If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Den Of Geek)   Jurassic Park IV to star character from Jurassic Park I. No, not that one. Or that one either. Not even that guy, even. But life finds a way   (denofgeek.com) divider line 80
    More: Spiffy, Colin Trevorrow, Michael Crichton  
•       •       •

7221 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 19 Mar 2014 at 9:57 AM (22 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



80 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-19 08:39:40 AM
Makes sense.  The Dr. Wu character left on the boat in the film, so he wasn't around to get chompified.
 
2014-03-19 08:52:34 AM
I was hoping for one-armed Samuel L.. Jackson.
 
2014-03-19 09:18:13 AM
Bring back

www.hollywoodreporter.com

and

movies.mxdwn.com

Traumatized by their childhood experiences, they've become radical anti-dino activists bent on destroying both the animals and the research that allowed their cloning.
 
2014-03-19 09:19:14 AM

Sgt Otter: I was hoping for one-armed Samuel L.. Jackson.


Unfortunately, the two actors I'd have loved to see reprise their roles, Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon) and Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), are both dead.

One could even rationalize a scarred-up Muldoon as having survived the raptor attack by having shot the raptor with the Colt 1911/1911A1 he carries:

www.imfdb.org

But again, they're both dead, so no dice.
 
2014-03-19 09:21:11 AM

Sybarite: Bring back

[www.hollywoodreporter.com image 648x365]

and

[movies.mxdwn.com image 850x409]

Traumatized by their childhood experiences, they've become radical anti-dino activists bent on destroying both the animals and the research that allowed their cloning.


You'd think Arianna Richards would be more traumatized by her experiences with Graboids, Shriekers, and Ass-blasters.

/Especially the Ass-blasters.
 
2014-03-19 09:23:53 AM
I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.
 
2014-03-19 09:25:52 AM

dittybopper: I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.


so you want a Turok movie?
 
2014-03-19 09:37:13 AM

dittybopper: Bob Peck


Contrary to news reports Wayne Knight is still alive!
theurbanalaskan.files.wordpress.com

He has dropped some weight though...
 
2014-03-19 09:41:28 AM

zedster: dittybopper: I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.

so you want a Turok movie?


No, but come on, in all three films there were armed people who were presumably competent with their firearms (Muldoon in JP, Tembo and the InGen security guys in JPII, and the mercenaries in JPIII), and most of them get killed without ever even seriously wounding a dinosaur.  In Muldoon's case, raptor gets the jump on him.  In Tembo's, Nick sabotages his ammo. We don't know about JPIII because the initial action happens off screen, but it's hard to believe that a professional is going to completely miss a target as big as a Spinosaurus, or alternatively that a 20mm wouldn't seriously wound it if it was hit even in a non-vital area (it might still bleed out).

So all I'm saying is "Hey, mix it up a bit."  Maybe have a scene like this real-life heart-stopper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIGqD80N6U  (Warning:  Lion gets shot to death)

Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.
 
2014-03-19 10:11:50 AM

dittybopper: zedster: dittybopper: I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.

so you want a Turok movie?

No, but come on, in all three films there were armed people who were presumably competent with their firearms (Muldoon in JP, Tembo and the InGen security guys in JPII, and the mercenaries in JPIII), and most of them get killed without ever even seriously wounding a dinosaur.  In Muldoon's case, raptor gets the jump on him.  In Tembo's, Nick sabotages his ammo. We don't know about JPIII because the initial action happens off screen, but it's hard to believe that a professional is going to completely miss a target as big as a Spinosaurus, or alternatively that a 20mm wouldn't seriously wound it if it was hit even in a non-vital area (it might still bleed out).

So all I'm saying is "Hey, mix it up a bit."  Maybe have a scene like this real-life heart-stopper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIGqD80N6U  (Warning:  Lion gets shot to death)

Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.


Isn't it something of a Spielberg trope that firearms are ineffective against his "monsters"? If he directs the first movie in a series, you can bet the rest will follow suit, even if he doesn't direct them.

