Support NeoGAF

[brandonh83]

Of course there's no vendetta, but deliberately ignoring it to slavishly adhere to twenty year old continuity (which isn't internally consistent anyway) and ignoring the responsibility Jurassic Park actually has over the public's knowledge of the science (basically an iron grip) isn't much better.

Exactly, so...

I dunno, I don't think Jurassic Park ever had this mandate to inform everyone of this. I see it as some rich people who want to make money off dinosaurs that aren't completely dinosaurs, just blueprints of them and what they have to work with. It's not a documentary about dinosaurs and never was. There's a good deal of science involved but it's still a theme park and the dinosaurs were never real, actual dinosaurs.

If people are interested enough in dinosaurs they shouldn't be gathering up knowledge from some science fiction adventure movies anyway. Even if Jurassic World took every single thing we know about dinosaurs today into account, 20-30 years from now, maybe more, maybe less, they could unearth new knowledge that makes those dinosaurs obsolete in terms of facts. So I don't see why it matters. Science and knowledge is always evolving. What if all Jurassic World dinosaurs had feathers, but then they found out that this or that species didn't have feathers, or the feathers were on different places on the body? It's not a win-win situation for the filmmakers or the facts, and I think sticking to the established continuity is the most reasonable approach.

 

[Nikodemos]

You know I got thinking today.

Why not always have a small military presence on the island?

Dinosaurs are not going to be able to destroy a tank or APC.

You don't even need military. Your average American PD has a SWAT team armed heavier than many armies were 15 years ago. The market for police weaponry has exploded these past 5 years.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Of course there's no vendetta, but deliberately ignoring it to slavishly adhere to twenty year old continuity (which isn't internally consistent anyway) and ignoring the responsibility Jurassic Park actually has over the public's knowledge of the science (basically an iron grip) isn't much better.

Speilberg did care about the science.

But you know what he cared even more about?

Making an entertaining film.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

You know I got thinking today.

Why not always have a small military presence on the island?

Dinosaurs are not going to be able to destroy a tank or APC.

InGen is apparently huge in the private security business themselves.

CEO Simon Masrani has announced a boost of $225 million over the next three years to subsidiary InGen. Funds are allocated to further support InGen's private security division, which has become a world leader specializing in peacekeeping, drone operation and contingency services. "Jurassic World is a global destination, and that comes with a certain set of risks" says Vic Hoskins — Head of Security Operations for InGen. "Our job here on Nublar is to work with Asset Containment and park staff to ensure a safe environment for the millions of people who visit every year." According to Mr. Hoskins, the increase in funding will drive research as the company continues to develop more advanced security measures.

Odds are they're equipped. Here's a set pic that came out showing some of the Asset Containment Unit:

 

[Green Mamba]

Exactly, so...

I dunno, I don't think Jurassic Park ever had this mandate to inform everyone of this. I see it as some rich people who want to make money off dinosaurs that aren't completely dinosaurs, just blueprints of them and what they have to work with. It's not a documentary about dinosaurs and never was. There's a good deal of science involved but it's still a theme park and the dinosaurs were never real, actual dinosaurs.

If people are interested enough in dinosaurs they shouldn't be gathering up knowledge from some science fiction adventure movies anyway. Even if Jurassic World took every single thing we know about dinosaurs today into account, 20-30 years from now, maybe more, maybe less, they could unearth new knowledge that makes those dinosaurs obsolete in terms of facts. So I don't see why it matters. Science and knowledge is always evolving. What if all Jurassic World dinosaurs had feathers, but then they found out that this or that species didn't have feathers, or the feathers were on different places on the body? It's not a win-win situation for the filmmakers or the facts, and I think sticking to the established continuity is the most reasonable approach.

I think the idea that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not actually intended to be dinosaurs but "theme park monsters" isn't really true to the spirit of the films and is a retroactive mangling of the actual intention of Grant's line in JPIII--that Grant hated the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park and wanted nothing to do with them, not that his line was intended to be the gospel canon truth about them. There's nothing otherwise in the films that indicates that they're supposed to be anything less than actual dinosaurs--Grant even communicates with JPIII's raptors with an actual Velociraptor wind pipe.

And I really don't think sticking with what is known to be wrong just because it might change again in the future is the way to go. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And Jurassic Park didn't have a mandate to inform the public, but inform the public it did anyway. It has some cultural responsibility saddled to it, and I think it's unfortunate to see the franchise discard it to become a negative cultural force to the science instead of a force of relative good like it was.

Speilberg did care about the science.

But you know what he cared even more about?

Making an entertaining film.

Weird that these are apparently now opposing forces twenty years later.

 

[Superflat]

I think the idea that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are not actually intended to be dinosaurs but "theme park monsters" isn't really true to the spirit of the films and is a retroactive mangling of the actual intention of Grant's line in JPIII--that Grant hated the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park and wanted nothing to do with them, not that his line was intended to be the gospel canon truth about them. There's nothing otherwise in the films that indicates that they're supposed to be anything less than actual dinosaurs--Grant even communicates with JPIII's raptors with an actual Velociraptor wind pipe.

Personally I wouldn't take anything used in JP3 as evidence to support how dinosaurs are portrayed considering it featured a serial killer stalker Spinosaurus and human-hungry Pteranadon. My opinion alone has no weight but I personally don't consider JP3 as canon either.

Even if we ignore those (hugely glaring) elements in JP3, we're left with the same recycled message from The Lost World, which is that these are extremely complex social animals who care for their young; "true" dinosaurs or not, they are animals who have a right to exist because they are not just bloodthirsty monsters (again, ignoring the existence of the Spinosaur and Pteranadon in JP3), but animals who thrive under a unique ecosystem and possess intricate social behaviors that may or may not be informed by their innate dinosaur instincts.

The films don't make a strong point that they are not real dinosaurs, but they don't give strong evidence to the contrary either. They are "dinosaurs", as accurately as science could create them. The only fact I know is that they are genetic hybrids with amphibious DNA filling missing sequence gaps which led to certain physical abnormalities, such as being able to switch gender.

And I really don't think sticking with what is known to be wrong just because it might change again in the future is the way to go. Two wrongs don't make a right.

And Jurassic Park didn't have a mandate to inform the public, but inform the public it did anyway. It has some cultural responsibility saddled to it, and I think it's unfortunate to see the franchise discard it to become a negative cultural force to the science instead of a force of relative good like it was.

This only has weight if Jurassic Park was created with the expressed goal of informing the public. I don't think it has any responsibilities outside of what they established in the Spielberg movies. Reigniting the public's interest in dinosaurs and presenting them like real animals is still a force of "relative good", whether or not the dinosaurs superficially look accurate.

Growing up with JP and TLW, I was obsessed with dinosaurs and spent years reading books and educational software that was 100% dedicated to getting the most accurate dinosaur research. Even back then I inevitably found out that the original Jurassic Park film was chock full of inaccuracies, and it didn't screw me up or dampen my love for the films or real paleontology. In the end, it was the movies that got me interested in the subject, and became the gateway to the real thing -- should Jurassic World actually be a good film (which is what really matters when all is said and done), I imagine it could do the same for a new generation.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

New trailer tomorrow!

 

[NyMartin90]

New trailer tomorrow!

 

[Lazerbox]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mvWuky1g0g

 

[Shaanyboi]

Looks silly. Will watch for dinosaurs. *shrug*

 

[OraleeWey]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mvWuky1g0g

Has science gone too far?

Also, I think I saw Velociraptors working side by side with humans?

 

[elrechazado]

This whole trailer looked like a bad tv movie