In the end, I think Spielberg didn't think Hammond through. He wanted him to be Richard "Santa Claus" Attenborough, he wanted him to be more sympathetic than Crichton's Hammond. This doesn't fully work with the park and plot as presented, but it let Spielberg do his brand of sentimentalism, which Crichton's more dickish Hammond would't have. Spielberg clearly wants us to warm to Hammond and to feel sorry for him, more than the premise really warrants.
It worked for me, at least through the first movie. I prefer when characters have to live with the consequences of their actions instead of dying to tidy up the film so the credits can roll. But if he's going to live, he's either got to show remorse or get arrested. I much prefer the movie version, watching him come to grips with the fact that his dream is dead and so are a lot of people. He can be warm and cuddly and wrong.
I only really have a problem with this take when he shows up later without an orange jumpsuit and still a rich man. They let him off too lightly in the sequels.
In the end, I think Spielberg didn't think Hammond through. He wanted him to be Richard "Santa Claus" Attenborough, he wanted him to be more sympathetic than Crichton's Hammond. This doesn't fully work with the park and plot as presented, but it let Spielberg do his brand of sentimentalism, which Crichton's more dickish Hammond would't have. Spielberg clearly wants us to warm to Hammond and to feel sorry for him, more than the premise really warrants.
It worked for me, at least through the first movie. I prefer when characters have to live with the consequences of their actions instead of dying to tidy up the film so the credits can roll. But if he's going to live, he's either got to show remorse or get arrested. I much prefer the movie version, watching him come to grips with the fact that his dream is dead and so are a lot of people. He can be warm and cuddly and wrong.
I just don't particularly think that Spielberg commits to this. At least at the time, if given a choice between hard, difficult feelings on the one hand and warm and cuddly on the other, Spielberg would go for the latter the vast majority of the time. It's why for me Jurassic Park only rarely manages to come close to Jaws - the latter has actual teeth that JP kinda lacks IMO, one or two scenes excepted. (Jurassic Park 2 has more teeth, but this also comes with an odd adolescent meanness that I find pretty distasteful.)
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Jaws is a straight up horror movie, Jurassic Park is an adventure movie. It can't have the kind of teeth you are looking for.
Spielberg could have made Jurassic Park a horror movie, he made the tone lighter than the novel was - which was a choice. With his talent he would have made an incredible horror movie like Jaws was with the property. So it can have teeth, but the films just stopped having new identities after Spielberg left. Spielberg did it and it was a success so why bother trying anything else? Friday the 13th's franchise is more experimental than Jurassic Park.
Harry Dresden on
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I mean, it is an adventure movie with Slasher trappings. That's the story Spielberg wanted to tell.
I agree that Jurassic Park veers more towards the adventure end of the spectrum, but as Harry says, that's a choice, not a given, and for me it undermines what the film is and what it can be to some extent. To me it's always felt like Spielberg wanted to make a Jaws for kids, and that's fine, but the end result is a film that I enjoy less, especially compared to the novel. Spielberg is undoubtedly much better at what he does than Crichton was, but Spielberg's increasing sentimentalism during that phase means that I've not enjoyed any of his films as much as I enjoy his early films.
However, it's very well possible, even likely that I would've enjoyed Jurassic Park better if I'd been younger at the time. I remember that I was massively excited for it, but the end result left me somewhat cold.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Jaws is a straight up horror movie, Jurassic Park is an adventure movie. It can't have the kind of teeth you are looking for.
Spielberg could have made Jurassic Park a horror movie, he made the tone lighter than the novel was - which was a choice. With his talent he would have made an incredible horror movie like Jaws was with the property. So it can have teeth, but the films just stopped having new identities after Spielberg left. Spielberg did it and it was a success so why bother trying anything else? Friday the 13th's franchise is more experimental than Jurassic Park.
Yeah, but if he did, no one would want to wait 3/4s of the movie to finally see a dinosaur.
