Jurassic World (Jurassic Park 4)

[crumbs 14,304]

Well what's the point of doing a sequel if you're just making the same film with different characters?

The best sequels continue the story that ended in the first film and go in a fresh direction. They don't repeat the formula. Aliens is a great sequel because it continues the story in its natural progression. In the hands of lesser talent, it would have ended up Ripley stuck on a ship again with a new group of characters, again being hunted by an alien (maybe two because the studio notes would demand the sequel be bigger!)

That's essentially what the JP sequels did; they just repeated the formula but stripped it of all the intelligent science fiction discussion. The original JP is elevated above a cheesy monster movie because it discusses the morality and the ethics of what Hammond did. The only questions being asked in the sequels are "how can we get to the next action sequence?". The logical step in the sequels was to see the consequences of what cloning dinosaurs did, on a progressively global scale. Instead, we got monster movies with about as much intellectual depth as a rock pool.

[Jay 37,314]

Well said, Crumbs, well said.

[scallenger 481]

It's just sad because the novel for The Lost World by Crichton did deal with some interesting thoughts on science that were different than Jurassic Park, yet still engaging. It dealt a lot with extinction theories, and the novel had plenty of long discussions on the matter. Malcolm saw Sorna truly as a way to study some of these theories, although in the end it's proven not to be an ideal place at all to really study the manner because of a certain thing that happened with the creation of the dinosaurs. This idea is not touched upon at all in the film, and it's a shame because it really was the core idea of the novel.

[Jay 37,314]

Yup! I also loved the theories discussed about evolution, and how as humans we have bigger brains which means we have to leave the womb earlier because otherwise our skulls would never fit when attempting to come, which as a result means when we are born we are completely helpless and need adults to take care of us for years, unlike other animals which are born with all these instincts that can kick into effect right away. Or something like that Good stuff.

[Wojo 2,453]

What you describe would be amazing. Intelligent, relevant, worldly science fiction that provides commentary on both the world we live in and a fantastical "what if" based on impossibly difficult and expensive science.

The studios would never go for it. They think the general public just wants to see attractive people get eaten by dinosaurs in as many nifty ways imaginable.

Furthermore, the rebooted Planet of the Apes franchise has the wheels to already tackle much of the heavy scientific and moral issues that crumbs described using genetically enhanced super-apes -- we all know where that idea is headed -- instead of cloned dinosaurs, which is still science fantasy. Let's start with cloning some Pleistocene animals first. Any modern zoo is already a bona fide Cenozoic Park, but it's not scary...until the silverbacks, tigers, and crocodiles break out of their exhibits.

Jurassic Park was grade A entertainment. TLW was a missed opportunity, the closest SS knew he'd get to King Kong. JP3 was pushing grade B movie. At this rate, JP4-6 will be straight to DVD, Friday night SyFy filler programming the likes of which we already have with Sharktoberpus versus The Killer Fleas from Melmac.

[Thor 7,477]

That franchise is fossilised and only genetic meddling could bring it back.

No way. There is the potential for a gazillion untold stories. More than that, however, I just want to return to the damn universe already (which I love so much). I don't care if it's the same story all over again. I want to move there if I could. I want MORE! MORE! MORE!!

JURASSIC PARK 4-EVER!

[A24 4,326]

I wonder if they can make a film about dinosaurs for adults. For that to work it has to be more like Scott's Alien, I think. There has to be a genuine fascination for prehistoric life.

Alex - who thought the little dinosaurus scene in The Tree Of Life was more interesting than the whole JP franchise.

[scallenger 481]

Well why wouldn't the studios still go for some of this science talk? I mean they did it for the first film. They have had a LOT of time to think about how to tackle this next film, Spielberg included. You would think he would be one of the guys making sure we go back to more science for the next film, and recognizing that it was that unique blend that made the first film so special.

I also agree that a lot of stories could be told in this universe. There is some unique fan fiction out there that are better than both film sequels, honestly. Even the Jurassic Park Game that I mentioned earlier had a more interesting story. Hell... there was another Jurassic Park game called Trespasser that had only ONE person on the island. Think "Jurassic Castaway". And she alone had to find her way off the island, based on the ruins of Sorna for clues, and also her recollection of a memoir by John Hammond (in fact the memoir she "remembers" in the game is voiced by the same actor, Richard Attenburrough). It was very unique to hear his recollections of coming up with the idea of the park and his grand vision in store. In fact, that premise alone would make for a great prequel of sorts. Imagine, perhaps, watching the park come about, and maybe even have some kind of "breakout" moment that happened before the first film happened, but actually got successfully contained. But of course this breakout could have been kept hushed by everyone as to not have any kind of bad publicity. There are a NUMBER of different approaches that could be done with an idea like this, too.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

The studios would never go for it. They think the general public just wants to see attractive people get eaten by dinosaurs in as many nifty ways imaginable.

And they are right. That's what the general public wants.

[Quintus 5,399]

I prefer the sweeping epic idea which crumbs suggested. As directed by Frank Darabont. Old fashioned sensibilities with a cunningly broad dialogue.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Brónach 1,301]

I wonder if they can make a film about dinosaurs for adults. For that to work it has to be more like Scott's Alien, I think. There has to be a genuine fascination for prehistoric life.

Alex - who thought the little dinosaurus scene in The Tree Of Life was more interesting than the whole JP franchise.

I loved that scene. I want a whole film like that. I guess Malick wasn't interested. A pity.

Interesting that the scene with the two dinosaurs seems to happen more or less where the family lives.

[Wojo 2,453]

I want The Land Before Time re-released to theaters before one more numbered Jurassic Park sees the light of day and gets its first big dose of lysine.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'd be more interested in a Jurassic Park a la Prometheus, where humans discover they were created by dinosaurs.

Heh heh!

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I wonder if they can make a film about dinosaurs for adults. For that to work it has to be more like Scott's Alien, I think. There has to be a genuine fascination for prehistoric life.

Alex - who thought the little dinosaurus scene in The Tree Of Life was more interesting than the whole JP franchise.

Dino Crisis: The Movie?

[MSM 126]

A big clash of military and dinos in the mainland jungle would still have some potential!

[Brónach 1,301]

Yes, it's common knowledge animals form lines to charge against armies.

[MSM 126]

Yes, it's common knowledge animals form lines to charge against armies.

Come on, it's fantasy anway.

[Brónach 1,301]

I heard they were making a film about dinosaurs fighting aliens.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

For some reason I'm in the minority, but a prequel is something I've been interested in seeing ever since I saw JPIII on the cinemas...

Or a sort of double-time thing, mixing present day and the creation of the park. Kinda like The Godfather II or Once Upon A Time in America; but of course, not that complex.

[Luke Skywalker 1,793]

I wonder if they can make a film about dinosaurs for adults. For that to work it has to be more like Scott's Alien, I think. There has to be a genuine fascination for prehistoric life.

Alex - who thought the little dinosaurus scene in The Tree Of Life was more interesting than the whole JP franchise.

I loved that scene. I want a whole film like that. I guess Malick wasn't interested. A pity.

Just looked for that scene since i've not seen the film. I was expecting a great 2011 CGI dinosaur scene, and i saw crap.

So both your statements deserve the Middle (Earth ^TM) finger of death.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

You're not qualified to make that statement.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

Yes, he is! He's a Spaniard!

[Wojo 2,453]

A big clash of military and dinos in the mainland jungle would still have some potential!

DInosaurs are still fucking animals. Why would the military commit ground units when all you need is napalm or large bombs?

This confirms that all the people who cry out for JP4 just want to see more CGI dinosaurs on the big screen, but there's not a single thing they could do in JP4 that hasn't already been done, either in the saga to date or in other movies. Substitute dinosaurs for aliens, transformers, smart apes, or any of the various Star Wars/Trek/John Carter space battles.

Gazillions of stories? Yes, I suppose Dick Wolf could create a new detective TV series called Law & Order: Dinosaur Interests, in which the cops spend 1/3 of the episode studying the crime scene, the lawyers spend 1/3 getting a verdict, and the last 1/3 is spent with everyone talking to their kids at the dinosaur park zoo explaining each species of dinosaur. What fun. I'm only interested if Alana de la Garza shows us her tits.

[A24 4,326]

Just looked for that scene since i've not seen the film. I was expecting a great 2011 CGI dinosaur scene, and i saw crap.

I think most folks (especially kids) would consider that scene crap. That's why for them there is the JP franchise.

[Brónach 1,301]

Just looked for that scene since i've not seen the film. I was expecting a great 2011 CGI dinosaur scene, and i saw crap.

I think most folks (especially kids) would consider that scene crap. That's why for them there is the JP franchise.

I think he's talking about digital effects and not whatever you are imagining there. In that case I have to agree with him.

The reason I like that very short scene is because a scene with a Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus and an Ornithomimus has happened to exist in this dinosaur film wasteland. Other than that I don't see much special about that moment. There are scenes in Jurassic Park that carry much more cinematic weight for me. The Gallimimus stampede, or when the Tyrannosaurus bites a wheel of the car, are moments or insane animation that really take me there and make me awe at the animals.

The interesting side of the little scene in The Tree of Life is the whole controversy about the diet of ornithomimids. Which could be unintentional.

Other cool moment in the film is the shot of the wounded plesiosaur on the beach. Again, from a special effects viewpoint, I didn't found it interesting. However it was a cool idea.

In general, as I find Jurassic Park to be a more accomplished film than The Tree of Life, I'd find it hard to point out a random scene of the latter as being more interesting than a whole, superior story that makes better use of the dinosaurs, suggestive visuals and characters.

[A24 4,326]

I think he's talking about digital effects and not whatever you are imagining there. In that case I have to agree with him.

Oh, I care about ideas, not CGI. The dinosaur scene in The Tree Of Life is about progress and consciousness.

You love that a dinosaur was biting the wheel of a car? Ooookay. That's where you and I differ again.

[Brónach 1,301]

I think he's talking about digital effects and not whatever you are imagining there. In that case I have to agree with him.

Oh, I care about ideas, not CGI. The dinosaur scene in The Tree Of Life is about progress and consciousness.

Major bullshit.

In 2001 Norell et al. reported a specimen of Gallimimus (IGM 100/1133) and one of Ornithomimus (RTMP 95.110.1). These two fossil skulls had soft tissue preservation, and both had keratinous beaks with vertical grooves extending ventrally from the bony upper mandible. These structures are reminiscent of the lamellae seen in ducks, in which they function to strain small edible items like plants, forams, mollusks, and ostracods from the water. The authors further noted that ornithomimids were abundant in mesic environments, and rarer in more arid environments, suggesting that they may have depended on waterborne sources of food, possibly filter feeding. They noted that primitive ornithomimids had well developed teeth, while derived forms were edentulous and probably could not feed on large animals.

Put a Saurornitholestes in there and see how the scene turns out. That Para is going to be eaten, fullstop. And it can attract large predators. Just another reason to be careful being there.

The fact that the Para is not eaten doesn't have relationship with progress or conciousness. It means there's a waste of resources, at least for the animals at the top of the chain. Detritivores would love it though.

You love that a dinosaur was biting the wheel of a car? Ooookay. That's where you and I differ again.

It's a impressive visual that gives me certain emotions. It's a bit scary, but I'm fascinated at the same time of seeing something always imagined moving around like a real being.

[Luke Skywalker 1,793]

Oh chaac, the Middle finger of death is now fully to alex, you reddemed yourself

Alex can you explain he progress and consciousness part?

Because i just saw a left-alone-by-a-supposed-young-caring species sick young dinosaur, who is found by an omnivore (as in herbs and small animals-insects) dinosaur with small brain, step on it twice*, and then leave it.

If if had been a supposed big brained dinosaur (dromaeosaurid) then i could see the conciousness thing...

*sadistic behaviour?

[publicist 4,643]

In general, as I find Jurassic Park to be a more accomplished film than The Tree of Life,

I don't like smug wanking like TREE OF LIFE very much, but come on. Next on: 'Why BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS destroys 2001'...

[A24 4,326]

Alex can you explain he progress and consciousness part?

The Tree Of Life Is a spiritual film. Its main proposal is that there is something more to life ... something that goes further than the Darwinesque concept of 'eat or be eaten'. We are witnessing the birth of consciousness, which is in itself an important progress in evolution; At least, that's what I see in it. The scene is quite ambiguous. This alone makes it more interesting than JP.

[Brónach 1,301]

In general, as I find Jurassic Park to be a more accomplished film than The Tree of Life,

I don't like smug wanking like TREE OF LIFE very much, but come on. Next on: 'Why BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS destroys 2001'...

Never. 2001 is one of my top five favourite films since always. I have no interest in seeing Battle Beyond the Stars. And yes, Jurassic Park is superior to The Tree of Life. The Tree of Life is the cinematic equivalent of a powerpoint about cats.

It kind of bothers me this comparison of yours between The Tree of Life and 2001. They're not in the same league.

Alex can you explain he progress and consciousness part?

The Tree Of Life Is a spiritual film. Its main proposal is that there is something more to life ... something that goes further than the Darwinesque concept of 'eat or be eaten'. We are witnessing the birth of consciouness, which is in itself an important progress in evolution; At least, that's what I see in it. The scene is quite ambiguous. This alone makes it more interesting than JP.

There's no progress in evolution.

We aren't witnessing the birth of conciousness either.

[A24 4,326]

We aren't witnessing the birth of conciousness either.

Like I said, it's what I personally see in it. It's an ambiguous scene but it beautifully fits with the overall proposal of the film.

[Brónach 1,301]

How is it ambiguous? The dino isn't going to eat the Parasaurolophus and have you seen the size of the brain, like Luke says?

You're liking the scene for the wrong reasons.

[A24 4,326]

Sweet lord, it's ambiguous because it's open to various interpretations.

[Brónach 1,301]

And your interpretation is based on nothing. We're left with one.

[A24 4,326]

Actually, it's based on the scene itself (what is happening) and how this is corresponding with the proposal of the film. That's hardly nothing.

[Brónach 1,301]

Ok. Explain to me what is happening in the scene. Don't say "the birth of conciousness".

[A24 4,326]

The dinosaur caresses the one lying in the riverbed and makes a clear conscious decision not to kill and walk away. The first sign of compassion? The first moment when 'life' demonstrates there is more than 'kill or be killed' or that it's not all about survival of the fittest? Placed within the context of the film, it makes sense. I guess I now must explain the whole movie too?

[Brónach 1,301]

The dinosaur caresses the one lying in the riverbed and makes a clear conscious decision not to kill and walk away. The first sign of compassion? The first moment when 'life' demonstrates there is more than 'kill or be killed' or that it's not all about survival of the fittest?

And that's my problem with your interpretation. It doesn't seem Ornithimomimus was a meat eater dinosaur. It's not a choice. Of course it's about survival of the best adapted. Ornithomimus is adapted to something else. If you show it showing mercy for a crab while hungry then we're talking. So that's why your interpretation doesn't make any sense.

But there's more.

Now let's imagine we change the Ornithomimus for something more dangerous, like my Saurornitholestes. And that it still doesn't eat the Para. Is that really compassion? Why is the terminal suffering of the Parasaurolophus more important than the hunger of the predator? Both can be sorted out with a kill. And it wouln't be because of compassion. It would be because the predator was hungry. There's just no compassion at play in any case. Thus the "compassion" interpretation is both absurd and superficial.

If there was anything spiritual about that scene in the film, it would be about the sadism of the gods. (But spiritual people tend to prefer only the things they find good. That why if an earthquake kills a lot of people it's just the Earth shruging its shoulders, but if someone happens to survive it's the help of God. So real spiritual views tend to be more positive than an strict spiritual view would be.)

So my answer concerns both the real world of the dinosaurs and spirituality. Malick studied Biology, Geology, Philosophy and other matters for years. I prefer to think he knows what dinosaurs he puts in his films.

I like the scene because it shows an intriguing interaction between the animals. I see curiosity and pain, like in other scenes of the film. And retro CGI. I don't see compassion. You see it because you're imagining it, but nothing in the scene suggests that.

Of course, if you have a particular hypothesis about the paleobiology of toothless ornithomimids that implies meat eating, I'd love to hear it.

On another news, I just depressed myself here.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeaaaaah you're overanalyzing that scene like crazy.

[Wojo 2,453]

If the carnivore ate a big meal before he came on camera, he's not going to just kill the herbivore just because. It's a waste of energy.

[Brónach 1,301]

Yeaaaaah you're overanalyzing that scene like crazy.

Of course, because it's the way to show Alex the implications of what he says. That scene is actually quite simple, like I say at the end.

If the carnivore ate a big meal before he came on camera, he's not going to just kill the herbivore just because. It's a waste of energy.

This is also true.

[A24 4,326]

And that's my problem with your interpretation. It doesn't seem Ornithimomimus was a meat eater dinosaur. It's not a choice. Of course it's about survival of the best adapted. Ornithomimus is adapted to something else. If you show it showing mercy for a crab while hungry then we're talking. So that's why your interpretation doesn't make any sense.

Even if the passing dinosaur was technically not a meat eater, then still I believe the scene would be about compassion and consciousness. What else do you think the film is about? The scene is created and put there for a purpose. I base myself on the emotion of the scene and how it correlates with the film's main theme. You seem to think that Malick wanted nothing more than to show an 'accurate' prehistoric wildlife scene. You probably think that of 2001's 'The Dawn Of Man' as well.

If there was anything spiritual about that scene in the film, it would be about the sadism of the gods. (But spiritual people tend to prefer only the things they find good. That why if an earthquake kills a lot of people it's just the Earth shruging its shoulders, but if someone happens to survive it's the help of God. So real spiritual views tend to be more positive than an strict spiritual view would be.) So my answer concerns both the real world of the dinosaurs and spirituality. Malick studied Biology, Geology, Philosophy and other matters for years. I prefer to think he knows what dinosaurs he puts in his films.

It's about the sadism of the gods? Well, I suppose that's possible, but it's not what I receive from it. We all seem to see different things and to me that alone makes it infinitely more intriguing cinema than dinosaurs biting in wheels. You think it's a prehistoric wildlife moment or that maybe it might have something to do with "the sadism of the gods", while I think it's about 'The Birth Of Consciousness' or 'The Dawn Of Empathy'. I'm pretty sure the latter is what Malick intended.

Alex

[Brónach 1,301]

I made up the part of the sadism of the gods on the spot. I really don't care at all about the the spiritualism of an Ornithomimus. I also think that if Malick wanted to show the origin of empathy he did a poor job about it. On the other hand Spielberg made a pretty good job at making me dream with Jurassic Park. So I prefer that.

What do you mean with that comment about 2001? That I don't understand the film? I happen to be the only person I know that thinks 2001 explains itself perfectly.

[A24 4,326]

There is a lot that you make up, Chaac.

[Brónach 1,301]

Well I didn't make up the part about this dinosaur not having teeth, that's for sure. I wanted to talk about dinosaurs, but I thought you wouldn't like it so I added the other part.

[A24 4,326]

Doesn't it even occur to you that you might be wrong about what kind of dinosaur it is?

[Brónach 1,301]

Doesn't it even occur to you that you might be wrong about what kind of dinosaur it is?

That is a wondeful question!

-We have to look carefully at the theropod. The overall shape of the body, the elongate head and the beak, big eyes. The leg proportions. Long birdlike neck, flexible tail, long arms. It's a typical example of its particular group of ostrich-like dinosaurs.

-Our Parasaurolophus looks like a P. cyrtocristatus, the smallest species, with a short rounded crest. Ths species has been discovered in the Fruitland Formation (New Mexico, Colorado) and the Kaiparowits Formation (Utah), both of the Campanian age. Ornithomimus has been found in both formations. Matches. Bingo.

Edit: I'm not sure about the skull morphology of it. Could be a young P. tubicen as well, that one lived in the same place a bit later. I don't know at which age/size the crest started to look like the adults in form.

[Luke Skywalker 1,793]

The dinosaur caresses the one lying in the riverbed and makes a clear conscious decision not to kill and walk away. The first sign of compassion? The first moment when 'life' demonstrates there is more than 'kill or be killed' or that it's not all about survival of the fittest? Placed within the context of the film, it makes sense. I guess I now must explain the whole movie too?

What the?

A dinosaur would caress something with its snout or maybe hands... But the feet? What animal interacts with others with the feet?.

As i see it, it is a juvenile(=teenager) ornithomimus poking a helpless dinosaur just for the fun of it. SO it is completely the opposite of your view...

And wouldn't compassion in this case be more in the vein of ending the sick dinosaur's life? That's what would a sensible human do. (if it was beyond veterinarian care)

I think the scene as you want to interpret it would be better showing a feline predator that has lost its offspring caring for a baby herbivore. I saw that in a doccumentary