Jurassic World

TerrorFirmer

I thought it was good, certainly much better than I expected, I think the trailers did it somewhat of a disservice by over-emphasizing certain aspects of the movie that turned out to be far less cliche than I imagined they would be.

Script could have been a lot better admittedly, there were some ridiculous stretches of logic even for a movie about a dinosaur theme park but on the whole it's really entertaining and I felt it captured the tone of Jurassic Park really well.

pixelburp

Caovyn Lineah wrote: »

Did you care about the characters in the original?

I can't answer for the other poster, but I did, insofar as there was a palpable sense of tension - which was partly down to the characters being either relatable, well-defined or just memorable. The Jurassic World meat puppets had none of those qualities. To me, spectacle becomes boring or hollow if you don't at least vaguely care what will happen to the characters experiencing the action. Exciting perhaps, but almost instantly forgettable. Blockbusters and Character Drama aren't mutually exclusive concepts. As with most arguments of this sort, I point to Die Hard as a perfect combination of blockbuster action and character drama

It's why the argument of 'it's just a film about dinosaurs, blah blah' rings false: part of the reason Jurassic Park still stands to this day is precisely because a small amount of effort was made so the characters had purpose and were engaging. Being an uptight executive isn't purpose, and it isn't character. Being an obnoxious teen sulking about isn't character. Honestly, I can barely remember the characters names as it is: Chris Pratt - Owen? - was an ex-navy guy. He liked his raptors... uhmm..?

Liam O

Seen it for a second time and all the problems in my first viewing felt a lot less like problems and more like things I'd just missed. BDH in high heels and less clothing for the entire film is just there to a funny take on similar films where they are a hindrance to the character but in this Pratt first asks "what's that supposed to mean?" During the clothes scene and there's another where he holds out his hand to help her down the steps of the original centre and she just blows by him. Out running the T Rex is maybe a step too far but there has to be some license for things like that.

The director knew what he was making, a big budget action film about dinosaurs. The first half hour or so makes constant shots at that. In some people's mind they go on to do what they were critical of but I see it as more foreshadowing of what's to come. Like I said originally, it's a fun action film about dinosaurs and that's what I wanted.

BlitzKrieg

Beefy78 wrote: »

I thought it slightly confusing the in final fight in JW and the Transformers similarity actually occurred to me at the time. It wasn't as bad as Transformers is though and tbh I think it's just what CGI looks like at this point. It is **** but we're sadly stuck with it.

I've been noticing a trend in how cgi heavy action set pieces are edited/shot recently and I'm meeting a friend who works as an editor for some mid range blockbusters etc tonight I actually want to ask them about editing with cgi because I'm beginning to suspect that with the cgi needing to be developed so far in advance of actual production that both the editing and camerawork actually get very restricted in terms of what they can do. If they shed some light on the issue I'll post here.

brianregan09 wrote: »

The cgi was fine I didn't see any dinosaurs floating anyway ,

all the reasons for the I Rex being able to camo and hide its heat signature was explained....and its cleverness left till the end , It was a crossbreed that infused with all sorts of stuff to make it scarier to the pundits...Much like a real theme park will build a monstrosity of a rollercoaster ....to get more money in

Kind of highlights the issue with the script since

the third act reveal is meant to be that it was actually bred as a weapon you know those scenes that a) reveal it has raptor dna in it, b) Hoskins evacuates Wu, the dialogue exchange establishing Wu has been working for Hoskins the whole time and c) Hoskins pretty much saying the Irex was a designed to be a weapon before being eaten by a raptor

and yet everyone seems to forget it for what is thought to be the more clever explanation poking fun at hollywood.

Mitch Connor

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I've been noticing a trend in how cgi heavy action set pieces are edited/shot recently and I'm meeting a friend who works as an editor for some mid range blockbusters etc tonight I actually want to ask them about editing with cgi because I'm beginning to suspect that with the cgi needing to be developed so far in advance of actual production that both the editing and camerawork actually get very restricted in terms of what they can do. If they shed some light on the issue I'll post here.



Kind of highlights the issue with the script since

the third act reveal is meant to be that it was actually bred as a weapon you know those scenes that a) reveal it has raptor dna in it, b) Hoskins evacuates Wu, the dialogue exchange establishing Wu has been working for Hoskins the whole time and c) Hoskins pretty much saying the Irex was a designed to be a weapon before being eaten by a raptor

and yet everyone seems to forget it for what is thought to be the more clever explanation poking fun at hollywood.

is it not a bit of both? The park board did request the I-Rex - to be bigger, scarier, more monstrous. Hoskins and his group are, at the same time, paying your man to create miniature versions of it, for war.

