Jurassic World trailer premiers 11/27 - sneak peek here

[Borgholio]

[Crazedwraith]

trailers for trailers.... What a fascinating modern age we live in.

[Havok]

They want to let non-football people know so they can watch it too.

I mean, you act as if making movies isn't a *GASP* business.

[Covenant]

I find the affection people have for trailers to be interesting. Normally you would use the trailer to get people hyped for the movie, but not put the trailer out so far that people would loose interest. Now you can tease the trailer (and tease the teaser by just releasing an image that says "Jurassic World" on it) and get the hype rolling basically indefinitely. People live in a constant state of wanting, without any variety of impulse control. I know it sounds like Old Man Talk but things like teasers for trailers, then trailers for movies, then finally the movie with a tie in for a sequel... it is all designed to make people salivate and make it harder for them to just sit and wait while doing something else. Everything is designed to hook you and suck up more of your headspace.

It's kinda absurd but it makes perfect sense. Plus, it works.

[Havok]

Marketing and advertising man.

It can also backfire. Look at Snakes on a Plane. Totally overplayed their hand.

[DaveJB]

I find the affection people have for trailers to be interesting. Normally you would use the trailer to get people hyped for the movie, but not put the trailer out so far that people would loose interest. Now you can tease the trailer (and tease the teaser by just releasing an image that says "Jurassic World" on it) and get the hype rolling basically indefinitely. People live in a constant state of wanting, without any variety of impulse control. I know it sounds like Old Man Talk but things like teasers for trailers, then trailers for movies, then finally the movie with a tie in for a sequel... it is all designed to make people salivate and make it harder for them to just sit and wait while doing something else. Everything is designed to hook you and suck up more of your headspace.

It's kinda absurd but it makes perfect sense. Plus, it works.

Personally, I blame The Phantom Menace. If memory serves, that had about three or four "pre-teasers," then an official teaser, and finally the full trailer. And while the film itself may have been a colossal disappointment, so many people got hyped up about it that studios latched onto that marketing strategy and used it for future blockbusters.

And it still works.

Damnit!

[Mr Bean]

Trailer is out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvu-zlR ... iw&index=2
So... I'm not sure did the other movies not happen because they opened a new park and it looks like they made a super intelligent dinosaur with X-ray vision and super strength or something and it's murdering it's way across Dinosaur Disneyland.

Seriously? You got the whole dinosaur thing sorted out so you start whipping up mad science experiments and the first thing you make is not the fluffiest most adorable dinosaur you can but MurderSaur-X.

I want to see this with friends to make as much fun of it as possible.

[2000AD]

I'd just like to point out that it has a moment that is almost a literal jumping of the shark in the trailer.

[DaveJB]

"Now, witness the pulling power of this fully built and operational amusement park!"

Admittedly it's nice to see a properly up and running Jurassic Park/World after both of the previous sequels used the Site B plot, but it brings back uncomfortable memories of Jaws 3D.

[Patroklos]

Great Whites are endangered, I am going to boycott this for their insensitivity to environmental issues...



I think this is going to have the exact same problem as the last one. This story works better as an isolated group of survivors experiencing the horror of being alone or near alone and hunted by the unknown. Once you start having thousands of people running around and huge packs of dinosaurs rampaging all of the place it got boring. Most dinosaurs would be no harder to kill than a rhino or elephant, your average combat caliber rifle is up to the job. A T-Rex in LA sticks out like a sore thumb and the AR-15 in the back of your average police cruiser will put it down. The lone, concealed predator hiding in the jungle and you not knowing if he is there or not and you isolated from help is far more fun.

Also, I think all of us can get behind the not so hard to understand idea of wanting to bring back a lost world through a sense of discovery and wonder and see the results as tragic even if predictable. That's not exactly the same thing as the mad science motivation of lets make a MONSTER dinosaur because reasons where I am hoping everyone dies because they are obviously idiots.

[Borgholio]

Yeah as if fucking dinosaurs aren't amazing enough, let's create a Khan Noonien Singh version and see what happens.

[Elheru Aran]

I think this is going to have the exact same problem as the last one. This story works better as an isolated group of survivors experiencing the horror of being alone or near alone and hunted by the unknown. Once you start having thousands of people running around and huge packs of dinosaurs rampaging all of the place it got boring. Most dinosaurs would be no harder to kill than a rhino or elephant, your average combat caliber rifle is up to the job. A T-Rex in LA sticks out like a sore thumb and the AR-15 in the back of your average police cruiser will put it down. The lone, concealed predator hiding in the jungle and you not knowing if he is there or not and you isolated from help is far more fun.

