Discussing Jurassic Park
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- My full look at Jurassic Park:
1) A Look at Jurassic Park (The Novel): • A Look at Jurassic Par...
2) Jurassic Park: The Search for Dino DNA: • Jurassic Park: The Sea...
3) Jurassic Park: Chaos: • Chaos and Jurassic Park
4) Discussing Jurassic Park: • Discussing Jurassic Park
In defense of "Velociraptor vs Deinonychus:" the book actually goes an extra step here, as well. In the novel, Tim and Grant actually have a conversation about this subject, where Grant reveals that Deinonychus is thought to be a member of the Raptor family of dinosaurs. This comes after the novel takes pains to show how inept the scientists at the park are: they assume the dinosaur is a *velociraptor mongoliensus* because the amber samples were retrieved from Mongolia....that's it. The implication, therefore, is that the dinosaur *actually is a Deinonychus,* but the park has incorrectly labeled it as a velociraptor. And then the name sticks because, as Crichton and Spielberg point out....it's just a cooler name.
Absolutely I agree with you totally. Velociraptor is the size of a turkey! But the best and most famous specimen of fossils is of a velociraptor in a duel to the death. Trapped in stone. If a turkey is willing to do that, I’m running away
a trick : you can watch series at flixzone. I've been using them for watching lots of of movies recently.
@Alexis Benson Yup, been using Flixzone} for since december myself :)
@Alexis Benson yea, I've been using Flixzone} for since december myself :D
@Alexis Benson definitely, I've been using Flixzone} for since december myself :)
As I recall, the book states that the inability to see motion was a side effect of the amphibian DNA. And was present in most of the Dinos in the book, not just the Rex.
That is indeed the case. Grant tests it on herbivores later in the book and finds that it is indeed the case that a large number of them cannot see without movement. This is, of course, not the case with the raptors, but as I recall that's because they were a different version than most of the Herbivores.
Until the sequel the Lost World. The one time I enjoyed the movie more then the book
@@335chr The movie was practically "in name only."
@@UmbreonMessiah I wonder how the herbivores can tell what's a plant and what's not a plant.
Also no, they couldn't pin point the plant's exact location by sniffing the air. When the Alan Grant stood still, the t rex only knew that he was in the area, it had no idea where Alan was exactly.
Quick note on the T-Rex not seeing movement in the book: Grant was actually surprised when the T-Rex doesn't see him. He only froze from fear because he was sure he was going to die. If I remember correctly, they attribute it to the frog DNA the scientists used to complete the T-Rex.
Correct. He froze almost out of instinct, & was surprised when the T-Rex lost track of him. It was another thing that bothered me in the film......how would a Paleontologist have the slightest clue as to how T-Rex's vision worked? It would be nothing but baseless supposition
And in the second book that conclusion is dismissed by another doctor
Marcus Hicks as much as I hate to say it. Jack Horner is the one responsible for that myth. It doesn’t even make sense. What good would it do to a predator / scavenger to have its visual acuity based on movement?
@@Wot50202 I mean our own vision is heavily focused towards movement. Having vision totally based around movement sounds like a terrible idea for any animal honestly but predators do have good movement detection generally
Jatzi 1 I’m not disagreeing with you or anything but it’s what I was saying, as well as what you said. If you’re staring at an object and something moves in your peripheral you turn your gaze to focus on that. I was just saying that Horner was the one who pushed that dumb myth, even though it doesn’t make any sense lol
"and in the center of it all is the man himself, visionary, architect, craftsman, master, while outside these walls nature reclaims its own with each fence toppled and each life taken and all John Hammond can do is sit here like a modern day Ozymandias reciting the words that will be crafted upon his own forgotten monument 'spared no expense' "
I feel the urge to applaud. Bravo sir.
The best, nay, only good part of Jurassic Park: Trespasser, is the audio logs John Hammond has left behind, reflecting on his life, achievements, and legacy, and one of them is a recitation of "Ozymandias" by John Attenborough.
With all the talk about Chaos Theory and Life Finds A Way, I'm shocked you didn't at least bring up the fact that the helicopter only had two input (as in, female) seat buckles for one of the seats, and they just tied em together to make it work. Even if Chaos Theory isn't the smoking gun, that small bit is pretty good foreshadowing and just a good representation of what "Life Finds A Way" means.
A fun thing about Hammond's scene of eating the melting ice cream is that it really is him trying to assert any sort of control and still failing. The ice cream refuses to be ice cream, it is melting and there is nothing he can do about it but try and force it to be ice cream.
Otherwise, this (and all the other Jurassic Park videos) has been perfect.
I never noticed that about the seatbelts....When I saw the movie as a kid I thought it was like “life always poops on Alan grant”.
How about Hammond’s first scene, at the dig site? Open’s Grants bottle of champagne, then refuses help, insisting he knows his way around a kitchen. While walking right past the champagne glasses.
Don't forget.
The fact that Hammond takes the Ice cream results in the Freezer door being open later, allowing Tim and Lex to trap one of the Velociraptors inside.
That's brilliant.
I thought what happened is they got two of the belt-ends mixed up, as people do, so one of them had two males and one had two females. I'll have to watch it again.
