Jurassic World

It's been more than a decade since the last Jurassic Park film was released, and with the fourth installment receiving numerous delays up until now, the wait is almost over. Here's the trailer released a few days ago:



The new film is set 22 years after the events of the original Jurassic Park, where a new company was able to successfully open the theme park. After the audience grew bored of watching dinosaurs, plans were made to create a new hybrid dinosaur, which fans of the series are split about this, in hopes to regain interests from these tourists. Naturally, something goes wrong, allowing the hybrid to escape from its pen to wreck havoc. And yes, there's going to be trained raptors, as you could see from the end of the trailer. Having to grow up with the series, what are your overall thoughts on Jurassic World? Will it bring back what made us enjoyed the original in the first place, or will it be just as bad, if not worse, than its past sequels?

i'm hesitant because we all remember what jurassic park 3 did to the franchise, plus i'm not exactly sure if currently hot chris pratt was the right choice for the role, but these judgements are only me being wary since i have nothing else to go on

let's hope it doesn't **** up on a phantom menace level

Bad CGI. Bad dialog. Mutant Dinosaur? No. Is that Chris Pratt teaming up with Raptors? NO

Initial impressions are not good. There's so many amazing dinosaurs that have yet to have a movie appearance that they could have used but instead settled on a frankenstein T-Rex. I really hope the film is gonna be more than "HEY LOOK, DINOSAURS", because the first movie was so much more than that.

Seriously tho. "Depends" "On what?" "What kind of dinosaur they cooked up in that lab" sounds bad.

As a huge paleo nerd it makes me sad inside that a franchise that tends to be most regular Joes' first look at dinosaurs keeps milking the "monster" teat rather than making even a small attempt to keep with the times. The first film, for all its inaccuracies, at least broke mainstream portrayals of the time out of the whole "fat tail dragging idiot lizard beasts" trend that had existed prior. Now it's just painfully stuck in 1993 and ignores 20+ years of science. If it wasn't so prominent a franchise for introducing dinosaurs to people, this wouldn't be a problem, but as someone who keeps track of the science and regularly comes across really intelligent people who don't even know birds are dinosaurs or that many had feathers or fuzz, I find it almost irresponsible of the filmmakers to not have updated.

All that aside, though, I'm sure it will be a fun popcorn flick to watch with friends.

Amaruuk said:

As a huge paleo nerd it makes me sad inside that a franchise that tends to be most regular Joes' first look at dinosaurs keeps milking the "monster" teat rather than making even a small attempt to keep with the times. The first film, for all its inaccuracies, at least broke mainstream portrayals of the time out of the whole "fat tail dragging idiot lizard beasts" trend that had existed prior. Now it's just painfully stuck in 1993 and ignores 20+ years of science. If it wasn't so prominent a franchise for introducing dinosaurs to people, this wouldn't be a problem, but as someone who keeps track of the science and regularly comes across really intelligent people who don't even know birds are dinosaurs or that many had feathers or fuzz, I find it almost irresponsible of the filmmakers to not have updated.

Click to expand...

The TellTales video game acknowledges the 20+ years of science and used the frog DNA as a reason why the raptors were featherless and the t-rexes had sightings based on movement, though the novel mentioned it applying to some of the other dinosaurs besides T-Rex. It's also ironic how you've mentioned the people who never knew birds are dinosaurs, because both the film and novel includes this piece of information during the first act of the story, but very briefly on the former. And yes, it is disappointing to see these people failing to acknowledge that dinosaurs have feathers, because they think feathered dinosaurs "ruins their childhood" and blame science for it just like how they "ruined" Pluto by reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.

I feel as though all the great movie franchises I remember from my childhood are getting horrible reboots, as if the 80s and 90s are coming back as a brain-devouring zombie.

Honestly, I don't see this movie doing very well. Trust me, I'm already appalled at the fact they're trying to reboot Space Jam, Ghostbusters, already did it with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and so on. Hollywood really needs to take a step back and reconsider what they're doing instead of just trying to vomit out more movies.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

The TellTales video game acknowledges the 20+ years of science and used the frog DNA as a reason why the raptors were featherless and the t-rexes had sightings based on movement, though the novel mentioned it applying to some of the other dinosaurs besides T-Rex. It's also ironic how you've mentioned the people who never knew birds are dinosaurs, because both the film and novel includes this piece of information during the first act of the story, but very briefly on the former. And yes, it is disappointing to see these people failing to acknowledge that dinosaurs have feathers, because they think feathered dinosaurs "ruins their childhood" and blame science for it just like how they "ruined" Pluto by reclassifying it as a dwarf planet.

Click to expand...

I have not played the games, though I have read the books. I don't remember too much about the books but I do remember that it was indeed established that birds = dinosaurs in both them and the movies. That much is not in question, as that particular bit was known to science beforehand. I remember the second movie retconned the movement-based sight by saying the T. rex just wasn't hungry at the time or something, though yeah, anything can be explained with the frog DNA. But at the same time, over the different movies the dinos have changed and this is supposed to take place 22 years later so surely they could come up with an in-universe validation for portraying the animals better. Yeah, I don't get people taking things like that so personally. Mother Nature doesn't give a **** what you think looks badass or how you classify things. Childhoods are not hallowed grounds that can be violated like that anyway. They exist only in your memory, so honestly I think this whole generation just needs to stop being so butthurt about trivialities.

