Jurassic World

FunLover18 · 21-06-2015 7:23pm

Weinberg wrote:

Why would you think this was "retconned"?

It's Jurassic Park 4, I have no idea where you would get the idea that 2 and 3 don't exist.

I'm not a massive fan of the original series so didn't know about the second island. Also while this referenced JP directly there were no such references to the other 2.

Also what Trevorow said about the T-Rex being the same, I had heard it died in 3 (which I haven't seen in full I think) so presumed they didn't exist but if it was a different island it was probably a different T-Rex

FunLover18 · 21-06-2015 7:24pm

Also it's not Jurassic Park 4, it's Jurassic World. Is it called JP4 anywhere?

21-06-2015 7:35pm

JP2 wasn't called as such - it was called JP: The Lost World, right? But the third was called JP3.

brianregan09 · 21-06-2015 8:11pm

On the Dinos dying off ....Did we not see in the 1st one they found fresh hatched eggs out in the wild...ie life found a way so the licene thing may not have fully worked

Paramite Pie · 21-06-2015 8:21pm

Bad Horse wrote: »

Okay. Final question; How many pterodactyls, considering the fact that if they escape, there's absolutely no containing them, they can fly into the safer pedestrian areas, and could also fly off the island?
Oh hundreds. We need hundreds of them. People would get bored if there was just 10 of them to see. No, we definitely need a lot of pterodactyls.

As much as I hate to be a nerd, those were not pterodactyls.. pterodactyls don't have a pointy-cone head.

Those were Pteranodons. Google wants to auto-correct that to transponders. But they definitely weren't transponders.

Pompey Magnus · 21-06-2015 8:43pm

On the plus side I have to say it was genuinely better than I was expecting it to be, on the negative side I went into it with rock bottom expectations so that wasn't all that huge an achievement.

What was a huge achievement from this film was how it managed to give the raptors such a important role yet at the same time make them so terribly boring. Despite the numerous, valid criticisms leveled at the previous sequels at least they managed to keep the raptors somewhat sinister and threatening. JP3 they were still raptors, just with feathers, Jurassic World has gone and turned them into bald Direwolves.

This was probably the worst yet, although to be fair I haven't seen JP3 in ages so Jurassic World might just edge it if I was to put myself through that again for a recap.

Mitch Connor · 21-06-2015 9:28pm

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.

21-06-2015 9:33pm

I guess calling it Jurrasic Park 4 is essentially admitting that 2 and 3 happened, though JW is disregarding these.

Riddle101 · 21-06-2015 9:46pm

I'll accept JW being JP4. I mean if they acknowledged the first one, then you have the acknowledge the sequels as well, as they're canon to that story too. I mean considering that both Dr Malcolm and Dr Grant were in those films, pretty much confirms it.

Angron · 21-06-2015 10:30pm

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.

It's the Rex from the first one. The white, kinda faded, scars are from fighting the raptors in the finale of JP1. It's not just a fan theory, the director said it's the same one.

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

McGrath5 · 25-06-2015 9:25pm

Saw it today, and overall I found it very enjoyable.

The first 20 minutes or so I found to be incredibly and cliched and cringe inducing. From the corporate career focused woman, to the annoying child and asshole teenager.

But once all the character introductions where over with, it really took of nicely. The hybrid iRex dinosaur was very well done and to me I found it very menacing. All set pieces involving it where really well handled and I liked the

surprise revel that the hybrid was based on a Raptor.

I would go along with other peoples assertion that the end fight between the

T-Rex and the hybrid was a bit of, but I did find it very suspenseful when the hybrid was about to kill the T-Rex, I really didn't want the T-Rex to die.

So an enjoyable watch, but its difficult to see where they can for the fifth installment.

Angron · 25-06-2015 10:16pm

McGrath5 wrote: »

Saw it today, and overall I found it very enjoyable.

The first 20 minutes or so I found to be incredibly and cliched and cringe inducing. From the corporate career focused woman, to the annoying child and asshole teenager.

But once all the character introductions where over with, it really took of nicely. The hybrid iRex dinosaur was very well done and to me I found it very menacing. All set pieces involving it where really well handled and I liked the
surprise revel that the hybrid was based on a Raptor.

I would go along with other peoples assertion that the end fight between the
T-Rex and the hybrid was a bit of, but I did find it very suspenseful when the hybrid was about to kill the T-Rex, I really didn't want the T-Rex to die.

So an enjoyable watch, but its difficult to see where they can for the fifth installment.

To be honest, the surprise reveal didn't really feel that surprising. When they wouldn't tell the guy who was trying to get raptors trained for public shows what part of the new dino was, seemed kinda clear it was gonna wind up being part raptor to me.

BMMachine · 25-06-2015 10:55pm

and sorry, the whole evolution of the raptors from being the enemy to the good guys from the first film to this. I dont get it. Like, why? what sense does that make? and then

the whole raptors talking to the big raptor t-rex type thing, the rip off of Aliens (both the initial confrontation scene with the I-Rex was done character for character like the initial confrontation in Aliens and the whole "bio weapons thing", the Raptor having "compassion" at the end of the movie, the sheer stupidity of the "8th richest man in the world" getting in the helicopter...

none of it makes sense. I don't mind films being light on plot to benefit actions and such, Pacific Rim and Godzilla being notable for this. But to straight up just expect you to be a complete dumbass with no attention span is just insulting film making
"umm Bill, this bit here makes no sense"
"ahh whatever, they'll like it. we will just distract them with Chris Pratt memes. Its not like they have an attention span anyway, have you seen how much money Michael Bay makes?"

in short, this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbVqzZ5dOIY

brevity · 26-06-2015 10:55pm

Just back from this, thought it was great fun. Really enjoyed it.

uncleoswald · 27-06-2015 1:34am

Did anyone else think Chris Pratt was awful in this? In fairness it was an under written part but his attempts to scowl and look serious were quite laughable. And it didn't help that the movie kept beating us over the head reminding us how great his character was, I particularly squirmed at the end when he is seen making sure random old man is ok because we need to told again just what a stand up guy he is, that was straight out of an Adam Sandler film. I get that he was a pastiche character (or at least I hope he was) but if they don't subvert it at all then it just becomes exactly what they are taking the piss out of.

