Jurassic World

Mitch Connor

Bacchus wrote: »

I don't remember them showing any respect to Pratt of the other handler in that initial attack. Pratt hung back from the other guys who were attacked first so he avoided the bloodbath. The other handler was under attack from a raptor and was about to meet his maker before Pratt intervened... at which point the raptors gave chase to Pratt. The switch in loyalty to the I-Rex made sense. The I-Rex is bigger and more dominant (and part raptor) so therefore they fall in line. The switch back requires a suspension of belief that the raptors have feelings that override their nature and that they have some residual sense of loyalty to Pratt who earlier they were trying to have for dinner (and who lets not forget, was essentially their prison warden).

This is going to go round in circles, I've made the points I wanted to make on the raptor thing and I'm not going to be convinced of the existence of the trail of clues or supposed precedent that was set.

The Raptor just looking at Pratt and cocking its head in a complete non-aggressive manner before it was blown up by an RPG.

For the other fella, it was attacking him and then stopped when he shouted 'BBBBBLLLLLLLUUUUUUEEEEEEEE', then Pratt rev'd the bike and it ran off after him.

You are just ignoring the clues to be honest. I can accept you not accepting them or thinking they are bull, but to deny the existence of them in the first place is just odd.

Sleepy

J Mysterio wrote: »

How are you allowing your children to watch Jaws? a 6 your old girl? :eek:

It's their mother's favourite movie and our kids are big fans of wildlife, particularly anything marine (I keep a small reef tank in our sitting room).

They know that Irish waters are too cold for killer sharks and that we're not a species sharks usually prey on, in fact, one of their uncles had an experience with a Great White while surfing in Oz and wasn't harmed beyond getting the fright of his life.

Oceans aren't shark infested, they're people infested. The ocean is their home

Owryan

Sleepy wrote: »

It's their mother's favourite movie and our kids are big fans of wildlife, particularly anything marine (I keep a small reef tank in our sitting room).

They know that Irish waters are too cold for killer sharks and that we're not a species sharks usually prey on, in fact, one of their uncles had an experience with a Great White while surfing in Oz and wasn't harmed beyond getting the fright of his life.

Oceans aren't shark infested, they're people infested. The ocean is their home

Mine are shark crazy. They also love a film called "Bait" sharks in a supermarket.

Anyway back on topic, tickets booked and off to the cinema on Saturday. Myself i havent been to the movies since "In Bruges" came out.

Beefy78

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm not convinced by that logic.

Initially, the loyalty to Pratt was very weak and mostly held together because they were in a cage. They hesitated but lunged for him in that opening scene in the pit. They then seemed to be 100% on Team Pratt for the hunt. Then they meet a real alpha in the I-Rex and their true nature comes out. The problem is that later, they had Pratt cornered & weak. That's no position for an alpha. The I-Rex turns up and they go against the dominant force because.... raptors have feelings now?

As I said, as a spectacle it was great but ultimately it was a very contrived twist that is another example of how inconsistent JW is.

To be honest, that late scene didn't come across that way to me at the time of watching but yeah reading your analysis now I definitely agree with you. It can only really be explained by the Raptors having nostaligic 'feelings' about Owen but that wasn't the basis of the relationship that they've been selling us on throughout the rest of the film.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I get that you don't buy it - but that doesn't change the fact that they did show after the hunt turn the Raptors still had some respect for Pratt and the other handler. They weren't treating the handlers (previous Alphas and people who had a social bond with them, could calm them) the same as the other meat sack red shirts. Even when they had him cornered at the end - his posture, tone and body language didn't betray his position, he was still attempting to command them and they were still not attacking him outright, there was still a conflict. As I say, you can disagree with the outcome and be put off by it - but the movie does provide clues and explanations for why things turn out the way they do. It isn't just the Raptors are about to eat him and then get all nostalgic for the times he fed them rats.

Good counter-argument. Now I'm torn!

Bacchus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The Raptor just looking at Pratt and cocking its head in a complete non-aggressive manner before it was blown up by an RPG.

I think you're reading too much into that cock of the head. There probably was recognition there but the look was neither aggressive nor non-aggressive. I'd lend much more weight to the actions of the raptors - i.e. chasing and attacking Pratt.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

For the other fella, it was attacking him and then stopped when he shouted 'BBBBBLLLLLLLUUUUUUEEEEEEEE', then Pratt rev'd the bike and it ran off after him.

So, the raptor was attacking the handler (negating your previous argument that there was a precedent of raptors not attacking the handlers). Pratt got the raptors attention by shouting and revving the engine and it started to chase him instead of attacking the other handler. How does that fit the "non-aggressive" picture of the raptors that your are trying to paint?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You are just ignoring the clues to be honest. I can accept you not accepting them or thinking they are bull, but to deny the existence of them in the first place is just odd.