I am definitely gonna watch this. I'm probably the minority in this but I actually loved all 3 movies of Jurassic Park. What I loved about the 3rd movie is the addition of the Spinosaurus. Finally giving the infamous T-Rex a rival (By who he actually gets killed).

The first movie is most likely my favorite because of it's amazing soundtrack and it's awesome sceneries.

I don't mind having Chris Pratt as the main lead. Let's give him a chance, shall we? And basing his performance on a trailer that shows him for not even 10 seconds? lolokay.
Reminds me when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman in the Tim Burton movie. Everyone hated the decision because of the earlier movies he did like Mr.Mom. And what happened next? People are saying he's the best Batman ever, comparing him and Christopher Nolan's Batman.

Aphrodite said:

i'm worried about that chris pratt/raptor scene in particular
like... it seriously comes off as Indiana Jones & The Raptors

Click to expand...

Yeah, I got some strong Mutt swinging with monkeys ala Indy 4 vibes from that part of the trailer

Are people hating on Chris Pratt in here? Oh hell no. That guy is wonderful at acting okay, if he can do Star-Lord justice, I think he can do good in Jurassic World. I think with GOTG people didn't he was good for the role cause he was still fat and mostly known for his funny, dumb sidekick characters. But he's already proved himself that he's worth being in action movies. And he adds his comedic side and charm to a dramatic movie. Though this is also coming from the guy who majorly crushes on him and thinks he's the hottest person on the planet. (Yes even when he was chubby and just known as Andy Dwyer). So no hating on my husband okay. So basically I'm just drawn to any movie he's in cause he's too powerful on my mind.
He's a great actor and is really proving himself to be one of the most wonderful and most humble celebs too. I'm just hoping there's a lot of Parks and Rec/Jurassic Park crossover fan art. I need to see Andy Dwyer riding a dinosaur or something. The whole riding raptors part doesn't seem like a bad idea personally, but again, this is coming from a fanboy here. From what I read, his character, Owen, does research on the velociraptors in the park, so why wouldn't he befriend them and riding his motorcycle with them?

And I really don't think the CGI is that awful either, I don't see what the complaints are about with that. Like that seems to be a thing a lot of people complain about with modern movies. Oh no. CGI in a action movie. Oh no. We can't have CGI in a movie even though we have enough technology to make it look good now. I think CGI works well with a lot of things when used right and was expecting more of it in this movie.Of course there is movies where it's totally unnecessary, but for the most part, I think the CGI works here.

My only complaint is that some of it seems too futuristic. Like the weird sphere car thing for example. What is that? I know it's supposed to take place in 2015, so modern ages, but I've never seen anything like that anywhere and it doesn't seem realistic. It would of been better if they stuck with the trucks and jeeps on tracks from the first three.

Besides that, this looks promising to me and hopefully it's not screwed up. I'm looking forward to it.

awolfsquared said:

? And I really don't think the CGI is that awful either, I don't see what the complaints are about with that. Like that seems to be a thing a lot of people complain about with modern movies. Oh no. CGI in a action movie. Oh no. We can't have CGI in a movie even though we have enough technology to make it look good now. I think CGI works well with a lot of things when used right and was expecting more of it in this movie.Of course there is movies where it's totally unnecessary, but for the most part, I think the CGI works here.

Click to expand...

Part of the reason of the complaint is because, just like demanding Hollywood to create pure original films, they want Hollywood to abandon CGI and return to using stop motion and other practical effects for having more heart than computer animation, even though it was confirmed that animatronics will be in this film just like the first three. It makes me wonder why nobody gives luddites a chance to have a voice.

I am definitely gonna watch this. I'm probably the minority in this but I actually loved all 3 movies of Jurassic Park. What I loved about the 3rd movie is the addition of the Spinosaurus. Finally giving the infamous T-Rex a rival (By who he actually gets killed).

Click to expand...

The Spinosaurus was a major reason why JP3 was a huge mess. Despite being bigger than T-Rex, it is strictly a fish-eater, and its claws and long snout aren't meant for grabbing, meaning that the T-Rex would've easily win. The fact that it was recently discovered that Spinosaurus was actually a quadruped rather than bipedal makes JP's Spinosaurus even more inaccurate. It was nothing more than a marketing scheme to sell toys to children and trying to make it the next T-Rex.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

Part of the reason of the complaint is because, just like demanding Hollywood to create pure original films, they want Hollywood to abandon CGI and return to using stop motion and other practical effects for having more heart than computer animation, even though it was confirmed that animatronics will be in this film just like the first three. It makes me wonder why nobody gives luddites a chance to have a voice.

Click to expand...

