[Movie] Jurassic World 3: Dominion

[Adamas102]

lol when was Jurassic park not ''dumb dinosaur stuff''. This series has basically always been Transformers or Fast and Furious, but with dinos instead lol.

I have to imagine you never actually watched the original Jurassic Park if you're comparing it to pure popcorn action flicks.

The first movie was head and shoulders above the sequels in every respect (writing, acting, direction, score, etc), and a landmark film when it came out both in terms of technical and cinematic achievements. It adapted the more grounded sci-fi and horror aspects of the book pretty well, while the sequels have diverged more and more into just fantastical CGI spectacle.

[Darththeo]

I have to imagine you never actually watched the original Jurassic Park if you're comparing it to pure popcorn action flicks.

The first movie was head and shoulders above the sequels in every respect (writing, acting, direction, score, etc), and a landmark film when it came out both in terms of technical and cinematic achievements. It adapted the more grounded sci-fi and horror aspects of the book pretty well, while the sequels have diverged more and more into just fantastical CGI spectacle.

Despite working from a screen play that first version was written by Crichton himself, I respectfully disagree, there were major points missed that were in the novel.

There is still the core message there, but it missed a lot. Some was shown in later movies, including finally having dinosaurs wild on the main land. The point of the book is you cannot control nature, no matter how hard you try life will find a way. While that was somewhat lost in the first two sequels, it is definitely present in the World trilogy thus far.

So, if you honestly think the first was somehow head and shoulders about the sequels, I can really only grant you The Lost World and JP3.

[Adamas102]

Despite working from a screen play that first version was written by Crichton himself, I respectfully disagree, there were major points missed that were in the novel.

There is still the core message there, but it missed a lot. Some was shown in later movies, including finally having dinosaurs wild on the main land. The point of the book is you cannot control nature, no matter how hard you try life will find a way. While that was somewhat lost in the first two sequels, it is definitely present in the World trilogy thus far.

So, if you honestly think the first was somehow head and shoulders about the sequels, I can really only grant you The Lost World and JP3.

Well, yeah a movie is NEVER going to be as fleshed out as the novel it's adapted from, but the original very much stayed true to the central themes the book drew from stories like Frankenstein; pushing the limits of science without understanding the consequences and ultimately being destroyed by it. There are two great scenes, the lunch and the later conversation between Hammond and Sattler, that highlight that naive wielding of scientific power without control.

The Jurassic World movies, I'd argue, lose that theme in two ways; dino wrangling and making monsters for the sake of making monsters. Owen's whole character is based around the idea that these forces of nature CAN be controlled. As if motorcycling through the jungle with your pack of dinosaurs wasn't ridiculous enough, we're two for two now with "pet raptor comes to save human friends".

And as for "monsters for the sake of monsters", we're also two for two there with the Indominus rex and Indoraptor. Frankenstein, like Hammond, never wanted to create monsters. Both had noble goals, but they forged ahead with their scientific breakthroughs before truly understanding what it was they were doing and then losing control of their creations. Meanwhile in the World trilogy we have people going out of their way to create monsters and weapons usually with nefarious goals in mind. That's not what the original themes were about. This isn't about nature finding a way, it's about monsters being monsters.

I still enjoy them, but they're just entertaining creature features, not innovative science fiction like the original book/movie.

[Xorzor]

If that clone abomination didn't do what she did and let the dinosaurs loose, could it be safe to say that this 3rd movie would never happen?

[Adamas102]

You can imagine what you want, but the plot is so full of holes throughout the entire thing its crazy. I saw JP when it first came out when I was a kid. I loved it then and I love it now. But be real here you are trying to frame it as if it had some amazing story when it had anything, but. Everything else you said was pretty much spot on, but I was specifically talking about the hokey story, not anything else.

It has been a little while since I've watched the original JP, but I can't remember any glaringly bad inconsistencies in the characters or the plot. What scenes specifically are you referring to?

The thing with directors like Spielberg is that sometimes having a cinematic moment is more important than complete verisimilitude. For instance, having the T-Rex suddenly snatch a raptor up mid pounce makes for a more dramatic and memorable scene when you don't have to think about the fact that the animal could never have snuck into the room in complete silence. Personally I'm ok with things like that (I don't think there's an action movie out there that doesn't have similar plot holes of convenience for the sake of the action) as long as the scene is worth it and the overall narrative isn't pulled off course. The types of plot holes that bother me are when characters act inconsistently with motivations or abilities, or when the narrative ONLY works when something established earlier is ignored or forgotten.

