|
Unoriginal Name posted:They both have long red hair, blue eyes, fair skin and a light build. It's not, like, an impossible mistake to make. I guess if you had to describe them both with a sentence, the words would be pretty similar. Was everybody amazed that they got Jackie Chan to play the geneticist? But seriously, Duke Nukem up there looks nothing like Princess Peach on the right. GoGoGadgetChris fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Jun 19, 2015 |
#
?
Jun 18, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
jscolon2.0 posted:Was there any dialogue about all female breeding or lysine dependency, or are those no longer things? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
MrMojok posted:Part of SMG's shtick That is one big pile of schtick.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Unoriginal Name posted:They both have long red hair, blue eyes, fair skin and a light build. It's not, like, an impossible mistake to make. Hmm, red hair and fair skin you say? Go on . . .
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
It amazes me that people are mad the dinosaurs are animals and not orcs/Michael Myers in this movie. I suspect a dislike of Jurassic Park among some JP fans. Also, people really don't understand the point of the scene with the ride operator if they think the movie hates him.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Is calling BDH "Jessica Chastain" a threadjoke or is that a real mistake everyone's making? Jessica Chastain's face was all over the Martian trailer that aired before this movie, so you'd have to try pretty hard to mix the two up. It's a "joke" in the sense that purposefully misspelling/mispronouncing M.Night Shyamalan's name is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's a "joke" in the sense that purposefully misspelling/mispronouncing M.Night Shyamalan's name is a joke. That's actually against the CD rules, because so many people did it. With any luck calling BDH Chastain will be too. Hey fellow goons, I have WACKY opinions about this woman's appearance!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:One thing in the lab that really threw me was they had an axolotl, but it was edited to have a huge triangular dorsal fin I admit I didn't look all that closely, but I thought the point was that every animal in that scene was a weird hybrid, to demonstrate how unnatural and mad sciencey Dr. Wu's work was.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
turtlecrunch posted:One thing in the lab that really threw me was they had an axolotl, but it was edited to have a huge triangular dorsal fin I don't think it was an axolotl, it looked somewhat more serpentine in body shape. I vaguely remember that animal as an ocean creature, but I'd have to look again. ^^^ also there wasn't anything obviously wrong with the chameleon
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Well, Pratt only gets the raptors back on his side because he takes the tracker camera off Blue's head. I think the point (which wasn't communicated as effectively as it could have been) was that Pratt's whole spiel about having a trust-based relationship with the raptors was bullshit. He kept them locked up in a cage because he knew they would loving kill everyone if they ever got out. He didn't respect them enough to let them be what they naturally are. He wins the raptors' allegiance at the end because he finally puts his trust in them, for real, and sets them free. Related to this, am I the only one who thought that the "Our four raptors can take down the I-Rex" thing was intentionally bullshit? For fucks sake, the first movie ends with the T-Rex dealing with 2-3 pretty effectively (grab tail, fling majestically, gently caress you), and in JW all the raptors really do is play hop-on-pop and get stymied by the spiky bits it has. Clarste posted:I admit I didn't look all that closely, but I thought the point was that every animal in that scene was a weird hybrid, to demonstrate how unnatural and mad sciencey Dr. Wu's work was. Yeah, I'm not much of an animal scientist, but they all looked like low-scale "Shoved X genes into Y to see what'd happen" experiments. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Marketing New Brain posted:Hmm, red hair and fair skin you say? Go on . . . The vague similarity between those two is uncanny. If I didn't have my glasses on and saw them both from half a mile away, I'd barely be able to tell them apart!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
precision posted:The vague similarity between those two is uncanny. If I didn't have my glasses on and saw them both from half a mile away, I'd barely be able to tell them apart! To be fair as some one who has no idea who the gently caress they are, if I just glanced at a picture of one or the other I wouldn't really know. Doesn't make it funny though to purposely misname them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
