The thing I loved most about this movie was how it conveyed the feeling that this was a real place going through the dust-up to a grand opening but just not quite there yet. The details like the half-painted walls, the part where Hammond forgot he had lines of his own to say while the show carried on, all those little things added up to convey this amazing scenario to people. That's what I think is Spieberg's true gift, it's the small details.
That's what makes Jurassic Park more special than any of the other films in the series. It was as if the audience was along for the ride visiting the park for the first time. That interactive feeling is just something that can't be recaptured.
This scene is great because it displays Hammond's childlike attitude towards the miracle of science that his employees have achieved, and contrasts with the horrors that await
Hammond is a good guy who just wants to make a dream a reality for so many people but like Dr. Grant said "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."
@@saylosrelyks8645 Hammond genuinely wanted to see how far mankind could go, and to make exploring the mysteries of the world a reality. Behind the hubris, there was love.
@5 Star Detailing LLC but advertising equals communication, if you don't squirrel it away like your secrets. ("oh god, what does he mean'-?-." i'm a psychopath.)
Neither did my 7 year old brain but my 35 year old one is asking why is that in the movie? It doesn't add anything. If he literally just said struggled to say automaton and John finished it it would have accomplished the same thing. Add on this movie was for kids as well because it was pg-13 I believe.
It added two things: 1) a bit of humor and 2) it shows how clueless and un-technical the lawyer is, further drilling home the point of how humans are not ready for the technology of dinosaur-resurrection. It mirrors the ineptitude of humans as a whole, and is also a subtle semi-foreshadowing of his death scene -in the sense that his "bathroom humor" of the joke slightly foreshadows his bathroom death scene. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. @@wookieninja8794
I loved this movie when I was a kid. Now, I am a 35 year old adult and loved this movie even more after understanding everything that I missed as a kid (DNA, Cloning, the ethics discussion of building such a park and many things among others). Truly remarkable film, aged just like fine wine
It can definitely be touched. By the novel. The movie has NONE of Malcom's fantastic, long-winded lectures about chaos theory, unpredictability and attempting to control nature. It is a pale shadow of the brilliant novel. And the novel characters are far more fleshed-out and 3-dimensional. The only thing I like more about the movie is that Hammond is far more likeable and enjoyable than he is in the book.
@@akshaynatu6568 100%, the movie is amazing but the novel is a ducking masterpiece. Any film based on a book necessarily trims down the source material to fit into 2 hours.
3:26 I never noticed how Hammond comments on the music of the DNA film of all things, and how he's excitingly talking about the final draft of it with bombastic and dramatic marches and timpani drums and stuff. It goes to demonstrate his borderline childlike take on his project, while Grant, Sattler and Malcolm are far more intrigued with the actual science and philosophical implications behind it.
While I don't think it's necessarily good or bad, it's interesting how different his character is in the book. He's still a bit of a whimsical dinosaur enthusiast, but in the books he's money-hungry and excels at salesmanship over all else. For example, in the next scene, he states that he insists on being present when each dinosaur is born. In the books, they complain that he rarely has visited the island and doesn't understand the issues it's facing.
@@patricks9057 his focus on the music in this scene, which many seem to find endearing, certainly points to him caring more about marketing than anything else. He's not experiencing childlike wonder at dinosaurs, he is simply excited to show them his presentation and his park.
I never noticed before but just before Ellie says "where do you get 100,000,000 year old dinosaur blood?" the camera zooms in ever so slightly on the mosquito trapped in amber on the top of Hammond's cane.
I always found it fascinating how Hammond doesn’t even focus on the aspect of the miracle of bringing dinosaurs back to life. He’s focused on the tour and musical score on the video. He’s a “showman”
@@brandonconstant7226 Very good point, I can see that. This was the pre-opening version for investors, lawyers, scientists, etc, that Hammond was going to meet with.
When watching this as a child, I thought that there was something weird about John Hammond. As an adult, I can't help but see how childish he acts. So reckless, so irresponsible.
Yup. You can physically clone an animal from 70 million years ago with the amber DNA, but to hope that said cloned animal will *behave* exactly the same way in a modern 20th century environment, with a VASTLY different climate, food sources, insects, water, and bacteria than prehistoric Jurassic times is PURE IDIOCY. The cloned animals have no clue what time period they're in, this would be a terrifying and alien world to them. They will be scared, become extremely aggressive and violent, fall ill, die. Jurassic Park would have failed miserably even if Nedry hadn't sabotaged it.
I always like to imagine an alternate universe where Jurassic Park fixed its issues and opened without further issue. Just imagine Hammond have to stand there all day, every day, reading those lines over and over again. Maybe in the logic of Jurassic World, this happened.
Unlikely as JW is meant to be set after John Hammond passed away and Masrani came to the helm of the company. In fact in JW, all of the attractions (if you can even call them that…) have peaked in terms of their profitability and attractiveness for consumers and the indo was a shake up to all of that, that went wrong.
seeing how many visitors there are in Jurassic world,i would say that there will around thousand of visitors and john will probably get tired saying the same line over and over again,until he pass the job to another employee or something
considering how JW series turned out, I would glardly accept it as an alternate timeline and keep JP, Lost World, and JP 3 as main canon timeline. A man can dream...
Another example of Jon's lack of vision towards the bigger picture outside of the initial presentation and dramatics. He designed this tour and video thinking how entertaining it would be to see the faces of the first group of people watching it, but didn't stop and think about how he'd need to do it every time for the context to work.
That "don't you mean extinct" quip was supposedly originally said by one of the model/animotronic team after seeing some of the early CGI work. Spielberg liked it so much they threw it in.
Watching as a kid: "Gee, John Hammond seems like a sweet old man." Watching as an adult: "Gee, John Hammond seems like a bit of a childish rich idiot."
I kind of find it hilarious that the Real John/Screen John interactions suggest that when the park opened he would personally be in the introductory tour to welcome every group of visitors. It would be the equivalent of Walt Disney welcoming each guest at Disney World.