I saw Jurassic Park in theaters, but went ALL IN on the action figures. I loved the Muldoon one sooo much, mostly because of that cool one sided floppy hat he wore.
My Mom told me he survived in the movie because you never actually saw him get eaten and he was on the helicopter escaping and I must have missed him.
Of course this was the 90s and we didn't have any money so I never got to see it again during the theater run. I saw it a few times in TV but assumed the television edit left out Muldoon at the end.
It wasn't until I was in my thirties that I actually bought the Blu ray and confirmed...there was no Muldoon. He died. My mom lied to me so I would think my favorite character survived.
I saw Jurassic Park in theaters, but went ALL IN on the action figures. I loved the Muldoon one sooo much, mostly because of that cool one sided floppy hat he wore.
My Mom told me he survived in the movie because you never actually saw him get eaten and he was on the helicopter escaping and I must have missed him.
Of course this was the 90s and we didn't have any money so I never got to see it again during the theater run. I saw it a few times in TV but assumed the television edit left out Muldoon at the end.
It wasn't until I was in my thirties that I actually bought the Blu ray and confirmed...there was no Muldoon. He died. My mom lied to me so I would think my favorite character survived.
In the end, I think Spielberg didn't think Hammond through. He wanted him to be Richard "Santa Claus" Attenborough, he wanted him to be more sympathetic than Crichton's Hammond. This doesn't fully work with the park and plot as presented, but it let Spielberg do his brand of sentimentalism, which Crichton's more dickish Hammond would't have. Spielberg clearly wants us to warm to Hammond and to feel sorry for him, more than the premise really warrants.
It worked for me, at least through the first movie. I prefer when characters have to live with the consequences of their actions instead of dying to tidy up the film so the credits can roll. But if he's going to live, he's either got to show remorse or get arrested. I much prefer the movie version, watching him come to grips with the fact that his dream is dead and so are a lot of people. He can be warm and cuddly and wrong.
I only really have a problem with this take when he shows up later without an orange jumpsuit and still a rich man. They let him off too lightly in the sequels.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything about the movie's Hammond that doesn't work. He's like a giddy schoolboy with his new toy but the film constantly, via Malcom, undercuts his attitude with the idea that he's not really paying attention to what he's doing. Even if the way it's couched in terms of chaos theory and whatever is often kinda silly imo, the basic idea "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." is a core idea of the film that is directly about Hammond and it extremely critical of his actions. Someone doesn't have to be hateable to be wrong.
Also, all the sequels are trash and should be ignored.
+4
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
The whole chaos theory, life finds a way mumbo-jumbo would have worked much better if the precipitating cause of cause of the disaster hadn't been Newman turning off the power. Hammond being a crappy boss played a part, but the place was enough of a death trap that going with employee sabotage just seems lazy.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
In the end, I think Spielberg didn't think Hammond through. He wanted him to be Richard "Santa Claus" Attenborough, he wanted him to be more sympathetic than Crichton's Hammond. This doesn't fully work with the park and plot as presented, but it let Spielberg do his brand of sentimentalism, which Crichton's more dickish Hammond would't have. Spielberg clearly wants us to warm to Hammond and to feel sorry for him, more than the premise really warrants.
The conversation with the ice cream and his flee circus reveals he's always been a con artist and a showman, he can make it bigger and more expensive but he still has failed to build anything real because fundamentally he's still just putting on a traveling show and never figured out how to build structures/foundations.
Yeah the hammond of the movie is gentler than his book counterpart, but no less deluded and dangerous.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah the hammond of the movie is gentler than his book counterpart, but no less deluded and dangerous.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
Chricton was an MD before he started writing. You might be mixing him up with Grisham?
In any case, the park was fucked way before Nedry turned off the power because the dinos were already breeding outside of the electric fence perimeter.
