking around, don't mind me.

I liked it myself, I also think it can be fun to nitpick plot holes and other such movie details. Probably why I enjoy Cinemasins "What's terribly wrong with" series and Screenjunkies "Honest Trailers". They take the piss out of a lot of movies I like, I laugh but I still like those movies.

Bacchus · 24-06-2015 6:04pm

Foxtrol wrote: »

If there was a wildlife park with no lions/tigers and the owners had one in secret captivity in the park and it got out I'd wager they wouldn't be prepared, especially if they were not told it was a lion when they were sent out to capture it.

But the were dangerous dinosaurs on the island, they had a task force for assets out of containment. The problem is there were huge plot holes around why they sucked so hard and did not have equipment to deal with it. Fine while watching first time round but I don't this this will hold up well to repeat viewings.

Foxtrol wrote: »

How could they be prepared for this exact scenario when no one seemed to have a clue what they were dealing with? They specifically brought Pratt in to check the enclosure and he then started calling out things that worried him (no social interactions etc). He warned the security team not to go out with non-lethal ammunition but they didn't listen because none of their superiors informed them of what they were going to get.

Also, the team that went out originally were not the specialised team at the end with the raptors and live ammunition, that group landed on the beach after the initial interactions with the I-rex.

Ah yes, the first team died in the doomed 'catch the T-Rex mutant in a net' mission.

Even if they weren't aware of the capabilities of the hybrid they still knew it was basically a T-Rex but thought a few tazers on sticks and a net would do the job.

The one bit of slack I'd give it is that the company was more interested in protecting the asset so they went in non-lethal... they still could have gone in a bit heavier though with tranqs or something.

Foxtrol · 24-06-2015 6:41pm

Bacchus wrote: »

But the were dangerous dinosaurs on the island, they had a task force for assets out of containment. The problem is there were huge plot holes around why they sucked so hard and did not have equipment to deal with it. Fine while watching first time round but I don't this this will hold up well to repeat viewings.

Like why in the original JP they didn't have more/higher power weapons in the park or why they seemed to have no human security presence at all or why their full containment team seemed to be one lad with a rifle or why they didn't leave any sort of larger presence behind in case something went wrong during the storm?

If you want to be picky you could say that these are plot holes that could hurt repeated viewings of the original but they don't, you just take the potential explanations for them and enjoy the movie.

Ah yes, the first team died in the doomed 'catch the T-Rex mutant in a net' mission.

Even if they weren't aware of the capabilities of the hybrid they still knew it was basically a T-Rex but thought a few tazers on sticks and a net would do the job.

The one bit of slack I'd give it is that the company was more interested in protecting the asset so they went in non-lethal... they still could have gone in a bit heavier though with tranqs or something.

All they knew it was a new dinosaur that they were told that non-lethal weapons would subdue. They didn't know how aggressive it was, how intelligent it was, or that it could camouflage (was this the point where they found the removed tracker too). These are all key points that turn the team from being hunters of the creature to being hunted by it.

They also didn't have just a few tazers and a net, they had projectile weapons that either were supposed to shock or tranquilize it. I'd actually be pretty confident of the latter because they made a specific point of mentioning that the containment team used tranqs to subdue another dinosaur earlier in the movie (made it high). It looks like when they fired at the I-rex they just bounced off it's hide.

Look they should have gone in with everything they had and this was pointed out by one of the main characters so it's not as if it's really a plot hole. The original and every sequel is full of characters telling others not to underestimate the dinosaurs, the other characters ignore them, and people die. You'd swear it was the first time people didn't take the dinosaur threat seriously enough.

FunLover18 · 24-06-2015 8:46pm

aaronjumper wrote: »

"Yeah just push that button there and everything will be fine. Is the coffee machine fixed yet? I hate Mondays". Would have been like the office but with dinosaurs and moody kids. :pac:

I would watch that!!

aaronjumper · 24-06-2015 8:51pm

FunLover18 wrote: »

I would watch that!!

I don't think it would be that good to be honest.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_39JCYLeZR6Y/TLGgX-sOjiI/AAAAAAAAAXU/NpLfrFcWa64/s1600/No+One+Likes+Mondays.jpg

.ak · 25-06-2015 9:23am

Mickeroo wrote: »

Competent security contingencies and proper equipment essentially render the dinosaurs a non threat. It's pointless to nitpick over those things as there's no way a dinosaur would be a threat if both were present. They're just animals and would be pretty easy to keep under control in reality within a controlled environment like we see in the film. Same goes for the original Jurassic Park tbh.

But it's the human intervention that causes the outbreak in JP1, the power remember? It was an inside job... In that sense it was quite 'believable'.

podgemonster · 25-06-2015 4:26pm

The first one for me highlighted the arrogance of mankind. Assuming we could play god, create vicious animals and turn our creations into something for own amusement. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum's character) describes it an inept control system holding an unstable system, it is only a matter of time before everything crashes. The interesting thing is that the instability comes from both the dinosaurs and the humans.

