How to improve recent Jurassic Park reboot?
Displaying poll results.4722 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7973 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Having polls in the news feed really sucks ass.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Could be worse. Example: Beta. Polls you can simply ignore, but Beta....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure. At least they did not turn Beta into Production....
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I will start taking notice of polls once more when they go back in the sidebar.
Re: (Score:2)
So all boycotts are pointless, because no single individual is significant? Raindrops are really really tiny, yet floods happen.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Having polls in the news feed really sucks ass.
Correction. Having fucking pointless polls in any feed really sucks ass.
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Wait! What?
Oh, I see. For a second there I felt like Marty McFly watching his photo fade away.
Don't scare me like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Having polls in the news feed really sucks ass.
Not on that, but it was collapsed to just the title of the post (at least for me). I skipped over it earlier as an inane Idle post, but looking over again decided to expand the title to at least RTFS.
Why are you guys trying to kill polls?
Death to reboots (Score:3, Insightful)
I am so bloody sick and tired of the lame and mindless "reboots" Hollywood keeps churning out.
Sprout a god damned brain and adapt some of the millions of well-written books to the screen, already!
Re: (Score:2)
superhero fatigue (Score:2)
Posted logged in so I can fully enjoy the toasty flamage...
Re:Death to reboots (Score:5, Informative)
Jurassic World is NOT a reboot, its a direct continuation on from Jurassic Park III - that's the reason they chose to keep the dinosaurs as not having feathers, something which has drawn ire from scientists in the run up to the release. The film also includes the ruins of the original visitor centre from the first film.
So, to improve the "reboot" there would first have to be a "reboot".
Re: (Score:3)
Or, "Yes, we know they're supposed to have feathers, but the public never really caught onto that idea, so we left them out."
They did exactly this. In the movie they said that they made the dinosaurs how the public expected them to look like not like they really looked like.
They also had a scene at the end which clearly showed feathered dinosaurs in aquariums.
Re:Death to reboots (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, "Yes, we know they're supposed to have feathers, but the public never really caught onto that idea, so we left them out."
They did exactly this. In the movie they said that they made the dinosaurs how the public expected them to look like not like they really looked like.
In the original JP book WU and evil Hammond have a conversation about giving people what they expect instead of reality, that the current crop-while more realistic-were too fast. They wanted to slow them down because people expected big, slow animals. Even though we know now a lot of dinosaurs were feathered, people still picture them as featherless, so it would actually be faithful with the book to continue that thought process.
Re: (Score:2)
They DO say that though--they very specifically say that the other species' DNA they mixed in to fill out the damaged dino DNA makes them look very different from the original species. It's as close to a major plot point as you can get--seeing as the whole premise is "super-hybrid runs amok."
Re:Death to reboots (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, I think the scientists are happy we're talking about dinosaurs [theconversation.com]
The reality is, inaccuracies and all, the Jurassic movies make people interested in dinosaurs, and many paleontologists have jobs and funding directly because of the movies.
I heard an interview the other day with a paleontologist, and he was saying that kids will ask him if you stood still would the T-Rex really not be able to see you. Even wrong science is a starting point to discuss the right science.
But, yes, this is a sequel, not a reboot since it doesn't pretend the first movies didn't ever happen.
The third time we see the origins of Spider Man? That's a reboot.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is there no way they could have used this movie to start people getting used to the facts? People debating feathers afterwards? Doing some research?
How about a scene with a nerdy scientist arguing they should have feathers because that's real then some pointy-haired-bosses putting him down in the name of 'profit'? They could end with a big feathered dinosaur eating the boss and the scientist grinning.... "truth always wins!"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, sure, and they could also have one of the dinos stop and do an aside to the camera telling us about the dangers of global warming and not brushing our teeth ... but why the fuck would they want to do something so stupid and pointless?
Re: (Score:3)
Haven't seen any of the other sequels, but all I really want to know is if they have a worthy successor to the "this is UNIX... I KNOW THIS" scene? Because even sequels are guaranteed to regurgitate those moments because that's what the audience expects. And they expect the expected. What I mean to say, is I've got expectations, dammit. Albeit low ones.
