by Matthew Cobb
I went to see Jurassic World with my family last night, and was frankly disappointed. Never mind the lack of feathered theropods, what about the plot?! (I fear the elevator pitch must have been something like “Home Alone 3 meets Transformers: Dark Side of Moon”.)
I invite readers who have seen the film, thereby contributing to the biggest grossing weekend in film history (it took over $510 million!), to do two things:
a) Chip in below with your high and low points. NB this will be a spoilerful zone, so if you want to watch the film not knowing what happens, do not read the comments!
b) Help dino researcher Dave Hone who is studying reactions to the film. You can do his brief survey here. Here’s an explanation of the project. Please spread the word as far as possible!
High point – the technician wearing the ‘Jurassic Park’ t-shirt (purchased off eBay for over $100), and being told by his supervisor not to wear it again, because people were killed by dinosaurs there.
Low point – the adolescent males acting incredibly stupidly when they’re ordered to return in their sightseeing pod.
Actually, I enjoyed the film. Once you accept the impossibility of being able to retrieve 65+ million old dinosaur DNA and clone dinosaurs, the fact that the dinosaurs (and pterosaurs) were so completely inaccurate wasn’t so bad. Anyway, in the film they stated that the dinosaurs weren’t meant to be accurate – just large and scary, so they had a get out of prison card.
“the adolescent males acting incredibly stupidly”
Well, that seems like verisimilitude to me!
/@
Yes, yes it does.
There’s been a TV ad (the specific provenance of which escaping me at the moment) recently spoofing the stupidity of young adults in horror films, bound and determined to go into the haunted house instead of immediately getting back in their car and getting the heck out of Dodge.
Well if they knew they were in a movie, of course they’d behave quite differently.
That was a Geico commercial (one of the non-gecko ones). The tagline is, “If you’re in a horror movie, you make bad decisions.” It was also used in movie theaters as a combination commercial and admonition to turn off your cell phone.
There’s been a TV ad (the specific provenance of which escaping me at the moment) recently spoofing the stupidity of young adults in horror films, bound and determined to go into the haunted house instead of immediately getting back in their car and getting the heck out of Dodge.
You can always blame an older man for writing them that way. Blame the writers male and female for it.
Just remember that the explanations for why the dinos aren’t accurate to what is known is part of the means of resurrecting them. (Use of bird, frog and lizard DNA to fill the sequence gaps.) Such tech they use was only shown to be wrong in 2012. Also they have to keep with the scenarios set up on the books and movies for continuity sake.
Dr. Wu explains why the dinos aren’t accurate. Watch it again.
What children disobeying adults? Who ever heard of it?
“What children disobeying adults? Who ever heard of it?”
Apparently not young adults going into teaching (also apparently forgetting their own recent experience), what with the “in loco parentis” legal responsibility imposed on them by omniscient state legislators.
I felt like they missed the moral of the original film… Just because a thing can be done, does not mean it ought to be done.
sub
But you should know better than anyone, they could not do otherwise!
/@
LOL
My comment did not speak on the issue of freedom of the human will. But to be clear, I am not saying the power(s) to be behind the creation of this movie could have done otherwise.
Touché
This applies, as well, to the making of endless, increasingly tired sequels to an iconic movie.
Starwars, Jaws, Rocky, Alien, Terminator, Matrix, etc.
_Aliens_ was a !*great*! sequel to _Alien_, although quite a different kind of film (a roller coaster, rather than a jack-in-the-box) — which is perhaps why it succeeded.
Ripley’s character was developed well, prior to the mistreatment in the later sequels. The Dark Horse comics carried on the story more faithfully, I think.
The first half of _Alien Resurrection_ wasn’t /bad/.
_T:2_ was also pretty respectable, also making good use of its strong female lead. (And its bigger budget!)
It’s disappointing that we had to wait 24 years for as good a female lead in an action/sf movie.
/@
I didn’t find this movie to be “tired” in fact it was invigoration.
How did they miss it? They went too fare and now it literally came to bite them. A perfect example. Maybe we saw a different movie?
I felt like they missed the moral of the original film… Just because a thing can be done, does not mean it ought to be done.
How did they miss it? Park went out of control due to human hubris. It was spot on!
Highlight for me was the comedy value (intended and otherwise) and, because it wasn’t pitched as a comedy, the best punchlines weren’t in the trailer for a change.
