Jurassic World - That final scene (spoiler warning)

TakerFoxx

New member
Jan 27, 2011
1,125
0
0
inu-kun said:
Apperantly the little brother is supposed to be autistic because... he's a nerd? Remember kids, smart people are autistic so you should not strive to be like them.
Eh, not because of that alone. I mean, I'm on the spectrum, so I was able to recognize some of his mannerisms as being those usually associated with Asperger's.
 

theevilgenius60

New member
Jun 28, 2011
475
0
0
Loved the movie, reminded me of the original back when I was a kid. My only complaint is a personal one to me. Bryce Dallas Howard's character, at least in the first half of the film, reminded me of a boss I had that I HATED. Kinda disrupts the film when your rooting for the protagonist to get painfully killed and eaten.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,580
1
3
Charcharo said:
Meh. Good scene.

No one will ever film a modern army slaughtering dinosaurs without casualties or having a tank show just how inferior a mutant dino is to 21st century warfare... and how nice crunching sounds can be!

I wont get that. Ever it seems.

Was a good scene though. At least it made you guys happy.
It's probably because it would be like filming the military slaughtering a family of elephants- they'd end up just animals.
 

Link_to_Future

Good Dog. Best Friend.
Nov 19, 2009
4,107
0
0
Didn't read this thread. If this has been mentioned, I apologize.

But dammit, I embarrassed myself in the theater when Rex burst through the Spinosaurus skelly. Full standing ovation. Alone.

Maybe I'm the only one who was pissed at JP3 when Rex was killed so easily by this nobody dino who had never been mentioned in the series before this moment. Even though a bunch of scientists proving that they can engineer genetics so well never mentioned that they can create these super carnivores that destroy others based only on stakes that we have seen in previous movies...

That moment was beautiful.

As for the tag team, it was glorious and dumb and I loved every second of it. Had I seen this movie five years ago, I would have hated it and decried it as a blight on the franchise. Now that I actually enjoy dumb entertainment and can appreciate the absurdity, I loved it entirely and whole heartedly.
 

Johnny Impact

New member
Aug 6, 2008
1,528
0
0
knight of some random number said:
Just got back from the cinema after seeing the film tonight.

I came to see dinosaurs fuck shit up and I got just that.

Also I loved the film throwbacks, the goggles from the first film, the jeeps. Heck even the skeletons on the floor of the old visitor center, I swear those were the remains of the raptors that the T-Rex killed at the end of Jurassic Park.

Overall I loved it. And I loved the final scene as well, my inner 12 year old was screaming with joy, the way the T-rex walked out as if to say, "right who's the cheeky fucker who thinks he owns this joint"
I know, right? Same here. Whatever absurdities the grownup in me might have spotted throughout, my inner ten-year old was like, "Yeah, I-Rex, you're smart and mean. But you're gonna lose. Wanna know why? Because Tyrannosaurus Fuckin' Rex, that's why."
croc3629 said:
The only way I can see Jurassic World now is as a coming of age story for the Indominus Rex, with a tragic ending.

I feel like the movie could have been interesting if they'd gone with more of a Frankenstein angle.
I thought the same thing! I was expecting it to be *really* smart, like chimps or even people. Then they could have had it learning sign language, asking why it was kept in a cage, realizing promises of freedom were lies, that humans would always be terrified of it, and going on a rage-fueled rampage against its creators. Given the retarded comic-book "magically-gains-the-best-abilities-of-all-its-component-creatures" thing they were doing, I was expecting the big revelation to be that it had human DNA. Thence to "Holy shit, it's as smart as we are! You thought raptors were smart for accidentally negotiating a doorknob? Ha! I-Rex has figured out our security protocols!"
Charcharo said:
Meh. Good scene.

No one will ever film a modern army slaughtering dinosaurs without casualties or having a tank show just how inferior a mutant dino is to 21st century warfare... and how nice crunching sounds can be!

I wont get that. Ever it seems.
Yeah, I'd like to see well-trained and equipped humans be a tad more effective in a lot of movies. It's a staple of films like this that one monster can always overwhelm a Special Forces platoon. Annoys the hell out of me.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Charcharo said:
Because I have had it of stupid monster movies where monsters illogically beat humans?

I want the opposite. I want to see the slaughter that WOULD happen IRL. If not that, then NOT presenting dinos as monsters, but the animals that they were...
Well, the problem is that they didn't call in the army. They called in mercenaries, such as Epic Beard Man who causally blows away a pteradactyl in flight. If it HAD been an airforce of military choppers focusing on the complete annihilation of an enemy, the island would be on FIRE and everything non-human would be extinct again. In this case, though, it was hired guns by the company.