Re:Death to reboots (Score:5, Insightful)
In fairness, the interface they showed in the first Jurassic Park was an actual real interface SGI had been working on [wikipedia.org] -- which is more honest than the usual scrolling HTML we see.
So, it actually was UNIX.
Just sayin'.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, it actually was UNIX.
IRIX, I think you'll find.
"UNIX" is a trade mark.
Re:Death to reboots (Score:5, Informative)
While you will also find that "tedious pedant" is neither trade-marked nor copyrighted.
You'll also find that IRIX was covered under UNIX 95 [wikipedia.org], derives from UNIX System V, and ion retrospect sure as hell is a version of UNIX.
In 1993, IRIX had as much claim to be UNIX as anything else did.
More than, say, SCO ever did.
So, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's why I actually liked that scene, even though it was derided for being a GUI, the thing they used was better than the generic hollywood SFX for computer stuff. I was actually interested in 3D FS managers back in the day... I think that was also about the time Steve Jobs had been ousted from Apple and was doing interesting things with NeXT.
CSB: for one of the hack days at work, I made a minecraft interface to our web servers, sorta inspired by that scene. So my kids could monitor server health
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Minecraft server monitoring, it reminds me of psDoom [sourceforge.net] where you could "kill" your processes by fragging them.
Got a github repo for that minecraft hack?
Re: (Score:2)
No, just a VM with the demo world. It relied on some pretty ancient mods from the minecraft 1.4 days for the python plugin (to get events in/out to Linux), and one of the named block scripts. Also some bash loops to poll the monitoring system for events to feed into minecraft.
I'd hope one of the more recent bukkit scripting engines make it much more straightforward to do IPC to the rest of the system... it seems like minecraft could be a somewhat natural environment for making 3D control panels. I've se
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. Hell, they didn't even have a lucky backpack (from films 2 and 3) -- unless the fanny pack thing was supposed to count.
If I had to rank the films (best to worst): 1, 4, 3, 2
Re: (Score:2)
Wait. There was a 2 and 3? The one in theaters now was not #2? News to me. Were they direct-to-VHS type movies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope a definitely a reboot of an idea. That very subtle change in the whole idea of a corporate executive putting lives over money. No longer the ugly white douche but a fuckable sweety, oh gee, she didn't mean to get all those people killed when she put profits ahead of people and even risked the lives of her own family, she is still the heroine. It's not the corporate executives, no it's all the evil scientists plotting and scheming in the background.
The main stream media idea of corporate executives n
Re:Death to reboots (Score:5, Insightful)
So ... I assume you have missed the box office numbers?
$511 million worldwide.
You can piss an moan about reboots, you can whine and complain about churning out bad sequels, you can throw a temper tantrum and hold your breath about bad directors and bad scripts, you can loudly proclaim how it's getting middling reviews.
And then you can look at $511 million worlwide box office opening, and realize there is no way in hell the movie studios will do ANYTHING different until people stop paying money to see it.
So, go see some art house movie 50 times, give it a bump. Cling to your treasured movies of yore. Lament the death of good film-making. Cringe at the possibility this will get nominated for awards.
But one thing I've learned over the years is money talks. And if they're going to have a runaway success, they'll probably make another dozen. Or, as Chris Pratt is saying these days, another 38 [ew.com].
Because huge-ass piles of money wins the day, and people want mindless escapism as summer movies.
And the economics of a successful movie says all the complaining in the world will never do a damned thing.
(And this has nothing to do with the validity of your points, just economic reality saying your points are completely irrelevant.)
Re: (Score:3)
McDonalds sells millions of hamburgers every year but I'd hardly call them "good".
Re: (Score:1)
It does not matter if they are good or not. If people will buy them, then they will sell them. Same thing with movies. If the people go to watch the movie then the studios will create movies that get people in the seats. It does not matter one iota if the movie is "good" or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But how do you sell the budget for an unknown, even if good, movie?
"I want 150 mil for this great movie!"
"Ok, what are you going to call it?"
"Waterworld"
(I actually liked Waterworld, but it's the classic example of over-spend to un-deliver at the box office.)