@@KairuHakubi looking at this video the belt clips are right next to him, although admittedly we don't see if Ellie is buckled in. ua-cam.com/video/xHuHeAMkY94/v-deo.html
My favorite moments are when Alan and Ellie see the actual living dinosaurs for the first time and are speechless and overwhelmed, and later their genuine joy at the touching and caring for the Triceratops. The characters might not be super deep, but you really felt these two loved dinosaurs with their entire being, and getting to see and interact with them made them both so happy.
44:05 "Dinosaur Supervisor" is the BEST job title ever, change my mind.
Yeah, but he apparently did a pretty shitty job! :D
In the JP universe, no fuckin' job is anywhere close to coolness than that of Mr. Harding, the ranger.
"Velociraptor looks like someone asked Rob Liefeld to draw a duck." Okay, I was laughing so hard I had to pause the video so I could regain my composure.
If velociraptors where drawn by Rob Liefeld, where are their pouches? Checkmate atheists!
Raptors are the Poochy of Dinosaurs. When they are there, they take all the attention; when they aren't on screen, everyone is asking "Where's Poochy?"
Well to be fair, as intelligent and dangerous as they are with a desire to kill almost on the level of a housecat in a house filled with mice, I'd ask that too.
Over time I have grown more used to the image of dinosaurs as having feathers and being maybe a bit more bird like but it also depends on how you frame and present them. Fluffy plume or not, it is still a creature that would be able to tear a brown bear to pieces.
Only some dinosaurs had feathers, most didn't.
there's a lot of stuff about presentation and threat in the JP movies that are kinda silly and thy COULD do better. they tend to focus on the carnivores with their big spooky teeth and almost totally ignore how dangerous and scary herbivores can be. not even huge ones but hitting even a fairly small one with your car can be deadly. it is a choice in how these movies portray and focus on the animals. you can make a fluffy creature scary if you want to. (and it was always so bizarre to me how little the herbivores are a threat in these movies even tho lot of them even have bone clubs etc or just are utterly huge... also undrestimating the 'nice' herbivores would be a good mistake for the characters to make so????)
(i never saw JW2 as a disclaimer i hated JW1 so much please tell me if it did anything with the herbivores)
@@Lukkilikka They did not. They actually leaned even more on the cloning and mutation angle. JW2 is part disaster movie and half a survival thriller with dinosaurs in a mansion. And then they escape because some girl sets them all free.
@@karlkarlos3545 True, too many people are willing to say that all dinosaurs had feathers just because we have evidence that some had feathers. We also have plenty of skin impressions to show that many did not. Also many people say that some dinosaurs that had what appear to be quills on them had proto-feathers, but to me that is like saying that a porcupine has proto feathers, we don't know if those were really feathers or not in the case of most quills.
@@karlkarlos3545 you can't say "most" didn't. From what we know, it's likely that maniraptorans, tyrannosauroids, even some ceratopsians, among others had feathers, and while I don't expect us to discover that sauropods had feathers, we really don't know the true scope of feathers among dinosaurs
No you're wrong, Spielberg cast Wayne Knight while watching his favorite NBC sitcom and realized "There's only one person on the planet who would put all these lives in jeopardy for his greed. Only person who is so evil and lacking in any morals whatsoever that they would willingly put people, including children at the mercy of prehistoric monsters. NEWMAN!!!!!"
I wouldn't be shocked if there was a deleted scene that goes as follows:
Hammond: Oh hello Nedry
Nedry: Helloooo John
Newman fit the role to a T, the description in the novel is spot on for him.
I remember seeing a gag about "Phil Tippett, Dinosaur Supervisor."
You had one job, Phil! There were raptors in the kitchen! The kitchen, Phil!
All of this could have been avoided if they just didn't create carnivores. But since they didn't know what kind of dinosaurs they were making until the eggs hatched, it was a nice little touch of unpredictability and chaos. The book is full of this stuff. And even after they create some of the dinosaurs, they have no idea what they're capable of, like the Dilo. Oh hey it spits venom, that's crazy, make 9 more!
What I really loved is how the second book went into detail about the horrific and cruel results of all that tinkering - the _failures._ That's what I think of whenever I hear someone go on about how cool it would be to bring back these animals. Not only horrifying but morally indefensible.
tbh the herbivores being such a non threat in these movies is one of my biggest gripes. big herbivores are super dangerous! and with th dinosaurs you get ones with horns or spiky clubs in their tails?? they could also be venomous if you wanted to go with that route
Didn't Jurassic World addressed "the whole what dinosaurs look like" issue in a retcon?
Yes Dr Wu made a specific point about it, tell Mr Misrani that in foregoing the many DNA modifications "many of the dinosaurs would look quite different", but those pumping the cash in wanted 'cool', not accurate.
My favorite film of all time. A truly amazing movie and a technological marvel. I love it
Peeps forget that before this movie, all large monsters and Dinosaurs were either men in rubber suits, stuff glued to lizards or stop motion, this was the first movie to use CGI alongside animatronics, went to see it three times and the cinema was packed, the part with the T-Rex attacking on the road was electric every time.
The one scene from the film that inexplicably has stuck with me more than any actual action scenes, is the whole gang standing on the catwalk above the raptor pen having several overlapping conversations. It was so unique in that it brought you into the scene as an observer, able to choose who to listen to as if you were there and these were all real people talking over each other like real people do. That immersion was so powerful for me and I've rarely seen it done since, but it did a great job of realizing the scene and leaving me with the impression that I was standing there with them, not far from the terrifying raptors.
Your review of the book recently inspired me to re-watch the film. My biggest gripes about the film still remains its treatment of the characters of Muldoon & Genarro. Had they made them as compelling & interesting as their book's counterparts, this film would be many times better. I would have have preferred the "dinosaurs are breeding" revelation to have been much more than a single, throw-away scene.
I think to have Gennaro as he was in the book, you'd have to include Ed Regis, to take his place as t-rex's first victim. Regis is an easy character to lose, but that scene needed a casualty. Also, Ellie is a more important character, so it makes sense that you'd want to elevate her and shift some action in her direction. As for Muldoon, what is your gripe about him? It would have been cool to see him and Gennaro/Sattler hunt down animals, but with limited screentime, they needed to move towards the raptors breaking out. Plus, those scenes called for location shot, and with CGI in its infancy, that wasn't really an option. That being said, I thought the Muldoon we got was very close to what was in the book. Other than "clever girl" of course.
@@toddbonny3708 Muldoon survived til the end of the book because he was great at his job. The Muldoon in the movie gets killed in his first encounter with the Raptors he is meant to know so much about.
Muldoon definitely got a good dose of oof. The big game hunters in both JP and TLW were always my favorite characters to me. They knew what shit they stepped into and respected it.
It is a shame we didn't get to see Muldoon hunting raptors with a rocket launcher while drunk on the big screen.
19:05
Let me just stop you right there. Tyrannosaurus is an opportunist predator, meaning it hunts but can scavenge.
Horner is a known Rex hater fo the sake of his precious hadrosaurs. His reasoning is: It's too big to hunt, it can't use its arms, and it can't run. When paleontological facts show that there are bigger predatory carnivores, who needs arms with a bite force that can disintegrate bone, and who needs to run when you're as fast as your prey
Horner has been ostracized from the paleontological community for his selfish and dubious science, and has recently been fired from the Jurassic franchise
i love when biology gets all political and people think they have proof of this or that but their bizarrely emotional bias is clear. they just want to take down all the big, beloved, appealing animals and push an agenda that smaller, uglier ones are more heroic. look at that lion and hyena nonsense. then other people refute it, and it's like... nobody _knows_ anything, nobody can _prove_ anything. shit just _happens_
I saw a funny interview with paleontologist a while ago who flat out said the whole 'scavenger vs. hunter' debate was totally made up for more interesting documentaries. It's pretty much universally agreed in actual academic circles that, like virtually all carnivores, T. rex killed when it needed and stole when it could. In nature a survivor doesn't pass up a meal.
this makes me respect them a little more, but at the same time confirms everything I've ever said about their nonsense.
Most meat-eaters tend to also be scavengers, in fact it'd be quite weird if the T-Rex wasn't also eating corpses, since if he was territorial, there's no way he'd just leave a perfectly good meal rot away, while chasing other scavengers from his territory to prevent them from feeding from the dead animal.
Every carnivore is opportunistic. If you had the choice between hunting prey and risking failure and going hungry? Or just eating some carrion because it’s there. I hate it when scientists try to define an animal by this “strict” dietary habit lmao.
25:51 fun fact: vertical lines are used as a motif for good things, such as this shot of the magical moment of first seeing a live dinosaur. Horizontal lines are used for bad things.
Great video as usual, Chuck! Couple things:
I heard mention that Chilean Sea Bass (fun fact: they are neither Chilean or bass; their real name is Patagonian toothfish, but that just wouldn't do for fine dining menues, now, would it?) are now endangered because of, you guessed it, the Jurassic Park Effect. I hear they are delicious, though. Oh, the poor Patagonian toothfish. You are just too damn tasty!
In the scene where Goldblum does the water drop down the hand trick, I think Laura Dern is clearly smitten. She practically mubbles her answer as to how the drop will fall the second time. Heck, I'm a guy and _I_ find the scene sexy. Jeff Goldblum and his raw sexual energy. We need to harness it as a form of renewable energy. :P
They are delicious, but up until the time this movie was released, they were generally considered garbage fish, i.e., fish nobody really wanted to eat. Species like that (tilapia is another one) have become popular because the types of fish that used to be generally available are being fished out, so others have to be found. As you say "toothfish" didn't sound very good, so it was given a fancy name to get people to eat it.
Vice did an article on that and how movies influence sales. The dude who named it named it that to sell it to Americans.
Guy goes in for an expensive meal. So he orders caviar and pate. They bring it. He looks at it and demands the chef, who comes out.
The chef asks if there’s a problem with the meal. The man says “I wanted an expensive meal. YOU GAVE ME FISH EGGS AND GOOSE LIVER! This is GARBAGE!”
The chef responded “That’s what rich people eat, the garbage parts of the animal.”
@@Maniac536 🤣 Thanks for the laugh! 😎🤘☮
To help clarify, the evidence of T-Rex predation is from bite marks on large herbivores that healed, indicating that the animals attacked were alive when they were attacked and survived the encounter.
Okay here's my theory on Sam Jackson's character. He wasn't killed by the dinos. He was sucked through a rift in time and space and sent to a galaxy far far away where he settled in and became a Jedi and eventually a Jedi master until someone cut his fore arm off which was sucked back through time and space to where he had been.
Strong in the force are you, Mr. Arnold
"Hold on to your butts, I am *sick* and *tired* of these M-Fin' Dinosaurs in my M-Fin' jedi robes!"
Samuel L. Jackson is Mace Windu in "Dinosaurs in my Robes: A Star Wars Story".
What about becoming the director of SHIELD? Nobody cares about Star Wars now!
The raptors were also under the influence of the dark side of the force, thus, their utter aggression towards the humans manifested.
Also, the T.rex took lessons from Obi Wan’s force ghost in sneaking around.
But Star Lord could train the raptors to run with his bike and probably dance battle the Gungans and Ewoks
Just a side comment: I think this new format for your video reviews is still very effective. Sorry that the censor bots have been plaguing you but keep up the amazing work. We all appreciate it!
This video should have many more views and likes than it got. It has everything: science, cinematography, trivia, and emotion.
“Twists Mr Arnold’s arm” well played
Glad you addressed the dinonychus mixup
Beginning to think we need to have a culling of butterflies in Peking. Those things seem to be bloody dangerous
I really don't think that's a good idea. Just one person swinging a butterfly net around over there could be potentially apocalyptic...
Isn't the first major chatacter we meet and get a read on Robert Muldoon during the raptor secene - for all his bravery, careful planning and experience with other animals he's woefully under prepared to deal with the raptors?
I always loved his performance in that scene. The way he drones out the commands to the crew sound borderline rote, like the tension of what he's doing has almost broken down into tired repetition. It's a perfect parallel to the lack of respect for the dangers of nature that sets the island wild later, and ultimately, telegraphs his own future demise. He falls into the patterns, the hunt as he's always known it, only to once more be caught and literally blind sided by the unanticipated wit of the Raptors. As intelligent as Humans are, arrogance and a lack of instinct makes them vulnerable.
Choalith Ikanthe couldn’t have said it better myself, my man.
i was one of those people who went on to study paleontology because of this movie haha
also fun fact: one of the possible ideas thrown around when they were making the second indiana jones movie was indy finding dinosaurs in a kinda lost world valley situation. it's really interesting to think about what would have happened if they went with that idea. it's probably better that what happened happened (we likely would have never gotten jurassic park then and the special effects would not have been as impressive yet) but man do i want to peek at an alternative universe where IJ2 was about dinosaurs!
Considering the darker tone they wanted to go with and the arc they wanted for indy where he learns a lesson in messing with stuff some of the themes would have probably been even similar to JP... (probably in like, he finds the valley but figures it's better to leave the dinosaurs alone)
You keep referring to the EVs as Land Rovers. They’re Ford explorers. The very first year they were released I think.
Chuck's use of "Land Rover" is probably more like how many people refer to paper tissues as simply "Kleenex". ;)
CybershamanX ahhh. I thought that. I figured it might be a British thing (we in the US use jeeps brits use land rovers etc)
@@Maniac536 Oh, man! I totally spaced it on the Jeep analogy! Sheesh. "Kleenex". :P Hat's off to you, sir. Maybe we should genetically splice our comments together? ;)
In the book they were Toyota Land Cruisers specially made for the park. I guess Ford paid more for their cars. And yet when the book says Hammond got Richard Kiley to voice the tour, the movie got Richard Kiley. I guess he paid enough for his product placement or we might have gotten Ricardo Montiban or something.
ShadowWing Tronix it worked out for Ford I know a LOT of people bought the Explorer in 93
I always wonder why Nedry didn't figure out that he needed to wait for the storm to be over.
46:49
A documentary I watched in the mid-90s took real offense to that scene (there was still seemingly a lot of debate about dinosaur metabolism at the time).
They showed that this one *T-Rex* fossil skull didn't have the fine nasal passage structures associated with warm blooded animals heat exchange, so that apparently meant that raptors were cold blooded and could not have fogged the glass.
Even as a kid, I called BS on the multiple leaps in logic required.
Since they're mostly frogs made to look like dinos, and this is covered in the film, it makes perfect sense that they would make dinos that fit the broad expectations of their target audience.
That was one of the little lines in Jurassic World that I really liked, Dr Wong pointing out how the park directors didn't want 'real dinosaurs' so the took away the feathers etc
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and delight, for I have spared no expense!"
I disagree about the characters. The film already has one Ian Malcom. Put too many "interesting" characters together and the film starts to be about them and their interaction rather than the interaction between human and Nature. It doesn't matter that everyone does not have Star Quality - the very theme of the film is that human measurements and ideas are irrelevant when faced with forces beyond our control. Thus, having most of the humans be kind of ordinary helps put us there in the story with them.
What if the hurricane hit the island because 66 million years ago a 5 mile diameter meteor struck the Yuccutan Peninsula?
Both a Butterfly Effect AND a closing of a loop. Nice.
Th-that's uh, chaos, right there.
It wasn't the Yuccutan Peninsula until *after* the.meteor hit though, surely?
i.e. it was the meteor impact that created what we now know today as the Gulf of Mexico.
“Jamie, pull that shit up.”
Theme parks are usually based on films, and Spielberg saw himself in Hammond, and cast a fellow filmmaker. Not just any filmmaker, but the one to whom Spielberg lost two Oscars a decade before. That was Spielberg's lowest point, but in this film it's Attenborough's. Spielberg would win those same Oscars this time for working with Ben Kingsley.
After reading Jurassic Park, I was fascinated by the Chaos theory aspect of it. I went to the library and checked out Chaos by James Gleick. If you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend it.
Also, in reality, T. Rex didn't make sound as it did not have the capability in its skull.
YOU FELT HIM COMING.
Infraction.
