Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Sea Skimmer »

biostem wrote:I can't imagine that it'd be that much harder to take down a dinosaur than it would for some of the larger animals people have hunted. As another person noted, it'd take multiple coincidental/compounded failures/sabotage in order to place all the humans running the place into such a disadvantaged position.

I wonder how situations would play out, if the park simply kept a game warden aloft, armed with a high powered rifle/machine gun, AND the skill to reliably hit targets, in a helicopter. Or institute some sort of passive safety system, where the fenced in areas are layered with shutters, which must have power applied in order to keep them open, and which shut when certain emergency buttons/alarms are pressed.
That would be expensive and complex. Really the passive solution would seem very simple. Use a moat instead of a fence for the big dinos. They aren't going to jump that far, and you could slope the inner side down so they don't injure themselves falling in, provide ramps so they can get back out if they do. Many Zoos already do this. You could then see the animals more clearly too! Sure it'd require more land, but who cares? I mean if you really had dino's in a park you could charge so much money it just wouldn't matter, and you wouldn't want to build anywhere with expensive land anyway.

Moats are mentioned in the Jurassic Park book, I forget on the movie. Nothing can really fail with a proper moat with concrete walls, and the width wouldn't have to be all that wide. Just deep and with a strongly reinforced 'viewer' side. Such a thing would be more expensive then a electric fence, and hard to build in certain terrain, and not using them 100% makes sense in the book going back to the 'cost conscious' mentality expressed in the work. But for movie number FOUR? People would figure this out after the first couple disasters! Though in fairness I don't know if this is meant to be a continuity, has that been said?

For the smaller dino's you'd just put them in a pit probably, and one bigger and deeper then the veleciraptor pen shown in the original movie which was just dumb. It looked expensive to build and wasn't passively safe, and you couldn't see the damn animals, and it was simply an unsuitable habitat as they clearly couldn't have had enough space to run around naturally at anything like full speed and be remotely healthy. Everything was against it. If this created visibility issues you could have grade level viewing windows protected by steel bars. Which is something zoos also do, though most animals simply wont attack heavy glass or lexan anyway so you don't need bars. Its not that the animals would break the material, but just if they attack it they'd scratch it up, and it'd be expensive to fix. So bars may or may not be needed. And no way are raptors of 1000lb or less going to break heavy steel bars. Steel does not work that way /morbo!
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Terralthra »

Moats were recommended by Muldoon and rejected by Hammond, as one of his long string of poor decisions with respect to dangerous wild animals.
User avatar
cosmicalstorm
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1642
Joined: 2008-02-14 09:35am

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by cosmicalstorm »

Obviously the dinos would be gunned down. I suspect that ordinary rifles would do. Or AK-47's.
Anyway it would be strange if a movie was really thought through with regards to plausibility.
The Hobbit should have ended one minute after they encounter the first 3 meter tall Troll with huge muscles and armor.
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Tribble »

In the novel there were moats, and Grant and the kids had to go through one to get to a building. Apparently they didn't have one for the T-rexes (perhaps due to Hammond's interference), and the raptors didn't have one because they were being stored in a temporary area.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
dragon
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4151
Joined: 2004-09-23 04:42pm

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by dragon »

well the reviews are a bit negative

link
"There are very few problems that cannot be solved by the suitable application of photon torpedoes
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Tribble wrote:In the novel there were moats, and Grant and the kids had to go through one to get to a building. Apparently they didn't have one for the T-rexes (perhaps due to Hammond's interference), and the raptors didn't have one because they were being stored in a temporary area.
The river fucked things up as well. They didn't count on the adult T-Rex being able and willing to swim and/or walk in a river deep enough to be up to his eyes and nostrils.

If Book-Hammond hadn't been so obsessed with getting staff numbers down through automation, they could have simply kept the T-Rex and other predators in one area, then have crews take people out in gas- and electric-powered vehicles through the herbivore areas safari-style.