3:44 "Weeelllll, lookie here! Those haaaaard workin' cowpokes you see behind the glass...." Seen this movie dozens of times and never noticed this hilariously goofy line Mr. DNA says in the background.
This cast is just so good, they were the OGs but what's really underrated is the costume department. Could you imagine them wearing anything different? The colors used were perfect.
This scene is a nice touch, and makes Jurassic Park very self aware. The visitors are experiencing the majestic creation of dinosaurs in a theatre setting just like we were when it hit the cinemas in 1993.
Just noticed this amazing shot for the first time... when the three of them huddle to together to discuss the cloning process and where Hammond got a full dinosaur DNA sequence, the camera quickly focuses on the amber stone as Hammond walks by. 1:00
And they're discussing the degradation of DNA, and where one would logically get it. At their core, they aren't action heroes. They're scientists, smart people in their respective fields, and even though they are in awe of this place, they still have the wherewithal to think things through. That also gives weight to their doubts during their meal later. That they see the potential for disaster, and urge caution. Fears that are only justified later on.
I implore everyone to read the Jurassic novels by Michael Crichton. They really go in depth on how 'fraudulent' this ride was. The real unethical science was done on the separate island.
Agreed, the Crichton-novels aka the lesser known, even more original Jurassic Park is a great read, and there are numerous differences and left out potential scenes from the film that were great in the book. It is kinda graphic describing certain deaths though.
Fun fact the type of mosquito they put in the Amber for this movie is an elephant mosquito which made a huge mistake because it's the only species of mosquito that doesn't bite
I'm a 7th grade Science teacher, and I use this clip every year in my Genetics unit so that my students can see how close to reality science fiction can be, and I have them try to explain why this couldn't happen.
Not that you asked me, but i can atleast give an answer based on my very limited knowledge. While I'm sure that there are more flaws in it than I know of, but the flaws i can point to are: 1) The use of blood preserved inside amber. While I don't know if blood could be preserved for such a long periond of time, I do know that the DNA would have degraded within the first millions of years and could there for not be used to clone dinosaurs. 2) The use of frog DNA to fill the gaps in their DNA. Dinosaurs are much closer related to Birds and Crocodiles than they are frogs, so using frog DNA would likely have caused deformities. 3) As of right now and especially at the time, we did not possess the knowledge to clone and grow an embryo from it's DNA alone, we would at most require something like the sperm from a male animal that lay eggs similar to the dinosaures, aswell as a female of the species. The sperm, (and eggs from the female), could theoretically be altered with the DNA from the dionsaures to result with an actual dinosaur being created. Although I have no knowledge if this has ever been done with any animal species. 4) We currently do not understand genetics well enough for us to be able to just repair damaged DNA. filling in the holes of missing genes would at best be guess work due to the fact that we don't have any way of reading what genes does what and what genes that are missing to complete the code, so filling the gaps with the right parts would be unlikely to do as easy as the novels and films present it. 5) Large animals live in symbiosis with other micro organisms and other tiny creatures that make a home out of our bodies, we need these creatures to survive and so would the dinosaurs. However due to the massive time diffrence between us and them, it is likely that many of the species of bacteria, parasites, etc that the dinosaurs lived with are no longer part of our current ecosystem, since containing pre historic strains of micro organisms would be near impossible on an island, while at the same time it would probably not be possible for the animals to live without them, we would, to my understanding have to modify their genetic code so that they are adapted to the organisms today. Note that I do not hold any form of education withing genetics or biology, most of this is based off of what i have read and hear online. So please take everything i wrote with a grain of salt. I would also like to apologize for my grammer and spelling, as english is not my native tongue.
Micah Winston that’s actually a really good method for teaching sciences. My own teacher did something similar. He’d show us clips of martial arts or sci fi movies and ask us to point out flaws from a scientific standpoint
The saddest part isn't the chaos that happens at the park its the fact if cloning has been perfected to the point they can clone dinos from imperfect samples and frog DNA they could probably clone human organs etc which would be WAY more profitable than some dino theme park/zoo
That actually gets discussed between Hammond and Henry Wu in the book version, at least to the degree of "why authenticate nature when we can make WHATEVER WE WANT?"
Think of the park as a halo product for everything else that can be done with the technology. When Audi built the R8, people would got to a dealer to look at it, and the dealer would try selling them an A4
Yes. The book goes into great detail about the how first dinosaurs that were cloned looked very different than what people would expect so the genes were constantly manipulated to create dinosaurs that matched the public's expectation and were more "commercial" and marketable.
Nothing about this park makes sense. Why an island in central America? Only rich people could go all the way there and Hammond wants everyone to be able to go there?
@@HermitKing731 in the sequel it's mentioned that the park was originally under construction in San Diego but the Isla Nublar site was chosen in the end
One of the things I really liked about the book was just HOW much attention was paid to all the amber mines that InGen was buying up all over the world. Someone even shows up to Grant's dig site to ask him why Hammond and InGen would want THAT much amber, and Grant honestly couldn't answer, because he'd only given InGen some theories about how the parental behaviors of certain dinosaur species, but at the time had no idea what InGen was actually getting up to. We see the one amber mine toward the beginning, and this animation explaining the use for the amber, but InGen had a MASSIVE stockpile of amber just to make the species that were currently alive on the islands.
Laura Dern first came to my attention in "Smooth Talk". Years later, I spoke to a filmmaker who worked on the television play with her. He said he got to chat with her for 20 minutes or so. He was surprised I had heard of the film. I was super jealous. My God she was so beautiful. Still is.
Richard Attenborough is a legend of film but he was just TOO damn genial, eccentric, and childlike to have pulled off the Novel Hammond. I'm glad they took a different route with his character in the film.
It was a smart change to make. In the book he’s just a generic greedy guy who wants money but he’s so much more interesting and nuanced in the movie. He had the best of intentions and wanted to entertain people. But it was misguided.
There's a small detail before that. When he snap changes as soon he saw the brachiosaurus. "We'll make a fortune with this park" he became Hammonds brown nose since this moment and it's even became more obvious during the lunch scene, discuting tickets prices already
@@fabulousfrance I love how Ian Malcolm laughs when he says that, he recognizes as does the audience, the peril, crassness and hilarious irony in that remark.
