Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › Jurassic World
- This topic has 6 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 5 months ago by
nittany ram.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 21, 2015 at 10:28 am #26633
PA RamParticipantThe truth is, I had NO interest in seeing this film. But….we were celebrating my daughter’s birthday and SHE chose the movie so…there ya go.
But…having seen it I can honestly say, it’s one of the funniest films I’ve seen in years.
Some of it is intentional–maybe most of it–I’m not sure(Jimmy Buffet getting grabbed by flying dinos while grabbing a couple of margaritas on the run, Chris Pratt dino wrangling some raptors, Bryce Dallas Howard running the whole film in high heels and OUTRUNNING a T-Rex, the poor nerdy control room guy who stands up bravely to announce that he will stay behind to run things who then marches across the room toward the nerdy girl he works with, with full expectations of planting a kiss on her lips before she leaves, only to be rebuffed and told she, “has a boyfriend” and settling for an awkward hug.)
I don’t know if it was a parody of itself, unintentional comedy or a mix of both but it was a very funny film.
And I had a good time.
The CGI was pretty well done. Yes–there’s action. It’s funny action. There’s nothing scary here–no great moments of suspense. It’s all a big over-the-top joke–from the characters(and the actors are really having fun) to the story itself.
I never thought I’d say it but I really liked the film.
I had fun.
I wish I could say that for more of the films I see.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
June 21, 2015 at 8:19 pm #26642
nittany ramModeratorI saw it also and the bad science put me off.
Yeah, I know, why does a movie with dinosaurs have to be scientifically accurate? Normally it wouldn’t have to be but Spielberg set the standard when he released Jurassic Park in 93 and lauded how scientifically accurate it was. And he was right. With a few exceptions the portrayal of the dinosaurs were pretty accurate for what we knew at the time.
But Jurassic World is a major step backward. The depiction of the dinosaurs hasn’t kept up with recent discoveries. In some aspects, they’ve even backslid into the 50’s. For example we know that dinosaurs could see color and that the ceolurosaurs, which is the theropod clade that contains velociraptor and tyrannosaurus were feathered. Birds are in this group too. Therefore, the most parsimonious depiction would be colorful and fuzzy raptors and tyrannosaurs. However they remain portrayed with the same monotone scaly integument as they were when they were first discovered decades ago.
And where did they get the mosasaur? First of all, the one in the movie is about two or three times bigger than the largest ever discovered. It was ridiculously huge. Regardless, they were ocean going creatures that most likely never came ashore even to lay eggs because they gave birth to live young. So when would a mosquito have the opportunity to bite one? Remember, that’s where the DNA comes from for all these beasts…ancient mosquitos trapped in amber. Plus, are they really going to feed it a great white shark? It would be illegal anyway because they are on the endangered species list.
An Indominus rex was a major disappointment. More like Indominus blech. Very uninspired rendition of a dinosaur. It would look more at home in the next Godzilla movie with its ridiculous opposable thumb that NO dinosaur ever possessed. They did sort of skate around the scientific accuracy issue when BD Wong’s character stated that none of the dinosaurs were natural. They all had DNA from other organisms incorporated into their genomes to fill in the missing pieces with a focus on the maxim that bigger and badder was better.
Anyhow, based on the above you probably think I hated the movie. I didn’t. I actually enjoyed certain aspects of it like the humor that you mentioned. And I liked the ending. But I would have enjoyed it a lot more if the scientific accuracy of the dinosaurs had been given priority as they were in the original Jurassic Park film.
June 21, 2015 at 8:49 pm #26643
znModeratorJune 21, 2015 at 11:02 pm #26645PA RamParticipantI saw it also and the bad science put me off.
Yeah, I know, why does a movie with dinosaurs have to be scientifically accurate? Normally it wouldn’t have to be but Spielberg set the standard when he released Jurassic Park in 93 and lauded how scientifically accurate it was. And he was right. With a few exceptions the portrayal of the dinosaurs were pretty accurate for what we knew at the time.
But Jurassic World is a major step backward. The depiction of the dinosaurs hasn’t kept up with recent discoveries. In some aspects, they’ve even backslid into the 50’s. For example we know that dinosaurs could see color and that the ceolurosaurs, which is the theropod clade that contains velociraptor and tyrannosaurus were feathered. Birds are in this group too. Therefore, the most parsimonious depiction would be colorful and fuzzy raptors and tyrannosaurs. However they remain portrayed with the same monotone scaly integument as they were when they were first discovered decades ago.
And where did they get the mosasaur? First of all, the one in the movie is about two or three times bigger than the largest ever discovered. It was ridiculously huge. Regardless, they were ocean going creatures that most likely never came ashore even to lay eggs because they gave birth to live young. So when would a mosquito have the opportunity to bite one? Remember, that’s where the DNA comes from for all these beasts…ancient mosquitos trapped in amber. Plus, are they really going to feed it a great white shark? It would be illegal anyway because they are on the endangered species list.