Thinking back, the only instances I can think of where a gun is effectively used against the "monster/bad guy" in a Spielberg movie is when Indiana Jones grabs a German pistol and shoots a single bullet through 3-4 nazis in Last Crusade and when he shoots the swordman in RotLA. Both were done for a sight gag.
 
2014-03-19 10:21:22 AM
Uhhh, this director sounds like he farking gets it. This project just gained so much cred
 
2014-03-19 10:22:06 AM

cgraves67: dittybopper: zedster: dittybopper: I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.

so you want a Turok movie?

No, but come on, in all three films there were armed people who were presumably competent with their firearms (Muldoon in JP, Tembo and the InGen security guys in JPII, and the mercenaries in JPIII), and most of them get killed without ever even seriously wounding a dinosaur.  In Muldoon's case, raptor gets the jump on him.  In Tembo's, Nick sabotages his ammo. We don't know about JPIII because the initial action happens off screen, but it's hard to believe that a professional is going to completely miss a target as big as a Spinosaurus, or alternatively that a 20mm wouldn't seriously wound it if it was hit even in a non-vital area (it might still bleed out).

So all I'm saying is "Hey, mix it up a bit."  Maybe have a scene like this real-life heart-stopper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIGqD80N6U  (Warning:  Lion gets shot to death)

Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

Isn't it something of a Spielberg trope that firearms are ineffective against his "monsters"? If he directs the first movie in a series, you can bet the rest will follow suit, even if he doesn't direct them.

Thinking back, the only instances I can think of where a gun is effectively used against the "monster/bad guy" in a Spielberg movie is when Indiana Jones grabs a German pistol and shoots a single bullet through 3-4 nazis in Last Crusade and when he shoots the swordman in RotLA. Both were done for a sight gag.


Guns were pretty effective against the Nazis in Saving Private Ryan.

/and Lincoln...
 
2014-03-19 10:23:16 AM

dittybopper: Sgt Otter: I was hoping for one-armed Samuel L.. Jackson.

Unfortunately, the two actors I'd have loved to see reprise their roles, Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon) and Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), are both dead.

One could even rationalize a scarred-up Muldoon as having survived the raptor attack by having shot the raptor with the Colt 1911/1911A1 he carries:

[www.imfdb.org image 601x338]

But again, they're both dead, so no dice.


There was a theory that the raptor was not attacking Muldoon but instead was playing with him. Though I can not find a reason for this...

FTFA: "he had a much larger role in the original [Michael Crichton] novel"

Yeah, Wu had a larger part in the novel.... and he was the first to get killed in the pretty awesome Hotel Raptor attack.
 
2014-03-19 10:25:17 AM
Wu?

/cocksucker!
 
2014-03-19 10:26:19 AM
I was in the right place, but it must have BD Wong time.


/came up with that during an SVU marathon
 
2014-03-19 10:26:55 AM

yves0010: dittybopper: Sgt Otter: I was hoping for one-armed Samuel L.. Jackson.

Unfortunately, the two actors I'd have loved to see reprise their roles, Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon) and Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), are both dead.

One could even rationalize a scarred-up Muldoon as having survived the raptor attack by having shot the raptor with the Colt 1911/1911A1 he carries:

[www.imfdb.org image 601x338]

But again, they're both dead, so no dice.

There was a theory that the raptor was not attacking Muldoon but instead was playing with him. Though I can not find a reason for this...

FTFA: "he had a much larger role in the original [Michael Crichton] novel"

Yeah, Wu had a larger part in the novel.... and he was the first to get killed in the pretty awesome Hotel Raptor attack.



i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2014-03-19 10:28:07 AM
I can't wait for this to come on HBO or netflix.

/have small children
//no movies theaters for me
 
2014-03-19 10:28:08 AM

dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.


I saw that Boobies and was like "nah, he isn't really gonna turn this into a gun-debate thread" and sure enough yep.
 