Uh... an AR-15 can put down a Rex, sure, but it'd take a while and multiple shots. 'No harder to kill than a rhino or an elephant'-- true... but they are actually pretty darn hard to kill reliably and quickly. There's a reason poachers use automatic weapons-- put a lot of holes into something and it'll go down eventually. Dinosaurs which are as big or even larger-- same thing.

Customary hunting methods for large wildlife in Africa tend to involve large calibers and high velocities (the proverbial 'elephant rifle'). That's to ensure a quick kill, but accuracy is still required. Karamajo Bell, a big-game hunter back in the early part of the 20th century (or was it late 19th?), used to use a .303 Enfield to kill elephants... by climbing a tree and shooting them in the back of the skull as they passed underneath. African traditional hunting methods for large game generally involve either poison or ambush. And this is with years' (millennia, in the case of traditional method) worth of knowledge of these animals' anatomy and weaknesses.

No such advantage with dinosaurs. Sure you can shoot it in the head-- but do you really know where the brain is? Are you going to take the time to aim carefully and blast away when you've got two-three cars' worth of angry meat and teeth barreling straight at the puny monkeys, which includes you?

As to the rest of the quoted comment: Dramatic taste. Having a single predator hunting lone survivors in the jungle is one thing, but a significant chunk of the original JP movies already did that. Why not change it up and see if it sticks? Also, dinosaurs are cool. Dinosaurs interacting with people (or vice versa): very cool. So I see no problem with the crowds of people and big herds of dinosaurs and all that. If nothing else, it makes for a pretty good visual spectacle.

What I do wonder is how much this film will explore the history of the JP franchise. And how exactly did the park get so big and well established? Who was willing to pay for it given the disaster that the first film's attempt at a park was? And so forth...

[Havok]

Seriously? You got the whole dinosaur thing sorted out so you start whipping up mad science experiments and the first thing you make is not the fluffiest most adorable dinosaur you can but MurderSaur-X.

[Irbis]

Sooo... what exactly it is? Prequel? Sidequel? Sequel? Alternate history where Nedry was replaced by outsourced off the shelf system?

This story works better as an isolated group of survivors experiencing the horror of being alone or near alone and hunted by the unknown. Once you start having thousands of people running around and huge packs of dinosaurs rampaging all of the place it got boring.

Meh, Aliens was great movie even next to Alien.

Most dinosaurs would be no harder to kill than a rhino or elephant, your average combat caliber rifle is up to the job.

Tell that to Hollywood imbeciles having big animals shook off fucking autocannon fire like it was nothing (Avatar was biggest offender recently)

Though Elheru is right, you'd need WW2 vintage rifles, not the puny 5.56 mm bullet...

[Darth Nostril]

Sooo... what exactly it is? Prequel? Sidequel? Sequel? Alternate history where Nedry was replaced by outsourced off the shelf system?

It's a sequel set 22 years after the original film.
From all the hints & background material released - John Hammond died shortly after the events of The Lost World, Masrani bought Ingen in 1998 and poured billions into developing the park. The park opened in 2005 with 98,120 visitors in the first month.
Ten years later and everyone's getting blase about dinosaurs, visitor numbers are dropping and the park is losing money.
So they decide to create more impressive hybrid dinos.

Dr. Ian Malcolm: Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming.

Here's the fictitious corporate profile Masrani

This story works better as an isolated group of survivors experiencing the horror of being alone or near alone and hunted by the unknown.

They already did that with the first three films.

[Agent Fisher]

All i care about, is fucking Starlord, on a motorcycle, with an escort of Raptors, riding to go kick some ass.

[Crazedwraith]

All i care about, is fucking Starlord, on a motorcycle, with an escort of Raptors, riding to go kick some ass.

Who?

[Agent Fisher]

All i care about, is fucking Starlord, on a motorcycle, with an escort of Raptors, riding to go kick some ass.

Who?

Starlord, man! Legendary outlaw... guys?

[Havok]

*rimshot*

[Guardsman Bass]

It was very cool to see a functional Jurassic Park, and I think it makes a ton of sense that it would be built in that setting - the biggest problems with Hammond's park were the rushed schedule, inexperience with new animals, and over-reliance on new and somewhat faulty automation. Those kinds of kinks would be worked out after nearly two decades of dinosaur cloning and dinosaurs in the wild on Isla Sorna*.

* They never revealed in the movie continuity what happened with the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar during the events of the first three films. The book had the island being fire-bombed by the non-existent Costa Rican air force, but there's no reference to that happening in the movies.

The only problem with the "super-genius T-Rex" idea is that they've already crossed the "is it immoral to use genetic engineering to create smart dinosaurs?" boundary when they recreated the velociraptors. Also, no nod at all to the "feathered dinosaur" factor?

