Jurassic World - Part 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Did anyone like that sub plot? Out of all the people I know (friends, family, people on the internet), whether it's people who loved JW, liked it, or hated it, pretty much everyone agreed that the militarized raptor subplot was the weakest part of the movie.

Does anyone really want to see that over 2 hours?
 
Zantera said:
Did anyone like that sub plot? Out of all the people I know (friends, family, people on the internet), whether it's people who loved JW, liked it, or hated it, pretty much everyone agreed that the militarized raptor subplot was the weakest part of the movie.

Does anyone really want to see that over 2 hours?
Click to expand...

I also did not like the military subplot in JW, but the problem is in the execution of the story and not the story itself. It felt shoehorned in and unnecessary in JW.

A talented writer and director could make something amazing and profound with that story if it becomes the focus of the next movie.
 
Boycott Jurassic World! Say no to Pakisaurus!

[YT]xd4ygI0GHV8[/YT]
 
Zantera said:
Did anyone like that sub plot? Out of all the people I know (friends, family, people on the internet), whether it's people who loved JW, liked it, or hated it, pretty much everyone agreed that the militarized raptor subplot was the weakest part of the movie.

Does anyone really want to see that over 2 hours?
Click to expand...

I didn't mind it as a subplot here but I definitely agree it was the weakest component, but not a bad one, necessarily. And no, I for one wouldn't want to see militarized raptors as an actual fully explored idea, especially when there are so many better ones that could be explored.
 
I didn't mind D'Onferio's character. Sure, he was a bit over the top at times, but overall I liked him in a "love to hate him" kind of way.

The military subplot made perfect snese to me and the people I saw it with, and it seems like the obvious path to contiue on. But it seems like a final goal for a trilogy rather than just the first sequel. They could pretty easily come up with an excuse to go back to the island. Maybe there were survivors left behind, or maybe they need to recover valuable material. Either way, Pratt has to be reunited with Blue somehow.
 
A Necessary Evil said:
Anywho....I just scored this from Mondo :D

PcigTMx.jpg
Click to expand...

That is awesome! :D Nice pick up man.
 
mclay18 said:
The Wrap says that JW might have a shot of beating Avatar in terms of worldwide gross.

http://www.thewrap.com/could-jurassic-world-overtake-avatar-as-all-time-box-office-king/

JW will easily get to $1.5 billion, but I don't see it getting to $2.8 billion.
Click to expand...
I don't think those kind of performances can be foreseen easily as they need extraordinary legs. If the global weekend held unusually well the prospects would suddenly move from massive to freakish. For now it's not expected of course and should just settle in massive territory, but it's never really expected for any film. Funny thing about Titanic and Avatar is that not only were those crazy figures not predicted at all, many thought they would outright fail (against their huge budgets). And they probably could have in different circumstances. We'll know a lot more about JW's trajectory after this weekend but for now it's done all that can be asked up to this point wherever the real final figures end up.
 
To be fair, nobody seemed to predict this for Jurassic World, most weren't even expecting the film to make a Billion, let alone as gigantic as it was.
 
CaptainWagner said:
I didn't mind D'Onferio's character. Sure, he was a bit over the top at times, but overall I liked him in a "love to hate him" kind of way.

The military subplot made perfect snese to me and the people I saw it with, and it seems like the obvious path to contiue on. But it seems like a final goal for a trilogy rather than just the first sequel. They could pretty easily come up with an excuse to go back to the island. Maybe there were survivors left behind, or maybe they need to recover valuable material. Either way, Pratt has to be reunited with Blue somehow.
Click to expand...

I agree. There would have been all kinds of vital info and all left behind during the rush off the island and they have to send a team to retrieve it. Pratt's character having to try to persevere the Dino's ... Keeping them from becoming extinct again. Igen try to splice more dangerous and controlled Dino's on the island. On a completely unrelated note... If anyone has ever read "The Mercenary Sea"... I think that's one comic that should be a movie and perfect for Pratt
 
From Gitesh Pandya's twitter:

Opening wknd $208.8M, full opening week $296M, about $380M by end of 2nd wknd. All. New. Records.
Click to expand...


Implies just under $18m Thursday.
 
Everybody likes murderous dinosaurs. It's the tie that binds us.
 
Saw it. It's ok but nothing special. 7/10 I guess(though I won't be seeing this again anytime soon to see if that rating holds). Definitely not as good as the original but better than 3(which was bad 5/10) and way better than 2(which was terrible 4/10 and easily Spielberg's worst movie). But even #1 I'd still only give an 8/10 to so I was never in love with this franchise. I just don't find dinosaurs that interesting. I was already out of high school and an adult when I saw the original in 1993 so I didn't have the whole child-like wonder thing going. Jaws was my creature feature from childhood(and way better than any JP movie could ever be).
 
Last edited:
DarthSkywalker said:
She is a classic sexist stereotype of a business woman. The idea that she isn't is ridiculous. It is nice when everyone here enjoys something, that is fine. But it doesn't change that blindingly obvious fact.
Click to expand...

Can you explain why the depiction is sexist?

Since its such a blindingly obvious fact and all.
 
All extremely poorly. And even more posters disproved it quite succintely.

Seriously, this "that's sexist!" movement people get so hot for lately is one of the most ridiculous, stupid things ever. Not to mention its actually hurtful to the plight people claim to be fighting for.
 
DarthSkywalker said:
Did you read past that post? It was explained by three different posters.
Click to expand...

Which posters. Where? Can you quote their arguments? I don't see any as I look back through the thread.

Her being a serious business woman isn't a problem. But they don't portray her as a serious business woman, she is a stereotype of a serious business woman. Incapable of having fun, no time for children, always in control.
Click to expand...

How is she not portrayed as a serious businesswoman, exactly? The portrayal is not a DEEP one, but she is very much portrayed as serious about her job, and seriously good at it in many respects.

So she's a stereotype. That stereotype is not inherently because she's a WOMAN, and the movie never remotely suggests this. It' s because she's a dedicated, focused businessperson, period. Therefore, no, this is not sexist. It is cliche, but not sexist.

It takes a crisis and a handsome man to make her see the light.
Click to expand...

Guess what? That is not sexist. The movie portrays a crisis bringing out her more reckless, brave side. That is not inherently sexist in any real sense. That's Action Movie 101, for male and female characters alike. Cliche, but not sexist.

The fact that she and the handsome man (who she already had an attraction to prior to the events of this movie) had a thing in this movie is not sexist either. Unless you think liking handsome men is sexist.

1.
attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of gender roles.
Click to expand...

Well, seeing a show this character is actually a REVERSAL of the traditional social stereotype of a women's gender role (helpful hint, career-oriented, lots of power, hates kids and is a badass when called upon...these are not "sexist" traits when considering a women's gender roles) ...nope.

2.
discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex or gender, as in restricted job opportunities, especially such discrimination directed against women.
Click to expand...

I don't recall her being discriminated against or devalued during the film. So...nope.

3.
ingrained and institutionalized prejudice against or hatred of women; misogyny.
Click to expand...

Certainly don't recall this happening. So nope.

Explain to me where in the film she was "prejudiced against" and "discriminated against" based on her gender.

Much like "racist", I don't think a lot of people understand what "sexist" means. With this film, I think people are confusing "sexist" with "cliche".
 
Last edited:
Spider-Who? said:
All extremely poorly. And even more posters disproved it quite succintely.

Seriously, this "that's sexist!" movement people get so hot for lately is one of the most ridiculous, stupid things ever. Not to mention its actually hurtful to the plight people claim to be fighting for.
Click to expand...
I don't know how many are males here, but I assume most. Which is why I get not seeing it. But what bothers me is the dismissal of a problem you don't need to deal with, just because you don't need to deal with it.
This is the exact reason why there are very few strong female roles in films. Because most films are written and directed by men.

The "this is sexist" movement, isn't a movement. There is a feminist movement, which is a very important and necessary thing. Now what we have here is an observation and the fact that many don't see it, pretty must underlines the problem.
 
Again, I don't think that the character was sexist. Nothing about her sex or gender is tied to her behavior in the film. I just think that the perpetuation of the archetype she was *might* be seen as sexist, but that's largely because the more sexist members of the audience will misinterpret one character's individual characterization and combine it with similar archetypal appearances to reinforce their own stupidity.

The portrayal and concept are not sexist, but the portrayal is vulnerable to sexist interpretations because people can a identify a fairly tired old archetype without quite as many counter examples. It's kind of like how there's the old stereotype that if a straight male in a work of fiction is macho, he absolutely, positively, cannot be a virgin. Characterization so that follow that trend aren't actually be prejudiced one way or another, but they're vulnerable to interpretation by people who see it in a certain way.
 
I don't know how many are males here, but I assume most. Which is why I get not seeing it. But what bothers me is the dismissal of a problem you don't need to deal with, just because you don't need to deal with it.
This is the exact reason why there are very few strong female roles in films. Because most films are written and directed by men.

The "this is sexist" movement, isn't a movement. There is a feminist movement, which is a very important and necessary thing. Now what we have here is an observation and the fact that many don't see it, pretty must underlines the problem.
Click to expand...

Wait...so men aren't seeing sexism present because we're males?

Few strong female roles sexist because men often write the characters?

Males are dismissive of problems because said problems don't affect them?

That right there strike anyone else as a little...sexist? :)

I engaged you in discussion as to why I don't believe the character is presented in a sexist manner. You seem to have ignored that.

There's nothing that should make even the stereotype presented within the movie seem sexist, because at no point did the movie suggest that anything she was or was happening occurredbecause she was a woman. It was simply the personality that her character, conceived as a powerful person lacking much empathy, had. None of which, within the film, was ever inherently tied to her being female. It had more to do with the thematic demands of the film than it had anything to do with the fact that she was a woman.
 
Last edited:
The Guard said:
Which posters. Where? Can you quote their arguments? I don't see any as I look back through the thread.
Click to expand...
They are on the same page, right under my post.


The Guard said:
How is she not portrayed as a serious businesswoman, exactly? The portrayal is not a DEEP one, but she is very much portrayed as serious about her job, and seriously good at it in many respects.

So she's a stereotype. That stereotype is not inherently because she's a WOMAN, and the movie never remotely suggests this. It' s because she's a dedicated, focused businessperson, period. Therefore, no, this is not sexist. It is cliche, but not sexist.
Click to expand...
The stereotype is sexist. You seem unfamiliar with it, but it isn't something new. This is not about being a serious business person. It is about how a serious business woman is portrayed.

She is a stereotype of a "serious business woman" prevalent throughout film and culture. A serious business woman must be cold, stiff, incapable of having fun. That she must lose "traditional" feminine traits to becomes successful, and thus in the process becomes a person you don't want to be around.

These kind of stereotypes have been used over the years to insult and condemn women in general. That is why it is sexist, that is why it is a problem.

The Guard said:
Guess what? That is not sexist. The movie portrays a crisis bringing out her more reckless, brave side. That is not inherently sexist in any real sense. That's Action Movie 101, for male and female characters alike. Cliche, but not sexist.

The fact that she and the handsome man (who she already had an attraction to prior to the events of this movie) had a thing in this movie is not sexist either. Unless you think liking handsome men is sexist.
Click to expand...
It is because of who the character is before the incident. As if it would be impossible for her to be loving, caring and brave before the incident.
 
godisawesome said:
Again, I don't think that the character was sexist. Nothing about her sex or gender is tied to her behavior in the film. I just think that the perpetuation of the archetype she was *might* be seen as sexist, but that's largely because the more sexist members of the audience will misinterpret one character's individual characterization and combine it with similar archetypal appearances to reinforce their own stupidity.

The portrayal and concept are not sexist, but the portrayal is vulnerable to sexist interpretations because people can a identify a fairly tired old archetype without quite as many counter examples. It's kind of like how there's the old stereotype that if a straight male in a work of fiction is macho, he absolutely, positively, cannot be a virgin. Characterization so that follow that trend aren't actually be prejudiced one way or another, but they're vulnerable to interpretation by people who see it in a certain way.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You can see it with how she interacts with Owen and her relationship with her nephews. It is tied to her gender, the same way Owen's Alpha status is.
 
The Guard said:
Wait...so men aren't seeing sexism present because we're males?

Few strong female roles sexist because men often write the characters?

Males are dismissive of problems because said problems don't affect them?

That right there strike anyone else as a little...sexist? :)
Click to expand...
Are you going to ignore history? The struggle for women 40 and over to get prominent staring roles? The massive age gap between many male leads and their co-stars? The lack of female leads in general, especially in blockbusters?

I am not saying you are sexist, or anyone here is sexist. But that it is easy to miss and dismiss things that don't apply to you.

The Guard said:
I engaged you in discussion as to why I don't believe the character is presented in a sexist manner. You seem to have ignored that.
Click to expand...
I answered it, but I am responding to mulitple post at the same time.

The Guard said:
There's nothing that should make even the stereotype presented within the movie seem sexist, because at no point did the movie suggest that anything she was or was happening occurredbecause she was a woman. It was simply the personality that her character, conceived as a powerful person lacking much empathy, had. None of which, within the film, was ever inherently tied to her being female. It had more to do with the thematic demands of the film than it had anything to do with the fact that she was a woman.
Click to expand...
If the stereotype is inherently sexist, then yes the stereotype is sexist. If you reversed the roles of Owen and Claire, they would not play out the same way. A way too serious businessman is not portrayed the same way as a way too serious businesswoman.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Poll Poll
Jurassic World - - Part 11
27 28 29
Replies
705
Views
47K
smallville fan
smallville fan
T
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
Jurassic World - Part 9
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
51K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Jurassic World
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
29K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Jurassic World - Part 8
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
57K
Thread Manager
T
T
  • Locked
Jurassic World - Part 7
39 40 41
Replies
1K
Views
60K
Thread Manager
T

Staff online

Members online

Total: 2,404 (members: 30, guests: 2,374)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,266
Messages
22,075,279
Members
45,874
Latest member
kedenlewis

Share this page

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"