2014-03-19 10:28:40 AM

cgraves67: dittybopper: zedster: dittybopper: I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.

so you want a Turok movie?

No, but come on, in all three films there were armed people who were presumably competent with their firearms (Muldoon in JP, Tembo and the InGen security guys in JPII, and the mercenaries in JPIII), and most of them get killed without ever even seriously wounding a dinosaur.  In Muldoon's case, raptor gets the jump on him.  In Tembo's, Nick sabotages his ammo. We don't know about JPIII because the initial action happens off screen, but it's hard to believe that a professional is going to completely miss a target as big as a Spinosaurus, or alternatively that a 20mm wouldn't seriously wound it if it was hit even in a non-vital area (it might still bleed out).

So all I'm saying is "Hey, mix it up a bit."  Maybe have a scene like this real-life heart-stopper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIGqD80N6U  (Warning:  Lion gets shot to death)

Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

Isn't it something of a Spielberg trope that firearms are ineffective against his "monsters"? If he directs the first movie in a series, you can bet the rest will follow suit, even if he doesn't direct them.

Thinking back, the only instances I can think of where a gun is effectively used against the "monster/bad guy" in a Spielberg movie is when Indiana Jones grabs a German pistol and shoots a single bullet through 3-4 nazis in Last Crusade and when he shoots the swordman in RotLA. Both were done for a sight gag.


Jaws. The M1 was used to explode a compress air tank in Bruce's mouth. But yet... a pistol that put a bullet into the sharks head, looks like into its brain did nothing.
 
2014-03-19 10:29:22 AM

Sybarite: Traumatized by their childhood experiences, they've become radical anti-dino activists bent on destroying both the animals and the research that allowed their cloning.


I bet that would make a way better movie than the one they're actually going to make.
 
2014-03-19 10:29:39 AM

whosits_112: yves0010: dittybopper: Sgt Otter: I was hoping for one-armed Samuel L.. Jackson.

Unfortunately, the two actors I'd have loved to see reprise their roles, Bob Peck (Robert Muldoon) and Pete Postlethwaite (Roland Tembo), are both dead.

One could even rationalize a scarred-up Muldoon as having survived the raptor attack by having shot the raptor with the Colt 1911/1911A1 he carries:

[www.imfdb.org image 601x338]

But again, they're both dead, so no dice.

There was a theory that the raptor was not attacking Muldoon but instead was playing with him. Though I can not find a reason for this...

FTFA: "he had a much larger role in the original [Michael Crichton] novel"

Yeah, Wu had a larger part in the novel.... and he was the first to get killed in the pretty awesome Hotel Raptor attack.


[i1.kym-cdn.com image 320x275]


And he was killing raptors with a rocket launcher! Loved the fact that he survives in the book.
 
2014-03-19 10:37:53 AM

JolobinSmokin: /have small children
//no movies theaters for me


31.media.tumblr.com

Thank you. You don't realize how few and far between people considerate as yourself are.
 
2014-03-19 10:39:34 AM

dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.


Don't worry- Bert Macklin is on the case.

img1.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-03-19 10:40:49 AM

RminusQ: dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

I saw that Boobies and was like "nah, he isn't really gonna turn this into a gun-debate thread" and sure enough yep.


It's not a gun debate.  I'm not arguing about whether they should be legal or not, etc.  I'm arguing that if you have characters in a film who are armed and presumably competent, then it really stretches credibility that in the entire span of 3 films, not a single dinosaur is killed or wounded by one of those people.

First film, OK, one guy isn't good with machines, and the only other armed person gets ambushed by a raptor because he had target-fixation.

Second film?  We've got a professional hunter and his assistant, and a large number of people armed with guns.

Third film?  Professional mercenaries who are appropriately armed.

And none of them manages to so much as wound a dinosaur.

But some tween who couldn't make the gymnastics team manages to kick the ass of one on the high bar.
 
2014-03-19 10:43:10 AM

dittybopper: RminusQ: dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

I saw that Boobies and was like "nah, he isn't really gonna turn this into a gun-debate thread" and sure enough yep.