On Jurassic World -

I've got some mixed feelings about this. I just watched the original Jurassic Park again yesterday, and it holds up really well aside from Show-Malcolm's arguments and the bad park design. I'm hoping that doesn't make me judge the new movie unfairly.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
FaxModem1
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7700
Joined: 2002-10-30 06:40pm
Location: In a dark reflection of a better world

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by FaxModem1 »

Well, we have a reason why the MURDERSAURUS REX was made, even though it's a blatantly stupid idea.
Spoiler
An InGen board member wants to use Raptors for military applications, and so he collaborated with Dr. Wu to make this new monster so that is would run amok on the island, causing a huge incident, so that the trained military raptors could take it down and be shown as a great success story worldwide on how dinosaurs are the weapons of the future.
Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
Image
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Adam Reynolds »

FaxModem1 wrote:Well, we have a reason why the MURDERSAURUS REX was made, even though it's a blatantly stupid idea.
Spoiler
An InGen board member wants to use Raptors for military applications, and so he collaborated with Dr. Wu to make this new monster so that is would run amok on the island, causing a huge incident, so that the trained military raptors could take it down and be shown as a great success story worldwide on how dinosaurs are the weapons of the future.
Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
And I thought the first Jurassic Park movie had a fairly stupid plot. That is just plain bad.
User avatar
atg
Jedi Master
Posts: 1418
Joined: 2005-04-20 09:23pm
Location: Adelaide, Australia

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by atg »

FaxModem1 wrote:Well, we have a reason why the MURDERSAURUS REX was made, even though it's a blatantly stupid idea.
Spoiler
An InGen board member wants to use Raptors for military applications, and so he collaborated with Dr. Wu to make this new monster so that is would run amok on the island, causing a huge incident, so that the trained military raptors could take it down and be shown as a great success story worldwide on how dinosaurs are the weapons of the future.
Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds.
Spoiler
Did you get that from watching the movie? I saw it last night and there were several mentions of needing 'bigger, bad-er, more dangerous' dino's every few years to re-ignite public interest in the park. Specifically one of the characters said "Plain dinosaurs aren't enough any more". The bit with the military guy was him subverting the process a bit, but Murdersaurus Rex would have been made anyway.
Marcus Aurelius: ...the Swedish S-tank; the exception is made mostly because the Swedes insisted really hard that it is a tank rather than a tank destroyer or assault gun
Ilya Muromets: And now I have this image of a massive, stern-looking Swede staring down a bunch of military nerds. "It's a tank." "Uh, yes Sir. Please don't hurt us."
amigocabal
Jedi Knight
Posts: 854
Joined: 2012-05-15 04:05pm

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by amigocabal »

Here are my comments:
Spoiler
*One of the reasons for creating the Indominus Rex is that interest in the theme park was waning, due to the fact that the public is used to the idea of cloned dinosaurs. To put this in perspective, for Tim and Lexi, the kids from Jurassic Park, cloning dinosuars was something they would have only read about in science fiction or comic books, and as such were utterly amazed upon first seeing them. For Zach and Gray, dinosaur cloning (as well as the events of the first two films) would have been something they were taught about in school.

* Vic Hoskins said the downside of drones is that they could be hacked. The Indominus Rex did the equivalent of hacking the raptors by becoming their alpha. Fortunately for the main characters, Owen had the equivalent of a backdoor.
User avatar
Tribble
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3082
Joined: 2008-11-18 11:28am
Location: stardestroyer.net

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Tribble »

Hmmm, that's actually not far off from a rumour I heard awhile back that JP4 was going to be about a team of raptor hybrids which were trained for military use. I always thought the rumour was some kind of joke, I didn't think they were actually going to run with it.
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!" - The official Troll motto, as stated by Adam Savage
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Saw it a few hours ago.
Spoiler
The Good

1. Some pretty great scenes, the look of the park, and so forth. The "Rex vs iRex" fight was the best fight out of the movie (both it and the scenes with the Mosasaur will likely be the most memorable things about this movie), and the two separate military commandos vs dinosaurs scenes were done well even if I think they weren't as good as the "raptors in the long grass" scene from The Lost World.

2. Some good acting, at least with what they had (more on that below). I liked that they had the bit with B.D. Wong's Harry Wu, where he talks about how the dinosaurs aren't "natural" right now - they're all heavily modified and very different from what they would have really looked like. That was actually in the Jurassic Park novel, although it wasn't included in the film.

The Bad

1. No memorable characters. I can't remember the names of the kids nor Bryce Dallas Howard's character (Claire?), and she doesn't have much to do once the park goes to hell aside from "find my nephews". Pratt is basically Mr. Awesome Ex-Military Raptor Whisperer guy, although I liked that his connection with the raptors was uncertain - it made the denouement better. Can't remember the name of the main human antagonist either. Good chemistry with Howard and the brothers, very little chemistry between her and Pratt's Owen aside from one or two jokes.