I wasn’t overly impressed with the get-out clause explaining the inaccuracies. They clearly wanted the theme of the film to be “real dinosaurs are better than fake ones” – the director said as much, albeit paraphrased. By explaining that all the dinosaurs in the park are fake, the final showdown became fake vs fake, not real vs fake where reality triumphs. I talk about this in more detail here: https://palaeosam.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/jurassic-world-review/
Making movies isn’t a solitary enterprise, and with the suits over it all.
It was good enough for me and harkend back to the book. Hasn’t anyone a handle on Capitalism here?
I’ll have to bookmark this and come back on Monday when I will have seen the film.
/@
I want to go – maybe Sunday. Anyway, Jerry is a Sandra Bullock fan – he will surely want to see the forthcoming Minions…
Jerry should see Gravity: Sandra Bullock in NASA’s version of the burkha
But does her performance come up to Astro Sam’s?
Perhaps more like Sigourney Weaver in Alien. Which is to say she is very good in it.
When you have to hand a character (or characters) the Idiot Ball, you know the writers have gotten lazy.
The humans in the original Jurassic Park were so stupid, I rooted for the dinosaurs.
So you won’t see me catching any sequel.
I am sure that you would not be afraid had have handled dinosaurs, even ersatz ones before.
What happened in the movies was not strange or alien to human thought. Especially from corporate.
I agree with Lurker. The humans were so stupid they deserved to get eaten. True Darwin Award material.
+ 1
“The humans in the original Jurassic Park were so stupid, I rooted for the dinosaurs.”
A certain fraction of viewers require something “relevant,” as they say; something with which they can identify. 😉
Highlight: T Rex of course and some of the technology was cool…almost sci-fi like.
Low: the liberties they took in the plot were amazingly stupi. The movie should have ended with everyone eaten and the dino’s fat and happy..
TVTropes.org (NOT .com) has a whole category devoted to this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IdiotBall
That is such a good site. And a terrible internet black hole, where just a few minutes can be hours in the real world.
/@
The high point for me was that I haven’t seen it.
The low point for ome is that I have.
I saw it on Saturday, and to my dismay it turns out that Ken Ham is right after all – humans did ride dinosaurs.
So I’ve decided to be Catholic. Anyway, gotta go – those gays won’t set fire to themselves!
😀
On a more serious note:
Low points:
Stupid plot
Stupid people
Dinosaur camouflaging itself because it has cuttlefish genes in it.
Dinosaur chatting to velociraptors because it has ‘raptor genes in it.
‘raptors suffering a moral dilemma then deciding they were loyal to the human hero after all
High points:
The kids loved it
Bryce Dallas Howard
“raptors suffering a moral dilemma”
[SHUDDER]
The only thing that keeps me from crossing the film off my “to watch” list is that it has never been on there.
Would a Triceratops suffer from a trilemma?
“Would a Triceratops suffer from a trilemma?”
Well, it certainly has the horns.
/@
But the survey sounds like it could be interesting. I’m sure I could spare them five minutes. Is it _really_ compulsory to watch the movie first?
cr
Seems it would necessarily have to be stuck on the horns of two trilemmas.
Yeah, this pretty much covers it for me too. Surely chameleon genes would have been more convincing in a camouflaged dino?
There are many low points, I even disagree with you mentioning Bryce Dallas Howard as one of the high points, I found her a bit annoying especially when she goes on calling the dinosaurs ‘assets’ that sounded so artificial. Hammond keeps saying ‘Spared no expense’ throughout the 1993 movie and not one time it sounds deliberate.
Chris Pratt was good! and glad that he will be in the next JW sequels.
The kids loved it yes!
” . . . a bit annoying especially when she goes on calling the dinosaurs ‘assets’ that sounded so artificial . . . .”
It’s the language of military planners/policy wonks, analogous to corporatistas’ use of “human resource,” “human capital” and “social capital.” The objectifying, manipulation and exploitation of flesh-and-blood organisms as if they were “widgets.”
found her a bit annoying especially when she goes on calling the dinosaurs ‘assets’ that sounded so artificial.
So are you aware of Capitalism and the current mentality? Not forced at all.
Hammond says it three times, the last time it was deflated from his bragging point to a sad lament.
I never said it was her character that I liked 😉
I haven’t seen it, but I saw its granddaddy, Them, in its original release, 1953 or so. Them has an impossible premise, but the plot and characters and dialog are remarkably not stupid. It’s greatest failure is including the gratuitous screaming female. But even that works as cinema. It gets the audience screaming.
