[Movie] Jurassic World 3: Dominion

[RobertoCarlos]

It tore out a chunk of its own flesh and used its chameleon genes to hide as it healed and rested. There’s zero actual evidence it knew it was ripping out a tracker and using it for an ambush. Maybe you should do a little more study on animal behavior.

Ehh...thats a stretch. Chris Pratt's character explains it as a trap and tells "assets" lady to pull her men out of there or theyre all gonna die. Which ends up happening.

So while its plausible what you're saying could have happened. Thats not what the movie coveys. Maybe you should rewatch it

[Darththeo]

Fucking hell... Showing that characters were wrong and their confidence misplaced is important to the story which is why it is IN THE MOVIE.

How about you actually argue against what I said rather than continue to misrepresent it for once? I am talking about a scene that is important to the message of the book, which was cut from the movie. The fact you ignore this basic tenant to the argument because you built a strawman and rather than admit you messed up you shift the goal post.

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.

Because Owen cares about the raptors like Hammond cared about the dinosaurs. He did not want to see the raptors die, that doesn't mean he feels they could be controlled. Only that the only way it could possibly work is with him.

And no, it isn't. It is like you haven't seen the movies at all. Hammond in the movies was present for every known birth on the island. You have the dinosaur magic scenes constantly throughout the series. It is very much 100% in line with what the movies are about and the themes of a series. You not liking it, which is really what your argument is does not mean it goes against the series. If I wanted to argue with people misunderstanding themes in movies, I would go argue with the sequel haters in Star Wars.

- "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.

That would be a good argument, if that was what your argument actually was. Sorry to say, your opinion isn't author intent. The author's intent is man vs nature. This is known an accepted by more than just the fans. You're the minority.

The theme is man vs nature where dinosaurs represent man's attempt at controlling it. The dinosaurs objectively represent nature and just because you think they don't, despite everything in your argument actually supporting that they do. You are in no position to call anyone else 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.

Which would make the dinosaur represent nature. A theme is man vs nature ... where in that would the dinosaurs be? Hint: It isn't man.

Your argument is literally "The dinosaurs don't represent the force of nature because they do."

- 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.

You mean like many of the dinosaurs in the novels and movies before them? And there were bungling idiots in other movies. Nedry does what he does for money, and he bungles through it. In the Lost World, there are tons of people killed because of stupid reasons. Hell, the Rex only find the people because Sarah Harding who should know better wore a blood soaked jacket. And this isn't even getting into the idiotic decisions in the novels.

Hell, Jurassic Park III only happens because literally every character in that movie is an idiot. I know it is the weakest movie in the series, but going "This guy wanted teeth and did a stupid" at the line is insane to me. Every movie has bungling idiots. The dinosaurs don't get free in the first movie without Nedry bungling his way to delivering the embryos because he didn't think it through.

Every movie there is a bungling idiot where if they didn't do what they did, the movie happens differently. The reason for this is every case it is because the person is not thinking or thinks they know what will happen. All of that plays into the movie.

- - - Updated - - -

Ehh...thats a stretch. Chris Pratt's character explains it as a trap and tells "assets" lady to pull her men out of there or theyre all gonna die. Which ends up happening.

So while its plausible what you're saying could have happened. Thats not what the movie coveys. Maybe you should rewatch it

You know this was because Owen literally saw that creature kill multiple people already right?
And Owen saw they went in with non-lethals, right?

It is pretty clear that given the situation, that team was going to die to Owen.

And Owen says they are going to die before they found out the I Rex clawed out the implant.

[Adamas102]

How about you actually argue against what I said rather than continue to misrepresent it for once? I am talking about a scene that is important to the message of the book, which was cut from the movie. The fact you ignore this basic tenant to the argument because you built a strawman and rather than admit you messed up you shift the goal post.

Classic. A bunch of drivel about "straw men" and "goal posts".

