Jurassic World

Owryan

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

Charlie19

Owryan wrote: »

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

I'm not sure anyone on here can advise such a query. You know the children but if they liked jaws I'd say they be ok with JW.

Optimalprimerib

Owryan wrote: »

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

This is not in any way gorier or scarier than the first 3. In fact it is possibly the mildest of them as they more or less neutered the scariest thing of the movies (the raptors).

syklops

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Saw it in 2D yesterday, huge fan of the series, have read all the books as well so I was pretty damn excited given all the apparent acclaim it's garnering.

Unfortunately I left feeling pretty disappointed.

I found the plot to be fairly thin and the characters to be a tad cliche, one-dimensional and under developed. The two boys especially I found to be pretty insufferable with the elder brother being plain unlikeable - the whole "I'm a sullen teenager, I don't give a crap that I've just been flown out to Costa Rica to see real life dinosaurs at the world's most exclusive theme park" spiel was a bit over played.

Now I know how it sounds mad nitpicking about the science behind a movie in which dinosaurs are brought to life but jesus it's like they didn't even try. Using "splicing" to just add any power to I. Rex no matter how ridiculous just seems so lazy..."It can fly?!" "Yeah we spliced in some bat so...yeah it can fly" "But wait...what's with the smell?" "Oh well we thought it'd be nice to splice in some lemongrass genes so it'd always smell fresh" "And is that...?" "Yep. That's Dino-honey. We spliced in bee so this baby produces a couple of tons of honey a day..."

I mean a huge theropod with cuttlefish chromatophore camouflage, pit viper body-heat senses, tree frog temperature regulation and (most ridiculously) the ability to communicate with 'Raptors due to being "part 'Raptor"? Are you ****ing kidding me?!

I could no longer suspend my disbelief when watching them taking down the I. Rex - they say they have a weapon to kill it but that's immediately dismissed by Claire "I won't turn this park into a war-zone" (Or something to that effect); yeah good call Claire, some park guests seeing a helicopter fly overhead to the restricted north sector of the island would indeed be much worse than a rampaging unstoppable killing machine let loose killing millions of dollars in other "assets" and eating employees and guests.

And how the HELL did anyone even entertain the INSANE idea of using the 'Raptors to hunt I. Rex?! It's been demonstrated that a human handler can make them stay (even this is touch and go when Owen is trying to calm them after yer man fell into the exhibit) so that means they're ready for humans to co-ordinate them in hunting a much bigger dinosaur they'd never even seen before?

I mean seriously..."Hey guys remember those dinosaurs that were DIRECTLY responsible for the huge disaster at the original Jurassic Park? Wouldn't it be a great idea to release a pack of them into the park to help against this other dinosaur that's killing everything?"

Also in JP3 we see Spinosaurus make quick work of T. Rex and yet T. Rex can put up a good fight against this supposed mega Rex which apparently took on several Ankylosaurs and killed a herd of Apatosaurus all by itself? That's a load of Triceratops **** to be honest.

I thought the CGI was great, if overused at times. The little throwbacks to Jurassic Park were nice but felt pretty cheap. Let the movie stand on its own.

In all I thought it was watchable but nowhere near as good as people are saying.

This exactly sums up how I felt about the movie. (Saw it tonight).

When they talked about this dinosaur who had been bred in captivity and never seen another dinosaur before, I was expecting a "Black Fish" sort of scenario where it is psychotic and kills everything and anything. I can get on board with that. But despite never seeing another animal, it can 'speak' velociraptor, so well in fact that it can manipulate 3 smart raptors who have imprinted on a human Alpha, into joining its cause. That was a disappointing turn of events.

While trying to not sound sexist or inappropriate, the bit at the start with the hot teen girl kissing the teen boy, I was really disappointed when I found out we would be seeing the boy for the rest of the film not the girl. Even more so when he contributed nothing at all to the plot.

Cliched "Parents are getting a divorce".

I was all on board for the raptors to be part of the team. To be the good guys, but the they are, their not, they are again, was a bit annoying.