“gratuitous screaming female”
I feel the need for a shower.
Eee! Eee! Eee!
/@
I’ve been quite surprised to learn that this is the 4th (?) film, as I hadn’t noticed there being a 2nd and 3rd.
I was very disappointed in the original film, which had far too few dinosaurs in it and far too much filler with just people in. Walking With Dinosaurs was much better – dinosaurs, dinosaurs and more dinosaurs, that’s what we want.
There is a 2 and 3, who knew?
2 and 3 are best avoided at all costs. 1st one was fun, and at the time a CGI marvel.
The reason that there were so few scenes with dinosaurs in the first movie was that it was made in the early days of CGI–the technology was still being invented as the movie was being made. I read that when Spielberg started planning the film, he didn’t intend to use any CGI because it wasn’t good enough at the time–it improved as they went along and he decided to use it.
Also, Spielberg knew from making JAWS that the shark was scarier when it wasn’t clearly seen–I believe that he wanted to build up suspense before springing the dinos on the audience.
TJR–Did you see the first movie when it was first released?
Same device worked for Alien. In fact that was a masterpiece of monster-movie making with limited special effects.
I would recommend all three movies. Do not avoid them, miss quite a treat.
Actually, I found the second one (The Lost World) okay, but 3 was dismal – some decent action, but still dismal. I find that when sequels have numbers, they’re usually not worth watching. There was a really good scene in the credits to the old TV series based on Alien Nation. It was a street scent showing a bunch of people and newcomers hanging around a theater showing Rocky VIII. The James Bond franchise has never done numbers, and even the worst Bonds are better than a lot of other movies, even if the stunts do get a little cheesy.
The original Lost World based on Conan Doyle’s novel (the real original, not the knock-off) was quite good, as I recall. (But that’s with teenage rose-tinted glasses from 1960. The FX would probably seem awfully crude today.
Jurassic Park: The Lost world is a homage to the original story by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Oh, and with reference to the James Bond movies, one of their strengths is that they did most of their stunts ‘for real’. CGI and FX have their place in ‘effects movies’ like The Matrix or Inception, but trying to substitute CGI in ‘real-life’ dramas like Bond just detracts from the verisimilitude.
James Bond movies are in a slightly different category than the JP films – straight up action as opposed to action/horror/science fiction, though the gadgets are somewhat science fiction-y, so the need for CGI is not as great. One of the reasons I really like the original Mission: Impossible series is because they used no special effects. Everything they did was not only open to the viewer (no magic gadgets) but was also entirely within the realm of late 1960s technology. You saw Rollin or Paris painstakingly build their disguises and suspense was watching Barney turn a screwdriver (and you understood what he was doing). That’s something they moved away from in the revived series and the movies. I still watch the reruns on the local oldies station.
Glad somebody likes ‘Walking with Dinosaurs’ – my younger brother, Jez Gibson-Harris, made dinosaurs for that, and has just made a life-size (death-size) corpse of a T-rex that is being dissected on a National Geographic Film There’s an interview with him on the Guardian web-site about it in case anyone is interested:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2015/jun/11/dead-real-how-we-built-the-t-rex-autopsy-dinosaur
“I’ve been quite surprised to learn that this is the 4th (?) film, as I hadn’t noticed there being a 2nd and 3rd. ”
I know, right? 😀
But these were all !*dinosaur*! movies: How could you not have noticed?
Contra others, I enjoyed JPIII far more than I did JPII. Even if they did misportray Spinosaurus.
/@
Yes, Spinosaurs is actually larger and the T-Rex would have killed it. Greater bite force than Spinosaurs. The Brit tv series “Primeval” had a Spinosaurs in it too at one point. Its whole first didn’t have any dinosaurs. Many animals from the Permian and from the future.
You have not seen scary till you were being tracked down by a late Permian Gorgonopsid.
More here: http://jurassicpark.wikia.com/wiki/Spinosaurus_vs._T._rex_Scene#Accuracy
The early series of _Primeval_ were better, before they introduced the time-travel conspiracy thing.
/@
High point: T. rex to the rescue!
Low point: the unnecessarily nasty way in which the kids’ chaperone was killed. It would have been a fitting death for one of the villains, but her crime seems to have been only to let the kids get away. In fact, I’m wondering if some of her scenes were cut and those scenes made her out to be quite a nasty person. Otherwise, the kids decision to run away from her makes no sense.
Some of the plot holes are quite annoying too, like how the Big Bad knew that she was being monitored with infrared or that her tracker was important.