Mitch Connor

Re. the complaints about Claire's clothes - would people have preferred she keep her business outfit completely in tact while running round the jungle/park - or that she took the time to go change into something more suitable for an emergency disaster?

Keeping the heels is laughable, but the rest... meh, i see no problem.

Dair76

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Re. the complaints about Claire's clothes - would people have preferred she keep her business outfit completely in tact while running round the jungle/park - or that she took the time to go change into something more suitable for an emergency disaster?

Keeping the heels is laughable, but the rest... meh, i see no problem.

Keeping the shoes was definitely ridiculous. But unless I missed something, the only thing of note about her attire was that she tied the dress sleeves around her waist - an obvious doff of the cap to Aliens (one of a few in JW, I might add).

Beefy78

Dair76 wrote: »

Keeping the shoes was definitely ridiculous. But unless I missed something, the only thing of note about her attire was that she tied the dress sleeves around her waist - an obvious doff of the cap to Aliens (one of a few in JW, I might add).

I got more of a Romancing the Stone vibe from that, to be honest. It was a very 80s look.

sonic85

The only thing I took from her rearranging her clothes was she has a cracking pair of boobs!

As a character I thought she was a bit of a non entity - though I did get a bit of a laugh out of

her going a bit rambo and blowing away that pterodactyl!

biko

Went and saw it yesterday. Thought it was really good.

Looper007

Beefy78 wrote: »

Because it was really, really good.

But it wasn't Beefy :pac: If you want a great blockbuster go see Mad Max Fury Road.

Looper007

Caovyn Lineah wrote: »

Did you care about the characters in the original?

I did, I was actually scared for the kids when the Raptors were in the kitchen hunting them in JP. I was actually cheering on the dinosaurs to eat the kids in JW. I was over the moon when Jeff Goldbulm character lived was cheering when Wayne Knight's bad guy gets knocked off. In JW, I couldn't have cared less if Chris Pratt character got killed and I loved Pratt in everything he's done that's how bad JW characters were.

e_e

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlOx9738iyw

Might still see this in a few weeks or so. Kind of know already that there won't be any scene as amazing as this. :P

Beefy78

Looper007 wrote: »

I did, I was actually scared for the kids when the Raptors were in the kitchen hunting them in JP. I was actually cheering on the dinosaurs to eat the kids in JW. I was over the moon when Jeff Goldbulm character lived was cheering when Wayne Knight's bad guy gets knocked off. In JW, I couldn't have cared less if Chris Pratt character got killed and I loved Pratt in everything he's done that's how bad JW characters were.

tbh Goldblum and Dickie Attenborough have the only decent 'good' characters in the original. The kids are the most annoying children I've ever seen in any film, Sam Neill is very meh and I think I only liked Laura Dern's character because I was mildly in love with her as a teen.

Wayne Knight was an awesome bad-guy definitely but that was just great casting.

The scene with the raptors in the kitchen was very tense but I wouldn't credit that to the actors involved and it certainly easn't because I didn't want to see those kids get violently gutted and eaten. Because I did.

Looper007

Beefy78 wrote: »

tbh Goldblum and Dickie Attenborough have the only decent 'good' characters in the original. The kids are the most annoying children I've ever seen in any film, Sam Neill is very meh and I think I only liked Laura Dern's character because I was mildly in love with her as a teen.

Wayne Knight was an awesome bad-guy definitely but that was just great casting.

The scene with the raptors in the kitchen was very tense but I wouldn't credit that to the actors involved and it certainly easn't because I didn't want to see those kids get violently gutted and eaten. Because I did.

Have to disagree massively with you here Beefy, Sam Neill I thought was a better hero in JP then Chris Pratt (who I am a massive fan of in JW, he's actually the best thing in that film). Goldblum at his smartass best. How can you only call his character decent?.

Well the scene in the kitchen wouldn't work if it wasn't for the fact you cared for the characters. Put the whiny brats from JW in that scene I would have been cheering on the raptors to eat the little gits. especially the one that was always crying.

I watched Jurassic Park again last night, still a classic blockbuster.

Beefy78

Oh it is brilliant, I'm not disagreeing. It is incredible how well the special effects hold up today and there's an amazing chemestry between the cast. They caught lightning in a bottle there.