The key thing that makes Jurassic Park a different setup from Jaws is that the animals are intended to seem magical. The park is a miracle, that's its draw, and that needs to come across. It's one of the things the film is so great at. I think retooling bookHammond into filmHammond is an important aspect of that, too. He really feels like a guy who wants to bring that magic into the world; he's just deluded about his (or indeed, anyone's) ability to manage the forces he's dealing with.
The key thing that makes Jurassic Park a different setup from Jaws is that the animals are intended to seem magical. The park is a miracle, that's its draw, and that needs to come across. It's one of the things the film is so great at. I think retooling bookHammond into filmHammond is an important aspect of that, too. He really feels like a guy who wants to bring that magic into the world; he's just deluded about his (or indeed, anyone's) ability to manage the forces he's dealing with.
Were they really unmanageable though?
Edit: I mean I know the thesis of the movie is that yes, they were, but I'm not necessarily sold :P
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
Another very accurate detail is that people given extremely important jobs are seldomly given the tools or even wages that's appropriate for the work they have to do.
If you want to go further with Hammond being an asshole, think of the technology he funded and apparently owned. That kind of gene editing could cure cancer. But he didn't want to cure cancer, he wanted to make dinosaurs. And profit from it.
The key thing that makes Jurassic Park a different setup from Jaws is that the animals are intended to seem magical. The park is a miracle, that's its draw, and that needs to come across. It's one of the things the film is so great at. I think retooling bookHammond into filmHammond is an important aspect of that, too. He really feels like a guy who wants to bring that magic into the world; he's just deluded about his (or indeed, anyone's) ability to manage the forces he's dealing with.
That's literally what the whole flea circus scene is about. And it's really great how many turns Spielberg gives it and they all add depth to Hammond's character. We begin with the wonder of the place he's built and his desire to make something that's actually real for once, which makes us sympathize with him. And then he gets crushed as Sattler points out it's all still bullshit. And then we get to see his delusion and failures as he keeps insisting he can fix it all and do it right. And then finally we cut through that to core final directive of the plot and the sort of core idea of what matters: people they love are dying and need to be saved.
Hammond being likable ads a ton to the film imo.
shryke on
+11
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited May 2021
The part where the movie implies he's deluded for trying to "control nature" with a zoo or whatever is one of the most laughable bits to me. Yes, Hammond is deluded because he thinks the amazing creatures will make people look past the tremendously obvious safety issues, but putting a bunch of dinos in a zoo would not be a big deal (yeah, it would be big overall because of the size of the animals, but not significant as an accomplishment). We can dig and we can use steel-reinforced concrete, and those are pretty much all you need to keep basically everything but the raptors contained. There's nothing magic about the critters except the writing opening every barrier for them.
Putting animals in a zoo without mass chaos involved isn't deluded, we've done for at least hundreds, and I think even thousands, of years.
The part where the movie implies he's deluded for trying to "control nature" with a zoo or whatever is one of the most laughable bits to me. Yes, Hammond is deluded because he thinks the amazing creatures will make people look past the tremendously obvious safety issues, but putting a bunch of dinos in a zoo would not be a big deal (yeah, it would be big overall because of the size of the animals, but not significant as an accomplishment). We can dig and we can use steel-reinforced concrete, and those are pretty much all you need to keep basically everything but the raptors contained. There's nothing magic about the critters except the writing opening every barrier for them.
Putting animals in a zoo without mass chaos involved isn't deluded, we've done for at least hundreds, and I think even thousands, of years.
I mean, to bring Jaws back into the situation, killing large sea creatures from the safety of a boat is something we've done for hundreds of years, too. Making a zoo where nothing bad happens and has no thesis isn't a movie.
Edit: Also, not for nothin, but building a zoo where the animals don't just sort of whither and die is actually really hard, and that's with animals we have studied for as long as we've co-existed. One of the main points brought up in the story of Jurassic Park is how they haven't a single idea about the living biology of any of these animals. They only learned one of them was venomous after they had brought it back from extinction.
It ends up turning into an action movie because, well, it's an action movie, but the point of Hammond being deluded when he thinks he can just corral wild nature is about more than just raptors eating people.
