FA+
Shop
1756
Views
Views
136
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / Fanart
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1067
File Size 233 kB
Report this content
More from Kamechuu
</3
Category All / Fanart
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 1067px
File Size 233 kB
Then explain why the Carnosaur movies did horrible in comparison and why the first three didn't make as nearly as much. You saying "Because people enjoy dinosaurs fighting each other" has no logic behind it because the first three featured dinosaurs fighting and they failed to make as much as Jurassic World. The third had the most dinosaur fight scenes out of all four movies and it didn't make as much as Jurassic Park, The Lost World, or Jurassic World.
So try again next time.
So try again next time.
Old topic, but man i can't be quiet about this.
Jurassic world decived the audience with the trailer, which made the majority of people expect a dino massacre movie, jurassic world being open and a dino is let loose, most expected a bloodbath, when really blood and gore was kept down as much as possible to keep a lower PG rating to bring a larger audience, there are many flaws to the movie like the military villain is a fucking joke, he's a comicbook villain in 2015, the indominus rex is cringe worthy ridicolous with its powers, turn invissible? pffh, not to mention how you think about how poorly the whole park is managed. there's a fucking gate that can be opened to let the most dangerous dinosaur ever out, they didn't have any way of seeing it was in the cage when it was hidden by it's cold blood. And the list of flaws goes on (running in high heels from a t-rex, not forgetting that one)
And about opening weekend?
It's a follow-up to a great francise, many went and watched the new terminator movie that summer but it was a complete bomb but still made 440 million world wide (it cost 155 million ro make) Why? Terminator, famous franchise name. There can be a bladerunner 2 which sucks ass but it will gross a huge amount because it is related to one of the greatest movies of all time. Jurassic world could have been better made, it was also a summer movie, where many aim to release huge blockbusters because that's the time people are free and out and go watch movies. It's not horrible but i'd certainly put the movie as a 40-50/100 and never would i dare say it's as good as the first one,
I'm a dino fan who'd want to defend any good looking dino movie that comes but jurassic world is honestly 'meh' on to the brink of bad. You can say it's opinion but the movie is just way to sloppy and bad in the places it's bad in. Not to mention deciving trailers.
I'd like to see you defend the movie now.
Jurassic world decived the audience with the trailer, which made the majority of people expect a dino massacre movie, jurassic world being open and a dino is let loose, most expected a bloodbath, when really blood and gore was kept down as much as possible to keep a lower PG rating to bring a larger audience, there are many flaws to the movie like the military villain is a fucking joke, he's a comicbook villain in 2015, the indominus rex is cringe worthy ridicolous with its powers, turn invissible? pffh, not to mention how you think about how poorly the whole park is managed. there's a fucking gate that can be opened to let the most dangerous dinosaur ever out, they didn't have any way of seeing it was in the cage when it was hidden by it's cold blood. And the list of flaws goes on (running in high heels from a t-rex, not forgetting that one)
And about opening weekend?
It's a follow-up to a great francise, many went and watched the new terminator movie that summer but it was a complete bomb but still made 440 million world wide (it cost 155 million ro make) Why? Terminator, famous franchise name. There can be a bladerunner 2 which sucks ass but it will gross a huge amount because it is related to one of the greatest movies of all time. Jurassic world could have been better made, it was also a summer movie, where many aim to release huge blockbusters because that's the time people are free and out and go watch movies. It's not horrible but i'd certainly put the movie as a 40-50/100 and never would i dare say it's as good as the first one,
I'm a dino fan who'd want to defend any good looking dino movie that comes but jurassic world is honestly 'meh' on to the brink of bad. You can say it's opinion but the movie is just way to sloppy and bad in the places it's bad in. Not to mention deciving trailers.
I'd like to see you defend the movie now.
I can still defend the movie because I almost stopped reading at "when really blood and gore was kept down as much as possible to keep a lower PG rating". I knew everything you'd say after that would be BS and it was. Every singe thing you said. Plus Jurassic World has more violence and blood than the first three movies did.
One reason: Jurassic World grossed $1.670 BILLION. If it wasn't a good movie, word would have spread fast, and it wouldn't have grossed that much money because nobody would see a supposedly bad movie. A bad movie doesn't just gross $1.670 billion, no matter what franchise it's a part of. If that was the case, then every Land Before Time and Tremors movie after the first would have grossed a lot of money, and been released in theaters instead of direct to DVD. (I used those example because they're the only other Universal franchises I'm familiar with and could remember immediately.)