But I don't think anyone is suggesting that JW is as good as JP, or even close. It is being praised by many as being a fun summer movie with good effects and a charismatic and likeable lead character. All of which it has. Kermode gave is a three star review noting that it is fun but with a plot which doesn't work and a lack of 'magic'. I think that's fair and I've not seen much praise on here way above that.

I walked out really happy with what I'd seen, as were the people I watched it with. Most people I have spoken to about it thought it was good and that seems to be universally the opinion whenever I've checked my facebook news feed this week. I don't think anyone is suggesting this is the new Aliens or Die Hard though.

pixelburp

Beefy78 wrote: »

tbh Goldblum and Dickie Attenborough have the only decent 'good' characters in the original. The kids are the most annoying children I've ever seen in any film, Sam Neill is very meh and I think I only liked Laura Dern's character because I was mildly in love with her as a teen.

I dunno, annoyance might vary, but it can't be denied that the JP kids were more useful to the story & pro-active in events: Lex's computer skills ('It's a UNIX system, I know this!" ) proved useful when the group were trying to lock the raptors out, and Tim's dinosaur knowledge worked as the audience surrogate and foil to Sam Neill's character (and his playfulness and knowledge was itself an important point in Grant's arc towards learning to like children). Both children pulled their weight and built a sense of family within the main group.

The kids in Jurassic World? One cried, the other sulked. Both did nothing: I still can't get over how little that surly teen added, bar some waffly 'we'll always be family' speech and his irresponsible trek off-road. Good characters don't need complex backstory, it's not about high drama or anything like that, but if they can form a temporary sense of family or community, that helps a curmudgeon like me buy into the stakes or the threat, because they're threatening this little group I'm asked to believe in.

brianregan09

I do worry for people in here when i've seen at least 5+ plus people looking for kids to be eaten yet in the same thread people got a little sensitive over there babysitter

flangemeistro

I want a packet of matches like the younger kid had that they survived the jump into the water and didn't even get damp, I'm also looking for the older kids number so i can ask him to fix up my 1992 Nissan Sunny with his magical wrench!

errlloyd

I'm probably never going to watch this again, but I definitely don't think it was a wasted trip to the cinema. I enjoyed it. We don't get dinosaur movies that often. Happy out.

macpac26

Im surprised one of the Raptors wasnt called Mercedes in this. Dreadful slow camera pans over the Merc logo. I suppose its so common place in blockbusters now, that and lens flares. My torch in the attic doesnt do that unfortunately.

Was good I didnt think it was terrible by any stretch.

J Mysterio

macpac26 wrote: »

Im surprised one of the Raptors wasnt called Mercedes in this. Dreadful slow camera pans over the Merc logo.

That was the most blatant product placement I think i've ever seen.

Embarrassing really.

errlloyd

J Mysterio wrote: »

That was the most blatant product placement I think i've ever seen.

Embarrassing really.

Samsung literally fictionally sponsored the movie. Mercedes-Benz was everywhere. Starbucks had a presence so did coke. It was like a big ad.

Beefy78

They claim that the product placement was ironic....

macslash

Might have been mentioned but did anyone notice when the English one was reading on the train after collecting the 2 lads, the book she was reading was Jeff Goldblum's characters' (Dr. Ian Malcolm).

errlloyd

macslash wrote: »

Might have been mentioned but did anyone notice when the English one was reading on the train after collecting the 2 lads, the book she was reading was Jeff Goldblum's characters' (Dr. Ian Malcolm).

I didn't see it, but apparently the guy with the dinosaur miniatures on his desk also had Jeff Goldblum's book.

Very good points about the kids - they're so much relatable in JP than JW. There were a few moments of peril in JW and I actually found myself rooting for the dinosaurs.

Also JP portrayed kids as they actually are, yet JW is how they're perceived to be - one is a portrait, the other is a caricature.

