Jurassic World: Dominion

[Phos_01]

If you still have to watch or want to watch 'Jurrasic World Dominon' this topic is not for you , click away! spoilers ahead 

So I went to the movies yesterday and saw the new movie as the first day you could watch it. There were a few things that caught my eye and don't seem right.

 

1. They mentioned a few times that Giganotosaurus from Argentinië was the biggest meat eating Dinosaur ever lived the earth. This was Spinosaurus ? Very weird that they would say this over and over in the movie, while Spino was the biggest, the Spinosaurus was not even featured. 

2. They showed the Mongolian Deinocherius, with its impressive massive arms and claws. They showed it as a vicious killing machine, it killed a deer in the movie lol and hunted one of the main cast. While it was actually most likely a sauropod (it did not have any teeth and a flat horse like beek and skull, it used it claws to fetch fruits most likely or to protect itself. Just found it a bit wierd that it was shown like an predator like Trex. 

 

3. I could see a few times the movement of the dinosaurs was a little chunky , cgi was not that impressive sometimes. What also is weird because Spielberg's first take in 1993, is still today awesome to watch.

 

So bottomline, it was no were near as good as the first one, what was expected, its impossible to beat it.

Still enjoyed it.

 

What are your thoughts on it? 

 

[Kane]

It is likely scientific accuracy takes a back seat to telling a story, as is the way with a lot of movies as the purpose taken on its own merits is generally to entertain and not educate.  

[Rock Hound]

It's a good way to sell new Giga merchandise.

[hadrosauridae]

they have to make the movie "bad guy" seem ultra hard to kill, and repeatedly saying "the biggest ever" helps push that idea.  There were lots of aspects about the movie that were silly and made no real sense, but its an action movie, and enjoyed it as such.

[Troodon]

Its a movie, nothing to do with real facts.  Just needs to be exciting to Jurassic Movie Fans, lots of chasing and eating.

[FB003]

I enjoyed it. For what it is intended to be, I found it an entertaining watch.

 

Likely focused on giga because they blew the use of spino in the 3rd jurassic park movie in my opinion.

[FF7_Yuffie]

It was fun. But get the giant locusts out of my dinosaur movie. The plot was way too convuluted. Jurassic Park movies work best when it's simple. Just come up with a way to have the main group trapped in a place full of dinosaurs and survive. Not genetically modified plagues of locusts causing an apocalypse and an annoying clone girl.

 

Some fun scenes with the dinosaurs and creatures though. I enjoyed the Dimetrodons--wish they appeared more. 

Edited June 11, 2022 by FF7_Yuffie

[Sjfriend]

One thing to remember when thinking about the dinos not fitting exact science in the franchise. They claimed lots of GMO work was done. So all of the critters can have non species traits. Thats how they can get away with "artistic license" lol. Plus, it is a movie "based" on fossil life and when movies are "based on" something they can go rather far afield.

[Phos_01]

On 6/10/2022 at 9:42 PM, Troodon said:

Its a movie, nothing to do with real facts.  Just needs to be exciting to Jurassic Movie Fans, lots of chasing and eating.

true, but the first one was pretty realistic, apart from the giant Velociraptors Raptors. I had read somewhere did spend so much time investigating and working together with Paleontologists to get the details right. Dino's were also most of them real moving sculptures. If you watch it today, Its still great.

 

Now its all CGI , and Spielberg is not really involved. 

 

I just missed that a little bit. Enjoyed it for a lover of Dinosaurs ,but its a bit to much Hollywood.

Also on another note , I prefer the original cast, cynical Goldblum etc as main rather than de new Chris Pratt. 

[Troodon]

38 minutes ago, Phos_01 said:

true, but the first one was pretty realistic, apart from the giant Velociraptors Raptors. I

Not really.  People who watch it developed unrealist notions of dinosaurs that is seen even today.  Loved the first one but it was far from realistic.

