Jurassic World

The Pheasant2 · 27-06-2015 01:30PM

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 02:38PM

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 02:57PM

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 03:16PM

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 07:18PM

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.

Owryan · 28-06-2015 10:14PM

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

Charlie19 · 28-06-2015 10:17PM

Owryan wrote: »

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

I'm not sure anyone on here can advise such a query. You know the children but if they liked jaws I'd say they be ok with JW.

Optimalprimerib · 28-06-2015 10:25PM

Owryan wrote: »

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

This is not in any way gorier or scarier than the first 3. In fact it is possibly the mildest of them as they more or less neutered the scariest thing of the movies (the raptors).

syklops · 29-06-2015 01:29AM

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

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.

This exactly sums up how I felt about the movie. (Saw it tonight).

When they talked about this dinosaur who had been bred in captivity and never seen another dinosaur before, I was expecting a "Black Fish" sort of scenario where it is psychotic and kills everything and anything. I can get on board with that. But despite never seeing another animal, it can 'speak' velociraptor, so well in fact that it can manipulate 3 smart raptors who have imprinted on a human Alpha, into joining its cause. That was a disappointing turn of events.

While trying to not sound sexist or inappropriate, the bit at the start with the hot teen girl kissing the teen boy, I was really disappointed when I found out we would be seeing the boy for the rest of the film not the girl. Even more so when he contributed nothing at all to the plot.

Cliched "Parents are getting a divorce".

I was all on board for the raptors to be part of the team. To be the good guys, but the they are, their not, they are again, was a bit annoying.

There was a bit when they introduced the "new" asset recovery unit, and my girlfriend said to me, "It looks like this will be war between humans and dinosaurs", and I thought so too and was really excited, and... it wasnt. 8 guys with guns and 4 raptors met the monster, the raptors turned and half of the soldiers got killed, and that was kind of it.

I also felt there was a kind of reality matching fiction, whereby the Jurassic World themepark from the movie represented a sort of "Lets milk this franchise as much as we can", with the ride the triceratops area, and petting zoo etc, as well as the brand placement. The movie itself was also a "Lets milk it for all we can get".

When JP1 came out there was 1 raptor toy. From this movie they will have 4 raptor toys to sell, because they have 4 different raptors with different colouring(and I ashamedly would considering buying a toy of the raptor Blue). It really felt like they were flogging a dead horse.

The first thirty minutes were a waste of time. There was nothing in it. The music was there and I was dying to see some dinosaurs, but the dinosaur fan in the kid, brought us through the Samsung innovation centre, when in reality, if you were that kid, you'd want to see a real dinosaur up close before you did anything. Did any kid ever visit a zoo, and then rush to the gift shop, not the animal they wanted to see?

Also, having said they got VIP access at least twice in the movie, which meant they didnt need to queue, they queued for the quadrospere.

I'll leae it there for now.

. .

BMMachine · 29-06-2015 01:51AM

also bullets having zero effect on anything was annoying

Mitch Connor · 29-06-2015 07:05AM

BMMachine wrote: »

also bullets having zero effect on anything was annoying

Apart from the flying dinosaurs - which got taken out by them in one of the main set pieces. But sure why let that get in the way of moaning about the movie.

Beefy78 · 29-06-2015 10:02AM

syklops wrote: »

But despite never seeing another animal, it can 'speak' velociraptor, so well in fact that it can manipulate 3 smart raptors who have imprinted on a human Alpha, into joining its cause. That was a disappointing turn of events.

I don't think Velociraptan is an actual language or that the audience was supposed to anthropomorphise that scene quite like you have done. Chances are that the communication would have been instinctive.

BMMachine · 29-06-2015 01:16PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Apart from the flying dinosaurs - which got taken out by them in one of the main set pieces. But sure why let that get in the way of moaning about the movie.

I had actually forgotten about that. but anything else and it was just 0 effect

Sleepy · 29-06-2015 02:13PM

Owryan wrote: »

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

My 6 year old girl and 9 year old boy both *LOVED* it. They'd be big Jaws fans too

J Mysterio · 29-06-2015 02:34PM

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

Owryan · 29-06-2015 02:45PM

Sleepy wrote: »

My 6 year old girl and 9 year old boy both *LOVED* it. They'd be big Jaws fans too

Cheers, tweeted the cinema and they have it on their kids club schedule so looks like its over priced popcorn time.

