Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Jurassic World
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
ZeitgeistGlee wrote: »How did they get Rachel Weiss to agree to that role?)
Everything you ever say for the rest of your life will be null and void
0 -
Everything you ever say for the rest of your life will be null and void
No choice now but to force Katie McGrath to change her name to Rachel Weiss, then I shall be retroactively correct.
Thinking on it the one thing I'm grateful for is they didn'tsay the Indominus had human genes spliced in. Between the level of intelligence/awareness it showed (the cage trap, the ambush) and the "it's killing them for sport" line I thought we might get that trope thrown in amidst the storm.0 -
-
Honestly as much as I like him, I'd rather he took over the role as the son with Ford handing over the reigns in the first one.
I'd much rather see him East as Jack T Colton against someone like Kate Winslet in the female role in a remake of "Romancing the stone" which could easily start a new franchise.
It'd give him the action, comedy & romance role without an unnecessary remake.
RTS was a huge commercial success ($110m against a budget of $10m), had a great story, likeable characters, accessible to a female audience, but is largely forgotten.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
onethreefive wrote: »I saw Jurassic world on Friday having never seen jurrasic park.
I wasn't expecting that much going into it but I actually really enjoyed it and I was really glad I went to see it
:eek: you need to go out and buy the bluray set
there fun movies
2+3 are patchy but good dino fun0 -
Advertisement
-
out of curiousity what did jurassic world do that the two previous sequels didnt that people consider it better?
I mean the issues people really hated about jurassic park 3 are all present here?
-vindictive villain dinosaur chasing people across the island? check
-Really overdone raptor talk? in f*cking spades
-Human being able to communicate with raptors?
*cough*
(I cant be the only person who kept thinking this everytime Chris Pratt talked to blue?)
Annoying teenager (really were these two better then the kid in 3?)
I mean at least part 3 had William H Macey. He's like Ron Pearlman or paul giamatti, you forgive a lot with a someone like that around to make it a fun journey (though saying that paul giamatti showed up in san andreas and didnt help...)
I guess the one issue world has over 3 is that World feels like it has a full ending (almost, we do get sequel bait) when 3 just has the dinosaurs go away and the navy show up. (which still sort of happens anyway with Blue and Rex going their separate ways)
This is going to be one of those films where I'm going to save this thread and tuck it away and when they put the trailer out for Jurassic Galaxy or whatever is next in 2-3 years and everyone starts going "Well the last one was sh*t but this one looks good" I will link this and remind you
actually I might be able to do that with 3 doing a quick search I see a few posts saying it was the best sequel, a few even saying it was the best...0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
BlitzKrieg wrote: »out of curiousity what did jurassic world do that the two previous sequels didnt that people consider it better?
I mean the issues people really hated about jurassic park 3 are all present here?
-vindictive villain dinosaur chasing people across the island? check
-Really overdone raptor talk? in f*cking spades
-Human being able to communicate with raptors?
*cough*
(I cant be the only person who kept thinking this everytime Chris Pratt talked to blue?)
Annoying teenager (really were these two better then the kid in 3?)
I mean at least part 3 had William H Macey. He's like Ron Pearlman or paul giamatti, you forgive a lot with a someone like that around to make it a fun journey (though saying that paul giamatti showed up in san andreas and didnt help...)
I guess the one issue world has over 3 is that World feels like it has a full ending (almost, we do get sequel bait) when 3 just has the dinosaurs go away and the navy show up. (which still sort of happens anyway with Blue and Rex going their separate ways)
This is going to be one of those films where I'm going to save this thread and tuck it away and when they put the trailer out for Jurassic Galaxy or whatever is next in 2-3 years and everyone starts going "Well the last one was sh*t but this one looks good" I will link this and remind you
actually I might be able to do that with 3 doing a quick search I see a few posts saying it was the best sequel, a few even saying it was the best...
I love JP3 its a fun ride
but its rushed and has annoying parents especially tea leoni :mad:
the ending is a joke no grand finale
JWs opened park idea is a genuinely refreshing idea for the franchise
pratt is a very appealing lead
its been 13years since jurassic was in the public eye0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
So many conflicting opinions around the place, torn as to whether I should see it due to the nostalgia factor and forming my own opinion (the first two were the better ones), or avoid it due to common sense
Shall decide tomorrow.0 -
I've been re-watching the other films after being annoyed by this one and I just finished The Lost World, judging by biggerbruv's response I get the feeling the sequels are mostly unliked cause they have crappy endings which in fairness they both do have awful endings. Lost world particularly stung me because unlike the first film, I read the book to it before seeing the film and the san diago scene is such a massive departure from the books ending (which in fairness so does the first film) that it probably annoyed me even more.
but I must admit the amount of puppetwork in the lost world surprised me, i thought it was only the first one that was mostly puppet and after that they went all cgi but most of the t-rex in the trailer attack scene is puppet work with really only a very few shots being all cgi.
Also one thing I like about the lost world and Jurassic park is that the first film as a kid I went to it cause I wanted to see a T-Rex but it was the raptors that took the focus and stole the film and terrified me. The lost world I went to see the raptors but in a weird reverse it was much more about the T-rex this time and the raptors only get 1 big scene. I oddly respect that and give them kudos for it.