This is the greatest review that ever lived on about JP.
17:20 the kids are there because their mom is going through a divorce (broken families, a running theme throughout the franchise that wasn't beaten like an anvil, but you kind wish it was).
Jurassic Park lacks the human element?
I completely disagree. Sure, Hammond & Malcom are about controlling nature. The lawyer just gets cast aside, the dinosaurs are build up expertly etc. But the story for Grant is truly amazing. In my opinion the whole reason why this film was such a succes in the first place.
We first see Grant talking about how he hates kids and thinks babies smell. Then the kids want to ride with him while on the tour (mind you that Ellie keeps provoking him about this), but he gets on a different touringcar anyway. He reconnects with his old self when seeing the triceratops (his favorite when he was a kid) and doesn't think twice about rescueing the kids from the Rex. He proceeds to keep them safe and teaching them stuff (and even reviving Tim). Protecting them constantly until the moment he's not there (the kitchen) and the kids finally have to save themselves. During all of this, he's really grown to like them. In the last scene on the helicopter they're even sleeping in his arms.
Grant growing up and becoming ready to have a family is pretty much what this movie is about. He spends about half the movie with just the kids. To me that really shows a human element. And if for some reason you would take that storyline away, the movie wouldn't be as fun to watch. The dinosaurs would still look great, the shots might still be good and the 'controlling nature'-theme is still interesting, but trust me that far less people would like this movie if it wasn't for the story of Grant and the kids. The bond between them truly gives the film a human element and opens the way for everything else in the movie.
You should consider rewatching, because this human element-storyline is being thrown into your face constantly (even visually) and truly the centre of this movie.
Ironically, in the book (as far as I remember - it's been years and years since I read it), Grant loves kids. He's also described as a mountain Man type character, complete with beard.
"there actually is a dinosaur theorized to be as intelligent as a chimpanzee"
TROODON! TROODON! TROODON!
"but before we get to that"
NOOOOOOOOO
Dammit, Chuck. You’re going to make me watch Jurassic Park again huh! It’s okay. I’ve been into watching awesome movies of the past during the lockdown.
36:59- don't know if you caught the symbolism of Alan & Tim "chased" down the tree by the car. ironic reversal of flight behavior, with the added visual irony that it's a *machine* chasing man down out of the tree... (ie- 'we stopped being apes when we started using tools') love your work btw, peace!
Great series of videos.
I'm a year too late in commenting but I just wanted to say about your remarks about the characters not having any nuance. You seem to have missed the entire subtext of the film, which is parenthood. Alan Grant has an entire arc in this film where he goes from hating kids to looking at Ellie wanting them in the end. His arc is about impending fatherhood. When Lex says "He left us!" she isn't referring to Generro, but to her father. Alan responds that thats not what he is going to do. He is taking on the role of their father. Guiding them through this moment, learning about what a protector and nurturer he truly is.
The Tallest Land Animal is the Giraffe at 17 feet. When Bigger Dinos roamed Earth had Less Gravity, so the big dinos couldn't exist today.
Really excellent video.
49:49 dear God the dinosaurs are amazing and unfortunately could never be compared or topped.
Somewhat in Jurassic World's defense, the fact that the dinosaurs aren't "up to date" is actually addressed in some capacity. It is revealed in some "blink or you'll miss it" screens, and some side content, that the dinosaurs in Jurassic World are based off of Wu's old work. Wu was never able to advance that work thanks to the Gene Guard Act, and his illegal experiments on the side only managed to create terrors, rather than scientifically accurate representations. His methods for recreating avian dinosaurs, for example, still lacked the ability to genetically reproduce plumage, and resulted in the same reptile-like dinosaurs from the original.
It's an acknowledgement that the science is wrong...but also, if they change it, they'll alienate old fans of the films and significantly lessen the menace of a lot of the dinosaur mainstays in public consciousness.
I was looking for a comment like this: the Dinos are genetic Frankensteins, and aren't meant to be authentic. One particularly fun theory is that the experts were actually brought to the island to see if they could be fooled, because the truth coming out (the dinos are fake,) would make it clear that the park is about the money, not the science, and that would turn the park from a zoo into a freakshow.
Is the symbol on Spielburg's hat during the interstitial interviews a company logo or is it really just the Symbol of Chaos?
32:11 and because it is cheaper to encode video because when the actual frame size is smaller than 16x19, so by making movies and tv shows in wider formats, instead of the frame being 1920px x 1080px (for 1080p), it turns out to be only 1920px x 800px. And when it comes to 4k video it becomes even more apparent.
Great Review, just wanted to add a little more to the equation...
Great series Chuck! Thanks.
The "Landrover" is actually a Forn Explorer....
41:38 "Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair."
6:33, Wrong. Dr. Sattler is NOT Dr. Grant's girlfriend. She's a paleobotanist who happens to be an acquaintance to Dr. Grant. In fact, in the novel, it's revealed that Dr. Sattler is Dr. Grant's graduate school student, and she's engaged to another doctor who she will soon marry in Chicago. Also, in "Jurassic Park 3", Dr. Sattler is married to man named Mark.
Doesn't Ian say "I'm sorry you two are?" Asking if the are a thing and Grant replies with "yeah" in annoyance. Also Grant asks Ellie in the film "You wanna have one of those?" Referring to the kid from the digsite.