Re: (Score:2)
You just made the point. Since people will see anything why not make a good movie
Because it's not actually an easy thing to do. One of your points "Since people will see anything why not make a good movie". But they won't just "see anything." Why didn't people turn out for Jupiter Ascending? There has to more to than people will just "see anything." The answer is that, Jurassic World is the successor to Jurassic Park, still a very well regarded movie that was a Monster hit (haha, I kill me) 23 years ago.
Movie studios are risk averse. They want returns. They're willing to throw money at
Re: (Score:2)
It does not matter if they are good or not. If people will buy them, then they will sell them. Same thing with movies. If the people go to watch the movie then the studios will create movies that get people in the seats. It does not matter one iota if the movie is "good" or not.
Fantastic. So it's a race to the bottom then?
Not sure who's winning that race faster, millions of idiots who actually pay money for some director to toss shit on a screen, or the celebrities clamoring to be recognized for said steaming pile of screenwork.
Perhaps Leo doesn't want the Oscar after all.
This attention to quality above quantity would also explain today's pop "artists" as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I never said it was good. I said is was economically successful. There's an immense difference between those things.
But you'd have to be a complete moron to think they're going to stop making sequels when people keep spending good money to see them. Huge piles of good money.
Bad is irrelevant in the face of a half a billion dollars in revenue in a few days. Completely, totally, and mind numbingly irrelevant.
So ... boo boo ... whine bitch moan complain kvetch whinge derp and cry ... the people counting th
Re: (Score:2)
You sound angry.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds more like a Lewis Black rant.
Then again, he is Anger.
Re: (Score:2)
McDonalds sells billions of hamburgers every year but I'd hardly call them "good".
FTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
McDonalds sells millions of hamburgers every year but I'd hardly call them "good".
McDonalds sales are [finally] declining, to such an extent that they won't admit by how much even when pressed. So perhaps the democratization of society that we've been talking about for so long is finally coming to pass. Or maybe everyone who eats at Mickey DeezNutz is in the hospital now.
Re: (Score:2)
$511 Million world wide. But with movie attendance fees doubling (in these parts) in the last 10 years, This inflates the popularity somewhat.. . They always speak of the $$ in opening weekends.
I would like to know how that translates to numbers of bums on seats
Re: (Score:2)
$511 Million world wide. But with movie attendance fees doubling (in these parts) in the last 10 years, This inflates the popularity somewhat.. . They always speak of the $$ in opening weekends.
According to boxofficeguru, Jurassic World sold 22 million tickets in North America, 80% more than Jurassic Park's 12 million tickets over the same 3-day weekend.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you.
I now know where to look :)
Re: (Score:1)
I am so bloody sick and tired of the lame and mindless "reboots" Hollywood keeps churning out.
So... you think Hollywood needs a reboot?
Re: (Score:3)
i go to about 1 movie per year, and i went to this because i showed my kids the original last year and they loved it. this did not disappoint, it was lots of fun.
not original, not complicated, not high-brow. not worth discussing its inaccuracies or irregularities. It was a sci fi special effects action flick.
it was dinosaur fights and it was fun.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am so bloody sick and tired of the lame and mindless "reboots" Hollywood keeps churning out.
Sprout a god damned brain and adapt some of the millions of well-written books to the screen, already!
Person who demands originality from Hollywood trips and falls over a large book of irony instead.
Smooth.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off ... (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't want your polls. We don't want your fucking videos.
So why don't you assholes start listening to the fact that the shit you think is awesome is crap we don't want.
Fuck you, Timothy. Fuck you Dice.
You suck at writing content, and you keep making this site worse.
Has it occurred to you that you're greedy, incompetent morons?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jesus, slashdot has had polls since for ever.
The only difference is that they're now in the main feed, rather than the side bar. It's a tiny teeny miniscule change.
Re: (Score:1)
Polls also used to have CowboyNeal options. Not so minuscule a change, downsizing from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We complain because we were here first and have a right to keep it like it was, elegant and unpolluted.
You have a "right" to fuck-all.
Re:F*ck off ... (Score:1)
Please stop complaining about the site changes. If it really bothers you that much, then migrate to the competitor that rhymes with "toy lint".