There was a bit when they introduced the "new" asset recovery unit, and my girlfriend said to me, "It looks like this will be war between humans and dinosaurs", and I thought so too and was really excited, and... it wasnt. 8 guys with guns and 4 raptors met the monster, the raptors turned and half of the soldiers got killed, and that was kind of it.

I also felt there was a kind of reality matching fiction, whereby the Jurassic World themepark from the movie represented a sort of "Lets milk this franchise as much as we can", with the ride the triceratops area, and petting zoo etc, as well as the brand placement. The movie itself was also a "Lets milk it for all we can get".

When JP1 came out there was 1 raptor toy. From this movie they will have 4 raptor toys to sell, because they have 4 different raptors with different colouring(and I ashamedly would considering buying a toy of the raptor Blue). It really felt like they were flogging a dead horse.

The first thirty minutes were a waste of time. There was nothing in it. The music was there and I was dying to see some dinosaurs, but the dinosaur fan in the kid, brought us through the Samsung innovation centre, when in reality, if you were that kid, you'd want to see a real dinosaur up close before you did anything. Did any kid ever visit a zoo, and then rush to the gift shop, not the animal they wanted to see?

Also, having said they got VIP access at least twice in the movie, which meant they didnt need to queue, they queued for the quadrospere.

I'll leae it there for now.

. .

BMMachine

also bullets having zero effect on anything was annoying

Mitch Connor

BMMachine wrote: »

also bullets having zero effect on anything was annoying

Apart from the flying dinosaurs - which got taken out by them in one of the main set pieces. But sure why let that get in the way of moaning about the movie.

Beefy78

syklops wrote: »

But despite never seeing another animal, it can 'speak' velociraptor, so well in fact that it can manipulate 3 smart raptors who have imprinted on a human Alpha, into joining its cause. That was a disappointing turn of events.

I don't think Velociraptan is an actual language or that the audience was supposed to anthropomorphise that scene quite like you have done. Chances are that the communication would have been instinctive.

BMMachine

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Apart from the flying dinosaurs - which got taken out by them in one of the main set pieces. But sure why let that get in the way of moaning about the movie.

I had actually forgotten about that. but anything else and it was just 0 effect

Sleepy

Owryan wrote: »

Quick question guys and gals. My 7 and 5 yo's are going crazy for me to take them to see this. How is the film gore and scare wise? They ve seen the first three films and love jaws and bait fwiw.

Has anyone brought kids that young to see it?

My 6 year old girl and 9 year old boy both *LOVED* it. They'd be big Jaws fans too

J Mysterio

How are you allowing your children to watch Jaws? a 6 your old girl? :eek:

Owryan

Sleepy wrote: »

My 6 year old girl and 9 year old boy both *LOVED* it. They'd be big Jaws fans too

Cheers, tweeted the cinema and they have it on their kids club schedule so looks like its over priced popcorn time.

Mitch Connor

BMMachine wrote: »

I had actually forgotten about that. but anything else and it was just 0 effect

The I-Rex, which they were using non-lethal rounds against, which has been bread as a killing machine for the army - with extra thick skin, so no surprise there. What other dino did they hit? The raptors were too quick for the army guys to actually hit, from memory. So apart from I-Rex (story explanation) and Raptors which I don't think they hit, what did bullets have 0 effect on? Honestly can't remember any other dinos being shot at.

Foxtrol

Beefy78 wrote: »

I don't think Velociraptan is an actual language or that the audience was supposed to anthropomorphise that scene quite like you have done. Chances are that the communication would have been instinctive.

This.

I think the other poster's complaint is strange seeing as they turned their back on a human that couldn't speak any raptor for a creature that could at least make some raptor like noises. Along with the noises it's more the sheer size of the I-Rex that probably put the raptors in line behind it, which is pretty common in the animal/human world. The movie even goes out of it's way to point out how boarderline Pratt is seen as an Alpha so it's not really shocking that they turn.

