My biggest disappointment in this film…..
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Jurassic Park III
foxhound-37781 — 9 years ago(September 05, 2016 01:18 AM)
The dethroning of the T-Rex. in the first two movies the T-Rex's are the big terrifying badasses that we couldn't help but love but in this movie the T-Rex is made to look like nothing compared to the Spinosaurus
anyone else feel this way? -
T-eschberger — 9 years ago(November 07, 2016 01:34 PM)
So you would prefer another rehash of the first two? I liked how we had a new and scarier monster this time around.
If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know most fans aren't angry the Rex was replaced by a new dinosaur. They are angry in the way it played out.
It could have played out in so many different ways.
They could have kept the Rex till the end of the movie, where they fight.
They could have had a scene where they try to escape BOTH of them.
They could not have had the Rex at all.
They could have extended the fight to more than a mere 30 seconds.
Have the Spino wound the Rex so it walks off in shame but have the Rex come back for one set piece in the finale so it has a moment to shine.
The way the scene played out was cheap, rushed and insulting. The Rex is the Vader of this franchise. It's the icon, the mascot. Unceremoniously breaking it's neck is not the way to introduce a new baddie into the series. So I guess if they just killed Vader within 30 seconds of his only scene in Jedi to have some new, bigger, meaner bad guy come in you'd say the same thing right? -
T-eschberger — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 07:20 AM)
It shows that this dino is even deadlier hence ups the ante.
No. It alienates the audience by killing off the franchise icon and replacing it with a giant slasher villain.
All of the dinosaurs in the other entries in the series at least act like animals. The Spino has no actual character to it. It's just a massive monster that chases the characters throughout the island.
In the first film, the Rex's actions in the film feel like animal behavior. It breaks free and examines and explores the cars. In The Lost World it is made explicit throughout the film why the Rex's are acting the way they are. In JW, the actions of the I-Rex are explained throughout as well.
In JPIIIthe Spino is justattacking. -
Captain_Wesker — 9 years ago(November 08, 2016 04:38 PM)
Here here. People clown on the
spinosaurus aegyptiacus
because of it's antics, but the
indominus rex
was a squarely over-the-top B-movie monster.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
. -
buffalobenji — 9 years ago(November 13, 2016 09:06 AM)
Nope, bad argument. It wasn't really until World that the idea that they weren't actually dinosaurs was entertained. Obviously scientists are making more discoveries and coming up with new theories. For all intents and purposes Hammond was trying to recreate dinosaurs.
-
T-eschberger — 9 years ago(November 13, 2016 10:11 AM)
Nope, bad argument. It wasn't really until World that the idea that they weren't actually dinosaurs was entertained. Obviously scientists are making more discoveries and coming up with new theories. For all intents and purposes Hammond was trying to recreate dinosaurs.
Mmmm nope. It was actually in the original novel. It was also spoken of in JP3. So like I saidnext. -
buffalobenji — 9 years ago(November 13, 2016 10:14 AM)
Well for those who have not read the novel then they were for all intent and purposes dinosaurs. It is touched on slightly in 3 but you bash this film so don't dip into the content to save your argument.
-
Captain_Wesker — 9 years ago(November 19, 2016 08:01 AM)
Having a tiny bit of West African frog DNA to fill in some gene sequence gaps is a necessary evil.
Throwing together various bits of DNA from multiple species in an attempt to make something "cool" is just plain excess.
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
.