|
Proposition Joe posted:If the T-Rex is the same from the original park, isn't it a bit awkward considering everyone should know that it killed a person? It's an animal, and an expensive one at that. Plus it's already on 24 hour lockdown, what more could they do to it. Maybe the appeals process has kept him there instead of giving him a lethal injection right away.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:11 |
|
Proposition Joe posted:If the T-Rex is the same from the original park, isn't it a bit awkward considering everyone should know that it killed a person? So did the raptors apparently.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Except for Mercedes Benz.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
I liked the part with the Dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Also I did not expect to love Masrani as much as I did goddamn he needed another hour of screen time and also that one gun from Aliens 2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
I really liked how the most graphic and unnecessarily brutal death was a woman who did a bad job taking care of kids
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Halman posted:I really liked how the most graphic and unnecessarily brutal death was a woman who did a bad job taking care of kids This movie was insanely brutal, nevermind it being for kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Yeah Assistant woman's death was non justly brutal and focused on. Somehow the final fight between Murdersaurus Rex, the Raptor and the T Rex just reminded me of Lethal Weapon. Rex is Murtaugh, Raptor is Riggs and Whalesaur is Joe Pesci.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
I really love how they had one of the kids mention a divorce between the parents and it's never brought up again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Skeezy posted:I really love how they had one of the kids mention a divorce between the parents and it's never brought up again. It kinda is, though. when Mom calls Claire and chews her out for not being with the kids, she's calling from the lawyer's office
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
It also sort of defines the character arc of the big brother, as immediately after that happens he spends the entire rest of the movie trying to cheer up his little brother (even before the dinosaur attacks, he starts faking being really into the attractions to distract his brother). His "I'll always be there for you, I'm your brother" is in direct response to the idea that they would be separated by the divorce. The idea that this movie is too subtle for most of its viewers is somewhat bizarre.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Skeezy posted:I really love how they had one of the kids mention a divorce between the parents and it's never brought up again. Oh, it's a major plot point. Chris Pratt's character and Blue get divorced. Blue decides to see other people but realizes that true is hard to find. Meanwhile Chris Pratt's character has a one-off fling with an old ex (T-rex). Eventually they decide to stay together for the kids (the kids).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:It kinda is, though. when Mom calls Claire and chews her out for not being with the kids, she's calling from the lawyer's office I thought she was calling from some kind of corporate meeting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
Skeezy posted:I really love how they had one of the kids mention a divorce between the parents and it's never brought up again. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
Clarste posted:It also sort of defines the character arc of the big brother, as immediately after that happens he spends the entire rest of the movie trying to cheer up his little brother (even before the dinosaur attacks, he starts faking being really into the attractions to distract his brother). His "I'll always be there for you, I'm your brother" is in direct response to the idea that they would be separated by the divorce. Which is funny because the same people who go into chapter long rants complaining about the movie are often missing the completely unsubtle in your face details. To the point where I've seen the same goons prior to release basically go into  insights into the prior films "messages" to the point where you would have to take a film class to even care or assume these ultra subtle ideas are even there. And this film is pretty drat easy to read and the same "film experts" are all "this autistic kid and his womanizing teenage brother are talking about divorce suddenly on a tram ride. So unrealistic and out of left field."That could come from only child people or adults that absolutely forget what being a teen is like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 03:45
|
|
Halman posted:I really liked how the most graphic and unnecessarily brutal death was a woman who did a bad job taking care of kids Who trusted God was love indeed And love Creation's final law Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw With ravine, shriek'd against his creed
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
