Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 06:55:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Jurassic World 2: Sponsored by Budweiser

Started by Kelvin, December 08, 2017, 10:10:34 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bad Ambassador

Quote from: FerriswheelBueller on February 06, 2018, 04:18:38 AM
"Extinction!"

"Overruled!"

"I'm sorry, your honour, but my client is calling another lawyer!"


Serge


Replies From View

Quote from: purlieu on February 22, 2018, 11:08:30 AM
Jurassic World 3 to hit cinemas on 11th June 2021.

I'm mostly just depressed that the year 2021 is only three years away.

2021.  Hahaa, a cartoonishly futuristic year posted as a joke.  Oh, no it fucking isn't; it is right there.

Replies From View


Custard

As with JW2, my highest hopes for JW3 is Bryce Dallas Howard gets all soaking wet again

Thomas

I've just re-read Jurassic Park, so my Jurassic Park franchise interest is currently at a high, but I also now firmly believe that there shouldn't have been any sequels at all. Not one. Jurassic Park should have been a standalone film.

Obviously, like an idiot, I will probably go to see the forthcoming sequel, with its crappy subtitle, in the cinema, thus contributing to this poisonous culture of sequels begetting sequels. I think these Jurassic World installments would far more palatable if something as simple as the colour grading were tweaked. Look at this example, cribbed from a man on Twitter:



The above shot is from the trailer. The second is the tweaked version. The original shot is actively unpleasant to look at.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Thomas on February 23, 2018, 08:56:49 PM
I've just re-read Jurassic Park...

I recently read an excerpt from the novel.  It was the section where Nedry is killed and it made me want to read the whole book.  I really wish that the movie had been more faithful to the tone of the source material but Spielberg clearly toned it down substantially for the family market.  Nedry's death was fucking grizzly in the book.

Quote from: Thomas on February 23, 2018, 08:56:49 PM


The above shot is from the trailer. The second is the tweaked version. The original shot is actively unpleasant to look at.

Teal and orange strikes again.  Fuck off, teal and orange.

Thomas

Quote from: St_Eddie on February 23, 2018, 09:12:17 PM
I recently read an excerpt from the novel.  It was the section where Nedry is killed and it made me want to read the whole book. 

That bit certainly stayed with me after I first read it. In fact, I've mentioned it a couple of times on CaB before. You should definitely give the book a go. It achieves a great balance between a) the activity of the story, and b) exploring the science-fiction ideas that unpin it. I love the opening chapters, as suspense builds and a patchwork fringe of information develops around the mysterious Isla Nublar.

I think I prefer the film, though, myself - I think it's a more enjoyable, leaner 'edition' of the same basic story, and Alan Grant is better without a beard. I'm yet to read Crichton's own The Lost World, which I understand Spielberg deviated quite widely from (despite Spielberg asking him to write the second book in the first place, so that he'd have a sequel to adapt).

Replies From View

Quote from: St_Eddie on February 23, 2018, 09:12:17 PM
Teal and orange strikes again.  Fuck off, teal and orange.

I do wonder when it's going to end.  And then how badly this entire era of movies and television will age.

Just as older movies like Blade Runner exist in a newer tweaked form to fit today's teal and orange aesthetic, any lasting movies and television of today will need to be re-graded in the future for audiences who haven't been conditioned to think teal and orange looks fine.  It's an absolute disaster.  People will look back on this era with the same kind of disdain that some people nowadays have when they look back on anything made in black and white.  Except teal and orange is actively disgusting.

Thomas

Interviewers never ask why directors have gone for teal and orange. It should be question #1. Justify it.

Serge

Quote from: Thomas on February 23, 2018, 09:20:26 PM
I'm yet to read Crichton's own The Lost World

You won't be missing much if you give it a swerve. That said, I barely remember anything about it, or how it differed from the film. But I remember feeling a tremendous disappointment when I read it, especially after the original 'Jurassic Park' had been such a great read.

purlieu

Unlike Serge, I actually really enjoyed the book of The Lost World. But apart from the existence of a second island, a couple of the characters, and the trailer-over-the-cliff scene, it has nothing whatsoever in common with the film. It's mostly a slow book with a lot of discussion about viruses and evolution and stuff. Don't expect an action-heavy read. There was no way anyone could have made it into a blockbuster film though, so the dramatic differences are unsurprising.