Was virtools a VR development (though graphical dev) was a software for developing things like that, not sure if it'd ever be up to that but I dont think now its even in production anymore, used it for immersive systems dissertation I was doing at University was over 10 years ago now
VR imaging was developed for major research corporations back then, and was primarily analog. The controls were attached to analog sensors that relayed the data to the main computer, while the images were sent to a display worn by the user. There was no head tracking back then, so you couldn't plant yourself inside a strand of DNA and simply look or walk around. It took those 30 years to bring VR to the consumer market, where it was aimed primarily at entertainment, so it needed to be more advanced. It needed higher frame rates, more advanced processors to handle the higher graphics load, and more memory to handle the program load. There is still no telling where VR will be in the next 10 years, or even the next 30.
Definitely dating myself with the reference but about 30 years ago not that long after Jurassic Park had debuted we had a multilevel shopping mall open in the heart of downtown Indianapolis and one of the top floors had an amazing arcade and the centerpiece at the time were some VR games that even for 1994-5 had some very impressive graphics, the lines for them ran about an hour in length and was like that for about the first 45 days the mall was open and even after for a good year or more you had to wait in line a good 20 min or r half hour to have a turn, that’s how mindblowing VR was for people back then
I thought the concept of blood in a preserved mosquito was really easy to get. I remember digging in my garden to find a ball of preserved amber. Never did obviously.
@@LuciusVulpes it could be, there was talk of doing what they did for the woolly mammoth. For dinosaurs yea it’s difficult because it’s there’s no DNA 🧬 to extract
Charlie Dallachie It’s essentially impossible. You’d need a mosquito to consume lots of blood, then happen to get stuck in amber, assuming the blood and amber aren’t contaminated. You’d then need to differentiate the DNA from that of the mosquito, assuming that too much of it hasn’t degraded after millions of years. And filling in the gaps with frog DNA isn’t as easy as it seems, frogs are different from dinosaurs. But let’s assume all that works out - you’d only have the DNA of a single dinosaur.
I have never understood why they just chose frog DNA to complete the sequence interruptions they spotted in dinosaur DNA chains. I am not a geneticist, however to my knowledge there are many other still living reptiles which genetic features are likely to be closer to dinosaurs'. Crocodiles for instance are often regarded as "living fossils". Maybe Nedry was right about Hammond getting cheap on everything...
I think the idea is to fetch an "ancestor" species, seeing how amphibians came before dinos. Using reptile dna might be similar, but it also means more changes were set in stone. I think the idea is something akin to stem cells. Im sure it makes no sense in real science, but thats it i think,
Movies like JP got me interested in the fundamentals of genetic engineering. When I watched the UNDERWORLD movies, I was prepared for the genetic science applied to these movies.
One of my favorite, and to me most reasonable, fan theories is that there were no dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Rather, the InGen scientists advanced DNA editing to the point that they could splice together enough modified genes to make creatures that resemble dinosaurs.
What I don't understand is, why couldn't they fill the gaps with Avian DNA? Why amphibians specifically? I mean by 1993, it was already being accepted that birds are dinosaurs.
No one talks about how this movie like Jurassic World for the time period it was in 1993 showcases technology that wasn't available then but is subtle enought that it makes sense -self driving cars - tvs in said cars -virtual reality displays
No, insects only reached such sizes millions of years before during the Carboniferous. There was more oxygen in the atmosphere and as insects get their oxygen through their skin, they were able to grow much larger on land
If the original book was written today, knowing what we do now, they would have probably used bird DNA in the place of frog DNA. Its incredible how closely birds are related to the dinosaurs.
I'm reading the book right now, and they knew birds were closely related, but it didn't matter. When Wu is asked what is used to fill in the gaps, he doesn't even know the whole list of animals offhand; a computer had chosen them and they used various animals. Even humans have something like 90% of the same DNA as a frog. The part with it being specifically frogs was probably to make it simple for the movie audience.
In Carnosaur (the novel) the scientist used chickens to make their dinosaurs. The book made a very good point with their explanation of how they did it.
Yep, I'm around geese and ducks regularly, they're extremely fascinating, modern day raptors! Very intelligent and social, super birds! If you ever want to meet real life dinosaurs, geese are the way to experience full Dinosaur Power! :)
I understand why they made this scene for the benefit of the audience, but you would think, to make the park commercially viable, they would not reveal their secrets as to how the dinosaurs were recreated so as to remove any kind of competition.
The presentation is simplified. It's obvious they withheld more details and information. This video is for casual tourists and is meant to give them enough information that the average attendee would need. Of course Hammond invited scientists to approve of the park so of course they would be far more curious and would certainly be asking questions due to the nature of their career fields.
They didn't reveal any secrets. The two most important pieces of information in the video are that the dinosaur DNA came from mosquitos fossilized in amber, and that the gaps were filled in with frog DNA. Anyone who had the money to make their own Jurassic Park but not these two pieces of knowledge would already be way, way behind. Moreover, we saw the actual threat the competition presented later in the movie: Nedry tried to smuggle out actual embryos. With those, a rival company wouldn't *need* to muck about with amber and frog DNA.
I saw this movie 100 times as a kid, and it wasn't until I was 8 or 9 on my 101st viewing I paid attention as hard as I could and realized how they got Dino DNA.
Tampering with genetics has always been a very tricky subject but back in 1993 it all seemed rather esoteric and far-off sci-fi. In 2023 it's a rather different matter! But I feel like certainly the scientific community don't seem to have heeded any warnings from the past or even the present. How was it the pandemic started again...? As Dr Malcom said, "your scientist were so preoccupied with whether or not the COULD, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD. Prescient words!
I always wondered WHY they used frog dna anyway. Was that ever explained? Why not use lizard dna or some other reptile or birds? Why was a frog needed?
I think in the book they used multiple animals. I guess they just used frogs in the movie to simply it. Even in Jurassic World they mention using multiple animal genes.
I just noticed the little animated character narrating is also used at the queue in Velocicoaster in Universal. They put it up on a screen to give riders instructions to use the lockers before getting on the ride. Neat.