You claimed it was important for the movie to show the scientists and park workers finding out that the dinosaurs were breeding, and I argued that it wasn't necessary for screen time to be dedicated to tertiary characters coming to that realization because the failure of the project is made crystal clear throughout the movie and the character that most needs to come to that realization (Hammond) does so by the end. Nothing is added by keeping people like Harding and Wu on the island throughout the second half of the movie just to have them realize their dino counter is off.

I've been addressing your gripe for like 3 posts now, but please, go ahead and keep showing me that you're having trouble keeping up.

That would be a good argument, if that was what your argument actually was. Sorry to say, your opinion isn't author intent. The author's intent is man vs nature. This is known an accepted by more than just the fans. You're the minority.

Talk about straw men. Quotes from the author aren't my opinion. They're the author's words and they reveal his intent. Sorry to say, but your misinterpretation of the book doesn't nullify how Crichton explained the roles of the characters and the themes of the story.

The theme is man vs nature where dinosaurs represent man's attempt at controlling it. The dinosaurs objectively represent nature and just because you think they don't, despite everything in your argument actually supporting that they do. You are in no position to call anyone else stupid.

Which would make the dinosaur represent nature. A theme is man vs nature ... where in that would the dinosaurs be? Hint: It isn't man.

This very much solidifies the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Jurassic Park centers around a "man plays god" story. The Revenant, The Edge, The Grey, these are "man vs nature" stories where man must overcome the threats posed by the natural world. Jurassic Park is about man opposing the natural order by creating life and then being undone by their creation (a creation which is decidedly NOT natural). There's some similarities in terms of the survival narrative, but the overarching themes are different.

Your simpleton interpretation of "humans vs dinosaurs" being the primary theme of the story certainly explains why you think the current sequels are on par with the original in that respect.

You mean like many of the dinosaurs in the novels and movies before them? And there were bungling idiots in other movies. Nedry does what he does for money, and he bungles through it. In the Lost World, there are tons of people killed because of stupid reasons. Hell, the Rex only find the people because Sarah Harding who should know better wore a blood soaked jacket. And this isn't even getting into the idiotic decisions in the novels.

Hell, Jurassic Park III only happens because literally every character in that movie is an idiot. I know it is the weakest movie in the series, but going "This guy wanted teeth and did a stupid" at the line is insane to me. Every movie has bungling idiots. The dinosaurs don't get free in the first movie without Nedry bungling his way to delivering the embryos because he didn't think it through.

Every movie there is a bungling idiot where if they didn't do what they did, the movie happens differently. The reason for this is every case it is because the person is not thinking or thinks they know what will happen. All of that plays into the movie.

I've made a point of not bringing up the JP2 and 3 sequels because even the sequel novel is a poor continuation of the original (written only to capitalize on the popularity of the first book and movie). Like I said before, the original was not intended to be part of a growing franchise so all the subsequent media has had to diverge further and further from the themes of the originals. The dinosaurs are already out there, Pandora's Box has been opened, so while the sequels have the same foundation they're telling different stories with different themes.

And no, Nedry isn't a bungling idiot. He's a goof, and certainly lacks some social skills, but his programming genius is never called into question, and he succeeds in stealing the the embryos. He only fails to make it off the island because of natural forces outside his control, the hurricane which leads to the car crash. There's no comparison between that and the idiocy that is required for the plot to advance in pretty much all 4 of the subsequent movies.

Also, I'd say that JP3 is the low point of the series. I remind you that I thoroughly enjoy the Jurassic World movies. They're simply more "turn your brain off and enjoy the spectacle" types of films compared to the original that was not only a milestone in cinematic history, but also was a great retelling of a classic story using contemporary scientific advancements as a backdrop. I call the World sequels creature features because they heavily rely on introducing a bigger, badder monster to draw the audience in (a trend that really started with JP3 and the Spinosaurus).

[Darththeo]

Classic. A bunch of drivel about "straw men" and "goal posts".

