Jurassic Park 4

Yeah, I'm just saying the first one isn't exactly a thriller either when those are the two moments there were any suspense that wasn't some contrived bull shit not dealing with dinosaurs. This movie had new guy falling into raptor pit, new dino escaping the paddock, 3 hunts, ball car, chase through the old jurassic park, and the final showdown. Shit, the t-rex and water dinosaur exhibits were more suspenseful than all that other contrived bs in the first one. Like I said, they really made the dinosaurs the stars of this movie and cut out all that other crap, which I really enjoyed.

Also, I'll say it now, the raptor hunt was downright fucking awesome, I'm sure the imax 3d helped, but I really felt like I was part of the hunt.

CyrusReij_sl said:

Its amusingly predictable to see the people posting who didn't like the movie, could almost set your watch to it.

Click to expand...

It is pretty entertaining. I'm shocked Etchazz didn't mention his friends, who write movie scripts, not getting a chance cause of "shitty" movies like this, for the umpteenth time.

Imagine being friends with some of the usual here, if their post are even remotely true, could you imagine going to watch movies with them. Talk about depressing.

Been stressed at work, needed to watch some dinosaurs eat people and was not disappointed. I don't know why you would expect amazing acting in a jurassic park movie or deep subplot, but I actually thought they did a good job in both A)making the dinosaurs feel like living creatures, if you didn't have feels when the longneck herd or raptors died then what is wrong with you? and B)they did a good job in pointing out how ridiculous corporate america is without shoving it down your throat.

Ryanz_sl said:

Some people call a spade a spade, just because this movie had raptor squad, and big dino's battling each other didn't save the movie from all that was terrible. Some of you are very easily amused.

Click to expand...

I mean, I get the complaints....but as posted above it's just a movie. I didn't plan on seeing a documentary on the worlds water crisis or an objective view about the flaws of earmarking in the senate....I wanted to watch giant, well animated dinosaurs eat the shit out of a bunch of people....and I got just that for my 8-12$ or whatever the fuck going the movies costs. It served exactly what it claimed I would, I've got no complaints. I could probably nitpick a bunch of crap in the movie but I think I have to be fair and judge it by the expectations I had and what it claimed it would be. There is only one reason to watch this movie: You want to see dinosaurs eat people!

I liked this better than avengers 2, but I may be biased cause I only went to that because a group of friends were going.

Well here is the thing, the originalwasmagic. But expecting this, or any other movie to ever match that again is absurd. The movie isn't being directed by Spielberg and Michael Crichton is dead, those two put on a magic combination with the first movie. The first movie was so good it resurrected interest in dinosaurs around the world; that is a pretty high bar to set. Were most of the characters in this lackluster? Yup, but to ever expect something to rival the first movie is just setting yourself up for disappointment. The premise for this movie was, in my opinion, the best possible one they could have come up with.

"What would Jurassic Park look like if shit didn't go wrong?", and on that front it delivered. The corporatising of the dinosaurs, and the sterilization of the park to be super family friendly versus the original is actually really compelling if you think about it. Chances are that is exactly what would happen if we had arealdinosaur theme park. So yeah, while they weren't able to recapture the magic of the original, they did pretty damn good with what they got. They realized they couldn't nail down the fantastic characterization/drama of the first, and simply went with action movie instead; which with dinosaurs is a pretty good option.

That said, the series should have ended here. This was the best sequel they could possibly serve up, and the plotline they left open for the sequel that seems to strongly indicate genetic hybrid military dinosaurs is hilariously farcical and will fall on its face. They finally told the story of a working Jurassic Park and outside of sending people to die on Isla Sorna for bullshit reasons like the third movie, that is really all that you can possibly hope to milk out of the original premise without jumping the shark.

I'm seriously just going to go home and rewatch the original to see if my expectations were just way too high for this one or i'm looking at the original with rose colored glasses.

The original is a better movie. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise. It has its own flaws though. Did y'all know that velociraptors are maybe 1/3 the size depicted in all the movies?



That's a raptor. Super scary.

This is a dino that they're actually working off of, and they're still adjusting the details.



No feathers in the film though. Feathers are cute. Reptiles are scary. So despite many dinosaurs assuredly having feathers, the movie ones don't.

And the little shits that spit blinding poison in the first movie? They don't do that. The dinosaurs that are theorized to spit are actually quite big, as big as the fictional raptor size (donkey size). And the lil not-really-poison spitters don't have any cobra style neck flange thing either as far as we know. In the books the older child was the boy and the younger child was the girl. He was the hacker, she was the dinophile. Spielberg and Crichton specifically changed shit just to sex up the story.

And the original park was retarded. It could have hosted maybe 20 people at a time. If the same ultra-criticism is applied to every movie they all fall apart. Still, Jurassic Park was a stronger classic for a lot of reasons, mostly that it was adapted from a well crafted story by Crichton. If you haven't read the book, I recommend it. Crichton delivers. Don't ever read Airframe though.

Yes, it is pretty widely known that Chrichton raptors are not normal raptors.

Don't they kind of elude to that in this movie at one point? That these dinosaurs have all been sexed up, made bigger, etc? I can't remember the line offhand, but I think something like that happened.

I think that Wu was mainly talking about the Drex. They didn't jazz up the raptors, they're basically the exact same as the fossils Dr Grant was digging up, or the story he told to scare that fat kid.

Gavinmad_sl said:

I think that Wu was mainly talking about the Drex.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I thought the conversation also had a line like "You think any of your dinosaurs are "real"?". Shrug, can't remember exactly.

They definitely do match the bones they dug up in the first movie.

khalid_sl said:

Don't they kind of elude to that in this movie at one point? That these dinosaurs have all been sexed up, made bigger, etc? I can't remember the line offhand, but I think something like that happened.

Click to expand...

Yes, Wu even mentions something about not making them look realistic, which was an obvious reference to none of the dinos in the movie having feathers.

There were no v-raptors in America where Dr Grant was digging. There were however Utahraptors that were of similar size to those in the movies. V-raptors were found in Mongolia but have a much 'scarier' name.

Utahraptor wasn't found yet when they began making the movie. The movie makers nostradomus'd that, but Crichton didn't. It was just good luck that the film's exaggerated raptor coincided with the Utahraptor (publicized during the film's production). They were going for spectacle, much like the super dino in this movie was for, and had no Utahraptor been discovered, the movie would have still been exactly the same.