The thing I loved most about this movie was how it conveyed the feeling that this was a real place going through the dust-up to a grand opening but just not quite there yet. The details like the half-painted walls, the part where Hammond forgot he had lines of his own to say while the show carried on, all those little things added up to convey this amazing scenario to people. That's what I think is Spieberg's true gift, it's the small details.
That's what makes Jurassic Park more special than any of the other films in the series. It was as if the audience was along for the ride visiting the park for the first time. That interactive feeling is just something that can't be recaptured.
@@Ziplinz Unless you're IN an actual heme park.
@@Angie2343 maybe NOT one with a PREHISTORIC THEME!
@@noelanderson969 Exactly.
So well put and most viewers don’t see this, you should check out the UA-cam videos posted of Spielberg making Jaws
This scene is great because it displays Hammond's childlike attitude towards the miracle of science that his employees have achieved, and contrasts with the horrors that await
Same pfp
Hammond is a good guy who just wants to make a dream a reality for so many people but like Dr. Grant said "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions."
@@saylosrelyks8645 Hammond genuinely wanted to see how far mankind could go, and to make exploring the mysteries of the world a reality. Behind the hubris, there was love.
or was that ecstaticness learned (and our age group was likely the children at the time?)
@5 Star Detailing LLC but advertising equals communication, if you don't squirrel it away like your secrets.
("oh god, what does he mean'-?-." i'm a psychopath.)
_"Are these auto ... erotica"_ my eleven year old brain didn't get that joke back in '94
Neither did my 7 year old brain but my 35 year old one is asking why is that in the movie? It doesn't add anything. If he literally just said struggled to say automaton and John finished it it would have accomplished the same thing. Add on this movie was for kids as well because it was pg-13 I believe.
@@wookieninja8794ah it was funny dont be a debbie downer about it
@@wookieninja8794 The movie is trying to appeal to many generations
It added two things: 1) a bit of humor and 2) it shows how clueless and un-technical the lawyer is, further drilling home the point of how humans are not ready for the technology of dinosaur-resurrection. It mirrors the ineptitude of humans as a whole, and is also a subtle semi-foreshadowing of his death scene -in the sense that his "bathroom humor" of the joke slightly foreshadows his bathroom death scene. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. @@wookieninja8794
Mine did.
I loved this movie when I was a kid. Now, I am a 35 year old adult and loved this movie even more after understanding everything that I missed as a kid (DNA, Cloning, the ethics discussion of building such a park and many things among others). Truly remarkable film, aged just like fine wine
Me too!!
Mantab
@@familia3sgte gokil
true, and makes you hate jurassic world even more
Same here
The acting, the cast, the dialogue, the amazing cinematography, the soundtrack, the memories... This film can’t be touched
still my personal GOAT, nothing has been able to top it
It can definitely be touched. By the novel. The movie has NONE of Malcom's fantastic, long-winded lectures about chaos theory, unpredictability and attempting to control nature. It is a pale shadow of the brilliant novel. And the novel characters are far more fleshed-out and 3-dimensional. The only thing I like more about the movie is that Hammond is far more likeable and enjoyable than he is in the book.
@@akshaynatu6568 100%, the movie is amazing but the novel is a ducking masterpiece. Any film based on a book necessarily trims down the source material to fit into 2 hours.
@@Biospark88 talk about a low bar
Never will be touched
3:26 I never noticed how Hammond comments on the music of the DNA film of all things, and how he's excitingly talking about the final draft of it with bombastic and dramatic marches and timpani drums and stuff. It goes to demonstrate his borderline childlike take on his project, while Grant, Sattler and Malcolm are far more intrigued with the actual science and philosophical implications behind it.
I always wonder what that part was.
Child-like perhaps but he definitely has lines he doesn’t cross like what was mentioned in Fallen Kingdom in which he disagrees with cloning humans…
While I don't think it's necessarily good or bad, it's interesting how different his character is in the book. He's still a bit of a whimsical dinosaur enthusiast, but in the books he's money-hungry and excels at salesmanship over all else. For example, in the next scene, he states that he insists on being present when each dinosaur is born. In the books, they complain that he rarely has visited the island and doesn't understand the issues it's facing.
@@patricks9057 his focus on the music in this scene, which many seem to find endearing, certainly points to him caring more about marketing than anything else. He's not experiencing childlike wonder at dinosaurs, he is simply excited to show them his presentation and his park.
Hammond was based on Walt Disney, who was known to have opinions on even the smallest details concerning both his films and his theme parks.
I never noticed before but just before Ellie says "where do you get 100,000,000 year old dinosaur blood?" the camera zooms in ever so slightly on the mosquito trapped in amber on the top of Hammond's cane.
Great catch, never saw that either...Spielberg was brilliant!
I just noticed that too watching the clip
@@biggsterboy You never noticed.. that basic of a detail?
@@aricaric1894 no, it was so basic I was engaged in the other details.
@@aricaric1894 any reason why you decided to be a prick?
Seeing this in the theater in '93 was mind-blowing. Even today, it holds up amazingly well.
yeah much better then super mario bros that was to hard to follow😭
"Are... Are these characters auto-erotica?" 😂🤣
What the hell is "auto erotica "? Sounds like XXX
I was wondering if this was an outtake and they just kept it since he meant to say "animatronics" xD
Funny that the lawyer think that the real people look like machines to him.
It means self stimulating, in contrast to non-living animatronics.
This guy ... 🤣🤣🤣 clearly at one point he , he wants to smash the female dr. Lol
I always found it fascinating how Hammond doesn’t even focus on the aspect of the miracle of bringing dinosaurs back to life. He’s focused on the tour and musical score on the video. He’s a “showman”
Was John Hammond planning on being there every time they ran this?
Funny, i just thought that as well.
It could have been a special "VIP" version of the film. Maybe there was an alternate.
@@brandonconstant7226 Very good point, I can see that. This was the pre-opening version for investors, lawyers, scientists, etc, that Hammond was going to meet with.
