![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
igenlodeSaw the new Jurassic Park film. Bits of it were really silly, and not in a good way. (The super-predator with senses keener than any living creature can be fooled by... switching the lights out? Animals fleeing a natural disaster that break off to attack a fellow- (and massively-armoured) fugitive? The dinosaur haemorrhaging to death requires a transfusion of blood from an animal that isn't even the same species, and is miraculously restored to life by removing one pellet from its leg, at which point it's able to jump up and run around? This is all done on the authority of a self-taught student 'palaeoveterinarian' who has never even *seen* a dinosaur before that day -- in a world where dinosaur biology is a massive trade secret?)
It was pretty repetitious of previous films as well. It would have been more original if they'd stuck to the initial theme of conflict between naive students wanting to 'save the dinosaurs' and the reality of predators that don't appreciate humans meddling in their territory (plus the idea that the threat of extinction through natural disaster is just the Earth rebalancing itself to repair the damage humans have done). Instead we get the whole evil business/evil hunter thing chucked in -- conflicts between two sides that are both at least partially right are much more interesting than cartoon clichés.
(And to English eyes, the whole idea of a vast pseudo-eighteenth-century chateau built as an obvious Californian fake is rather less impressive and more, as mentioned before, deeply silly.)
One good mark in the cliché stakes is that at least the plot doesn't rely on opening up yet *another* theme park...
The major revelation about Maisie's status, which I assumed was going to be significant, doesn't seem to have any plot relevance other than providing a fairly dispensible reason for her to push the button (and just about any excuse would have covered that). I did think at one point that the film was going to suggest she had some kind of rapport with the dinosaurs as a result (which would also have been deeply silly, but would at least have made use of Chekov's gun), but no -- the creature is simply inexplicably toying with its food for plot convenience.
'Plot convenience' covers rather too much of this film. I didn't really get emotionally invested in it because things kept cropping up at regular intervals that damaged my suspension of disbelief. Continuity seemed a bit confusing -- where did Lockwood come from? -- although I'm not sure how much of that was patchy memories of the previous film and how much was genuine retcon material. (I don't remember the raptor Blue being said to demonstrate sympathy towards vulnerable humans before, for one thing; she was conditioned from infancy to accept a human as her pack leader, that was all, not to love and comfort one! )
It was pretty repetitious of previous films as well. It would have been more original if they'd stuck to the initial theme of conflict between naive students wanting to 'save the dinosaurs' and the reality of predators that don't appreciate humans meddling in their territory (plus the idea that the threat of extinction through natural disaster is just the Earth rebalancing itself to repair the damage humans have done). Instead we get the whole evil business/evil hunter thing chucked in -- conflicts between two sides that are both at least partially right are much more interesting than cartoon clichés.
(And to English eyes, the whole idea of a vast pseudo-eighteenth-century chateau built as an obvious Californian fake is rather less impressive and more, as mentioned before, deeply silly.)
One good mark in the cliché stakes is that at least the plot doesn't rely on opening up yet *another* theme park...
The major revelation about Maisie's status, which I assumed was going to be significant, doesn't seem to have any plot relevance other than providing a fairly dispensible reason for her to push the button (and just about any excuse would have covered that). I did think at one point that the film was going to suggest she had some kind of rapport with the dinosaurs as a result (which would also have been deeply silly, but would at least have made use of Chekov's gun), but no -- the creature is simply inexplicably toying with its food for plot convenience.
'Plot convenience' covers rather too much of this film. I didn't really get emotionally invested in it because things kept cropping up at regular intervals that damaged my suspension of disbelief. Continuity seemed a bit confusing -- where did Lockwood come from? -- although I'm not sure how much of that was patchy memories of the previous film and how much was genuine retcon material. (I don't remember the raptor Blue being said to demonstrate sympathy towards vulnerable humans before, for one thing; she was conditioned from infancy to accept a human as her pack leader, that was all, not to love and comfort one! )
