|
precision posted:Yeah I do wish they'd go back to that at least one more time. The Star Wars ones were great. The Indiana Jones one was a hoot, too.
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Peanut President posted:Trespasser 2, thanks in advance. Fixed that for you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Serious talk: a competently done Trespasser sequel/remake on modern tech would be amazing. Far Cry: Jurassic Park. Trespasser was bad because it was a ahead of its time and the tech just wasn't there to deliver on what the developers were aiming for, and instead of scaling back to more realistic goals, they went for broke and then released a game that was chock full of good and innovative ideas but no tech to make them work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Doflamingo posted:The Lost World arcade game was sooo loving good. Spent countless quarters on that poo poo, more than any Time Crisis or Metal Slug or anything else. I spent so many hours playing Jurassic Park for the original Game Boy. It's basically a scaled down version of the SNES game without the FPS indoor bits, but to this day I can still whistle the level 1 music. Edit-- turns out the NES version had the same music! Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
Just Offscreen posted:I still have all the baby dinosaurs sitting in a box somewhere Jurassic Park toys were the best thing ever when I was a kid. Firing missiles, biting electronic dinosaurs with CAPTURE GEAR, dinosaurs and vehicles with DINO DAMAGE, hell yeah.  Kenner was the best company for movie toys if you were an 80s/90s kid. Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Terminator, Aliens/Predator, they had everything and they were all fun as hell for kids. Some of the new movie toys look alright but there's a distinct lack of humans, vehicles, capture gear, and dino damage.  Dinosaurs are cool on their own, but the biggest appeal of everything Jurassic Park, be it the movies, the games, or the toys, is humans and modern tech interacting with prehistoric animals. The new toy line totally missed that point by just having dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Ralepozozaxe posted:Has there ever been a Jurassic Park dino toy that hasn't had battle damage? Most individual toys don't, actually. I was about to say that the Chaos Effect line didn't have it at all but one of the dinos did. If you're feeling nostalgic, jptoys.com has pics of every JP toy ever made, including unreleased prototypes and stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^ It was meant to use the tail as a third leg, you can see the crimp in the underside of the tail where it would bend. Happy Noodle Boy posted:No the big one also had the soft plastic skin and if I remember right you could press around the neck to make it bit/roat and it was a huge toy and loving AWESOME. It also made electronic stomping noises when you stomped its feet on the ground.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
The best Jurassic Park toy was this bad motherfucker right here: The Cyclops Raptor. This guy was the poo poo. He was covered in scars and slash marks from hardcore battles, his tail was crimped (like a bad break that didn't heal properly) and he was missing an eye. It was obvious that he had seen some serious poo poo and came out on top.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Nedry was merely the catalyst, it would have hosed up at some point. I absolutely agree, Jurassic Park in the first movie failed strictly due to human error. There could have been ways to show the park fall apart in unforeseen (and more importantly, unforeseeable) ways, but the movie didn't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Debating the tactical reality of Jurassic Park's security system is missing the point quite spectacularly. Also debating the "tactical realism" doesn't really refute my point. There's nothing inherently flawed in the idea of a dinosaur zoo. The first zoos undoubtedly had accidents and fatalities, and yet we have fully functional zoos today. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:"All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:I'm real pleased that the message people are taking from a tale of hubris is how dumb that guy was and how much better they'd do it. But there's nothing in the movie to show that the park was inevitably doomed to fail and could never work ever. If that was one of the movie's goals, it half-assed it. ruby idiot railed posted:And in these fully functional zoos that we have today every now and then lions eat a keeper or some toddler falls in and hyenas eat him. And those animals didn't cost $2 billion a head to create and keep. The price tag and animal size are salient points, but not insurmountable. Those are logistics problems. We're still talking about animals here, it's not like they're unknowable Lovecraftian horrors from beyond space and time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The animals are not monsters, but they also aren't dinosaurs. You can't bring dinosaurs back - even if you did, the atmosphere is wrong and the plant life is wrong. So, the basic premise of the park is flawed. Grant even specifically calls attention to this in the third movie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
I had pet hermit crabs, 8 of them fashioned a ladder out of cholla log and escaped their tank together. It was loving crazy. Domestication doesn't have much to do with it, a lot of animals are way smarter than we give them credit for.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
I was nine when JP was coming out, and my parents wouldn't let me see the movie until I read the book first. Seeing as how the book is way, way gorier and violent, looks like the joke was on them.  The book had all kinds of crazy poo poo. Muldoon blowing a raptor apart with a bazooka, Grant nerve-gassing the raptor nest, Muldoon drunkenly taunting the raptors at the fences, Muldoon and Genarro using a bazooka to tranquilize a t-Rex, said T-Rex passing out hours later and almost biting its own tongue off (while Muldoon cheers in the control room). The whole island being napalmed to gently caress at the end. Genarro and Muldoon were huge badasses in the book.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