As for it being an amazing story, part of that is also tied to the time it came out. The book was written a few years after Dolly the sheep was cloned so the consequences of what these sorts of scientific breakthroughs could lead to was part of public discourse. We know now that cloning dinosaurs from prehistoric mosquitoes is just fantasy, but at the time the story played on the contemporary fear and uncertainty that surrounded the actual science. I don't know if "hokey" is the right word. It's essentially a retelling of the Frankenstein story. Pretty simple premise; man plays god and loses control of their creation. Using lightning to zap life into an amalgamation of corpse parts is pretty silly as well, but that doesn't detract from the quality of that story.

[Darththeo]

Well, yeah a movie is NEVER going to be as fleshed out as the novel it's adapted from, but the original very much stayed true to the central themes the book drew from stories like Frankenstein; pushing the limits of science without understanding the consequences and ultimately being destroyed by it. There are two great scenes, the lunch and the later conversation between Hammond and Sattler, that highlight that naive wielding of scientific power without control.

The Jurassic World movies, I'd argue, lose that theme in two ways; dino wrangling and making monsters for the sake of making monsters. Owen's whole character is based around the idea that these forces of nature CAN be controlled. As if motorcycling through the jungle with your pack of dinosaurs wasn't ridiculous enough, we're two for two now with "pet raptor comes to save human friends".

And as for "monsters for the sake of monsters", we're also two for two there with the Indominus rex and Indoraptor. Frankenstein, like Hammond, never wanted to create monsters. Both had noble goals, but they forged ahead with their scientific breakthroughs before truly understanding what it was they were doing and then losing control of their creations. Meanwhile in the World trilogy we have people going out of their way to create monsters and weapons usually with nefarious goals in mind. That's not what the original themes were about. This isn't about nature finding a way, it's about monsters being monsters.

I still enjoy them, but they're just entertaining creature features, not innovative science fiction like the original book/movie.

And I would argue you missed the point in the movie and missed the fact Owen DOESN'T actually control the nature. In Jurassic World, the Indominus Rex took control of the Raptors and they killed people. While they come back to fight the Indominus later, true control is never reached. In Fallen Kingdom, Blue does not stay with Owen and appears to fight the Indoraptor solely because she views it as a threat.

And both the Indominus and Indoraptor play into the theme that been since the beginning of man's hubris, that not only can we control nature but we can improve what nature has made. And in both cases, the Indominus and Indoraptor lost to the more "natural" dinosaurs.

Something that was cut from the first movie was the fact that the scientists were so certain that the dinosaurs could not breed, that the system used to track the number of dinosaurs on the island was set to stop counting at set numbers. Jurassic World continues that theming in the movies, where people think they know better. The themes are very much there.

I am not saying you have to like the movies, but I would argue you've missed the points in the movies and just see them as generic monster movies when there is more there.

- - - Updated - - -

If that clone abomination didn't do what she did and let the dinosaurs loose, could it be safe to say that this 3rd movie would never happen?

Well, they are clones and she is a clone. If people view the dinosaurs are "disposable" because they are clones and not the real thing, what does that make her? Is she disposable too?

- - - Updated - - -

It has been a little while since I've watched the original JP, but I can't remember any glaringly bad inconsistencies in the characters or the plot. What scenes specifically are you referring to?

The thing with directors like Spielberg is that sometimes having a cinematic moment is more important than complete verisimilitude. For instance, having the T-Rex suddenly snatch a raptor up mid pounce makes for a more dramatic and memorable scene when you don't have to think about the fact that the animal could never have snuck into the room in complete silence. Personally I'm ok with things like that (I don't think there's an action movie out there that doesn't have similar plot holes of convenience for the sake of the action) as long as the scene is worth it and the overall narrative isn't pulled off course. The types of plot holes that bother me are when characters act inconsistently with motivations or abilities, or when the narrative ONLY works when something established earlier is ignored or forgotten.