At this point it is starting to look like posters are going out of their way to find any minor potential plot holes (most of which can be easily explained). If you want to go through the original you can come up with just as many.

Bacchus

Personally, I've no problem with the raptors falling in line with the I-Rex. It fit, it made sense. However, switching allegiance back to Pratt was the silly part and it was a contrived twist to swing the odds back in favour of Pratt & co. Pratt was no longer the alpha (he was barely the alpha in the first place), it made no sense for the raptors to turn on the clearly dominant I-Rex in that final confrontation. It made for a great spectacle alright (a raptor riding a T-Rex fighting the I-Rex) but it's big plotholes like this that make JW a movie that, IMO, will not hold up to repeat viewings.

JP may well have plotholes too but at least it cleverly set up the finale so that the raptors and T-Rex were fighting over who got to eat the humans.

Mitch Connor

Bacchus wrote: »

Personally, I've no problem with the raptors falling in line with the I-Rex. It fit, it made sense. However, switching allegiance back to Pratt was the silly part and it was a contrived twist to swing the odds back in favour of Pratt & co. Pratt was no longer the alpha (he was barely the alpha in the first place), it made no sense for the raptors to turn on the clearly dominant I-Rex in that final confrontation. It made for a great spectacle alright (a raptor riding a T-Rex fighting the I-Rex) but it's big plotholes like this that make JW a movie that, IMO, will not hold up to repeat viewings.

JP may well have plotholes too but at least it cleverly set up the finale so that the raptors and T-Rex were fighting over who got to eat the humans.

They had already showed after their initial 'turn' that while the Raptors were more than willing to eat everyone else, they were unsure whether to eat Pratt or the other handler fella - when face to face with their handlers (or shouted at...) they hesitated at the very least. So the (re)turn in the final fight is no out of the blue or unheralded by previous events.

Bacchus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

They had already showed after their initial 'turn' that while the Raptors were more than willing to eat everyone else, they were unsure whether to eat Pratt or the other handler fella - when face to face with their handlers (or shouted at...) they hesitated at the very least. So the (re)turn in the final fight is no out of the blue or unheralded by previous events.

I'm not convinced by that logic.

Initially, the loyalty to Pratt was very weak and mostly held together because they were in a cage. They hesitated but lunged for him in that opening scene in the pit. They then seemed to be 100% on Team Pratt for the hunt. Then they meet a real alpha in the I-Rex and their true nature comes out. The problem is that later, they had Pratt cornered & weak. That's no position for an alpha. The I-Rex turns up and they go against the dominant force because.... raptors have feelings now?

As I said, as a spectacle it was great but ultimately it was a very contrived twist that is another example of how inconsistent JW is.

FortuneChip

Bacchus wrote: »

dominant force because.... raptors have feelings now?

As I said, as a spectacle it was great but ultimately it was a very contrived twist that is another example of how inconsistent JW is.

Eh, Pratt took off their Action Camera straps. They know a keeper when they see one!

I absolutely loved the heroic slow-mo of the raptor coming back into the fray. It was hilarious!

Silly, but entertaining as a fun movie. Riddled with holes but I think the spectacle held it up just about enough.

Mitch Connor

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm not convinced by that logic.

Initially, the loyalty to Pratt was very weak and mostly held together because they were in a cage. They hesitated but lunged for him in that opening scene in the pit. They then seemed to be 100% on Team Pratt for the hunt. Then they meet a real alpha in the I-Rex and their true nature comes out. The problem is that later, they had Pratt cornered & weak. That's no position for an alpha. The I-Rex turns up and they go against the dominant force because.... raptors have feelings now?

As I said, as a spectacle it was great but ultimately it was a very contrived twist that is another example of how inconsistent JW is.

I get that you don't buy it - but that doesn't change the fact that they did show after the hunt turn the Raptors still had some respect for Pratt and the other handler. They weren't treating the handlers (previous Alphas and people who had a social bond with them, could calm them) the same as the other meat sack red shirts. Even when they had him cornered at the end - his posture, tone and body language didn't betray his position, he was still attempting to command them and they were still not attacking him outright, there was still a conflict. As I say, you can disagree with the outcome and be put off by it - but the movie does provide clues and explanations for why things turn out the way they do. It isn't just the Raptors are about to eat him and then get all nostalgic for the times he fed them rats.