It's not a gun debate.  I'm not arguing about whether they should be legal or not, etc.  I'm arguing that if you have characters in a film who are armed and presumably competent, then it really stretches credibility that in the entire span of 3 films, not a single dinosaur is killed or wounded by one of those people.

First film, OK, one guy isn't good with machines, and the only other armed person gets ambushed by a raptor because he had target-fixation.

Second film?  We've got a professional hunter and his assistant, and a large number of people armed with guns.

Third film?  Professional mercenaries who are appropriately armed.

And none of them manages to so much as wound a dinosaur.

But some tween who couldn't make the gymnastics team manages to kick the ass of one on the high bar.


Yeah, it does seem to fly in the face of logic. I mean, they should have at least mixed it up. But I guess they don't want to show preteens getting chomped on by dinosaurs.
 
2014-03-19 10:46:06 AM

whosits_112: dittybopper: RminusQ: dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

I saw that Boobies and was like "nah, he isn't really gonna turn this into a gun-debate thread" and sure enough yep.

It's not a gun debate.  I'm not arguing about whether they should be legal or not, etc.  I'm arguing that if you have characters in a film who are armed and presumably competent, then it really stretches credibility that in the entire span of 3 films, not a single dinosaur is killed or wounded by one of those people.

First film, OK, one guy isn't good with machines, and the only other armed person gets ambushed by a raptor because he had target-fixation.

Second film?  We've got a professional hunter and his assistant, and a large number of people armed with guns.

Third film?  Professional mercenaries who are appropriately armed.

And none of them manages to so much as wound a dinosaur.

But some tween who couldn't make the gymnastics team manages to kick the ass of one on the high bar.


Yeah, it does seem to fly in the face of logic.


That illogical inconsistency totally removed my suspension of disbelief I'd maintained watching the movie about dinosaurs being recreated from a mosquito in amber. You know, because it was so not believable?
 
2014-03-19 10:48:32 AM

dittybopper: RminusQ: dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

I saw that Boobies and was like "nah, he isn't really gonna turn this into a gun-debate thread" and sure enough yep.

It's not a gun debate.  I'm not arguing about whether they should be legal or not, etc.  I'm arguing that if you have characters in a film who are armed and presumably competent, then it really stretches credibility that in the entire span of 3 films, not a single dinosaur is killed or wounded by one of those people.

First film, OK, one guy isn't good with machines, and the only other armed person gets ambushed by a raptor because he had target-fixation.

Second film?  We've got a professional hunter and his assistant, and a large number of people armed with guns.

Third film?  Professional mercenaries who are appropriately armed.

And none of them manages to so much as wound a dinosaur.

But some tween who couldn't make the gymnastics team manages to kick the ass of one on the high bar.


Read the book. Muldoon had SSM in stock. Also I think in the novel, Crichton explained why they didn't have weapons available when they needed them. This was to increase suspense since it's scarier to have an unarmed human against a dinosaur than to have humans blowing them away with those projectiles I mentioned.
 
2014-03-19 10:55:10 AM

yves0010: Jaws. The M1 was used to explode a compress air tank in Bruce's mouth. But yet... a pistol that put a bullet into the sharks head, looks like into its brain did nothing.


Shark has a relatively small brain.  Hard to actually hit, even if you point it in the approximately right area.
 
2014-03-19 10:57:08 AM

EyeballKid: whosits_112: dittybopper: RminusQ: dittybopper: Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

I saw that Boobies and was like "nah, he isn't really gonna turn this into a gun-debate thread" and sure enough yep.

It's not a gun debate.  I'm not arguing about whether they should be legal or not, etc.  I'm arguing that if you have characters in a film who are armed and presumably competent, then it really stretches credibility that in the entire span of 3 films, not a single dinosaur is killed or wounded by one of those people.

First film, OK, one guy isn't good with machines, and the only other armed person gets ambushed by a raptor because he had target-fixation.