It also brings me back to the point of that brutal death scene near the end of Jurassic world and why it still bugs me (and not for gender issues) it's bad storytelling
consider what is probably the most brutal on screen death in the lost world:
What works in this is
a) he's currently having an impact on the narrative because he's trying to save the others and is forced to make a choice to save the others at the risk of himself as a character says later in the film he died saving their lives.
b) there's that glimmer of chance that allows us to build some sort of suspense because he's trying to get his gun. It's fairly obvious to a lot of film goers he's boned but it gives us a focus point.
in contrast (sorry for the obviously low quality)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d8eKqbAFqw
a) why the focus on this character makes no sense as she was neither any real part of the plot nor actually doing anything in this scene of importance that this action interrupts and throws a wrench in things or affect the characters. If she had actually been doing something important or narrative influencing this might have been fine (see the classic Deep Blue Sea Samual Jackson death for a ridiculous death in a crap movie being perfectly timed to make it a fun crap movie)
b) she was dead pretty much from the point she got picked up, none of the complications showed really a way out, she gets dropped, dead from being dropped head first into concrete, she gets dropped in middle of lake, she gets attacked under water and then gets eaten. This particularly bugged me because they could have easily made this a scene about the kids trying to save her and failing, they had them running to the edge of the lake instead of having the whole pterodactyl diving in to attack her underwater they could have had the kids trying to rescue her from the water and then she is killed just inches from the finish line. Still graphic but it's actual movement forward in the story and not a 2 minute break to watch a really flashy death. The death moves the narrative forward.
Which is kind of why I find it funny when people think I hate dumb blockbusters, no I dont I love dumb blockbusters, but to me just because your movie is going to be dumb the audience leaves their brains at home nonsense, does not mean the filmmakers just throw sh*t at the screen, dumb action movies could take more work then any smart indie film because you are trading making the audience think to structuring a basic narrative that keeps their attention so well that they dont think. While the writer is not expected to write shakespeare he is required to make the most solid simple structure for why A leads to X and C destroys Y, consider that the two best die hard films are simply about robberies, while the worse involve governments, foriegn leaders, world peace and destruction of large parts of the world. Editors and cinematographers have to really step up their game to keep that pace going and those action scenes not only tight but also interesting. There's a tonne of stupid minor plot threads in jurassic world which should have been cut cause they go nowhere, the teenager being horny and having an overactive girlfriend and the parents having a divorce being the two most criminally time wasting ones.
and as my final tangent the things that I think were hinted in the film but is actually reading into it too much. Is breeding Raptors illegal? Its just in the scene with the park owner and the gun ho villain, its clear the gun ho villain had to push to get permission to create the 4 raptors, there are clearly no raptors as part of the park and the fact that new cokeasuarus rex had raptor dna was confidential and a big shock seems to hint that there actually might be some strict government regulation (borne out of the first film) over what dinosaurs can be created and raptors are a very strict no to having them as park attractions.
Also as a massive nitpick the park owner makes no sense in context of any of the other films (even if it's just the first 1) he says Hammond asked him to fulfill his dream of jurassic world on his deathbed, which if you've seen the first film you'd know by the end Hammond had firmly switched to "Nope" and when you take in the lost world he was even more firmer "leave them alone" so again perhaps there might have been something interesting there that perhaps he did not gracefully take over ingen with hammond's blessing and is in fact p*ssing over his grave but this is again not touched on because he's then killed off after a confusing set of scenes where he is both painted as potentially in on the conspiracy by one character but then looks like morally aghast at the events in the next...odd character.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 34601
I can't help but chime in on the comments about the PA getting offed, given I was one of the people, rightly or wrongly, who bought up the question of the gender roles near the start of the post-release discussion. I feel responsible for ruining some people's funtimes
But hey, it's a bee in my bonnet as I've grown older, but I think it's a recurring cliché and bad habit of scripts that generally reveals how thoughtless, artless, crass and bland Hollywood writing can be.
For what it's worth though, I didn't find the death of that female PA particularly bad, considering that, well, she wasn't a character in the first place anyway - which comes back to my main problem with this entire film. Oh she was a bit curt and rude to Dallas Howard's nephews but that was it; that was the sum total of her defining characteristics. She was a vaguely harassed and disaffected PA. Wow - and they needed FOUR writers to come up with that?. Oh sure, she was female, but that just felt like an incidental detail, as opposed to a core part of her character. Again, there was nothing there to give two sh*ts about - much like everyone else in that flatlining script.
I bet right now, half of you reading can remember the names of most of the JP1 characters and/or their arcs. Even the minor ones: remember Muldoon, the hunter and his 'clever girl'? Or Nedry and his sweaty determination to steal the embryos? Will the same be said of Jurassic World in a year's time? Why are good, memorable characters so hard to come by these days?
As for Dallas Howard's character, I gotta be honest and say yeah, she was more than a little on the nose. To the point that her presence and mere appearance annoyed me as something from about 30 years ago. Now, having defended Jurrasic Park's original characters for being blatantly 2 dimensional, charisma can go a long way to make sure any faults in a character are easier to ignore - or at least accept: Jeff Goldblum's Ian Malcolm was a pretty skeevy jerk, but his natural, weird charisma made him quite likeable in an offputting way (and I think Spielberg mocked that same skeevyness in certain hilarious shots and scenes anyway). On the other hand, Howard's character was dead on arrival, and it was hard to know if it was the fault of the script or Howard's flat portrayal. To be fair to her, what else can you do with a character so cliché it hurt? The hollywood-cliché career woman, all shoulder pads and prim appearance; too cold to understand how to simply live, how to be a mother, but slowly over the course of the film she learnt to loosen the clothes and to accept life, all by way of the handsome force-of-nature man of course.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL40GuLfxA8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1Um0PiPLcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ2kxdQf3t0
Advertisement