One reason: Jurassic World grossed $1.670 BILLION. If it wasn't a good movie, word would have spread fast, and it wouldn't have grossed that much money because nobody would see a supposedly bad movie. A bad movie doesn't just gross $1.670 billion, no matter what franchise it's a part of. If that was the case, then every Land Before Time and Tremors movie after the first would have grossed a lot of money, and been released in theaters instead of direct to DVD. (I used those example because they're the only other Universal franchises I'm familiar with and could remember immediately.)
I'd say i've won.
Your only arguement to defend the movie is money. Sure, what director care if they make a bad movie when the dough roll in. And the movie didn't have as much gore, that's bollocks. It was the end part where the general got mauled and there was a blood splat, that was it.
And like said, they tricked people. People who went and saw the new Godzilla movie expected alot of Bryan Cranston but he was killed off before any of the good stuff happened, people still enjoyed the movie but it tricked audiences that saw the trailer, Jurassic world is the same. Fiddling outside the rules can also bring in alot of money, why else do you think so many of these shady adds like "Doctors hate him, he looks 23 he is 1,000,000, thanks to this one weird trick" keep existing? I'd like to see you defend more than the box office because right now you ignore the critizism of the movie and keep turning back to sales sharts. What kind of fucked up way are you trying to defend a movie by if your only arguement is to defend the box office and not the flaws in the movie? Just calling it out as BS you practically just shot yourself in the toe and try to ignore facts. Face it, the movie grossed big but was really just meh.
Matrix grossed alot even though it ripped off many of it's things from other movies and media and has alot of flaws in it. So these sort of things can happen and people don't notice it.
Your only arguement to defend the movie is money. Sure, what director care if they make a bad movie when the dough roll in. And the movie didn't have as much gore, that's bollocks. It was the end part where the general got mauled and there was a blood splat, that was it.
And like said, they tricked people. People who went and saw the new Godzilla movie expected alot of Bryan Cranston but he was killed off before any of the good stuff happened, people still enjoyed the movie but it tricked audiences that saw the trailer, Jurassic world is the same. Fiddling outside the rules can also bring in alot of money, why else do you think so many of these shady adds like "Doctors hate him, he looks 23 he is 1,000,000, thanks to this one weird trick" keep existing? I'd like to see you defend more than the box office because right now you ignore the critizism of the movie and keep turning back to sales sharts. What kind of fucked up way are you trying to defend a movie by if your only arguement is to defend the box office and not the flaws in the movie? Just calling it out as BS you practically just shot yourself in the toe and try to ignore facts. Face it, the movie grossed big but was really just meh.
Matrix grossed alot even though it ripped off many of it's things from other movies and media and has alot of flaws in it. So these sort of things can happen and people don't notice it.
Anyone else think Blue should have been standing with the Rex at the end? Animals of different species don't just buddy up in captivity, it often happens in the wild too and they were working together and even communicated briefly. Blue wouldn't have been alone.
Oh, and thanks Kamechuu for making me cry!
Edit: They are working on another, so I know it's wishful thinking but maybe it'll be in the next movie.
Oh, and thanks Kamechuu for making me cry!
Edit: They are working on another, so I know it's wishful thinking but maybe it'll be in the next movie.
Oh dear god, I just made the ultimate, fucktastic mistake of looking at this while listening to Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World"!
https://youtu.be/A3yCcXgbKrE
(crawls from the room trailing tears) Excuse me while I go throw myself down a flight of stairs or something...
https://youtu.be/A3yCcXgbKrE
(crawls from the room trailing tears) Excuse me while I go throw myself down a flight of stairs or something...
Okay, I've gotta be a glutton for punishment or something to that effect, because I was just listened to this and completely mushed out!
https://youtu.be/vNa5Ns5DuJk
I've now got that in my head every time I see this drawing!
https://youtu.be/vNa5Ns5DuJk
I've now got that in my head every time I see this drawing!
Something that always bothered me: In the original movie (that is actually worth watching), one of the very first things they establish is the relationship between dinosaurs and birds.
Consequently, I've always thought of dinosaurs (and, by extension, dragons) as a sort of missing link: The moment when reptiles first developed warm blood -- the first step in their evolution to becoming birds.
Which begs the question: If dinosaur DNA is halfway between reptile DNA and bird DNA. . . Why do they keep using the DNA of unpredictable reptiles?
If they tried working the other way, not only would they have dinosaurs that are social, trainable, and can be stopped from rampaging by putting a blanket over their heads, stuff like this might have actually been possible.
*feeds his raptor a cracker and gives her a light rubbing on the back of her neck (no, seriously, I've raised over ten birds in my life -- that is the avian G-spot)*
Consequently, I've always thought of dinosaurs (and, by extension, dragons) as a sort of missing link: The moment when reptiles first developed warm blood -- the first step in their evolution to becoming birds.