You claimed it was important for the movie to show the scientists and park workers finding out that the dinosaurs were breeding, and I argued that it wasn't necessary for screen time to be dedicated to tertiary characters coming to that realization because the failure of the project is made crystal clear throughout the movie and the character that most needs to come to that realization (Hammond) does so by the end. Nothing is added by keeping people like Harding and Wu on the island throughout the second half of the movie just to have them realize their dino counter is off.

I've been addressing your gripe for like 3 posts now, but please, go ahead and keep showing me that you're having trouble keeping up.

Not strawmanning you say and literally doesn't understand that just because nothing is "lost" doesn't mean the scene isn't important to the message. Your argument against me doesn't prove my point wrong, it is just "Well, I don't really think it was needed." Important and needed aren't the same thing. So, yes, you're strawmanning. Yes, you're moving the goal post. Just because you don't want to be honest with yourself doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

Talk about straw men. Quotes from the author aren't my opinion. They're the author's words and they reveal his intent. Sorry to say, but your misinterpretation of the book doesn't nullify how Crichton explained the roles of the characters and the themes of the story.

The only quote you used was about the character of Malcolm. Not the themes of the book. Malcolm exists to tell the audience why things are going to go bad. You are using a quote of the author about another subject in the book as evidence the dinosaurs don't represent nature. So, no, you aren't using the author, you are just using your opinion.

This very much solidifies the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. Jurassic Park centers around a "man plays god" story. The Revenant, The Edge, The Grey, these are "man vs nature" stories where man must overcome the threats posed by the natural world. Jurassic Park is about man opposing the natural order by creating life and then being undone by their creation (a creation which is decidedly NOT natural). There's some similarities in terms of the survival narrative, but the overarching themes are different.

Your simpleton interpretation of "humans vs dinosaurs" being the primary theme of the story certainly explains why you think the current sequels are on par with the original in that respect.

No, I said it is Man vs Nature which "Man plays god" is a sub genre in that. Man is attempting to control nature, nature fights backs and humbles the hubris of man. It is still man vs nature. You are confusing man vs nature with man vs the wild (another subgenre in Man vs Nature). You are choosing to make smaller boxes because you don't care to understand anything.

You bring up Frankenstein a lot, but don't understand "Man plays god" is just one theme in that story. And various retellings have other meanings. Some versions play into man's attempt to conquer death or even man's fear over dying. There isn't just one theme in most great works. You boiling it down to just one theme it what is a "simpleton" view. While these were added in later retellings to be a flesh golem rather than just a golem. There are more themes in the original work that just playing god, there are more meanings there than just that. Saying "No the theme is objectively this and only this" and calling the person a "simpleton" proves you have no argument.

I've made a point of not bringing up the JP2 and 3 sequels because even the sequel novel is a poor continuation of the original (written only to capitalize on the popularity of the first book and movie). Like I said before, the original was not intended to be part of a growing franchise so all the subsequent media has had to diverge further and further from the themes of the originals. The dinosaurs are already out there, Pandora's Box has been opened, so while the sequels have the same foundation they're telling different stories with different themes.

I brought them up to point out "bungling idiot" is a trope in these movies.

And no, Nedry isn't a bungling idiot. He's a goof, and certainly lacks some social skills, but his programming genius is never called into question, and he succeeds in stealing the the embryos. He only fails to make it off the island because of natural forces outside his control, the hurricane which leads to the car crash. There's no comparison between that and the idiocy that is required for the plot to advance in pretty much all 4 of the subsequent movies.

Nedry's death is inconsequential to the plot of the movie. There is no guarantee that if he made it to the boat and got the embryos off the island the rest of the events of the movie don't happen just with Nedry. Nedry is a bungling idiot because rather than undertake his plan when he has the time, he waits. Just because a character is "smart" doesn't mean they also aren't an idiot.

