Title: Jurassic World Post by: Shannow on November 25, 2014, 11:27:54 AM Trailer is out (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4)
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: schild on November 25, 2014, 11:38:33 AM Just came to post this! It's Alien! Alien 1 no less! yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss mothafuckaaaaaaaaaaaaas
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: HaemishM on November 25, 2014, 12:29:37 PM The only problem I have with it is... WHO THE FUCK WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH WITH MAKING A THEME PARK?
Addendum: Who the fuck was stupid enough to make a new hyrbid dinosaur near a theme park full of tasty morsels? Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: schild on November 25, 2014, 12:55:59 PM who gives a fuck
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: HaemishM on November 25, 2014, 01:19:03 PM (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1739972/web-images/this-guy.gif)
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Maven on November 25, 2014, 01:19:44 PM And of course Legendary was involved in its creation.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Merusk on November 25, 2014, 02:14:33 PM The only problem I have with it is... WHO THE FUCK WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH WITH MAKING A THEME PARK? Addendum: Who the fuck was stupid enough to make a new hyrbid dinosaur near a theme park full of tasty morsels? It was always implied that the inGen investors were going to go ahead regardless. The setbacks were all easily hand-waved as being the responsibility of a few inept/ corrupt individuals. Imagine how HUGE it would be to really be possible to clone Dinosaurs. Something that's the exclusive domain of a single company. No way in hell that's NOT getting used and a theme park would only be the first step. Look at GMO foods for exactly what would happen. Beasts with unknown potential whose doctors, medical supplies and care are the exclusive domain of inGen and whatever they charge for them. The real question would be, who would buy them and how much would they cost. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Shannow on November 25, 2014, 02:17:09 PM Everyone knows dinosaur is delicious. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Statue_for_Father)
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: kaid on November 25, 2014, 03:07:13 PM Wow okay that is going even weirder places than I expected. Oh wtf sign me up I will watch it I didn't need my braincells much anyway.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Goreschach on November 25, 2014, 03:47:50 PM Trailer looks cool. Too bad the movie is going to be shit.
They seriously need to fire all these old people and just put whoever keeps making these trailers in charge. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lantyssa on November 25, 2014, 04:06:37 PM Why make the meat-eaters? Sure, they're the 'cool' ones, but why?
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: WayAbvPar on November 25, 2014, 04:36:48 PM Why make the meat-eaters? Sure, they're the 'cool' ones, but why? Same reason people keep large pythons as pets in houses with small children. Because they are stupid. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Ironwood on November 25, 2014, 04:39:23 PM Hollywood remakes Jurrasic Park, except with StarLord.
Apart from StarLord, I don't give a fuck. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: KallDrexx on November 25, 2014, 05:17:19 PM That looked terrible.....
Unless they have: (http://i.imgur.com/4fuFk.jpg) *Edit* Also, apparently this is the dinosaur from the Jurassic World Lego set: (http://www.dreadcentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/LEGO-Jurassic-World-2015-1.jpg) Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Sir T on November 25, 2014, 06:08:53 PM The annoying thing is that 'Jurassic Park' holds up really well today especially for a 20 year old movie. It has some flaws but frankly the amount of good in that movie is such a huge pile of awesome that you don't care. Even the effects were so well crafted that they still look great.
This thing however fills me with a massive dose of "Meh" and the bolloxscience is making my brain revolt even from looking at the trailer. "Yes we have created the first Hybrid *dramaticmisic*" Hybrid of what? Walrus and T-rex? Human and Raptor? Why the hell would a hybrid of dino/mammal/plant/elmer/whatever be so more dangerous than a straightforward Dinosaur? Especially since the original JP dinos were already supposed to be genetic hybrids of Dinos and Frogs!! (It was stated flat out that they used the DNA of frogs to fill in the gaps in the DNA they had extracted from Amber, which is why the Dino's were changing sex and reproducing. Yes bolloxscience too but at least it made some amount of sense) And the slow piano rendition of the original Jurassic Park theme just makes me nostalgic for the original rather than make me want to watch this. So yeah not feeling the urge to go see this from the trailer. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 25, 2014, 07:37:08 PM This trailer just looks cheesy.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: pxib on November 25, 2014, 07:56:49 PM There are only 55 effects shots in the original Jurassic Park. Most of the memorable interactions with rex and raptors (as well as things like the frilled dilophosaurus, the brachiosaurus, and the injured triceratops) were practical life-size puppets. Every scene was painstakingly planned in advance because it couldn't be cleaned up or changed in post-production. They really do not make big summer movies like that anymore.