That seems like a logical argument.I've noticed in many movies where too much CGI just completely destroys the magic and (as you said) heart of the film and gets rid of the realism of the movie. Though there's also times where it works really well. As long as the CGI doesn't outweigh the animatronics in the movie, I think it will work fine. The dinosaurs in the trailer though mostly look computer generated, but we can't just judge on one trailer. I'd love it if there's a good amount of animatronic dinosaurs in it cause they work just as great as CGI ones. I just hope this doesn't disappoint. Cause while I'll probably enjoy it just for the really good looking actor playing the lead part, the story, acting and such is just as important to me.

I think it's a shame that people are letting whether or not this film has scientific accuracy hurt their opinions of this movie, especially before it's out. It's not a documentary,it's a film. It has a narrative, and characters, not information and figures. What's more, it's sci-fi. No one hates the Alien movies because there aren't any xenomorphs in real life.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

The Spinosaurus was a major reason why JP3 was a huge mess. Despite being bigger than T-Rex, it is strictly a fish-eater, and its claws and long snout aren't meant for grabbing, meaning that the T-Rex would've easily win. The fact that it was recently discovered that Spinosaurus was actually a quadruped rather than bipedal makes JP's Spinosaurus even more inaccurate. It was nothing more than a marketing scheme to sell toys to children and trying to make it the next T-Rex.

Click to expand...

I might be wrong, but weren't the spino's teeth specifically made for grabbing and holding? That's why they were long and thin, and why they were able to catch huge fish , which would often be moving targets. I'm not saying it could kill a t-rex in the way it did in JP3, but I'd rather not get into that argument...

Besides, JP3 shouldn't get the blame for portraying a bipedal spinosaurus, that was how it was thought to look back then. Even now we're not quite sure exactly how it moved around. If you're going to bash it for that, we should blame the original for a featherless T-Rex and say that it was terrible because of the poison spitting dilophosaurus.

Pinkie-Dawn said:

The Spinosaurus was a major reason why JP3 was a huge mess. Despite being bigger than T-Rex, it is strictly a fish-eater, and its claws and long snout aren't meant for grabbing, meaning that the T-Rex would've easily win. The fact that it was recently discovered that Spinosaurus was actually a quadruped rather than bipedal makes JP's Spinosaurus even more inaccurate. It was nothing more than a marketing scheme to sell toys to children and trying to make it the next T-Rex.

Click to expand...

Actually, the Spinosaurus wasn't strictly a fish eater. Researchers don't even know yet for sure since they had both fish and dinosaurs found inside their ribcage. But they are more inclined to saying they are fish eaters because of the similarities of Crocodiles. It's still a question in debate, so saying it was a fish-eater ONLY, is highly debatable.

For the T-Rex fight, I do agree with you. I think that the T-Rex would be the victor in this, he was the better hunter and his jaws and neck is stronger than the one of the Spinosaurus. But people would've complained EITHER WAY that the T-Rex would STILL be the main villain of the trilogy. Because that's what people do, just complain about anything.

Same for the Spinosaurus diet, it's still on a debate whether it was a quadruped, occasional biped, or always biped.

But since we're on the topic of messed up facts, let's take a look back on Jurassic Park, the first of the trilogy, shall we?

The Velociraptors, why are they so big? They are supposed to be as big as a turkey.
T-rex have good sense of smell and vision, why was it so dumb trying to find those kids when they were in the car?
Brachiosaur standing up on two back legs to eat and sneeze? Brachiosaurs can't support themselves like that. They are way too heavy.


People are nitpicking on the 3rd Jurassic Park because it was 'the worst of the bunch' and only look at the bad side of the movie while praising the 2 other movies while they had just as much scientifical errors in them.

TRIFORCE89 said:

Yeah, I got some strong Mutt swinging with monkeys ala Indy 4 vibes from that part of the trailer

Click to expand...

That scene looked terrible why would he even be on a bike running with raptors

tittlemouse said:

That scene looked terrible why would he even be on a bike running with raptors

Click to expand...

Because he and the raptors are raptor bros that's why.



This gif is so great.

(It really does make sense to me that a guy who researches velicoraptors would end up bonding with them and being friends with them.)

Kameken said:

I think it's a shame that people are letting whether or not this film has scientific accuracy hurt their opinions of this movie, especially before it's out. It's not a documentary,it's a film. It has a narrative, and characters, not information and figures. What's more, it's sci-fi. No one hates the Alien movies because there aren't any xenomorphs in real life.

Click to expand...

There's no reason critics like myself can't enjoy it for what it is. Us dino-nerds are not joyless sticks in the mud. We're just disheartened because the franchise is so prominent as a gateway for laypeople to be introduced to dinosaurs, and it's still perpetuating long-outdated ideas. It wouldn't matter as much if it were just some obscure B-movie. And the difference between this and Aliens is that while non-avian dinosaurs aren't with us now, they are a part of Earth's history and did exist, even if JP is sci-fi and the animals are genetically engineered and not really dinosaurs. Xenomorphs are purely fictional. There are still ways they could have kept with the times a little better without 'ruining' all the nostalgia and awesomebro monster movie cash cow thing.