Edit:
I would wonder whether people find the children more relatable in JP, because I'm assuming many here would be the same age as the characters when it was first released?

youreadthat

Saw this on Thursday. I went in having read a lot of reviews and thinking it would be a solid 7/10 but it's scraping a 6 for me. I could write an essay on all the things that were annoying, but to sum it up, the problem is the film asks you to be actively stupid in order to go along with it. Everything in the average reviews from the mish-mash plot, meh script, characters not acting how an actual human would act, characters you wouldn't mind dead, and mediocre CGI are all unfortunately true. I found the film funnier than I got nervous (never). The hark backs to the original were so obvious and desperate for attention that it screamed pure cheese. Everything was so obvious and set up. The worst example being the

T-Rex "curtain raiser" intro which felt like it was some stupid musical without the music "oooh look will he/won't he push the big button to slowly raise the gate so the obvious cool dinosaur from your childhood will save the day! Oh and chuck in the woman with a flare to not hark back to any Jeff Goldblum (or was it Neil, they bot distracted it at some point, once with a flare) scene honest".

And what's with trying to build depth to the older kid's character for literally no reason, then not do it with anyone else!

jaykhunter

Beefy78 wrote: »

They claim that the product placement was ironic....

That's really weak. It'd be ok if they only showed Jurassic Park merch! This film was a disgrace. I wondered if they were already in profit before the movie was released. They never let you forget this film was a money-making exercise.

That said I still enjoyed the movie. It's just jeez...it's shameless.

Penn

How many raptors should we have?
Probably just 4. They are dangerous after all.
What about T-Rex?
Oh definitely just one of them.
Same with the new super T-Rex?
Definitely. Just one.
And all the herbivores?
Maybe about 10 of each.
Okay. Final question; How many pterodactyls, considering the fact that if they escape, there's absolutely no containing them, they can fly into the safer pedestrian areas, and could also fly off the island?
Oh hundreds. We need hundreds of them. People would get bored if there was just 10 of them to see. No, we definitely need a lot of pterodactyls.

I suspect they had a gazillion of them to make up for the lack of them in the previous movies.

sonic85

Film needed more stegosaurus and would it have killed them to throw in a few triceratops?!

The ankylosaurus battle with the I rex was good though

Just thinking of how badly the women are displayed; there's that scene where Bryce Dallas's character is showing how she can handle herself and is a strong person, by removing some of her clothes and showing off more cleavage. When asked what she was doing, she gives a lame response, only to have Pratt's character essentially laugh at her.

Even at its worst, Jurrasic Park has been fantastic with strong female characters, but this.. Definitely not. Every other woman, bar the fantastic technician, is a bumbling mess and, worst still, is killed off because of this.

FunLover18

It was grand. Definitely too long, I checked my watch an hour in.

I didn't particularly care about the characters but I didn't hate them either, they were just meh.

The big thing I took from it was a lack of wonder, which is most evident in the fact that the film completely failed to live up to the fantastic score. It was like the music was written for a different film.

biggebruv

FunLover18 wrote: »

It was grand. Definitely too long, I checked my watch an hour in.

I didn't particularly care about the characters but I didn't hate them either, they were just meh.

The big thing I took from it was a lack of wonder, which is most evident in the fact that the film completely failed to live up to the fantastic score. It was like the music was written for a different film.

I loved the scene with the trex smashing through the spino skeleton at the end
the slow mo shot was cool with the score

but they seriously should have just had a scene of claire putting on shoes when they were at the trucks catching a break LOL

J Mysterio

sonic85 wrote: »

Film needed more stegosaurus and would it have killed them to throw in a few triceratops?!

The ankylosaurus battle with the I rex was good though

Yes and yes.

Very few actual dinosaurs in it really.

Angron

One bit I adored was the T-Rex demolishing the Spinosaurus skeleton. Take that terrible third movie!

MrWalsh

Just saw it. There were aspects of it I really liked.

All the wonder at the dinosaurs was gone and I liked how they reflected this with the awful packed theme park environment chocablock with product placement.

I was a bit disappointed at the new dinosaur who was unveiled and really wasn't that exciting looking. Could they not have given it a Mohawk and really scary whippy tail or something?

Chris Pratt was good. I quite liked the clicker training with the raptors. I am confused as to why he didn't shoot the raptor who was eating the fat guys arm off towards the end. He had a gun and he was right there. Why didn't he?

I was sorry they didn't nod to the glass of water vibrating in the original, but they did have plenty of nods, so not too bothered by that.

I didn't give a **** about any of the characters bar Chris Pratt, and frankly, they could have scrapped a lot of them to no detriment.

There was a long boring stretch in the middle too that could have been scrapped, and they could have done with a bit of "in the nick of time" type stuff that no one has ever done as well as Spielberg.

Overall it's the best bar the original, but the original is a lot better. Enjoyable and nostalgic nonsense though. I wasn't sorry I'd gone.

