xerinmichellex: (film: Jurassic World)
[personal profile] xerinmichellex
First Point: Theaters should really ban parents from bringing their toddlers to PG-13 movies. Especially movies that border into the scary territory. We had a toddler screaming her head off for 15 minutes before an usher came. Keep your fucking kids at home.

About the movie: I thought it was a good, summer blockbuster. Admittedly, I might have been riding on a nostalgia high because there were a lot of nods and winks to Jurassic Park (and to the book supposedly). I think the series is redeemed after Jurassic Park III. Jurassic World is more action-packed than the first. It tried to juggle a lot of subplots. Some of these subplots worked. Others. . . not so much. Most of the characters are one-dimensional. The only character that goes through any arc is Bryce Dallas Howard's; but it's the atypical, cold businesswoman grows a heart and realizes there's more to life than money. Also, if they plan on remaking/rebooting Indiana Jones, don't be surprised if Chris Pratt gets the part.

Non-spoilery Bits:

--I came out of the movie questioning my own thoughts regarding zoos, and circuses, and anything else that puts animals on display. I know there's been a lot of vocal outcry after the deaths at Sea World and Sea World's overall treatment of their animals. (Some people who've seen the movie feel like one of the Jurassic World deaths was pointedly taking on Sea World; I can't comment to the validity of that, though.)

I think it was obviously the director and writer(s) intention to parallel Jurassic World with our real life fascination of going to the zoo or animal entertainment parks. Even the freaking dino petting zoo made me uncomfortable, as I flashed back to my own experiences of riding a pony that's rigged to one of those walking circles. That pony's existence wasn't solely for my own, personal pleasure. So, yeah. . . I think it's going to be a long time before I go to a zoo again.

--I miss the animatronic dinosaurs. I don't think the CGI was bad per se. IDK. The human-dino interactions felt cold compared to the OG and The Lost World because I knew in my head the actors were acting with empty spaces. Though one scene was very touching and I might've choked up. (I was emotionally compromised before the film because we got the trailer for Max and just nooooooope.)

--Every time they used the "Jurassic Park Theme", I got chills. Every. Time.

--For the first time, I felt bad for the Velociraptors. I've always thought they were cool; but never have I been like "Nooooo, don't hurt them!" I also thought Pratt's "ability" to handle the raptors was on point and made sense and didn't take away from the fact that the raptors were dangerous creatures. *shrugs*

Relatedly: LOL I see you movie trying to explain why the Jurassic Park Velociraptors don't look like the real life Velociraptors.

--I completely forgot I was in public, and during the climatic fight I might've let out an audible "Fuck, yeah." Oops. Seriously, guys, it was so satisfying, both in honor of the OG movie and redeeming JP3.

Spoilery Bits:


--Loved the all the OG nods: the boys stumbling on the old compound, complete with the old merchandise, Tim's binoculars, and old Jeeps; the statue of Mr. Hammond in the Visitors' Center; the hologram Dilophosaurus that appeared during the raptor attack; THE SAME T-REX FROM THE OG MOVIE; lol Dr. Malcolm's "cameo" on the back of the book.

--Zara's death was very, very traumatic. That's all.

--My favorite scene was when Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) went and got the T-Rex. Two boss-ass bitches sharing the same screen.

--THAT FUCKING CLIMATIC FIGHT!!! I don't care how OTT or cheesy it was. The T-Rex and Velicoraptor coming together and kicking ass and then parting as "friends". (The nostalgia, man, it got to me.) Fuck yeah, Teamwork!

I don't know where I'd put World. . . definitely behind Jurassic Park and probably The Lost World (mainly for nostalgia). All I was hoping was that World would be better than Jurassic Park III, and in my opinion, it was. So, good job, folks.

Date: 2015-06-14 02:44 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fatpie42.livejournal.com
I can't understand the idea of anyone training the velociraptors from Jurassic Park. It was clearly indicated that these animals were extremely cunning. Even the appearance of being trained would be simply used as an opportunity to tear you limb from limb later.

It's like telling me that Pinhead (from "Hellraiser") takes BDSM consent rules seriously and uses safe words. A velociraptor that can be trained just doesn't sound like the same creature we saw in the first film.

Looking back, I'm a little confused as to when the big dinosaur craze started since it seems to pre-date Jurassic Park. I remember Spielberg's animatronic comedy series "Dinosaurs" and I remember making the mistake of renting a movie known in the UK only as "Dinosaurs: The Movie" (but in America it is known as "Adventures in Dinosaur City" ) both of which seem to have been released in 1991. The little plastic Monster In My Pockets also had a range of dinosaurs in 1992 (which was after I'd stopped bothering with those, but still certainly before the release of Jurassic Park).

I guess there's always a big passion for dinosaur-related stuff and so if this new film inspires that, then that's cool. I'm happy to stick with the first movie though.

Date: 2015-06-14 06:14 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xerinmichellex.livejournal.com
I can't understand the idea of anyone training the velociraptors from Jurassic Park.

They explain it within the movie in a "yeah, sure" kind of way. Basically Pratt's character "imprinted" on the velociraptors and they respond (somewhat) to his commands, which is basically just "look at me" and "track this thing down". They aren't 100% under Pratt's--or any of the humans--control, and the movie does show this.