MrWalsh

FortuneChip wrote: »

I absolutely loved the heroic slow-mo of the raptor coming back into the fray. It was hilarious!

Classic. Loved it!

Bacchus

I don't remember them showing any respect to Pratt of the other handler in that initial attack. Pratt hung back from the other guys who were attacked first so he avoided the bloodbath. The other handler was under attack from a raptor and was about to meet his maker before Pratt intervened... at which point the raptors gave chase to Pratt. The switch in loyalty to the I-Rex made sense. The I-Rex is bigger and more dominant (and part raptor) so therefore they fall in line. The switch back requires a suspension of belief that the raptors have feelings that override their nature and that they have some residual sense of loyalty to Pratt who earlier they were trying to have for dinner (and who lets not forget, was essentially their prison warden).

This is going to go round in circles, I've made the points I wanted to make on the raptor thing and I'm not going to be convinced of the existence of the trail of clues or supposed precedent that was set.


@FortuneChip: That slo-mo of the raptor coming back to save the day was indeed hilarious.

Mitch Connor

Bacchus wrote: »

I don't remember them showing any respect to Pratt of the other handler in that initial attack. Pratt hung back from the other guys who were attacked first so he avoided the bloodbath. The other handler was under attack from a raptor and was about to meet his maker before Pratt intervened... at which point the raptors gave chase to Pratt. The switch in loyalty to the I-Rex made sense. The I-Rex is bigger and more dominant (and part raptor) so therefore they fall in line. The switch back requires a suspension of belief that the raptors have feelings that override their nature and that they have some residual sense of loyalty to Pratt who earlier they were trying to have for dinner (and who lets not forget, was essentially their prison warden).

This is going to go round in circles, I've made the points I wanted to make on the raptor thing and I'm not going to be convinced of the existence of the trail of clues or supposed precedent that was set.

The Raptor just looking at Pratt and cocking its head in a complete non-aggressive manner before it was blown up by an RPG.

For the other fella, it was attacking him and then stopped when he shouted 'BBBBBLLLLLLLUUUUUUEEEEEEEE', then Pratt rev'd the bike and it ran off after him.

You are just ignoring the clues to be honest. I can accept you not accepting them or thinking they are bull, but to deny the existence of them in the first place is just odd.

Sleepy

J Mysterio wrote: »

How are you allowing your children to watch Jaws? a 6 your old girl? :eek:

It's their mother's favourite movie and our kids are big fans of wildlife, particularly anything marine (I keep a small reef tank in our sitting room).

They know that Irish waters are too cold for killer sharks and that we're not a species sharks usually prey on, in fact, one of their uncles had an experience with a Great White while surfing in Oz and wasn't harmed beyond getting the fright of his life.

Oceans aren't shark infested, they're people infested. The ocean is their home

Owryan

Sleepy wrote: »

It's their mother's favourite movie and our kids are big fans of wildlife, particularly anything marine (I keep a small reef tank in our sitting room).

They know that Irish waters are too cold for killer sharks and that we're not a species sharks usually prey on, in fact, one of their uncles had an experience with a Great White while surfing in Oz and wasn't harmed beyond getting the fright of his life.

Oceans aren't shark infested, they're people infested. The ocean is their home

Mine are shark crazy. They also love a film called "Bait" sharks in a supermarket.

Anyway back on topic, tickets booked and off to the cinema on Saturday. Myself i havent been to the movies since "In Bruges" came out.

Beefy78

Bacchus wrote: »

I'm not convinced by that logic.

Initially, the loyalty to Pratt was very weak and mostly held together because they were in a cage. They hesitated but lunged for him in that opening scene in the pit. They then seemed to be 100% on Team Pratt for the hunt. Then they meet a real alpha in the I-Rex and their true nature comes out. The problem is that later, they had Pratt cornered & weak. That's no position for an alpha. The I-Rex turns up and they go against the dominant force because.... raptors have feelings now?