Also, I could have written the rest of the script after seeing the first 10 minutes of the film.
Having said all that, I found the film hugely enjoyable.
Bad things don’t just happen to bad people. Having a good character suffer a gruesome death emphasizes that no-one is safe.
Stupid film. I loved it. What does that say? It says that the science is ludicrous, BUT if you treat like a fantasy film (akin to Lord of the Rings) then it’s great.
Note also that as a physicist, not a biologist, my bullshit meter isn’t as sensitive to a movie like this, so I can enjoy it. “Gravity”, on the other hand, had science that was just as bad at times, but since it was more blatant to *me* I enjoyed “Gravity” less.
Matthew your comments highlight the point that if our general population knew more about science it would be harder to make these kinds of movies. These movies presuppose a certain level of scientific ignorance. And since most of our population seems to get their scientific “knowledge” from these kinds of movies (-sigh) it just makes it worse. The audience knows very little and what they do know is wrong.
If anyone watches this movie and thinks it’s real science, that’s bad. But on the other hand, I can’t think of any movie in the history of cinema that doesn’t get SOMETHING wrong. I am a scientist, and so in order to enjoy most movies I have to turn my brain off. I don’t think that’s necessarily a bad thing. I wish, for example, that I could have enjoyed “Gravity” on the level most people did…but I could not. With Jurassic World, at least I got to enjoy monsters eating people. No one should take this movie too seriously.
While I agree that all films get at least something wrong, not many of them actually take a stand 2 years before the screen release and announce that they intend to get something in particular wrong. Mistakes and oversights are one thing, pitching your film at an inaccuracy is another. If I make a movie about football and my focus group suggests that only ten percent of my target audience know what shape the ball is, am I allowed to make it boomerang shaped and say “It’s only a film, not a documentary”?
This is along the lines of my thinking. There are sci fi films like Star Trek and Star Wars where we have gross violations of basic physics and biology, but even science nerds accept them.
But then there are sci fi films like the Jurrasic Park series and Gravity which come across as being a bit more adherent to science, but when they are found to not adhere to science some science nerds get grumbly.
It is ALL sci fi. Just accept that and ask if the plot is good. Are the characters and story good, etc.
Speaking of crap physics in films – who remembers the James Bond movie where the baddies chased Bond and token love interest through a bazaar in a helicopter tilted 60 degrees forward and moving at about 15mph, two feet off the ground?
That’s another pair of films of whose existence I was blissfully unaware, and which have progressed directly to my “tune to another channel” list.
Saw it at the weekend and really enjoyed it for what it is. A fun monster movie. My wife summed it up best. It’s a good bad movie. It has poor dialog and the characters are paper thin but i didnt go to see it for a lenghty exposition. I just wanted to turn off my brain for a few hours and watch monsters attack.
Is it any surprise I love the thing (Both versions) aliens, predator (Old and new) and even resident evil for what it is. All I ask is that i am entertained and would like to watch it again. If both are true then Job done.
Just my 5c (As Ireland is about to get rid of 1 and 2cent coins)
OMG….most interesting. I’ve been wanting to get rid of our (US) 1 and 5 cent coins for years and just round all prices to the nearest $0.1 – would make much more sense! Unfortunately, even our coinage policies are dictated by lobbyists for whatever metals are in them, so there’s no way that common sense could prevail.
It has been trialed in some towns successfully around the country. They calculated that the metal in the coin is worth more than the face value of the coin itself.
In NZ we got rid of 1, 2 and 5 cent coins ages ago (5 more recently). No problems.
Heather,
New Zealand didn’t get rid of their 5 cent coins. They just exported them to Australia, where they keep popping up in our change. Anyhow. Any 5 cent pieces I get in my change goes straight in the charity donation container. They’re not worth carrying.
Though items are still priced in dollars and cents e.g. $3.95 or $3.99 are quite common. When shopping, the prices are added up exactly to the nearest cent, then (if paying by cash) rounded. It must cause all sorts of headaches to the writers of accounting software.
I thought it was better than I expected. It’s ridiculous, but it’s the kind of ridiculous you all too rarely see these days: breezy, quick paced, and knowingly insubstantial.
The science is a bit disappointing, but the scene with Wu explaining the realities of genetic tinkering (at least as they exist within the loose sci-fi of the franchise’s universe) satisfied me. In particular, his line that “many of these species would look very different” if they weren’t modified serves to mollify my inner dino-nerd.