Maybe it was a one-a-day thing
@@ShaDHP23 actually it was just for that weekend!
When watching this as a child, I thought that there was something weird about John Hammond.
As an adult, I can't help but see how childish he acts. So reckless, so irresponsible.
He was the “kid who found his own dad’s gun.”
@@jshudo44 Yup
Yup. You can physically clone an animal from 70 million years ago with the amber DNA, but to hope that said cloned animal will *behave* exactly the same way in a modern 20th century environment, with a VASTLY different climate, food sources, insects, water, and bacteria than prehistoric Jurassic times is PURE IDIOCY. The cloned animals have no clue what time period they're in, this would be a terrifying and alien world to them. They will be scared, become extremely aggressive and violent, fall ill, die. Jurassic Park would have failed miserably even if Nedry hadn't sabotaged it.
In the book he gets eaten by the little rat dinosaurs.
@@NormAppleton the compies
I always like to imagine an alternate universe where Jurassic Park fixed its issues and opened without further issue. Just imagine Hammond have to stand there all day, every day, reading those lines over and over again. Maybe in the logic of Jurassic World, this happened.
Unlikely as JW is meant to be set after John Hammond passed away and Masrani came to the helm of the company. In fact in JW, all of the attractions (if you can even call them that…) have peaked in terms of their profitability and attractiveness for consumers and the indo was a shake up to all of that, that went wrong.
seeing how many visitors there are in Jurassic world,i would say that there will around thousand of visitors and john will probably get tired saying the same line over and over again,until he pass the job to another employee or something
@@KetoCommander Not sure why he wouldn't just do it with two virtual clones of himself at start, so that he doesn't have to be there.
considering how JW series turned out, I would glardly accept it as an alternate timeline and keep JP, Lost World, and JP 3 as main canon timeline. A man can dream...
Another example of Jon's lack of vision towards the bigger picture outside of the initial presentation and dramatics.
He designed this tour and video thinking how entertaining it would be to see the faces of the first group of people watching it, but didn't stop and think about how he'd need to do it every time for the context to work.
That "don't you mean extinct" quip was supposedly originally said by one of the model/animotronic team after seeing some of the early CGI work. Spielberg liked it so much they threw it in.
It was Phil Tippett who said it!
@@noelanderson969 They should have cloned him.
I imagine many grand jokes and puns were made by the talent in this movie that we'll never know.
And look how well it aged throughout the Jurassic Park/World movie canon.
This is one of the greatest movies of all time. Not a single one of the sequels even come close to its perfection.
A bit unfair to compare the later films, if you ask me. They weren't meant to come close.
Number 2 actually wasnt too bad and i put it just behind number 1. After that i truly dont care about the rest
Watching as a kid: "Gee, John Hammond seems like a sweet old man."
Watching as an adult: "Gee, John Hammond seems like a bit of a childish rich idiot."
...who's also a sweet old man. :-)
In the book he was entirely driven by greed and quite selfish but Spielberg turned him into a sweet old grandpa.
In the novel John is not as good as he seems in the movies infact he's way too worse
Book Hammond was a menace
Sweet old man who also happens to be very unwise
I kind of find it hilarious that the Real John/Screen John interactions suggest that when the park opened he would personally be in the introductory tour to welcome every group of visitors.
It would be the equivalent of Walt Disney welcoming each guest at Disney World.
To be fair Walt Disney did do it.
Yeah, but John, if the Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
Love how even the cynical Malcolm is momentarily taken in by the whimsy and the genius of what he’s witnessing.
3:45 "Are these characters Auto-erotica?"
WW
No no no no. We have no animatronics here. No. Those people are the real miracle workers of Jurassic Park.
Exactly what you’d expect to hear from a real jerk off...”auto-erotica”.
That's what happens when you don't want to get sued by Disney for saying "audio-animatronic".
@@rckblzr so instead of saying something like "Automated" you call them masturbators?
3:44 "Weeelllll, lookie here! Those haaaaard workin' cowpokes you see behind the glass...."
Seen this movie dozens of times and never noticed this hilariously goofy line Mr. DNA says in the background.
“…Auto-erotica?” “no animatronics here.”
how did I miss that after all these years
The way he says "DINO SOW" kills me
Can’t unhear now
Maybe he meant female Dino, like a sow is a female cow (I think)
DANA SAWWW
"Auto-erotica."
LOL. You would think someone with a law degree wouldn't have committed a goofy malapropism like that.
I'm glad the Trex ate him
@@TheSecondVersion 🤣
I have a linguistics degree and I think you meant malproprism
English
I prefer Animal-erotica much better
This cast is just so good, they were the OGs but what's really underrated is the costume department. Could you imagine them wearing anything different? The colors used were perfect.
This scene is a nice touch, and makes Jurassic Park very self aware. The visitors are experiencing the majestic creation of dinosaurs in a theatre setting just like we were when it hit the cinemas in 1993.
That was my thought too. Especially seeing Grant with the projector beaming over his shoulder
Just noticed this amazing shot for the first time... when the three of them huddle to together to discuss the cloning process and where Hammond got a full dinosaur DNA sequence, the camera quickly focuses on the amber stone as Hammond walks by. 1:00
nice catch
And they're discussing the degradation of DNA, and where one would logically get it. At their core, they aren't action heroes. They're scientists, smart people in their respective fields, and even though they are in awe of this place, they still have the wherewithal to think things through.
That also gives weight to their doubts during their meal later. That they see the potential for disaster, and urge caution. Fears that are only justified later on.
I implore everyone to read the Jurassic novels by Michael Crichton. They really go in depth on how 'fraudulent' this ride was. The real unethical science was done on the separate island.
Agreed, the Crichton-novels aka the lesser known, even more original Jurassic Park is a great read, and there are numerous differences and left out potential scenes from the film that were great in the book. It is kinda graphic describing certain deaths though.
fuck ethics! if we do not progress then we will slide into degradation.
@@hunormagyar1843 what exact novel are you talking about ?
@@conandoyle1740 The exact same that he is.
@@hunormagyar1843 youre talking about the two books?
I read them there wasnt any gore in them lol
Even at four years old, I knew what that T-rex skeleton meant.