MinibarMatchman posted:the tonal dissonance for the two kids alone made me laugh. like one second the older kid is loving berating his bro to tears about the divorce poo poo and then the next minute it's like it never happened, they're on a gyroball joyride. like did a loving monkey write the script. Well it sure aint shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Related to this, am I the only one who thought that the "Our four raptors can take down the I-Rex" thing was intentionally bullshit? For fucks sake, the first movie ends with the T-Rex dealing with 2-3 pretty effectively (grab tail, fling majestically, gently caress you), and in JW all the raptors really do is play hop-on-pop and get stymied by the spiky bits it has. Four raptors with weapons backup using them as a distraction, was the plan. Although why the gently caress didn't you open with the grenade launcher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Saw it today to give my dad an early Father's Day present. We both kinda felt like they could've handled the kids a lot better or just not included them because there was like a 20 minute stretch of movie where they're just running around barely missing each other and I feel like it was just to have the Abandoned Park setpiece, and any humanizing Bryce Dallas Howard needed to be provided by the kids was given in the part with the sauropod. It was also kinda jarring that the kids were able to fix that Jeep that easily after they were abandoned for 20 years but I have a feeling this was brought up already in the thread. It was okay. Very on the nose with the meta in the first scene, still kind of scratching my head at how the I-Rex managed to slam through the door and bust it like that, greatly enjoyed B.D. Wong channeling his inner Umbrella Corporation villain, Masrani definitely didn't need to fly that helicopter, the death of the aide felt incredibly cruel and seriously they should've wrote the kids better. I feel like in the future, I'm gonna be a 50 year old man with my kids and I'm gonna end up reading on the InterBrain some kid's comedy list "19 Plot Problems With Jurassic World" or whatever. In a stupid way I really do wish that this movie just ended up as Xenomorph Park or something along those lines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
pkfan2004 posted:
I've always wanted to make this silly movie about a W-Y guy who just wants to make lil pet Xenos for all the kids.  Obviously it ends up as it should, but who wouldn't want a cute little dog alien looking thing to pet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
pkfan2004 posted:Xenomorph Park Prometheus really is the ideal solution to the problem that Jurassic World explicitly struggles with, where the franchise's famous monster has lost all impact from overexposure, in no small part due to a couple of lousy sequels: introduce something wildly new, with a new tone, while building on the themes of the original. Of course, that had the original visionary director returning, not some guy who helmed a quirky low-budget comedy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
^ based off a ytmnd meme
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
MinibarMatchman posted:the tonal dissonance for the two kids alone made me laugh. like one second the older kid is loving berating his bro to tears about the divorce poo poo and then the next minute it's like it never happened, they're on a gyroball joyride. like did a loving monkey write the script. It's not the script. There are extremely noticeable edits in many of the dialogue scenes. When the teen actor delivers the line "sorry Aunt Claire, we can't hear you very well; we're in the hamster ball", the character is obviously lying to her. But then there's some awkward cutting and sound effects that make it seem like the phone actually is malfunctioning. It's obvious that the older kid was originally written - and shot - as a rebellious rear end in a top hat, deliberately lying to his aunt, ignoring her warnings, and endangering his brother in order to 'make him grow up'. In this way, the scene of the kid crying on the train would flow naturally into the gyrosphere scene. The clear ball would represent the older kid's 'emotional barriers' and feelings of invulnerability. The ankylosaurs would, likewise, serve as an externalization of those inner feelings. They have the hard outer shell, duh. Why the change? It's because the first thing test audiences complain about is characters being 'unlikable'. Reediting the scene so that the phone randomly breaks makes everything into an accident, makes the older kid innocent, and removes the uncomfortable 'characterization' and 'drama'. When the older kid was a bully, test audiences likely rooted for him to die. With this in mind, you can see it happening everywhere. It's obvious that the nanny originally had her own subplot, which was cut. She disappears from the film until she runs out of the main building shouting "we spotted the boys on CCTV". Who did what now? Then it cuts to her already reunited and running alongside the kids. The only explanation is that test audiences found her too mean, and probably cheered her death. Third example: right after Claire does the weird display of adjusting her jacket, Pratt tells her to keep quiet and do everything he says. Claire gets really angry at this, and starts ranting: "EXCUSE ME," awkward cut. Pause. Silence. Pratt says "don't worry. It's just like taking a stroll through the woods..." Cut to Claire now looking calm and obedient. They cut her angry outburst. Every single instance of a 'good' character having an irrational outburst of anger was cut. And that destroys the point of film: the iRex is the personification of their anger.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
Uncle Wemus posted:^ based off a ytmnd meme I'd watch a movie about Wesley Snipes not opening his eyes, so long as it wasn't just Blade 3.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:I've always wanted to make this silly movie about a W-Y guy who just wants to make lil pet Xenos for all the kids.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
"Yeah, but, John, if Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists."- Jeff Goldblum as Ian Malcolm "It is necessary to control the environment. We learned this at Disneyland." - Walt Disney. "In February 2005, a 77-year-old woman from Minnesota lost consciousness and died after riding the Pirates of the Caribbean ride. A medical examiner's report said the victim was in poor health and she previously had several ministrokes. The report concluded that her death 'was not unexpected.'"