As I said, as a spectacle it was great but ultimately it was a very contrived twist that is another example of how inconsistent JW is.

To be honest, that late scene didn't come across that way to me at the time of watching but yeah reading your analysis now I definitely agree with you. It can only really be explained by the Raptors having nostaligic 'feelings' about Owen but that wasn't the basis of the relationship that they've been selling us on throughout the rest of the film.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I get that you don't buy it - but that doesn't change the fact that they did show after the hunt turn the Raptors still had some respect for Pratt and the other handler. They weren't treating the handlers (previous Alphas and people who had a social bond with them, could calm them) the same as the other meat sack red shirts. Even when they had him cornered at the end - his posture, tone and body language didn't betray his position, he was still attempting to command them and they were still not attacking him outright, there was still a conflict. As I say, you can disagree with the outcome and be put off by it - but the movie does provide clues and explanations for why things turn out the way they do. It isn't just the Raptors are about to eat him and then get all nostalgic for the times he fed them rats.

Good counter-argument. Now I'm torn!

Bacchus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The Raptor just looking at Pratt and cocking its head in a complete non-aggressive manner before it was blown up by an RPG.

I think you're reading too much into that cock of the head. There probably was recognition there but the look was neither aggressive nor non-aggressive. I'd lend much more weight to the actions of the raptors - i.e. chasing and attacking Pratt.

Mitch Connor wrote: »

For the other fella, it was attacking him and then stopped when he shouted 'BBBBBLLLLLLLUUUUUUEEEEEEEE', then Pratt rev'd the bike and it ran off after him.

So, the raptor was attacking the handler (negating your previous argument that there was a precedent of raptors not attacking the handlers). Pratt got the raptors attention by shouting and revving the engine and it started to chase him instead of attacking the other handler. How does that fit the "non-aggressive" picture of the raptors that your are trying to paint?

Mitch Connor wrote: »

You are just ignoring the clues to be honest. I can accept you not accepting them or thinking they are bull, but to deny the existence of them in the first place is just odd.

What clues? The cock of the head? That's a stretch. The raptors were portrayed through the movie as wild killer animals who Pratt had a sliver of control over as the alpha male / prison keeper. He lost that status when they met the I-Rex and the raptors turned on him, the other keeper and humans in general. The u-turn at the end was contrived and stupid.

FortuneChip

Bacchus wrote: »

What clues? The cock of the head? That's a stretch. The raptors were portrayed through the movie as wild killer animals who Pratt had a sliver of control over as the alpha male / prison keeper. He lost that status when they met the I-Rex and the raptors turned on him, the other keeper and humans in general. The u-turn at the end was contrived and stupid.

Pretty bang on here.
Sure in the opening scene they went for him as he bolted for the gate.
He said himself he was fully convinced that they weren't ready for "field-testing". He makes a subtle joke to suggest the previous employee was eaten (not to say he was, but again it reiterates they don't control the raptors).
Then, plot convenience won over.
"Oh they're seeking for him"
"Oh, they work for him"
"Oh, they're back good again".

I'm not saying it shouldn't have happened, and I understand the reasons as to why they'd have taken each approach, but it was very quick & convenient with minimal coercion.

BMMachine

Mitch Connor wrote: »

The I-Rex, which they were using non-lethal rounds against, which has been bread as a killing machine for the army - with extra thick skin, so no surprise there. What other dino did they hit? The raptors were too quick for the army guys to actually hit, from memory. So apart from I-Rex (story explanation) and Raptors which I don't think they hit, what did bullets have 0 effect on? Honestly can't remember any other dinos being shot at.

so they used non-lethal rounds first. thats fine. then they switched to regular guns. so they all go out, with the raptors who are super cool with all this of course, and start shooting but literally nothing happens. why bring the guns? its just not a good movie.

