Support NeoGAF

[UnemployedVillain]

The problem is not that it depicts society like that, but that it reinforces it. The happy ending in the movie is BDH's character turning around and deciding she wants a husband and kids.

But Pratt's rugged bachelor character also has a similar realization...both started out only focusing on themselves and their careers...

Not to mention it's pretty fucked up that you're equating wanting to have kids as a lesser situation to be in. That's some casual sexism right there. Being maternal doesn't make a female character any weaker. Just check Ridley from Aliens

 

[brandonh83]

The happy ending in the movie is BDH's character turning around and deciding she wants a husband and kids.

With Grant it was obviously implied by his gestures in the chopper at the end, but with Claire... no. There's nothing to suggest she wants a husband and kids. She walks off with Owen at the end, but that just implies that they're going to hook back up. She's a main character in the upcoming ones so I doubt she's going to have children in them. In this situation she was at work when this shit went down, on a day that her nephews were there, and she had to go from pitching Verizon Wireless contracts that morning to protecting them from velociraptors and hybrids.

Honestly? I think people are putting words in the story's mouth. I don't think these things were meant to be focused on that much. It's as simple as, again, she's at work, shit goes down, she has to protect the kids, it ends with her not having a job anymore and everything in total shambles. There's nothing about her wanting to be a parent or some shit. That's digging very very deeply. There's nothing in her context that suggests she's suddenly family oriented now. At most she probably feels bad about abandoning them early on. That's about it.

 

[Toxi]

But Pratt's rugged bachelor character also has a similar realization...both started out only focusing on themselves and their careers...

Did you miss the long scene of him hitting on Claire and telling her to be less stiff?

 

[Oemenia]

Not sure what you're arguing here. Is this one of those "but MEN have so many representation issues too!" arguments that is brought up whenever people discuss the issue of female representation in media? Because if so that's the same kind of bullshit response as "all lives matter".

Okay I guess it makes sense now, men DON'T matter. Guess some people need to 'man-up.'

 

[LucidMomentum]

Jesus Christ we're going in circles.

No one had issues with Claire's scene at the end. Saying that it invalidates all the other awful portrayals of women in the writing before it is a tad much.

Also saying a Universal movie making an homage to a Disney film is a bit much as well.

Saying that media portraying women as they are currently perceived in society means we can't criticize that portrayal is also a bit much.

Crying about people crying about what is and isn't acceptable for a woman is also hypocritical.

None of us are saying what's acceptable for a woman. We're talking about why did the writers write the script in the way they did. Why was the only notably woman-empowering moment in the film put in at the explicit request of the female lead and not already a part of the film. Etc.

 

[riotous]

Having Claire be the hero of the movie by saving the so call macho man who is suppose to save the day while running in heels because the actress wanted it that way is not only profound but it is probably the best feminist scene in recent history.

Yeah I don't get why people are leaving out the part where Claire is the final protagonist who actually saves everyone; hell she saves Pratt multiple times in general.

And I dont understand why the "children" convo is being highlighted so much; its a family movie... The main plot is about family and how bonds are formed and can be broken. Claire represents the character who has lost touch with the concept of human bonds; seeing park customers as numbers on a spreadsheet.

That's actually a character normally reserved for men; almost everything about Claire's character includes numerous stereotypes that don't normally apply to women. The workaholic who doesn't care about children.

And there have been numerous stories throughout history about powerful men who lose touch with the concept of family; I don't know why people are acting like only a woman would ever be in a conversation about how they should or will have kids someday.

Claire is a powerful woman who has lost touch with the importance of family; what stereotype is she supposed to be representing that is problematic?

It's not like the other mother character is a stay at home Mom; and in fact they show that she is also a business person who seems to have some importance (her absense is holding up a business meeting.)

 

[Fancy Clown]

But is that now wrong that she wants to have kids? I mean, can that now never be a character arc for a woman? Sure it's not progressive, but, I don't think it's awful if that happens, maybe predictable, but not awful.

I dunno, I just can't get outraged about this, she was a pretty strong woman otherwise.

But Pratt's rugged bachelor character also has a similar realization...both started out only focusing on themselves and their careers...