Now I know you are going to bring up that Nedry would have unlocked his computer therefore the system reboot wouldn't have happened. One, we don't know how long it would have taken Nedry to get back. They may have locked the computer before his return or Nedry could have just decided to leave with the boat. Two, it could have been discovered what Nedry did and they don't allow him to assist because it is all his problem.

Nedry dying did not cause any of the problems we see directly. Nedry's absence did. Nedry leaving to get the embryos off the island did.

Also, I'd say that JP3 is the low point of the series. I remind you that I thoroughly enjoy the Jurassic World movies. They're simply more "turn your brain off and enjoy the spectacle" types of films compared to the original that was not only a milestone in cinematic history, but also was a great retelling of a classic story using contemporary scientific advancements as a backdrop. I call the World sequels creature features because they heavily rely on introducing a bigger, badder monster to draw the audience in (a trend that really started with JP3 and the Spinosaurus).

And yet, people still go to the movies to see the T rex and raptors or Dinosaurs in general. I haven't met anyone who said they saw the world movies for the I Rex or Indoraptor.

[Adamas102]

Not strawmanning you say and literally doesn't understand that just because nothing is "lost" doesn't mean the scene isn't important to the message. Your argument against me doesn't prove my point wrong, it is just "Well, I don't really think it was needed." Important and needed aren't the same thing. So, yes, you're strawmanning. Yes, you're moving the goal post. Just because you don't want to be honest with yourself doesn't mean you aren't doing it.

I'm absolutely using the terms interchangeably because if something is important to the themes or the narrative then it's necessary as well to tell the story properly. You've given absolutely no reason why it's important for those particular characters (minor characters to the plot like the scientists and park workers) to come to that particular realization in the movie (that their system has failed).

The narrative certainly doesn't rely on it because these characters aren't even needed for the story to progress (Muldoon and Arnold are the only ones to stay behind and both are already highly skeptical about the integrity of the park), and the themes don't need it because it's already covered by having a more important and central character (Hammond) come to that realization.

So yeah, it's not an important scene to have in the movie.

You bring up Frankenstein a lot, but don't understand "Man plays god" is just one theme in that story. And various retellings have other meanings. Some versions play into man's attempt to conquer death or even man's fear over dying. There isn't just one theme in most great works. You boiling it down to just one theme it what is a "simpleton" view. While these were added in later retellings to be a flesh golem rather than just a golem. There are more themes in the original work that just playing god, there are more meanings there than just that. Saying "No the theme is objectively this and only this" and calling the person a "simpleton" proves you have no argument.

Oh look, another straw man. You'll have to point out exactly where I said there was only one theme in this or any other story (I'll give you a hint; I didn't).

We're not talking about the themes that are explored through Grant's character arc or how Sattler is viewed/treated. "Man plays god" is the central theme that brings the characters and dinosaurs together, and revolves around the hubris in thinking that creation and reproduction can be harnessed and controlled by man. The "nature" in your little "man vs nature" equation is these natural processes, not the dinosaurs themselves. When Malcolm says "life finds a way" he isn't saying "it's going to eat you", he's foreshadowing the breaking of the barriers that the park has put on these natural processes (reproduction). Things spiraling out of control adheres to the continuation of the "man plays god" trope whereby man is undone by his own creation (NOT by nature itself), as well as the themes relating to chaos theory and the collapse of the park's complex systems.

You boiling it down to man vs dinosaur through your incredibly simplistic equation of "if man = man, then nature must = dinosaur" is what's laughable. Just because the dinosaurs are biological doesn't mean they represent nature. By definition nature encompasses the natural world and all the systems therein. It's ludicrous that it has to be explained to you that the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park are not part of the natural world. They're not natural, they're man's creation.

Nedry's death is inconsequential to the plot of the movie. There is no guarantee that if he made it to the boat and got the embryos off the island the rest of the events of the movie don't happen just with Nedry. Nedry is a bungling idiot because rather than undertake his plan when he has the time, he waits. Just because a character is "smart" doesn't mean they also aren't an idiot.

