Jurassic World: Dominion

Might've missed something said already, but are people complaining about the Giga vs Rex? Why? The Rex didn't exist with the Steggy, and yet they're on the same island. What's the big deal?

How accurate is this?

iu
Looks legit!
 
No they are complaining about accuracy and feathers and what not.
I never thought jp was responsible for accuracy or telling people what real dinosaurs looked like. People can watch a documentary or read a book to see. At 5 yrs old I knew the jp raptors weren’t the same as real raptors. I just accepted it as a different interpretation.

people don’t do this with lion king or Madagascar.
 
You make sense to me. Hollywood has a stupidity problem. It is frustrating to be better informed about something than the people given millions to recreate them. Frustrating that they'll consult experts only to do whatever anyway, and then claim credit as if they've done the research.

If I'm making a movie, and I have a vision for how something goes down, I'm not going to throw that all out the window because it didn't line up to exactly how it went down to a time nobody living today was a part of. Again, verisimilitude. You stay true to the world you make. It's the director's ultimate vision in the end. Whether it works or not will have to do to its truth in the film itself.

The first Jurassic Park has many inaccuracies on dinosaurs. One is completely made but in name only. But in the end it doesn't matter, because they are real to the world of the movie. That never ages.

Gladiator gets lots of historical facts wrong. You know Commodus was a guy who actually existed who was nothing like Joaquin Phoenix, other than being an a-hole. But in the end it doesn't matter, because all that is real to the world of the movie.

Comic book movies change things all the time from their source material. Some work. Some don't. But in the end it doesn't matter, because if it is real to the world of the movie, that's what determines if it ultimately works or not.
 
Last edited:
If I'm making a movie, and I have a vision for how something goes down, I'm not going to throw that all out the window because it didn't line up to exactly how it went down to a time nobody living today was a part of. Again, verisimilitude. You stay true to the world you make. It's the director's ultimate vision in the end. Whether it works or not will have to do to its truth in the film itself.

The first Jurassic Park has many inaccuracies on dinosaurs. One is completely made but in name only. But in the end it doesn't matter, because they are real to the world of the movie. That never ages.

Gladiator gets lots of historical facts wrong. You know Commodus was a guy who actually existed who was nothing like Joaquin Phoenix, other than being an a-hole. But in the end it doesn't matter, because all that is real to the world of the movie.

Comic book movies change things all the time from their source material. Some work. Some don't. But in the end it doesn't matter, because if it is real to the world of the movie, that's what determines if it ultimately works or not.

...okay. What are you even saying here? No-one is under the assumption that Jurassic Park was ever accurate or that the dinosaurs created there were either. We all accept that in the world of the movie people have genetically engineered sort-of dinosaurs. This is very specifically about a proposed scene depicting the actual prehistoric creatures as they were before we existed. I'm sure the scene is mostly an excuse for cool dinosaur imagery, but we can also see there is intent to more accurately depict the animals with today's knowledge (feathers and such). In this instance, it seems a wasted opportunity to only pay lip-service to the idea. That is what our friend is articulating. As someone with particular interest in the area, it's particularly disappointing not to seize that opportunity.

There's nothing currently in the world of the movie about species popping up at random times in history they didn't. That's something not true to the original at all. It's totally fine if you don't care about that. It's not crazy to learn of that and be disappointed. These films are idiotic compared to the book that birthed the series, and still a notable step down from the original film. This isn't news to anyone I'm sure.

A director's vision is a powerful thing. If a director is dealing with dinosaurs, he should know all he can about them. Then his vision will be based on the animals, and then there would be less instances of a director's vision clashing with what his subjects are and do. Exciting films and dinosaur accuracy are not opposite ends of the spectrum.
 
Last edited:
You make sense to me. Hollywood has a stupidity problem. It is frustrating to be better informed about something than the people given millions to recreate them. Frustrating that they'll consult experts only to do whatever anyway, and then claim credit as if they've done the research.

Whenever I've encountered someone who has this sort of gripe, they can be interpreted as a buzz-kill; but they're normally the most enthusiastic in many ways, and want to marvel at what dinosaurs really were, which is awesome enough. Not only do I get that, I think this was essential to the magic of Jurassic Park and something we've lost more and more as films have progressed.

The BOOK is LITERALLY about how these recreated Dinosaurs are a creation of what the general public BELIEVES Dinosaurs look or act. Henry Wu says it out loud in Jurassic World that these aren't Dinosaurs, they died off 65 million years ago, these are modern day Frankensteins monsters made to sell a fantasy...

The intro scene is just fan service to people who just wanna see Dinosaurs vibe and fight on screen with some of the modern day theories as a wink and nod.

Next thing you're gonna tell me is that Tornadoes don't actually chase down people like Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt.
 
I don't even get this debate tbh. It was just someone disappointed by something in this franchise. It's regular behavior.

