Jurassic World

pixelburp

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Pratt's character is meant to be an expert in animal behaviour, a minder for the dino's welfare or something along those lines, so the 'tamed' velociraptors might be an actual thing. It sounds a bit silly but as with most things, it's all about the execution: if the raptors still possess a sense of threat and wildness, the idea could work.

Kunkka

I do like the look of Pratt's character though joking aside even if he has pet raptors :facepalm: .. I just can't see why they would take one of the main threats & best features from the other movies(apart from that stupid junkyard scene), and turn them in to Lassie

At this rate the hybrid will probably have a human voice like the "New York, New York" Gremlin. Too many small silly things can be taken from that short trailer. I'm expecting to be disappointed at this rate but I'm really hoping I am wrong!

StaticAge11

There are a few interesting theories online based on the trailer. Gonna spoiler them just in case cause if I'm right HUGE spoilers here.

Mainly they refer to the restricted area of the park seen in this image

that the dinosaurs from the original film (T-Rex, Raptors, Dilophosaur etc) are living, roaming free in this area. The theory is that the loose hybrid is running amok in the new park, they hatch a plan using the "tame" to lead the hybrid to this section and leave it roaming free. But the plan goes wrong and a character is in danger, only to be saved by the (curiously absent from the trailer) T-Rex who would restore the balance of nature. This would mirror the ending of the first film, and Malcolm's whole stance on life finding a way to eliminate the man-made hybrid. Personally I hope this is the case, as it would be a good call back to the themes of the original

seamus

Mickeroo wrote: »

Theyre a pretty good read from what I remember, play out a bit differently to the films too.

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Generally, in the real world predators will only hunt when they're hungry. They won't necessarily go into attach mode just because they see something nearby. (we saw this at the end of JP3) If we saw the motorbike scene on it's own, i would assume that they were all running away from the hybrid, but with the cages all snapping open, it does seem more deliberate.

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Did anyone mention or ask why the Velociraptors are running along beside Chris Pratt and not leaping on him ripping him to shreds?

I'm suspecting the scene has been adapted from a section in The Lost World which disappointingly never made it into JP2:

The raptors are observed to be operating in nesting behaviours, and while vicious and intelligent, they're not as aggressively tenacious as suggested in the original films.
It's been about ten years since I read it, but from what I recall the reason that the "queen" raptor in the park killed all but two of the others was down to the size of the pen. With more land to work with in the lost world, nests can be much bigger to accommodate more raptors hunting in larger packs.
Any road, in the book, two kids basically end up on the ground in a "safety cage", surrounded by the raptors, who are frustrated that they can't get at them. When the other humans arrive, the raptors' first instinct is to flee, but unwilling to give up their catch, they take the cage with them, rolling it down a long hill back to their nest, and at speed.
Two people give chase on a motorbike, into the pack of raptors - the raptors can't attack directly because they're running so fast, instead only moving and snapping sideways to try and shake off the motorbike - their primary concern is the prey and getting it back to their nest.
The idea that the raptors attacked everything which moves was sown in the first film, but from what I recall was "explained away" as non-standard behaviour in the second book as being down to the confined nature of the pen/park.
If I had to make a guess at it, the shot with the smashed gyroball and the motorbike are related - On the motorbike he's chasing a pack of raptors who are rolling a gyroball back to their nest.

We also forget that trailers aren't necessarily showing anything in chronological order. Most likely the "greyhound traps" shot and the motorbike shot are completely unrelated - the former occurring as part of the normal park operations (i.e. that's how the raptor attraction works) and the latter occurring during an action scene.

I can see the issue people see now with the CG; it looks about as good as a Star Trek CG shot from the early 2000s. That suggests to me that this will be much improved once post production is complete.

Thargor

Theres a picture of a new 2015 Lego set going around that apparently shows the hybrid in Lego form, spoilerish obviously:

http://cdn.idigitaltimes.com/sites/idigitaltimes.com/files/styles/image_embed/public/2014/11/17/jurassic-world-drex.jpg?itok=6A8EkGKi

Zubeneschamali

Thargor wrote: »

Theres a picture of a new 2015 Lego set going around that apparently shows the hybrid in Lego form, spoilerish obviously:

It's Rudy from Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs!