Nedry dying did not cause any of the problems we see directly. Nedry's absence did. Nedry leaving to get the embryos off the island did.

What the fuck is this tangent? I never said his death was necessary for the rest of the plot to proceed. He's also not an idiot for undertaking the plan when he did. He HAD to wait till most of the staff had leave fo the boat because all he could control was the locks and the cameras. Being pressured by time constraints isn't incompetence. He just got unlucky with the storm. Again, a far cry from "idiots leave gate open because they don't know where killer mutant monster is" or "weird hunter guy really needs to get that tooth at that moment and gets trolled by monster that pretty much winks at the camera".

And yet, people still go to the movies to see the T rex and raptors or Dinosaurs in general. I haven't met anyone who said they saw the world movies for the I Rex or Indoraptor.

You'll have to forgive me for not giving a shit about your anecdotal evidence. The movies from JP3 onward are heavily reliant on introducing new, more monstrous antagonists. It has become a central part of the series, but I guess we'll see if Dominion continues that trend.

EDIT: Rewatched the trailer. They're definitely still leaning into the "oh, no! it's an even BIGGER/more DANGEROUS dinosaur than we've seen before!" bit.

[Darththeo]

-snip-

Important does not mean necessary, those terms are not interchangeable. And my point was it was an important scene in the book that was cut for the movie. So all you are doing is "Movie made changes therefore not needed in the movie" which doesn't have anything to do with the point. I am done wasting my time on this point because you made an error and rather than admit it and move on, have to keep this going. Reply to this part if you want, I am done with it.

It isn't a strawman, it is an obversion of your argument. You are literally ignoring the Man vs Nature aspects of the story, which is ironic because it is needed for your "Man plays God" to be true. The dinosaurs are man's attempt at controlling nature. You get this, but for some reason have a stick up your ass. You can't be right about the theme UNLESS man vs nature is also true. Dinosaurs was man's attempt to control the natural order ... to control nature. Man vs Nature is a fucking theme in the movie. Either you admit this is true and wasted my time on your garbage or you have to be arguing for a singular theme ... there is no other reasonable option. Any other option makes you having a completely different discussion than I am.

The I Rex gets out because the man opens a door trying to save his own life. It isn't guy leaves door open with mutant dinosaur. He was attempting to escape alive, if Nedry not acting timely isn't an idiot to you, neither can he. He is acting on instinct, not rational thought. You can't have it both ways. Either Nedry is a bungling idiot or the guy in Jurassic World isn't. I honestly don't care which you choose because at least you'll be consistent for once.

And for the hunter guy who really needs a tooth, he literally just went to an island numerous times with dangerous dinosaurs taking teeth as a trophy from them. They show him taking teeth from a stegosaurus to join the rest. He shot the Indoraptor with two tranquilizer darts which was more than enough to take out the other dinosaurs. He had no reason to know the Indoraptor took 3 because he never saw the Indoraptor before. The same guy stopped the stegosaurus from loading to take a tooth on the island as the volcano was exploding, and they had very little time to waste. You are getting mad that a character's behavior was consistent throughout his appearance. Yes, he is an idiot, but he literally did similar acts throughout the movie.

I am pointing out that despite the Jurassic Movies doing the "bigger badder dinosaur" people aren't going to see the movie for that reason. Now with the Giga, that is different because there are people who have been waiting to see the Giga on the screen. And no, I don't forgive you because anecdotal evidence is still leagues better than the crap you make me read.

[Ehrenpanzer]

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

I can give you 1.6 billion reasons why people disagree with you.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

So.. if I jam a piece of steel into your arm, and you use tweezers to pull it out, did you just perform "precision surgery"? And yes, welcome to biology, most animals mature much faster then humans, so its not unlikely it would be able to remember a tracking device put it. What is actually ridiculous is grown ass people arguing on the internet about whether or not a sci-fi representation of a dinosaur can remember things or camo.. they can do whatever the plot needs them to do, they are as smart or dumb as the story requires them to be... if you are watching the Jurassic series for some kind of scientific realism I'd say you REALLY need to get a life. Its just as bad as the yahoos who watched Kong vs Godzilla and argue about Godzilla not being able to stand on the aircraft carrier.. yeah.. because THATS the unrealistic part of the movie ^_^

[RobertoCarlos]

I can give you 1.6 billion reasons why people disagree with you.