I dunno how to feel about the Netflix partnership. Just strikes me more as Netflix trying to legitimize their own work. I thought Beasts of No Nation was bad, but even if I was a fan, that film hasn't had any real impact or legacy.
After Life is a good addition though, it's one of Koreeda's better films. I'm surprised there wasn't ever a sequel or spin-off or anything. It's such a ripe premise.
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
I dunno how to feel about the Netflix partnership. Just strikes me more as Netflix trying to legitimize their own work. I thought Beasts of No Nation was bad, but even if I was a fan, that film hasn't had any real impact or legacy.
After Life is a good addition though, it's one of Koreeda's better films. I'm surprised there wasn't ever a sequel or spin-off or anything. It's such a ripe premise.
If it gets me a Criterion of Okja, it'll be worth it. The Other Side of the Wind is bound to get one before long, too.
Yeah the hammond of the movie is gentler than his book counterpart, but no less deluded and dangerous.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
Chricton was an MD before he started writing. You might be mixing him up with Grisham?
In any case, the park was fucked way before Nedry turned off the power because the dinos were already breeding outside of the electric fence perimeter.
I totally was mixing him up with Grisham.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah the hammond of the movie is gentler than his book counterpart, but no less deluded and dangerous.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
Chricton was an MD before he started writing. You might be mixing him up with Grisham?
In any case, the park was fucked way before Nedry turned off the power because the dinos were already breeding outside of the electric fence perimeter.
I totally was mixing him up with Grisham.
Actually, It's Tom Clancy , who was a realtor before writing I believe. I thought Grisham was an attorney as well, prior to his books.
Yeah the hammond of the movie is gentler than his book counterpart, but no less deluded and dangerous.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
Chricton was an MD before he started writing. You might be mixing him up with Grisham?
In any case, the park was fucked way before Nedry turned off the power because the dinos were already breeding outside of the electric fence perimeter.
I totally was mixing him up with Grisham.
Actually, It's Tom Clancy , who was a realtor before writing I believe. I thought Grisham was an attorney as well, prior to his books.
John Grisham is still alive, too! He's only 66 years old.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yeah the hammond of the movie is gentler than his book counterpart, but no less deluded and dangerous.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
Chricton was an MD before he started writing. You might be mixing him up with Grisham?
In any case, the park was fucked way before Nedry turned off the power because the dinos were already breeding outside of the electric fence perimeter.
I totally was mixing him up with Grisham.
Actually, It's Tom Clancy , who was a realtor before writing I believe. I thought Grisham was an attorney as well, prior to his books.
John Grisham is still alive, too! He's only 66 years old.
If you want to go further with Hammond being an asshole, think of the technology he funded and apparently owned. That kind of gene editing could cure cancer. But he didn't want to cure cancer, he wanted to make dinosaurs. And profit from it.
If you want to go further with Hammond being an asshole, think of the technology he funded and apparently owned. That kind of gene editing could cure cancer. But he didn't want to cure cancer, he wanted to make dinosaurs. And profit from it.
?
Sauron needs to be in on Disney's reboot of X-Men when it happens.
Also, I still think the Pratt Jurassic Parks are still a prequel to, "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs" and "Dino Crisis".
If you want to go further with Hammond being an asshole, think of the technology he funded and apparently owned. That kind of gene editing could cure cancer. But he didn't want to cure cancer, he wanted to make dinosaurs. And profit from it.
Nah. Pretty sure we have that level of technology and we aren't curing cancer. It's just splicing different bits of DNA together and we can already do that in a limited fashion
But also but you can't do that because then everyone screams eugenics, because you can change a whole bunch of other stuff too, and since there's no "cancer" gene you definitely will be
Cancer is the apparently inevitable result of rolling the dice too many times (or getting really unlucky early on). It's what kills you if you live long enough/nothing else does first.
An actual cure would probably require either the ability to prevent, or undo/repair, replication errors.