Now, this is still a professional outfit of men with paramilitary hardware. They're still a reasonable hazard, moreso than a hunting team from Time Safari Inc. What happened when they got all their gear in order and found out their target was not only a big monster but a giant fucking raptor-hybrid who just turned one of their big assets against them? They opened fire. This was a perfectly-realistic response AND to that, Indy cut and ran. The monster of the movie understood its mortality and leapt to preserve it, taking damage along the way.

The REAL question is whether or not the small-scale danger, the Raptors, were realistic or not in the context of the movie world. My thinking is YES, but only because they were specifically designed to do what these men were doing: Going to war. Months of training, months of accelerated learning to coordinate and hunt, while being much smaller than Indy and it being dark while everyone's opening fire first on the big one. They were in night vision, but the Raptors were - as you would notice - a good mesh with the foliage in terms of their skin color, plus everything's tinted green with night vision anyway.

Now, it's true that the men were trained for ANY dinosaur as part of the company's requirements. Epic Bear Man shows that they're ALSO a good shot. Seriously, he did that on a whim, compensating for distance and prevaling wind, so sharpshooting was definitely in their background. Against any of the NORMAL dinosaurs and probably a good firefight against Indy since she's so large, sure. Call in the unexpected help of trained Raptors and you have the same kinda' problem soldiers had in Vietnam: A group of home-turfers taking you apart with tactics you didn't expect. I noticed they were extremely cutthroat.

So, against military firepower, Indy WOULD be dead, but Indy didn't FACE the military firepower. She RAN from it.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Charcharo said:
You raise some reasonable points and I admit I havent watched the movie (and wont be able to for at least a month). I have read its storyline though.

Thing is, even low quality mercs with small arms should win this battle. Expensive ceramics/titanium and Kevlar cant really still offer immunity to AK 47 fire, no way should some (modified) dino skin stop several men firing at it. It should die. Painfully and slowly maybe, after killing some of them, but die nonetheless.

Why cant they bring at least some armor to the island though? You dont need much to completely stop any dinosaur. Low quality WW2 tanks and old Soviet APCs from the 70s are cheap as hell. And they are also invulnerable to anything a dino can muster. Just break the Indominus's neck on impact and give some cheesy one liner on how you did not even feel the crunching against superior armor... or be merciful and fire low grade HE munitions from the Iraq war at it...

The idiots that made the park seem to have enough money. To be fair, for an old T-55, even I might have enough money...

As for the deinonicuses.. sorry, I cant take that seriously. Animals, especially stupid ones (in comparison to dogs for example) have no place on the modern battlefield.
Of course, naturally I do not know what kind of bullets they were using, nor what the effect of bullets on an animal we can't test for normally (Unless you're the Mythbusters, perhaps). That much on the details may be a Hollywood Handwave. As for why not something heavier, I blame InGen itself. They're not competent people. They're the idiots who made this monster. Hell, they're the idiots who broke every rule in the book with modifying DNA in the first place and they do not learn from their mistakes. The idea of training Raptors for combat zones is a dumb idea because of the inherent hazards Chris Pratt is hitting 'em over the head with, as is. So, the possibly unrealistic learning curve of the dinosaurs is probably the company's fault, as it always has has been. The lack of armored cars (in case they weren't allowed to HAVE tanks) is a 'bad call' on the company's end too. It's not a movie you take entirely seriously, but I won't call it implausible in-universe. The stupidity of business and people IN businesses is a well-known trope for movies and real life.

Now, the idea of a bunch of APES with enhanced intellect overpowering the actual military... THAT'S bullshit.
 

croc3629

New member
Mar 20, 2011
99
0
0
cojo965 said:
croc3629 said:
The only way I can see Jurassic World now is as a coming of age story for the Indominus Rex, with a tragic ending.

I feel like the movie could have been interesting if they'd gone with more of a Frankenstein angle.
Could you go into more detail please?
I feel like Jurassic World could have benefitted from making the I-Rex just as much of a character as any of the humans.

The movie paid lip service to how I-Rex's isolated environment contributed to its violent nature, but the great focus of the movie was in how it had to be controlled or put down, without too much reflection on the feelings of the I-Rex itself. The I-Rex was rebelling against its perceived captivity, and nobody around had even realised this was an issue until it was too late to do anything to change it.

