[Movie] Jurassic World 3: Dominion

[Kyphael]

The velociraptors in the movie are actually supposed to be deinonychus(before the feathered dino concept was accepted). Michael Crichton said the same thing, the velociraptors in the book were deinonychus, but he liked the other name more so that's what he went with.

Fair enough, I thought I read Indoraptor somewhere. Indoraptor doesn't look very different than the Raptors in Jurassic Park.

[Kaleredar]

It's fiction, if they can make talking apes the dominant species on the planet, there's no reason why the dinosaurs can't develop an airborne virus that is deadly to human beings. By the time a cure is found, say 10% of the human race is left and boom: we're back in the Jurassic period.

Sure, but the planet of the apes reboot already did that. And the Jurassic world series doesn't need to get any more derivative.

In my "movie that doesn't sound like it'll be a trainwreck going in" they've hired Grant, Sattler, Malcolm, and Grady and Danvers to go around tracking down and rounding up Dinosaur populations. Grant and Sattler know the dinosaur's biology, Malcolm could predict where they'd spread to, while Grady knows their behavior and Danvers is... serving the corporate interest, or whatever.

The Jurassic Park movies (well, movie, I guess, seeing as the first one is the only one that did it well) work the best when they're intimate, not when it's a bunch of random nonsense flying around with characters we don't care about.

[Kyphael]

To be honest, even the Deinonychus looks a little small compared to the Raptors in Jurassic Park, who are as tall if not taller than a lot of full grown human men. Indoraptor fits the bill a lot more, whether Crichton intended or not.



Though I just checked and the Indoraptor is a little on the larger size.

[Stormcall]

Fair enough, I thought I read Indoraptor somewhere. Indoraptor doesn't look very different than the Raptors in Jurassic Park.

Indoraptor isn't a real thing, it was invented for the movie. There isn't an actual indoraptor. There is a utahraptor, which is actually closer in size to the movie versions.

[Gref]

If we don't have a plot about dinosaurs being used as weapons of war, I'll be upset. Pterodactyl bombers, velociraptors and/or other meat-eating dinosaurs with machine guns attatched to them, etc.

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

You mean dino riders!

[korijenkins]

How recent? Because last time I was paying attention, renderings depicted them as:





Of course, they vary in how much plumage. Say what you want but that still looks frightening. Doesn't help I have a bird phobia.

They actually look scarier with feathers.

[Kyphael]

Sure, but the planet of the apes reboot already did that. And the Jurassic world series doesn't need to get any more derivative.

In my "movie that doesn't sound like it'll be a trainwreck going in" they've hired Grant, Sattler, Malcolm, and Grady and Danvers to go around tracking down and rounding up Dinosaur populations. Grant and Sattler know the dinosaur's biology, Malcolm could predict where they'd spread to, while Grady knows their behavior and Danvers is... serving the corporate interest, or whatever.

The Jurassic Park movies (well, movie, I guess, seeing as the first one is the only one that did it well) work the best when they're intimate, not when it's a bunch of random nonsense flying around with characters we don't care about.

Yeah but Grant, Sattler and Malcolm are old, do you foresee them having a major role? Malcolm had like one scene in Jurassic World: The Lost Kingdom. To have a movie about just rounding up dinosaurs sounds cyclical and a redo of The Lost World: Jurassic Park with it ending with no major consequences for the dinosaurs being released into the open world. They did that for a reason. This is the third in a trilogy, which means all bets are off. It's almost certainly the last film Neil, Goldblum and Sattler's actress will fit in, and likely the last for Dallas Howard and Chris, too, which means they can set up a new trilogy by going in a new direction; dinosaurs becoming the dominant species on the planet and driving human survivors into hiding.

- - - Updated - - -

Indoraptor isn't a real thing, it was invented for the movie. There isn't an actual indoraptor. There is a utahraptor, which is actually closer in size to the movie versions.

I suck. Utahraptor was the name I read years ago. lol For some reason I had Indoraptor on the brain. But yes, Utahraptor.

- - - Updated - - -

They actually look scarier with feathers.

Right? I'd say if they looked like that really, that's the scariest thing that ever walked the planet.

[Kaleredar]

How recent? Because last time I was paying attention, renderings depicted them as:





Of course, they vary in how much plumage. Say what you want but that still looks frightening. Doesn't help I have a bird phobia.

Renderings can depict them any way they want; there's been no direct fossil evidence of Tyrannosaurus, or any of its closest relatives (Tarbosaurus, Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus) having feathers anywhere on their body. As I said, all skin impressions of those animals have been bare, with no evidence of feathers.

Paleontologists extrapolate that Tyrannosaurs had feathers because an early, much smaller dinosaur that Tyrannosaurs evolved from was found with feathers.

But if you're making that connection, you're basically saying "well, I found this basal mammal fossil that looks like a rat, and it has a lot of hair on it, so obviously, all mammals must be covered with lots of hair!" when animals like whales, elephants, and rhinoceros exist with very little hair covering their bodies.


Why are paleontologists so adamant that T. Rex had feathers? I think it's because 1) It seeks to reaffirm that birds are, in fact, dinosaurs, by equating the most well-known dinosaur with birds by depicting the T. Rex with feathers and 2) bring attention to paleontology by saying, more or less, "look at this new and different depiction of T. Rex! Don't you want to learn more?" But what they're saying is still entirely speculation.

Yeah but Grant, Sattler and Malcolm are old, do you foresee them having a major role?

They did it in Star Wars.

Malcolm had like one scene in Jurassic World: The Lost Kingdom. To have a movie about just rounding up dinosaurs sounds cyclical and a redo of The Lost World: Jurassic Park with it ending with no major consequences for the dinosaurs being released into the open world.

The consequences would be the effects taken on the characters in the film as they go through the journey. Like any good narrative should be; an exercise in characters.

As far as being a "redo" of the lost world... good. Maybe they could make a good version of that movie.

They did that for a reason. This is the third in a trilogy, which means all bets are off. It's almost certainly the last film Neil, Goldblum and Sattler's actress will fit in, and likely the last for Dallas Howard and Chris, too, which means they can set up a new trilogy by going in a new direction; dinosaurs becoming the dominant species on the planet and driving human survivors into hiding.

That just makes it another apocalyptic sci-fi movie. And frankly, I expect... better... from the Jurassic park series. It's always been about the folly of mankind; it's hard to have "folly" play into it when humans are already the underdog.

The first Jurassic Park didn't end with "world-ending consequences." Now there were just some dinosaurs on an island. Not every film has to be the go-between in some trilogy or sequel or whatever. It should be a satisfying narrative unto itself.

I suck. Utahraptor was the name I read years ago. lol For some reason I had Indoraptor on the brain. But yes, Utahraptor.

Utahraptor was formally described after Jurassic Park had been written and the film had come out.

[Kyphael]

Renderings can depict them any way they want; there's been no direct fossil evidence of Tyrannosaurus, or any of its closest relatives (Tarbosaurus, Albertosaurus, Daspletosaurus) having feathers anywhere on their body. As I said, all skin impressions of those animals have been bare, with no evidence of feathers.

Paleontologists extrapolate that Tyrannosaurs had feathers because an early, much smaller dinosaur that Tyrannosaurs evolved from was found with feathers.

But if you're making that connection, you're basically saying "well, I found this basal mammal fossil that looks like a rat, and it has a lot of hair on it, so obviously, all mammals must be covered with lots of hair!" when animals like whales, elephants, and rhinoceros exist with very little hair covering their bodies.


Why are paleontologists so adamant that T. Rex had feathers? I think it's because 1) It seeks to reaffirm that birds are, in fact, dinosaurs, by equating the most well-known dinosaur with birds by depicting the T. Rex with feathers and 2) bring attention to paleontology by saying, more or less, "look at this new and different depiction of T. Rex! Don't you want to learn more?"

To be fair, mammoths, mastodon, and early rhinos had hair/fur, whales notwithstanding, so it's not insane for a paleontologist to hypothesize the T-Rex had feathers. Maybe the early T-Rex had feathers and later evolved to have less to none as early man was hairy, and evolved to have much less body hair than our ancestors.



The earliest elephant was tiny, too. They've evolved from having fur/hair to none from migration.





The exticnt "Siberian unicorn" may have lived alongside humans. It appears even whales share a common ancestry, and of course they evolved to not needing fur because of their new maritime habitat.

Fossil hunters have discovered the remains of the earliest ancestor of the modern whale: a small deer-like animal that waded in lagoons and munched on vegetation.

From Bambi to Moby Dick

[Shadowferal]

Yeah, the feathers are still very much in debate.
And until there's more evidence I think a dubious debate at that.

[Kaleredar]

To be fair, mammoths, mastodon, and early rhinos had hair/fur, whales notwithstanding, so it's not insane for a paleontologist to hypothesize the T-Rex had feathers. Maybe the early T-Rex had feathers and later evolved to have less to none as early man was hairy, and evolved to have much less body hair than our ancestors.



The earliest elephant was tiny, too. They've evolved from having fur/hair to none from migration.





The exticnt "Siberian unicorn" may have lived alongside humans. It appears even whales share a common ancestry, and of course they evolved to not needing fur because of their new maritime habitat.

Fossil hunters have discovered the remains of the earliest ancestor of the modern whale: a small deer-like animal that waded in lagoons and munched on vegetation.

