Okay, let me get this out of the way right now: I despise the people who are being needlessly negative to this film. I don't hate them as people, but for the most part, there are SO many things I disagree with against their opinions!
However, I'll get into that a bit later. Right now, I want to do some ranting on how the pterosaurs were portrayed in this movie. When it comes to Jurassic Park
movies, I tend to be rather forgiving with most of the dinosaurs' appearances. I mean, if I recall, the first Jurassic Park
was made well before the whole "dinosaurs had feathers" thing was well-known, or, heck, even much of an idea. While that has become a popular theory today, Colin Trevorrow, stuck with the restrictions of the license, had to make due with the dinosaurs he was given. Pretty much the best he could do was paint the dinosaurs a bit of a different color. It's like, "Hey, I have the rights to this Combine APC, mind if I redesign it a little to look cooler?" "No, sorry, otherwise, it's not an APC anymore." "Okay, let me give it a streak of blue across the back here, BOOM! It's totally the same, but different!" So, I can respect Colin, as for all we know, he could actually like feathered dinosaurs. Just watch as his next movie becomes what all the paleo-nerds would've wanted. But the one thing I can't stand in any of the Jurassic Park
movies is the way the pterosaurs look. God, these things are ugly! Tell me, why is it that, for a film series that tries to show us that dinosaurs and pterosaurs are 'so much different from what we imagined,' we always seem to keep our idea of pterosaurs stuck in the damn FIFTIES?! Hell, even the FIFTIES
were getting pterosaurs right at the time! Why is it we are STILL portraying them grabbing people with their feet, instead of, oh, I don't know, using the SHARP TIP OF THEIR BILLS?! Here's a pop quiz. Look at these
feet. Nice big talons, strong muscles to complement, you know what animal these belong to? Eagles!
Now, look at these
feet. Tiny, not very muscular, and probably the tiniest "claws" I've ever seen, what animal ha- pterosaurs
, you twits! The only good a pterosaur's feet are for is standing, but even THAT isn't fully correct, because their wings double as a second set of feet, making them quadrupeds!
How is that so hard to portray?! Pteranodon is simply not an animal that can carry a human being, it's not big, OR strong enough! You know what would've been better, more intimidating choices for the movie? Quetzalcoatlus
, in place of those shrimpy Dimorphodons! Make them the big, scary pterosaur that can pick people up, and Pteranodons the smaller "pecking" animals! The Quetzal's, at least, have a giant bill that can swallow people whole! I don't care if it's The Lost World
, Jurassic Park 3
, Jurassic World
, I ALWAYS hated the Pteranodons in these movies! ALWAYS! The "pick people up with feet" thing is a product of the 20th century, with those stop-motion puppets and green-screened actors! STOP REVIVING THE TROPE!
Okay, end of pterosaur rant. Now for the rant about the people who hate this movie. Much of the hate I've seen was people who just can't accept the fact it's difficult to make something as good as Jurassic Park 1
. The first, and most obvious complaint people have is one the CGI, and how it looks "so incredibly fake, and because I can tell it's CGI, it's automatically bad CGI!" I HATE people with that mindset, and it seems like ALL of them watched this movie with said mindset! Let me say something- NO, two things!
1: Those of you complaining about the CGI need to realize how the first film's CGI is a bit dated. Tell me, how many of you were kids when you first saw Jurassic Park 1
? Don't answer, because the question is about 85% "Yes." The problem isn't that it doesn't look as good as the first film, it's that you, as a kid, would believe those dinosaurs were there at the time. Heck, I even believed the CGI puppets on that screen WERE the real deal, when I first saw the movie! And while I can say some of the scenes look great, some shots I think are really dated, like that opening shot with the Brachiosaurus, which I'll get into at point 2. The first problem here, though not the biggest, is nostalgia blindness. People are just too used to the style in the original.
2: The CGI that's in Jurassic World
only looks fake because of, ironically, the technology. Think about Jurassic Park 1
. Most of the T. rex's
screen time was at night, and in the rain. Even when it's in the daylight, it looks more real, because there's pretty much only one light going one direction: The sun. In Jurassic World, the CGI isn't the problem, it's the environment! Everything has too many lights, the cameras are too high-definition, and there are too many close-ups. When an actual human is next to the computer image, it's much easier to tell what's real and what's not. Jurassic Park 1
had the same problem in one scene. The shot where the group was next to that Brachiosaurus' leg looked awful, in my eyes. That looked like borderline 80s CGI. When it comes to CGI, the CGI itself isn't the problem, it's the environment around it. This is why we prefer animatronics: The close-ups of CGI almost always look out of place up close. The distant scenes in Jurassic World
, such as when the Mosasaurus was feeding, or the Indominus was running, looked great!