Fosson posted:Which is funny because the same people who go into chapter long rants complaining about the movie are often missing the completely unsubtle in your face details. To the point where I've seen the same goons prior to release basically go into It has nothing to do with it being unrealistic and out of left field, its lovely because its a stupid, poorly handled attempt at creating drama in the film. Its bad drama communicated lazily, if they are going to attempt to tackle this issue of teenage emotional issues amongst a divorce then they really should have written it a lot better and fleshed it out more. Im sure the 4 screenwriters spent so much time in their writing sessions examining the sexuality of teenage boys and the autistic nature of the younger brother while seriously figuring out how they communicate to the audience the complexity of being a teenager amidst a divorce and not "How do we get to next dino scene?". Or they really needed two young teenage characters to pin point their target demos and slapped together some lazy characters so that kids would want to buy more toys. There is no inherent issue with attempting to create characters in which your target audience can identify, but for fucks sake try a little harder. For a movie that very clearly was attempting to be about the state of lovely, poorly thought out and profit driven corporate blockbusters and the audiences that drive this, it sure had no issue reveling in the crap that makes those movies a slog to sit through. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
Harald posted:I thought she was calling from some kind of corporate meeting.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:13
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:It has nothing to do with it being unrealistic and out of left field, its lovely because its a stupid, poorly handled attempt at creating drama in the film. Its bad drama communicated lazily, if they are going to attempt to tackle this issue of teenage emotional issues amongst a divorce then they really should have written it a lot better and fleshed it out more. Im sure the 4 screenwriters spent so much time in their writing sessions examining the sexuality of teenage boys and the autistic nature of the younger brother while seriously figuring out how they communicate to the audience the complexity of being a teenager amidst a divorce and not "How do we get to next dino scene?". Or they really needed two young teenage characters to pin point their target demos and slapped together some lazy characters so that kids would want to buy more toys. There is no inherent issue with attempting to create characters in which your target audience can identify, but for fucks sake try a little harder. I'm really enjoying this dystopian future where nerdy children are all to be diagnosed as autistic. "Repent Aspergers!" Said The Goonyman. I'm not enjoying the people who forget that the kids in JP1 are also in the exact same situation. I guess because there's no memetastic lines from the kids as they do something that stretches realism and both of them are boys, people just don't realize the similarities.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:It has nothing to do with it being unrealistic and out of left field, its lovely because its a stupid, poorly handled attempt at creating drama in the film. Its bad drama communicated lazily, if they are going to attempt to tackle this issue of teenage emotional issues amongst a divorce then they really should have written it a lot better and fleshed it out more. Im sure the 4 screenwriters spent so much time in their writing sessions examining the sexuality of teenage boys and the autistic nature of the younger brother while seriously figuring out how they communicate to the audience the complexity of being a teenager amidst a divorce and not "How do we get to next dino scene?". Or they really needed two young teenage characters to pin point their target demos and slapped together some lazy characters so that kids would want to buy more toys. I know you have touched on this a few times already, but it was actually spilled out many times in the movie before this conversation actually took place. And it was dealt with as the older brother not believing his younger brother because he's so wrapped up in a stupid teenage relationship to appreciate anything (which actually happens in life). The little brother retorts with all the details, you see the honest to go realization of what the older brother has neglected to see for so long, and the relationship changes. It isn't Citizen Cane, but it is definitely believable and was not out of place at all since the plot literally pasted it for everyone except for the older brother. It was a scene that also happened in context of peace and the little brother was feeling alone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
We've had one pitch for a JW sequel. Does anyone else have a pitch?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:We've had one pitch for a JW sequel. Does anyone else have a pitch? The last fight but for the entire movie and with triceratops and winged brantosaursus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Fosson posted:I know you have touched on this a few times already, but it was actually spilled out many times in the movie before this conversation actually took place. And it was dealt with as the older brother not believing his younger brother because he's so wrapped up in a stupid teenage relationship to appreciate anything (which actually happens in life). The little brother retorts with all the details, you see the honest to go realization of what the older brother has neglected to see for so long, and the relationship changes. Again Im having to clarify that Im not saying its not believable or out of place or not there, Im saying what was there was poorly written, acted, shot and just generally bad drama to me. It wasnt even close to being tolerable blockbuster demographic drama. It actively detracted from the experience of the film and I groaned through every single moment the movie decided to clumsily tackle these issues. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 04:40 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:It actively detracted from the experience of the film and I groaned through every single moment the movie decided to clumsily tackle these issues. Hey, the writers had to make sure they dealt with the important issues of 1970's teledramas.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Fosson posted:I know you have touched on this a few times already, but it was actually spilled out many times in the movie before this conversation actually took place. And it was dealt with as the older brother not believing his younger brother because he's so wrapped up in a stupid teenage relationship to appreciate anything (which actually happens in life). The little brother retorts with all the details, you see the honest to go realization of what the older brother has neglected to see for so long, and the relationship changes. That's all well and good until you remember that it's never brought up again. Spelled out "many times"? it was spelled out exactly one time: the time the little brother told the older brother what was happening. Heck, he even tells the audience his reasoning for knowing they're actually getting a divorce and he's not just reading into things (he googled the lawyers). Up until that point there isn't anything to alert you to anything wrong going on behind the scenes with the parents because they're on screen for less than three minutes. Unless the mom explained it in the phone call she had with her sister, I don't see how it was "spelled out many times", and even if it was that would have been exactly two times. And the emotions the little boy is supposed to be feeling are told, not shown. He isn't struggling to come to terms with his parents divorce, he enters the portion of the movie in which the script requires him to be sad for drama's sake, and then once that scene is over it's never brought up again. It's filler dialogue made to get the audience to feel sympathy rather than generate emotions through character development or experience. It's basically the writers telling the audience to feel sad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Definitely looked like a lawyer's office to me, but maybe I was reading into it. It was definitely a lawyer's office. The kid had just been talking about divorce lawyers, the dad made a specific comment about their last meal together as a family, I'm not sure what other conclusion we're supposed to jump to in that scene. I feel like this was another situation where scenes were cut. The dad's mention of 'so much for our last breakfast together as a family' came out of nowhere and makes me think there was some mention of it or of running late or whatever between them leaving home and sending the kids off (probably highlighting more tension between the parents). And I'm willing to bet there was some cheesy scene where they got the news of their kids being in danger and rushed out of the lawyer's office, momentarily forgetting their difference and yadda yadda instead of just popping up out of nowhere at the end. But pretty lovely of them to pack their kids off to Aunt Claire's dino murder island vacation while getting a divorce on the sly either way. AccountSupervisor posted:Again Im having to clarify that Im not saying its not believable or out of place or not there, Im saying what was there was poorly written, acted, shot and just generally bad drama to me. It wasnt even close to being tolerable blockbuster demographic drama. It actively detracted from the experience of the film and I groaned through every single moment the movie decided to clumsily tackle these issues. Maybe the drama seems bad and groan-worthy because we're not the ten year old target audience anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Again Im having to clarify that Im not saying its not believable or our of place or not there, Im saying what was there was poorly written, acted, shot and just generally bad drama to me. It wasnt even close to being tolerable blockbuster demographic drama. It actively detracted from the experience of the film and I groaned through every single moment the movie decided to clumsily tackle these issues. I apologize. You can only read so many statements on trying to understand why things like a decent person has to die (unreasonably hur) in film and what the message is before you become cynical at the critics. It was real enough to me now, but would probably not have been in the 90's (even though Tim and Lex's parents were divorced in film and novel) . Almost like Alex somehow rebooting an entire system for a complicated park in seconds, it was a plausible, but obvious hook. Just seeing too much fake "worst movie ever" posts, and I'm defensive because in an age of terrible films, this one at least took me back to childhood
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
The divorce is set up briefly because it exists, in the plot, to transition the characters from being distanced from one another to trusting one another enough to jump off a cliff, and to put the characters in danger. It does this really well, because teenagers will recognize this in themselves, or more likely in their friends, adults will recognize this in their past, and the people who can't figure this out won't be able to cry loud enough to drown out people's enjoyment of the film. In the emotional universe, it also puts the mother criticizing Claire and telling her to have kids in a new context, one that suggests that how you react in a crisis is what really determines your character. Do you risk death for someone, or do you pack them off to avoid having to explain something difficult to them?
