I'm seeing it on my sisters birthday next week cant wait for it! Dont think spiled it for me nice thread
I have a theory about this movie as far as where it falls in the timeline. It simply does not make sense for it to be the fourth movie of the series. They never mention any of the events AFTER the first movie. If this was in the same timeline, then why didnt someone question Jurassic World being opened after the San Diego incident in the second movie? What ever happened to the pteranodons that flew out of Isla Sorna? Yes I know this film took place in the first island Isla Nublar, but that doesn't excuse what could have happened once those flyers got to mainland. SO HERE IS MY THEORY: Alternate timeline. Yes. That simple. It makes the most sense to me. It branches from the first movie to the fourth, and thus starting a different saga.
Threads like this happen because we tolerate them. Bunch of who gives a crisp. There are thousands of things that could have been discussed here, including why you liked or didnt like the movie, but you chose to give us a book report. About a movie. Ok.
Okie doke, how's this N8. I liked the fact that the movie didn't take itself too seriously. I guess they can thank the attractive and hilarious Chris Pratt for that. I liked the solid plot. I liked the kids acting like kids. I liked the raptors, and their dynamics with the alphas. But I like how, when it came down to it, they showed they could still be loyal to the original alpha. One of the more interesting subthemes for me was the critique of anthropocentrism and economic unitization (which they tied very well into the triumph of neo-liberalism). Some critics saw Claires "humanisation" as a essentially misogynist theme, but I disagree. They took a cold person; neo-liberal in every way; focused solely on the increase of capital and economic production at Jurassic World; and who saw the dinosaurs as units rather than as living beings deserving of happiness - and they recalibrated her. By the end of the movie, Claire no longer saw the dinosaurs as tame units of production, but rather, as the wild, living beasts. They took her anthropocentrism and crushed it, making her realise how insignificant that she, as a human, was to such animals. It also showed her that the dinosaurs too were capable of free will and sentience. And of course, when it all came crashing down, Claire turned away from neo-liberalism, and focused on the safety and well-being of those she loved. That better breh?
They don't mention JP 2 & 3 because it wasn't necessary to the plot. Also It was 22 years later nobody cares because they think they have sufficient tech now and they could have easily killed the pteranodon's or whatever if they ever tried to leave the islands
The t-Rex and I-Rex dinosaurs are both females. Actually, the t-Rex is the exact same one in all the Jurassic park movies.
Yeah, significantly. Its a bit of a non-sequitor even discussing this topic in a KaW forum, but i understand the nature of the community. And at least you added something that is reflective of yourself. I strongly feel that if you aren't Morgan Freeman or James Earl Jones then just narrating isn't adequate. New ideas are more important than new voices.
Lmao...Chubbs want spy quests? Why so DAFT can have another aspect of running from OsW? As for JW....it will never compare to Jurassic Park. But they did try.
First one wasn't entirely necessary either other than Dr.Hammond giving the islands and the title to JP to that guy. They showed memorabilia of the first movie which wasn't entirely necessary to the plot either. And it doesn't matter how long time has past or how efficient tech has gotten, it's still a controversy. Those pteranodons could repopulate without the world knowing, in some random island uninhibited by humans. Next thing you know, Dino apocalypse. Merely "killing them" isn't a valid excuse to ignore something critical. Finally, the second movie is very necessary. They tried to build a park in San Diego but failed miserably when T-Rex got out. People would most certainly not support Jurassic World after that event so there needs to be some explanation. Alternate timeline makes most sense to me.
The reason jurassic park 2 want mentioned was bc that was in San diego. Jurassic world was not. Jurassic park 3 was on a different Island. Jurassic park 1 was on the island of jurassic world. The whole point of the movie was that John Hammonds dreams were made into a functioning reality.
Great to see the franchise still lives and the movies are still popular. Maybe if we're lucky there will even be a part 5. at least, from what I've read there's been talks about it.
As much as I love the movies, there's no room for a part 5. The storyline is at its end. The only window of opportunity is if Blue had children and Owen went to visit.
They'll think of something if they see another good money making opportunity. I think they have enough fans too aswell, but I kinda agree with your arguement. All good things must come to an end. xD Edit: i just looked it up and it seems like they actually have plenty of ideas worked out for another sequal. Haha
Chris Pratt has been signed on the for sequel. Great to see the franchise of our childhoods reinvigorated! *squeals like Justin Beiber*