I've got no reason to imagine this is any better than the other crappy sequels. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Malakili on November 25, 2014, 09:08:22 PM This thing however fills me with a massive dose of "Meh" and the bolloxscience is making my brain revolt even from looking at the trailer. "Yes we have created the first Hybrid *dramaticmisic*" Hybrid of what? Veloci-corgi. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Thrawn on November 25, 2014, 09:20:06 PM That trailer took whatever desire I had to see the movie out back and clubbed it to death.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: schild on November 25, 2014, 09:23:14 PM Fuck that, the idea of the park actually being open is wonderful to my inner 14 year old. This is what I wanted Jurassic Park 2 to be.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Maven on November 25, 2014, 10:11:48 PM I don't know if a skeptical Muldoon and a red-headed Rule 34 Hammond up against Predator (Ok, Ok, Alien.) are as good as the Malcom / Hammond dynamic with a bit of Alan Grant thrown in.
I'm actually surprised I remembered Muldoon's name. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Sir T on November 26, 2014, 12:03:52 AM Fuck that, the idea of the park actually being open is wonderful to my inner 14 year old. This is what I wanted Jurassic Park 2 to be. Yeah, I'd actually agree. It would probably have been much better as a direct sequel to the original, rather than "Monster Island 1 and 2. Also the T-rex dies to a Duck billed Dino in Monster Island 2 on about 2 seconds isn't it awsome!!!" Just mentioning that moment as it was ASININELY TERRIBLE. Which will probably happen in this one too to show how hard the Chihuahuasaurus is. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Teleku on November 26, 2014, 01:44:46 AM "We created a genetically engineered super killing abomination before nature for our children’s amusement park. HOW COULD WE HAVE POSSIBLY FORSEEN ALL THIS!?" :awesome_for_real:
Or like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmPbmz7SzOs But I like dinosaurs eating people, and Predator/Alien type movies in a big loud theater, so I'll probably give it a go if reviews are decent enough. But this looks like the definition of 'movie I have to turn my brain off to enjoy', overused as that statement is around here. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Speedy Cerviche on November 26, 2014, 07:58:22 AM Looks like another CGI crap fest for foreign rubes.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Khaldun on November 26, 2014, 09:07:37 AM I don't know if a skeptical Muldoon and a red-headed Rule 34 Hammond up against Predator (Ok, Ok, Alien.) are as good as the Malcom / Hammond dynamic with a bit of Alan Grant thrown in. Rule 63. A Rule 34 Hammond up against Predator is...not a happy image. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: 01101010 on November 26, 2014, 09:54:23 AM I just don't get the "we built a new dinosaur." Why? The majority of the world has never seen a living dinosaur and you are just opening a dino park to the public but you decide that is not good enough? Why do that with a dinosaur when you could just as easily and with better precision do it with an existing animal that you have the complete genetic code. I guess the movie needed a little wtf.
And I take it Chris Pratt is the new Harrison Ford that will be cast in every movie now for the next 2 years... :oh_i_see: Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lakov_Sanite on November 26, 2014, 09:55:50 AM The running theme of the movie as told in interviews is that the park has been open for a decade and people are already bored with dinosaurs so making a new breed is there version of "extreme dinos!" to garner public interest.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: kaid on November 26, 2014, 10:05:38 AM If people are bored by a hundred foot long shark eating croc then unless your new dinosaur has lasers and a jet fighter I doubt you could do much to "up the excitement".
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Maven on November 26, 2014, 10:15:02 AM I would be interested in seeing Chris Pratt play serious. New Harrison Ford? ... Alright. Sign me up.
