1. I get your point. You feel like a took our argument to open territory? I can respect that. So here i am. In a new private place. New topic: What do you think about "Claire's Sanctuary"? I personally liked it. The ouranosaurs are cute and it was nice to see a normal ankylosaurid for a change.
2. Not quite my opinion, for the following major reasons. I have many reasons, but here are the major ones:
A. Grant: he could be better than Malcolm and Sarah. His taking responsibility is a better approache to life than "i told you so". Except Malcolm went through character development in part 2 and became responsible. As annoying as some might think, he was actually right about everything. If it was up to him, Nick could never do the crap he did. Grant, on the other hand, went through decay. It was sad. Eric was the only thing kept him whole.
B. The supporting characters: First of all, "The Lost World". I know many hardcore fans didn't liked that movie, but i'm not a hardcore fan of anything, so you can speak to me fluently. Now, Everyone, even people who know nothing about the franchise, will agree that Tembo is more heroic than many protagonists combined. He's definitely a better character than Amanda, Paul, the mercinaries hired by them and Brennan. The reasons should be clear. I know Amanda got over her stupidity for saving her son, but it makes up for nothing she did. She done worse even than Nick. At least Nick can claim he prevented Ludlow from bringing some dinosaurs to the mainland. People can sympathize Ludlow until the rapture, but he was just incompetent enough to lose control, without any wish to redeem himself. Amanda was stupid enough to open the pteranodon cage, and played right into Hoskins' hands. Long story short, this woman is one of the three people who created I-Rex. Franklin, for example, would never do that. Not to mention Billy took eggs of the worst dinosaur possible. Secondly, "Jurassic World" segment. Even if we disregard the fact Owen is what Grant always wanted to be and Claire is very much like a female version of what Hammond was in his youth, including learning from mistakes and having a vision, there's the more interesting theme. JP3 had not theme. JW and FK had the themes of education (I-Rex and Indoraptor became what they are due to neglection on I-Rex's case and abuse on Indoraptor's case. Raising them better could've make them normal. Blue and her sisters were raised by a good man, and therefore became what raptors should be), be real about what one wish for (Wu phrased it perfectly), the duty to respect others (Hoskins' wish to take what he can without respecting anyone else worked just as you would expect), the rating culture and its damages (more teeth. Nuff said) and many more. I won't mention anything about creating a rock you can't lift, because the other movies and the novels dealt with that as well. Thirdly, the characters in JW and FK had vision. Even Mills and Hoskins' cruel visions are count. None of JP3 characters can claim that.
C. Where the realism lies: That was not the subtext. They wanted to say that humans are the real monsters. They didnt said that neutral is good and hybrid is bad. They said that the hybrids could be good if only they were raised right. That's still more realistic than a freaking spinosaurus hybrid whose much of his powers are bad writing. If anything, I-Rex is more realistic than Spino-Rex. Of course she would be injured when fighting Rexy and Blue combined. That's what happens in real life at such battles. Indoraptor is more realistic as well. He's just like those cruel dogs who kill children after years of abuse. Spino-Rex was just a creature. Unless you interpret him as a creature who want to take revenge from mankind after being abandoned and ignored, i'm not sure his obssessions about killing humans serves a reasonable meaning. Michael Circhton himself admited that the genius raptors from part 3, no matter how realistic/unrealistic they are, were less realistic than the other raptors. They are based on the genius green raptors from the first novel. That was his reason to create the teenage pack of JP2 novel and film. Because raptors are not likely to become functioning animals without being raised. I admit the concept of saving dinosaurs from a volcano isn't too realistic, but the characters' reaction were realistic. In part 3, Grant and Eric were the only ones who realized the severity of the situation. In part 5, people mostly realized it, and those who didn't were either fooled by Mills (people like him are real. Much more dangerous than Spino-Rex) or were too busy at solving the mess Mills and the scaly rottweiler he and Wu created. Another unrealistic aspect of part 3 is that the soldiers came to save Grant the group werent thinking about tracking down Spino-Rex. They had the real technology to kill him, not just a couple of guns and a small band of idiot soldiers. At least Masrani can claim he wanted to make one last profit before being forced to kill I-Rex. The army can't. A creature who was never meant to be on the park can't be too profitable. My point about realism is less mute than it might sound.