Unearthly

J Mysterio wrote: »

How are you allowing your children to watch Jaws? :

As a kid my favorite films were Jaws, Predator, Terminator, Jurassic Park. I had no time for 'kids' films. My aunt used to bring me and my cousins to cinema all the time but was only to Disney type films which I hated.

Much preferred my vhs tapings of classics

Kiith

It was a really stupid film, but the kid in me loved the Raptor/T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. It was awesome :P

MrWalsh

Kiith wrote: »

It was a really stupid film, but the kid in me loved the Raptor/T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. It was awesome :P

I just kept thinking of stuff like Godzilla and King Kong and how my tastes for big monsters havent changed since I was 5

Mitch Connor

MrWalsh wrote: »

I just kept thinking of stuff like Godzilla and King Kong and how my tastes for big monsters havent changed since I was 5

I kept thinking of the Godzilla movie, and how much I liked actually being able to see the 'monsters' have a proper fight in this one!

BrookieD

brought the boy last night to see it in Ashbourne showcase for 6 spots each...... loved JP when it was released and really enjoyed this... good sound/effects/ ok story... gapping plot holes.

the one bit that stuck in my thora was younger of the kids expressing that they found a "1992 jeep wrangler in sand beige......!!!!!" WTF like... if i was the bigger brother i would have punch him square in the mouth, idiot.... apart from that really liked it and the kid loved it also

syklops

I don't normally notice product placement. Usually it bypasses me. Bond driving a BMW in GoldenEye I noticed because he always drove, nearly always anyway, an Aston Martin. If he'd swapped his watch for a Rolex I'd have been pissed.

And bond has been critised in the past. Like lots of people drinking Heineken in Skyfall, but even that wasn't as blatant as JW was. The Samsung innovation centre. There was a shot with a Ben&Jerry's, magaritaville, Starbucks and mention of Verizon.

I don't mind product placement when it makes sense. I don't mind bond texting from a Sony erikkson phone, it was 2008, he needed a phone. He didn't get coffee from Starbucks or get a burger in Burger king.

Chip Whitley

Verizon was mentioned as a sponsor for the new attraction, I can understand that. I usually don't either notice/care about product placement but I will admit the scene where Chris Pratt drinks the 'ice-cold' glass bottle of Coke took me out of the film as it seemed so forced, and annoyed me a little bit.

Mitch Connor

BrookieD wrote: »

brought the boy last night to see it in Ashbourne showcase for 6 spots each...... loved JP when it was released and really enjoyed this... good sound/effects/ ok story... gapping plot holes.

the one bit that stuck in my thora was younger of the kids expressing that they found a "1992 jeep wrangler in sand beige......!!!!!" WTF like... if i was the bigger brother i would have punch him square in the mouth, idiot.... apart from that really liked it and the kid loved it also

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

BMMachine

Mitch Connor wrote: »

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

hes not autistic

syklops

Mitch Connor wrote: »

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

He's about as autistic as i am.

Cantona's Collars

Kiith wrote: »

It was a really stupid film, but the kid in me loved the Raptor/T-Rex vs I-Rex fight. It was awesome :P

Brought my 7yr old and it's the first time he was completely engrossed in a movie.It's big,dumb and lots of fun.I enjoyed it too,it was actually more fun than Avengers Assemble.

BrookieD

Mitch Connor wrote: »

autistic kid rambling off facts he knows about something he is looking at. I find that perfectly normal.

WTFt...! no mention at all during the film to this at all..... not in any other single scene was a random fact just blurted out.... I found it a jarring punch to the gut to make the connection back to JP when it was not needed in the slightest....

BrookieD

syklops wrote: »

I don't normally notice product placement. Usually it bypasses me. Bond driving a BMW in GoldenEye I noticed because he always drove, nearly always anyway, an Aston Martin. If he'd swapped his watch for a Rolex I'd have been pissed.

And bond has been critised in the past. Like lots of people drinking Heineken in Skyfall, but even that wasn't as blatant as JW was. The Samsung innovation centre. There was a shot with a Ben&Jerry's, magaritaville, Starbucks and mention of Verizon.