The Jurassic Park is undone by the greed and stupidity of a human, Denis. One little flaw in the human community undoes all the safety codes and precautions and the Dinosaurs immediately take the upper hand.

In the Jurassic World, the control system is a much more complex, structured and disciplined, with highly competent staff. But the greed element now comes from the park visitors and sponsors who want more. Mankind becomes more arrogant and creates a being that once again cannot be controlled by the park's system.

The I-Rex is an abomination of Nature, a symbol of mankind's manipulation and it's sweet that the Natural dinosaurs are the ones that destroy it, not the gadgets and traps the humans had created. In fact human intervention to stop the I-Rex only furthered the destruction of the Park and the death of humans. Once again at the close, the park is broken by basic human weaknesses and returns to being overrun with Dinosaurs.

Humans are the bad guys in Jurassic Park/World not the Dinosaurs.

Warper · 25-06-2015 4:27pm

This is the best film in the franchise for me. The first hour is slow enough which is fair enough but the last hour is brilliant entertainment.

Thargor · 25-06-2015 8:44pm

Saw it today, so bad, not as bad as III but it was close. The focus on the park manager ladies tits and weird clothes and close ups of her facial expressions was just bizarre, why not just use a normal female character? Combined with the weird torture death of the British assistant someone on the production team seems to have issues.

Any fcuking moron in first year of media in Sligo IT could get an emotional reaction from an audience using the Jurassic Park theme tune with the right reveal and what do we get here? Shots of long queues to an escalator? The wardrobes in a hotel room? Absolutely bizarre. The CGI on the main monster was a mess aswell, sometimes it was massive, sometimes it was small, at the end it was clearly bigger than the T-Rex in some shots and smaller in others, it looked like a cartoon in a lot of shots aswell.

Also the whole film was based on them not seeing the I-Rex on cctv so instead of ringing the control room and asking where it is they decide to wander into the pen and let it escape? Literally the next scene was her doing that from her iphone in the car, so really everybody that dies was caused by our supposed heroes actions and not evil Ingen (who staged an amphibious landing to acquire their own assets for some reason?). Stupidity piled upon stupidity.

It was all just so flat and uninspiring aswell, the first film is still so much more epic in every way. The horrifically bad shot of the T-Rex at the end walking on the roof of the bunker pretty much sums it up.

Warper wrote: »

This is the best film in the franchise for me. The first hour is slow enough which is fair enough but the last hour is brilliant entertainment.

I know its your opinion but this is just wrong, JP1 and this are so far apart its like saying Adam Sandlers latest muck is better than something something, I cant even be bothered thinking of a metaphor for you, you're just wrong.

BMMachine · 25-06-2015 8:54pm

Thargor wrote: »

Saw it today, so bad, not as bad as III but it was close. The focus on the park manager ladies tits and weird clothes and close ups of her facial expressions was just bizarre, why not just use a normal female character? Combined with the weird torture death of the British assistant someone on the production team seems to have issues.

Any fcuking moron in first year of media in Sligo IT could get an emotional reaction from an audience using the Jurassic Park theme tune with the right reveal and what do we get here? Shots of long queues to an escalator? The wardrobes in a hotel room? Absolutely bizarre. The CGI on the main monster was a mess aswell, sometimes it was massive, sometimes it was small, at the end it was clearly bigger than the T-Rex in some shots and smaller in others, it looked like a cartoon in a lot of shots aswell.

Also the whole film was based on them not seeing the I-Rex on cctv so instead of ringing the control room and asking where it is they decide to wander into the pen and let it escape? Literally the next scene was her doing that from her iphone in the car, so really everybody that dies was caused by our supposed heroes actions and not evil Ingen (who staged an amphibious landing to acquire their own assets for some reason?). Stupidity piled upon stupidity.

It was all just so flat and uninspiring aswell, the first film is still so much more epic in every way. The horrifically bad shot of the T-Rex at the end walking on the roof of the bunker pretty much sums it up.
I know its your opinion but this is just wrong, JP1 and this are so far apart its like saying Adam Sandlers latest muck is better than something something, I cant even be bothered thing of a metaphor for you, you're just wrong.

all of this.

This film is fastly becoming the most overrated film of all time. Its not good. Its a mess. The action (which was poor, not engaging, lifted from other films and emotionally flat) and CGI (which was pretty good to be fair) do not make this a good film.
Awful script, terrible characters, terrible plot outline, stupidity on stupidity on stupidity as regards the actions of the characters, breaks the "show, don't tell" rule on many occasions, Dinosaur conversations, bad acting and blunt shovel like subtlety. If you are one of the "oh I turn my brain off when I watch things" generation or have issues with concentration or low standards in general, then this I imagine is a good film, if not, avoid as its rubbish. The first film is leaps and bounds ahead of this, they aren't in the same league.

Oh and I happen to like Chris Pratt in general but they are trying to make him this Harrison Ford type actor and booking him as such. Let him be him, not Harrison Dumb

Jurassic World

Comments