It's getting old. Walk with your mouse instead of your mouth.
Re:Fuck off ... (Score:4, Insightful)
I would say,
Please remove the video nonsense. I have the rest of the Internet if I want content that's dumbed-down and inefficiently presented.
(I fully agree with the parent post, I'm just offering a different style of reaction.)
Stupid polls.. (Score:1)
Enough already of this.. about as lame as this movie..
fuck this (Score:5, Insightful)
the polls and videos do NOT belong in the news feed.
Re: (Score:3)
Correct!
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
So this is where all the missing CowboyNeal poll options ended up.
How to improve the Jurassic Park reboot they ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not even bothered by horrible grammar of quiz title at this point. Just fucking fix it.
Missing option (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to improve Jurassic World is to move the polls about Jurassic World back to the @#$%ing sidebar where they belong.
Re:Missing option (Score:5, Funny)
The polls were in the sidebar, but now they've escaped and are wrecking havoc across the site. I hear they've even learned how to open doors. Clever poll.
Re: (Score:2)
With all the stupid changes to this site lately (polls, video feed, and now they overlay comments and the icon over the title obscuring the title) it feels like someone unzipped a slashdot pocket and everything fell out.
How to improve recent Jurassic Park reboot? (Score:1)
2015 Summer of the rerun/rebooted movie (Score:2)
Mad Max, Jurassic Park, Terminator. Rebooted, sequel crap. Shit, it's getting old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh shit I'd forgotten about those too. WTF!?!? Have writers and producers in "Hollywood" gotten lazy? I think the answer is yes.
Re: (Score:2)
No, investors have gotten risk-adverse.
UHHHHHHGGG... (Score:2)
Inside Out
Just a reboot of Herman's Head [wikipedia.org] targeted at the tween set who never had to endure the original.
Re: (Score:2)
I would go for Mad Max vs Terminator in Jurassic Park...
Missing option (Score:2)
Lucas Option (Score:2)
Where's the, "Make the dinosaur shoot first", option?
Re: (Score:1)
There's an unexplored idea: "Attack of the Giant Jar Jar". People would cheer madly when he's finally taken down gagging and smoking by the giant Tongue Electrocution Device invented in hurry by a brilliant formerly dejected nerd with no people skills (like a slashdot reader).
How to improve (Score:1)
Less dialogue, less "character development", more rampaging dinosaurs eating people.
In fact, not just Jurassic, but most films would be improved just by throwing in a few rampaging dinosaurs
Re: (Score:2)
Star Wars Episode 1: The Finally Fixed So The Fans Will Be Happy Edition
Jar Jar Binks runs on-screen screaming.
Jar-Jar: Hey, help me! Help me!!
Before Qui-Gon can react, a group of velociraptors emerges and tears Jar-Jar to pieces. They feast on his remains and then disappear back into the swamp. Qui-Gon shrugs and goes on his way.
Re: (Score:2)
Take a hint from the original, and be more like it (Score:2)
... the polls, not Jurassic Park.
remakes have been a staple since early cinema. (Score:3)
Who really remembers the 1907 Ben-Hur? No one. The 1959 version is a thing of legends.
Who remembers the 1923 The Ten Commandments? Not many. The 1956 one is the one people know.
Oceans 11 from 1960 was quite a loved classic. The 2001 one was popular enough to spawn sequels.
Gone in 60 seconds was a a cult classic, that being said most people I know personally didn't even know about the 1974 one. Same could be said about The Inglorious Bastards being the inspiration for Inglorious Basterds.
I would argue the most recent Batman franchise was the best. The 1989 Batman I used to call "Batman the good one" before the Christopher Nolan version. What generation of reboot was the most recent? 3rd based on the TV series? Fourth based on the serials? More than that based on cartoons?
I had a problem with Jurassic Park from the start. The very first movie didn't follow Michael Crichton's book quite closely enough, the first book basically started where the sequel did, with the dinosaurs being off the island. Each movie in the original series strayed further from the source, and got goofier. As far as I'm concerned a good reboot is needed, either that or a complete disavowment.