Not to mention it's pretty fucked up that you're equating wanting to have kids as a lesser situation to be in. That's some casual sexism right there. Being maternal doesn't make a female character any weaker. Just check Ridley from Aliens

Party's character never talks about putting his career before women, and is never chastised for not wanting kids. I'm not saying a female character wanting kids is sexist at all, but in the context of this whole film and how the character is portrayed from the start it is. So either you missed the many arguments and examples that myself and others have made in this thread and only saw the one post you responded to, or you're being willfully ignorant. Ridley from Aliens is a completely different example, like 100%.

 

[riotous]

Party's character never talks about putting his career before women, and is never chastised for not wanting kids. I'm not saying a female character wanting kids is sexist at all, but in the context of this whole film and how the character is portrayed from the start it is. So either you missed the many arguments and examples that myself and others have made in this thread and only saw the one post you responded to, or you're being willfully ignorant. Ridley from Aliens is a completely different example, like 100%.

Where is Claire chastised for not wanting kids?

Where in the film does she even say she doesn't want kids?

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I was there for the dinosaurs and killing, not for a narrative about gender roles.

 

[atr0cious]

But is that now wrong that she wants to have kids? I mean, can that now never be a character arc for a woman?

The characters actions specifically show she doesn't even want to deal with her nephews because her job is at a critical point and thats her focus. The movie uses the Irex disaster as a way to brow beat into her the greatness of being a part of a family unity. From the frivolous actions of Chris Pratt, which the kids react with automatically labeling him as her boyfriend, even though the movie took time showing they didn't like each other, to her sister constantly telling her that despite her job, the kids need her! Why won't she just think of the children! Then we have the only other prominent female caretaker in Zara, who slacks off in her matronly duty, while at the same time not allowing her fiance to hang out with his friends, get merced in the most vicious way possible for far longer than most deaths of villains, let alone the JP franchise, pretty much telling Claire, this is what happens when you don't follow the "rules."

Then you've got Chris Pratt, bachelor extrodanaire, who just won't stop talking about the laws of nature, and how animals just gotta do what they gotta do, *slaps fist into palm suggestively.*

 

[Toxi]

If you want to be technical, it's Blue who saves everyone last because of her bond with Chris Pratt.

But I do think it is a point in the movie's favor that Bryce Dallas Howard's character is the one who gets the T. rex out.

Okay I guess it makes sense now, men DON'T matter. Guess some people need to 'man-up.'

That's not actually what that person is saying.

It's just that frankly, a lot of the time when someone says "what about the male characters", they tend to not actually care about fixing the problems with the male characters.

I think 2012 is an excellent example of a movie that's quite toxic in how it handles masculinity. The boyfriend really gets the short end of the stick compared to the main dude, even though his worst crime was... Being a guy who took care of his girlfriend and her kids?

 

[tkscz]

That's not what anyone was saying. It's a disaster movie, people (of all genders) die. The issue is the specific framing of a female character's death whose "flaw" is a sexist trope (women are always on their phones) and she is punished for it.

In the end, the earned death in these movies has become a bit standard and another thing I wanted to subvert. 'How can we surprise people? Let's have someone die who just doesn't deserve to die at all.'"

Had nothing to do with her gender or that she was business motivated. They just chose her to die because they wanted to. Bryce Dallas Howard was in on it and everyone agreed on it, thus it was done. I understand seeing the way you and the article does, and felt the death was stupid and undeserved, but it was MEANT to be exactly that.

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

This is reading too much into the movie as Trevorrow is not that insightful of a director as of yet. He frequently accounted in the special features of the blu Ray that he would just put things he thought were really cool without bothering to think of the effect it would have social or political.

Then Spielberg would give him advice of whether or not that should be in the movie or not and the effect this would have. One example is they had a scene where the CG Indominus Rex would rip off the head of a mechanical trex, he thought it looked cool in preproduction although Spielberg pointed out that it could be a statement about CGI being better than animatronics. Another was when the mosaurus ate the shark and he was showing it to Spielberg without even realizing until the last minute it could be a statement of dinosaurs being deadlier than Jaws, Steven didn't see that but that was a possibility.

The guy just put cool shit in because he filmed the movie as an experience of kid in an amusement movie. That is why it's should only ever be considered as a big dumb dinosaur movie without political and social critique because that is way above IQ level it has.