I could be wrong but they seem very much a subtle couple
@@rivil5654 I think Alan only wanted to brush Ian off. And I don't think Grant was referring to both he and Ellie having kids together, but rather asking Ellie if she wanted to have kids in her future, but not with Alan, but with another man.
Alan and Ellie are a couple in the movie. In the novel they are more than just acquaintances. It’s written as them being very close as friends and colleagues. Grant also includes her in everything, probably not that typical for someone who is “just a student”.. Ellie gets the same £30,000 fee per day to visit the park with Alan so we know she is very intelligent and good at her job. We also don’t know how long she has been working with Grant but she is only 24 so it can’t be very long meaning they got close pretty quickly. Also after the first movie when the author wrote the second book he included a line that said Alan and Ellie were romantically involved at the time of Jurassic Park but weren’t together anymore. So while their story was written as a close friendship it’s easy to have it be something more and that just wasn’t mentioned. People fall for each other and are seeing each other or sleeping with each other all the time in real life and you have no idea.
@CanadaDragon1 She replies with, “a breed of child Dr Grant would be intriguing”, meaning a little version of you would be intriguing. Why would he bring up his issues with kids if she wasn’t talking to him about them having kids together.
I too enjoyed sliders
Sabotage itself is part of the chaos, it's out of Hammond's plan. May be not nature chaos, but chaos nonetheless.
*Everyone in the comments discussing chaos theory and prehistoric dna*
Me: Hey, those were Ford Explorers, not Land Rovers!
Regarding the human characters in this film: Consider the first season of Westworld. Compare Hammond to Ford, Arnold to Bernard. Yes, the whole point was to give them far more room to explore the collapse and the people involved. And it works amazingly well.
As for the comparison of book vs film Hammond... Really, I find it hard to believe that anyone would see Jurassic Park as a "get rich quick" scheme, when the genetic technology and research required would have far more profitable uses. Having the idea, and the will to pour nation-sized investments into its realization, is the kind of mad artistry more attributed to Walt Disney than Alan Sugar.
So Jurassic Park was Hammond's EPOCT complete with trains in his backyard?
@@katherinealvarez9216 That's... A pretty apt comparison, actually. Just instead of a living vision the future, Hammond wanted to show people a living vision of the past.
@@watchm4ker huh. And there's the folly and dark side of Disney. And no head in the jar or mind control needed.
Katherine Alvarez Again: Westworld.
Watch maker huh, so Crichton got it. Cool, thanks!
Yes that remark will wind up in the comments, but only because it is accurate.
At this point "It looks more cinematic" has to be an insult.
How so?
Because a lot of hacks use it to justify their bad directing decisions.
A certain technique (let's say the Dutch Angle) has been used to great effect by a competent Director. It grows in popularity and becomes part of what people think "looks cinematic". At some point bad Directors start using the technique in situations it isn't meant for and it just doesn't work. When called out on that they will argue that they did it so "it looks more cinematic".
And that's how you get such gems as Battlefield Earth.
Also, video games that try to be cinematic. But that's more of a personal gripe.
@@Thraim. oh! Okay, they keep using the technique without fully understanding why other than superficial.
I went to go check out the acting in thst Sharon Stone scene. Got lost on a UA-cam tangent and somehow found my way back here, right where I left off. Win.
But Dr. Wu explains why in jurassic world why their Dinosaurs are different
I think the stop motion woulda worked, I saw some of the test footage, it was good.
Here's a very simple way to update the dinos from Jurassic Park to Jurassic world (a way they missed). The dinosaurs were created in a lab, they were never "real" dinos. that was a major plot point of both the first book and movie, and a plot point of Jurassic world (With the home brewed Indomidus Rex). Since the Dinos were made in a lab by engineers, simply have a throw-away tour narration in Jurassic World saying something like "In the last 20 years we have learned more about dinosaurs, and the new generation of Dinos here in Jurassic World (property of disney) have been bread to reflect a more accurate image of the past." and bam you can have feathered T-rexes and raptors and stuff..
Watch out, you know how much people love complaining about Disney.
Indeed, the "dinos" in the park are genetic constructs based upon found Dino DNA that was incomplete and the scientists worked on it using DNA from other animals until creatures emerged that could survive. Those are hybrid creatures and not dinos so it is very much ok that they don't look like the real thing. I find it more fitting in fact^^
@@TodayLifeIsGoood Don't kid yourself. If they had live 'dinosaurs,' that's what the word _dinosaur_ would mean to the public. Heck, try to discuss raptors in the last 25 years without first explaining that the word means 'predatory birds.'
Pretty sure Claire outright calls BS on her someone complaining about I-Rex on the very grounds that they keep the Dinos looking less real to appeal to public perception,
There are rumors that, with cloning technology and Dino DNA being distributed to different companies wanting to make their own dinosaurs since the end of Fallen Kingdom, we'll be seeing more accurate dinosaurs soon in JW III.
I'm not surprised that InGen would keep the dinosaurs dated for their park. It's their original image and they're going to copyright that image.
Great reviews! Thanks!
So I just got a 12 minute ad about Pokémon sword and shield... nothing to do with the video, but seriously? UA-cam is posting 12 minute long ads now? Even I think that’s a bit long... that’s longer than the entirety of ad breaks in a half hour show...
Not your fault or anything, it just came on this video, and I had to comment on it.