So it looks like they spiced a Raptor and a Rex. A Rextor. Rapex. Oh, it has to be Rap-ex. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: schild on November 26, 2014, 10:15:53 AM (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39720/REDDIT/d_rex.png)
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: 01101010 on November 26, 2014, 10:27:42 AM If people are bored by a hundred foot long shark eating croc then unless your new dinosaur has lasers and a jet fighter I doubt you could do much to "up the excitement". Guess we can expect good things from Sea World in the next 10 years... :grin: Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: HaemishM on November 26, 2014, 10:49:50 AM The running theme of the movie as told in interviews is that the park has been open for a decade and people are already bored with dinosaurs so making a new breed is there version of "extreme dinos!" to garner public interest. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1739972/web-images/say-what.jpg) No. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Johny Cee on November 26, 2014, 11:03:46 AM The only problem I have with it is... WHO THE FUCK WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH WITH MAKING A THEME PARK? Addendum: Who the fuck was stupid enough to make a new hyrbid dinosaur near a theme park full of tasty morsels? It was always implied that the inGen investors were going to go ahead regardless. The setbacks were all easily hand-waved as being the responsibility of a few inept/ corrupt individuals. Imagine how HUGE it would be to really be possible to clone Dinosaurs. Something that's the exclusive domain of a single company. No way in hell that's NOT getting used and a theme park would only be the first step. Look at GMO foods for exactly what would happen. Beasts with unknown potential whose doctors, medical supplies and care are the exclusive domain of inGen and whatever they charge for them. The real question would be, who would buy them and how much would they cost. In the book, the lawyer was basically there to do due diligence on the project for the Board and he was the one that insisted on bringing along the scientists, who convince him the whole thing is a bad idea and should be shut down. Basically, Hammond was PT Barnum and wanted the spectacle/wonder... but the entire project was overbudget and they were figuring out that basically they bought Hammond's line of bullshit. Basically, the lawyer was the audience surrogate/Chrichton character that everyone explains the science to like they are an idiot and really was a decent guy. Never read the second book, but there was alot of weird retconing to generate room for a sequel (the Board didn't junk everything, Malcolm didn't actually die at the end of the first, etc) In reality, no one would ever build a theme park. They're fucking expensive and don't have a great profit margin. They'd use the fancy technology to make chickens that live and lay longer, cattle that has meat with better marbling, etc etc etc. That stuff isn't sexy, but it makes big money and has great margins as long as your patent is good. Trying to create a whole theme park, with necessary safety measures, for animals that you have no idea how to care for or what the common ailments are, who are also cloned which usually generates a ton of other ailments.... Yah, that sounds like a terribly bad idea. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Merusk on November 26, 2014, 01:34:39 PM Gennaro, the lawyer, and Hammond were opposite of their book archtype. In the book Hammond was also a charlatan driven by a mad desire for power and fame. Recall the mini-elephant that was used to trick investors, but was the early "hey shit isn't what it seems" clue because it was a vicious and angry little dwarf that they kept caged because the genetic modding did bad things. His grandkids even being on the island was a PR move on his part to show how safe it was.
Hammond also got - deservedly - eaten by compys. Move universe is what we're after here, not the book one. The 3rd Jurassic park was the 2nd book. Also, you're looking at the wrong theme parks for profit margins. Disney is the exact model they're mimicking and they took 2.2bn in profits just from their theme park in 2013. That's out of a out of 6.1bn profit total, and 14.4bn in revenues. ~15% margin. http://www.themeparkinsider.com/flume/201311/3763/ Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: kaid on November 26, 2014, 01:38:23 PM I would agree you may do some dinos to prove you could and as a show case but your real money making would be giant 20 foot tall chickens of pure golden plump goodness that eat half as much as a normal chicken and have no nasty bones. The dino thing is a high profile thing to get people to fund your research but the research would quickly branch off to other far more profitable avenues especially if you are capable of building a do it yourself lifeform.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: HaemishM on November 26, 2014, 01:50:08 PM If I were a betting man, I'd lay even odds that the reason they build the hybrid is for "military applications."