On a sidenote the ridiculous heel scene is being replaced with rubber boots apparently.

 

[brandonh83]

The characters actions specifically show she doesn't even want to deal with her nephews because her job is at a critical point and thats her focus. The movie uses the Irex disaster as a way to brow beat into her the greatness of being a part of a family unity. From the frivolous actions of Chris Pratt, which the kids react with automatically labeling him as her boyfriend, even though the movie took time showing they didn't like each other, to her sister constantly telling her that despite her job, the kids need her! Why won't she just think of the children!

It's more like it was supposed to be a family weekend and Karen was disappointed that Claire wasn't able to take a day off or something. But yeah you can take just about anything and re-word it to make it sound however you like in that kind of sarcastic tone.

Also it's kind of a running theme, every single Jurassic Park movie focuses on family problems or the like.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

The characters actions specifically show she doesn't even want to deal with her nephews because her job is at a critical point and thats her focus. The movie uses the Irex disaster as a way to brow beat into her the greatness of being a part of a family unity. From the frivolous actions of Chris Pratt, which the kids react with automatically labeling him as her boyfriend, even though the movie took time showing they didn't like each other, to her sister constantly telling her that despite her job, the kids need her! Why won't she just think of the children! Then we have the only other prominent female caretaker in Zara, who slacks off in her matronly duty, while at the same time not allowing her fiance to hang out with his friends, get merced in the most vicious way possible for far longer than most deaths of villains, let alone the JP franchise, pretty much telling Claire, this is what happens when you don't follow the "rules."

Then you've got Chris Pratt, bachelor extrodanaire, who just won't stop talking about the laws of nature, and how animals just gotta do what they gotta do, *slaps fist into palm suggestively.*

Or...
People who cared only about the business and nothing else: Dead
People who cared about others: Survived

 

[brandonh83]

On a sidenote the ridiculous heel scene is being replaced with rubber boots apparently.

Well it's already out, so kinda pointless.

 

[Green Mamba]

Had nothing to do with her gender or that she was business motivated. They just chose her to die because they wanted to. Bryce Dallas Howard was in on it and everyone agreed on it, thus it was done. I understand seeing the way you and the article does, and felt the death was stupid and undeserved, but it was MEANT to be exactly that.

A lot of decisions in the movie were made with good intentions, but with no real thought of how it would actually come across as a finished whole. Zara's death was essentially Trevorrow going "hey, let's do something different" and then not actually a) earning it or b) giving thought on how it actually comes across in the film. Trevorrow thought he was making a clever scene but the end result is just uncomfortable. The film feels like the product of undisciplined fanboys making their first blockbuster.

Which it was.

 

[VeryGooster]

Part of the problem with the whole Claire narrative is unlike JP, JW doesn't trust its audience to piece that together for themselves. The characters in JW aren't written like people, just excuses to get the action going, and that might have been all well and good since you anticipate people paying to see monsters run amok but you're still making me watch these people say the idiotic crap they have to say. To me her not wanting kids or wanting to focus on running the park may not be the problem in and of themselves, but the movie wants to imply there's no compromise, and there is no more depth to that character outside of this 'conflict.'

Trevorrow's whole 'subversion' line about the assistant's death meanwhile is ineffective when you're still making me sit through a drawn out sequence for a character I barely got to know.

 

[Fancy Clown]

Where is Claire chastised for not wanting kids?

Where in the film does she even say she doesn't want kids?

Claire (and her assistant to a degree) is a single, career oriented women who puts her job ahead of relationships with men and kids and as such she is portrayed as cold, uptight, humorless and unlikable. Her sister says she will have kids as if it is inevitable for her and in a manner that suggests not having kids is a pitiable, non-desirable outcome. She ends up being wooed by the cool, relaxed, funny male character and suddenly becomes a warmer more likeable character once she decides this and she welcomes the children into her life and the film ends with the symbolic imagery of the restoration of the nuclear family that is clearly the desirable outcome as it is tied in with the happy ending.

 

[Toxi]

Or...
People who cared only about the business and nothing else: Dead
People who cared about others: Survived

Dr. Wu: Only cared about business and survived.

Masrani: Cared about entertaining and saving others and died.