Re: (Score:1)
Full reboot (Score:2)
What made this movie far less enjoyable was that they built a park full of angry dinos and oddly enough the angry dinos got way out of control. Sort of hard to believe when they are literally sitting on the remains of a park destroyed by out of control angry dinos.
Minimally I would think that they would have layer upon layer of solutions for any one of the dinos gettin
Re: (Score:2)
I would have been happy if anyone thought of putting double doors on the paddocks or at least a 2 stage verification system to open them up. Having a single door with a single verification panel on the containment cells was just asking for trouble.
Forget about ultra-smart dinos tricking the handlers or stupid zoo employees opening the doors, with such a simple locking mechanism in place at some point some animal rights activist was sure to let them out of their pens.
How Jurassic World Should Have Gone (Score:3)
The girlfriend and I had a long chat about this after seeing it this weekend, and this is more or less what we settled on:
- None of the characters are worth caring about, especially the older brother character. To fix that, we have the entire family go on vacation together, and get imperiled together and fear for each other, making us care about them all more. The boring older brother character gets replaced with an older sister (for gender balance) who is some kind of outdoorsman (to make her an interesting useful character). As the family leaves for the vacation, we see the parents fighting, both because of the usual vacation stress but also showing us what it is about each other that's causing them to get divorced (which we don't know yet, as canon).
- When they first get to the park, we get a nice long "ooh ahh wow" sequence of them doing all the cool things at the part, which we very briefly got to see here and there in the canon movie. This also serves to establish the settings for later, because after the ooh and ahh will come the running and the screaming back through all the places we got to see functioning as intended in these early scenes.
- Claire used to be a badass adventurer type herself, which is how the older sister got into it, and what brought her to work at Jurassic World to begin with, and she and Owen were a couple back in those days. Then she got promoted to management and became the fussy businesswoman character from the canon movie, and Owen lost interest in her. We don't know it at first (or most of that backstory), but she kind of hates what her job has become now and wishes she was still doing cool stuff and not prancing around in high heels, but it's her job...
- There is no secret military anything, there are no villains. It's an open fact (to the staff of the park) that they're also working on weaponizing dinosaurs. Owen is technically part of that project but doesn't really like that fact. He likes training the raptors but doesn't like what they're being trained for, and especially doesn't want to work with any of the genetically modified monstrosities.
- The Indominus Rex is not a gigantic dinosaur. It's the smaller, useful version that the military was actually going to make use of, and there are multiple of them. They escape not because the park staff are carrying multiple idiot balls, but because they are smart enough to actually trick their way out of their pen without the humans having to be complete idiots.
- The Indomini, in addition to hunting for sport and generally causing mayhem, figure out ways to release other dinosaurs from their enclosures, both to fuck with those other dinosaurs and to generally cause mayhem for the island. They are smart enough, however, not to release things bigger than themselves, like the T-rex.
- There aren't villains, but there is still an interpersonal conflict, between the pragmatic military side (represented by Owen) who wants to just kill the dinosaurs from aircraft immediately to save lives, and the greedy business side (represented by Claire) who want to preserve the dinosaurs even if it risks lives in order to save money for the company. Owen is disgusted with what Claire has become, but she doesn't have much of a defense of her actions besides that it's her job to make decisions like these and protect their investors, but she doesn't seem very happy about it herself.
- As previously mentioned, the family end up stuck out on the far end of the tour (in the hamster balls), and have to work their way back to the resort through all the places we previously got to see them enjoying (like that wonderful kayak trip down a stegosaur-lined river), both avoiding the Indomini and other dinosaurs on the loose that aren't supposed to be. Through their interactions, we actually come to care about them; the mother and father show sides of themselves that help repair their failing marriage, the older daughter proves herself to her mother who has thus far in life disapproved of her unfeminine interests, and
Not interested (Score:2)
You fail at polls. Jurassic World is not a reboot, and the pool was not displayed in the correct place.
bad premise (Score:2)
Jurassic World was a direct sequel to Jurassic Park, not a reboot.
Plot could have been much better (Score:2)
The movie could have been made a lot more sense with some fairly minor alterations that wouldn't have materially impacted on
Sultra Lagu - Download Music K-pop j-pop Update Ne (Score:1)