- - - Updated - - -



So.. if I jam a piece of steel into your arm, and you use tweezers to pull it out, did you just perform "precision surgery"? And yes, welcome to biology, most animals mature much faster then humans, so its not unlikely it would be able to remember a tracking device put it. What is actually ridiculous is grown ass people arguing on the internet about whether or not a sci-fi representation of a dinosaur can remember things or camo.. they can do whatever the plot needs them to do, they are as smart or dumb as the story requires them to be... if you are watching the Jurassic series for some kind of scientific realism I'd say you REALLY need to get a life. Its just as bad as the yahoos who watched Kong vs Godzilla and argue about Godzilla not being able to stand on the aircraft carrier.. yeah.. because THATS the unrealistic part of the movie ^_^

Popularity =/= quality otherwise Justin Bieber is one of the best musicians of all time if you just go by numbers

[Adamas102]

Important does not mean necessary, those terms are not interchangeable. And my point was it was an important scene in the book that was cut for the movie. So all you are doing is "Movie made changes therefore not needed in the movie" which doesn't have anything to do with the point. I am done wasting my time on this point because you made an error and rather than admit it and move on, have to keep this going. Reply to this part if you want, I am done with it.

Yeah at this point it's pretty clear "I said it was important" is the only defense you can muster. I'm done with it as well.

The dinosaurs are man's attempt at controlling nature. You get this, but for some reason have a stick up your ass. You can't be right about the theme UNLESS man vs nature is also true. Dinosaurs was man's attempt to control the natural order ... to control nature. Man vs Nature is a fucking theme in the movie. Either you admit this is true and wasted my time on your garbage or you have to be arguing for a singular theme ... there is no other reasonable option. Any other option makes you having a completely different discussion than I am.

Nope, the dinosaurs are not man's attempt to control nature because they're not natural, they are his (successful) attempt to supplant nature. To take what nature had already relegated to history and create it themselves to their own specifications.

"Man plays god" is the theme used in the creation of the dinosaurs. The "man vs nature" theme exists in the story, but you're misidentifying the thematic representation of nature. Nature in this thematic context is creation and reproduction. Those are the forces of nature that man in this story is trying to control. It's pretty obvious at this point that you can't wrap your mind around the idea of nature being represented by anything but a physical creature, and even though that creature isn't natural you feel obligated to plug it into the equation because you can't fathom any other examples. So going back to what I said before you're just not mentally equipped for this discussion.

One more time, and let it really sink in; the dinosaurs are not natural. It's really not that complicated.

The I Rex gets out because the man opens a door trying to save his own life. It isn't guy leaves door open with mutant dinosaur. He was attempting to escape alive, if Nedry not acting timely isn't an idiot to you, neither can he. He is acting on instinct, not rational thought. You can't have it both ways. Either Nedry is a bungling idiot or the guy in Jurassic World isn't. I honestly don't care which you choose because at least you'll be consistent for once.

It was extraordinarily stupid for the workers to enter the enclosure to begin with before finding out where the creature was. No one thought to ask the workers that were shown doing construction outside the paddock "hey, did you notice a giant dinosaur climb out of here" before assuming it was gone? They're able to track the Indominus from the control room and the movie showed they had TWO ways to communicate with the control room (Claire's phone and the security guy's radio) but neither was used until people were already inside and it was convenient for the plot to move along. Even if they'd established that there was no cell reception near the paddock, the radio, though distorted, did allow for communication between the security guy and the control room. Three people (Claire, Owen, and the security guy) all needed a major lapse in judgement for the scene to play out as it did.