Another common complaint is that the Indominus rex
was basically just a giant raptor. I disagree with this entirely. Just because it has long arms doesn't mean it's automatically a raptor. I mean, it doesn't have the giant talon that raptors have, its skull is thicker, and rounder, with much more jagged teeth, and on top of that, it has camouflage! If anything, Indominus looked like a mix between an Allosaurus and those Vastatosaurs from the 2005 King Kong
movie. Besides, even if it somehow just looks too much like a raptor, the intent wasn't to make it LOOK different, but ACT different than the other dinosaurs. I mean, this was a supersized, highly aggressive, highly intelligent creature, that never was able to socialize with others of its kind. It only had one other of its kind, and it brutally mauled and ate that sibling. After being isolated for so long, it wanted to get out, and learn to hunt. All it knew at this point was "Kill this, kill that, cause chaos." This thing was not a dinosaur, it was a monster, horribly mutated by its creators, and never given a chance to interact with other creatures for a long time. As such, it sought vengeance, and was willing to kill anything in its way. I can't believe people are complaining how Indominus was able to communicate with the raptors, when they could get over Chris Pratt's character, Owen, doing the same exact thing! I think this scene had similarities to How to Train Your Dragon 2
. Owen treated the raptors with respect, whereas the Indominus probably said, "Kill these guys for me, OR I'LL EAT YOU." Later on in the movie, the raptors learned to respect Owen for not killing them. Indominus learned the same thing that humanity did: You can't control nature. You can probably lead it, but outright control just won't happen, because otherwise, they'll bite the hand that feeds them. This is why the T. rex
appearing later spared Blue's life: She helped her fight off Indominus. If Blue wasn't there to help, she might've been killed right then and there. Indominus didn't learn to respect, it didn't learn to be a helping hand, and it didn't learn to socialize. That was the factor that did her in. Well, that, and the giant mosasaur.
The final biggest complaint from people is the actors. Again, I disagree. While the kid and teenager were annoying, and I could do without a few side characters, I rather enjoyed the main characters. Even with that evil guy from InGeN, it's easy to see where he's coming from: Weaponise the dinosaurs, so they can kill the national enemies more efficiently. That's cruel and heartless beyond all reason, but still entirely believable. We, as a human species, have weaponised animals before. We've used dogs with mounted blades meant for cutting open horses from underneath on the battlefield, and elephants as giant armored tanks, we'll always have somebody use animals to try and gain an advantage in war. As for Owen, it's easy to see where he's coming from, as well. He's bonded with them, learned to respect their way of thinking, and since he socialized with them from practically birth since, they eventually respected him as an alpha. Claire, I thought, was a pretty decent contrast to Owen's "not afraid to get dirty" attitude (insert some sexist joke here, because I'm above that), though her overall character could've used more development. For instance, there was a point in the first half of the movie where she didn't really think of the dinosaurs as animals, and just precious artifacts that so happened to move. It wasn't until one died in front of her that she started growing a soft spot for them. After that scene, though, this was never really looked upon again. It's like one of the writers for her character took a break, then came back, but forgot about that development process midway. One last thing: Henry Wu's back, and beyond just a one-time cameo! You can't go wrong there.
Now for the little things about the audience that ticks me off:
1: STOP CALLING THE PTERANODONS "PTERODACTYLS!" THOSE AREN'T EVEN A REAL SPECIES (though there is one pterosaur with a similar name, just with "-us" at the end)!
2: I get that raptors had feathers, remember this is a sequel to a movie that was made before that was well-known!
3: "The T. rex
should've eaten that raptor afterwards." Because we've never seen different real life animals, big and small, ever get along, have we?
4: I also get that the "Velociraptors" aren't the real deal at all, I don't know what went wrong with the naming process in the original novel. Something about it being mixed up with "Deinonychus," it's not worth bringing up.
5: "The Spinosaurus would'v-" SHUT UP!
6: "Trained raptors? Bad movie!" First off, they're not trained, in the traditional sense. Second, we have trained eagles and falcons, which are literally raptors with wings, I think we have a chance of cooperating with a similar animal.
So, there are my final thoughts on Jurassic World
. I don't think it's a perfect movie, at all, it has quite a few slow moments, but when it has action, it often delivers really well. I just wish people would stop complaining about CGI, just because they can tell it' CGI. I mean, sure, there are times where CGI is terribly done, such as the Asylum films, but if it's animated well, and has great angles to view the action from, I really don't see a reason to complain, other than the fact the first film happens to look better just because it wasn't hindered by the technology. Is there anything you disagree with? Feel free to comment, share your opinion, maybe you'll point out something I overlooked, good or bad.
Overall Score: 42/60, C-