And I'm not sure if Zara only cared about business when the worst thing we saw was shirking her babysitting duties to talk on the phone.

 

[atr0cious]

This is reading too much into the movie as Trevorrow is not that insightful of a director as of yet. He frequently accounted in the special features of the blu Ray that he would just put things he thought were really cool without bothering to think of the effect it would have social or political.

Then Spielberg would give him advice of whether or not that should be in the movie or not and the effect this would have. One example is they had a scene where the CG Indominus Rex would rip off the head of a mechanical trex, he thought it looked cool in preproduction although Spielberg pointed out that it could be a statement about CGI being better than animatronics. Another was when the mosaurus ate the shark and he was showing it to Spielberg without even realizing until the last minute it could be a statement of dinosaurs being deadlier than Jaws, Steven didn't see that but that was a possibility.

The guy just put cool shit in because he filmed the movie as an experience of kid in an amusement movie. That is why it's should only ever be considered as a big dumb dinosaur movie without political and social critique because that is way above IQ level it has.

On a sidenote the ridiculous heel scene is being replaced with rubber boots apparently.

This is specifically why these issues pop up. No one has claimed the filmmakers have maliciously put anything in this film, which is why the film is what is being called sexist. Intent doesn't excuse ignorance.

And Spielburg completely blew it with that call on pulling that scene, when the entire point of the movie was an exploration of how the new thing is perceived as better than the old. Having an animatronic get ripped up by the I-Rex, a corporate think tank idea in the film canon, could later be subverted when the original T-Rex inevitably shows up.

 

[Spikematic]

Good movie. I saw it a few times, and I never thought the assistant's death seemed misogynistic. For me it was more of a "wow, it sure would suck to be killed by dinosaurs" moment. Which I thought was of a piece with the rest of the series. Every Jurassic Park movie has had dinos ruin someone's day in a grisly manner.

The article is basically "cynical writer rips apart enormously popular popcorn film to fish for clicks." You'll never guess what happened next!

Summed up exactly what I was thinking. Thank you sir!

 

[brandonh83]

Trevorrow's whole 'subversion' line about the assistant's death meanwhile is ineffective when you're still making me sit through a drawn out sequence for a character I barely got to know.

30 seconds is drawn out?

 

[Warm Machine]

It is ok to not portray women in a movie as perfect. Women can be flawed human beings and are capable of making poor choices. They can have character flaws and their own motivations.

Zara dying the way she did is not more frightening or traumatic than any number of other deaths in the series.

Claire is a determined business woman who has disconnected with people and the animals in her care. She sees things numerically. This is a character trait/fault and underlines her change and arc in the story.

The divorce subplot is there to reinforce why the two children are sent to the island on their own. Otherwise why didn't the parents simply go with them? Cutting that plot point out creates a major story hole. Sure you could replace the divorce with something else but it doubly serves why the brothers are disconnected from each other and somewhat disillusioned.

 

[kitchenmotors]

Having Claire be the hero of the movie by saving the so call macho man who is suppose to save the day while running in heels because the actress wanted it that way is not only profound but it is probably the best feminist scene in recent history.

YES.

Go IN and educate.

 

[Fancy Clown]

With Grant it was obviously implied by his gestures in the chopper at the end, but with Claire... no. There's nothing to suggest she wants a husband and kids. She walks off with Owen at the end, but that just implies that they're going to hook back up. She's a main character in the upcoming ones so I doubt she's going to have children in them. In this situation she was at work when this shit went down, on a day that her nephews were there, and she had to go from pitching Verizon Wireless contracts that morning to protecting them from velociraptors and hybrids.

Honestly? I think people are putting words in the story's mouth. I don't think these things were meant to be focused on that much. It's as simple as, again, she's at work, shit goes down, she has to protect the kids, it ends with her not having a job anymore and everything in total shambles. There's nothing about her wanting to be a parent or some shit. That's digging very very deeply. There's nothing in her context that suggests she's suddenly family oriented now. At most she probably feels bad about abandoning them early on. That's about it.

She warms up to the idea of children and a boyfriend at the end of the movie (and the imagery here with all of them together strongly suggests that of a nuclear family) and the movie specifically had that line where her sister says "when, not if" about having kids to hammer that character point in. Even if she doesn't have children by the sequel, her character arc is blatabtly set up to have her go from cold and independent to warm and on a traditional familial path.

 

[Green Mamba]

30 seconds is drawn out?

For a glorified extra in a Jurassic Park film, uh, hell yes? For a movie like Piranha I guess maybe not, maybe that was the lofty height Trevorrow was going for there.

 

[brandonh83]

The divorce subplot is there to reinforce why the two children are sent to the island on their own. Otherwise why didn't the parents simply go with them? Cutting that plot point out creates a major story hole. Sure you could replace the divorce with something else but it doubly serves why the brothers are disconnected from each other and somewhat disillusioned.

It made sense and worked out. Saying it's pointless is like saying that the Grant not wanting kids subplot is pointless. It's character background/details. Grant not wanting kids didn't contribute shit to the original. He would have still protected them and made the same decisions regardless if that subplot was there. The divorce thing is why they're there, it adds emotional context to the brothers, and it's also a reason why Zach doesn't turn the gyrosphere around as he's wanting to cheer his brother up. Zach didn't know about the divorce either as implied in that train scene as they're headed for the gyrosphere valley. So the divorce subplot gives the brothers and their motivations context. It's completely harmless, just like Grant and his babies dilemma.

For a glorified extra in a Jurassic Park film, uh, hell yes? For a movie like Piranha I guess maybe not, maybe that was the lofty height Trevorrow was going for there.

We must have a very different idea of drawn out. It's over pretty quickly. I just can't fathom how people make this a big deal. It's nothing more than a death scene in an action movie. We didn't get to "know her" but the pteranodons don't care how much development she got or otherwise. I think that's what Trevorrow meant by subversion, but I honestly don't even think it was subversion. I think it was just... someone dies in this big sequence. That's literally all I got out of it. Sucks for her, then it moves on in about half a minute. In a 2 hour movie.

 

[ROUGE_BLOCK]

This is specifically why these issues pop up. No one has claimed the filmmakers have maliciously put anything in this film, which is why the film is what is being called sexist. Intent doesn't excuse ignorance.

And Spielburg completely blew it with that call on pulling that scene, when the entire point of the movie was an exploration of how the new thing is perceived as better than the old. Having an animatronic get ripped up by the I-Rex, a corporate think tank idea in the film canon, could later be subverted when the original T-Rex inevitably shows up.

However intent aside people are given critcism to the movie where the issues are most intellectually sophisticated than the base plot of the movie. It was an adventure with dinosaurs fighting and people getting eaten it was nothing beyond that. And no Spielberg made a good call because that uproar would have not been pretty, the Trex smashingb through the skeleton of the spinosaurus was a much better reinvention

 

[amnesiac]

All I know was that one assistant's death was so fucked up compared to anything else that happened in the movie.

 

[Valdfellgar]

The characters actions specifically show she doesn't even want to deal with her nephews because her job is at a critical point and thats her focus. The movie uses the Irex disaster as a way to brow beat into her the greatness of being a part of a family unity. From the frivolous actions of Chris Pratt, which the kids react with automatically labeling him as her boyfriend, even though the movie took time showing they didn't like each other, to her sister constantly telling her that despite her job, the kids need her! Why won't she just think of the children! Then we have the only other prominent female caretaker in Zara, who slacks off in her matronly duty, while at the same time not allowing her fiance to hang out with his friends, get merced in the most vicious way possible for far longer than most deaths of villains, let alone the JP franchise, pretty much telling Claire, this is what happens when you don't follow the "rules."

Then you've got Chris Pratt, bachelor extrodanaire, who just won't stop talking about the laws of nature, and how animals just gotta do what they gotta do, *slaps fist into palm suggestively.*

I'm on my phone here, in India, at past midnight, so I apologize if this isn't a proper, wholly invested response. Also understand, that while I don't see the movie as sexist, and thus don't agree with you, I'm not trying to be rude or confrontational, just stating my personal viewpoint.

I don't think it brow beats her. She's career minded but still loves her nephews. When they're thrust into danger she kinda has to save them. I think it'd look really bad on her character if she didn't, male or female you're gonna look like an ass if you let your nephews get eaten.