2. Kind of weird editing, especially in the first half of the movie. It rushes like crazy to get the iRex out on a rampage, and we get some jarring shifts between "Ooh this is awesome/I'm so bored" with the two brothers, and between the scenes with Pratt, Howard, and the iRex.

3. The military plot just feel so half-baked it's hard to suspend belief. They couldn't think of a better reason to have Pratt training raptors, or to get them on the island?

4. Remember how in the first Jurassic Park, there was a tiny aside to Gennaro early on from the Ore Digger Guy that Hammond couldn't meet him because his daughter was going through a divorce and he wanted to be with her? Think it would have added anything to the movie if it had been expanded, and been brought up with Tim and Lex? Nope. Same thing with basically everything that happens with the brothers before they get on the island.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
CaptHawkeye
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2939
Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
Location: Korea.

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by CaptHawkeye »

It's the first movie, like shamelessly. Except their are fewer relateable characters and now a militarism subplot. rogerebert.com wrote that the movie feels like it was written by a couple that had just been through a divorce and I found it hard to disagree. :lol:
Best care anywhere.
User avatar
CaptHawkeye
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2939
Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
Location: Korea.

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by CaptHawkeye »

Terralthra wrote:Moats were recommended by Muldoon and rejected by Hammond, as one of his long string of poor decisions with respect to dangerous wild animals.
Hammond almost certainly would've thought that moats would place the crowds too far from the animals. Lessening the effect they'd have on an audience, possibly even allowing his detractors in politics and business to claim the Park as a sham. See things like that were one of the things about the first movie that really fascinated me. All of the best character scenes in the movie to me involved Hammond and his interactions with others. So much so that I think the movie was really about him.

To be honest, Hammond did not strike me as a bad guy or a stupid man. Not with the way Sir Richard Attenborough portrayed him. He struck me as an honest and likeable ex-Playboy who was popular with the public and his employees. He was known for being generous, (outwardly) humble, fun, and inspiring.

The impression the movies gave me was that John was a (mostly) self made magnate who had found his fortune in genetic and chemical engineering. As a result of his self made success it was normal for John to tune out or discourage advise not because he's a mean man, but he was so used to making it on his own anyway and proving everyone wrong.

See the problems with the first Park had nothing to do with expense. I don't think Hammond ever balked at the idea of spending the right amount of money to make something work. Jurassic Park was his magnum opus after all he clearly wanted it to be the zenith of his life. The problems with the Park (as implied by the constant arguments he was having with men like Muldoon, Nedry, Ian Malcolm, and Mr. Arnold) is that Hammond did not understand money wasn't the only resource he needed to make the Park work. He was unwitting Dictator of the Park and his Company without realizing it. His attitude discourages or tunes out the advice of peers, especially expert peers because that's not how John made his fortune. By God it wasn't how he was going to make his Park. It's not that he was mean or cruel, it's just that the movie implied to me he was often willfully ignorant. InGen must've had a high turnover rate in its upper management. Lots of guys saying things like "Yeah I worked there, it was nice but I just thought I could do better" ie: I couldn't work with Hammond so I quit.

Think about really being at Jurassic Park, and meeting a guy like Robert Muldoon right? Think about how he greets the main characters. His first line is literally they should all be destroyed. What would posses him to say something like to a group of excited onlookers who are total strangers? He says that right in front of his boss even, which Hammond appears to take no issue with. (Again, Hammond is not a mean man, he's just an ignorant one.)

He was clearly deeply concerned with the Park's security and control. (The movie opens with him failing to save a man from getting mauled to death by one of the Raptors after all.) He must've had quite a few rows with Hammond on it throughout his history there, public rows even. Like he really made attempts to pin Hammond down and warn him about the Park's issues and by the time Grant and co. showed up I bet he was about ready to quit. Except he was probably sticking around for worry of abandoning his co workers at the Park.