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
JP question: Was Ian another dude who was intended to sign off on the Park as the other two were? Otherwise I can't understand why he was brought along. Even his "life finds a way" speech comes off in-universe as kinda bizzare.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:JP question: Was Ian another dude who was intended to sign off on the Park as the other two were? Otherwise I can't understand why he was brought along. Even his "life finds a way" speech comes off in-universe as kinda bizzare. Yeah, he was supposed to be the naysayer who changes his mind when he sees how amazing the park is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Yeah, he was supposed to be the naysayer who changes his mind when he sees how amazing the park is. And the quote is above a picture of him in a leather jacket giving a thumbs up that they ripped from the "About The Author" section of one of his books.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:JP question: Was Ian another dude who was intended to sign off on the Park as the other two were? Otherwise I can't understand why he was brought along. Even his "life finds a way" speech comes off in-universe as kinda bizzare. Yeah, he's an expert on the effects of randomness on complex systems. In the book he's the pick of the investors, while Grant and Sattler are selected by Hammond. That's why there's an antagonistic relationship between him and Hammond from the start.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
The book tries to justify a mathematician as an inspector but even there it doesn't make much sense and is very full of bullshit use of maths. In theory he modelled the park and concluded that it would implode at some point. Here is his model:  How does a simple dragon curve fractal model a dinosaur theme park? Don't ask stupid questions. MikeJF fucked around with this message at 06:33 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
I almost wish the movie had book Malcolm's dying ramblings, only because of Jeff Golblum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The book tries to justify a mathematician as an inspector but even there it doesn't make much sense and is very full of bullshit use of maths. In theory he modelled the park and concluded that it would implode at some point. Yeah, he argues that perfect control is impossible, but as soon as he attempts to expand that beyond the idea that therefore no one should ever try to do anything ever he steps wildly outside his area of expertise. It comes across as Crichton having read an article about chaos theory and deciding to incorporate it into his next book.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
bobjr posted:I almost wish the movie had book Malcolm's dying ramblings, only because of Jeff Golblum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah, he's an expert on the effects of randomness on complex systems. In the book he's the pick of the investors, while Grant and Sattler are selected by Hammond. That's why there's an antagonistic relationship between him and Hammond from the start. Yeah, I vaguely remember that from the book (him going more into depth about how JP is already hosed), but in the movie it just felt a bit odd. I really should re-read the book; I read it as a kid and I don't think at the time I could wrap my head around characters being different. Unrelated: I don't know if it's just on my end, but if you google 'lysine', the first thing that it suggests is the Lysine Contigency. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Ape Has Killed Ape posted:It's almost like man believing they're in control of nature is a recurring theme in these movies. I'd just love to see how they convinced that squad to go out there with some tasers and a net.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:39
|
|
|
CODChimera posted:I'd just love to see how they convinced that squad to go out there with some tasers and a net. I mean to be fair at that point they only thought it was a really big T-Rex that is coldblooded.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:The book tries to justify a mathematician as an inspector but even there it doesn't make much sense and is very full of bullshit use of maths. In theory he modelled the park and concluded that it would implode at some point. Malcolm's claim was that a theme park of genetically engineered animals was too sensitive to snowballing errors, like Frankenstein's monster times a million. The fractal drawings throughout the book illustrate a simple system transitioning to an unexpectedly complex one. If it sounds like Butterfly Effect 101, that's because it's a sci-fi dinosaur novel for neurotypicals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:52