Second film?  We've got a professional hunter and his assistant, and a large number of people armed with guns.

Third film?  Professional mercenaries who are appropriately armed.

And none of them manages to so much as wound a dinosaur.

But some tween who couldn't make the gymnastics team manages to kick the ass of one on the high bar.


Yeah, it does seem to fly in the face of logic.

That illogical inconsistency totally removed my suspension of disbelief I'd maintained watching the movie about dinosaurs being recreated from a mosquito in amber. You know, because it was so not believable?



i1255.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-19 10:57:12 AM

dittybopper: yves0010: Jaws. The M1 was used to explode a compress air tank in Bruce's mouth. But yet... a pistol that put a bullet into the sharks head, looks like into its brain did nothing.

Shark has a relatively small brain.  Hard to actually hit, even if you point it in the approximately right area.


Possible... But I would think a 25 foot shark would have a slightly larger brain in its larger head. But then again, I do not know much about Shark Biology. So it is possible that Brody missed his shot. Heck, if I recall correctly, he missed point blank a few times.
 
2014-03-19 11:17:45 AM

yves0010: dittybopper: yves0010: Jaws. The M1 was used to explode a compress air tank in Bruce's mouth. But yet... a pistol that put a bullet into the sharks head, looks like into its brain did nothing.

Shark has a relatively small brain.  Hard to actually hit, even if you point it in the approximately right area.

Possible... But I would think a 25 foot shark would have a slightly larger brain in its larger head. But then again, I do not know much about Shark Biology. So it is possible that Brody missed his shot. Heck, if I recall correctly, he missed point blank a few times.


Well, he's a cop firing a revolver, almost certainly a .38 Special (IMFDB says it's a Smith and Wesson Model 15).

Given it's a moving target, and he's not an expert in shark anatomy, and the fact that sharks have relatively small brains, it's not wonder he missed the brain.

That's what I'd expect.  Actually hitting it and killing the shark would be an amazingly lucky shot.
 
2014-03-19 11:24:32 AM

EyeballKid: That illogical inconsistency totally removed my suspension of disbelief I'd maintained watching the movie about dinosaurs being recreated from a mosquito in amber. You know, because it was so not believable?


We can't do it today, or for the foreseeable future, for that matter.

That doesn't mean it's not technically possible, with advanced enough techniques.  Especially, if you use DNA sequences from other species to "fill in the gaps".  And you do a little jiggery-pokery in the background to get them to "look right".

Hell, it's theoretically possible to breed theropods back into existence using chickens.  It would probably take thousands of generations, but it's certainly possible.
 
2014-03-19 11:27:16 AM

dittybopper: Well, he's a cop firing a revolver, almost certainly a .38 Special


Given this statement it would strain credibility if he actually did hit something.
 
2014-03-19 11:28:51 AM

verbaltoxin: This was to increase suspense since it's scarier to have an unarmed human against a dinosaur than to have humans blowing them away with those projectiles I mentioned.


It's also increases the suspense by showing, "Well crap, even guns can't stop them. We're screwed." I mean, that's kind of why most of the movies are spent running away from dinosaurs, not finding ways to attack them.

"I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but look... Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?"

Going against each other in a battle of wits vs primitive force is a lot more interesting than, "LOL we have guns, we win!"

If you want to watch a movie where guns win, watch a zombie movie, or a war movie, or 1000 other movies where guns save the day.
 
2014-03-19 11:28:55 AM

verbaltoxin: Read the book. Muldoon had SSM in stock. Also I think in the novel, Crichton explained why they didn't have weapons available when they needed them. This was to increase suspense since it's scarier to have an unarmed human against a dinosaur than to have humans blowing them away with those projectiles I mentioned.


I read the book.  In fact, read it before the movie came out.

I actually accept and agree with the idea of zoos (which is what JP is) keeping the last-resort, lethal weaponry under lock and key.  Because they are rarely, if ever, needed.  But if you pull them out because you do need them, by people who know how to use them, they should in fact work, at least *ONCE*.
 