Adamantium

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmrR92FNuvk

Bacchus

Adamantium wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmrR92FNuvk

Nice. That one actually gave me a little chill with the T-Rex roar at the end.

Mitch Connor

StaticAge11

Some comments from the Director Colin Trevorrow to Empire about the trailer

Colin Trevorrow Reveals New JURASSIC WORLD Details On the Raptors, Theme Park, D-Rex And More

Reassuring that we'll see a T-Rex in Jurassic World, director Colin Trevorrow has offered new details about the new hybrid dinosaur, as well as the most prominent scenes in the trailer. Check it out!
Follow DCMarvelFreshman: View CBM Profile Follow on Twitter Follow on Google
By DCMarvelFreshman - 11/27/2014
Following the early release of the first official Jurassic World trailer, director Colin Trevorrow has offered Empire commentary for the teaser while also revealing new details about the highly-anticipated Jurassic Park III sequel. One of the earlist aspects of the movie revealed in the teaser is the now fully-operational dino theme park. "It opened in 2005," said Trevorrow. "Masrani Global, owned by Irrfan Khan's character, bought InGen after John Hammond's passing with a very earnest mission to realise his dream. We have a website that details all that backstory. It will get more interesting as we get closer to June." About the origin of the futuristic-looking spherical vehicle, called a gyroscope, as seen in the trailer, he says, "Steven [Spielberg] loves theme park rides. He wanted to create a way for people to get up close and personal with the animals, to make it a self-driving, free-roaming experience. It loads on a track, but once you're out there, you actually get to navigate around the valley." It's shown later in the trailer that these gyrospheres aren't exactly dino-proof. "I see no way any of that could go wrong," he laughed.

About the big scene in which a shark is being fed to a mosasaur, Colin Trevorrow says it was not intended to be a nod or reference to Steven Spielberg's classic Jaws movies, even if it may seem obvious. "The idea came out in one of our first meetings - I didn't know if Steven and Frank [Marshall, producer on all the Jurassic Park movies] had considered an underwater reptile, so I pitched the mosasaurus and went off on the idea," he said. "I thought it would be cool if we had this massive animal and the park used one of our most fearsome modern predators as food. There could be a whole other facility where they used shark DNA to mass-produce them to feed the bigger beast. Steven gave me this look like, 'You know I get it, right?' And I sunk a little lower in my chair. And then he said, 'Let's do it'."

On the concept of having humans creating dinosaurs in Jurassic World, as opposed to utilizing the many species that really did exist many the earth, Colin Trevorrow agrees that, "There is no shortage of awesome dinosaurs." He continued, "We could have populated this entire story with new species that haven't been in any of these movies. But this new creation is what gave me a reason to tell another Jurassic Park story. We have the most awe-inspiring creatures to ever walk the earth right in front of us, but for some reason that's not enough. We're not entertained. We're always hungry for the next thing, and those who profit from it are always looking to feed that hunger. The focus groups want something bigger than a T-Rex. And that's what they get." Speaking of the Tyrannosaurus Rex, which has featured prominently in the Jurassic Park trilogy, Trevorrow was asked if we'll see one in Jurassic World. "You can your ass we will," he replied. But regarding when we'll get a sneak peek at the new genetically-engineered dinosaur, rumored to be called a D-Rex, the director says, "Obviously I'd love to hold back as much as possible." He added, "But Universal has to introduce this movie to people all around the world, and in an era where we're contending with superheroes and space epics, marketing has its own set of needs. We're introducing a relatively new idea. No one under 25 has a memory of seeing the original Jurassic Park in a theatre. The last instalment was 14 years ago. We may see little pieces of her as we get closer - in fact, we already have - but I'm confident that we can keep much of that animal under wraps. She's not the only danger. Far from it."