If Jurassic Park was the embodiment of John Hammond as a character, then it was also the embodiment of his failures. I think that was the movie's message.
Best care anywhere.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Terralthra »

My arguments are largely based on the book, not the movie. The book Hammond is arrogant beyond measure. He throws money at experts to try to get them to work for him, but doesn't let them do their jobs, repeatedly ignores their warnings and advice, then cheaps out on them once the initial work is done to his specifications (which is where all the problems come in). I did a bit of analysis on a read-through in this thread starting there and continuing through page 2. The movie made Hammond an affable old grandfather, but that's not who he is in the book. In the book, he is one of two characters closest to a villain (and his actions drive that of the other antagonist, Nedry).
User avatar
Prannon
Jedi Knight
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-03-25 07:39am
Location: Ontario

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Prannon »

Saw it, and I rather enjoyed it!
Spoiler
Comments on the film:

1) It has all the typical tropes for a big budget summer blockbuster that isn't meant to challenge your brain all that much. Character shields, predictable deaths, betrayal (referring to the raptors), and redemption (also referring to the raptors), and yadda yadda. But, for some reason, the application of the tropes in this film didn't really bother me. I personally think that it's because the pacing in the film was very good and even, and...

2) I didn't really get a stupid vibe from the film. Like, I didn't get a vibe that people were being stupid, unless we're made to feel that they're being stupid. And even then, it's the sort of stupid we're use do. Oh, Aunt Claire is so caught up in her career that she has no time for her family and doesn't know anything about her nephews. Lolololol stupid aunt Claire. You know, the throw-away-you're-stupid type plot elements that we're all used to AND VERY SATISFIED BY in a film.

Regarding the stupid decisions made in the film, cuz there were those or we wouldn't have any film, the film makes a big point of emphasizing that new attractions and "assets" are needed to retain the public interest, much like the space program back in the 60s and 70s. Corporate focus groups are making decisions on what's needed, and the guy in charge is absent mindedly rubber stamping the addition of new and ruthless creatures to the park. All of this makes sense to me in context and isn't really the sort of cringe inducing stupidity that I would expect out of a sloppily made film.

3) This brings me to the motivations expressed throughout the film. The park's operations manager (Claire) wanted to keep things on the low-down to prevent a major incident, confident that the crisis team would take care of it (the guys with the non-lethals in the first encounter with Murdersaurus-rex). We all see this as stupid, but that's because we have the benefit of tropes. The motivation itself makes perfect sense.

Owen, or Mister Raptor Guy as I will call him, has the hindsight of working with wild animals and also the hindsight of being at the initial containment breach, so of course he's the practical one going "HOLY SHITE EVACUATE THE ISLAND." You know, the "reasonable" guy that we all agree with. And probably what would have happened if the operations lead people hadn't decided to let the completely undergunned crisis team try to handle the containment breach.

And then there's the douchey turn-the-raptors-into-weapons guy, Hopkins or whatever the fuck his name was. I didn't like him, and the movie taught me not to like him. Yet, even in the middle of the crisis, when we're supposed to look at him as our bad guy, he tries to take control of the situation, and even when the commons area gets assaulted, he steps outside of the command center and looks on the commons area, where people are getting eaten by pterodons or whatever, you can see on his face that he's resolved (as opposed to horrified, pay attention to my language here) to prevent further loss of life and get the incident under control.

His "evil" motivations are the same, but he's still a human being, motivated by the desire to prevent further loss of life. He's still our bad guy, but he's more complex that a mustache twirling villain that gets eaten by a raptor in the end. Oh wait... he does get eaten by a raptor in the end. And it was still satisfying! Imagine that...

Ultimately, I liked this film. It didn't scream stupid, it wasn't asking me to think too much, it was well paced, and the plot made some modicum of sense. I could probably look for plot holes if I tried hard enough or if I surfed the web hard enough, but the main point is that I liked it.
9/10. Would see again.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by The Romulan Republic »

I saw this film today and didn't think much of it. It wasn't terrible, but I'd say its arguably the weakest film in the Jurassic Park series.

In particular, Spoiler
I disliked the romance plot and the way they film handled the female lead's characterization seemed rather sexist, some of the fights got a bit absurd, and the film spent a lot of its time showing not really well done family/relationships stuff and landscape shots that are okay but really nothing new after three previous Jurassic Park films.

That said, some parts stand out as quite good, including:

Leading a raptor pack into battle.

Some of the lead genetic engineer's defence of their genetic engineering program. Nice to let the bad guys get a chance to state their point of view too.

The shot of a dinosaur foot crashing menacingly into the ground, only to move back to reveal that it was a bird foot. I have never seen the connection between dinosaurs and birds so eloquently, succinctly, and obviously stated to the general public. It almost makes up for none of the dinosaurs having feathers.

Some of the early appearances of the Indominus Rex were quite menacing and suspenseful. And the scene where they discover the field of dead sauropods was effective.