2014-03-19 11:29:26 AM
Now we call this film The Wong Dwellers.


/Nothing's obscure on Fark!
 
2014-03-19 11:34:39 AM

dittybopper: It's not a gun debate.


But it is now a thread about guns. And how much you think the people carrying them in the movie should look better. Almost like someone pushing an agenda...
 
2014-03-19 11:41:48 AM

Car_Ramrod: verbaltoxin: This was to increase suspense since it's scarier to have an unarmed human against a dinosaur than to have humans blowing them away with those projectiles I mentioned.

It's also increases the suspense by showing, "Well crap, even guns can't stop them. We're screwed." I mean, that's kind of why most of the movies are spent running away from dinosaurs, not finding ways to attack them.

"I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but look... Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?"

Going against each other in a battle of wits vs primitive force is a lot more interesting than, "LOL we have guns, we win!"

If you want to watch a movie where guns win, watch a zombie movie, or a war movie, or 1000 other movies where guns save the day.


So why not make spears?

They won't help against something like a Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaur*, but certainly it would help against the smaller predators like the raptors.  All you have to do is whittle a stout branch into a point on one end.

Not a perfect weapon, but at least it's better than *NOTHING*.

And don't tell me you'd go into an area like that without so much as a pocket knife.

It's not just about *GUNS*:  In fact, I can't think of a single dinosaur directly killed by human action in any of the Jurassic Park films.

This is where a low-budget films like the Tremors series are superior to the big, expensive blockbusters:  At least in those films, the creatures are mortal and have weaknesses the humans can figure out and exploit.  Plus, "Ass-blaster blitzkrieg" is fun to say.


*Then again, maybe they would:  Inner mouth parts are sensitive.  A predator getting wounded in the mouth when attempting to eat something is going to think twice about eating it.  That's why some putative prey species have spines to this very day.
 
2014-03-19 11:48:30 AM

Sgt Otter: I was hoping for one-armed Samuel L.. Jackson.


...
 
2014-03-19 11:49:52 AM

Mentalpatient87: dittybopper: It's not a gun debate.

But it is now a thread about guns. And how much you think the people carrying them in the movie should look better. Almost like someone pushing an agenda...


No it isn't.  It's a thread about how the humans can't kill the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park films.  Look at my post above this one.  Why not make spears if you don't have guns?  Or a stout club.

Hell, a small group of people back-to-back in a circle with long pointed sticks pointing outward would be a formidable opponent for most of the species in those films, and it might actually make raptors think twice because of the relative size of the opponent is larger.

I just want to see a human kill a dinosaur.  Doesn't have to be with a gun.  Hell, it would be better if one wasn't available, and people had to figure out how to defend themselves.  That would add to the suspense.  And it could be a totally self-defense, kill the dinosaur or be eaten situation.  I'm sure no rational could possibly have a problem with that kind of a scenario.

Just once, to prove me wrong.
 
2014-03-19 11:54:52 AM

dittybopper: verbaltoxin: Read the book. Muldoon had SSM in stock. Also I think in the novel, Crichton explained why they didn't have weapons available when they needed them. This was to increase suspense since it's scarier to have an unarmed human against a dinosaur than to have humans blowing them away with those projectiles I mentioned.

I read the book.  In fact, read it before the movie came out.

I actually accept and agree with the idea of zoos (which is what JP is) keeping the last-resort, lethal weaponry under lock and key.  Because they are rarely, if ever, needed.  But if you pull them out because you do need them, by people who know how to use them, they should in fact work, at least *ONCE*.


I understand but that's a difference in creative opinion. I think Spielberg realized if at some point Grant and Muldoon had whipped out the guns and blasted the Raptors, we wouldn't have seen the much cooler and 100x more awesome scene with the Tyrannosaurus wasting the Raptors.

dittybopper: It's not just about *GUNS*: In fact, I can't think of a single dinosaur directly killed by human action in any of the Jurassic Park films.