As for it being an amazing story, part of that is also tied to the time it came out. The book was written a few years after Dolly the sheep was cloned so the consequences of what these sorts of scientific breakthroughs could lead to was part of public discourse. We know now that cloning dinosaurs from prehistoric mosquitoes is just fantasy, but at the time the story played on the contemporary fear and uncertainty that surrounded the actual science. I don't know if "hokey" is the right word. It's essentially a retelling of the Frankenstein story. Pretty simple premise; man plays god and loses control of their creation. Using lightning to zap life into an amalgamation of corpse parts is pretty silly as well, but that doesn't detract from the quality of that story.

The Rex paddock is more of a plot hole than the Rex at the end. Like the Rex walks out of its paddock, there is no sign there is a drop off like the one we see later, and yet there is the drop off. Also, the Rex just leaving at that point given it knows there are people and thus food nearby. It is a little odd.

There are some plot inconsistencies too, but most are minor. But, there are annoying lists of "plot holes" where there are barely plot holes listed.

[Soulwind]

If that clone abomination didn't do what she did and let the dinosaurs loose, could it be safe to say that this 3rd movie would never happen?

I'm of the assumption that Wu and/or some other organization are actually responsible for the hundreds, if not thousands, of dinos of all kinds roaming all over the world.

No amount of suspension of disbelief is enough to buy that they all came from the handful that were released from the manor.

[Darththeo]

I'm of the assumption that Wu and/or some other organization are actually responsible for the hundreds, if not thousands, of dinos of all kinds roaming all over the world.

No amount of suspension of disbelief is enough to buy that they all came from the handful that were released from the manor.

Well, we already know that is the case. Some of these Dinos were made by other companies.

[Ihavewaffles]

Jurassic World Dominion | A Look Inside Featurette

Jurassic World
May 11, 2022

[Adamas102]

Something that was cut from the first movie was the fact that the scientists were so certain that the dinosaurs could not breed, that the system used to track the number of dinosaurs on the island was set to stop counting at set numbers. Jurassic World continues that theming in the movies, where people think they know better. The themes are very much there.

What?! Cut from the first movie? You don't remember the iconic "Life finds a way" scene? That line is said in direct response to the confidence they had in the ability to keep the dinosaurs from breeding through genetic manipulation.

In JW1, the park is pretty much working perfectly fine until they decide to make a super monster (under the ridiculous premise that regular dinosaurs aren't good enough anymore). If not for the utter stupidity of leaving the door open while investigating the I.Rex paddock, nothing would have gone wrong. And of course in JW2 everything is fine until the conflict between the good guys and bad guys causes things to spin out of control.

And both the Indominus and Indoraptor play into the theme that been since the beginning of man's hubris, that not only can we control nature but we can improve what nature has made. And in both cases, the Indominus and Indoraptor lost to the more "natural" dinosaurs.

The dinosaurs themselves were the affront against nature, so having a raptor and T-rex just fall short of giving each other a high five after teaming up with a mosasaurus to take down the evil monster at the end isn't "nature finding a way". It's more of a kaiju battle than a commentary on man's hubris.

[Darththeo]

What?! Cut from the first movie? You don't remember the iconic "Life finds a way" scene? That line is said in direct response to the confidence they had in the ability to keep the dinosaurs from breeding through genetic manipulation..

Try reading that again. You misunderstood what I said. You stop reading and made a straw man.

I am talking about showing the hubris through the actions of the characters, rather than just talking about it.

In the movie, the scientists and park workers do not discover what the dinosaurs could do. Outside of Hammond and the guests, no one learns the dinosaurs are breeding. Hell, the only ones we are certain who know 100% are Grant and the kids.

While in the novel, the park has a computer system that tracks all the dinosaurs within the park. Because the scientists were absolutely certain that the dinosaurs could not breed, this system was set to stop counting the dinosaurs once the number of known dinosaurs was reached. Even when confronted with evidence that the dinosaurs are breeding, they still deny it because the system until they are asked to look for a different number of dinosaurs.

These scenes are not remotely the same.

In JW1, the park is pretty much working perfectly fine until they decide to make a super monster (under the ridiculous premise that regular dinosaurs aren't good enough anymore). If not for the utter stupidity of leaving the door open while investigating the I.Rex paddock, nothing would have gone wrong. And of course in JW2 everything is fine until the conflict between the good guys and bad guys causes things to spin out of control

Yes, it was working fine at the time. And did you ignore the entire point of the character of Hoskins? The park was always doom to fail, it was always going to fail at some point, because the park was just front for the actual goals.