I do like Pratt is some roles but dread him taking over Indy, you have to take Indy seriously to buy into the ridiculousness of it all and I really don't think Pratt could pull it off.

The Pheasant2 · 27-06-2015 2:30pm

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.

The park has Sauropods which would be a lot bigger than I. Rex - I would presume they'd have the facilities to deal with a rampaging Brachiosaurus so I don't see why tranq guns weren't even suggested.

The Pheasant2 · 27-06-2015 3:38pm

Saw it in 2D yesterday, huge fan of the series, have read all the books as well so I was pretty damn excited given all the apparent acclaim it's garnering.

Unfortunately I left feeling pretty disappointed.

I found the plot to be fairly thin and the characters to be a tad cliche, one-dimensional and under developed. The two boys especially I found to be pretty insufferable with the elder brother being plain unlikeable - the whole "I'm a sullen teenager, I don't give a crap that I've just been flown out to Costa Rica to see real life dinosaurs at the world's most exclusive theme park" spiel was a bit over played.

Now I know how it sounds mad nitpicking about the science behind a movie in which dinosaurs are brought to life but jesus it's like they didn't even try. Using "splicing" to just add any power to I. Rex no matter how ridiculous just seems so lazy..."It can fly?!" "Yeah we spliced in some bat so...yeah it can fly" "But wait...what's with the smell?" "Oh well we thought it'd be nice to splice in some lemongrass genes so it'd always smell fresh" "And is that...?" "Yep. That's Dino-honey. We spliced in bee so this baby produces a couple of tons of honey a day..."

I mean a huge theropod with cuttlefish chromatophore camouflage, pit viper body-heat senses, tree frog temperature regulation and (most ridiculously) the ability to communicate with 'Raptors due to being "part 'Raptor"? Are you ****ing kidding me?!

I could no longer suspend my disbelief when watching them taking down the I. Rex - they say they have a weapon to kill it but that's immediately dismissed by Claire "I won't turn this park into a war-zone" (Or something to that effect); yeah good call Claire, some park guests seeing a helicopter fly overhead to the restricted north sector of the island would indeed be much worse than a rampaging unstoppable killing machine let loose killing millions of dollars in other "assets" and eating employees and guests.

And how the HELL did anyone even entertain the INSANE idea of using the 'Raptors to hunt I. Rex?! It's been demonstrated that a human handler can make them stay (even this is touch and go when Owen is trying to calm them after yer man fell into the exhibit) so that means they're ready for humans to co-ordinate them in hunting a much bigger dinosaur they'd never even seen before?

I mean seriously..."Hey guys remember those dinosaurs that were DIRECTLY responsible for the huge disaster at the original Jurassic Park? Wouldn't it be a great idea to release a pack of them into the park to help against this other dinosaur that's killing everything?"

Also in JP3 we see Spinosaurus make quick work of T. Rex and yet T. Rex can put up a good fight against this supposed mega Rex which apparently took on several Ankylosaurs and killed a herd of Apatosaurus all by itself? That's a load of Triceratops **** to be honest.

I thought the CGI was great, if overused at times. The little throwbacks to Jurassic Park were nice but felt pretty cheap. Let the movie stand on its own.

In all I thought it was watchable but nowhere near as good as people are saying.

PhiloCypher · 27-06-2015 3:57pm

uncleoswald wrote: »

Did anyone else think Chris Pratt was awful in this? In fairness it was an under written part but his attempts to scowl and look serious were quite laughable. And it didn't help that the movie kept beating us over the head reminding us how great his character was, I particularly squirmed at the end when he is seen making sure random old man is ok because we need to told again just what a stand up guy he is, that was straight out of an Adam Sandler film. I get that he was a pastiche character (or at least I hope he was) but if they don't subvert it at all then it just becomes exactly what they are taking the piss out of.

I do like Pratt is some roles but dread him taking over Indy, you have to take Indy seriously to buy into the ridiculousness of it all and I really don't think Pratt could pull it off.

I wouldn't say awful but their were definitely shades of Andy Dwyer/Starlord in there that make me question if I can ever take him seriously in a serious role.

As for the possibility of him playing Indy, he has the swashbuckling adventurer thing down but I would never in a million years buy him as a History/Archeology professor like I did Harrison Ford.

BMMachine · 27-06-2015 4:16pm

as proven by science, Indiana Jones needs to be left alone. They are 3 great films, leave them alone. Create new things instead of making great things worse.

what was that Hank Hill quote about Christian Rock? "You're not making Christianity any better, you are just making Rock n' Roll worse"

TheDoc · 27-06-2015 8:18pm

Saw film this morning with herself and we both really enjoyed it. 2D viewing as usual and we had a blast.

"They our world renowned Chillean Seabass"

All the worries I had didn't really materialise and didn't find myself being not picky. Just really enjoyed it.

Jurassic World

Comments