This is where market groups and MPAA ratings come into play. If the violence is incidental rather than directed, it's a solid PG-13, which is what Spielberg wanted to make sure Jurassic Park pulled in as wide a net as possible.

He was right, btw.
 
2014-03-19 12:02:10 PM

dittybopper: Car_Ramrod: verbaltoxin: This was to increase suspense since it's scarier to have an unarmed human against a dinosaur than to have humans blowing them away with those projectiles I mentioned.

It's also increases the suspense by showing, "Well crap, even guns can't stop them. We're screwed." I mean, that's kind of why most of the movies are spent running away from dinosaurs, not finding ways to attack them.

"I don't want to jump to any conclusions, but look... Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?"

Going against each other in a battle of wits vs primitive force is a lot more interesting than, "LOL we have guns, we win!"

If you want to watch a movie where guns win, watch a zombie movie, or a war movie, or 1000 other movies where guns save the day.

So why not make spears?

They won't help against something like a Spinosaurus or Tyrannosaur*, but certainly it would help against the smaller predators like the raptors.  All you have to do is whittle a stout branch into a point on one end.

Not a perfect weapon, but at least it's better than *NOTHING*.

And don't tell me you'd go into an area like that without so much as a pocket knife.

It's not just about *GUNS*:  In fact, I can't think of a single dinosaur directly killed by human action in any of the Jurassic Park films.


When are they going to do the spear scene? When they're in the cars while everything is hunky dory, or while they're climbing over the giant electric fence, or when they're in the kitchen, or climbing through the ducts?

As I said, most of the movies are spent running away from the dinosaurs, and most of it successfully. The movie is more about, "holy shiat we farked up, let's get out of here" than "we are the dominant species now, time to show them who's boss." Maybe I'm basing my thoughts too much on the first one, because that's the only one I know by heart, but I don't think anything is lost by not showing them killing dinos. This isn't Predator or Aliens, or any of the movies where you need to murder the monsters in order to reach victory.
 
2014-03-19 12:02:40 PM

Sybarite: Bring back

[www.hollywoodreporter.com image 648x365]

and

[movies.mxdwn.com image 850x409]

Traumatized by their childhood experiences, they've become radical anti-dino activists bent on destroying both the animals and the research that allowed their cloning.


That kid was really good in The Pacific.
 
2014-03-19 12:13:45 PM
i've wondered about the ratio of dinosaurs killing humans to humans killing dinosaurs in the JP movies for a while.  it must be a spielberg thing...like he doesn't want to show humans hurting dinosaurs because he wants it to appeal to kids and it's almost like the dinos are the good guys really.

the first dino we sorta see in the first JP is actually killed with guns after it attacks a worker trying to release it into the holding pen (shooooot heerrrrrrr!).  the rest of the human deaths in the movies are almost payback for that.  like those deaths are now justified because we drew first blood.

of course, a child IS allowed to kill a dino (via gymnastics) because...well...i dunno...it's a fair fight?  who knows?
 
2014-03-19 12:14:26 PM
IS IT DODGSON

DO WE HAVE DODGSON HERE
 
2014-03-19 12:15:40 PM

dittybopper: No it isn't. It's a thread about how the humans can't kill the dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park films.


dittybopper: almost certainly a .38 Special (IMFDB says it's a Smith and Wesson Model 15).


Yet you've found some way to link about guns some more.

dittybopper: Look at my post above this one.


The one posted 15 minutes after I posted that? Where you tried to hide your blatant intent by hashing some shiat together real quick about spears?

I'm just saying, you've got this habit lately of using some tiny detail (like the finger position of a pretty model) to steer the conversation toward guns. Like you've decided to be the One Man Firearm PR Department. You're quickly becoming the Quantum Apostrophe of guns. And I like guns.
 
2014-03-19 12:20:29 PM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: cgraves67: dittybopper: zedster: dittybopper: I have one question, though:  Will guns actually work in Jurassic Park IV?