The original book and the first film are both fantastic in their own ways, and basically I completely agree with the idea that no more films should have been made.

mothman

So many of Spielberg's changes to the original novel grate. The kids? Originally teenage (or pre-teen) boy and his irritating little sister. But hell, movies' target audiences don't want to see that, lets make the older child a girl for for the teenage boys to fancy a bit. And Hammond? Total scumbag. Abandons his grandkids while bemoaning his sure financial losses. Then gets eaten by a T. Rex. But nooooo, Spielberg has known daddy issues, so Hammond becomes this avuncular father figure who just wants to bring dinosaurs back for the kiddies. Aww. But oh noes! Now we don't have a baddie! Who will we blame for everything? SOMEBODY has to be to blame. All that stuff from the geeky mathematician in the book, saying complex systems always break down in predictable ways? Sure, whatever, Poindexter. Nedry, you ask? Well, I dunno, yes, technically he causes all the problems, but he's fat, so you can't really think of him as evil can you? But wait? Who's this? Why, it's a lawyer! He'll do! What's that you say? He's a decent person who worries that the park isn't safe? Well, that hardly seems credible does it? Bringing dinosaurs back via cloning from insects in amber? That's believable? But a nice lawyer? Come on! Let's kill him in a really gruesome way. On a toilet? Why not? He's a LAWYER.

St_Eddie

Quote from: purlieu on February 23, 2018, 10:08:56 PM
Unlike Serge, I actually really enjoyed the book of The Lost World. But apart from the existence of a second island, a couple of the characters, and the trailer-over-the-cliff scene, it has nothing whatsoever in common with the film. It's mostly a slow book with a lot of discussion about viruses and evolution and stuff. Don't expect an action-heavy read...

Being that I was a big fan of the first movie as a kid, I got my Dad to read Crichton's The Lost World to me.  It went completely over my head but I recall thinking that the movie sequel wasn't as good, when it finally came out.

Quote from: mothman on February 23, 2018, 11:02:15 PM
So many of Spielberg's changes to the original novel grate. The kids? Originally teenage (or pre-teen) boy and his irritating little sister. But hell, movies' target audiences don't want to see that, lets make the older child a girl for for the teenage boys to fancy a bit. And Hammond? Total scumbag. Abandons his grandkids while bemoaning his sure financial losses. Then gets eaten by a T. Rex. But nooooo, Spielberg has known daddy issues, so Hammond becomes this avuncular father figure who just wants to bring dinosaurs back for the kiddies. Aww. But oh noes! Now we don't have a baddie! Who will we blame for everything? SOMEBODY has to be to blame. All that stuff from the geeky mathematician in the book, saying complex systems always break down in predictable ways? Sure, whatever, Poindexter. Nedry, you ask? Well, I dunno, yes, technically he causes all the problems, but he's fat, so you can't really think of him as evil can you? But wait? Who's this? Why, it's a lawyer! He'll do! What's that you say? He's a decent person who worries that the park isn't safe? Well, that hardly seems credible does it? Bringing dinosaurs back via cloning from insects in amber? That's believable? But a nice lawyer? Come on! Let's kill him in a really gruesome way. On a toilet? Why not? He's a LAWYER.

This is pretty much verbatim, what I'm expecting to think and say in regards to the movie, should I ever read the novel.  It sounds like the sort of thing that I'd say.

Kelvin

Quote from: mothman on February 23, 2018, 11:02:15 PM
So many of Spielberg's changes to the original novel grate. The kids? Originally teenage (or pre-teen) boy and his irritating little sister. But hell, movies' target audiences don't want to see that, lets make the older child a girl for for the teenage boys to fancy a bit.
I don't see this, at all. The girl (Alex?) is a tomboy, and never played up as cute, sexy for teenage boys. Not saying tomboys can't be attractive to teenage boys, but it's certainly not the conventional Hollywood approach, and I honestly don't think that was the intention of that change, at all.

QuoteAnd Hammond? Total scumbag. Abandons his grandkids while bemoaning his sure financial losses. Then gets eaten by a T. Rex. But nooooo, Spielberg has known daddy issues, so Hammond becomes this avuncular father figure who just wants to bring dinosaurs back for the kiddies. Aww.

That's not entirely true, either. Hammond does partly want to bring them back for the kids, but he's also avaricious and egotistical. Coupon days, etc.