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Pennilenko on November 26, 2014, 02:05:49 PM Come on guys, don't nerd the fuck out of this. Just go with genetic hybrid dinosaurs eat everybody, sit back and enjoy. I don't need plot or realistic science to enjoy people getting devoured by scary, science gone wrong, dinosaurs.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Typhon on November 26, 2014, 02:39:02 PM There is no way that dinosaur could use that boat like a sword.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Teleku on November 26, 2014, 02:54:22 PM The running theme of the movie as told in interviews is that the park has been open for a decade and people are already bored with dinosaurs so making a new breed is there version of "extreme dinos!" to garner public interest. Considering we've had parks where people pay huge amounts of money to look at sharks and watch killer whales dance around to music for decades with no sign of it becoming unprofitable, I'm not sure I buy that premise. Especially when they have sky scrapper sized crocodiles jumping up and eating shit. Hard to imagine them genetically engineering something more fun to watch than that, unless its literally Godzilla.But that at least is a somewhat believable (if still stupid) explanation for it. Watching the trailer itself I couldn't think of any idea of why you'd think creating the perfect killing machine would be a good idea. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Ironwood on November 26, 2014, 03:22:07 PM I want them to go meta :
"We've created the perfect killing machine to save on special effects for our latest movie, but it's gone NUTS." That'd be fun. Or, you know, not. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: MahrinSkel on November 27, 2014, 10:15:20 AM There are only 55 effects shots in the original Jurassic Park. Most of the memorable interactions with rex and raptors (as well as things like the frilled dilophosaurus, the brachiosaurus, and the injured triceratops) were practical life-size puppets. Every scene was painstakingly planned in advance because it couldn't be cleaned up or changed in post-production. They really do not make big summer movies like that anymore. Point of order: There were 55 CGI shots. Puppets/animatronics is still "effects". Yes, it's pedantic cinema terminology sperging.I've got no reason to imagine this is any better than the other crappy sequels. --Dave Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Samprimary on November 29, 2014, 12:10:26 AM Come on guys, don't nerd the fuck out of this. Just go with genetic hybrid dinosaurs eat everybody, sit back and enjoy. I don't need plot or realistic science to enjoy people getting devoured by scary, science gone wrong, dinosaurs. Theorycrafting, ah, finds a way. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Maven on April 09, 2015, 02:30:04 PM (http://www.ew.com/sites/default/files/styles/tout_image_612x380/public/i/2014/06/12/JURASSIC-WORLD-02_0.jpg?itok=qmOfQOpx)
Wait, this is Ron Howard's daughter? Wow. Yes, I bumped a thread because she caught my eye. Also, Ron Fucking Howard's daughter. Ok, fine. Here's a new clip (http://www.mtv.com/ontv/movieawards/videos/jurassic-world-exclusive-theyre-alive/1183937/) for you. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Merusk on April 09, 2015, 05:50:45 PM It's so good she didn't get her uncle's portion of the family redhead genes.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: 01101010 on April 20, 2015, 12:49:13 PM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJJrkyHas78
Well, no need to see the movie unless I want to see the dinos. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: KallDrexx on April 24, 2015, 06:28:22 AM Oh yay, the velociraptor whisperer :uhrr:
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: 01101010 on April 24, 2015, 07:51:02 AM Oh yay, the velociraptor whisperer :uhrr: Or the velociraptor tamer...only he needs a whip and chair and top hat - which may in fact be awesome. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Mattemeo on April 24, 2015, 08:06:48 AM This film is looking more and more clown-shoes every clip/teaser they put out.
At this point, it's practically mandatory viewing just to see how bad it can possibly be. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Merusk on April 24, 2015, 11:07:46 AM They're using the Velociraptors to hunt the Even Smarter, bigger-than-T-Rex Genetic mutant. (who then, predictably, turn on the people) Should be fun just for that.
I don't expect a semi-serious film with an underlying moral message like the first. I expect the same action-dramadey of the 3rd film, but hopefully with fewer left-field "uh, how'd that work?" moments like the hand on the button keeping the T-Rex in. (Seriously that wouldn't even work..and if it did, why the fuck would you take it off if someone died to hold the button in.) Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Teleku on April 24, 2015, 01:13:24 PM That was the 2nd movie, not the 3rd.
And I thought the hand was just on it. The guy picked it up, removed the hand, then pressed the button (as I recall). Still silly, obviously. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: angry.bob on April 25, 2015, 02:22:56 PM They've obviously improved their genetics technology. They managed to make a normally 10-13 meter long dinosaur 250 meters long and not only able to whale-jump out of water that isn't deep enough to cover it completely, it's able to do it without being seen until it leaps up.
Come on JP guys, a Shamu show with Mosasaurs would have been cool enough on it's own. The original didn't take many gross liberties with what we knew about dinosaurs at the time and it was breathtaking in the theaters. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Setanta on April 25, 2015, 05:43:27 PM I think this needs to be in the movie
http://9gag.com/gag/aGw7QNZ Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Evildrider on April 25, 2015, 05:50:19 PM I would pay triple ticket price to see that. :awesome_for_real:
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Merusk on June 12, 2015, 03:30:21 AM Short review: predictable but still awesome. Not worth the IMAX money IMO unless you really need to see it on a huge screen.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Korachia on June 12, 2015, 02:23:35 PM That was.. laughable. Mediocre all the way to the bank. Meh.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtofVGtHmWU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtofVGtHmWU) <-- kinda describes p the ending. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: SurfD on June 13, 2015, 02:02:22 AM I kind of wonder who gave the greenlight on the final edit / script setup for this thing. Some of the scenes just seemed REALLY odd in the editing. One major one that sticks out is the kids in the hampster ball rolling through the empty field, and the younger one asks "where are they". And then BOOM, dinosaurs everywhere. I mean, jesus christ, you are in a fucking clear glass bubble actively looking for dinosaurs, and cant manage to spot dozens of the things on a practically flat plain untill you damn near roll over one?!?