From Bambi to Moby Dick

Yeah, and it was really damn cold when those animals had enormous amounts of body hair. The climate in the cretaceous was warm; so warm that the even the poles couldn't maintain ice year-round.

So what did the Tyrannosaurus need feathers for? Certainly not insulation. Like any large animal (like the african elephant) its concern would have been shedding heat, not conserving it.

Feathers take energy to produce. Why should a Tyrannosaurus, the product of 60 million years of evolution since its last ancestor was found with feathers, have retained them for that long?

[Kyphael]

They did it in Star Wars.

Yeah but... in Star Wars, Luke and Leia are like super powered people. Han wasn't, and he died in the first movie. In Jurassic Park/World, it's more grounded, Sam Neil and Ian Malcolm are just old people, perhaps too old to go dinosaur hunting. Especially Malcolm, he's a chaos theorist or whatever, not some hero.

The consequences would be the effects taken on the characters in the film as they go through the journey. Like any good narrative should be; an exercise in characters.

As logical as that may be, it seems short-sighted in 2019 where movies, especially like these, are made to set up sequels and become cash cow franchises.

As far as being a "redo" of the lost world... good. Maybe they could make a good version of that movie.

I don't get the hate this movie gets. Because it didn't have Sam Neil? It's still better than Jurassic World, which was essentially a Jurassic Park re-make.

That just makes it another apocalyptic sci-fi movie. And frankly, I expect... better... from the Jurassic park series. It's always been about the folly of mankind; it's hard to have "folly" play into it when humans are already the underdog.

I do see them going precisely in that direction, though... apocalyptic sci-fi movie. Time will tell, but they probably see more money in that.

The first Jurassic Park didn't end with "world-ending consequences." Now there were just some dinosaurs on an island. Not every film has to be the go-between in some trilogy or sequel or whatever. It should be a satisfying narrative unto itself.

The first is a classic that can stand alone for movie purists who don't wish to believe the sequels existed. The moment Spielberg signed off on making a sequel, he let it become a Hollywood franchise, not unlike what happened with Planet of the Apes, its subsequent bad sequels, and Terminator, too. I don't think Universal is concerned with making the sixth Jurassic Park movie anything but a cash cow.

Utahraptor was formally described after Jurassic Park had been written and the film had come out.

Thanks, I used to read up on dinosaurs so much as a kid, really fell behind into adulthood.

[Kaleredar]

Yeah but... in Star Wars, Luke and Leia are like super powered people. Han wasn't, and he died in the first movie. In Jurassic Park/World, it's more grounded, Sam Neil and Ian Malcolm are just old people, perhaps too old to go dinosaur hunting. Especially Malcolm, he's a chaos theorist or whatever, not some hero.

They wouldn't be bringing them to "spring into action," they'd be bringing them along as advisors.

And then something goes wrong and they're forced into action. Like how movies usually go. (Like the first Jurassic Park, for example.)

As logical as that may be, it seems short-sighted in 2019 where movies, especially like these, are made to set up sequels and become cash cow franchises.

You're going to start seeing diminishing returns, especially if the films aren't of high quality.

I don't get the hate this movie gets. Because it didn't have Sam Neil? It's still better than Jurassic World, which was essentially a Jurassic Park re-make.

The Lost World was too up its own ass. An elementary school girl kills a velociraptor with a gymnastics kick. Most of the characters are just random people we never get to know or care about.

Frankly, they would have been better served sticking to the book.

I do see them going precisely in that direction, though... apocalyptic sci-fi movie. Time will tell, but they probably see more money in that.



The first is a classic that can stand alone for movie purists who don't wish to believe the sequels existed. The moment Spielberg signed off on making a sequel, he let it become a Hollywood franchise, not unlike what happened with Planet of the Apes, its subsequent bad sequels, and Terminator, too. I don't think Universal is concerned with making the sixth Jurassic Park movie anything but a cash cow.

And, just like those films, they'll see diminishing returns.

[Kyphael]

They wouldn't be bringing them to "spring into action," they'd be bringing them along as advisors.

And then something goes wrong and they're forced into action. Like how movies usually go. (Like the first Jurassic Park, for example.)

True, but it's a little easier to spring into action in your late 30's to 40's versus in your 70's...

You're going to start seeing diminishing returns, especially if the films aren't of high quality.

Also true but I doubt studio executives learn from the past. Besides, Jurassic World wasn't even of very high quality, it was a total nostalgia trip just like The Force Awakens and both made gobs of money. It's true, they may stick to the formula of "dinosaurs roam free, we round them back up into parks, rinse and repeat." But from the rumors we've heard of the third breaking the mold and being different, apocalyptic sci-fi may not be unrealistic. We'll see I guess.