Worth pointing out, however, that this is an inverse of the novel’s scenario, where Wu has made dinosaurs that he feels are *too* real and would like to make more sluggish, safer animals.
Perhaps the real issue with the science is this: is it fine for a film to be explicitly about the public’s uninformed perception of a scientific field, or should a film be expected to depict scientific facts as accurately as is feasible?
“breezy, quick paced, and knowingly insubstantial…”
…like TV news?
As a matter of ethics or policy, it doesn’t make sense to me to expect or require entertainment films to meet any particular measure of scientific accuracy. I don’t think it would be particularly useful to try and use entertainment films to educate the general population about science either.
By whatever various means the understanding of science may be increased among the general population, I would bet that as it increases the endemic, casual idiocy with which science is so often portrayed in entertainment films will begin to change as well. Though I am sure there will always be a taste for flights of fancy. At least I hope so.
I find I’m much more tolerant of minor inaccuracies in films that I like. Whereas I nitpick to death films I don’t like. I guess I could say that if I’m noticing all the inaccuracies and loose ends in a movie, that means it’s failed to engage my imagination already; that I’m not willing to suspend my disbelief.
There goes Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (yes, that was a real movie).
Remember it was “loose science” up until 2012. For continuity reasons it had to remain.
Remember it wasn’t “loose science” up until 2012. For continuity reasons it had to remain.
Damn I don’t like not being able to revise it.
I went in with relatively low expectations, basically because the trailers advertised a genetically-modified dinosaur. So with a plot that is basically, “scary dinosaur escapes, (most of) the bad guys get eaten, and the good guys live after being almost scared to death”, it lived up to my expectations, and was basically mindless fun.
High points: Chris Pratt spraying gasoline on himself to hide his scent. One of the writers had some intelligence. I also liked the cuttlefish camouflage reference, but was annoyed that they didn’t make more use of it.
Low points: Having the hybrid parts classified. The I. Rex hiding from infrared sensors (How would it know? Why didn’t they check the tracking device before entering the pen?) Boys ignoring the order to return, and then going into a restricted section.
Now did anyone notice they set up for another sequel? The geneticist who was working for the military was the only “bad guy” to escape, and if he had some of the embryos with him…
Now, while I understand that the T. Rex was added to stop the I. Rex from eating the others, if the T. Rex had won, wouldn’t they be in the same predicament?
No, because the T Rex had obviously evolved some compassion in the last twenty years. After the mahoosive sea creature ate I.Rex, T.Rex and ‘raptor shared a poignant exchange of glances then sauntered off into the sunset, leaving the humans quite untouched.
“Our work here is done.”
I thought everyone knew these were not regenerated dinosaurs. They are all hybrids already as was explained in the first movie and in the book. (In the book it was frog, bird and lizard DNA used to fill the sequence gaps.)
sub
My high point was the long shots of th amusement park crowds–most realistic scenes in the movie.
Low point was Auntie running down the street waving a torch and wearing high heels.
Her character was so set on being feminine and all business she went to ridiculous lengths to maintain it.
I think the biggest disappointment was the role of women and scientists in the film. This was really Indiana Jones and the Dinosaur of Doom. Compare this with the original, where there were 2 paleontologists and 1 chaos theoretician (who was right all along). It was full of nods to Exec Producer Spielberg’s oeuvre (Duel, ET, Indiana Jones etc), which while it was fun at first, did get a bit tedious. At least the parents didn’t decide not to get divorced (if they were ever going to) at the end.- MC
That whole bit about the impending divorce of the parents was the hallmark of Spielberg “family values” sentimentality. Like Maru, he can’t help going there. It also didn’t fit or add anything to the movie. Was I supposed to feel more sorry for the kids, or was it to make their bond more powerful? Either way, it was ineffectual fluff for me. Similar to the first JP where Sam Neill’s character didn’t like kids, then by the end loved them since he was forced to save them.
This movie also had some nods to classic films. The most obvious one was a reference to Hitchock’s “The Birds” when the pterosaurs attack the fleeing crowds.
If you make a dinosaur it will (special effects) bite you (more special effects). Fin.
I hope everyone knows that both CGI and practicable full size or partial sized amdnitronic-hydraulic machines every bit as dangerous as the real thing were used in all the movies.