The fact that Nedry's actions were intentional doesn't mean they aren't an example of chaos, because individual humans are components in larger social systems. Even if Nedry's plan hadn't been haphazard, even if his plan had been perfect, it would still count as an example of chaos theory because Hammond and others failed to predict sabotage. Sabotage was one of many things that went wrong that they weren't prepared for. The only way Nedry's actions wouldn't count as an example of chaos would be if he were the park owner and the company/park was his system. Like if Hammond had intentionally sabotaged his own park, then that wouldn't count as an example of chaos.
There are 3 films that really affected me in theater with their visuals. "Star Wars"in 1977 - I was 4 - "Starship Troopers" in 1997, and of course, "Jurassic Park". The dinosaurs here gave me a similar feeling of awe as the Imperial Star Destroyer in "Star Wars". I still love all 3 of the films I mentioned.
SF if you can link the source for the 'smart rex' theory, I would very much like to read it, as this is the first I've heard of it.
This article seems to have quite a few links, and cites the work of Stephen Brusatte, a relatively respected name in Paleontology with the University of Edinburgh.
www.thedailybeast.com/t-rex-was-smarter-than-we-thought
The only dinosaurs that have intelligence comparable to that of chimps are birds like crows and parrots. We do not actually know exactly how smart the extinct dinosaurs were since we only have the rough brain shape based on the skull bones. The closest we can get is studying this endocast that once held the brain. T. rex for example has an enlarge part that's used for the sense of smell. So we know scent was important to the life of a T. rex but we don't exactly know how well it could smell. All those clues combine to make us think that T. rex was indeed a pretty smart animal, for a dinosaur. But it wouldn't be much smarter than most predatory birds today. Another way to gauge the rough intelligence of an extinct animal is measuring the encephalization quotient (EQ). This measures the relative volume of the brain compared to the total body mass. The bigger the brain compared to the body, the smarter the animal. T. rex doesn't score too well on this. It's not a dumb dinosaur, but not even close to being the smartest. The dinosaurs with the highest EQ are Troodontids and Dromaeosaurids (raptors). Raptors and Troodontids were indeed the smartest dinosaurs at the time. There is no way around this.
Claiming T. rex was as smart as a chimp is absolute nonsense.
They're not dinosaurs. They are mutant creations... like mentioned in the film, part dino, part frog.
I've been waiting for this video
37:00
Very minor point, 47.00 but, fogging the glass doesn't mean the vloppirats are warm blooded. The cold blooded / warm blooded thing is how the animal raises its internal temperature not how hot they are, but either way both's breath would fog glass if the air (and glass) was cold enough.
Which I am sure you know and just had a tiny brain fart. Suspect you were going more for the fogging glass emphasizes that this is very alive.
I, however, demand you re-record the entire video and upload it afresh!
Jack Horner had Spielberg made the change to give a subtle emphasis that these raptors are warm-blooded. That was the intent of the fogging.
I’m just going to say it. They were Ford Explorers not Land Rovers. Not that it really matters in this discussion. Carry on.
14:28 Oh man, Last Action Hero is an underrated film, i highly recommend it, shame it got buried by Jurassic Park
Would love to see you read and review Anne McCaffrey's Dragon Riders of Pern series as well as Marrion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series.
McCaffrey Yes!, Child Abuser no! www.theguardian.com/books/2014/jun/27/sff-community-marion-zimmer-bradley-daughter-accuses-abuse
I love The Dragon riders of Pern series
The pern series was my jam from the age of ten onwards through my teens. Unfortunately going back and re-reading them as an adult.... There sure is a lot of rape in those books. "He was not gentle but he was thorough" from Dragonquest is from a pretty nasty scene.
And also, yeah, no to MZB. She sexually abused children and covered for her husband's sexual abuse of children.
Actually Robert Zemeckis directed back to the future, not Spielberg.
Spielberg produced Back to the Future (and by all accounts is a very hands-on Producer, joining the creative process instead of sitting in his office and worrying about budgets and box office), he was also a hands-on Producer in the also mentioned Poltergeist and The Goonies.
He has done Back to the Future, he is well aware of this.
35:43
WRONG!
Not a huge fan of this movie.. I think it's very much in his 2nd tier. His other movie from the same year was masterpiece.
So, that's the american pronunciation of Ozymandias?
You know, now that you mention it, I remember it sounded wrong like "timbre" being "tamber" when my professor said it, but after saying it long enough you can't imagine it being any other way. Mind you, IIRC my English prof was from the Middle East, so maybe that's how it's pronounced there?
@@sfdebris Hei, could have been worse, you could have kept saying "a butterfly flapping it's wings in Peking" in place of Beijing over, and over, and over again.
sfdebris it’s a tomato-tomato argument here in the states lol. I pronounce it like “Ozzy -man-dee-ass” it threw me off to when he pronounced it like that
@@Wot50202 To be fair, the corect pronunciation is Ramesses the second.
@@sfdebris Hooray! you talk to your subs. (phew, beginning to think you were THAT kind of UA-camr)
That was one brilliantly shot pile of shit😏
Content was very interesting but I couldn't get through the video with ads interrupting every 3 minutes. Turned it off at the 30:00 spot.