The dinosaurs themselves were the affront against nature, so having a raptor and T-rex just fall short of giving each other a high five after teaming up with a mosasaurus to take down the evil monster at the end isn't "nature finding a way". It's more of a kaiju battle than a commentary on man's hubris.

And you misunderstand what the dinosaurs represent in the series. The dinosaurs are not an affront to nature at ANY POINT IN THE SERIES. The dinosaurs literally represent nature and the inability to control it. Saying this shows that you do not understand the series.

Now while there are characters who believe that (ie Ian Malcolm), that was never what the dinosaurs were in the series.

[Adamas102]

I am talking about showing the hubris through the actions of the characters, rather than just talking about it.

In the movie, the scientists and park workers do not discover what the dinosaurs could do. Outside of Hammond and the guests, no one learns the dinosaurs are breeding. Hell, the only ones we are certain who know 100% are Grant and the kids.

What you're pointing out is completely unnecessary to the plot or the themes, and is predicated on the notion that every detail should be included in the adaptation. It doesn't matter whether the park workers find out about the breeding on screen. The movie already has most of them depart on the boat in order to parse down the number of characters we need to follow.

The scene in question very clearly and deliberately frames the scientists' confidence in their ability to control the breeding because it's "really not that difficult". No counting system is necessary to bog down the runtime by rehashing something we already know (that the scientists don't know the animals are breeding because they are confident in the barriers they put in place). If anything this is an excellent example of how to adapt what is necessary and cut what isn't.

Yes, it was working fine at the time. And did you ignore the entire point of the character of Hoskins? The park was always doom to fail, it was always going to fail at some point, because the park was just front for the actual goals.

There's no indication that Hoskins' plan to weaponize the dinosaurs WOULDN'T work, unless you assume the enemy might have their own monster that conveniently has a number of plot driving abilities like active camouflage, heat signature cloaking, cross species communication, and a burning desire to kill anything and everything it sees for no reason whatsoever.

In the end, Owen does reestablish control of the raptors and has them turn on the I.Rex anyway. So no, the only thing that causes the park to fail is the fairly contrived manner in which the monster is allowed to get out of its enclosure.

And you misunderstand what the dinosaurs represent in the series. The dinosaurs are not an affront to nature at ANY POINT IN THE SERIES. The dinosaurs literally represent nature and the inability to control it. Saying this shows that you do not understand the series.

Now while there are characters who believe that (ie Ian Malcolm), that was never what the dinosaurs were in the series.

I know I'm just mirroring your confidence here, but you're absolutely wrong in this respect. The dinosaurs do NOT represent nature. Like Frankenstein's monster, they are the outcome of man's attempt to play god, and as such are a flawed imitation of nature. Ian Malcolm is meant to be the voice of reason (and voice of the author) across the two books. It's why Crichton brought him back for the sequel when his death pretty much assured at the end of the first book.

"Malcolm came back because I needed him. I could do without the others, but not him because he is the 'ironic commentator' on the action. He keeps telling us why it will go bad. And I had to have him back again."

One of the things that I do really like about the JW movies is that Wu does make a point of explaining that he didn't really create any dinosaurs to begin with. They're all genetic hybrids and designed mostly along the lines of how people expected them to look rather than how they might have looked naturally. The original did touch upon the DNA gap filling, but Wu's scene with Masrani drives that home.

The dinosaurs aren't nature, but the point is that life finds a way to break through the barriers that man puts up to control the world around them. And it's not just in the whole breeding secretly part, the storm in the first book/movie is also a force of nature that man ends up ill-equipped to deal with. Yes, Nedry and the corporate espionage plot line is also part of the catalyst, but even his best laid plans falls victim to the forces of nature (the storm).

In JW2, the volcanic eruption is also a force of nature the characters must contend with, but it doesn't have that same impact. In the end, all the good guys survive and the goal of saving the man-made dinosaurs from the natural order is more or less achieved (even if it's the bad guys in control).

[Darththeo]

What you're pointing out is completely unnecessary to the plot or the themes, and is predicated on the notion that every detail should be included in the adaptation. It doesn't matter whether the park workers find out about the breeding on screen. The movie already has most of them depart on the boat in order to parse down the number of characters we need to follow.