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Comstar on June 13, 2015, 02:58:13 AM MUCH better than 2 and 3, a good sequel to 1. Bit too much product placement of Verizon Wireless sucking.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Merusk on June 13, 2015, 06:02:39 AM Ok a few days into release, here's a longer summary:
It's fun and I really enjoyed it, but in no way should you expect anything but a 2015 blockbuster. The original had its roots in Crichton's Sci-Fi writing, so it raised larger issues in addition to being filled with the action. This is a sequel purely exploited by Hollywood writers to pluck strings of nostalgia and ressurect a brand. Don't expect more than that and you'll enjoy it. The 20-somethings and people who don't go to movies looking for deeper plots I saw it with also had a blast. Was it a perfect movie or an intellectually deep film? Hell no. It's about people getting eaten by dinosaurs and spectacle. Nothing else and on that it delivers pretty damn well. Don't think on ANYTHING too deeply because you'll find yourself WTFing all over the place. I just finally had to accept the world and had fun with it. The spheres make no sense. The river cruise we're given a cameo of made no sense. The aviary makes no real sense in how fragile it was. The island not having a helicopter pilot makes no goddamn sense. The way the big baddie gets out makes no sense. It's not there to, it's there to set things up. Just like the sequel set-up that's practically shouting at you. The references to the original movie all over the place were pretty blatant, "hey, nostalgia!" trips. However, there's also a pretty cool tribute to the original effects guy that only effects geeks will get. (The name of the restaurant on the resort strip is "Winston's") Ultimately if you loved the original because you were 5-14 when it came out, you'll have a great time. If you want more than the above, just avoid it and watch it on streaming in a year. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Ghambit on June 13, 2015, 11:15:13 AM Mostly what keeps me from this movie is because Speilberg is a money-grubbing douchebag who actually sucks at what he does (post jurassic park 1). If there is one person who typifies the reason why Hollywood stinks up the place so badly these days, it's him.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Ginaz on June 14, 2015, 04:04:13 PM Mostly what keeps me from this movie is because Speilberg is a money-grubbing douchebag who actually sucks at what he does (post jurassic park 1). If there is one person who typifies the reason why Hollywood stinks up the place so badly these days, it's him. What? He made some really good films post Jurassic Park. Schindler's List. Saving Private Ryan. Minority Report. Lincoln. Not to mention he produced Band of Brothers. I think people are still pissed about the last Indiana Jones movie with Actual Cannibal Shia LaBeouf and now overlook the great stuff he's done. Don't be a bitter nerd. You can be better than that. If you don't believe you can, then maybe Shia can help. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuHfVn_cfHU Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Abagadro on June 14, 2015, 06:04:24 PM Stupid movie that I still pretty much enjoyed (was 20 minutes too long and some of the plot threads were unnecessary). Pratt is, of course, the best thing in it although D'onofrio brought in a good bit of his goofy evil charm.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: MahrinSkel on June 14, 2015, 07:10:44 PM Other than the (awful, completely unnecessary, and childhood-buggering) last Indiania Jones movie, I can't think of anything Spielberg has done to piss me off. But I'll probably wait on this one.