Thanks. I'll just go ahead and admit it right now: I was actually disappointed by this film. While the special effects were literally out of this world (and into a far distant past one, of course), it did - as you say - leave something to be desired on the character development front. On another note altogether, I'm firmly convinced that I could never be a movie critic - at least not in the traditional sense. First of all, there's no way I could take in everything in one viewing. In fact, I'm not at all sure professional movie critics can either. I'm just not sure they know it. I'd have to watch it once, just to watch it. Anything that 'hit' me about it at that point, would have to be fairly obvious. The second time, I'd pay more attention, and perhaps make some quick notes. Then, I'd watch it a final time (assuming I could still stand the thing at this point), with an eye for specific ideas and details. Just imagine trying to review a David Lynch film in one sitting! But I may be a little slow in some ways. Truthfully, I don't pick up on a lot of things until I'm fairly familiar with a movie, anyway (unless something egregious just smacks me in the head.) I've always loved stories mostly for entertainment value, and that's how my brain tends to relate to them. In this film, I came away realizing that I just didn't relate to the characters; I didn't feel much for them, sympathy or otherwise (except in as much as anyone would naturally feel protective of kids, which is most likely why Spielberg put two of them here.) tavi.
It's still so weird finding out Pulp Fiction was a 90s movie.. I went my entire life thinking it was 80s
Wow everything you just said, is wrong abd a little grasping
T-Rex was as smart as a chimp!? 🤷♀️ let me put on my skepticals 👓. Aka I could be wrong but I think that's really wrong
muldoon dies in the jungle so the whole people die in human constructs theory has a bit of hole in it
fisher stevens But he has a human construct meant to bring safety: his gun. And it, too, failed to bring safety, which was Chuck’s point.
@@ErzengelDesLichtes i see your point however muldoon was carrying a human construct the thesis is people died inside a human construct ie a car in nedris case and a building for both samuel L and the lawyer id say a gun and a structure are symbolically in the same neighborhood though
In the infinite multiverse, I choose to believe there is a reality where Muldoon out wrestles the raptor.
I assume the role is played by Saxton Hale in that universe.
Joseph Davies it’s actually Theodore Roosevelt wearing a disguise
I believe in some of the JP comics he does.
He does in the book as well. He runs and crams himself into a drain culvert. He then starts blowing away velociraptors with a rocket launcher.
Just saying: I feel like when people point out the holes in this movie by saying how the dinosaurs don't match real dinosaurs based both on what we knew then and what we knew now. Technically speaking this criticism misses both a crucial piece of dialogue, and the point of the movie. Hammond outright says they are specifically designed to NOT look like real dinosaurs, but based on what the uneducated park goers THINK dinosaurs look like. Take into addition Malcolm Effect, in this case meaning that there is no way to predict how these NOT dinosaurs will actually interact with the world. So the dinosaurs of Jurrasic Park franchise are in fact NOT at all supposed to be real dinosaurs, they are supposed to be dinosaurs that look like popular movie goer dinosaur perception, which will then mutate in ways no one can guess.
John Hammond even said it in the novel, Jurassic Park is meant to be entertainment. Entertainment is antithetical to reality.Which made him say he can charge whatever he wants for admission since its a luxury, not a necessity. - which is ironic how in the film he had a line about "not catering to the super rich"
Nedry is not the villain of Jurassic Park. He is the catalyst. He fulfils none of the functions of a villain, and dies in an aside, unmarked and unmourned.
He also didn’t crash into the Dilophosaurus paddock but through a road railing on the side of the hill. The individual dinosaur(likely a juvenile due to it’s smaller size) had already escaped it’s enclosure since the fences seen earlier wouldn’t be tall enough to contain an animal of such athleticness(seen when it first drops down near to Nedry) once the electric current was turned off.
If Jurassic Park has a villain, it's Hammond.
OK, so I read an article about how T-Rex was the equal of intelligence to chimps, and references Brusette.
www.thedailybeast.com/t-rex-was-smarter-than-we-thought
According to this dude, T-Rex ranks high in the brain size to body size ratio. However, is this the ultimate measure of intelligence? I think that parrots and crows would be excellent analogues for this alleged intelligence, since they effectively don't have arms/hands just like Rex. These little modern dinosaurs use their prehensile feet to achieve fine motor manipulations. Could you see Rex doing something similar? Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing Rex was a genius. Well above average of what we considered dumb dinosaurs, sure, but not Wile E Coyote
One of the things i love about the Hunter hunting Hunter`` bit is that the scene was foreshadowed at the beginning of the movie with Allen scaring the kid. He said exactly what would happened.
See thats what ticked me off in the movie adaptation. Grant knew more from bones than the guy who literally watched these things from the time they were hatched. Book Muldoon may have been a drunk, but he also was smart enough to know what they were going to do. Muldoon in the movie on the other hand, decided to walk into the jungle he was being hunted from without even having his gun ready to fire. Why not take one of the, I presume, automatic rifles that was right next to the shot gun in the cabinet in the bunker so you don't have to do that whole stupid unfold the stock before you can aim malarkey?!
I spared no expense for this comment.
29:35 I'm sorry, I just gotta say it but, the line up of Raptors in this picture, they just look kinda adorable. Like they all look so fluffy and huggable with the feathers, I know they'd probably kill and eat me, but I can't help it, they just look so cuddly
The raptors hunt Muldoon down out in the trees rather than inside or right outside a human structure. He's not taking refuge in a shelter or trying to and in the shot it sure doesn't look like there's much in his immediate vicinity. I guess the gun is a "human creation" that he's put his faith in in a similar way though.
So basically, the velociraptors are like the shark in Jaws, wherein you don’t see the creature until the last act of the movie.