As for Nedry, you need to rewatch the movie before you go on this "he's an idiot because should have been more timely" rant again. He needed the time to write the code that would give him his meticulously planned out 18min window, he did at least one trial run to make sure it worked within the time frame he set, and he HAD to wait till night for the staff to clear out (or do you think he should have conducted his corporate espionage plan while all the scientists were still working in the labs). He set a specific time to meet Dodgson's contact at the boat (7pm) but that changed when the captain decided they needed to depart early because of the storm. Nedry had a set plan to follow, but forces outside his control caused it to ultimately fail. That's not incompetence on the character's part.

Your "they're either both idiots, not neither are idiots" bullshit is... well, idiotic.

And for the hunter guy who really needs a tooth, he literally just went to an island numerous times with dangerous dinosaurs taking teeth as a trophy from them. They show him taking teeth from a stegosaurus to join the rest. He shot the Indoraptor with two tranquilizer darts which was more than enough to take out the other dinosaurs. He had no reason to know the Indoraptor took 3 because he never saw the Indoraptor before. The same guy stopped the stegosaurus from loading to take a tooth on the island as the volcano was exploding, and they had very little time to waste. You are getting mad that a character's behavior was consistent throughout his appearance. Yes, he is an idiot, but he literally did similar acts throughout the movie.

Oh, I know collecting dino teeth was his shtick, it was just such a silly scene to have him saunter in after watching everyone else flee the building and use an unlocked and easily accessible latch to open up the cage to one of the most dangerous creatures on the planet (they rolled it into an audience like that?). The character was kind of a joke, especially compared to similar characters like Muldoon and Roland.

I am pointing out that despite the Jurassic Movies doing the "bigger badder dinosaur" people aren't going to see the movie for that reason. Now with the Giga, that is different because there are people who have been waiting to see the Giga on the screen. And no, I don't forgive you because anecdotal evidence is still leagues better than the crap you make me read.

It's fucking hilarious that you think you know the reason behind why everyone goes to watch these movies. That's some strong delusion you've got there. The official trailer for JW1 was literally 50% Indominus. That's the marketing that began this trilogy at least, and for two movies now they've relied on super hybrid monsters that must be defeated for their big 3rd act because that's what this series has devolved into. It's visually fun as hell, but (going right back to what kicked off this discussion) it's a shadow of the original book/movie.

[Darththeo]

-snip-

I am done with you. I have no desire to deal with your dishonest arguments anymore. Good day.

Try more reading and less lecturing.

Nothing you said ever actually countered my argument. It is literally ironic you call me out for behavior you have done since the beginning of this argument.

[Adamas102]

I am done with you. I have no desire to deal with your dishonest arguments anymore. Good day.

Try more reading and less lecturing.

Nothing you said ever actually countered my argument. It is literally ironic you call me out for behavior you have done since the beginning of this argument.

The posts, and your inability to support even a basic argument, stand for themselves.

This entire "discussion" began with your ridiculous claim that these sequels are comparable to the original movie in terms of writing, direction, and themes explored by the book. While they're still pretty fun, profitable, and build upon the foundation set by original story, they're a far cry from what made the first movie a classic cinematic and cultural milestone. I highly doubt any of the Jurassic World movies will be selected by the Library of Congress to be inducted into the National Film Registry because they just don't carry the weight of the original adaptation. But hey, if your little circle of friends disagrees then so be it. They're obviously not indicative of the general critical consensus.

[KOUNTERPARTS]

I re-watched JW and JW: FK over the weekend in slight preparation for Dominion. I remember seeing Jurassic Park in theaters when I was a kid, then The Lost World and JP 3. I'd like to keep up the trend.


Right now I'm interested to see the plot with the Atrociraptors and how deadly/a menace the Giganotosaurus is. They are building up the Giga as some background threat that has been a "spiritual presence" in the entire franchise... which I guess makes sense. I've watched the numerous YouTube videos discussing this, as well as Dominion being the "Avengers: Endgame" for the entire Jurassic Park franchise. Perhaps they shouldn't try to connect things going so far back, though.