What did it mean to you?
@@dirkdiggler7391 that whatever it was, it was going to come for them on the island.
Definitely foreshadowing
In this parallel universe, colonel sanders created dinosaurs.
And deep fried them.
Fun fact the type of mosquito they put in the Amber for this movie is an elephant mosquito which made a huge mistake because it's the only species of mosquito that doesn't bite
I'm a 7th grade Science teacher, and I use this clip every year in my Genetics unit so that my students can see how close to reality science fiction can be, and I have them try to explain why this couldn't happen.
could you explain why this couldn't happen in reality? I'd like to know more
Not that you asked me, but i can atleast give an answer based on my very limited knowledge. While I'm sure that there are more flaws in it than I know of, but the flaws i can point to are:
1) The use of blood preserved inside amber. While I don't know if blood could be preserved for such a long periond of time, I do know that the DNA would have degraded within the first millions of years and could there for not be used to clone dinosaurs.
2) The use of frog DNA to fill the gaps in their DNA. Dinosaurs are much closer related to Birds and Crocodiles than they are frogs, so using frog DNA would likely have caused deformities.
3) As of right now and especially at the time, we did not possess the knowledge to clone and grow an embryo from it's DNA alone, we would at most require something like the sperm from a male animal that lay eggs similar to the dinosaures, aswell as a female of the species. The sperm, (and eggs from the female), could theoretically be altered with the DNA from the dionsaures to result with an actual dinosaur being created.
Although I have no knowledge if this has ever been done with any animal species.
4) We currently do not understand genetics well enough for us to be able to just repair damaged DNA. filling in the holes of missing genes would at best be guess work due to the fact that we don't have any way of reading what genes does what and what genes that are missing to complete the code, so filling the gaps with the right parts would be unlikely to do as easy as the novels and films present it.
5) Large animals live in symbiosis with other micro organisms and other tiny creatures that make a home out of our bodies, we need these creatures to survive and so would the dinosaurs. However due to the massive time diffrence between us and them, it is likely that many of the species of bacteria, parasites, etc that the dinosaurs lived with are no longer part of our current ecosystem, since containing pre historic strains of micro organisms would be near impossible on an island, while at the same time it would probably not be possible for the animals to live without them, we would, to my understanding have to modify their genetic code so that they are adapted to the organisms today.
Note that I do not hold any form of education withing genetics or biology, most of this is based off of what i have read and hear online. So please take everything i wrote with a grain of salt.
I would also like to apologize for my grammer and spelling, as english is not my native tongue.
Wilmer Sandström you watched Isaac Arthur before?
Because it's a movie.
Micah Winston that’s actually a really good method for teaching sciences. My own teacher did something similar. He’d show us clips of martial arts or sci fi movies and ask us to point out flaws from a scientific standpoint
"DI NO DEE EN AY" is such an iconic line that I can repeat it to anyone my age without any context to start a conversation about Jurassic Park
It’s funny because the whole idea for Mr. DNA came from a crew member who was just making sarcastic small talk.
"Auto...erotica?"🤣🤣🤣
Now we all know what that lawyer was spending his salary on.
I really enjoyed this part.
I wish it was that easy to bring the dinos =)
Spared no expense
Yes I also
Me too
I did but also literally every other scene in this movie
3:52 This is a subtle reference to Westworld movie ( _20 years earlier_ ). Fantastic scene
02:39 the way Jeff Goldblum came to attention sensing danger
life, uh, finds a way
I don’t think he was sensing danger, I think he was just interested to see how they did it.
Interested and Dangerous
Brundle fly
That guy needed a face shield to use the VR computer. Good safety culture
🤣🤣🤣
They have the touch screen?
The guy drilling into the amber wasn't wearing safety goggles.
This man said auto erotica when he meant to say animatronic.
That always bugged me even as a kid. If a 12 year old me knows that's wierd, what the fuck is up with that lawyer?
Ya think? 🙄
I sometimes wonder if that was an outtake and just messed up the line, but they rolled with it anyway. xD
Or automatons.
The saddest part isn't the chaos that happens at the park its the fact if cloning has been perfected to the point they can clone dinos from imperfect samples and frog DNA they could probably clone human organs etc which would be WAY more profitable than some dino theme park/zoo
Well, there's no reason they couldn't do both. Maybe not the same company, but still.
That actually gets discussed between Hammond and Henry Wu in the book version, at least to the degree of "why authenticate nature when we can make WHATEVER WE WANT?"
Think of the park as a halo product for everything else that can be done with the technology.
When Audi built the R8, people would got to a dealer to look at it, and the dealer would try selling them an A4
1:19 when I was a kid I always thought he called it “Mr. Dingaling” lol
And Epstein didn't kill himself
I died
Dr. Ellie Sattler with glasses… just unbelievably beautiful and so cute.
They should have gotten married between JP 1 and 2, and had a bunch of kids.
love how the guy pronounces dinoSOUR
dY-nAh-SaW
Its how James A Janisse says it
@@footballxedits2111 or Christopher Walken…
When a dino eats a warhead.
So the dinosaurs at Jurassic Park are basically genetically mutated frogs with dinosaur phenotypes enhanced to resemble presumed dinosaur structures?
More like imperfect replicas of dinosaurs, essentially a new type of organism
Yes. The book goes into great detail about the how first dinosaurs that were cloned looked very different than what people would expect so the genes were constantly manipulated to create dinosaurs that matched the public's expectation and were more "commercial" and marketable.
Imagine working in that lab. Every day bunch of tourists would come and watch you work. Thats a nightmare.
Kids screaming and throwing things at the glass
@@SamuelBlack84 oh god. I would tint the glass to a mirror from the lab side, and fully soundproofed
@@visionist7 And, feed them to the raptors 😄
Nothing about this park makes sense. Why an island in central America? Only rich people could go all the way there and Hammond wants everyone to be able to go there?
