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.