Those GIANT Velocripators were not as smart as portrayed in the movie.  Dilophosaurus never spit acid and there is no evidence of a frill,  Brachiosaurus sneezed, No. Trex out running a jeep highly unlikely,  that Triceratops snout was improperly depicted, it was much too large, movie license and that giant ball of poo?  All dinosaurs were dipicted grey, brown and green and scaly yet it was known Velocripator had feathers and was colorful.  Horner said feathers would not be scary enough.  He also said the depiction of Trex was far from reality and there is no evidence yet that it roared.   It list continues but will stop and say all these movies are made to impact audiences and gate receipts not to be scientifically realistic.

[Tidgy's Dad]

A lot of paleontologists, present and, I'm sure, in the future were and will be inspired by these turgid money spinners. But, as a child, they're seemingly entertaining for a lot of people. The first one made me cry and I loved it. Hated the rest and doubt I'll even bother to watch this one. Too many brachiopods to look at. The thing is that a percentage of those who watch the films and develop a love for dinosaurs, will look at the facts and discover the current perception and maybe change our views of dinosaurs in the future. These pop culture movies can have a very positive effect even if they are themselves highly scientifically inaccurate.   

[Phos_01]

11 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

A lot of paleontologists, present and, I'm sure, in the future were and will be inspired by these turgid money spinners. But, as a child, they're seemingly entertaining for a lot of people. The first one made me cry and I loved it. Hated the rest and doubt I'll even bother to watch this one. Too many brachiopods to look at. The thing is that a percentage of those who watch the films and develop a love for dinosaurs, will look at the facts and discover the current perception and maybe change our views of dinosaurs in the future. These pop culture movies can have a very positive effect even if they are themselves highly scientifically inaccurate.   

 

 

49 minutes ago, Troodon said:

Not really.  People who watch it developed unrealist notions of dinosaurs that is seen even today.  Loved the first one but it was far from realistic.

Those GIANT Velocripators were not as smart as portrayed in the movie.  Dilophosaurus never spit acid and there is no evidence of a frill,  Brachiosaurus sneezed, No. Trex out running a jeep highly unlikely,  that Triceratops snout was improperly depicted, it was much too large, movie license and that giant ball of poo?  All dinosaurs were dipicted grey, brown and green and scaly yet it was known Velocripator had feathers and was colorful.  Horner said feathers would not be scary enough.  He also said the depiction of Trex was far from reality and there is no evidence yet that it roared.   It list continues but will stop and say all these movies are made to impact audiences and gate receipts not to be scientifically realistic.

 

I hear you :-) 

All true, Im not as critic, because I think it's impossible to know how they looked like exactly, what color did they have, What did they sound like, Teeth with or without a lip. All speculations, however they did a good job in the first one, and I like to believe JP has created the overal general look of the T-Rex today along with the finding of Sue. 

 

One good thing this movie franchise does for the mass, is creating Fossil and Dinosaur enthousiasts. Me including. 

Without JP01 im not sure I would know what I know today because it tricked my love for them, as im sure many like me.

My friend hes son is 5year old, and already a huge Dinosaur fan, because we made him watch the trailer of JP01, this is whats its all about

I loved the idea of getting the DNA from an reserved piece of amber with a trapped Mosquito with Dinosaur blood, I wish it was true lol

 

 

[minnbuckeye]

I enjoyed Jurrasic World Dominon for what it was, a movie. 

 

[Styles]

Have not seen it yet. I’m not a big fan of pure action movies but actually do enjoy the Jurrasic Park franchise. If they ever made a movie where things didn’t go wrong - like just a movie about the park and the dinosaurs and life at the park and the science you better believe i’d be there in a heartbeat. My favorite part of the jurrasic park movies is the time up until things go wrong. 

[hadrosauridae]

Went to see it again yesterday, took the kids and grandkids this time.  Everyone liked it.

 

I wonder where they will go for the next movie(s).  Yes, there will be more movies, as long as they keep making $$$$ they wont stop.  So far, the first 6 movies have been about corporate espionage and "dangers of genetic engineering" with dinos as the medium for that to play out.  So what do you think the next direction for the franchise will go?