+6
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
edited May 2021
If you fuck with genetics on complex life forms before development, your big options for results are: you break a vital metabolic pathway and you never get past an embryo (possibly even dying as early as one or two cycles of replication) or you damage a metabolic pathway and end up with something sickly that probably dies very young. You typically only get cancer if you fuck with the DNA after development, such as using CRISPR tech to edit the genes of a live subject or hitting something with radiation. It's two different scenarios, so Hammond's tech would have fuck-all to do with fighting cancer as it's just patching together chunks of genes (and we've been able to do that for decades); the real trick with the dinos is getting the DNA in the first place, which would be impossible because the half-life of DNA is about ten thousand years. Preserved in amber or not, the DNA information left behind after tens of millions of years would be so miniscule as to be totally random and useless.
The reason we get cancer is because of DNA errors either through replication mistakes or damage (like from UV radiation) the disrupts cell control mechanisms (resulting in cancer). We've actually got pretty dang good error-checking in our DNA replication mechanisms, we're just made of so many cells that even a one in a million chance of error getting through inevitably results in enough errors to cause cancer on a long enough timeline. However, we're now at a point where we're mastering protein-based mechanisms for targeting specific cells for alteration and being able to alter their DNA, which is leading to some amazing advances in cancer treatment.
So Hammond's tech, at least, cannot be accused of misusing a resource to a stupid end because it wouldn't solve anything new.
If you want to go further with Hammond being an asshole, think of the technology he funded and apparently owned. That kind of gene editing could cure cancer. But he didn't want to cure cancer, he wanted to make dinosaurs. And profit from it.
?
Sauron needs to be in on Disney's reboot of X-Men when it happens.
Also, I still think the Pratt Jurassic Parks are still a prequel to, "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs" and "Dino Crisis".
So your welcome Hollywood.
They had concept art ready for Jurassic World that was this, but is now probably going to be the next movie. BDwongs character basically all but says it as hes escaping:
Those raptors he rode a bike with conceptually were just going to be raptor soldier hybrids. But in universe they've proven a person can lead a team of monsters, so I expect it to head in that direction fully.
If you fuck with genetics on complex life forms before development, your big options for results are: you break a vital metabolic pathway and you never get past an embryo (possibly even dying as early as one or two cycles of replication) or you damage a metabolic pathway and end up with something sickly that probably dies very young. You typically only get cancer if you fuck with the DNA after development, such as using CRISPR tech to edit the genes of a live subject or hitting something with radiation. It's two different scenarios, so Hammond's tech would have fuck-all to do with fighting cancer as it's just patching together chunks of genes (and we've been able to do that for decades); the real trick with the dinos is getting the DNA in the first place, which would be impossible because the half-life of DNA is about ten thousand years. Preserved in amber or not, the DNA information left behind after tens of millions of years would be so miniscule as to be totally random and useless.
The reason we get cancer is because of DNA errors either through replication mistakes or damage (like from UV radiation) the disrupts cell control mechanisms (resulting in cancer). We've actually got pretty dang good error-checking in our DNA replication mechanisms, we're just made of so many cells that even a one in a million chance of error getting through inevitably results in enough errors to cause cancer on a long enough timeline. However, we're now at a point where we're mastering protein-based mechanisms for targeting specific cells for alteration and being able to alter their DNA, which is leading to some amazing advances in cancer treatment.
So Hammond's tech, at least, cannot be accused of misusing a resource to a stupid end because it wouldn't solve anything new.
I mean, when the last Jurassic movie was out, I was shaking my head going, "Why the fuck would you even mix Snake and Chameleon , and Kimono Dragon DNA to a goddamn T-Rex?"
I think that was mainly a callback to the whole “Dinosaurs were lizards -> actually were pretty sure they’re birds” thing. They wanted lizard like dinos because that was the public consciousness at the time but also wanted to talk about how dinos were probably closer to birds.