The scene in question very clearly and deliberately frames the scientists' confidence in their ability to control the breeding because it's "really not that difficult". No counting system is necessary to bog down the runtime by rehashing something we already know (that the scientists don't know the animals are breeding because they are confident in the barriers they put in place). If anything this is an excellent example of how to adapt what is necessary and cut what isn't.

Yes, showing that characters were wrong and their confidence was misplaced is totally not important to the story. *eyeroll* We barely get anything showing that in the original movie and it is only with Hammond, a character who in the novel did not learn that lesson and we don't even see the impact of that lesson on the character until the sequel.

There's no indication that Hoskins' plan to weaponize the dinosaurs WOULDN'T work, unless you assume the enemy might have their own monster that conveniently has a number of plot driving abilities like active camouflage, heat signature cloaking, cross species communication, and a burning desire to kill anything and everything it sees for no reason whatsoever.

In the end, Owen does reestablish control of the raptors and has them turn on the I.Rex anyway. So no, the only thing that causes the park to fail is the fairly contrived manner in which the monster is allowed to get out of its enclosure.

For some of the characters, you are correct.
For the viewers, we know differently. We know it isn't going to work. We literally told by Owen and Barry that using the dinosaurs is a bad idea and isn't going to have the results they want. And Owen literally says he doesn't actually control the raptors, but has a relationship with them. Seriously, the movie spells it out for you point blank that Hoskins idea is doomed to fail. This is a mirror of Malcolm from the first movie where Malcolm is point blank saying this won't work.

I know I'm just mirroring your confidence here, but you're absolutely wrong in this respect. The dinosaurs do NOT represent nature. Like Frankenstein's monster, they are the outcome of man's attempt to play god, and as such are a flawed imitation of nature. Ian Malcolm is meant to be the voice of reason (and voice of the author) across the two books. It's why Crichton brought him back for the sequel when his death pretty much assured at the end of the first book.

"Malcolm came back because I needed him. I could do without the others, but not him because he is the 'ironic commentator' on the action. He keeps telling us why it will go bad. And I had to have him back again."

One of the things that I do really like about the JW movies is that Wu does make a point of explaining that he didn't really create any dinosaurs to begin with. They're all genetic hybrids and designed mostly along the lines of how people expected them to look rather than how they might have looked naturally. The original did touch upon the DNA gap filling, but Wu's scene with Masrani drives that home.

The dinosaurs aren't nature, but the point is that life finds a way to break through the barriers that man puts up to control the world around them. And it's not just in the whole breeding secretly part, the storm in the first book/movie is also a force of nature that man ends up ill-equipped to deal with. Yes, Nedry and the corporate espionage plot line is also part of the catalyst, but even his best laid plans falls victim to the forces of nature (the storm).

In JW2, the volcanic eruption is also a force of nature the characters must contend with, but it doesn't have that same impact. In the end, all the good guys survive and the goal of saving the man-made dinosaurs from the natural order is more or less achieved (even if it's the bad guys in control).

You are taking things at its most literal here, but ignore it elsewhere. You twist the meaning to suit your argument. It is generally accepted by the fandoms what the dinosaurs are, and no one I have ever encountered go "The Dinosaurs are just monsters." The fact you can say this and not realize you are wrong, is just sad. They represent nature because it is man's attempt to control nature. They aren't a flawed imitation of nature, they represent the force of nature in the story. You get it but go "nah, I prefer this super simplified version because reasons."

It is hilarious that you miss so much in the movies and think you have an argument. You recognize Malcolm's role but didn't realize that Barry and Owen to Hoskins were a mirror of that. You can see that Malcolm says "This is bad" but totally missed in Jurassic World that it was bad idea and wouldn't work. Owen didn't believe using the raptors would work, he is clear on that in the movie.

I have to ask have you even watched any of the movies or did you put them on the television and fall asleep?

And Nedry's failure is irrelevant to the failure of the park ... the park was failing regardless of Nedry, at least in the book. There is some mention backers wanting to pull out due to the death in the opening, but that doesn't necessarily mean the park is failing. The movie makes it seem like it was just because of Nedry, but in the novel, Nedry was just the straw that broke the camel's back. The book, Dinosaurs had made it to the main land. We see Dinosaur boarding the cargo area of ships. Containment was lost long before Nedry failed.