D. The production: As you know, the production of part 3 was chaotic at a good day. It's a wonder they even managed to do anything. They dropped all sort of good ideas and scarpped everything two week before the deadline. The other parts had done better than that on that aspect. Colin Trevorrow did a better job than the architects of part 3. He knows the meaning of using good ideas and working like a professional. The good people behind part 3 were falling apart. They were like in season 8 of "Games Of Thrones", where Cersie and Jaime died in each other's arms when the building collapsed on them.
3. What i'm sure about is that the rule of awesome doesn't apply for our conversation right now. We both got pissed off, and that's not cool. We're grownups who should handle a civilized discussion about out mutual franchise, and it seems we weren't ourselves. From here, it's either come down and finish this conversation while agree on disagreement, or moving on to other topics. What would you like better? It's important to say that i'm usually open for opinions, and willing to talk about many things and have as many conversations as both want.
1. Haven't played, I bought it recently but it won't work so I'm waiting on PS support to respond.
2.A. Yea, his character development works, the problem comes in that he isn't a strong enough character to work in the lead role. His character as a whole fits perfectly into the side character role with his personality. Imo, Grant makes for a more compelling and relate able main character.
B. While Tembo is The only good character in TLW, none of the supporting characters really hold up. Ludlow's only real character trait is greed, Sarah just comes off as a "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of character, etc. Also, there are plenty of things wrong with Amanda's character, bu, um, trying to stay alive causing a 14 year chain of events thst led to the creation of the Indominus is not one of them. That is the worst attempt at saying Amanda is a bad character I've ever heard.
Oh cool, the rest of this describes things that aren't done well in either movie besides the criticizing of media's "more teeth", which ironically is basically what FK does. And while I get your point, since wehn do we need a theme to make anything good? If executed correctly it can help a film, but you seem to suggest we need a thee to make films good at all. (I was done with this point when a friend I showed this post too made this: )
C. Jurassic World doesn't convey that at all, it conveys simply that the idea of hybrids s bad and always bad, while "normal" dinosaurs are treated as animals, therefore making them "good". There is never any reference on hybrids being capable of anything other than bad, they are given a bad predicament, but that is only brought up in one scene and it never really acts like not having that happen would make her a normal animal.
I've already been over the Spino a couple of times, every time we see it after the initial encounter it never acts like it was already hunting them, just that it bumped into them and attakced them from there. Birdcage? It's just staring at them like it just saw them. River. It's already established the Spinosaurus was upriver because of the dung and the direction it closed in on them. Is hunting/being territorial towards creatures you know can hurt you (plane wound) now unnatural? Are rhinos completely unrealistic now?
Um,the first film established that some raptors had learned to hunt cooperatively and not kill each other over food, making the raptors living in packs realistic within the franchises rules.
Laughs in Chris Pratt continues not acting
Yes, in 3 it was definitely only them, it's not like wanting to get your son off safe got in the way of getting of the island or something. Actually, this time I want you too come back, and back up your point on how they didn't realize the severity of the situation.
I'm sorry, let me bang my face against the wall then I'll be back. Alright, you're telling me it's not realistic that they weren't thinking of taking a side quest on their mission to save these people to kill an animal they had no idea existed? Especially since when they get back the testimonials are dismissed because the officials are bribed? They had no reason to go back to the island and hunt down something without permission that may not exist, they didn't even have permission the first time around.
D. That can effect the quality of the script, but in and of itself it doesn't mean anything on how this film is rated.
3.I would say agree but one question, why put this at the end? You can't just give your points then ask for us not to do this conversation again, especially if this conversation was long dead until you brought it back up.