Jurassic Park is also just a story. The purpose of the magic genetic technology is just to have dinos around to eat people. There is no "Hammond could actually cure cancer if he wanted" to this story. It's hand-wavey technology to serve the story and that's it.
If you fuck with genetics on complex life forms before development, your big options for results are: you break a vital metabolic pathway and you never get past an embryo (possibly even dying as early as one or two cycles of replication) or you damage a metabolic pathway and end up with something sickly that probably dies very young. You typically only get cancer if you fuck with the DNA after development, such as using CRISPR tech to edit the genes of a live subject or hitting something with radiation. It's two different scenarios, so Hammond's tech would have fuck-all to do with fighting cancer as it's just patching together chunks of genes (and we've been able to do that for decades); the real trick with the dinos is getting the DNA in the first place, which would be impossible because the half-life of DNA is about ten thousand years. Preserved in amber or not, the DNA information left behind after tens of millions of years would be so miniscule as to be totally random and useless.
The reason we get cancer is because of DNA errors either through replication mistakes or damage (like from UV radiation) the disrupts cell control mechanisms (resulting in cancer). We've actually got pretty dang good error-checking in our DNA replication mechanisms, we're just made of so many cells that even a one in a million chance of error getting through inevitably results in enough errors to cause cancer on a long enough timeline. However, we're now at a point where we're mastering protein-based mechanisms for targeting specific cells for alteration and being able to alter their DNA, which is leading to some amazing advances in cancer treatment.
So Hammond's tech, at least, cannot be accused of misusing a resource to a stupid end because it wouldn't solve anything new.
I mean, when the last Jurassic movie was out, I was shaking my head going, "Why the fuck would you even mix Snake and Chameleon , and Kimono Dragon DNA to a goddamn T-Rex?"
Posts
That’s arguably incredibly realistic.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Spielberg could have made Jurassic Park a horror movie, he made the tone lighter than the novel was - which was a choice. With his talent he would have made an incredible horror movie like Jaws was with the property. So it can have teeth, but the films just stopped having new identities after Spielberg left. Spielberg did it and it was a success so why bother trying anything else? Friday the 13th's franchise is more experimental than Jurassic Park.
However, it's very well possible, even likely that I would've enjoyed Jurassic Park better if I'd been younger at the time. I remember that I was massively excited for it, but the end result left me somewhat cold.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Yeah, but if he did, no one would want to wait 3/4s of the movie to finally see a dinosaur.
My Mom told me he survived in the movie because you never actually saw him get eaten and he was on the helicopter escaping and I must have missed him.
Of course this was the 90s and we didn't have any money so I never got to see it again during the theater run. I saw it a few times in TV but assumed the television edit left out Muldoon at the end.
It wasn't until I was in my thirties that I actually bought the Blu ray and confirmed...there was no Muldoon. He died. My mom lied to me so I would think my favorite character survived.
your mom? clever girl.
Blizzard: Pailryder#1101
GoG: https://www.gog.com/u/pailryder
MWO: Adamski
Yeah, I don't think there's anything about the movie's Hammond that doesn't work. He's like a giddy schoolboy with his new toy but the film constantly, via Malcom, undercuts his attitude with the idea that he's not really paying attention to what he's doing. Even if the way it's couched in terms of chaos theory and whatever is often kinda silly imo, the basic idea "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." is a core idea of the film that is directly about Hammond and it extremely critical of his actions. Someone doesn't have to be hateable to be wrong.
Also, all the sequels are trash and should be ignored.
The conversation with the ice cream and his flee circus reveals he's always been a con artist and a showman, he can make it bigger and more expensive but he still has failed to build anything real because fundamentally he's still just putting on a traveling show and never figured out how to build structures/foundations.
Really the person who got done the most dirty from the book was the lawyer, in the book he lived and was a bad ass (what profession was Micheal Chrichton again I forget...)
pleasepaypreacher.net
Also, August Criterions:
Chricton was an MD before he started writing. You might be mixing him up with Grisham?