The kids weren't around for all that (I didn't see them reading the script.) and while I can't recall how much, if any, bad assery he displayed in front of them, he does look more visually impressive than Claire, so I don't find it surprising the kids would latch onto him. Also they know their aunt, have a history, I'd guess they just don't see her as a protector. I mean she's only a business woman right? That's not exactly a marine commando type roll.

Finally with Zara i think too much is being read into a poor decision to have an overly and excessively long death scene. I don't think it's telling Claire anything, seeing as I don't recall her actually watching Zara get killed. I could see the audience taking it that way, although I didn't and still don't.

And finally-- I have no opinion on the Chris Pratt statement. I currently have no formulated opinion and fully expect my dreams to now involve Chris Pratt giving me hand signals about how to mate with my fiancé.

 

[Toxi]

It is ok to not portray women in a movie as perfect. Women can be flawed human beings and are capable of making poor choices. They can have character flaws and their own motivations.

This has nothing to do with characters not being portrayed as perfect. Zara's death has nothing do with her characterization. Claire focusing on business over family is a flaw that's unfortunate because of the context of how female characters are generally treated, but her having a flaw in the first place is not a problem.

The "people just want women characters to be perfect" is an obnoxious strawman. Sarah Connor, one of the most beloved female action movie characters, is incredibly flawed in Terminator 2. Sarah's desperation to save the world ends up nearly turning her into the monster she fears and despises when she is ready to murder a man in front of his family. Then there's how she has so much trouble connecting to her son the robot bodyguard is a better parent than her. And yet people still love Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 because she's a well-written and interesting character whose flaws are unusual among female characters.

So please, stop with the "people just want women characters to be perfect" bullshit, because it's not true and deflects from what people actually want in women in movies.

 

[Zabka]

What if the next movie starts out with scientists making Chris Pratt pregnant with BDH's baby but it turns out a clone of BD Wong had his face transmogrified to look like a different person and became his penicologist and instead of being pregnant with BDH's baby it turns out its real mother is a RAPTOR.

 

[riotous]

Claire (and her assistant to a degree) is a single, career oriented women who puts her job ahead of relationships with men and kids and as such she is portrayed as cold, uptight, humorless and unlikable. Her sister says she will have kids as if it is inevitable for her and in a manner that suggests not having kids is a pitiable, non-desirable outcome. She ends up being wooed by the cool, relaxed, funny male character and suddenly becomes a warmer more likeable character once she decides this and she welcomes the children into her life and the film ends with the symbolic imagery of the restoration of the nuclear family that is clearly the desirable outcome as it is tied in with the happy ending.

You didn't answer either question.

The convo she has with her sister indicates she sees herself having kids one day as a possibility; since she never stated she doesn't want to have kids it's impossible for her to be chastised for it.

She is chastised for not being there for her family; that theme is beat into your head since it's a family film. She is not chastised for having no children or not wanting children; she just learns throughout the movie that human connection is more important to her than work.

Most people want kids some day; I don't see how framing that as generally important is somehow suddenly misogynyst. Particularly for a family film aimed at children.

 

[tkscz]

A lot of decisions in the movie were made with good intentions, but with no real thought of how it would actually come across as a finished whole. Zara's death was essentially Trevorrow going "hey, let's do something different" and then not actually a) earning it or b) giving thought on how it actually comes across in the film. Trevorrow thought he was making a clever scene but the end result is just uncomfortable. The film feels like the product of undisciplined fanboys making their first blockbuster.

Which it was.

I understand that as I felt uncomfortable watching it, but I know for a fact it wasn't meant to be sexist, so I'm not going to call it as such as he even admits it's the first time a woman has died in the series. And while uncomfortable to watch, it's still not on the level of being rag dolled and ripped into by two T-rex.

 

[atr0cious]

Also it's kind of a running theme, every single Jurassic Park movie focuses on family problems or the like.

This isn't true. Ellie and Grant are shown in a symbiotic relationship, as seen when she pulls up his bandana in their intro. The only time it's ever stated what they are, is when Malcom is trying to get in on the action, and even then Grant is like, eh, you know how it is. Ellie laughs that Grant hates kids, but she doesn't spend all of her beats reflecting on that. She is also assertive on her own, and no one once asks her why she doesn't have kids yet. She even allows Malcolm to flirt with her. There is no resolution to their relationship either, where grant is like, ok, lets, get married. The movie even ends with Grant sitting with the kids, who previously he couldn't stand sharing space with, looking at a flock of birds, with a single one going off on it's own. Claire for her part, goes from career oriented drone, to stepford wife, doing the extreme to save her family, she even apologizes to the kids mom. Then she walks out with the dude who is too manly to show affection around others.

 

[brandonh83]

She warms up to the idea of children and a boyfriend at the end of the movie (and the imagery here with all of them together strongly suggests that of a nuclear family) and the movie specifically had that line where her sister says "when, not if" about having kids to hammer that character point in. Even if she doesn't have children by the sequel, her character arc is blatabtly set up to have her go from cold and independent to warm and on a traditional familial path.

She doesn't warm up to the idea of children. She also doesn't not warm up to the idea of children. This is because there's no context to what you're saying. She protected the kids. She stuck with them during the aftermath until their parents showed up, and then turned it over to them. No looks, no expressions, no dialogue, nothing. Literally nothing there to imply that she wants a family now all of a sudden. They're just reeling from what happened. There is nothing in there that made me think Claire was suddenly open to kids now. The only thing there is that she and Owen are probably hooking up again.

This isn't true. Ellie and Grant are shown in a symbiotic relationship, as seen when she pulls up his bandana in their intro. The only time it's ever stated what they are, is when Malcom is trying to get in on the action, and even then Grant is like, eh, you know how it is. Ellie laughs that Grant hates kids, but she doesn't spend all of her beats reflecting on that. She is also assertive on her own, and no one once asks her why she doesn't have kids yet. She even allows Malcolm to flirt with her. There is no resolution to their relationship either, where grant is like, ok, lets, get married. The movie even ends with Grant sitting with the kids, who previously he couldn't stand sharing space with, looking at a flock of birds, with a single one going off on it's own.

Uhm, hm. Well I've always considered Grant and Ellie's character developments to be about families/having kids. It even ends with that. So whatever, you're entitled to think it doesn't I guess. All I said was that all the movies have points of "family values." It's just par for the course. The entire middle section is about Grant warming up to being around kids. That brief exchange about Grant not liking kids bleeds over into the rest of his character development across the movie and ends with it.

 

[Toxi]

What if the next movie starts out with scientists making Chris Pratt pregnant with BDH's baby but it turns out a clone of BD Wong had his face transmogrified to look like a different person and became his penicologist and instead of being pregnant with BDH's baby it turns out its real mother is a RAPTOR.

Let's be honest, Chris Pratt had way more chemistry with Blue than he did with Bryce Dallas Howard.

 

[Green Mamba]

We must have a very different idea of drawn out. It's over pretty quickly. I just can't fathom how people make this a big deal. It's nothing more than a death scene in an action movie. We didn't get to "know her" but the pteranodons don't care how much development she got or otherwise. I think that's what Trevorrow meant by subversion, but I honestly don't even think it was subversion. I think it was just... someone dies in this big sequence. That's literally all I got out of it. Sucks for her, then it moves on in about half a minute. In a 2 hour movie.

Gotcha, if a scene is a relatively small part of a movie, it's above criticism.

And the pteranodons aren't real living entities, they're CG creatures--the movie felt it was necessary to show us what happened (which it wasn't, and actually drags the pacing of the pterosaur sequence to a grinding halt). Let's not blame the pteranodons for the scene.

I understand that as I felt uncomfortable watching it, but I know for a fact it wasn't meant to be sexist, so I'm not going to call it as such as he even admits it's the first time a woman has died in the series. And while uncomfortable to watch, it's still not on the level of being rag dolled and ripped into by two T-rex.

Intentions are well and good but don't shield you from results.

 

[Valdfellgar]

Let's be honest, Chris Pratt had way more chemistry with Blue than he did with Bryce Dallas Howard.

My last post for the night but-- damn I wanna see Blue again. Having named Dinos is fun.

 

[atr0cious]

When they're thrust into danger she kinda has to save them.

This is the problem. The actor portrays the character as having like 3 emotions, rigid stubborness, fear, and fawning over Chris pratt. She only really pulls any emotion out when they show the dead long necks, and even then it's just a "i just lost a lot of money" cover face move.