It's kinda like Siegfried and Roy and their animals. Yes, they trained them; but ultimately they are still animals, and accidents will and do happen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siegfried_%26_Roy#Horn.27s_injury). But I understand--in the basic explanation it sounds stupid. It comes off better in the movie IMO.

Looking back, I'm a little confused as to when the big dinosaur craze started since it seems to pre-date Jurassic Park.

I'm not sure when it started either; but I've always suspected that it "boomed" after JP came out. I'm not sure how old you are (or about the "dino craze" in the UK), but I was 5 when JP came out and seemed like JP invigorated a lot of interest in dinosaurs. (It did for me, at least.)

I remember that animatronic show you're talking about (not the movie, though) ETA: Never mind, I looked up the movie. It's called We're Back in the US and not only have I see it, but I own it on VHS. We also had The Land Before Time movie. And I remember when Sue the Dinosaur was unveiled at the Field Museum. All of this stuff pre-dates JP*; but because JP is so big and became a pop culture phenom, I think we often mistake it for kicking off the dino-craze. The demand for dinosaur related things seemed to increase after 1993; so I think all the stuff that pre-dated JP were "found" after JP and helped sustain the dino-craze of the 1990's.

Maybe like how Star Wars kicked off people's fascination with space; even though movies like Flash Gordon and 2001: A Space Odyssey and the TV show Star Trek already existed.

*Sue was discovered in 1990; but didn't go on display until 1997, four years after JP.
Edited Date: 2015-06-14 07:10 pm (UTC)

Date: 2015-06-14 09:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] fatpie42.livejournal.com
Star Wars is different. It wasn't an interest in space that Star Wars kicked off. It was an interest in space-fantasy. 2001 and other space movies generally involved astronauts, not space princesses. Even "Star Trek" is closer to astronauts and scientists in its focus.

It's interesting that you bring up Flash Gordon. George Lucas actually tried to make a Flash Gordon movie based on the comics, but failed to get the rights, so he made Star Wars instead. The Flash Gordon comics date back to the 1930s and the movie of Flash Gordon actually came after the Star Wars movie in 1980. The movie of Flash Gordon actually ended up being part of the space-fantasy craze despite the source material being an inspiration for it.

I believe I'm around the same age as Rhoda (based on when she was counting down to her 30th). My family moved across the country when I was 8 and I know that I saw "Dinosaurs: The Movie" in our old house, but that I was at my new school across the country when I went to see "Jurassic Park" at the age of 10.

"Dinosaurs: The Movie" is not the same thing as "We're Back". The thing I'm referring to was not produced by Spielberg like "We're Back and "The Land Before Time" were. Click here to check out a VHS rip of Dinosaurs: The Movie on Youtube. (https://youtu.be/_PPDiMshnvc) It stars Omri Katz from Eerie Indiana!

One more thing. Do you reckon the way everything is all randomly dinosaur-related in the "Mario Brothers" movie is probably a direct result of Jurassic Park? It seems likely to me.

I guessed that the movie of Jurassic World must have been convincing 'in the moment' with its trained-velociraptor explanation. I was hoping perhaps there were some reasons that were convincing outside of the film, because not having seen it, it's hard to understand how those trainable raptors could possibly be the same monsters which essentially had to be kept in a closed pen in the first movie.

Date: 2015-06-14 11:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] xerinmichellex.livejournal.com
Okay, perhaps using Star Wars was a bad example. My overall point was sometimes it takes a single movie like JP, or SW, or LotR that kicks off a "boom" or "craze" in something genre-specific; even though there already exists movies or TV shows or literature that cater to that genre-specific thing.

George Lucas actually tried to make a Flash Gordon movie based on the comics, but failed to get the rights, so he made Star Wars instead.

I know that story; it was part of the reason I brought it up. ;)

(It's funny to imagine a world without Star Wars had Lucas actually gotten the rights for Flash Gordon.)

Oh, when I Googled "Adventures in Dinosaur City movie" the only thing that came up was We're Back. So, I go back to my original point; nope haven't seen that one. And I haven't seen the Mario Brothers movie, so I can't comment on that.

it's hard to understand how those trainable raptors could possibly be the same monsters which essentially had to be kept in a closed pen in the first movie

You're right that it is different from the raptors in JP. . . but not as much as I think you're assuming it is. The raptors in JW are not roaming around; their paddock is separate from the park, and I don't think it is even an attraction where visitors can go.

Perhaps using Siegfried and Roy was another poor example. The raptors aren't trained to do, like, circus animal tricks. It's more behavioral study with them and Pratt's character. He became their alpha, similarly to how that one, large raptor in JP alpha'd the other two raptors. But the point is that the raptors--or any dinosaur--can't be trained like a pet dog.

There's a subplot with InGen who wants to use the raptors for like military missions. It's one of the subplots that I said didn't work. . . and it comes to bite everyone in the ass. So, yeah, some of the teeth is taken out of the raptors; but they aren't completely "toothless".


xerinmichellex: (Default)

August 2015


Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 20th, 2017 11:14 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios