• Xenforo Cloud has upgraded us to version 2.3.6. Please report any issues you experience.

Sci-Fi Gareth Edwards's Jurassic World Rebirth

Yes, that's an interesting angle of looking at it.
I understand it's a weird movie in the series and I get why most people don't like it but I loved it right away, it worked for me in all the right ways. It had action and an emotional impact in the first half and that contained suspense/horror vibe in the second that I was missing from the franchise. It's far from perfect, but I've had a blast every time I've rewatched it. J.A. Bayona is a much, much better director than Trevorrow.
It's also notable for having the most heartbreaking scene in the whole franchise.

tumblr_pd2i6nSv001tc05ego4_400.gifv


Bayona really didn't need to say that was the first Brachiosaur we saw in the original movie. :csad:
 
Eh, I don't know, that felt very emotionally manipulative to me. Bayona directed the hell out of Fallen Kingdom, but Trevorrow and Connolly's script has issues that outweighed the good in that movie imo.
 
Eh, I don't know, that felt very emotionally manipulative to me. Bayona directed the hell out of Fallen Kingdom, but Trevorrow and Connolly's script has issues that outweighed the good in that movie imo.
Why would you say is manipulative?
 
Eh, I don't know, that felt very emotionally manipulative to me.
Perhaps but in this particular case I'll forgive it because the series is otherwise basically devoid of emotional scenes apart from the scene in Jurassic World when they find the dying apatosaurus. Even when likable characters got eaten in the franchise (which is a short list, tbh) it was always more of a "well, that sucks for them".
 
Why would you say is manipulative?
Bayona specifically stating that it was the Bracchiosaurus from the first movie. The scene could have worked fine if you were just watching the last dinosaur living in Nublar perishing in the smoke, but with it being canonically confirmed as that particular dinosaur, it felt like such an emotionally cheap move to me.

Perhaps but in this particular case I'll forgive it because the series is otherwise basically devoid of emotional scenes apart from the scene in Jurassic World when they find the dying apatosaurus. Even when likable characters got eaten in the franchise (which is a short list, tbh) it was always more of a "well, that sucks for them".
I'd argue the Apatosaurus scene worked better because it was not only used to help Claire's character development (which isn't much, but it's there) but to also show the cold-hearted viciousness of the Indominus Rex in killing every dinosaur it came across for the sport of it. I just didn't think the emotion expressed with the Bracchiosaurus felt earned or was natural whatsoever. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority on my feelings about that scene, so. 🤷‍♂️
 
I'd argue the Apatosaurus scene worked better because it was not only used to help Claire's character development (which isn't much, but it's there) but to also show the cold-hearted viciousness of the Indominus Rex in killing every dinosaur it came across for the sport of it. I just didn't think the emotion expressed with the Bracchiosaurus felt earned or was natural whatsoever. But I'm aware that I'm in the minority on my feelings about that scene, so. 🤷‍♂️
That's fair. It's definitely a more personal scene. The only thing I'm not a fan of is more of a cosmetic reason because I think the animatronic Apatosaurus head looks a little awkward. That said, at the same time I'm just happy it's even there because I'm pretty sure that and some of the raptor heads in a few scenes were the only practical dinosaur effects used in that movie.
 
Bayona specifically stating that it was the Bracchiosaurus from the first movie. The scene could have worked fine if you were just watching the last dinosaur living in Nublar perishing in the smoke, but with it being canonically confirmed as that particular dinosaur, it felt like such an emotionally cheap move to me.
Would it be less manipulative if it was a random Bracchiosaurus? I don't know, while I was watching the movie it moved me, I didn't know which one it was, it could've been any other dinosaur and the effect would have been the same. The information the director gives after the fact doesn't affect the emotional outcome of the scene.
 
And that's perfectly fine. It personally just didn't work for me.
 
About the trailer :

As expected, I find the cinematography to be very nice. It looks like "cinema" ( :o) with rich images and lighting, textures, etc.

But yeah, I'm torn. Because nothing really excites me, and that sort of humanoid dinosaur teased several times here is exactly the sort of thing I really don't want for this license (and affirms its paliative state)... But at the same time, this looks exactly like the kind of adventure I was dreaming about when I was a kid, playing outdoor behind the home, back at the Spielberg's films time. Maybe it's just too late?

Also, it's really obvious how Johansson is happy to be there (and the rest of the cast) and that energy is what I always found missing in previous Edwards movie I saw. So maybe it will be more enjoyable... I don't know. The thing is, I feel far too indifferent to this film, even though I've been following its development. I want to be excited for Jurassic-Park but... it's too late.

In the end, the logo seems to illustrate the film perfectly: still the same, no twist, just a new coating.

I still think it would have been wiser to wait another 5 years and go back to the book.
Spielberg translated its message and adventure very well, but I think there are other ways of adapting the source material by emphasizing other aspects, etc. It's a rich book and in any case, 30 years on, I think it's worth a try.
 
Last edited:
Two other things:

- This new dinosaur is definitely a cousin of the Rancor.
- I totally agree with the reference to Jurassic-Park III. The trailer gives me that same feeling, at best of a more independent and direct adventure, at worst of a kind of spin-off. I also find there's a hint of Kong: Skull Island...
 
Going off this supposedly being the testing site for the original island, I feel like they're hybrids in the sense that they're all accidents. Which could be cool to explore. I kind of dig seeing all the screwed up attempts at making dinosaurs.
Never even thought about that...they obviously didn't get the dinosaurs right the first time they had to have had mistakes before the final product.
 
Going off this supposedly being the testing site for the original island, I feel like they're hybrids in the sense that they're all accidents. Which could be cool to explore. I kind of dig seeing all the screwed up attempts at making dinosaurs.
It's true that if you want to inject a dose of new monstrosity, exploring “failed” tests is a rather clever idea.

In any case, it's much more clever than presenting a “psychopathic” dinosaur capable of regulating its own temperature used as an attraction in a park with a long and tragic history... and whose safety is based in part on observing the thermal imprint of its animals. :o
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t Isla Sorna the testing site? They even had Grant and co go into the lab where they had abandoned experiments. It was implied the Spinosaurus wasn’t on any list.
 
Wasn’t Isla Sorna the testing site? They even had Grant and co go into the lab where they had abandoned experiments. It was implied the Spinosaurus wasn’t on any list.

Sorna might be when factory after the R&D work. I'm sure they probably had an OG lab where the first experiments were being created. Like they say, you have to crack a few eggs to make an omlette.
 
I guess Hammond was that rich to just keep buying islands. Don’t wanna know what he was doing on Site D.
 
I guess Hammond was that rich to just keep buying islands. Don’t wanna know what he was doing on Site D.
He was rich and had a lot of investors. The book goes into detail about how the park was a pet project for all the pharmaceutical, commercial, and military (I think) applications that genetic power has. InGen just had Jurassic Park as the entertainment/commercial part of their research, I think they even talked about making mini dinosaurs to eventually sell as pets.
 
You know, I'm beginning to think the Rancor isn't a deliberate hybrid. But a failed attempt at filling in the missing DNA.
There also appears to be a two-headed raptor in one of those tubes so I think you’re probably right. The others were failed experiments but this one mutation survived.
 
I'm honestly digging the idea that this island they are on is the equivalent of the Ripley clones in Alien: Resurrection.
 
There's a theory out there that Jonathan Bailey's character in this is the grown up version of the "six foot turkey" kid from the dig site in the beginning of the original movie. Mind you, this is not the first time this theory has floated around because the same thing was speculated about Pratt's character in Jurassic World.


I'll leave the jokes to the rest of you because I'm tired. :o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"