What clues? The cock of the head? That's a stretch. The raptors were portrayed through the movie as wild killer animals who Pratt had a sliver of control over as the alpha male / prison keeper. He lost that status when they met the I-Rex and the raptors turned on him, the other keeper and humans in general. The u-turn at the end was contrived and stupid.

FortuneChip

Bacchus wrote: »

What clues? The cock of the head? That's a stretch. The raptors were portrayed through the movie as wild killer animals who Pratt had a sliver of control over as the alpha male / prison keeper. He lost that status when they met the I-Rex and the raptors turned on him, the other keeper and humans in general. The u-turn at the end was contrived and stupid.

Pretty bang on here.
Sure in the opening scene they went for him as he bolted for the gate.
He said himself he was fully convinced that they weren't ready for "field-testing". He makes a subtle joke to suggest the previous employee was eaten (not to say he was, but again it reiterates they don't control the raptors).
Then, plot convenience won over.
"Oh they're seeking for him"
"Oh, they work for him"
"Oh, they're back good again".

I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, and I understand the reasons as to why they'd have taken each approach, but it was very quick & convenient with minimal coercion.

BMMachine

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The I-Rex, which they were using non-lethal rounds against, which has been bread as a killing machine for the army - with extra thick skin, so no surprise there. What other dino did they hit? The raptors were too quick for the army guys to actually hit, from memory. So apart from I-Rex (story explanation) and Raptors which I don't think they hit, what did bullets have 0 effect on? Honestly can't remember any other dinos being shot at.

so they used non-lethal rounds first. thats fine. then they switched to regular guns. so they all go out, with the raptors who are super cool with all this of course, and start shooting but literally nothing happens. why bring the guns? its just not a good movie.

Unearthly

J Mysterio wrote: »

How are you allowing your children to watch Jaws? :

As a kid my favorite films were Jaws, Predator, Terminator, Jurassic Park. I had no time for 'kids' films. My aunt used to bring me and my cousins to cinema all the time but was only to Disney type films which I hated.

Much preferred my vhs tapings of classics

Kiith

It was a really stupid film, but the kid in me loved the Raptor/T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. It was awesome :P

MrWalsh

Kiith wrote: »

It was a really stupid film, but the kid in me loved the Raptor/T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. It was awesome :P

I just kept thinking of stuff like Godzilla and King Kong and how my tastes for big monsters havent changed since I was 5

Mitch Connor

MrWalsh wrote: »

I just kept thinking of stuff like Godzilla and King Kong and how my tastes for big monsters havent changed since I was 5

I kept thinking of the Godzilla movie, and how much I liked actually being able to see the 'monsters' have a proper fight in this one!

BrookieD

brought the boy last night to see it in Ashbourne showcase for 6 spots each...... loved JP when it was released and really enjoyed this... good sound/effects/ ok story... gapping plot holes.

the one bit that stuck in my thora was younger of the kids expressing that they found a "1992 jeep wrangler in sand beige......!!!!!" WTF like... if i was the bigger brother i would have punch him square in the mouth, idiot.... apart from that really liked it and the kid loved it also

syklops

I don't normally notice product placement. Usually it bypasses me. Bond driving a BMW in GoldenEye I noticed because he always drove, nearly always anyway, an Aston Martin. If he'd swapped his watch for a Rolex I'd have been pissed.

And bond has been critised in the past. Like lots of people drinking Heineken in Skyfall, but even that wasn't as blatant as JW was. The Samsung innovation centre. There was a shot with a Ben&Jerry's, magaritaville, Starbucks and mention of Verizon.

I don't mind product placement when it makes sense. I don't mind bond texting from a Sony erikkson phone, it was 2008, he needed a phone. He didn't get coffee from Starbucks or get a burger in Burger king.

Chip Whitley

Verizon was mentioned as a sponsor for the new attraction, I can understand that. I usually don't either notice/care about product placement but I will admit the scene where Chris Pratt drinks the 'ice-cold' glass bottle of Coke took me out of the film as it seemed so forced, and annoyed me a little bit.

Mitch Connor

BrookieD wrote: »

brought the boy last night to see it in Ashbourne showcase for 6 spots each...... loved JP when it was released and really enjoyed this... good sound/effects/ ok story... gapping plot holes.

the one bit that stuck in my thora was younger of the kids expressing that they found a "1992 jeep wrangler in sand beige......!!!!!" WTF like... if i was the bigger brother i would have punch him square in the mouth, idiot.... apart from that really liked it and the kid loved it also

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

BMMachine

Mitch Connor wrote: »

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

hes not autistic

syklops

Mitch Connor wrote: »

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

He's about as autistic as i am.

