WWTBAM Bored

I saw Jurassic World last night. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I do have to agree with the reviews that said, in essence, that the plot was very much paint-by-numbers. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:I saw Jurassic World last night. I enjoyed it quite a bit, but I do have to agree with the reviews that said, in essence, that the plot was very much paint-by-numbers. --Bob

I'm still not sure just how clever the screenplay is. It seemed to me that the script was having a lot of fun with the concept of blockbuster movies as much as the idea of having to come up with giant new theme park attractions, and the way they set up the product placements and all the other minutiae of the park was quite clever (kayaking past stegosauruses). There were also a number of insider references... the pteranadon attack seemed a lot like the flying monkey sequence in The Wizard of Oz. And the battle at the end is a ripoff of every Godzilla movie ever made (I-Rex looks sneakily like Godzilla too)

I can accept the fact that characters in movies like this have highly simplistic story lines that require them to act conveniently stupid on cue to set the plot in motion. What bothered me was the Indominus Rex itself. The idea is that the dinosaur is supposed to be more of an eye opener for the audience than the "tired old" T-Rex. But the main visible differencs between the two are the extra scales on the back of the I-Rex and its bigger arms. There are other differences that make the I-Rex tougher to kill but one would assume that this wasn't what the park officials wanted (yes, there is a subplot involved here, but they would still be monitoring the progress of the animal). The arms would be a good selling point if the dinosaur ever did anything with them like fashioned crude weaponry or climbed a tree, but it didn't.

Here's some speculation before the movie (and not too accurate speculation) about the outcome of a T-Rex - I-Rex fight.

I saw the original Jurassic Park when it came out in 1993. It was scary! My dad read the book and we went to see the movie.

The first one was so scary I never saw any of the sequels.

I wanna see it. Kids saw, one was meh, one was yeah. I don't care, it's mindless entertainment and want to see it on the big screen. We never go to movies.

Beebs52 wrote:I wanna see it. Kids saw, one was meh, one was yeah. I don't care, it's mindless entertainment and want to see it on the big screen. We never go to movies.

Big J, Sweet A and I are going on cheap night Tuesday. They said they would even sit with me

silverscreenselect wrote:The idea is that the dinosaur is supposed to be more of an eye opener for the audience than the "tired old" T-Rex. But the main visible differencs between the two are the extra scales on the back of the I-Rex and its bigger arms.

That might have solved this problem:


Or this theory of evolution:

Jurassic World's official take of $208.8 million in its first weekend nudged past The Avengers' $207.4 million debut in 2012 to set a new mark as the No. 1 opening of all time.

Story.

Bob Juch wrote:

Spoiler

Everyone's saying the best part is where Jimmy Buffett runs away while holding a margarita in each hand.

My son commented about that the day after we saw it. He did not know who it was, but that the 'guy running trying to save his two drinks made it look real'.

I did not notice. It may have been during one of my 20-30 mini-naps I took during the movie.

Good movie for half price Tuesday.

Spoiler

Who is the name of Pete thought that T-Rex needed a little Raptor DNA so it would become a pack animal. Sheesh. Good this that nurture overcame nature.