Mitch Connor · 29-06-2015 05:40PM

BMMachine wrote: »

I had actually forgotten about that. but anything else and it was just 0 effect

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.

Foxtrol · 30-06-2015 03:45AM

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't think Velociraptan is an actual language or that the audience was supposed to anthropomorphise that scene quite like you have done. Chances are that the communication would have been instinctive.

This.

I think the other poster's complaint is strange seeing as they turned their back on a human that couldn't speak any raptor for a creature that could at least make some raptor like noises. Along with the noises it's more the sheer size of the I-Rex that probably put the raptors in line behind it, which is pretty common in the animal/human world. The movie even goes out of it's way to point out how boarderline Pratt is seen as an Alpha so it's not really shocking that they turn.

At this point it is starting to look like posters are going out of their way to find any minor potential plot holes (most of which can be easily explained). If you want to go through the original you can come up with just as many.

Bacchus · 30-06-2015 07:57AM

Personally, I've no problem with the raptors falling in line with the I-Rex. It fit, it made sense. However, switching allegiance back to Pratt was the silly part and it was a contrived twist to swing the odds back in favour of Pratt & co. Pratt was no longer the alpha (he was barely the alpha in the first place), it made no sense for the raptors to turn on the clearly dominant I-Rex in that final confrontation. It made for a great spectacle alright (a raptor riding a T-Rex fighting the I-Rex) but it's big plotholes like this that make JW a movie that, IMO, will not hold up to repeat viewings.

JP may well have plotholes too but at least it cleverly set up the finale so that the raptors and T-Rex were fighting over who got to eat the humans.

Mitch Connor · 30-06-2015 08:04AM

Bacchus wrote: »

Personally, I've no problem with the raptors falling in line with the I-Rex. It fit, it made sense. However, switching allegiance back to Pratt was the silly part and it was a contrived twist to swing the odds back in favour of Pratt & co. Pratt was no longer the alpha (he was barely the alpha in the first place), it made no sense for the raptors to turn on the clearly dominant I-Rex in that final confrontation. It made for a great spectacle alright (a raptor riding a T-Rex fighting the I-Rex) but it's big plotholes like this that make JW a movie that, IMO, will not hold up to repeat viewings.

JP may well have plotholes too but at least it cleverly set up the finale so that the raptors and T-Rex were fighting over who got to eat the humans.

They had already showed after their initial 'turn' that while the Raptors were more than willing to eat everyone else, they were unsure whether to eat Pratt or the other handler fella - when face to face with their handlers (or shouted at...) they hesitated at the very least. So the (re)turn in the final fight is no out of the blue or unheralded by previous events.

Bacchus · 30-06-2015 08:14AM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

They had already showed after their initial 'turn' that while the Raptors were more than willing to eat everyone else, they were unsure whether to eat Pratt or the other handler fella - when face to face with their handlers (or shouted at...) they hesitated at the very least. So the (re)turn in the final fight is no out of the blue or unheralded by previous events.

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.

FortuneChip · 30-06-2015 08:19AM

Bacchus wrote: »

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.

Eh, Pratt took off their Action Camera straps. They know a keeper when they see one!

I absolutely loved the heroic slow-mo of the raptor coming back into the fray. It was hilarious!

Silly, but entertaining as a fun movie. Riddled with holes but I think the spectacle held it up just about enough.

Mitch Connor · 30-06-2015 08:19AM

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.

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.

MrWalsh · 30-06-2015 08:28AM

FortuneChip wrote: »

I absolutely loved the heroic slow-mo of the raptor coming back into the fray. It was hilarious!

Classic. Loved it!

Bacchus · 30-06-2015 08:33AM

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.

@FortuneChip: That slo-mo of the raptor coming back to save the day was indeed hilarious.

Mitch Connor · 30-06-2015 09:10AM

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 · 30-06-2015 09:16AM

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 · 30-06-2015 09:34AM

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 · 30-06-2015 09:41AM

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 · 30-06-2015 10:21AM

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.

Jurassic World

Comments