Perhaps it's time Rexy is put down for good. The Giga is no joke.

[Darththeo]

Perhaps it's time Rexy is put down for good. The Giga is no joke.

They are likely not going to kill Rexy unless all the dinosaurs die. Remember the outrage after the Rex lost in JP3?

Side Note: there are a lot of people who think the Rex in JP3 is either the Bull from Lost World or the baby from Lost World. It is actually neither, there were more than 3 rexes on Isla Sorna. And the Spino didn't kill all the Rexes confirmed in Camp Cretaceous

[hansfredrichseidel]

Different from what we got in the movies, but hey they did say that a lot of the species that they were breeding have mixed DNA from different types of animals so they are not going to get the exact animal. So yeah but overall i wanna see the movie. Another factor is that want to see the original trio lol

[Ihavewaffles]

New posters, finally the Newman slayer is back!

[Ihavewaffles]

Good lord, they weren't even intimate, and had the roles been reversed it would have been celebrated by the media...meanwhile Thor is naked in his trailer, women ogle him while eating grapes.. (imagine if the roles had been reversed n it was female thor butt naked)

I was hoping the woke hate on chris pratt would die down, instead we get this nonsense..seems the website is now locked behind a paywall, who wants to pay these people..They bring down the quality of their content n want to get paid for it? lol?..

Wasn't dr.Grant not even particularly interested? and that's why ellie goes n marries some other guy? She has kids in 3rd movie i think



Laura Dern and Sam Neill Re-Examine Their 20-Year Age Gap in Jurassic Park
Nearly three decades after playing love interests, the co-stars admit their age difference may not have been “completely appropriate.”

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...-jurassic-park
BY SAVANNAH WALSH - MAY 23, 2022

Nearly three decades after the first film, Jurassic Park remains one of the most timeless franchises—spawning five sequels, including the upcoming Jurassic Park: Dominion, which reunites Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, and Sam Neill in their original roles. But there’s at least one element that hasn’t matured as well: the 20-year age gap between love interests Alan Grant (played by Neill) and Ellie Satler (played by Dern).

[eschatological]

In the book, they were of similar age. I think the article is more about the Hollywood habit of casting young female leads to star opposite older leading men because of hotness reasons, not because the characters themselves were inappropriate. Laura Dern was 23 and her character was the co-leader of an archeological dig, which would require like, at least a master's degree if not a PhD.

FWIW, had no clue she was 23 in JP. I thought early to mid 30s just because of the expertise her character was portraying. And unlike, say, a Megan Fox, who was 20 in the first Transformers film, Laura Dern wasn't just some sexy sideplot.

[eschatological]

yeah, I don't know the requirements for a PhD in archeobotany, but a lot of scientific disciplines require a masters first, and then a PhD which can go anywhere from 3-7 years. In the archeology field I'd bet it's on the longer side because I imagine your thesis involves actually digging shit up.

[Ihavewaffles]

In the book, they were of similar age. I think the article is more about the Hollywood habit of casting young female leads to star opposite older leading men because of hotness reasons

If anyone was expecting some 'hotness' factor would be in the movie, their reaction would be like kevin bacon's in tremors when he sees that seismologist lady..

[Aurrora]

In the book, they were of similar age. I think the article is more about the Hollywood habit of casting young female leads to star opposite older leading men because of hotness reasons, not because the characters themselves were inappropriate. Laura Dern was 23 and her character was the co-leader of an archeological dig, which would require like, at least a master's degree if not a PhD.

FWIW, had no clue she was 23 in JP. I thought early to mid 30s just because of the expertise her character was portraying. And unlike, say, a Megan Fox, who was 20 in the first Transformers film, Laura Dern wasn't just some sexy sideplot.

No they weren't, she was his student in the book.