I don't mind product placement when it makes sense. I don't mind bond texting from a Sony erikkson phone, it was 2008, he needed a phone. He didn't get coffee from Starbucks or get a burger in Burger king.

Product placement was ok apart from Samsung being rammed down my throat every other scene.... i would say nearly every piece of tech was samsung.

Mitch Connor

BMMachine wrote: »

hes not autistic

He clearly is in the spectrum.

Mickeroo

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He clearly is in the spectrum.

Seemed perfectly normal to me.

Bacchus

Mitch Connor wrote: »

He clearly is in the spectrum.

He was just a nerdy kid who loved dinosaurs. He was filling the role of Timmy from the original. It was just handled terribly though to the point where he was a really irritating "know it all" kid. You can't just make excuses for poor character writing/acting by saying they have an intellectual disability when no reference is made in the movie that this is the case.

Also, it shows a lack of understanding by you of the autism spectrum that you default to this assumption just because he remembers random facts.

Thargor

He really wasn't normal and it was completely pointless making him that way, writers seemed to have forgotten they'd bothered by the end aswell, same for the parents divorce storyline.

Then again its a horrible tv/film cliche when the autistic kid uses his powers to save the day so probably for the best that they didnt.

Mitch Connor

Bacchus wrote: »

He was just a nerdy kid who loved dinosaurs. He was filling the role of Timmy from the original. It was just handled terribly though to the point where he was a really irritating "know it all" kid. You can't just make excuses for poor character writing/acting by saying they have an intellectual disability when no reference is made in the movie that this is the case.

Also, it shows a lack of understanding by you of the autism spectrum that you default to this assumption just because he remembers random facts.

Ha - yeah - a poor understanding by me, with 3 family members on the spectrum.

Social skills, repition and announcing of knowledge, repition of issues and facts (number of teeth, repeated a few times), taking orders literally (hold hands), accounting of time (X time to airport, X time plus Y with traffic). Comment from the older brother about him supposed to be a genius ( a fairly common trait - poor social skills but high intelligence). There are many queues to the kid being on the spectrum, very obvious ones to my mind - which I see in family members.

MrWalsh

Thargor wrote: »

He really wasn't normal and it was completely pointless making him that way, writers seemed to have forgotten they'd bothered by the end aswell, same for the parents divorce storyline.

Then again its a horrible tv/film cliche when the autistic kid uses his powers to save the day so probably for the best that they didnt.

Apparently the character was originally meant to be autistic but they dropped that.

Mitch Connor

MrWalsh wrote: »

Apparently the character was originally meant to be autistic but they dropped that.

Fair enough - they needed to rewrite the character and his interactions more than they did to make that clear so, but fair enough.

MrWalsh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Fair enough - they needed to rewrite the character and his interactions more than they did to make that clear so, but fair enough.

Have to admit he seemed like an ordinary nerdy kid to me.

Mitch Connor

MrWalsh wrote: »

Have to admit he seemed like an ordinary nerdy kid to me.

fair enough - myself and the other half felt there were obvious autistic tendencies in his character, and with family members and her being a childrens nurse I would expect her to have a decently grounded view on such things. Maybe just hyper-sensitive to the examples I gave. If he was originally written as autistic, while it was dropped it is possible they didn't completely rewrite his scenes, so the more obvious examples (to me) may have been kept in the final script.

MrWalsh

Mitch Connor wrote: »

fair enough - myself and the other half felt there were obvious autistic tendencies in his character, and with family members and her being a childrens nurse I would expect her to have a decently grounded view on such things. Maybe just hyper-sensitive to the examples I gave. If he was originally written as autistic, while it was dropped it is possible they didn't completely rewrite his scenes, so the more obvious examples (to me) may have been kept in the final script.

Being brutally honest, I didnt give a sh1te about any of the characters in the movie except Chris Pratt and the dinos so maybe I wasnt paying much attention either.