|
|
|
Toady posted:Malcolm's claim was that a theme park of genetically engineered animals was too sensitive to snowballing errors, like Frankenstein's monster times a million. The fractal drawings throughout the book illustrate a simple system transitioning to an unexpectedly complex one. If it sounds like Butterfly Effect 101, that's because it's a sci-fi dinosaur novel for neurotypicals. They illustrate it, but they're also actually meant to be the model; Arnold describes Malcolm's models as a fractal that looks like a weird-rear end propeller, and apparently he somehow used this to model the park system specifically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Jake Johnson was pretty funny. Contempt for the audience is great. We're all poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
The character's job is math, but you don't see him actually doing the math. That because it's unimportant to the story. In the film, at least, Malcolm is there to deliver an opinion - acting as a philosopher. And he's worried because Hammond tried "to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it! You wanna sell it!" Malcolm's basic objection isn't that Hammond got the math wrong, but that Hammond hasn't done the math at all - and now the situation is already too hosed up to model. And he's pointing this out as part of a bigger religious/philosophical argument ("Man destroys God. Man creates dinosaurs.") and is ultimately making a point against capitalism. Malcolm: "John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained." Wu scoffs because he thinks 'life' means the dinosaurs loving - but Malcolm is talking far more generally, about Life as an abstract concept. When he refers to 'the history of evolution', he's endorsing a sort of left-wing Darwinism, against the view that nature is a ordered, harmonious thing: "I do not like the mythology of the ecologist movement with believes in a natural equilibrium which was destroyed by human imperialism or destabilised by the exploitation of nature. I prefer left-wing Darwinism which argues that nature does not exist as a homeostatic order, a Mother Earth whose balance was disturbed by man’s intervention. That is a view that has to be abandoned. I think by contrast that nature is crazy, driven by natural catastrophes, and is one big chaos. This absolutely does not mean that we do not have to work to avoid catastrophe, quite the reverse, the situation is extremely worrying. But we must leave behind this ecological moralisation and the homeostatic perspective. Theology in its traditional form can no longer fulfil its primary function which is to impose fixed boundaries. Invoking God no longer works." -Slavoj Zizek, "The Eternal Marriage Between Capitalism and Democracy Has Ended"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
Chaos Theory was hot poo poo at the time Crichton was writing Jurassic Park. It was all over the cover of OMNI and everything! Man, OMNI magazine was cool.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:07
|
|
|
I never understood Malcolm's arguments. Like it seems like he's just saying "Nobody should do or invent anything!". I mean isn't flying, going into space, genetically modifying foods, innovative ways of growing crops, etc. all "tampering with the laws of nature!"? Humans have operated zoos and theme parks for hundreds of years and while yes accidents happen these things are for the most part extremely safe. The reason the first park hosed up was because Ingen didn't take the proper precautions against corporate espionage and as a result a perfect storm of events occurred (skeleton crew on the island, major hurricane, Nedry's sabotage) and the reason the second park failed was purely because the movie had to be exciting so they created a dinosaur that somehow knows to turn off its thermal signature to avoid detection and is ridiculously overpowered. Neither things would happen in real life if there was a zoological theme park with dinosaurs in it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:09 |
|
|
Having seen Jurassic World a few days ago, I'm not entirely convinced that it was meant to be taken seriously. It came across more like a comedy that intentionally misrepresented itself than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:18
|
|