Finally, Colin Trevorrow discussed one of the final scenes in the Jurassic World trailer in which Chris Pratt's character Owen is seen riding a motorcyle with velociraptors casually running alongside him. "I like that people aren't sure what the hell they're looking at," he said. "I was concerned about putting this image in an early trailer, but I love that people are as excited about it as they are. It just reinforces that we all want to see something fresh. Those familiar homage shots in our trailer kind of mask how different this movie is from the others, and I'm relieved that people are embracing the new ideas." The director was then asked how exactly can Owen be riding with raptors. "To not dodge the question entirely," Trevorrow started, "Owen's relationship with the raptors is complicated. They aren't friends. These animals are nasty and dangerous and they'll bite your head off if you make the wrong move. But there are men and women out there today who have forged tenuous connections with dangerous predators. That's interesting territory to me." For the full rundown, make the jump over to Empire.

Falthyron

"The director was then asked how exactly can Owen be riding with raptors. "To not dodge the question entirely," Trevorrow started, "Owen's relationship with the raptors is complicated. They aren't friends. These animals are nasty and dangerous and they'll bite your head off if you make the wrong move. But there are men and women out there today who have forged tenuous connections with dangerous predators. That's interesting territory to me."

The Vinnie, Victor, and Valerie idea grows stronger with each passing day!

"We have the most awe-inspiring creatures to ever walk the earth right in front of us, but for some reason that's not enough. We're not entertained."

Less is more. The original Jurassic Park proved that.

With critics, I reckon this movie will be a disaster; a metacritic rating of between 40 and 50. But, it being dinosaurs, etc., it will probably make a decent profit.

irishgeo

people are on about how the owen can be riding alongside the raptors, but in JP3 the raptors are right beside everyone one and dont kill and eat everyone because

they have the raptor eggs.

Calibos

I have a fear....ands its name is Jaws 3!!

Mal-Adjusted

if anyone's interested, Screen Junkies had a debate on the pros and cons of the trailer.

Antar Bolaeisk

So Raptors are now passé, I know, let's make super raptors! (Just guessing)

That trailer does not engender hope despite the uber-feels piano plinking.

StaticAge11

Saw this concept art for the D-Rex ages ago, but it was immediately written off as fake. Going by the trailer, I think it may actually have more substance than first realised https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpIgdgBCUAEB9UT.jpg:large

dan1895

StaticAge11 wrote: »

Saw this concept art for the D-Rex ages ago, but it was immediately written off as fake. Going by the trailer, I think it may actually have more substance than first realised https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpIgdgBCUAEB9UT.jpg:large

Looks like Allosaurus

Mr Freeze

Calibos wrote: »

I have a fear....ands its name is Jaws 3!!

Man, Jaws 3-D was so bad. That bit where the shark breaks through the glass and the glass flies out at the screen, but no water fills the room in the same shot. As a 6yr old watching that, I was disgusted!

Regarding Jurassic World, no way can it be it be as bad as Jaws 3-D, I need to rewatch JP and The Lost World. It's probably not a good thing that I have better memories of JP3. I've only ever watched the films once each.

pixelburp

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Man, Jaws 3-D was so bad. That bit where the shark breaks through the glass and the glass flies out at the screen, but no water fills the room in the same shot. As a 6yr old watching that, I was disgusted!

And for those unsure of what he speaks... ... remember, as bad as we think CGI can be, FX has still advanced quite a lot since the 80s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2W0mhAFldIY

Sam Mac

The trailer did nothing for me.

Mitch Connor

Falthyron wrote: »

The Vinnie, Victor, and Valerie idea grows stronger with each passing day!



Less is more. The original Jurassic Park proved that.

With critics, I reckon this movie will be a disaster; a metacritic rating of between 40 and 50. But, it being dinosaurs, etc., it will probably make a decent profit.

I like the idea behind the new dino, and it does make sense to me.

To be clear, his comment about not being entertained is about the audience IN the movie, not the audience for the movie - flagging attendances mean a new dino is created to try spark the public imagination again. You may have already got that, but your less is more comment re. JP1 makes me think you may have felt the director was talking about the real world audience and not the motivation within the movie itself for the new dino.

Falthyron

Mitch Connor wrote: »

To be clear, his comment about not being entertained is about the audience IN the movie, not the audience for the movie - flagging attendances mean a new dino is created to try spark the public imagination again. You may have already got that, but your less is more comment re. JP1 makes me think you may have felt the director was talking about the real world audience and not the motivation within the movie itself for the new dino.