[DaveJB]

* They never revealed in the movie continuity what happened with the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar during the events of the first three films. The book had the island being fire-bombed by the non-existent Costa Rican air force, but there's no reference to that happening in the movies.

There was a scene from The Lost World where the cost of destroying all the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar and dismantling the park was mentioned during the meeting where the InGen board votes to fire Hammond, but it got deleted from the finished film.

[Tribble]

So, after skimming thorugh the "website" I found this little nugget:

After the unfortunate incident at Jurassic Park, Dr. Henry Wu returned to Isla Nublar in November of 1994 to assist the clean up teams in cataloging specimen numbers, and to identify exactly how the animals were breeding. Despite the island’s presence of seemingly same sex animals, it was the inclusion of amphibian DNA which he himself had underestimated. Dr. Wu noted that the inclusion of DNA sequences from several species of amphibians including the Common Reed Frog (Hyperolius viridiflavus) adapted extremely well to the cloned DNA of the dinosauria - eventually enabling the animals to change their sex through a chemical trigger which disintegrated the female organs to create male sex organs.

This event intrigued Dr. Wu and inspired him to write the book ‘The Next Step: An Evolution of God’s Concepts’ in 1995. Within its pages he included a theory claiming that, with the right tools and research, he could bring brand new species into fruition by the combination of various species. “Much like selective breeding within domestic animals,” he writes, “but with this, we would be combining several species into one new animal. Today's technological limitation means we are decades away from achieving this, maybe even fifty years away, but who knows, hopefully in my life time we could see it become a reality.”

By May of 1997 Dr. Wu and his research team at a financially struggling InGen had successfully combined several species of plant life together giving birth to the Karacosis wutansis (or Wu Flower) which gained world-wide media attention, including the attention of Simon Masrani - who incidentally acquired InGen the following year. The son of a close friend of the now late John Hammond, Simon Masrani promoted Dr. Wu within the ranks of the InGen company in December of 2000 and brought the scientist onto the Jurassic World project. Dr. Henry Wu was instantly looked at as a valued member of the Masrani company, proving his unique skill not only as a successful scientist, but a great visionary.

This seems to imply that A) the first batch of dinosaurs were destroyed after the end of Jurassic Park and B) they've been trying to create new species for some time, with this particualr experiment just being the altest and greatest.

Neat to know that Dr. Wu is returning as a character, though I hope it's not just a cameo like in the first film. Who wants to place bets that he gets eaten?

[FaxModem1]

I am curious how much the anti-science and anti-technology angle will be pushed in the film, as that was a central theme of the first two, is that man shouldn't mess with "God's domain".

[Grumman]

Customary hunting methods for large wildlife in Africa tend to involve large calibers and high velocities (the proverbial 'elephant rifle'). That's to ensure a quick kill, but accuracy is still required. Karamajo Bell, a big-game hunter back in the early part of the 20th century (or was it late 19th?), used to use a .303 Enfield to kill elephants... by climbing a tree and shooting them in the back of the skull as they passed underneath. African traditional hunting methods for large game generally involve either poison or ambush. And this is with years' (millennia, in the case of traditional method) worth of knowledge of these animals' anatomy and weaknesses.

No such advantage with dinosaurs. Sure you can shoot it in the head-- but do you really know where the brain is? Are you going to take the time to aim carefully and blast away when you've got two-three cars' worth of angry meat and teeth barreling straight at the puny monkeys, which includes you?

Then use more gun. If a Lee-Enfield won't do it, I bet a Barrett will.

[Terralthra]

I am curious how much the anti-science and anti-technology angle will be pushed in the film, as that was a central theme of the first two, is that man shouldn't mess with "God's domain".

Eh, that may have been the movie's take, but the book was far more about profit-motivated science vs. research, and how short-sighted people can be when it comes to making money off of scientific advances. Keep in mind that Nedry, the "villain" of Jurassic Park, and his team, were drastically underpaid, for a system that was undergoing constant changes to design and architecture (big no-no for MIS). That's right, Hammond chose to short the guy in charge of designing the system which kept tyrannosaurs and velociutahraptors from eating everyone. Surprise, he didn't feel much loyalty to his employer.

There was a thread in SLAM where I did a read-through of Jurassic Park and The Lost World for these supposed anti-science/anti-technology themes. I'll have to dig it up to find what I wrote there, but the upshot is that what was more being condemned was tinkering with complex systems without having an appreciation of the consequences; not that man shouldn't mess with "God's domain", but that if you're going to recreate life which has been extinct for hundreds of millions of years, "put them in a park and make money selling tickets" isn't necessarily the greatest motive, nor likely to result in appropriate caution.