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Verisimilidude posted:That's all well and good until you remember that it's never brought up again. Spelled out "many times"? it was spelled out exactly one time: the time the little brother told the older brother what was happening. Heck, he even tells the audience his reasoning for knowing they're actually getting a divorce and he's not just reading into things (he googled the lawyers). Up until that point there isn't anything to alert you to anything wrong going on behind the scenes with the parents because they're on screen for less than three minutes. Unless the mom explained it in the phone call she had with her sister, I don't see how it was "spelled out many times", and even if it was that would have been exactly two times. Someone already mentioned it, but the two kids entire relationship in the second half of the movie was framed around the divorce and fear of separation from each other. The older brother began acting entirely differently once the younger one mentioned that both parents actually got divorce lawyers. I don't understand how that doesn't count as being touched on again. And there were a lot of little "shown" actions. They just weren't the Spielberg styled "swell music, show someone stare at something slightly up and off camera" styled shots (that people still don't "get" half of the time).
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Ya know I kinda wish a lot of the scenes where the main characters were escaping from dinosaurs was a lot longer. Both the I-rex scenes with the gyroball and in the jeeps at visitors center seemed way too short. Basically the Dino's attacked for a few seconds, the characters ran away and that was that. I would have liked to see more struggle to get away from dinos instead of a 30 second encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Zoe posted:the dad made a specific comment about their last meal together as a family Mom's reply to this is suitably icy to tell us that, yeah, she's been putting on the face for the kids, but she's under a lot of stress and she's not in love with dad anymore. How about the way she hugs her youngest? Sure, baby boy is headed off a big trip "on his own," but it's really easy to read that as a goodbye hug: "When you come back, things won't be the same anymore." As viewers, we're then hustled to the park, the thing we've been waiting to see, the thing we've basically reverted to our childhood to finally experience. Jurassic World is not only a distraction for the two kids, it's a distraction for us. Mom and dad are staying in the adult world to settle the prosaic problems of real life, while the kids get to go to the greatest theme park we could possibly imagine, where even if things go horribly, horribly wrong there's at least a crazy adventure that the good people will survive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
The divorce was there because every Jurassic Park film is about fractured families: the family, the raptors and Pratt, and the IRex and its sibling. Tim and Lex's parents are divorced, the Kirby's were divorced, and Kelly doesn't have the greatest relationship with her father, and her mother is absent completely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
I couldn't have been the only one who wanted the T-Rex and Blue to hi-five each other after they tag-teamed the I-Rex.   Also while the assistant was getting fought over by every pterodactyl that caught sight of her I thought she had a good chance of living when she got dropped into the water, then when they started nose diving into the water for her I let out a surprised laugh, which exploded into a short burst of laughter when the mosasaurus ate both of them. That chick did not have a good day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:We've had one pitch for a JW sequel. Does anyone else have a pitch?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Park gets rebuilt again nothing goes wrong for 2 hours and Jeff Goldblum/Sam Neil/Laura Dern come over and then leave knowing that Hammond's dream was actually feasible Realistically all they've ever had to do to make this work is just to not make the kind of dinos that want to murder everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
I've thought about it many times over the past several days and I've come to the conclusion that Zara's death is one of the best scenes. The entire sequence oozes dread and teases a potential escape, only for her to die in the most horrific way possible. And she didn't even do anything wrong! It was actually kind of frightening in how much it upset expectations and left kind of a disgusting taste in my mouth. But I realized that was what made it so effective - it's not treating death whimsically, nor is it glossing over the carnage that the park's staff unleashes. If only the people responsible got their dues, then there wouldn't really be much reason to heap blame on them or their reckless behavior. The sequence is intentionally upsetting and subversive, one of the few really great moments in the film.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Zoe posted:Realistically all they've ever had to do to make this work is just to not make the kind of dinos that want to murder everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:We've had one pitch for a JW sequel. Does anyone else have a pitch? Things go wrong. Dinosaurs eat people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:We've had one pitch for a JW sequel. Does anyone else have a pitch? Jurassic World: California Adventure
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:11 |
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:You can have carnivores but maybe treat them with a little more respect and condition them to not kill people on sight. Or let them keep looking cool but sprinkle a pinch of panda DNA in there so they only eat bamboo and never breed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:06
|
|