The Lost World was too up its own ass. An elementary school girl kills a velociraptor with a gymnastics kick. Most of the characters are just random people we never get to know or care about.

True, I literally cared about a couple characters, and the movie had like 30 that were just lined up to be a dinosaur buffet. I assume you prefer Jurassic Park 3 then even though it was shorter and critically panned. At least the Kirby's were developed, somewhat... Tea Leoni's character was insufferable, though.

And, just like those films, they'll see diminishing returns.

And they'd likely take another long break and soft reboot a decade later again with an 80 year-old Ian Malcolm.

[exochaft]

I'm kind of with the person that just wants the franchise to die already. I enjoyed reading the books by Crichton, but the movie versions of his novels feel so lame in general. The original Jurassic Park movie was pretty solid considering how many deviations the movie made, but even The Lost World got a little... ridiculous is the word I'm looking for, I think? Fast forward in the franchise to today, and we're at the point where everything is predictable (even that linked short earlier in this thread I knew almost everything that would happen after the initial setup, down to the kid using the crossbow) and a heaping pile of identity politics with surface level messaging that shoots itself in its own foot.

Another post even alluded to it: the clone of the girl in the last movie was supposed to invoke sympathy with her identity and the dinosaurs themselves... yet the reality is she probably ended up killing tons of people in the process while destroying ecosystems, while any sane person would've just immediately let them die. Perhaps the parent in me also thought "Why would you let a child make an important decision like that in the first place? They're children, they don't have very good rationalization abilities and the capacity for logical thinking to make any important decision!" However, the message (and setup for a sequel) mattered more than rationality. Don't even get me started on the rest of The Fallen Kingdom, it was so bad to the point where it wasn't even 'funny' bad, just annoying bad.

They should've just stuck to the books instead of trying to milk the franchise if this was all the effort they were going to put into the movies. It's pretty evident when you see the original movie's cast show up sequels of this franchise, and you can tell that they were likely on set for a day and washed their hands of the movies. I would not be surprised if this is the case for the 6th movie, as well. Sadly, this is the trend with Hollywood right now: try to trick people using IP name/brand recognition while putting in the least amount of effort into making a good movie. Too bad this is working, but I know personally this movie is one of many that I'm going to be skipping.

[Ihavewaffles]

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

You mean dino riders!

Would it look something like this?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/8c...2c3282569e.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TMm6xjZ.jpg

[Soulwind]

The one thing I liked about the second one is that there are so many routes they can go now with different stories, there's room for spin-offs, series, etc because of the choice they made with the plot towards the end of the movie.
The world building potential is crazy

I kind of agree, but I also can't shake two thoughts off my head:

- There weren't that many dinosaurs in there, and I don't think they would reproduce very quickly, so this concept of them showing up all over the country/world in a few years is a bit of a stretch.

- Most of them would be dead by the end of the week. Smaller ones would be predated by bears, wolves and other modern animals that are actually adapted to the environment. Many would be run over by cars or killed by hunters. And the military would definitely act against the larger threats, particularly the mosasaurus.

And that's ignoring that these laboratory creatures should probably be fairly vulnerable to natural diseases, but let's imagine the scientists who couldn't figure out that their I-Rex had camouflage were able to immunize all these different species for all kinds of viruses and bacteria, including those that wouldn't have ever reached the island these animals weren't supposed to leave...

[eschatological]

If y'all think this movie will be about "left wing animal rights activists" and "bureaucratic red tape," you've really gone off the deep end.


It'll be a disaster movie, plain and simple. Except the disaster can be fought with machine guns and missiles. I expect it to be more like a Transformers movie than anything else.

[RampageBW1]

If y'all think this movie will be about "left wing animal rights activists" and "bureaucratic red tape," you've really gone off the deep end.


It'll be a disaster movie, plain and simple. Except the disaster can be fought with machine guns and missiles. I expect it to be more like a Transformers movie than anything else.

You can believe whatever you want, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a movie without at least one of the past tropes from the previous movie sneaking it's way in there.

[eschatological]

I think you're conflating Hammond's late-movie conservation efforts with his desire to recuperate something from his investment. His money and his ass were on the line, he wasn't a concerned conservationist, he was a Walt Disney-esque figure. To then bring that forward as possible evidence that the JP franchise has ever been about that is, well, silly. JP has always been about what Ian Malcolm summed up in the movie: rampant narcissists saying "Can we?" instead of "Should we?" That's literally the theme of the new Jurassic World franchise when they created Indomintus Rex or whatever it's called. Admittedly, I haven't seen past the first Jurassic World in the new franchise.

I will say, though, the character was softened quite a bit for the first movie, even to the point that he survived (which he did not, in the book).