And even in the movie, it isn't Nedry's failure that causes the problem. The storm does lead to his death, but it was the fact he couldn't get to the boat on time. Nedry was going to have to shut off power to certain locals to get to the dock in the time. While the storm gave the time crunch to Nedry, his actions were caused because he lacked time. The storm is just the reason Nedry didn't have the time to do it right, it isn't a representation of the force of nature. Again, that's the dinosaurs. Just because a natural event occurs does not mean "That's what nature is" in the story.

[RobertoCarlos]

If that clone abomination didn't do what she did and let the dinosaurs loose, could it be safe to say that this 3rd movie would never happen?

Its a soul less cash grab trilogy. The 3rd movie could have been about Barney the dinosaur as the antagonist just to get those bonuses for the studio exe's

[RobertoCarlos]

Every. Single. Movie. Released. By. Hollywood. Is. A. Cash. Grab.

Try again.

Dude they literally gave dinosaurs super powers. And it still manages to have none of the fun you would expect with "superhero/villain dinosaur"

[Adamas102]

Yes, showing that characters were wrong and their confidence was misplaced is totally not important to the story. *eyeroll* We barely get anything showing that in the original movie and it is only with Hammond, a character who in the novel did not learn that lesson and we don't even see the impact of that lesson on the character until the sequel.

Fucking hell... Showing that characters were wrong and their confidence misplaced is important to the story which is why it is IN THE MOVIE. In the movie Hammond survives and at the very end finally acknowledges the disaster cannot be salvaged, and that's all we the audience needs because he is the primary character that represents the stubborn denial in thinking that control could still be attained. We don't need to have minor side characters that only get a couple minutes of screen time combined come to this conclusion AS WELL.

You do realize that the original book and movie weren't created with a franchise in mind, right? The sequel only came about because of the success of Jurassic Park. As such it works for the movie to bring Hammond's character to that realization by the end of the first movie. The entire movie shows the audience that the park doesn't work, and having Hammond acknowledge that at the end is all that is needed to close that arc.

For some of the characters, you are correct.
For the viewers, we know differently. We know it isn't going to work. We literally told by Owen and Barry that using the dinosaurs is a bad idea and isn't going to have the results they want. And Owen literally says he doesn't actually control the raptors, but has a relationship with them. Seriously, the movie spells it out for you point blank that Hoskins idea is doomed to fail. This is a mirror of Malcolm from the first movie where Malcolm is point blank saying this won't work.

Hoskins' original plan is to use the raptors in military combat, and the effectiveness of that idea is never tested or disproved because the only thing that throws a wrench in the mix is the I.Rex (a unique monster that can do anything the plot demands of it). Owen SAYING the raptors can't be controlled, then going on a motorcycle ride with them through the jungle, then bringing them back to his side at the end to help defeat the I.Rex is not AT ALL a mirror to Malcolm's message about life finding a way and the cascading chaos that ensues when man tries to control nature.

Owen's relationship with Blue, which is highlighted in all three JW movies, is in direct contradiction to the theme of man's creations being his downfall. Instead Blue always comes through as their salvation. Even the T-Rex is now used as a tool by having the characters purposefully freeing it and it somehow doing exactly what they wanted it to do by fighting the I.Rex and then peacing out.

It is generally accepted by the fandoms what the dinosaurs are, and no one I have ever encountered go "The Dinosaurs are just monsters." The fact you can say this and not realize you are wrong, is just sad. They represent nature because it is man's attempt to control nature. They aren't a flawed imitation of nature, they represent the force of nature in the story.

- "The fandom believes" is about the worst and most laughable counter to "this is how the author wrote it" I've ever heard. I don't care what you say the fandom thinks, first off because no fandom has a unified voice/opinion anyway and secondly because anyone who thinks artificially created amalgamations made from multiple sources of DNA and designed based on the expectations of their human creator are meant to represent "nature" is fucking stupid. Like, there's no other way to say it. Fucking. Stupid.
- Humans creating life, whether by a bolt of lightning or DNA manipulation, is the interruption of the natural order trope. The dinosaurs are a product of that interruption, not the natural counterbalance to it. The hubris is in people thinking they can keep their creation outside of the natural order (ie. by trying to controlling the reproductive processes).
- I've brought up Frankenstein multiple times because that's what the original JP story is; a modern retelling of the Frankenstein themes. The fact that you're oblivious to the parallels tells me you're not mentally equipped to even understand the themes of Crichton's original story. The dinosaurs of JP are essentially Frankenstein's monster, created outside the natural order but still driven by the natural forces that humans cannot contain.
- I only really refer to the I.Rex and Indoraptor as "monsters" because that's exactly what they are in these movies. They're purpose built antagonists that are given a variety of abilities specifically to act as obstacles for the protagonists to overcome. They act more like serial killers than animals. Them breaking free isn't "life finding a way", it's bungling idiots like a guy with a hard-on for collecting dino teeth leaving a door open.