FunLover18

Meant to ask, does this retcon the series? Have 2&3 now not happened?

Trevorow has said it's supposed to be the same T-Rex from the first but wasn't it killed in 3?

FunLover18

FunLover18 wrote: »

Meant to ask, does this retcon the series? Have 2&3 now not happened?

Trevorow has said it's supposed to be the same T-Rex from the first but wasn't it killed in 3?

From what I can tell, it essentially disregards the events from 2 & 3.

jones

Saw this last night and enjoyed it. Obviously not a patch on the original but still very entertaining for me and a definite cinema film if you know what I mean. Loved the musical queues to the first movie. Chris Pratt was his usual awesome self.

I rewatched jurassic Park tonight on bluray and the effects really stand up all these years later. It's a pity so few films do practical effects now

7.5/10 for me

Unearthly

FunLover18 wrote: »

Meant to ask, does this retcon the series? Have 2&3 now not happened?

Trevorow has said it's supposed to be the same T-Rex from the first but wasn't it killed in 3?

No the 3rd film is based on the lost world island. This was the first sequel to return to the original island.

The 2nd and 3rd films did happen in the universe, but because they were on a different island the film can leave out references.

faceman

What an awful, awful movie. An insult to the intelligence of its audience.

Horrendous script, 1 dimensional characters and a plot so forced it makes the film feel completely rushed.

Leave your brain at the door, and your self respect.

Angron

Jurassic World 2: The Lost Park.

faceman

Here's how I rank the series in order of quality.

Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park The Lost World
Jurassic Park III
Jaws 3D
Jurassic World

Bacchus

Went to see this last night. I've mixed feelings on it. To start with the bad...

The opening 15-20 minutes are cringe as we get introduced to a bunch of annoying characters. The young kid especially was grating. The older son was ok but all the creepy staring at girls was a bit much. As for the parents, what was the point of that stupid divorce sub plot that went nowhere and had nothing to do with the movie. The female lead was too dull and stiff was basically a caricature of every "business woman with no heart who learns to care for children" ever put on screen. The new owner guy was a waste of a character too. These were pretty big flaws near the start of the movie. Though I liked a lot of the nods to the original, the over use of the Jurrasic Park music was annoying and some of the in-jokes/references felt out of place. I last thing, the lack of any real artillery available on the island seemed really stupid. One gun and a helicopter! FFS. Another issue I had was the total lack of any sense of location/distance. The kids and the heros make it back quickly to the main centre yet the hybrid is nowhere to be seen even though they were at the same location moments earlier. Also, the hybrid got to the bird cage in unbelievable time after just trying to chow down on Pratt and the girl. Final irritation, where did all the people go at the end of the movie? The place seemed deserted at the end. Did some boat arrive that we weren't shown that a shipped them all to the mainland?

However, the saving grace for me was the quick pace and the action kicks off relatively quickly. The new hybrid dino worked for me and it felt like a genuine threat. The raptors were done well too. I was worried about this "trained raptor" nonsense but was happy to see it was more of an alpha dog scenario that was hanging by a thread. The park itself was well done as was the central idea that audiences wanted something bigger and cooler (but of 4th wall breaking going on). Pratt was charismatic as usual and was the soul of the movie. The dino-bird scene was ridiculous but great fun. The final fight too was ridiculous (a raptor riding a T-Rex fighting a hybrid dino) but gleefully fun.

youreadthat

Just finished watching Jurassic park III as it was on ITV, it's really not that bad. It has a more coherent plot than JW, equally annoying characters, more animatronics, decent CGI. It's better at keeping the dinosaurs at arms length as dangerous animals while still showing more of them, making the main ones feel more sinister. It suffers the same issue with annoying characters so not caring much about them getting eaten, but the island retains an exotic character that enhances the wounder of having dinosaurs in the present. Even outside the park in JW, it feels a bit like a safari park in Florida than an island 1000's of miles away. It's just that stupid dream raptor scene that's terrible. It's hard after watching the film again to rate it worse than JW (which I felt was 6/10).

Also the big dinosaurs in it don't feel any less scary than the cuttlefish toad-rex.

youreadthat

Bacchus wrote: »

Went to see this last night. I've mixed feelings on it. To start with the bad...