I haven’t seen it and I don’t know if I ever will. The low point in the trailer is definitely when they talk about having their “first genetically modified hybrid.” This makes me cringe on several levels. First and foremost, it cashes in on the irrational fear mongering that comes with “genetically modified” anything, and thereby promotes the destructive belief. I can understand the desire to make money, but this is pandering of the worst kind. Secondly, *every* one of the dinosaurs since the original book/novel have been hybrids. If I recall correctly, they were magically crossed with frogs somehow. This one line is the flaming red flag to me that, once again, Hollywood doesn’t care at all about good writing, only about giving people exactly what they want, no thought required.
I’ll admit, I always feel a bit personally affronted by any new Jurassic Park-world ridiculousness. I enjoyed the first novel. It was also what first inspired me to really think about the concept of a god/gods and decide that I was an atheist (age 10).
I thought they all were genetically modified organisms. Wasn’t one of the ‘sciency’ bits about how they had to use DNA from other types of animals (birds, reptiles, amphibians, molluscs (cuttlefish) and others) to fill in the gaps in the chromosomes?
There WAS a feathered dinosaur in the movie! Near the beginning, we see what looks like a massive dino foot crashing down. The camera pulls back and reveals that it is the foot of a normal bird. I’m sure that this was an in-joke aimed at people who wanted feathered dinosaurs–“Here’s one!”
Yeah, I forgot about that. I did like that there was a subtle nod to evolution with that scene.
That was an interesting survey…I found that I don’t care how scientifically accurate a film is. If I want good science, I’ll read a book or watch Cosmos or something. If I want to be entertained, I’ll watch a film with no scientific expectations like Jurassic World and enjoy. I’m also fond of Chris Pratt, so that was a bonus.
I overall was pleasantly surprised…I thought I’d hate the film as I hated the one sequel I watched and heard the other was just as bad. I liked Jurassic Park because it was such a novelty, though the acting was awful. Plus I was 24 at the time, and not very critical when it came to films. Also, since I liked JP, I was happy to see all the tie-ins in JW.
Favorite lines (they may be a little off):
“Your boyfriend is a badass.”
“It’s just like taking a walk in the forest…65 million years ago.”
“What kind of diet doesn’t allow tequila?”
“You can’t ever tell your mom about this!”
It is supposed to be entertaining not a science lecture. The science at least paid lip service to the real thing, with the said proviso that the dino’s were hand built not real and the only down side was that better use was not made of the 3d to create more scare from the dino’s coming out to get ya.
I heard a brief interview with Ken Ham, the guy with the creation museum place. He didn’t like it because I guess the movie infers that the earth is “millions and millions” of years old. Attendance is down at his museum.
I saw it a couple of days ago and quite enjoyed it, mostly because Chris Pratt. The raptors not having feathers pissed me off, there’s no excuse for that. The plot was quite meh, but at least the heroine didn’t have to be rescued by the hero, and even more refreshingly, in the end it was a dinosaur which finally killed the dinosaur, instead of our hero.
The heroine running around in high heeled pumps during the whole thing was irritating, anyone who had to do that would soon be limping badly, even assuming she hadn’t lost them, which she would. Those things are not designed for sprinting. I felt very sorry for the actress actually, she must have been in agony during filming.
The idea that in order to get a more terrifying dinosaur you’d need to genetically engineer one struck me as ludicrous. Something like a Spinosaurus could hardly have been improved upon within the limits of biology.
Jake Johnson had most of the best lines.
“in the end it was a dinosaur which finally killed the dinosaur”
No …
/@
Heh.
Didn’t it get eaten? I was a bit bored by this point and probably not really paying attention.
Not by a *dinosaur*!
/@
Oh all right be like that! 😉
“Like that”? You mean, “correct”? On a biology-themed website, we have to respect clades! Birds are dinosaurs, mosasaurs ain’t … 😁
/@
Inorite, especially since as I was writing the post I thought I ought to check what that beastie was in case it wasn’t actually a dinosaur, (were any of the aquatic mega-animals dinosaurs?), but I was too lazy. So …
My ex took my four-year-old to see it. She said it was only okay. His critique: “why didn’t the people just make herbivores, that way the dinosaurs wouldn’t try and eat anyone?”
Out of the mouths of babes.
Why? Obvious, they need costumers, herbivores get boring really fast. Duh. Out of the mouths of babes isn’t what I would go by or buy.
I guess you need to start teaching the kid about the facts of US Capitalism. It is all about the buck.
I saw a documentary where a paleontologist sneered, “Herbivores are . . . okay, but I consider them the sheep of the mesozoic.”