Uhm, hm. Well I've always considered Grant and Ellie's character developments to be about families/having kids. It even ends with that. So whatever, you're entitled to think it doesn't I guess. All I said was that all the movies have points of "family values." It's just par for the course. The entire middle section is about Grant warming up to being around kids. That brief exchange about Grant not liking kids bleeds over into the rest of his character development across the movie and ends with it.

At no point is Grant ever told to just get married and have kids already. Ellie seems almost ironically fascinated with Grants hate for children. The end is literally a mirror to when they first get to pick cars, and Grant is tripping over himself to get away from Tim.

 

[Dragon]

30 seconds is drawn out?

brandonh83
Captain of the Jurassic World Defense Force

 

[Toxi]

My last post for the night but-- damn I wanna see Blue again. Having named Dinos is fun.

One of the things I liked about Jurassic World that a lot of other people hated was the idea of training raptors. They're animals, training them is no more crazy than training a lion or a crocodile or an eagle. Sure, they're extremely dangerous animals, but when a fucking crocodile can be trained to work with someone, it's not so hard to think a raptor could.

But then the movie fucked that up with the hilariously stupid idea of using trained raptors as soldiers. That's like wanting to use bears as soldiers. Granted, the movie knew it was a stupid idea, but it was ridiculous seeing General Evil McMilitary throw his support behind that idea.

 

[brandonh83]

Gotcha, if a scene is a relatively small part of a movie, it's above criticism.

It isn't obviously. I guess I'm coming from the standpoint of it not being a big deal, especially in the grand scheme of things. My comment about the pteranodons is that they're animals and they're attacking everyone. Zara was just part of that. The movie focuses on her death because no, while she isn't some deeply developed character, we're at least familiar with her and it explains what happens to her. Is it over the top? Absolutely, I just don't see it as some awful drawn out thing.

brandonh83
Captain of the Jurassic World Defense Force

Captain of the I have opinions like anyone else something force

 

[tkscz]

Gotcha, if a scene is a relatively small part of a movie, it's above criticism.

And the pteranodons aren't living entities--the movie felt it was necessary to show us what happened (which it wasn't, and actually drags the pacing of the scene to a grinding halt). Let's not blame the pteranodons for the scene.


Intentions are well and good but don't shield you from results.

Said results are subjective. Not everyone will see it the way the article does.

 

[brandonh83]

At no point is Grant ever told to just get married and have kids already. Ellie seems almost ironically fascinated with Grants hate for children. The end is literally a mirror to when they first get to pick cars, and Grant is tripping over himself to get away from Tim.

So? That's what his character development is still about. Again all I said was that all the movies have something to do with family. The end isn't just a mirror to that scene, it's the tip of his character arc before the credits.

 

[VeryGooster]

30 seconds is drawn out?

For a sequence paced the way it is with such an insignificant character the movie pretends to be of consequence? Sure.

 

[Green Mamba]

Absolutely, I just don't see it as some awful drawn out thing.

Okay, good for you. And obviously many people do find it to be an awful drawn out thing, otherwise it wouldn't be such a common talking point for the film.

Said results are subjective. Not everyone will see it the way the article does.

Sure, but the intentions still aren't terribly relevant.

 

[brandonh83]

Okay, good for you.

There's something we can agree on, at least

 

[Warm Machine]

This has nothing to do with characters not being portrayed as perfect. Zara's death has nothing do with her characterization. Claire focusing on business over family is a flaw that's unfortunate because of the context of how female characters are generally treated, but her having a flaw in the first place is not a problem.

The "people just want women characters to be perfect" is an obnoxious strawman. Sarah Connor, one of the most beloved female action movie characters, is incredibly flawed in Terminator 2. Sarah's desperation to save the world ends up nearly turning her into the monster she fears and despises when she is ready to murder a man in front of his family. Then there's how she has so much trouble connecting to her son the robot bodyguard is a better parent than her. And yet people still love Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 because she's a well-written and interesting character whose flaws are unusual among female characters.

So please, stop with the "people just want women characters to be perfect" bullshit, because it's not true and deflects from what people actually want in women in movies.

Would people feel different about the death sequence if it was a random man picked up and dunked over and over? I'm sure they would. They probably would have cheered.