If anything, that's a more complex character than a cliched greedy businessman. 

QuoteAll that stuff from the geeky mathematician in the book, saying complex systems always break down in predictable ways? Sure, whatever, Poindexter.

You mean the coolest and arguably most loved character in the film? At no point does the film take the piss out of his theories, and he's actually proven right by the end. He's not portrayed as a "poindexter", at all. He's an eccentric rockstar.   

QuoteNedry, you ask? Well, I dunno, yes, technically he causes all the problems, but he's fat, so you can't really think of him as evil can you?

Nedry comes across as a brash, slimy cunt throughout. "Dodgeson, we've got dodgeson here."

The lawyer, I'll grant you is your typical cliche. I just don't agree with your overall assessment, at all. The film is clearly simplified and streamlined for mainstream audiences, and so as to not get bogged down in big complex ideas. I honestly think that was the right choice for the type of film it is, and to keep the pacing up. I still think things like chaos theory and DNA were actually introduced to millions of people by the film, albeit in a more bitesize manner.

St_Eddie

Quote from: Kelvin on February 24, 2018, 09:13:15 AM
Nedry comes across as a brash, slimy cunt throughout. "Dodgeson, we've got dodgeson here."

Not as greater a cunt as Dodgson though.

Thomas

The publicity team for this film are doing a lot of work with their tie-in websites. I've not bothered to browse them myself, but I understand (from Jurassic Park nerds on YouTube) that they've gone to great creative lengths to explain why an ultra-beefy Spinosaurus appeared for the first time in the third film, and what exactly happened between each of the films. They've retroactively given Jurassic Park III a reason to exist within the franchise (hate that word) by tying the Spinosaurus into the genetic experiments that were the focus of Jurassic World.

Quite impressive, really. The administrative backstory they've managed to piece together is more interesting than the recent films.

Replies From View

Quote from: Thomas on March 10, 2018, 03:40:54 PM
and what exactly happened between each of the films.







I don't know what she's so scared about, but I've only just realised that she is eating jelly cubes directly from the packet there.

Gwen Taylor on ITV

I used to do that all the time as a child.  And adult.

Replies From View

Quote from: Gwen Taylor on ITV on March 11, 2018, 02:56:08 PM
I used to do that all the time as a child.  And adult.

What were/are you so scared about?

bgmnts

I havent read the book but even in the film i sided with the lawyer and Hammond was a tool.

Now i've grown i have realised lawyers are considered scummy so it makes sense knowing that.

Glebe

So the reviews have started coming out, and it seems to be getting a sort of 'okay' response, although The Grauniad's Peter Bradshaw didn't like it, for one, although it's gotten a surprisingly positive reaction from the usually-curmudgeonly Donald Clarke of The Irish Times.

I haven't been impressed by the trailers, but I'll prolly end up seeing it out of a weird OCD compulsion.

The Roofdog

Quote from: mothman on February 23, 2018, 11:02:15 PM
Hammond? Total scumbag. Abandons his grandkids while bemoaning his sure financial losses. Then gets eaten by a T. Rex.

He doesn't get eaten by a T. Rex in the novel, he gets nibbled to death by a pack of tiny procompsognathus that he can't keep batting away because he's too old and knackered. It's possibly more horrible than the Nedry death.

St_Eddie

Quote from: The Roofdog on June 06, 2018, 09:25:55 AM
...It's possibly more horrible than the Nedry death.

I really need to read the novel.

purlieu

Quote from: The Roofdog on June 06, 2018, 09:25:55 AM
He doesn't get eaten by a T. Rex in the novel, he gets nibbled to death by a pack of tiny procompsognathus that he can't keep batting away because he's too old and knackered. It's possibly more horrible than the Nedry death.
One of the best bits of the second film, taken from the first novel.

Replies From View

Apparently in the novel the dinosaurs don't even have teeth.

bgmnts

Quote from: Replies From View on June 06, 2018, 11:32:57 PM
Apparently in the novel the dinosaurs don't even have teeth.

Do they have feathers?

mothman

Feathers? You went with feathers? You could have asked if they don't have noses, it'd have been the perfect setup. Opportunity missed.

Kelvin

#89


"My procompsognathus has no nose."




"How does he smell?




"Like he's been dead for 200 million years."