In any case, the park was fucked way before Nedry turned off the power because the dinos were already breeding outside of the electric fence perimeter.
Were they really unmanageable though?
Edit: I mean I know the thesis of the movie is that yes, they were, but I'm not necessarily sold :P
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
That's literally what the whole flea circus scene is about. And it's really great how many turns Spielberg gives it and they all add depth to Hammond's character. We begin with the wonder of the place he's built and his desire to make something that's actually real for once, which makes us sympathize with him. And then he gets crushed as Sattler points out it's all still bullshit. And then we get to see his delusion and failures as he keeps insisting he can fix it all and do it right. And then finally we cut through that to core final directive of the plot and the sort of core idea of what matters: people they love are dying and need to be saved.
Hammond being likable ads a ton to the film imo.
Putting animals in a zoo without mass chaos involved isn't deluded, we've done for at least hundreds, and I think even thousands, of years.
I mean, to bring Jaws back into the situation, killing large sea creatures from the safety of a boat is something we've done for hundreds of years, too. Making a zoo where nothing bad happens and has no thesis isn't a movie.
Edit: Also, not for nothin, but building a zoo where the animals don't just sort of whither and die is actually really hard, and that's with animals we have studied for as long as we've co-existed. One of the main points brought up in the story of Jurassic Park is how they haven't a single idea about the living biology of any of these animals. They only learned one of them was venomous after they had brought it back from extinction.
It ends up turning into an action movie because, well, it's an action movie, but the point of Hammond being deluded when he thinks he can just corral wild nature is about more than just raptors eating people.
I dunno how to feel about the Netflix partnership. Just strikes me more as Netflix trying to legitimize their own work. I thought Beasts of No Nation was bad, but even if I was a fan, that film hasn't had any real impact or legacy.
After Life is a good addition though, it's one of Koreeda's better films. I'm surprised there wasn't ever a sequel or spin-off or anything. It's such a ripe premise.
If it gets me a Criterion of Okja, it'll be worth it. The Other Side of the Wind is bound to get one before long, too.
I totally was mixing him up with Grisham.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Actually, It's Tom Clancy , who was a realtor before writing I believe. I thought Grisham was an attorney as well, prior to his books.
...I would have thought he was older. Damn.
?
Sauron needs to be in on Disney's reboot of X-Men when it happens.
Also, I still think the Pratt Jurassic Parks are still a prequel to, "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs" and "Dino Crisis".
So your welcome Hollywood.
Nah. Pretty sure we have that level of technology and we aren't curing cancer. It's just splicing different bits of DNA together and we can already do that in a limited fashion
But also but you can't do that because then everyone screams eugenics, because you can change a whole bunch of other stuff too, and since there's no "cancer" gene you definitely will be
An actual cure would probably require either the ability to prevent, or undo/repair, replication errors.
The reason we get cancer is because of DNA errors either through replication mistakes or damage (like from UV radiation) the disrupts cell control mechanisms (resulting in cancer). We've actually got pretty dang good error-checking in our DNA replication mechanisms, we're just made of so many cells that even a one in a million chance of error getting through inevitably results in enough errors to cause cancer on a long enough timeline. However, we're now at a point where we're mastering protein-based mechanisms for targeting specific cells for alteration and being able to alter their DNA, which is leading to some amazing advances in cancer treatment.
So Hammond's tech, at least, cannot be accused of misusing a resource to a stupid end because it wouldn't solve anything new.
They had concept art ready for Jurassic World that was this, but is now probably going to be the next movie. BDwongs character basically all but says it as hes escaping:
Those raptors he rode a bike with conceptually were just going to be raptor soldier hybrids. But in universe they've proven a person can lead a team of monsters, so I expect it to head in that direction fully.
I mean, when the last Jurassic movie was out, I was shaking my head going, "Why the fuck would you even mix Snake and Chameleon , and Kimono Dragon DNA to a goddamn T-Rex?"
Wait... I got something for this: