By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - So I just saw Jurassic World! [Spoilers]

I saw it Friday. Loved it. Really enjoyed it.



Around the Network

I enjoyed the movie though the raptors turning on the humans was predictable to me.



Proud to be a Californian.

Loved it as well I just hate the part at the end with the Indominus getting dragged in to the water like that. She was fabulous and I wanted her to win!



    R.I.P Mr Iwata :'(

FloatingWaffles said:
contestgamer said:
I thought it was utter garbage. Spoilers:

1. Using raptors for the military just because a guy trained them to stand still when feeding him rats? There are enormous political repercussions for for non targeted causalities as it is using smart weapons and it of goes against international laws of inhumane weaponry. This would never, ever been considered in real life.

2. How does that Rex/Raptor hybrid know that they're watching it's thermal readings? It wouldnt be aware of that to make its plan.

3. They have a backup tracking implant in that rex/raptor hybrid yet they decide to open it's "cage" instead of looking at the reading from the tracking implant? (which at the time is still implanted) This is an absurdly unrealistic response.

4. Rex/Raptors literally "talk" to each others, convincing raptors to turn? Thats now how animal communication or behavior psychology works.

5. Horrible acting - kid just tazes a raptor in back of the van and says he cant wait to tell his mom. Is that really how the average kid would behave in that situation, rather than crying, shaking and otherwise pissing his pants? Many other instances of inappropriate reactions considering the circumstances.

6. Guy/woman see a dead dino when they leave the car to go look for the kids. They actually stop to shed tears over the creature and spend a few minutes petting it while her two nephews are out there possibly dead or dying? Unreal how badly the script writers dont understand basic human behavior and psychology.

7. Ending battle was a joke - you solve a problem of a giant trex like creature escaping by letting out an actual trex? and your assumption is that will help rather than double the problem? Idiocy upon idiocy. Rather than use military grade weapons, their idea of containment is to let loose raptors and when that doesnt work, let loose a trex.

8. Absolutely no tension - straight up action only. JP 1 and 2 had a lot less deaths but far more tensions and fear.

There are so many other issues, but this movie was a pile of garbage. The script is at fault here - it's plain garbage.

1 - Yeah, but that was Hoskins idea. Plus it obviously ends up not being a good idea because they turn and kill almost everyone there aside from Owen and the other main characters. Hoskins is the one in the entire movie who thinks that using them is a good idea, even though it's not, and once he takes control he uses the park getting destroyed to his own personal benefit to try and test them. 

4 - The Indominus was part raptor so it made sense that it could communicate with the other raptors. 

6 - I feel like this was mainly just to show the character Claire that these animals weren't just science experiments like people on the island keep acting like they are. This is the first time where she actually sees one up close and personal so it shows her that they are actually animals and changes her view on them.

7 - Letting the T-Rex out was more of a last resort sort of thing. I mean think about it. At that point how many military personal were even on the island anymore? Hoskins took control of them and ordered them to take the research and leave. In fact most of the people working on the island left, aside from the one guy who decided to stay behind in the control room and opened the T-Rex door for Claire. The civilians were still hiding in the one place on the island as well. The raptors weren't going to be able to take down the Indominus by themselves so it made sense in a sort of "fight fire with fire" way that releasing the T-Rex would make it fight the Indominus. There were no other options at that point to take anyway. How else were they going to defeat it?


1. It's a completely unrealistic character - yeah it's his idea, but it's a useless plot device that destroys any sense of realism and ads nothing. No one head of private security there would actually make this type of assessment after seeing a guy make raptors stand in one spot from a suspended walkway.

4. Animals don't communicate that way - they were communicating as if speaking words, with the Raptors looking back and forth as if they were making rational assessments about what was being said. That's not how it works. The entire premise is also ridiculious given that the rex at that point could have easily called all the Raptors and humans as well which would have been a much more realistic response given the threat. Anthromorphizing these animals in this manner breaks all realism.

6. I know why it's there, but it's completely unrealistic. It was added in an absolutely ham fisted, horribly placed manner. The woman wouldn't give a damn about that dinosaur when she already barely gives a dam about humans - let alone when her two newphews are probably dead or dying in the field. Would you stop and shed tears while petting a dead Zebra if your cousins were lost in a Safari with lions that were going around maiming people? I doubt it.

7. Hoskins is private security - actual military would show up (Costa Rican plus international) within hours. When a serial killer is on the lose the solution isn't to release another one from prison to hunt it down. It's ridiculous and frankly suicidal logic.



I liked it. But the original is still the best. People have to remember that this is an action movie. Based on genetically altered hybrid dinosaurs in 2015 nonetheless. Thinking kids don't react the way they would in real life is just plain silly. IT'S A MOVIE!!! You drew yourself to draw a real-life parallel but forgot how fantastic the very idea of the scenario itself is.
There are a few parts that made me shake my head though. First was the Assistant's death. Like really, did they have to do her like that? Talk about overkill! But maybe I'm a POS because I'd probably not care were she not so attractive LOL. And the great high heels-clad foot race from a T-Rex was über ridiculous! Everyone in the theatre was laughing at that. But the biggest surprise is that the black guy survives. My wife and I both laughed at that fact.

Good movie, but not great. Hated that I had to pay for the 3D version because I think the 3D on my home set looks better than movie theatre 3D. And costs a lot less!



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

Around the Network
Nem said:

I think the movie was a bad movie, but it was entertaining.

And yeah some huge plot holes if you understand anything about genetics in particular.

*Spoilers*


I felt sorry for the woman with the horrible death. What did she do to deserve that? And the heroine, responsibility never dawned on her and she gets the guy. I was like... really? Hundreads of people died and she was there kissing the guy at the end like it was nothing to do with her plus happy ending with the family? That was just wrong. That woman was a monster, she deserved to go to prison at the end for not having evacuated the park before it was too late.

Oh and Bieber lookalike (was the role supposed to have been for him?)... totally bad.

But you know... you go to see Dinos rampanging and you get your money's worth.

I guess that can be explained the way that chinese scientist was actually deliberately creating them as weaponry as opposed to their features being mere genetic accidents? Maybe? And perhaps that woman wasn't arrested because she was like Sonic on high heels, lol. Gotta go fast.

 

 



 

 

 

 

 

contestgamer said:
FloatingWaffles said:

1 - Yeah, but that was Hoskins idea. Plus it obviously ends up not being a good idea because they turn and kill almost everyone there aside from Owen and the other main characters. Hoskins is the one in the entire movie who thinks that using them is a good idea, even though it's not, and once he takes control he uses the park getting destroyed to his own personal benefit to try and test them. 

4 - The Indominus was part raptor so it made sense that it could communicate with the other raptors. 

6 - I feel like this was mainly just to show the character Claire that these animals weren't just science experiments like people on the island keep acting like they are. This is the first time where she actually sees one up close and personal so it shows her that they are actually animals and changes her view on them.

7 - Letting the T-Rex out was more of a last resort sort of thing. I mean think about it. At that point how many military personal were even on the island anymore? Hoskins took control of them and ordered them to take the research and leave. In fact most of the people working on the island left, aside from the one guy who decided to stay behind in the control room and opened the T-Rex door for Claire. The civilians were still hiding in the one place on the island as well. The raptors weren't going to be able to take down the Indominus by themselves so it made sense in a sort of "fight fire with fire" way that releasing the T-Rex would make it fight the Indominus. There were no other options at that point to take anyway. How else were they going to defeat it?


1. It's a completely unrealistic character - yeah it's his idea, but it's a useless plot device that destroys any sense of realism and ads nothing. No one head of private security there would actually make this type of assessment after seeing a guy make raptors stand in one spot from a suspended walkway.

4. Animals don't communicate that way - they were communicating as if speaking words, with the Raptors looking back and forth as if they were making rational assessments about what was being said. That's not how it works. The entire premise is also ridiculious given that the rex at that point could have easily called all the Raptors and humans as well which would have been a much more realistic response given the threat. Anthromorphizing these animals in this manner breaks all realism.

6. I know why it's there, but it's completely unrealistic. It was added in an absolutely ham fisted, horribly placed manner. The woman wouldn't give a damn about that dinosaur when she already barely gives a dam about humans - let alone when her two newphews are probably dead or dying in the field. Would you stop and shed tears while petting a dead Zebra if your cousins were lost in a Safari with lions that were going around maiming people? I doubt it.

7. Hoskins is private security - actual military would show up (Costa Rican plus international) within hours. When a serial killer is on the lose the solution isn't to release another one from prison to hunt it down. It's ridiculous and frankly suicidal logic.


Again, why are we looking for realism in this film? It's like when Matrix: Reloaded released many years ago an I read one film critic say that you should only go to see it if you want good action and awesome special effects. Well I didn't go see it because I want to see The Matrix for the great Keanu Reeves acting, the Oscars-level storytelling, and the tearjerker love story. Right?



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

FentonCrackshell said:
contestgamer said:


1. It's a completely unrealistic character - yeah it's his idea, but it's a useless plot device that destroys any sense of realism and ads nothing. No one head of private security there would actually make this type of assessment after seeing a guy make raptors stand in one spot from a suspended walkway.

4. Animals don't communicate that way - they were communicating as if speaking words, with the Raptors looking back and forth as if they were making rational assessments about what was being said. That's not how it works. The entire premise is also ridiculious given that the rex at that point could have easily called all the Raptors and humans as well which would have been a much more realistic response given the threat. Anthromorphizing these animals in this manner breaks all realism.

6. I know why it's there, but it's completely unrealistic. It was added in an absolutely ham fisted, horribly placed manner. The woman wouldn't give a damn about that dinosaur when she already barely gives a dam about humans - let alone when her two newphews are probably dead or dying in the field. Would you stop and shed tears while petting a dead Zebra if your cousins were lost in a Safari with lions that were going around maiming people? I doubt it.

7. Hoskins is private security - actual military would show up (Costa Rican plus international) within hours. When a serial killer is on the lose the solution isn't to release another one from prison to hunt it down. It's ridiculous and frankly suicidal logic.


Again, why are we looking for realism in this film? It's like when Matrix: Reloaded released many years ago an I read one film critic say that you should only go to see it if you want good action and awesome special effects. Well I didn't go see it because I want to see The Matrix for the great Keanu Reeves acting, the Oscars-level storytelling, and the tearjerker love story. Right?

 

A film doesn't have to be based on reality to expect some basic real life justifications and consistencies given the films universe. Just because hthis is a sci fi, doesn't mean we excuse unbelievably poor characteizations (such as crying with the dino while her newphews are out there dying, kissing after her assistant was mauled and thousands of birds still killing around them, kid making a joke while still in the middle of a death trap ride with his brother etc). By your logic we don't even need to worry about scripts anymore, because no matter how bad the writing, how poor the script, the characterizations and how outlandish the motivations and logical leaps are, it doesn't matter because it's a film. The first film, although sci fi still managed FAR better characterization, pacing and motivations and behaviors for both the people and the dinosaurs then this did. 



contestgamer said:
FentonCrackshell said:
contestgamer said:


1. It's a completely unrealistic character - yeah it's his idea, but it's a useless plot device that destroys any sense of realism and ads nothing. No one head of private security there would actually make this type of assessment after seeing a guy make raptors stand in one spot from a suspended walkway.

4. Animals don't communicate that way - they were communicating as if speaking words, with the Raptors looking back and forth as if they were making rational assessments about what was being said. That's not how it works. The entire premise is also ridiculious given that the rex at that point could have easily called all the Raptors and humans as well which would have been a much more realistic response given the threat. Anthromorphizing these animals in this manner breaks all realism.

6. I know why it's there, but it's completely unrealistic. It was added in an absolutely ham fisted, horribly placed manner. The woman wouldn't give a damn about that dinosaur when she already barely gives a dam about humans - let alone when her two newphews are probably dead or dying in the field. Would you stop and shed tears while petting a dead Zebra if your cousins were lost in a Safari with lions that were going around maiming people? I doubt it.

7. Hoskins is private security - actual military would show up (Costa Rican plus international) within hours. When a serial killer is on the lose the solution isn't to release another one from prison to hunt it down. It's ridiculous and frankly suicidal logic.


Again, why are we looking for realism in this film? It's like when Matrix: Reloaded released many years ago an I read one film critic say that you should only go to see it if you want good action and awesome special effects. Well I didn't go see it because I want to see The Matrix for the great Keanu Reeves acting, the Oscars-level storytelling, and the tearjerker love story. Right?

 

A film doesn't have to be based on reality to expect some basic real life justifications and consistencies given the films universe. Just because hthis is a sci fi, doesn't mean we excuse unbelievably poor characteizations (such as crying with the dino while her newphews are out there dying, kissing after her assistant was mauled and thousands of birds still killing around them, kid making a joke while still in the middle of a death trap ride with his brother etc). By your logic we don't even need to worry about scripts anymore, because no matter how bad the writing, how poor the script, the characterizations and how outlandish the motivations and logical leaps are, it doesn't matter because it's a film. The first film, although sci fi still managed FAR better characterization, pacing and motivations and behaviors for both the people and the dinosaurs then this did. 


Do you do this sort of logic-seeking in every film that you watch? Because the Hollywood formula is pretty much the same and it always ends the same (i.e. The heor gets the girl). I'm still waiting for someone to make the film in which all characters make decisions like people do in real life. I'll clear my day in order ro watch all 12 hours of that film. 



PC GAMING: BEST GAMES. WORST CONTROLS

A mouse & keyboard are made for sending email and typing internet badassery. Not for playing video games!!!

FentonCrackshell said:
contestgamer said:
FentonCrackshell said:
contestgamer said:


1. It's a completely unrealistic character - yeah it's his idea, but it's a useless plot device that destroys any sense of realism and ads nothing. No one head of private security there would actually make this type of assessment after seeing a guy make raptors stand in one spot from a suspended walkway.

4. Animals don't communicate that way - they were communicating as if speaking words, with the Raptors looking back and forth as if they were making rational assessments about what was being said. That's not how it works. The entire premise is also ridiculious given that the rex at that point could have easily called all the Raptors and humans as well which would have been a much more realistic response given the threat. Anthromorphizing these animals in this manner breaks all realism.

6. I know why it's there, but it's completely unrealistic. It was added in an absolutely ham fisted, horribly placed manner. The woman wouldn't give a damn about that dinosaur when she already barely gives a dam about humans - let alone when her two newphews are probably dead or dying in the field. Would you stop and shed tears while petting a dead Zebra if your cousins were lost in a Safari with lions that were going around maiming people? I doubt it.

7. Hoskins is private security - actual military would show up (Costa Rican plus international) within hours. When a serial killer is on the lose the solution isn't to release another one from prison to hunt it down. It's ridiculous and frankly suicidal logic.


Again, why are we looking for realism in this film? It's like when Matrix: Reloaded released many years ago an I read one film critic say that you should only go to see it if you want good action and awesome special effects. Well I didn't go see it because I want to see The Matrix for the great Keanu Reeves acting, the Oscars-level storytelling, and the tearjerker love story. Right?

 

A film doesn't have to be based on reality to expect some basic real life justifications and consistencies given the films universe. Just because hthis is a sci fi, doesn't mean we excuse unbelievably poor characteizations (such as crying with the dino while her newphews are out there dying, kissing after her assistant was mauled and thousands of birds still killing around them, kid making a joke while still in the middle of a death trap ride with his brother etc). By your logic we don't even need to worry about scripts anymore, because no matter how bad the writing, how poor the script, the characterizations and how outlandish the motivations and logical leaps are, it doesn't matter because it's a film. The first film, although sci fi still managed FAR better characterization, pacing and motivations and behaviors for both the people and the dinosaurs then this did. 


Do you do this sort of logic-seeking in every film that you watch? Because the Hollywood formula is pretty much the same and it always ends the same (i.e. The heor gets the girl). I'm still waiting for someone to make the film in which all characters make decisions like people do in real life. I'll clear my day in order ro watch all 12 hours of that film. 


Watch JP 1 and then come back and tell me that JW is even remotely on the same logical plain as those. There's a difference between guy getting the girl and guy getting the girl immediately after the girls assistant is mauled in front of her eyes and while hundreds of killing machines are still flying in the skies all around them. That's just lazy script writing.