Knowing what I know about cliches of such films, I kind of expected the black guy to bite it, so I was pleasantly surprised when he didn't.

The rich boss climbing into a helicopter to try to personally take out a giant mutant raptor was pretty cool. Pity he didn't make it. Same for the poor woman who was escorted the children and got a pointless death by pterosaur. I was hoping she'd make it.
Edited to fix spoiler warning.
User avatar
CaptHawkeye
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2939
Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
Location: Korea.

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by CaptHawkeye »

Terralthra wrote:My arguments are largely based on the book, not the movie. The book Hammond is arrogant beyond measure. He throws money at experts to try to get them to work for him, but doesn't let them do their jobs, repeatedly ignores their warnings and advice, then cheaps out on them once the initial work is done to his specifications (which is where all the problems come in).
For the most part I think this could be considered true of the movie's Hammond as well. Hammond definitely should've just built moats instead of fences. Look at the way the whole T-Rex paddock is designed though. It's practically designed to put the tours right next to the T-rex during a meal. This was important to Hammond because to him the word was not visibility. It was proximity. Hammond wanted people to get right up to the dinosaurs, do more than just see them. He wanted people so close as to smell them and feel the Earth shake as they walked. In Hammond's Park seeing the attractions clearly wasn't enough, people had to feel them.

Now I think both Hammonds are obviously guilty of ignoring expert advice, and of making decisions in areas he had no professional qualification in. I think their reasons differ depending on the book or the movie is all. In the book it was definitely over money, in the movie I think his motivations were more emotional. Either way, the Park was compromised by Hammond's bad decision making. I just think it's more interesting to see Hammond as a fundamentally good guy who was losing touch with reality as he became absorbed with the completion of his life's work. I vividly remember the scene where Hammond got into a bitter argument with Laura Dern's character over control of the Park. The moment where he came back to reality and realized once and for all that the Park was no longer his dream but his nightmare and he now owed it to his peers to save them from it. (Another area he should've just left to people more qualified than himself.)
I did a bit of analysis on a read-through in this thread starting there and continuing through page 2. The movie made Hammond an affable old grandfather, but that's not who he is in the book. In the book, he is one of two characters closest to a villain (and his actions drive that of the other antagonist, Nedry).
A portrayal I did not care much for, Crichton's caricature of a stereotypical greedy old businessman was very cliche'd to me. Crichton was not particularly good at writing characters in any of his novels. I don't remember anyone from Congo for example, I remember what happened, but not who happened. I'm thankful the movies got an injection of Speilbergian characterization. Imagine Jeff Goldblum trying to play Ian Malcom under Crichton's guidance.
Best care anywhere.
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Malcolm would have been a bit better if they'd kept more from the book regarding his arguments. I mentioned this up-thread, but the one weak point that didn't hold up when I re-watched the film were Malcolm's arguments - his valid points about the instability inherent in such a complex system and the (probable) impossibility of keeping the park entirely isolated from the greater world were distilled down to some stupid quasi-religious "life will not be contained - it finds a way" and "dinosaurs were selected by nature for extinction after having their shot".

Not that I think Book-Malcolm was entirely right, either. I tend to side more with John Arnold from the book. But it was at least a valid argument.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Terralthra »

One key point about Malcolm that I think gets left out of the movie that I mention in the analysis I did is that while he makes some predictions about the park, they're largely vague "stuff will go wrong and you'll have to shut it down" generalities. They're as much based on his knowledge of Hammond being a dinosaur enthusiast who's doing this to make a profit, with only a passing understanding of the problems involved as any rigorous analysis of the park. The specific predictions he makes are that the dinosaurs won't adapt well to the modern environment (trivially predictable) and that the park won't be able to control the dinosaurs' spread and breeding, based solely on the principle that evolution tends to escape barriers; in other words, not based on any particular thing he sees in the park or Hammond, just general trends.

Then, he gets himself injured, stupidly (as in the movie), and when he's found later, given a fuckload of morphine to ease the pain as he dies from his injuries. Everything he says after that, no matter how lucid, is incredibly suspect because he's a) dying and b) high. He claims that he predicted things that he didn't predict, makes sweeping statements about this or that and life this and evolution that, but he's also described throughout the book as a glib, smug, arrogant theoretician, and taking him at his word (especially when he's on morphine and dying) is foolish.

Wu, Muldoon, Arnold, Nedry, Grant, and Sattler all criticize various aspects of the park from better points of view, and they're all pretty much dead on in their criticism. If Hammond had listened to half of his experts, let alone all of them, the park would never have failed as it did.
User avatar
CaptHawkeye
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2939
Joined: 2007-03-04 06:52pm
Location: Korea.

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by CaptHawkeye »

Malcolm is portrayed as no more an expert than the average layperson in either material. Because the gist of his predictions could be made by literally anyone. The reason he was invited to the Park was distinctly different from the reasons Sattler and Grant were invited i'm sure. Hammond probably felt that if he could convince a guy like Ian Malcolm, a regular Nostradamus, then he could convince anyone of the Park's feasibility.

This is of course, is another symptom of Hammond's arrogance. Malcolm was a political choice, not an expert one. Hammond is so confident about the effect the Park has on people that he plans on using it to turn a Bill O'Reilly into a liberal socialist. He wanted to convert Ian, the unconvertible.

Thankfully Jeff Goldblum spent less time on Malcolm's chaos theory nonsense and more time with "Think they'll have that on the tour?" moments. :lol:
Best care anywhere.
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Elheru Aran »

CaptHawkeye wrote:Malcolm is portrayed as no more an expert than the average layperson in either material. Because the gist of his predictions could be made by literally anyone. The reason he was invited to the Park was distinctly different from the reasons Sattler and Grant were invited i'm sure. Hammond probably felt that if he could convince a guy like Ian Malcolm, a regular Nostradamus, then he could convince anyone of the Park's feasibility.
I don't quite see it that way. Malcolm IIRC was some sort of fancy book writer, university lecturer, something like that... a public figure, considered an 'expert' in his field (It's been a REALLY long time since I read JP). He's something of a composite of various professional talking heads with a walloping helping of five minutes' reading of Popular Science and a few pop-psych books as Crichton writes him, even though he was more or less intended to be some sort of professor in... fancy systems, Chaos theory, something or other. Not quite a 'layperson'.

His depiction is more Crichton being a shite writer who thinks he's a hot-shot scientific researcher than anything else.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
Terralthra
Requiescat in Pace
Posts: 4741
Joined: 2007-10-05 09:55pm
Location: San Francisco, California, United States

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Terralthra »

In the book, he's a theoretical mathematician with a reputation for using nonlinear dynamics to make predictive models.
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Guardsman Bass »

He's basically part of a then-new group of mathematicians who specialize in chaos theory and heavily utilize computers in modeling. It's why he spotted the computer mistake they made in counting dinosaur numbers so quickly in the book - he realized they weren't counting on them breeding, so they never asked the counting systems to do tallies beyond the expected number to see if there were more dinosaurs in the park than they thought they had.
Terralthra wrote:Wu, Muldoon, Arnold, Nedry, Grant, and Sattler all criticize various aspects of the park from better points of view, and they're all pretty much dead on in their criticism. If Hammond had listened to half of his experts, let alone all of them, the park would never have failed as it did.
Like I said, Arnold is my favorite character on that topic. I like how he points out the incredible difficulties and complexities with the park, and his character survived reasonably well into adaptation to the film (he even has the line about how they have the problems of both an amusement park and a zoo).

It's why I love the book, for the most part. Crichton does a fantastic job of showing how the bleeding-edge, expensive nature of the research combined with the desperate need to turn a profit because they're at the limits of what their investors will support lead to some disastrous decisions by InGen and John Hammond. Especially since Hammond wasn't content to settle for a smaller park with a few dinosaurs, which would have easily made a ton of money and allowed them to then scale up from there.
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Jurassic World - Trailer #2 (Universal Pictures) HD

Post by Elheru Aran »

Terralthra wrote:In the book, he's a theoretical mathematician with a reputation for using nonlinear dynamics to make predictive models.
Like I said... a really long time since I read the book. That sounds about right. I threw up 'talking head' because seems like there's three main career paths for PhD's-- teaching, something vaguely related to what they studied, or self-appointed 'expert', and Malcolm might fit the latter as I honestly couldn't recall the specifics. I was fairly sure he might have written one of those best-selling pop-science books (in that particular side of the Crichtonverse) and that was why he was something of a public figure...

I did recall that he fits the general profile of early 90s geek pop-scientists. His outfit even kinda resembles Neil Gaiman's look, and I imagine there were a lot of those types out there. Frankly Crichton could have said 'oh hey he's a game designer' and it might have worked just as well.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
Post Reply