[RobertoCarlos]

- "The fandom believes" is about the worst and most laughable counter to "this is how the author wrote it" I've ever heard. I don't care what you say the fandom thinks, first off because no fandom has a unified voice/opinion anyway and secondly because anyone who thinks artificially created amalgamations made from multiple sources of DNA and designed based on the expectations of their human creator are meant to represent "nature" is fucking stupid. Like, there's no other way to say it. Fucking. Stupid.
- Humans creating life, whether by a bolt of lightning or DNA manipulation, is the interruption of the natural order trope. The dinosaurs are a product of that interruption, not the natural counterbalance to it. The hubris is in people thinking they can keep their creation outside of the natural order (ie. by trying to controlling the reproductive processes).
- I've brought up Frankenstein multiple times because that's what the original JP story is; a modern retelling of the Frankenstein themes. The fact that you're oblivious to the parallels tells me you're not mentally equipped to even understand the themes of Crichton's original story. The dinosaurs of JP are essentially Frankenstein's monster, created outside the natural order but still driven by the natural forces that humans cannot contain.
- I only really refer to the I.Rex and Indoraptor as "monsters" because that's exactly what they are in these movies. They're purpose built antagonists that are given a variety of abilities specifically to act as obstacles for the protagonists to overcome. They act more like serial killers than animals. Them breaking free isn't "life finding a way", it's bungling idiots like a guy with a hard-on for collecting dino teeth leaving a door open.

Yeah I hadnt really thought about that part exactly but the reproductive nature of the raptors was key to giving the original film much more depth rather than just splicing a whole bunch of animals together and parroting "life finds a way" and casting a marvel actor.

Much more realistic and terrifying option of dinosaurs being able to spawn and spread beyond the controls of the park. And coming full circle with the themes of the story trying to control nature and man's hubris.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they literally didn’t. Try again.

you did watch the film yea?

Invisibility, heat vision, on the fly precision surgery and a bunch of other shit im forgetting.

[RobertoCarlos]

The first two are animal abilities that exist in nature. Don’t remember the donosaurs doing surgery. Try again.

It ripped out its tracking device which was tiny. So it also had super memory because I sure as shit dont remember being born.

Can you drop the "Try again" bs its super juvenile.

[RobertoCarlos]

That’s not precision surgery. Thanks for admitting you lied. And, yes, animals can remember when they were young. They aren’t stunted creatures like humans. You can go ahead and stop posting in this thread with your made up criticisms. It’s exceedingly juvenile. Nobody thinks you’re smart for disliking a silly hollywood blockbuster.

Ripping out a tracking device without causing massive injury using your teeth which are bigger than human arms.

You then use said tracking device as bait because you know what it is because why not you're a dinosaur to create an ambush on humans you know are pursing you because you know what a tracking device is.

*Thumbs up*

[RobertoCarlos]

So your issue is you think dinosaurs were morons? Evidence please. And go ahead and stop defining chewing out a foreign object as precision surgery. It’s not. Dinosaurs, and many animals, survive being bitten frequently. Seriously, you need to just not watch the movies and move on. It’s silly, always has been since the first. It’s a Hollywood summer blockbuster franchise. They’re never rooted in hard science.

Oh, and she clawed it out. Didn’t use them big ol’ teeth(which are proportional to the animal).

Side note: the tracking device also worked as a type of shock collar. Pretty sure you’d notice shocks coming from a specific spot. Might even claw at it if you were a giant dinosaur.

Nah, see you can absolutely give an animal intelligence. Some animals like bonobo, sealion etc are incredibly intelligent dont come at me about animal knowledge son. The Irex scratching the walls to make it look like it had escaped is a good example. It shows high intelligence without being so ridiculous its immersion breaking like the Irex ripping out its tracker, knowing what is it. And then using it for an ambush while also using not just camouflage but full out stealth for a dinosaur the size of a 2 story building is ridiculous