If the movie had been faithful to the book, the movie would have been a pretty hard R-rating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
User-Friendly posted:"We spared no expense!" And no one is saying the park in the movie didn't have problems, I'm just saying there's no reason why a dinosaur zoo couldn't work in the long term. The only thing on your list that actually compromises the park is the last one, and that's entirely human error due to greed. The others would have been stumbling blocks, but "can't see the dinosaurs from the car tour" isn't exactly going to get people killed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 07:34
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:The buckle scene is so clever. In a couple of seconds you've established that Grant is an excellent improviser, that the park's systems don't work as well as they should and it foreshadows the female dinosaurs being able to breed. I never thought about it like this, that's really brilliant filmmaking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:That's because all the elements mentioned are individually simple, but they combine to form a complex and unpredictable system. Not being able to see the dinosaurs isn't lethal, until you realise that it gave Grant and the others the motivation to leave the cars, something they were able to do because the cars didn't have locks. In doing so they delayed the tour, which meant they were back outside the Rex pen when the power went off. Gennaro could not have predicted that leaving the car would lead to him being eaten on a toilet. In that regard I don't think the movie (or book) is making the point that any dinosaur zoo is doomed to fail, it's just using the dinosaur zoo as the backdrop to demonstrate chaos theory and the dinosaurs are there to keep the reader/audience's attention (since dinosaurs are awesome). Then again I guess that storytelling technique of using the fantastic to demonstrate the mundane is true of a lot of science fiction.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Cage posted:Why would helicopter seat belts represent the park? Its not like they manufactured it at the park.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Vogon Poet posted:Here's the scene in question:
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
In the grand scheme of product placement, that Barbasol can is pretty iconic. Pretty much no one born before like 1985 can look at a Barbasol can and not immediately associate it with Jurassic Park. Off the top of my head I can't even think of another product where the moment I see it, I instantly think of a movie it's been in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 10:23
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:But do you think of Barbasol when you think of dinosaurs? So it's sort of reverse product placement I guess?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 11:08
|
|
|
Danger posted:The Delorean DMC-12
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Toady posted:I don't think I've ever seen a can of shaving cream and thought "Jurassic Park." Specifically Barbasol.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
SirDrone posted:Didn't Malcom die in the novel or something according to Crichton only to get recton in the sequel?.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
mr.capps posted:But its not that bad though. It isn't good, but I don't see why there is this sudden surge to slay the dragon of this scene.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
JP3 plays with the ambiguity by having Grant playing with toy dinosaurs with a child, and then you find out it's not his kid, and Ellie is married to someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Luminous Obscurity posted:Wasn't that literally a quote by one of the animatronics people? To which Spielberg replied, "Don't you mean extinct?" Or something to that effect.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Happy Noodle Boy posted:I'm not only because he should be living with the raptors so that entire conversation needed to occur while 2 raptors are following a laser pointer or something. The verdict? Whether big or small, cats are cats. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
Big Bug Hug posted:Some of them also like catnip! The "Big Cats Rescue" YouTube channel is all around super awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I never thought Grant and Ellie were dating. The scene in which Grant and Malcolm discuss her always struck me as Grant lying to Malcolm because he just didn't like him in general.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:His idea of strong female characters is young hot 20 year olds in skimpy clothes beating up bad guys (while saying oh-so-precious one-liners). Ellen Ripley they ain't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:And that movie was terrible and had the worst version of the Ripley character to date. As for Resurrection's version of Ripley, it's certainly.. different, and that's intentional. It's the entire reason Sigourney Weaver agreed to star in the movie at all. Whether or not it's good is another matter entirely. I think it was an interesting direction to take the character, but it certainly wasn't James Cameron's Ripley.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:It's a perfectly legitimate point that is made about Joss Whedon's "liberal" sensibilities about The Other. Which his sexist/fetishistic views on women definitely fall under. Deakul posted:dinosaurs look cool with feathers
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:Yeah but you like Aliens vs Predator comics and toys and books and all that poo poo  I guess you could argue that dinosaurs in Jurassic World should have dumbass feathers but we already know they don't so I guess it's a moot point (and a drat good thing, to boot).