There isn't a single scene in any of the Jurassic Park films where a dinosaur of any description is killed, or even noticeably wounded, by a firearm.

so you want a Turok movie?

No, but come on, in all three films there were armed people who were presumably competent with their firearms (Muldoon in JP, Tembo and the InGen security guys in JPII, and the mercenaries in JPIII), and most of them get killed without ever even seriously wounding a dinosaur.  In Muldoon's case, raptor gets the jump on him.  In Tembo's, Nick sabotages his ammo. We don't know about JPIII because the initial action happens off screen, but it's hard to believe that a professional is going to completely miss a target as big as a Spinosaurus, or alternatively that a 20mm wouldn't seriously wound it if it was hit even in a non-vital area (it might still bleed out).

So all I'm saying is "Hey, mix it up a bit."  Maybe have a scene like this real-life heart-stopper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEIGqD80N6U  (Warning:  Lion gets shot to death)

Just so that we don't have yet another "armed people get killed, unarmed people survive" film.

Isn't it something of a Spielberg trope that firearms are ineffective against his "monsters"? If he directs the first movie in a series, you can bet the rest will follow suit, even if he doesn't direct them.

Thinking back, the only instances I can think of where a gun is effectively used against the "monster/bad guy" in a Spielberg movie is when Indiana Jones grabs a German pistol and shoots a single bullet through 3-4 nazis in Last Crusade and when he shoots the swordman in RotLA. Both were done for a sight gag.

Guns were pretty effective against the Nazis in Saving Private Ryan.

/and Lincoln...


dont be silly, there weren't any Nazi's in Lincoln... well... y'know, I fell asleep so I don't really know actually. but, if Abe can handle Vampires and Zombies, he can certainly handle some Nazi's
 
2014-03-19 12:20:48 PM

jermadem: i've wondered about the ratio of dinosaurs killing humans to humans killing dinosaurs in the JP movies for a while.  it must be a spielberg thing...like he doesn't want to show humans hurting dinosaurs because he wants it to appeal to kids and it's almost like the dinos are the good guys really.

the first dino we sorta see in the first JP is actually killed with guns after it attacks a worker trying to release it into the holding pen (shooooot heerrrrrrr!).  the rest of the human deaths in the movies are almost payback for that.  like those deaths are now justified because we drew first blood.

of course, a child IS allowed to kill a dino (via gymnastics) because...well...i dunno...it's a fair fight?  who knows?


I think it's more that we put these dinosaurs into this position. We took them out of extinction, created them, put them in a zoo, and did a crappy job of maintaining that zoo. Nothing about that is the fault of the dinos. They're just doing what they do. Killing them after all that seems mean.

And I don't think the gymnastics killed the raptor, just knocked it out the window... which it could probably just jump right back into, but whatevs.
 
2014-03-19 12:21:24 PM

Cerebral Knievel: if Abe can handle Vampires and Zombies, he can certainly handle some Nazi's


Well, he is from Illinois.
 
2014-03-19 12:27:27 PM

Mentalpatient87: I'm just saying, you've got this habit lately of using some tiny detail (like the finger position of a pretty model) to steer the conversation toward guns. Like you've decided to be the One Man Firearm PR Department. You're quickly becoming the Quantum Apostrophe of guns. And I like guns.


He reminds me of a friend who is very much into firearms and ham radio: he's always saying, "Well if they just shot the guy," as if that makes for a good story, when 9/10 times it ruins all tension and ergo, the story.

When having guns makes the story work:

- Everyone else has them too. (War movies, action movies)

- The hero is pursued by a bunch of villains with guns, and gets one himself at some point. (Die Hard, most Bruce Willis action movies, and a lot of Jason Statham's movies)

- The monster is weak enough to kill with guns. (Zombie films)

- The gun is central to the conflict (Murder mysteries, Agatha Christie and Mickie Spillane type stuff)

When it doesn't work:

Oh look, a T-Rex. Shoot it! Movie over.
 
Displayed 50 of 80 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report