The BOOK is LITERALLY about how these recreated Dinosaurs are a creation of what the general public BELIEVES Dinosaurs look or act. Henry Wu says it out loud in Jurassic World that these aren't Dinosaurs, they died off 65 million years ago, these are modern day Frankensteins monsters made to sell a fantasy...

Are you sincerely telling me this as if I am not aware of it? I've literally posted here since the post you quoted talking about exactly that.
 
I don't even get this debate tbh. It was just someone disappointed by something in this franchise. It's regular behavior.



Are you sincerely telling me this as if I am not aware of it? I've literally posted here since the post you quoted talking about exactly that.

How can you be aware of the themes of the book yet somehow also say the movies are getting dumber, as far as the dinosaurs and their depictions go, when the whole point, again, is that they're all fake? Just seems contradictory.

Like someone else said, this is a summer blockbuster movie that plays fast and loose with perceptions of Dinos and add in enough realism to make it plausible, if they want real Dinos then go to a museum or watch a Documentary.

There being not enough good Dino documentaries with modern research and findings is a whole separate issue.
 
How can you be aware of the themes of the book yet somehow also say the movies are getting dumber, as far as the dinosaurs and their depictions go, when the whole point, again, is that they're all fake? Just seems contradictory.

It's not a contradiction. In Jurassic Park we have 'dinosaurs' in a pretty grounded world where this one scientific miracle exists. They behave like animals, are treated as majestic and dangerous creatures, and the excitement and suspense comes from our human characters being chased by them.

By Jurassic World 2, they are pantomime villains that stick their heads in lava, or creepily stalk children in bed. Or they're Blue, Chris Pratt's trusty companion. The films have become progressively sillier over time.

Using the same logic, I couldn't criticize a bad later Terminator film for being stupid because the premise of the first was impossible to begin with. I don't think that's how it should work.

Like someone else said, this is a summer blockbuster movie that plays fast and loose with perceptions of Dinos and add in enough realism to make it plausible, if they want real Dinos then go to a museum or watch a Documentary.

There being not enough good Dino documentaries with modern research and findings is a whole separate issue

The point is that this summer blockbuster that plays fast and loose with dino's decided to do one scene where they didn't play fast and loose with dino's and played fast and loose with dino's anyway (ha). I'm not even strongly invested in it, but it might have been cool for them to take a swing at doing them as accurately as possible by today's understanding.
 
It's not a contradiction. In Jurassic Park we have 'dinosaurs' in a pretty grounded world where this one scientific miracle exists. They behave like animals, are treated as majestic and dangerous creatures, and the excitement and suspense comes from our human characters being chased by them.

By Jurassic World 2, they are pantomime villains that stick their heads in lava, or creepily stalk children in bed. Or they're Blue, Chris Pratt's trusty companion. The films have become progressively sillier over time.

Using the same logic, I couldn't criticize a bad later Terminator film for being stupid because the premise of the first was impossible to begin with. I don't think that's how it should work.



The point is that this summer blockbuster that plays fast and loose with dino's decided to do one scene where they didn't play fast and loose with dino's and played fast and loose with dino's anyway (ha). I'm not even strongly invested in it, but it might have been cool for them to take a swing at doing them as accurately as possible by today's understanding.

I mean Raptors in JP were villains, they've become more realized as smart animals akin to Dolphins. Sure it looks cutesy but Owen specifically said the Raptor would still kill him but there's a certain respect there.

Not a fan of the IndoRaptor but FK wasn't my favorite anyway.

I get where you're coming from but like I said, not a single casual will give a **** about these little nitpicks.

But what WILL happen is that more kids, and adults, will get mesmerized by these creatures, and seeing something as cool Dinosaurs so criminally underused is already kinda sad, but if it piques interest in them, then the kid in me who loved Dinosaurs growing up can see more games or media with Dinos in it.
 
I agree with the sentiment. I'd prefer better dinosaur films, but the kid in me is grateful to have one at all and will watch regardless. I hope Dominion is great.
 
I agree with the sentiment. I'd prefer better dinosaur films, but the kid in me is grateful to have one at all and will watch regardless. I hope Dominion is great.

Me too lol I'm working on a Jurassic Park sleeve tattoo so the series holds a special place in my heart.
 
Just like all the previous Jurassic Park/World films. I'll be going to see this just to see big dinosaurs fight, eat people and see characters old, new and in between return for this one!

Dont care if its Paleo correct in flashback or current timeline. I'm a long time fan of the books and films and I'm super excited to see this!
 
Yea the book states plenty of times that they changed them to be scary that’s just how people see them.
 
This thread now jeez :funny:

Yeah, was hoping to see reactions of the preview, not pages and pages of historical accuracy discussion.

It's fiction, people - not a documentary about dinosaurs. Just enjoy the ride.
 
I’ve seen some more leaked footage of the Cretaceous era stuff and some of the sizzle reel. :mrk::mrk:
 
Ugh. I wish they delayed fast 9 and released this instead
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
200,506
Messages
21,742,341
Members
45,570
Latest member
monke77
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"