Which begs the question: If dinosaur DNA is halfway between reptile DNA and bird DNA. . . Why do they keep using the DNA of unpredictable reptiles?
If they tried working the other way, not only would they have dinosaurs that are social, trainable, and can be stopped from rampaging by putting a blanket over their heads, stuff like this might have actually been possible.
*feeds his raptor a cracker and gives her a light rubbing on the back of her neck (no, seriously, I've raised over ten birds in my life -- that is the avian G-spot)*
dragons... are they not purley reptilian ? i guess it depends on your beliefs... :B
the thing is.. these are theme park monsters. not at all dinos. there is no way we could properly predict their behavior , until study. even then it would be difficult cuz there are just test tube experiments that, as the books say, are changed and "improved" each go... cant really be properly studied. sure this is a fictional thing so the fans can take whatever results they wish but in actuality... i think this topic is quite hard. Hell we can only make so many assumptions of how the dinos really were. and each year what we thought we know is not so, or we discover so many new players. Not to mention we can only guess how they behaved from their anatomy and placement .
AND in the book and movies, they used more than just reptilian DNA. Wich is why they were able to change gender in the first place ( only select few reptiles have been known to do this) And in Jurassic World , Wuu states that other species besides reptiles and amphibians were used to make the dinos
technically they could have bred these beasts with dogs...theatrically basing on the things Hammond was trying to accomplish in the first book, he could have eventually made them mix with average house pets, like dogs! making them loyal and lovable... who knows
(ive only raised 4 XD they are special things they are)
the thing is.. these are theme park monsters. not at all dinos. there is no way we could properly predict their behavior , until study. even then it would be difficult cuz there are just test tube experiments that, as the books say, are changed and "improved" each go... cant really be properly studied. sure this is a fictional thing so the fans can take whatever results they wish but in actuality... i think this topic is quite hard. Hell we can only make so many assumptions of how the dinos really were. and each year what we thought we know is not so, or we discover so many new players. Not to mention we can only guess how they behaved from their anatomy and placement .
AND in the book and movies, they used more than just reptilian DNA. Wich is why they were able to change gender in the first place ( only select few reptiles have been known to do this) And in Jurassic World , Wuu states that other species besides reptiles and amphibians were used to make the dinos
technically they could have bred these beasts with dogs...theatrically basing on the things Hammond was trying to accomplish in the first book, he could have eventually made them mix with average house pets, like dogs! making them loyal and lovable... who knows
(ive only raised 4 XD they are special things they are)
Well, if they breathe fire, then they would have to be warm-blooded reptiles. Like I said, I see them as the gap in between one and the other; not reptile nor bird -- their own family altogether.
I mean. . . Like I said, it's one of the very first things they say in the movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2UQv2JUZoU
As for DNA, well. . . In the first movie, the techniques and technology were all brand new, so it made sense that they would use something like frog DNA because they weren't thinking theme park safety -- they were just thinking "Just make sure it actually is a dinosaur."
But by Jurassic World, the technology is so refined that they were able to create a whole new species from scratch, albeit still by combining other similar DNAs together.
Eventually, they may get so well versed in genetic code that they don't even need to splice existing DNA codes together and could instead program and build the whole genetic code from scratch. Once they got that well versed in the code, then they could put the brain of social animals and the digestive tract of a harmless herbivore inside the body of a raptor and get the "dino-dog hybrid" you just described.
But somewhere in between the early stages and the commercially successful opened theme park stage, somebody somewhere should have suggested getting their filler DNA from the opposite end of the evolutionary ladder, if only because, maybe-maybe-MAYBE it will yield more favorable results.
I mean. . . Like I said, it's one of the very first things they say in the movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2UQv2JUZoU
As for DNA, well. . . In the first movie, the techniques and technology were all brand new, so it made sense that they would use something like frog DNA because they weren't thinking theme park safety -- they were just thinking "Just make sure it actually is a dinosaur."
But by Jurassic World, the technology is so refined that they were able to create a whole new species from scratch, albeit still by combining other similar DNAs together.
Eventually, they may get so well versed in genetic code that they don't even need to splice existing DNA codes together and could instead program and build the whole genetic code from scratch. Once they got that well versed in the code, then they could put the brain of social animals and the digestive tract of a harmless herbivore inside the body of a raptor and get the "dino-dog hybrid" you just described.
But somewhere in between the early stages and the commercially successful opened theme park stage, somebody somewhere should have suggested getting their filler DNA from the opposite end of the evolutionary ladder, if only because, maybe-maybe-MAYBE it will yield more favorable results.
Comments