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
Art Alexakis posted:I think the poster is saying that you like stupid poo poo and that your opinion is subject to scrutiny because you like stupid poo poo. Except it's not because one has no bearing on the other, and it's a logical fallacy if you think it does. Nah, given the poster's sweet red custom title and rap sheet, it's much more likely he was going for a cheap shot than any sort of thoughtful critique of what was being said.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:How does one thoughtfully critique "I HATE FEATHERS FEATHERS ARE STUPID" There's plenty to say about feathers and why they are/aren't in the movie. Aside from me personally thinking they look drat retarded, one could make the claim that in the modern "Jurassic World" park, armed with modern knowledge of dinosaurs and that some of them had feathers, the park's geneticists must have consciously decided to manipulate the dinosaurs so they don't have feathers. Perhaps they wanted the dinosaurs to fit what the public "expects" them to look like, as a means of mass-market appeal. Undoubtedly that's literally the reason (or at least part of the reason) why the filmmakers opted to not have feathered dinosaurs in the movie. The dinosaurs as portrayed in the first movie are so ingrained in the public consciousness that that's what people expect dinosaurs to look like, so any deviation from it seems "wrong". Hell, I can't even imagine a T-rex roar sound effect other than the Jurassic Park one. Any other roar just sounds wrong to my ears, and we're talking about an arguably "fictional" sound that no human ears have ever heard. It's akin to changing the hum and whirr of a Star Wars lightsaber, it would instantly sound out of place. I'm wondering if the movie will address it, even with a throwaway line of dialogue from Dr. Wu or whatever. It would tie back to some of Wu's dialogue in the Crichton novel, where he talks about altering the dinosaurs in order to make them more manageable, or make them fit public expectations, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets brought up as "baby steps" in dinosaur DNA manipulation that led up to the creation of the hybrid dinosaur thing that wreaks havoc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Peanut President posted:They're not dinosaurs. Like yeah they're already man-made genetic hybrids, but for the purposes of the park's appeal to the public (both in the first movie and in Jurassic World, not to mention the real life audience watching the movies) they're essentially dinosaurs brought back to life. People wouldn't go to Jurassic Park to see genetic monsters that happen to look like dinosaurs, even if that's literally what they are. Visitors would want to be convinced that they're seeing dinosaurs, even if they have to lie to themselves to do it. Same thing applies for the movie audience, unless it's thematically appropriate for the movie to demonstrate otherwise. Jurassic Park 3 touched on it when Grant calls the dinosaurs theme park monsters and genetic freaks, but it's like 1 throwaway line of dialogue and then the movie does nothing with it - it's immediately back to "HOLY poo poo LOOK AT THESE DINOSAURS EATING PEOPLE" for the rest of the movie. Jonah Galtberg posted:Everything you wrote here has to do with the thought processes of the filmmakers. Your post said nothing about the filmmakers and everything about your own reaction. "Aside from me personally thinking they look drat retarded" is the entirety of the post I originally responded to. There is nothing else to respond to in that post. Hopefully these short sentences pay off.  vI mean I guess we can put my post in the past and you can actually respond to the filmmaker discussion I've since brought up and you can contribute to the thread like a big boy if you'd like. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 07:13
|
|