Some good action, but this was an eye-roller. So many stupid moments and no real heart. The plot and dialogue were whack.

In the trailer, they show the dino roaring at the lion. THAT is what I wanted to see. And by the end of the movie, I realized that the part that I've been waiting for is actually just a preview for the NEXT movie.

Bobcat06 said:

---

The nanny was just an older clone who rapidly aged, right?

If Cromwell cloned his dead daughter in the 80s, she wouldn't still be the 9 year old in the movie. I assume there are deleted scenes that go into this.

---

i just assumed she was the nanny for his daughter when she was a girl. and that they just got the cloning right when the "granddaughter" was created.

I thought the cloning thing was dumb to introduce. Also I thought they were selling those dinosaurs for cheap. These were supposed to be the last ones on Earth and they are only going for a few million. The cost of all the last dinosaurs was like $120 million and the movie alone cost more than $170 in only production costs.

I wanted it to be good but I just didn't like this movie. The characters just get into crazy situations and they always find a way to solve it. The T-Rex blood scene seemed like it was only there to show us that they still use practical effects.

I also didn't like the tech guy. You don't need a comedy relief when you have Chris Pratt as your star.

Why didn't the billionaire old man have more of a medical staff? Surely he would have had a nurse there or something.

Not bad for a summer popcorn flick but disappointing for a Jurassic Park movie.

One beef I had. They mention early on that Blue has a 1 mile sense of smell. "You'll never get close to her." Hence why they need Owen. But then in the mansion with the Endoraptor they are just hiding behind things to try and escape. Wouldn't this even more advanced hybrid beast have that same sense of smell and be able to sniff them out in 2 seconds?

queso1 said:

---

Maybe I missed it, but how did the protagonists know that the gun/laser would direct the crazy dinosaur at the end?

---

they were watching when it was explained to the buyers

The socioeconomic thing isn't really a big deal, in my eyes. As long as participation is strong, no matter where the players are coming from it should be enough. Even if they are rich (which does have advantages, btw) we have PLENTY of players playing soccer. The problem is development and identification of talent and the lack of an older cultural knowledge and coaching base which is gonna take a while longer to build.

IMO, it comes down to having an infrastructure where finding the most possible good players is incentivized. That's the problem with pay to play, its not that the players are well off or that there are no poor players, its that the clubs have an incentive not to find the best players, but to find more players who can pay the fees. Therefore it is inefficient, more than anything.

Baseball is a rich and middle class sport in this country, and yet we still develop world class talent in it, because we have created a culture and infrastructure over 100 years to find the best players, and also have a system to produce literally millions of people that have some knowledge to coach the game. A player from the Dominican that grew up dirt poor doesnt have an inherent ability advantage or disadvantage compared a middle class suburban white kid in the US, they are just the product of two different systems that both produce quality players.

JJxvi said:

---

The socioeconomic thing isn't really a big deal, in my eyes. As long as participation is strong, no matter where the players are coming from it should be enough. Even if they are rich (which does have advantages, btw) we have PLENTY of players playing soccer. The problem is development and identification of talent and the lack of an older cultural knowledge and coaching base which is gonna take a while longer to build.

IMO, it comes down to having an infrastructure where finding the most possible good players is incentivized. That's the problem with pay to play, its not that the players are well off or that there are no poor players, its that the clubs have an incentive not to find the best players, but to find more players who can pay the fees. Therefore it is inefficient, more than anything.

Baseball is a rich and middle class sport in this country, and yet we still develop world class talent in it, because we have created a culture and infrastructure over 100 years to find the best players, and also have a system to produce literally millions of people that have some knowledge to coach the game. A player from the Dominican that grew up dirt poor doesnt have an inherent ability advantage or disadvantage compared a middle class suburban white kid in the US, they are just the product of two different systems that both produce quality players.

---

Wrong forum.

JJxvi said:

---

The socioeconomic thing isn't really a big deal, in my eyes. As long as participation is strong, no matter where the players are coming from it should be enough. Even if they are rich (which does have advantages, btw) we have PLENTY of players playing soccer. The problem is development and identification of talent and the lack of an older cultural knowledge and coaching base which is gonna take a while longer to build.

IMO, it comes down to having an infrastructure where finding the most possible good players is incentivized. That's the problem with pay to play, its not that the players are well off or that there are no poor players, its that the clubs have an incentive not to find the best players, but to find more players who can pay the fees. Therefore it is inefficient, more than anything.

Baseball is a rich and middle class sport in this country, and yet we still develop world class talent in it, because we have created a culture and infrastructure over 100 years to find the best players, and also have a system to produce literally millions of people that have some knowledge to coach the game. A player from the Dominican that grew up dirt poor doesnt have an inherent ability advantage or disadvantage compared a middle class suburban white kid in the US, they are just the product of two different systems that both produce quality players.

---

It's a shame those Dominicans can't afford to visit a dinosaur park when it was their amber that started the whole thing.

JJxvi said:

---

The socioeconomic thing isn't really a big deal, in my eyes. As long as participation is strong, no matter where the players are coming from it should be enough. Even if they are rich (which does have advantages, btw) we have PLENTY of players playing soccer. The problem is development and identification of talent and the lack of an older cultural knowledge and coaching base which is gonna take a while longer to build.

IMO, it comes down to having an infrastructure where finding the most possible good players is incentivized. That's the problem with pay to play, its not that the players are well off or that there are no poor players, its that the clubs have an incentive not to find the best players, but to find more players who can pay the fees. Therefore it is inefficient, more than anything.

Baseball is a rich and middle class sport in this country, and yet we still develop world class talent in it, because we have created a culture and infrastructure over 100 years to find the best players, and also have a system to produce literally millions of people that have some knowledge to coach the game. A player from the Dominican that grew up dirt poor doesnt have an inherent ability advantage or disadvantage compared a middle class suburban white kid in the US, they are just the product of two different systems that both produce quality players.

---

Look, Dude, this is a discussion about an action movie with some horror elements slipped in. I think you're way overanalyzing the situation here.

You idiots just arent seeing the deeper ramifications of my post.

More eye rolling than entertained.

The Lost said:

---

MrPlow2010 said:

---

I thought the cloning thing was dumb to introduce. Also I thought they were selling those dinosaurs for cheap. These were supposed to be the last ones on Earth and they are only going for a few million. The cost of all the last dinosaurs was like $120 million and the movie alone cost more than $170 in only production costs.

---

Why was cloning dumb? It's the natural evolution of cloning going from animals to humans. That's what people in the real world want too. I thought it made perfect sense and tied in with the girl letting them out to the world.

Pricing is not as crazy as you think. What the hell do you do with a dinosaur when you buy it? It's not like they all come with a Chris Pratt and s play pin. Most company's bought out by Facebook/google you could argue are undervalued too for their potential but you still have to do something with them.

---

Can't believe this is an actual blockbuster movie conversation.

They need to end this. That was crap.

Taking the family this week. I will expend zero F's over analyzing this and just have fun.