I feel the story in the movie has been created to address this problem. They have written a script which suggests people in the world (in the film) are bored with Jurassic World and need something new or exciting, but I think they are using that as an excuse to create new dinosaurs for us (real world audience) to see.

I suppose, you could say it's quite a meta-narrative.

If we work backwards: Movie executives want to make the Jurassic Park IP interesting and exciting again, but we had three movies already that pretty much used all the most interesting dinosaurs. So, they need a new dinosaur in order to make a new movie. But, they need some sort of reason or cause for creating this new dinosaur so we (the real world audience) find it believable or exciting. They suggest making that problem, the problem for the movie. They have transformed their movie problem in to the story of the movie itself. They have assumed we are bored with the current portfolio of dinosaurs so they make that the theme of the movie they want to create.

The only problem being: I don't think any of us are 'bored' by the existing dinosaurs. A zoo still receives a healthy number of visitors every year and I very rarely, if ever, hear of a zoo closing down. People don't just go to a zoo once and never return, Jurassic World is just another large zoo.

Mitch Connor

Falthyron wrote: »

I feel the story in the movie has been created to address this problem. They have written a script which suggests people in the world (in the film) are bored with Jurassic World and need something new or exciting, but I think they are using that as an excuse to create new dinosaurs for us (real world audience) to see.

I suppose, you could say it's quite a meta-narrative.

If we work backwards: Movie executives want to make the Jurassic Park IP interesting and exciting again, but we had three movies already that pretty much used all the most interesting dinosaurs. So, they need a new dinosaur in order to make a new movie. But, they need some sort of reason or cause for creating this new dinosaur so we (the real world audience) find it believable or exciting. They suggest making that problem, the problem for the movie. They have transformed their movie problem in to the story of the movie itself. They have assumed we are bored with the current portfolio of dinosaurs so they make that the theme of the movie they want to create.

The only problem being: I don't think any of us are 'bored' by the existing dinosaurs. A zoo still receives a healthy number of visitors every year and I very rarely, if ever, hear of a zoo closing down. People don't just go to a zoo once and never return, Jurassic World is just another large zoo.

Of course I can see where you are coming from, and you could be well be right - the story of the movie could be a mirror of the real world execs feelings.

Being a JP fanboy, i'm giving it the benefit of the doubt; i think it is as likely that the director/writers want to tell a new story within the same universe, and this is how they are doing it - creating a world that is bored with dinosaurs. I don't think WE are bored with dinosaurs, so it could be a nice play seeing kids being utterly uninterested in a T-Rex mauling something while the audience in the cinema is fully engaged with it.

Of course, I do think this new 'dino' will is going to be key to the publicising of the movie, and will be its star attraction - which will far more play into your reading of the situation.

spacecoyote

Are people just getting a bit too up in arms over the new dino given that basically every dinosaur we've seen in the movies so far was genetically modified anyway using the frog DNA. Its hardly much of a leap to go from filling DNA gaps with frog DNA, to playing around with the DNA in some other way?

Falthyron

spacecoyote wrote: »

Are people just getting a bit too up in arms over the new dino given that basically every dinosaur we've seen in the movies so far was genetically modified anyway using the frog DNA. Its hardly much of a leap to go from filling DNA gaps with frog DNA, to playing around with the DNA in some other way?

Nobody is complaining about the how they have made the new dinosaur. The problem lies with the why . As in, why was there a need to create a new species/hybrid-thing, when there are plenty of interesting dinosaurs to play around with already? Have we exhausted all possible story-lines with such an interesting and varied species?

Sonic Death Monkey

Falthyron wrote: »

Nobody is complaining about the how they have made the new dinosaur. The problem lies with the why . As in, why was there a need to create a new species/hybrid-thing, when there are plenty of interesting dinosaurs to play around with already? Have we exhausted all possible story-lines with such an interesting and varied species?

Exactly. I feel audiences could be less in awe (unlike with the T-Rex in JP) at this new species.

It's then becoming more of a monster movie.

The great thing about JP is that these things were once real. You can read about them, their behaviours etc.

Having said that, as a fan of the JP movies, I'll probably get sucked into that world again and hopefully it won't really matter!