The opening 15-20 minutes are cringe as we get introduced to a bunch of annoying characters. The young kid especially was grating. The older son was ok but all the creepy staring at girls was a bit much. As for the parents, what was the point of that stupid divorce sub plot that went nowhere and had nothing to do with the movie. The female lead was too dull and stiff was basically a caricature of every "business woman with no heart who learns to care for children" ever put on screen. The new owner guy was a waste of a character too. These were pretty big flaws near the start of the movie. Though I liked a lot of the nods to the original, the over use of the Jurrasic Park music was annoying and some of the in-jokes/references felt out of place. I last thing, the lack of any real artillery available on the island seemed really stupid. One gun and a helicopter! FFS. Another issue I had was the total lack of any sense of location/distance. The kids and the heros make it back quickly to the main centre yet the hybrid is nowhere to be seen even though they were at the same location moments earlier. Also, the hybrid got to the bird cage in unbelievable time after just trying to chow down on Pratt and the girl. Final irritation, where did all the people go at the end of the movie? The place seemed deserted at the end. Did some boat arrive that we weren't shown that a shipped them all to the mainland?

This X10! They went from jungle, to open plains, to jungle, to waterfall in about 2 minutes!

biggebruv

youreadthat wrote: »

Just finished watching Jurassic park III as it was on ITV, it's really not that bad. It has a more coherent plot than JW, equally annoying characters, more animatronics, decent CGI. It's better at keeping the dinosaurs at arms length as dangerous animals while still showing more of them, making the main ones feel more sinister. It suffers the same issue with annoying characters so not caring much about them getting eaten, but the island retains an exotic character that enhances the wounder of having dinosaurs in the present. Even outside the park in JW, it feels a bit like a safari park in Florida than an island 1000's of miles away. It's just that stupid dream raptor scene that's terrible. It's hard after watching the film again to rate it worse than JW (which I felt was 6/10).

Also the big dinosaurs in it don't feel any less scary than the cuttlefish toad-rex.

I think its a great movie short,to the point, very fast paced and great action setpieces
spino plane attack
the big birdcage
spino vs T-Rex
spino attack at the boat

if Kirby had of been a single dad and they got rid of the mother it would have removed an extremely annoying aspect to the film LOL shes f--king terrible

the spino was really cool I thought it should have gotten a much better ending though

BlitzKrieg

Weinberg wrote: »

Why would you think this was "retconned"?

It's Jurassic Park 4, I have no idea where you would get the idea that 2 and 3 don't exist.

I wrote a bit write up on all the plot issues it has with 2 and 3

but...

It seems it does take 2 and 3 into account according to the jp wiki. Its all in the viral websites explaining how they dealt with key issues left over from 2 and 3 and how Masrani is actually lying through out the film with a lot of his claims (particularly the john hammond one) which honestly annoys me that all this content seems to either been shunted to these websites or ignored in the actual film as the masrani on screen is very different to the one who took over ingen

links:

http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Simon_Masrani
http://www.masraniglobal.com/about/divisions/ingen/security/index.html


so while it officially does follow 2&3 I wrote a big long post and I was not going to leave it to waste as some are still plot points:

where to begin?

that the whole plot of the lost world was that the dinosaurs on isla nublar had died off as intended due to the licene difficiency but something was keeping the ones on isla sorna alive...

yet we are back on nublar and all the material associated with the film say this is the same t-rex as the first film

then you have the ending of the lost world which has john hammond advocating that the dinosaurs be left alone and that humans were not to go near them

something that jp3 follows up because the island is now a strict government quarantine area.


jurassic world seems to ignore these plot points, and some elements from those films *cough* San Diego *cough* would make a theme park (let alone 1 from the same people) about the same creatures difficult without some heavy heavy regulation (which I admit seems hinted but never stated by how everyone treats the raptors, they are not an exhibit)

I doubt something that had such government interference and was at the end and during the context of 2 films a government protected piece of property could have been handed over to a businessman by traditional means as it was at that point no longer ingen property (jp3 they make a big deal you need government permission from costa rica just to fly over the island and william h macy's character lies and says he got permission.


But lets be honest the film is a crap follow up even if it was just to jurassic park plotwise because of above and because it sh*ts on john hammonds character arc because it's stated (and never challenged or shown to be incorrect) that he gave ingen and jurassic park to Masrani on his deathbed with his blessings to achieve the dream of jurassic park

(the above about john hammond now appears to be incorrect via the additional website material)

but the issue remains...by the end of the lost world ingen lost control of isla sorna and according to the beginning of the lost world isla nublar had all its dinosaurs die off.