Cantona's Collars

Kiith wrote: »

It was a really stupid film, but the kid in me loved the Raptor/T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. It was awesome :P

Brought my 7yr old and it's the first time he was completely engrossed in a movie.It's big,dumb and lots of fun.I enjoyed it too,it was actually more fun than Avengers Assemble.

BrookieD

Mitch Connor wrote: »

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

WTFt...! no mention at all during the film to this at all..... not in any other single scene was a random fact just blurted out.... I found it a jarring punch to the gut to make the connection back to JP when it was not needed in the slightest....

BrookieD

syklops wrote: »

I don't normally notice product placement. Usually it bypasses me. Bond driving a BMW in GoldenEye I noticed because he always drove, nearly always anyway, an Aston Martin. If he'd swapped his watch for a Rolex I'd have been pissed.

And bond has been critised in the past. Like lots of people drinking Heineken in Skyfall, but even that wasn't as blatant as JW was. The Samsung innovation centre. There was a shot with a Ben&Jerry's, magaritaville, Starbucks and mention of Verizon.

I don't mind product placement when it makes sense. I don't mind bond texting from a Sony erikkson phone, it was 2008, he needed a phone. He didn't get coffee from Starbucks or get a burger in Burger king.

Product placement was ok apart from Samsung being rammed down my throat every other scene.... i would say nearly every piece of tech was samsung.

Mitch Connor

BMMachine wrote: »

hes not autistic

He clearly is in the spectrum.

Mickeroo

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He clearly is in the spectrum.

Seemed perfectly normal to me.

Bacchus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He clearly is in the spectrum.

He was just a nerdy kid who loved dinosaurs. He was filling the role of Timmy from the original. It was just handled terribly though to the point where he was a really irritating "know it all" kid. You can't just make excuses for poor character writing/acting by saying they have an intellectual disability when no reference is made in the movie that this is the case.

Also, it shows a lack of understanding by you of the autism spectrum that you default to this assumption just because he remembers random facts.

Thargor

He really wasn't normal and it was completely pointless making him that way, writers seemed to have forgotten they'd bothered by the end aswell, same for the parents divorce storyline.

Then again its a horrible tv/film cliche when the autistic kid uses his powers to save the day so probably for the best that they didnt.

Mitch Connor

Bacchus wrote: »

He was just a nerdy kid who loved dinosaurs. He was filling the role of Timmy from the original. It was just handled terribly though to the point where he was a really irritating "know it all" kid. You can't just make excuses for poor character writing/acting by saying they have an intellectual disability when no reference is made in the movie that this is the case.

Also, it shows a lack of understanding by you of the autism spectrum that you default to this assumption just because he remembers random facts.

Ha - yeah - a poor understanding by me, with 3 family members on the spectrum.

Social skills, repition and announcing of knowledge, repition of issues and facts (number of teeth, repeated a few times), taking orders literally (hold hands), accounting of time (X time to airport, X time plus Y with traffic). Comment from the older brother about him supposed to be a genius ( a fairly common trait - poor social skills but high intelligence). There are many queues to the kid being on the spectrum, very obvious ones to my mind - which I see in family members.

MrWalsh

Thargor wrote: »

He really wasn't normal and it was completely pointless making him that way, writers seemed to have forgotten they'd bothered by the end aswell, same for the parents divorce storyline.

Then again its a horrible tv/film cliche when the autistic kid uses his powers to save the day so probably for the best that they didnt.

Apparently the character was originally meant to be autistic but they dropped that.

Mitch Connor

MrWalsh wrote: »

Apparently the character was originally meant to be autistic but they dropped that.

Fair enough - they needed to rewrite the character and his interactions more than they did to make that clear so, but fair enough.

MrWalsh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Fair enough - they needed to rewrite the character and his interactions more than they did to make that clear so, but fair enough.

Have to admit he seemed like an ordinary nerdy kid to me.

Mitch Connor

MrWalsh wrote: »

Have to admit he seemed like an ordinary nerdy kid to me.

fair enough - myself and the other half felt there were obvious autistic tendencies in his character, and with family members and her being a childrens nurse I would expect her to have a decently grounded view on such things. Maybe just hyper-sensitive to the examples I gave. If he was originally written as autistic, while it was dropped it is possible they didn't completely rewrite his scenes, so the more obvious examples (to me) may have been kept in the final script.

MrWalsh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

fair enough - myself and the other half felt there were obvious autistic tendencies in his character, and with family members and her being a childrens nurse I would expect her to have a decently grounded view on such things. Maybe just hyper-sensitive to the examples I gave. If he was originally written as autistic, while it was dropped it is possible they didn't completely rewrite his scenes, so the more obvious examples (to me) may have been kept in the final script.

Being brutally honest, I didnt give a sh1te about any of the characters in the movie except Chris Pratt and the dinos so maybe I wasnt paying much attention either.