Who went and saw it this weekend? I went yday afternoon. It was about what I expected, entertaining with some awesome Dino scenes but a pretty weak storyline and characters. I saw it made over $200M so obviously there was some buzz for it.
Jurassic World
- Thread starter QuaZ2002
- Start date
I liked it better than the first JP and miles better than the previous two. My only complaint was the acting AND character of the main female lead was awful. She almost singlehandedly ruined the movie for me. But....I could stomach her enough to get past that and just enjoy some mindblowing action. I liked it less than Guardians of the Galaxy, the most recent XMen and the first Avengers but more than the second Avengers. So in the past five years or so I'd put it as my fourth favorite action flick. If they'd found a way to replace the actress and fix the character of the female lead I would probably have it #2 behind only GoG.
FAR more action and better FX for one. Better pacing for another (Spielberg got TOO Spielbergian in JP compared to his true masterpieces and lingered too long on the "majesty" of the dinosaurs.).
Also you're probably forgetting how awful Laura Durn is in the original. As bad as...whatever the Twilight chick is named is in Jurassic World, Laura Durn was just a hair worse. The kids were equally as annoying, but I thought this crop was a smidge better. And Vincent Dinoffrio DEFINITELY trumps Newman as fat white guy who serves as evil human villain.
I think I might actually like it better than the original too. The main complaints about the original when it was released was that all the characters (except Ian Malcolm) were dull and forgettable. The kids had no story whatsoever in JP. They were just there to be in danger and scream (and to find a file on a computer using some sort of flight simulator(?)). At least the kids in this one had some growth in their relationship as brothers.
When I saw the original in '93, at age 17, I left the theatre disappointed a bit, even though the dinos looked great. Part of that might have been that it wasn't nearly as good as the book though. I just know that I didn't feel disappointed leaving Jurassic World. Sure it was over the top, but I was into it all the way through.
My biggest "complaint" w/ Jurassic World was there was a lot of cheese sprinkled on it. Purposefully or not, that's a tough pill to swallow. I was 13 when the Jurassic Park came out and there was a legit sense of "awe" when the dinosaurs were first shown. Nearly impossible to duplicate that. I mean, dino-bros.............head nods in bro recognition. I liked it a lot but having to push aside cheesy dialogue and damn near dino-man fist pounds was hard.
My kids loved it but my eldest son was contemplating which was better b/w JP and JW while we were riding home. He liked the amount of action in JW but came out w/ JP as the better of the two. My youngest liked JW b/c of the action and the dino bro love.
My kids loved it but my eldest son was contemplating which was better b/w JP and JW while we were riding home. He liked the amount of action in JW but came out w/ JP as the better of the two. My youngest liked JW b/c of the action and the dino bro love.
Yeah Tribe, I'm one of your biggest fans but you need to lay the F off a young Laura Dern...
Haven't seen the new one, but tribe is correct, the worst part of the original is Larua Dern. She stinks up the screen in every scene she's in.
I'm kind of wondering how it could be very interesting with the main idea so stale at this point. I mean cloning Dinos was at least sort of a fresh new idea in JP, and made to seem scientifically plausible at the time (though it's only really plausible with Mastodons/mammoths, and you'd have to bridge missing sequences with elephant DNA so it'd be a hybrid)
I imagine it could be exciting, but I get tired of milking old ideas in unending sequels. It'll draw people in droves no doubt, especially the young, but it's more interesting to me when Spielberg does something more new and creative, rather than milking the commercial tit. But it is a business.
Last edited:
It's at least plausible if not doable for some dinosaurs. They've found viable red blood cells, white blood cells, marrow and collagen structures in various dinosaur fossils including the first one they researched literally a T-Rex.
I'm just going by what the PhD said who was the featured guest on Science Friday's cloning show several weeks back, when they discussed the genetics and biochemistry involved. She was supposedly involved on the cutting edge / the latest work being done. According to her, even with the relatively intact DNA in frozen mastodon flesh, you still have trouble with fragmenting, missing sequences, and DNA contamination from the natural environment. She said that with Dinos it would simply not be conceivable to clone them. Now this was before the most recent find of seemingly intact Dino cells, announced just this past week. I haven't heard whether they've looked for DNA yet in these, but I know when they've found dino cells in the past they didn't yield useful dna. You can have environments where macro cellular structures survive, without it being suitable for dna to stay intact. That might be the most likely scenario. They found some T-rex cells as far back as 1993 but the DNA was too deteriorated to figure out sequences distinct from environmental dna contamination. It might be akin to finding brains preserved in acidic peat bogs: Macro structures can be intact, but then when you go to look for the really fine structures under a microscope, you don't find actual intact neurons,. If you did retrieve some relatively intact dna sequences from these latest cells, I guess you could try bridging the gaps......Crocodile dna maybe? Birds? And try and produce a living hybrid with some characteristics of known dinos. I'll wait to hear more results though.......will be really shocked if they find mostly sequenceble dna.
OK, the movie was entertaining...
But seriously, they gave nods to learning from past InGen mistakes and JP but the biggest gun they appeared to have other than the RPG was maybe a .50 cal. and the only helicopter on the island was the CEO's executive playtoy? Seriously, all that technology and nothing better than that?
I know, there is a smart way to watch TV....
