|
The definitive Jurassic Park movie ranking is in order of release. The Lost World and JP3 weren't bad movies at all. But Jurassic World was barely even a movie. Though I do have a soft spot for Blue. And the dinosaurs looked fine. Hopefully I've managed to piss off mostly everybody.
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Darko posted:Depends on if you like wry straight laced satire/self parody or not (to be fair, most people weren't expecting that going in since the first movie was far more earnest in embracing its material). Whatever else you can say about it, the direction for JP3 was absolutely not weaker than JW. That's crazy talk. I don't think it's a great movie, but it's decent. Joe Johnston is a far, far better director than Colin Trevorrow. e: And you can say JW was a film about sequels as much as you want but that doesn't make it good. I'll take earnest over meta any day. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Dec 5, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
I just wanted to let everyone know I'm still irrationally mad at the lack of dino feathers and will presently be going on a hunger strike until the issue is resolved to my satisfaction.Snowglobe of Doom posted:This teaser trailer shows him in a senate hearing or something which I guess will pretty much be all he does If so that's a criminal underuse of Goldblum. He's the only Jeff Goldblum we have, we need to use him as much as we can while we still can.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
The ending of The Lost World, with Malcolm asleep on the couch with his girlfriend while his daughter watches John Hammond speak on TV about how precious the now-undisturbed ecosystem on Isla Sorna is, seems to be a pretty big endorsement of the idea that the dinosaurs aren't all bad, and even if this view isn't imparted to Malcolm textually, it seems appropriate that his view might have changed a bit. Especially because the script, which doesn't have the whole T. rex in San Diego portion, has a different final scene (which I only found out about just now because I was trying to look up what Hammond says), and it's pretty explicit that Malcolm's view has changed: quote:EXT. CEMETERY - DAY Malcolm's whole point in the first movie is that these things are dangerous wild animals and they can't be controlled by man. And maybe they shouldn't have been brought back in the first place, but they're alive now, and they're real. They're a part of nature now, not exhibits in a theme park.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
That's why I laughed at the complaint that it was unrealistic for there to be a new park after the San Diego incident. Dinosaurs actually exist now, there's too much money in it for the people trying to profit off of them to be impeded by the law in any meaningful way.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Top Gun posted:In TLW book and movie it was explained that the animals survived because the herbivores were eating a heavy lysine diet and the carnivores would eat the herbivores and would get the amino acid through digestion. However almost all of these animals except the Rex in Fallen Kingdom were created long after the events of the original films so it’s possible they just dropped the lysine contingency altogether. Which never made much sense because no animal is capable of synthesizing lysine on its own and the only possible way to get it is through diet.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
bobjr posted:Clearly they're setting up a Blue and Chris Pratt buddy cop trilogy, which I'd be behind. At this point I almost think saying "gently caress it" and just doing this with someone like Lord and Miller is the only way to make this franchise worthwhile going forward.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Timby posted:I'm convinced that the original plan for the Indominus Rex "twist," back when it was called Diabolus Rex, was that it had human DNA because Wu decided humans were the biggest monsters of all. There's absolutely no way this wasn't in an earlier script. Hell, they should have left it in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 9, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Top Gun posted:No it’s correct. On Isla Nublar the animals were fed lysine in their diet. The idea being if InGen stopped giving them their prepared food they would die off because they wouldn’t be able to get lysine from any other source on the island. However what they found out on Isla Sorna was the herbivores were eating plants that were lysine rich. No, the dinosaurs are described as having been genetically engineered to be incapable of producing lysine on their own. That makes no sense, because you don't have to genetically engineer an animal to be incapable of producing lysine; that's just the way animals are. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I mean, in the case of an artificially created animal wouldn't you still have to make sure it does or does not do X thing when designing it? Look, I don't want to harp on this too much, but this is an obvious case of Crichton just making a scientific goof. It doesn't actually matter, I was just pointing it out as a sort of interesting science fact. But it obviously has nothing to do with the InGen scientists not genetically engineering the dinosaurs into being miraculous lysine-producing animals, and for some bizarre reason describing it in a way that sounds nothing like that but exactly like they engineered them to be artificially deficient in some way. There's also the fact that the lysine contingency was specifically meant to prevent the spread of dinosaurs in the outside world, which even the shortsighted InGen scientists would have known would not work since, as stated before, exogenous sources of lysine are abundant in nature. The InGen scientists are arrogant and operate with a severe case of tunnel vision, but they don't lack basic scientific literacy. No matter how you try to explain the fact that the dinosaurs don't produce lysine, the contingency still doesn't make sense. But again, Crichton just made a goof. If I had to guess I'd say he mixed up the meanings of essential amino acids and non-essential amino acids. Non-essential (that is, nutritionally non-essential) amino acids are produced in the body and if your body doesn't produce enough for whatever reason and you don't adequately compensate through diet you'll eventually die. So I'm pretty sure that's what he was going for. Disclaimer: I'm not a nutritional scientist any more than Crichton is so I may have gotten something wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2017 07:14
|
|