I feel like putting more narrative focus on the tragedy of the whole thing, giving the I-Rex life only to treat it like a thing, and then destroying it when it gets its first taste of true freedom, would have made for some powerful moments in the film. It feels like our super dino's mish-mash nature only really served to make it a super monster to up the stakes when it comes to confrontation, instead of acting as even more of a tool to further its isolationism, to see it realise just how different it is from the other dinosaurs around it. From its intelligence which puts it above the more animalistic dinosaurs, to its various abilities which allow it to slowly realise that it is an alpha predator in this environment, and it never has to be put in a cage again. (Until the military is finally called in and it gets a cruise missile to the face)

That whole 'figuring out its place in the food chain' line, they could have shown us that. Shown us the I-Rex trying to interact with other dinosaurs, and how badly it all goes for the dinosaurs it does come across, because its only interaction with other living things has been through violence. Hesitant at first, but then becoming more and more assured in its power among the other dinosaurs, and then the humans, when they come to hunt it down. The I-Rex was not meant to act like an animal like the other dinos, so expanding its range of interaction would fit with its 'monster' representation.

The whole world was against the I-Rex and it reacted appropriately from its own point of view, a consequence of being smart enough to wonder what was beyond the walls of its cage. Teen rebellion, Jurassic style.

T-Rex/Raptor tag team is cool in a way that appeals immensely to my sense of dumb fun, but I feel like not establishing more of a connection with the I-Rex was a missed opportunity. It could have been more than just a monster, like Frankenstein's monster was more than just a collection of body parts, and turned this movie into part tragedy, part monster flick.

Those are my general feelings on the matter anyway. I don't hate the movie though, just think it could have done with a bit more to chew on alongside the dinosaur action.

Johnny Impact said:
I was expecting the big revelation to be that it had human DNA. Thence to "Holy shit, it's as smart as we are!
That actually could have been a pretty good twist. I mean, real science was already chucked out the window for the film, so why not go all out with just slapping human DNA in there.

It would even contribute to why the makeup of the creature had to remain a secret. How would people feel about the dinosaur if they knew it was also part human? Might not look good for the Jurassic World brand if that was leaked.
 

dragoongfa

It's the Krossopolypse
Apr 21, 2009
200
0
0
All I wanted was a repeat of the T-Rex carnage scene from TLW but this time with raptors and pterodactyls and T-rex and infighting and shot down helicopters and...

At least I got pterodactyls and some raptors.
 

the December King

Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
1,580
1
3
Charcharo said:
the December King said:
Charcharo said:
Meh. Good scene.

No one will ever film a modern army slaughtering dinosaurs without casualties or having a tank show just how inferior a mutant dino is to 21st century warfare... and how nice crunching sounds can be!

I wont get that. Ever it seems.

Was a good scene though. At least it made you guys happy.
It's probably because it would be like filming the military slaughtering a family of elephants- they'd end up just animals.
Because I have had it of stupid monster movies where monsters illogically beat humans?

I want the opposite. I want to see the slaughter that WOULD happen IRL. If not that, then NOT presenting dinos as monsters, but the animals that they were...
Fair enough, I understand. You like the idea of the military butchering animals, which sounds horrific to me- and, in a horror movie, that might just be the point.

I personally enjoy seeing monsters defeating humanity, because in real life we emerged as the dominant species around here a looooong time ago, and aside from viruses/diseases and the occasional isolated shark/bear/big cat/crocodile attack on, at most, small groups, nothing threatens humanity except, you know, ourselves. And I find that terribly boring.

I do agree with you on more realistic portrayals of human aggression/resistance with more of a degree of plausibility; but as you say, it can often come off as, at the least, far-fetched, and that the monster has some sort of supernatural invulnerabilities, or at least some very thick plot armour.
 

moggett88

New member
May 2, 2013
184
0
0
I enjoyed the film as a whole, but my immersion was almost irreparably broken pretty early on as soon as they mentioned the I. Rex's tracking implant...If it had a tracking implant that they had no reason to believe it could tear out, why would they track it using infra red while it was in the cage? The whole thing could have been avoided if they went "wait, where is it, I can't see it! Oh wait, I'll just check its' tracker. Oh, there it is, guess it can camouflage, huh."
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,257
0
0
Seen it a few hours ago, and yes, I loved every second of that scene. It kinda makes sense in the context of the film, but my God it still manages to be wonderfully over-the-top. I think my favourite part besides the awesome that is the kinda team up was the way the camera followed the Humans but still made the focus seem to be on the dinosaurs destroying everything.

Also, that ending man, the fight couldn't end in any better way.