@@HermitKing731 in the sequel it's mentioned that the park was originally under construction in San Diego but the Isla Nublar site was chosen in the end
One of the things I really liked about the book was just HOW much attention was paid to all the amber mines that InGen was buying up all over the world. Someone even shows up to Grant's dig site to ask him why Hammond and InGen would want THAT much amber, and Grant honestly couldn't answer, because he'd only given InGen some theories about how the parental behaviors of certain dinosaur species, but at the time had no idea what InGen was actually getting up to. We see the one amber mine toward the beginning, and this animation explaining the use for the amber, but InGen had a MASSIVE stockpile of amber just to make the species that were currently alive on the islands.
So John was planning on being at EVERY viewing of that presentation to interact with his presentation self??
Lora Dern was gorgeous in this movie.
@vidaa82 JW Dominion?
Laura Dern first came to my attention in "Smooth Talk". Years later, I spoke to a filmmaker who worked on the television play with her. He said he got to chat with her for 20 minutes or so. He was surprised I had heard of the film. I was super jealous.
My God she was so beautiful. Still is.
0:51
The way he said that was fuckin adorable
It really truly was 🥰
2:27 "Using sophisticated techniques.."
You mean drilling a hole and sticking a needle in? Yeah, real sophisticated.
Shut up nerd lol
Richard Attenborough is a legend of film but he was just TOO damn genial, eccentric, and childlike to have pulled off the Novel Hammond. I'm glad they took a different route with his character in the film.
I've heard somewhere that book Hammond is angry and he dies by eaten up by small Dino's compies
It was a smart change to make. In the book he’s just a generic greedy guy who wants money but he’s so much more interesting and nuanced in the movie. He had the best of intentions and wanted to entertain people. But it was misguided.
I always loved how Mr. Dna says dinosawrrrs
Ian Malcolm really is a rockstar
3:56 “autoerotica” hahaha
😯
Searched for this
@@fullmentalalchemist3922 mistake
@@Fixxate or an attorney figuring out hot to increase his billable hourly rate!
this movie was so ahead of its time its insane.
The 90's ... what an era for movies ... of any kind ... I guess.
The music for this film was a 10/10
I love how John Williams composed essentially Loony Tunes music for this.
I like how relaxed the lawyer is, he's just lovin' it.
There's a small detail before that. When he snap changes as soon he saw the brachiosaurus. "We'll make a fortune with this park" he became Hammonds brown nose since this moment and it's even became more obvious during the lunch scene, discuting tickets prices already
@@fabulousfrance I love how Ian Malcolm laughs when he says that, he recognizes as does the audience, the peril, crassness and hilarious irony in that remark.
@@fabulousfrance His price assumptions were ridiculous.
Him missing his first line gets me every time
2:00 It's taken me 28 years to realise that they used honey in this clip
You may got the amber but I got the HUNNY.
It’s not Honey😂😂😂
I always thought it was maple syrup and always wanted pancakes 🍁🥞
3:05 my man's over here using xbox kinect to make a dinosaur
I would argue that this scene is one of the greatest in film history. Because nobody is watching this half way through and leaving.
3:04 damn VR's are already a thing 30 years ago?
Was virtools a VR development (though graphical dev) was a software for developing things like that, not sure if it'd ever be up to that but I dont think now its even in production anymore, used it for immersive systems dissertation I was doing at University was over 10 years ago now
VR imaging was developed for major research corporations back then, and was primarily analog. The controls were attached to analog sensors that relayed the data to the main computer, while the images were sent to a display worn by the user. There was no head tracking back then, so you couldn't plant yourself inside a strand of DNA and simply look or walk around.
It took those 30 years to bring VR to the consumer market, where it was aimed primarily at entertainment, so it needed to be more advanced. It needed higher frame rates, more advanced processors to handle the higher graphics load, and more memory to handle the program load. There is still no telling where VR will be in the next 10 years, or even the next 30.
Definitely dating myself with the reference but about 30 years ago not that long after Jurassic Park had debuted we had a multilevel shopping mall open in the heart of downtown Indianapolis and one of the top floors had an amazing arcade and the centerpiece at the time were some VR games that even for 1994-5 had some very impressive graphics, the lines for them ran about an hour in length and was like that for about the first 45 days the mall was open and even after for a good year or more you had to wait in line a good 20 min or r half hour to have a turn, that’s how mindblowing VR was for people back then
I wish I could go back to when the movie first came out.
3:23 The sauropod with Mr DNA's head is the stuff of nightmares.
Autoerotica?! 😂 Bad lawyer! **Bonk**
As a kid I was always confused with this scene.
I thought the concept of blood in a preserved mosquito was really easy to get. I remember digging in my garden to find a ball of preserved amber. Never did obviously.
But as an adult it makes a lot of sense, even if it's not actually possible.
@IWatchWeirdVideos yea it makes sense now, back then I just saw train sounds and dinosaurs (at 4-5)
@@LuciusVulpes it could be, there was talk of doing what they did for the woolly mammoth. For dinosaurs yea it’s difficult because it’s there’s no DNA 🧬 to extract
Charlie Dallachie It’s essentially impossible. You’d need a mosquito to consume lots of blood, then happen to get stuck in amber, assuming the blood and amber aren’t contaminated. You’d then need to differentiate the DNA from that of the mosquito, assuming that too much of it hasn’t degraded after millions of years. And filling in the gaps with frog DNA isn’t as easy as it seems, frogs are different from dinosaurs. But let’s assume all that works out - you’d only have the DNA of a single dinosaur.
0:05
In ALL the year of me watching this movie I never noticed dude is wearing a full suit and then shorts on the bottom... WHAT IS THAT?!
I have never understood why they just chose frog DNA to complete the sequence interruptions they spotted in dinosaur DNA chains.
I am not a geneticist, however to my knowledge there are many other still living reptiles which genetic features are likely to be closer to dinosaurs'. Crocodiles for instance are often regarded as "living fossils".
Maybe Nedry was right about Hammond getting cheap on everything...
I think the idea is to fetch an "ancestor" species, seeing how amphibians came before dinos. Using reptile dna might be similar, but it also means more changes were set in stone. I think the idea is something akin to stem cells. Im sure it makes no sense in real science, but thats it i think,
Movies like JP got me interested in the fundamentals of genetic engineering. When I watched the UNDERWORLD movies, I was prepared for the genetic science applied to these movies.