-Dave Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 14, 2015, 09:04:00 PM As nitpicked above I didn't have any issues with
I think comparing it to the first movie is unfair as very little can hold up to that and tonally this was is much more action oriented and less primal fear. It would have been a great sequel to the original, an Aliens to Jurassic park's Alien, unfortunately it came three movies too late but oh well. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Abagadro on June 14, 2015, 09:42:10 PM Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: kaid on June 15, 2015, 11:16:58 AM I was amused that at least in the movie somebody called them out on their hyperventilating because they made a "monster" all of the dinos at the park are genetic conglomerations and the new dino is no more freakish than any of the others with stuff spliced in.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lakov_Sanite on June 15, 2015, 11:28:23 AM Also a slight nod to why they have featherless raptors and dino's that have since been proven not to exist. "Look, people wanted these ones, so we fucking made them"
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Paelos on June 16, 2015, 07:48:35 AM Stupid movie that I still pretty much enjoyed (was 20 minutes too long and some of the plot threads were unnecessary). Pratt is, of course, the best thing in it although D'onofrio brought in a good bit of his goofy evil charm. Agree it's dumb and fun. Like a really hot chick you don't enjoy talking to for more than 10 minutes without eye-rolling, but the second the clothes come off it's a thrill ride to the finish. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: shiznitz on June 21, 2015, 04:35:23 PM This is exactly what it should be. I saw it in IMAX and it was a great show. Also, I love redhead leading ladies. Still, the story and characters weren't as solid as Jurassic Park.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Pagz on June 25, 2015, 11:22:51 AM I was just disappointing how god damn boring the genetically modified dinosaur was. Like why didn't the just go absolutely ham? OH SHIT IT'S TEH RAPTOR BLEED. I was expecting more in the lines of say crossing it with human dna, not god damn cuttlefish. Why not cross it with an pterodactyl and give it wings? Or shoot acid like that tiny thing in JP1? Instead they just made it a bigger albino t-rex that seems weaker then the spinosaurus they showed in the third movie that wrecked a t-rex in about .3 seconds. Awesome. You know what would have been better? Half way through the movie it goes into a cocoon. 5 minutes later, Cuttlefish-rex, CUTHULU HEAD, Michal Bay explosion, boom, done, drop the mic.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Polysorbate80 on June 25, 2015, 01:59:30 PM Why not cross it with an pterodactyl and give it wings? Or shoot acid like that tiny thing in JP1? Because Pacific Rim already did that? Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Margalis on June 27, 2015, 10:44:52 PM Stupid movie that I still pretty much enjoyed (was 20 minutes too long and some of the plot threads were unnecessary). This could be the review for almost every summer blockbuster of the past few years. it's weird to think that not too long ago popcorn movies were expected to come it and under 2 hours, and now it's the expectation that they'll be 2 hours minimum. It was a big deal when Aliens was over 2 hours. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: shiznitz on June 29, 2015, 07:50:03 AM But Aliens deserved 2 hours so here we are.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Pagz on June 29, 2015, 07:54:07 AM Why not cross it with an pterodactyl and give it wings? Or shoot acid like that tiny thing in JP1? Because Pacific Rim already did that? Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Yegolev on June 30, 2015, 12:45:33 PM I saw this twice and enjoyed it more the first time.
I'm researching those high-heels and will be selling them from a web store. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Ironwood on June 30, 2015, 02:01:56 PM Just back.
What a dogshit movie. Utter waste of my time. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Bungee on June 30, 2015, 02:37:24 PM Just back. What a dogshit movie. Utter waste of my time. Just came back, too. Don't think I saw another 'big' (as in non-European) movie like that since Pacific Rim in a cinema. Loved both. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: murdoc on July 03, 2015, 01:52:17 PM Just back. What a dogshit movie. Utter waste of my time. Agreed - this was terrible. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Malakili on July 03, 2015, 06:49:09 PM It was an ok action movie that in no way lived up to the original. It was serviceable up until the last 15-20 minutes, which were so bad that I actually had to stifle real laughter in the theater. That being said, it might be the second best movie in the series, Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 were both worse than this.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lakov_Sanite on July 03, 2015, 08:19:37 PM I had a TON of fun watching it but as each day passes I hate it a little bit more.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Lantyssa on July 04, 2015, 07:03:09 AM I focus on one thing: DINOSAURS.
If I try to consider anything else it'll annoy the fuck out of me. But the dinosaurs were awesome, so I'm okay with it. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Rasix on April 25, 2016, 12:00:05 AM This just popped up on HBO, so I finally watched it.
This was really dull. Not that I really cared about the franchise, but damn, what a wooden, cynical, low effort cash-grab this was. Oh well, it's not like Into Darkness bad, but my son's Lego set was more interesting than the entirety of the film it was from. Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: TheWalrus on April 25, 2016, 10:20:21 AM But that's true with all Legos.
Title: Re: Jurassic World Post by: Rasix on April 25, 2016, 10:22:31 AM It had a dinosaur that only appeared as a hologram in the movie. :awesome_for_real:
|