[Joe_17]

On 6/9/2022 at 5:23 AM, Phos_01 said:

If you still have to watch or want to watch 'Jurrasic World Dominon' this topic is not for you , click away! spoilers ahead 

So I went to the movies yesterday and saw the new movie as the first day you could watch it. There were a few things that caught my eye and don't seem right.

 

1. They mentioned a few times that Giganotosaurus from Argentinië was the biggest meat eating Dinosaur ever lived the earth. This was Spinosaurus ? Very weird that they would say this over and over in the movie, while Spino was the biggest, the Spinosaurus was not even featured. 

2. They showed the Mongolian Deinocherius, with its impressive massive arms and claws. They showed it as a vicious killing machine, it killed a deer in the movie lol and hunted one of the main cast. While it was actually most likely a sauropod (it did not have any teeth and a flat horse like beek and skull, it used it claws to fetch fruits most likely or to protect itself. Just found it a bit wierd that it was shown like an predator like Trex. 

 

3. I could see a few times the movement of the dinosaurs was a little chunky , cgi was not that impressive sometimes. What also is weird because Spielberg's first take in 1993, is still today awesome to watch.

 

So bottomline, it was no were near as good as the first one, what was expected, its impossible to beat it.

Still enjoyed it.

 

What are your thoughts on it? 

In regards to #2 Where was the Therizinosaurus shown as a predator ??? I just watched it and it just looked like it was territorial that's all.

Edited June 20, 2022 by Joe_17

[Phos_01]

17 hours ago, hadrosauridae said:

Went to see it again yesterday, took the kids and grandkids this time.  Everyone liked it.

 

I wonder where they will go for the next movie(s).  Yes, there will be more movies, as long as they keep making $$$$ they wont stop.  So far, the first 6 movies have been about corporate espionage and "dangers of genetic engineering" with dinos as the medium for that to play out.  So what do you think the next direction for the franchise will go?

I really hope they let it rest now. They squeezed more than enough out of it. 

I liked the original cast allot more, than the new Hollywood bling bling actors. 

Any more movies following up on this plot would make it really bad. in my opinion  

10 hours ago, Joe_17 said:

In regards to #2 Where was the Therizinosaurus shown as a predator ??? I just watched it and it just looked like it was territorial that's all.

It killed the deer that was just sanding there for no reason , and then it hunted the girl by the water, it had no reason to be Territorial. And at the end it fought the T-rex and Giganotosaurus , absolutely ridiculous, it would never happen, entertaining to some , but completely wrong, they portrayed it as an evil hunting scary dinosaur, it was also blind for some unkown reason, perhaps because it looked more fierce 

[Troodon]

7 minutes ago, Phos_01 said:

I really hope they let it rest now. They squeezed more than enough out of it. 

Looking at what it already has grossed and still #1 its not going to happen.   Remember its not about the accuracy of the content but about making $$$$.   A franchise like this will continue to spew out film after film until the public is tired of it.  

[FB003]

Remake of the originals perhaps to keep newer generations into it instead of hopping in after all of these occurred.  Happens with every other money making franchise after so many years.

[FB003]

26 minutes ago, Phos_01 said:

It killed the deer that was just sanding there for no reason , and then it hunted the girl by the water, it had no reason to be Territorial.

I concur with Joe.  The deer looked to be eating if I remember correctly.  It also appeared to be blind or have very poor eyesight as you noted.  That plus food competition. In my book food competition alone appears to be a valid reason to be territorial but we can all have our interpretations.  Not about right or wrong or according to "facts" by any means.  It's a story of someones interpretation of what could have been so in that "could have been universe" it is what it is.

[Troodon]

53 minutes ago, Phos_01 said:

killed the deer that was just sanding there for no reason , and then it hunted the girl by the water, it had no reason to be Territorial

 

Poor Therizinosaur another example of how a movie like this gives the public the wrong impression of a dinosaur, a herbivore turned predator.

[Arcrocanthosaurus]

Because the therizinosaurus's claws would have been used to defend not attack.