NyOmnishambles

Falthyron wrote: »

Nobody is complaining about the how they have made the new dinosaur. The problem lies with the why . As in, why was there a need to create a new species/hybrid-thing, when there are plenty of interesting dinosaurs to play around with already? Have we exhausted all possible story-lines with such an interesting and varied species?

As to the why

In order to create the dinosaurs that exist already they would need samples of the DNA from mosquitos trapped in amber, I would imagine this is rather hard to find so maybe there aren't plenty of interesting dinosaurs for them to readily create and this gives them just cause to muck around with DNA and create a new species

Or maybe I am giving script writers too much credit that they would use such a plausable reason for ditching every possible species of dinosaur that could have existed

Bacchus

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

As to the why

In order to create the dinosaurs that exist already they would need samples of the DNA from mosquitos trapped in amber, I would imagine this is rather hard to find so maybe there aren't plenty of interesting dinosaurs for them to readily create and this gives them just cause to muck around with DNA and create a new species

Or maybe I am giving script writers too much credit that they would use such a plausable reason for ditching every possible species of dinosaur that could have existed

But if the writers have the freedom to make up a hybrid dino monster, surely they have the freedom to use as many real documented dinos as they want. I agree with SDM said above, part of the awe of JP is that these were real dinosaurs that once walked the Earth. I remember watching this as a child and going home looking through my dinosaur books (I had two) and reading all about the dinosaurs I'd just seen on screen. What exactly does a hybrid dino add except to turn JP in an all out monster movie. Going down the "nature restores the balance" route is the only way I can see this plot being redeemed.

seamus

NyOmnishambles wrote: »

As to the why

In order to create the dinosaurs that exist already they would need samples of the DNA from mosquitos trapped in amber, I would imagine this is rather hard to find so maybe there aren't plenty of interesting dinosaurs for them to readily create and this gives them just cause to muck around with DNA and create a new species

Or maybe I am giving script writers too much credit that they would use such a plausable reason for ditching every possible species of dinosaur that could have existed

Bacchus wrote: »

But if the writers have the freedom to make up a hybrid dino monster, surely they have the freedom to use as many real documented dinos as they want. I agree with SDM said above, part of the awe of JP is that these were real dinosaurs that once walked the Earth. I remember watching this as a child and going home looking through my dinosaur books (I had two) and reading all about the dinosaurs I'd just seen on screen. What exactly does a hybrid dino add except to turn JP in an all out monster movie. Going down the "nature restores the balance" route is the only way I can see this plot being redeemed.

I was thinking about this after someone mentioned the the concept art looked like an actual species of dinosaur.

So, there are a couple of scientific issues with the "hybrid dino" thing, especially raptor + T. Rex. Although the species themselves are only separated by about 5/10 million years, their earliest common ancestor is about 50 million years previous.

They are about as separated as humans and lemurs, so a "hybrid" new species by DNA splicing would be, well, troublesome.

One of the things which was touched on in the first JP, in the trailer, and which we kind of know anyway, is that degraded DNA needs to be repaired, and using samples of DNA to create new beings is very error-prone and difficult. No doubt, extracting DNA from mosquitos too would have a high failure rate. Not least because finding the damn stuff first is very difficult, but finding DNA that's usable is also hard. And the park has an additional problem - variation. They need to find mosquitos that have sucked the blood of species that the park doesn't already have.

So what am I getting at? They may not be creating a "new" species at all. If you have live, intact DNA of two species who share a relatively close common ancestor, then you could (in science fiction of course) use both sets of DNA to build the complete DNA profile of that ancestor. You no longer have to go searching through amber to find mosquitos and through mosquito extracts to find dinosaurs, you can just resurrect them using the fragments of their DNA their ancestors inherited, and piecing it back together.

Thus, when you take T. Rex and Raptor DNA and use it to rebuild a common ancestor, you get....Allosaurus. It's a "new" dinosaur to JP, but not a "new" species.

People are also forgetting a big plot hole in the first JP. They used frog DNA, known for spontaneously changing sex in single-sex environments. But these aren't frogs. They're huge complicated dinosaurs. Changing sex, on the fly. Um, yeah. Suspension of disbelief people.

I want Ken Watanabe saying "let them fight" at least once in this film