The frog lizard and bird hybrid dna is what made the dinosaurs different from the fossil counterpart ancestors
Birds...are dinosaurs
Nothing like the first time I saw this in a cinema hall. Iconic !!
One of my favorite, and to me most reasonable, fan theories is that there were no dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. Rather, the InGen scientists advanced DNA editing to the point that they could splice together enough modified genes to make creatures that resemble dinosaurs.
Mr DNA was a great visual way of explaining the DNA concept that was a bit complicated (for the layman) in the book.
I will and always have never considered the Jurassic World franchise in the same existence has this universe of Jurassic Park
What I don't understand is, why couldn't they fill the gaps with Avian DNA? Why amphibians specifically? I mean by 1993, it was already being accepted that birds are dinosaurs.
After all these years I finally see where Microsoft found its stupid idea for that damn paper clip for their Word app.
As a kid, I recognized the animation of the miners getting to the Amber as being similar to Rugrats. They must have used the same animation studio.
Remember this came out in the beginning of the 1990s when DNA was not fully understood
First few seconds: Guy sweeping a floor who is clearly a janitor -hard hat.
Guy who is clearly a construction worker -bandana.
Explain this.
3:48 The lawyer looks at the ceiling but in the next shot he talks to John by looking forward.
No one talks about how this movie like Jurassic World for the time period it was in 1993 showcases technology that wasn't available then but is subtle enought that it makes sense
-self driving cars
- tvs in said cars
-virtual reality displays
I always though mosquitoes in the Cretaceous period would have been the size of a falcon. I mean everything was bigger back then.
No, insects only reached such sizes millions of years before during the Carboniferous. There was more oxygen in the atmosphere and as insects get their oxygen through their skin, they were able to grow much larger on land
Was it just by accident that Dr. Hammond selling a dinosaur park resembles Colonel Sanders selling chicken?
@3:53 I never noticed the lawyer asking if the scientists were real or "auto-erotica" LMAO
*the first one of every movie is alwasy the BEST ONES!!*
I love it when the DNA guy says "dinosaurs" What accent is it?
Dude had VR w/ out the goggles. 😂
If the original book was written today, knowing what we do now, they would have probably used bird DNA in the place of frog DNA. Its incredible how closely birds are related to the dinosaurs.
I'm reading the book right now, and they knew birds were closely related, but it didn't matter. When Wu is asked what is used to fill in the gaps, he doesn't even know the whole list of animals offhand; a computer had chosen them and they used various animals. Even humans have something like 90% of the same DNA as a frog. The part with it being specifically frogs was probably to make it simple for the movie audience.
In Carnosaur (the novel) the scientist used chickens to make their dinosaurs. The book made a very good point with their explanation of how they did it.
Or at least another reptile that was around at the same time, like crocodiles.
Yep, I'm around geese and ducks regularly, they're extremely fascinating, modern day raptors! Very intelligent and social, super birds! If you ever want to meet real life dinosaurs, geese are the way to experience full Dinosaur Power! :)
Birds and dinosaurs are not related. That’s a myth
3:54 ---- How did I ever miss that? 😆
This whole idea actually makes sense to the point where it can be possible to create dinosaurs again.
But is it really a good idea to play God?
But NOT to make money off it!
The Problem is, that the Dinosaur DNA even in mosquitos, is too much damaged today.
You are so preoccupied with whether or not you could, you don't stop to think if you should
@@mzmuzo678 they explain it in the movie bro, of course it's not 100% intact so they make up the difference with frog DNA
"Virtual reality", well it took me 20+ years to get that.
I understand why they made this scene for the benefit of the audience, but you would think, to make the park commercially viable, they would not reveal their secrets as to how the dinosaurs were recreated so as to remove any kind of competition.
I'm sure they would have a thousand patents and copyrights.
The presentation is simplified. It's obvious they withheld more details and information. This video is for casual tourists and is meant to give them enough information that the average attendee would need. Of course Hammond invited scientists to approve of the park so of course they would be far more curious and would certainly be asking questions due to the nature of their career fields.
They didn't reveal any secrets. The two most important pieces of information in the video are that the dinosaur DNA came from mosquitos fossilized in amber, and that the gaps were filled in with frog DNA. Anyone who had the money to make their own Jurassic Park but not these two pieces of knowledge would already be way, way behind. Moreover, we saw the actual threat the competition presented later in the movie: Nedry tried to smuggle out actual embryos. With those, a rival company wouldn't *need* to muck about with amber and frog DNA.
This was such a genius way to explain the science in a simple way and also tie it into the theme park attraction.
I saw this movie 100 times as a kid, and it wasn't until I was 8 or 9 on my 101st viewing I paid attention as hard as I could and realized how they got Dino DNA.
Same. At 4yrs old when this film came out on VHS I didn’t understand jack lol
Tampering with genetics has always been a very tricky subject but back in 1993 it all seemed rather esoteric and far-off sci-fi. In 2023 it's a rather different matter! But I feel like certainly the scientific community don't seem to have heeded any warnings from the past or even the present. How was it the pandemic started again...?
As Dr Malcom said, "your scientist were so preoccupied with whether or not the COULD, they didn't stop to think if they SHOULD. Prescient words!
The lawyer guy is so amazed with the theatre and all the entertainment while the scientist guests are cringing.
I always wondered WHY they used frog dna anyway. Was that ever explained? Why not use lizard dna or some other reptile or birds? Why was a frog needed?
I guess it was to justify how dinosaurs were capable of changing sex.
Yeah it doesn’t make sense to use amphibian DNA when reptiles like crocodiles were around at the same time.
I think in the book they used multiple animals. I guess they just used frogs in the movie to simply it. Even in Jurassic World they mention using multiple animal genes.
I just noticed the little animated character narrating is also used at the queue in Velocicoaster in Universal. They put it up on a screen to give riders instructions to use the lockers before getting on the ride.
Neat.
"Are these characters Auto.....Erotica?"
Are they what?????