But seriously, they gave nods to learning from past InGen mistakes and JP but the biggest gun they appeared to have other than the RPG was maybe a .50 cal. and the only helicopter on the island was the CEO's executive playtoy? Seriously, all that technology and nothing better than that?
I know, there is a smart way to watch TV....
Jurassic World completely ignores Lost World and JP3. Canon is only JP and JW now.
There are scientists who have found "Biological Material Found: As of April 2015, in fossils from dinosaur-layer and deeper strata, researchers have discovered flexible and transparent blood vessels, red blood cells, many various proteins including the microtubule building block tubulin, collagen, the cytoskeleton component actin, and hemoglobin, bone maintenance osteocyte cells, DNA-related histone proteins, and powerful evidence for DNA including positive results from multiple double helix tests."
And a scientist who believes in a rigid form of Creationism which says Dinosaurs are only 4,000 years old or thereabouts found soft tissue in a Triceratops nostril horn which contained what he alleges was viable DNA but he was immediately terminated by the foundation he worked for (according to creationist sites, I take this part with a grain of salt).
Supposedly, the large amount of cellular iron in red blood is what preserves DNA structures. Is it viable in terms of can we take it and immediately put it into something else? No. But apparently we can capture an exact image of the structures and once we have a way of creating synthetic DnA or moulding DNA by shape and not by viral injection then we can create dinosaurs. How long from now will that be? Could be tomorrow, could be 100 years.
And a scientist who believes in a rigid form of Creationism which says Dinosaurs are only 4,000 years old or thereabouts found soft tissue in a Triceratops nostril horn which contained what he alleges was viable DNA but he was immediately terminated by the foundation he worked for (according to creationist sites, I take this part with a grain of salt).
Supposedly, the large amount of cellular iron in red blood is what preserves DNA structures. Is it viable in terms of can we take it and immediately put it into something else? No. But apparently we can capture an exact image of the structures and once we have a way of creating synthetic DnA or moulding DNA by shape and not by viral injection then we can create dinosaurs. How long from now will that be? Could be tomorrow, could be 100 years.
Solid movie, felt like they should've made it rated R and went a little more adult and a little less corny PG13 and then it would've been a really great movie.
No way for me to ever get over the awe of seeing dinos in the first JP. I loved to read about them, and to see them was almost a childhood fantasy. The "awe part" was the first movie.
As for the second, sure it has some cheese, but my greatest complaint is they chose to get the dinos wrong. We have learned a lot about dinos since the original, and why thy didn't apply it, I don't know.
As for the second, sure it has some cheese, but my greatest complaint is they chose to get the dinos wrong. We have learned a lot about dinos since the original, and why thy didn't apply it, I don't know.
In terms of microscopic structural detail, this level of stuff is extremely impressive to get from a 70 million year old fossil:
On the left is actual Dino bone cells with complete nuclei. The 2nd series is a current day ostrich, however that same kind of microscopic blood vessel strucuring you can see around the bone – actual intact soft tissue -- is exactly what we’ve also found inside some of the Dino fossils. Astounding! Now, as you understand, we can’t take 70 million year old fossils and extract actual complete intact DNA filaments, of organic composition and with original nucleotides still intact……….ready to sequence they’re ‘code’. But your post mentions that “we can capture an exact image of the structures”, and utilize this once we can create synthetic DNA." (BTW we can create synthetic DNA to a limited extent now – we’ve done some artificial sequences that seemed to function if inserted in bacteria.). But I think the structural preservation in Dino-era remains does not go to a much finer level of detail than the macro cell structure and intact fine vascular structure that you can see in the pics. And DNA filiments are a whole other level of delicateness to hope to keep preserved. But if we can find the DNA sequence in complete form, then we’re in business, no doubt……the complete code is the complete genome. Still, everything that I’ve come across through statements from scientists indicates that with Dinos we so far can only hope to find fragments. It would certainly be cool to have a breakthrough though.
Last edited:
saw it last night. was very entertained. I thought character flaws were much lower than the original JP. I thought the biggest mistake of JP was the relatively unknown actors (to me) they used, exception Goldblum. This time, they got the guy who's en fuego on the screen right now.
I really liked the nods to the original, and they did it in a way that made sense. Of course some of the ruins from the old buildings would still be around.
Someone mentioned the kids. The kids in the first were 1000x more annoying than this one, but I wanted to take a pair of hedge clippers the younger boy's hair. For some reason that bugged the crap out of me.
Female COO was very annoying, but dang easy to look at.
I really liked the nods to the original, and they did it in a way that made sense. Of course some of the ruins from the old buildings would still be around.
Someone mentioned the kids. The kids in the first were 1000x more annoying than this one, but I wanted to take a pair of hedge clippers the younger boy's hair. For some reason that bugged the crap out of me.
Female COO was very annoying, but dang easy to look at.
I'm very very surprised that a portion of this board (considering their ages) are unaware that the COO of JW is Bryce Dallas Howard aka Ron Howard's daughter.
I didn't know she was his daughter. Only thing I can ever remember her being in is The Village. I also have never seen Christ Pratt before, but I had heard the name.
She was in M. Night Shamalamadingdong's "Lady In the Water" also, playing the titular character. She was also in the awful Spiderman 3.
I thought she was solid in The Village but I think Jessica Chastain is getting all of the good red head gigs.
