…Right. OK, the ‘Jurassic World’ trailer.

So I got tweeted this:

…which refers to this:

So here’s my response: YOU DAFT IDJITS IN THAT UNIVERSE NEED TO STOP CLONING DINOSAURS. IT NEVER WORKS OUT THE WAY THAT YOU EXPECTED IT TO.

Seriously, guys. Cloning might be a respectable field of scientific study in my world, but in yours it’s a fast-track to Dino-Mega-Rampage. Maybe you guys should build, I don’t know, animatronic robots or something…

Moe Lane

PS: Look, there’s not a chance in Hell I will be capable of taking this movie seriously, sorry.

27 thoughts on “…Right. OK, the ‘Jurassic World’ trailer.”

  2. The “bad” dinosaur is a genetic hybrid made in a lab. Really?

    How many thousands of dinosaur species were there … could they not find one that was scary enough?

    This strikes me as classic Hollywood thinking. “Ok we know that people love movies with freaky-deaky genetic manipulation. We own this franchise about dinosaurs that we want to reboot … HA! I got it!!! Let’s MANIPULATE DINO DNA!”

    1. Not only that, but what do they do? It looks like they crossed a T-Rex with a Velociraptor. Well, it’s too bad that thing didn’t go on a rampage and kill them all before the park opened, because that would’ve been the best outcome.

  3. So is Michael Crichton rolling over in his grave or did he leave provisions for genetic reanimation so he can avenge himself personally?

    1. Or depending on the size of said monster dinosaur and its average meal size, you might need to outrun several of your friends.

      In my case I’m the slowest of my friends so that means I’ll have to trip somebody.

  5. Woo, I’m famous! Thanks for mentioning me, Moe! Here’s my hopefully thoughtful thoughts on the matter:

    Pros:
    a) Jurassic Park is awesome and is, at minimum, in my top 5 movies ever.
    b) Ever since I was 9 years old, I’ve passionately believed that they could have made that park work.
    c) It looks damn spectacular.

    Cons:
    a) ‘Genetically engineered hybrid super monster attacks’ is literally the plot to like… 90% of all those crappy Syfy direct to TV movies. So… yeah.
    b) Jurassic Park 2 and 3. No verbs needed.
    c) To paraphrase Ian Malcom… just because they could make the park work, doesn’t mean they should have. What the book – and, to a lesser degree, the movie – dealt with was the fallacy of man’s belief that he could control nature. Not that if man can’t control nature, nature will eat man. Just that the systems are far more complex than we could ever hope to account for, specifically because life is adaptive and will move beyond our controls. There are inherent dangers in the lack of control, but it is not inherently bad. Yes, we’re at risk of being eaten, but there’s a sense of wonder, adventure, and majesty in viewing nature on *its* terms, rather than just “here’s the animals doing what we’ve scripted them to do, which is good, and if they deviate from that, its because they’re trying to eat you, which is bad.” I’m incredibly afraid that this movie will be just that right there. Everything is hunky dory, and then things go wrong and the monsters just want to eat all the people because they’re the antagonists in a movie.

    I could go on. For quite some time. But hey, I’m gonna see the movie no matter what. If its good, I’ll see it more than once.

    1. One of the things that bothered me was the idea that the dinosaurs could just magically create new DNA that was capable of creating an amino acid. I’m pretty sure we actually already have dangerous bacteria that are like that in the real world, so that they’ll die if they aren’t provided with the nutrient. I’ve never heard of them spontaneously developing it, so the idea these dinosaurs could strikes me as gibberish.

      1. No, actually. It’s fairly common to use “is missing the ability to synthesize an amino acid” as a marker when working with various bacteria in the lab. Bacteria will pass DNA back and forth in the wild, so on a micro scale it would make sense.

        The really stupid part of it is, if an animal is missing the ability to synthesize a particular amino acid, all you have to is eat it, most easily as a predator eating meat. When people say something like “soybeans are a complete source of protein,” that’s what they’re talking about- soybeans have all the amino acids that humans can’t make for themselves.

    2. You’re right. The most implausible part of the story is that anyone would have enough hubris to think they could control nature. Humans would never do that.

      Except for bird-murder machines (I mean ‘wind farms’)(I mean boondoggle leftist theft schemes)
      (And I suddenly realized I don’t have time to list several hundred more examples of environmental hubris) (and I just realized I’m preaching to the choir)

  8. I’ll see the movie mostly because Starlord is in it, and because ever since Guardians of the Galaxy I feel the need to make sure this dude continues to make money. Yes Guardians was that good!

    Anyway, this movie’s plot looks really cheesy sify though.

    I am glad they managed to get the park to work.

  10. JUST clone the plant eaters. Seriously, the park would still be awesome if it was just the plant eaters.

    2. There are a great many present-day herbivores that are quite capable of killing people, and occasionally do so. I can’t think dinosaurs would be any different. Sorry.

  11. Also, the whole plot device of tamed raptors that they use to hunt down the rogue dinosaur? Yeah, you know whats going to happen, right? They’re going to spend about 30 seconds showing how bad-ass the raptors are, and then the rogue is going to just take them out in the next 30 seconds. Classic ‘Worf Effect.’

      1. Check out the end of the trailer. The raptors are released systematically, and then they run *with* Starlor- Chris Pratt.

Comments are closed.