Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

OneofOne said:

The problem is, that's not Grant's wife. They weren't even a couple. In the book there was an even larger difference in age between them.

Do you think it's possible if you misremember that, you might be misremembering other things? Or perhaps seeing something where nothing exists? Just a thought

Click to expand...

It's true they aren't married, but they are together. Ian even asks at one point if they're together, Alan confirms, and at that point Ian backs off his flirtations. Again, these are changes made for the movie.

OneofOne said:

The problem is, that's not Grant's wife. They weren't even a couple. In the book there was an even larger difference in age between them.

Do you think it's possible if you misremember that, you might be misremembering other things? Or perhaps seeing something where nothing exists? Just a thought

Click to expand...

sure, i havent seen the movie in probably 15 years. so there will be details that i forgot.
at the end of this scene i just assumed they were more than friends.
some nerd trivia.

he relationship between Sattler and Grant went through a number of distinct phases;

• The original Crichton script was the truest to the book version. There was no sexual tension whatsoever and Ellie Sattler was purely Dr. Grant's mature student.
• The Marno re-write (in March 1992) bulked out her character, making her more independent and increasing her role as well as adding a frisson of sexual tension between her and Grant:
  

  The copter suddenly SHAKES violently. Ellie grabs Grant's hand. Gennaro sits straight up, eyes squeezed shut.
  
  GRANT : Gennaro? This guy knows what he's doing, Right? Hey, Gennaro? I'm talking to you!
  
  Another violent shake. Grant squeezes Ellie's hand back.
  
  For a second, no one moves. Grant lets out a great sigh of relief. Gennaro mouths a silent prayer. The pilot stretches his fingers.
  
  Grant and Ellie self-consciously shake their hands free of each other.

  Click to expand...

• The Koepp re-write (in December 11, 1992) made it explictly clear that she's in a relationship with Grant (as well as adding the character of Ian Malcolm to create a potential love triangle aspect):
  

  ELLIE : Anything else, you old fossil?
  GRANT : Yeah, plenty. Some of them can't walk!
  ELLIE : It frustrates me so much that I love you, that I need to strangle you right now!
  
  Ellie playfully takes Grant's hat off and gives him a tight hug. They kiss.

  Click to expand...

• Spielberg then removed this dialogue from the theatrical cut of the film (and edited out her calling him 'honey' on several occasions), presumably so that he could leave the status of their relationship ambiguous.

uring the night tour, Ian Malcolm explicitly asks Alan if he and Ellie are a couple.


In the script Grant never says one way or the other, but it is heavily implied that they are. However, the final version of the movie has one extra little word: "yeah".

MALCOLM: By the way, Dr. Sattler - she's not like, uh, available, is she? - -

GRANT: Why?

MALCOLM: Why? Oh, I'm sorry. Are you two, uh-

GRANT: Yeah.

MALCOLM: I wish you the best luck.

Click to expand...

I have been officially out-nerded. Well done sir, well done.

I still don't think they were a couple in the movie, though I fully admit there was intentional sexual tension placed there, and it's quite possible editing made things ever more murkier than intended. I took the Ian interaction more to mean she was using Grant as a shield against Ian, than as an indication she and Grant were actually together.

Whatever, we've wondered far off the original point.

I'll probably see this, because... I have a 9 yo son, so of course I will. Once it's on HBO or something.

Chukzombi said:

its not complete BS, the messaging is there. hell, in the sequel, Jeff Goldblum's character has to do the same thing when he has his kid with him. directors will often throw underlying messages in their films. Wall-E isnt just about a lonely robot and a plant. its also about how man has destroyed the planet with garbage

Click to expand...

OneofOne said:

I have been officially out-nerded. Well done sir, well done.

I still don't think they were a couple in the movie, though I fully admit there was intentional sexual tension placed there, and it's quite possible editing made things ever more murkier than intended. I took the Ian interaction more to mean she was using Grant as a shield against Ian, than as an indication she and Grant were actually together.

Whatever, we've wondered far off the original point.

I'll probably see this, because... I have a 9 yo son, so of course I will. Once it's on HBO or something.

Click to expand...

eh its alright, when i saw it i was just happy they did the dinosaurs right. my friend and i were geeking out over it in the theater and pissing off the guy in back of us. i could hear him whisper. "they're dinosaurs, get over it."

there are so many other movie theories out there about other films, things i completely disagree with, but i find them interesting. apparently Stanley Kubrick was such a genius on so many different levels that they keep discovering new subtexts in his films. especially The Shining.

Saw this last night and it was fine. Way better than the JW2. But still entirely too long and they just made this so over the top ridiculous. Wont ever watch it again but was better than a lot of other movies I’ve paid to see lately.

This guy goes much more in-depth than I have the patience for here. But this explains the allegory behind Jurassic Park perfectly, and why the sequels can't match it.

Thank you for posting the EXACT presentation I had in mind when I said:

This is complete BS made up after the fact by not smart people trying to sound smart.

Click to expand...

Just because a character experiences growth doesn't mean it's the defining theme of the entire film.

OneofOne said:

I have been officially out-nerded. Well done sir, well done.

I still don't think they were a couple in the movie, though I fully admit there was intentional sexual tension placed there, and it's quite possible editing made things ever more murkier than intended. I took the Ian interaction more to mean she was using Grant as a shield against Ian, than as an indication she and Grant were actually together.

Whatever, we've wondered far off the original point.

I'll probably see this, because... I have a 9 yo son, so of course I will. Once it's on HBO or something.

Click to expand...

The press tour for the new movie had them discussing how inappropriate their age gap was

OneofOne said:

Thank you for posting the EXACT presentation I had in mind when I said:

Click to expand...

Your inability to comprehend is not a declaration of victory. They even set it up in JP III that Alan and Ellie are together, with kids, because that's what the audience is expecting. Because it's obvious to most intelligent people. Then they pull the ol' switch-eroo and have the real father walk out, which is essentially breaking the audience's heart. Regardless of what's in the book, the movie was dressed up with this becoming a parent narrative in mind. As the video above pointed out perfectly.

The father part of JP is in my book what we used to call "character developpment", something strongly missing these days.

That's why JP was so good. It contains multiple mesage, speaks to multiple persons and all that with big ass dinosaurs everywhere. I always thought the movie was about how in every wonder created by men, such as this park full of million of years extinct dinos, the weakest point is also men.
Or it could be a message "pay your backend developpers a bit better"

Will probably watch this one but the other movies were average at best, including JP2 and 3.

JP1 worked storywise because the first JP book was pretty solid and they more or less just followed that blueprint, with just making a few creative liberties here and there.

Saying the point of Jurassic Park is the reluctance of fatherhood is pretty dumb. Saying it's WHY Jurassic Park was so good is even dumber.

It's literally one small part of a single character

JP 1 was a great movie because had a decent script and a great director.
Simple as that.

Ambiturner said:

Saying the point of Jurassic Park is the reluctance of fatherhood is pretty dumb. Saying it's WHY Jurassic Park was so good is even dumber.

It's literally one small part of a single character

Click to expand...

You're missing the point entirely. It's a great movie because it had subtext. That subtext could have been about anything. The reason why the sequels can't compare is because they lack anything beyond the surface. That's why they feel shallow and forgettable. This is stuff your brain picks up subconsciously, so the fact you aren't even aware of it kinda proves the point.