An Indominus rex was a major disappointment. More like Indominus blech. Very uninspired rendition of a dinosaur. It would look more at home in the next Godzilla movie with its ridiculous opposable thumb that NO dinosaur ever possessed. They did sort of skate around the scientific accuracy issue when BD Wong’s character stated that none of the dinosaurs were natural. They all had DNA from other organisms incorporated into their genomes to fill in the missing pieces with a focus on the maxim that bigger and badder was better.
Anyhow, based on the above you probably think I hated the movie. I didn’t. I actually enjoyed certain aspects of it like the humor that you mentioned. And I liked the ending. But I would have enjoyed it a lot more if the scientific accuracy of the dinosaurs had been given priority as they were in the original Jurassic Park film.
I did not take the science or anything in the film seriously. I caught on early that in order for me to enjoy it I would have to view it as a spoof. And it worked brilliantly at that.
As I said, I really did not have any expectations and would not have seen it if not for my daughter. But I can understand how you could be disappointed if you had something more serious in mind.
The series has lost Michael Crichton so that probably left a science void and they decided just to make it up as they went along. It wasn’t important to the filmmakers. It was all about the spectacle of it all. They liked the idea of a SeaWorld scene so they threw it in.
But this is the type of film, if taken any way seriously will quickly fall apart. I actually said to my wife:”It was so bad it was good.”
And I really meant that.
Some of that I do believe was intentional.
It worked for me.
On another note: Saw Jaws today and that film still holds up well. The movie theater was packed. People still love it.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
June 25, 2015 at 9:05 pm #26764
MackeyserModeratorMy son took me to see it as a Father’s Day present.
I really enjoyed it. Enjoyed the humor. Gladly looked past the bad science, which I did notice. Michael Crichton is missed. Badly.
That said, I also enjoyed the subversive nature of the very existence of the park and the Indominus Rex.
They have to say in a summer, Blockbuster, summer Action movie… “hey, you popcorn-munching movie-goers…you bore WAAAAY too easily. Even if we gave you REAL dinosaurs, in a few years, we’d have to create something SO DAMNED NASTY that it would make the T-Rex seem pedestrian in comparison. And that’s not us taking them for granted. Well, we do, but only because we only care about money. But YOU take just about EVERYTHING for granted until it’s LITERALLY eating your face off.”
It was unmistakenly cynical and subversive and I don’t think most of the movie watchers got it, but I got it loud and clear. Just like the crystal clear subversion lately in movies like WALL-E and a host of others.
I mean whether intentionally or unconsciously, when Spielberg is planting hugely cynical and subversive messages in movies… I dunno whether to be encouraged or really, really depressed that the consciousness about our apathy as opposed to just our apathy has gone mainstream.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
June 26, 2015 at 4:22 pm #26785
wvParticipantI saw it also and the bad science put me off.
Yeah, I know, why does a movie with dinosaurs have to be scientifically accurate? Normally it wouldn’t have to be but Spielberg set the standard when he released Jurassic Park in 93 and lauded how scientifically accurate it was. And he was right. With a few exceptions the portrayal of the dinosaurs were pretty accurate for what we knew at the time.
But Jurassic World is a major step backward. The depiction of the dinosaurs hasn’t kept up with recent discoveries. In some aspects, they’ve even backslid into the 50’s. For example we know that dinosaurs could see color and that the ceolurosaurs, which is the theropod clade that contains velociraptor and tyrannosaurus were feathered. Birds are in this group too. Therefore, the most parsimonious depiction would be colorful and fuzzy raptors and tyrannosaurs. However they remain portrayed with the same monotone scaly integument as they were when they were first discovered decades ago.
And where did they get the mosasaur? First of all, the one in the movie is about two or three times bigger than the largest ever discovered. It was ridiculously huge. Regardless, they were ocean going creatures that most likely never came ashore even to lay eggs because they gave birth to live young. So when would a mosquito have the opportunity to bite one? Remember, that’s where the DNA comes from for all these beasts…ancient mosquitos trapped in amber. Plus, are they really going to feed it a great white shark? It would be illegal anyway because they are on the endangered species <nobr>list</nobr>.
An Indominus rex was a major disappointment. More like Indominus blech. Very uninspired rendition of a dinosaur. It would look more at home in the next Godzilla movie with its ridiculous opposable thumb that NO dinosaur ever possessed. They did sort of skate around the scientific accuracy issue when BD Wong’s character stated that none of the dinosaurs were natural. They all had DNA from other organisms incorporated into their genomes to fill in the missing pieces with a focus on the maxim that bigger and badder was better.
Anyhow, based on the above you probably think I hated the movie. I didn’t. I actually enjoyed certain aspects of it like the humor that you mentioned. And I liked the ending. But I would have enjoyed it a lot more if the scientific accuracy of the dinosaurs had been given priority as they were in the original Jurassic Park film.
T Rex had feathers? Is that what you are saying?
No way.
I’ve been to the Creation Museum and I’ve seen the
dinosaur exhibit. No Feathers on anything.w
v
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museumw
vJune 26, 2015 at 4:45 pm #26789nittany ramModeratorT Rex had feathers? Is that what you are saying?
No way.
I’ve been to the Creation Museum and I’ve seen the
dinosaur exhibit. No Feathers on anything.w
vhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Museum
w
v
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
