Jurassic World & American Sniper are in the running for the top spot of being the most morally disgusting movie to have been released in the past decade.

They also both happen to be among the biggest US domestic hits of the past 12 months. Go figure.

Gob Hobblin wrote:J.F. Sargent over on Cracked had an amusing article on how Jurassic World basically killed its potential hero.

Zara wasn't the hero we needed, but she was the hero we deserved!

That's a good article, and he's right on the money. She was one of the only characters in that film who wasn't terrible.

Gendo'sPapa wrote:Jurassic World [...] in the running for the top spot of being the most morally disgusting movie to have been released in the past decade.

I'm curious. Please elaborate.

Bagheera wrote:She was one of the only characters in that film who wasn't terrible.

She was hardly a character though. She probably would have been terrible if she had screentime.

TehDonutKing wrote:She was hardly a character though. She probably would have been terrible if she had screentime.

That Cracked article makes a pretty compelling argument to the contrary.

It's Cracked. The site's been shit for about two years now.

TehDonutKing wrote:It's Cracked. The site's been shit for about two years now.

That's a fallacy, Donut, even if I agreed with it (which I don't).

It's not much of a fallacy when it can be shown demonstrably that Cracked lost its grounding in reality when they decided to spread political propaganda instead of showing multiple sides of issues.

TehDonutKing wrote:It's not much of a fallacy when it can be shown demonstrably that Cracked lost its grounding in reality when they decided to spread political propaganda instead of showing multiple sides of issues.

No, it's actually a textbook example of the Association Fallacy. It doesn't matter whether your assessment of Cracked is right or wrong; your argument here amounts to "it's from Cracked, so therefore it's shit" and that's a bad argument (it's even more hilariously wrong when your assessment of Cracked is based on its politics, since the article in question isn't political. This makes for a good illustration of why use of the Association Fallacy tends to result in flimsy arguments).

The other problem with the Association Fallacy (and with Ad Hominem attacks in general) lies in the fact that it inevitably leads to people in the discussion talking about the association in question (in this case, Cracked) rather than the topic at hand (as we also saw here; we were talking about an article about JW, and now we're talking about Cracked instead. See how that works?). So even leaving aside the issues with guilt by association, use of this fallacy is also a derailing tactic. This is why it's a bad argument, and why you shouldn't use it.

I think her general lack of rounding out is a big advantage for her, since the little we do see doesn't paint a bad image (actually, kind of a good one), and Zara just looks so much BETTER in comparison to everyone else by her general lack of flaws (brought about by the fact we see so little of her).

I am a certified bookologist and in my professional opinion there is no reason to show us that:

1. Zara is about to get married
2. Zara is genuinely upset she lost the boys
3. Zara puts their safety ahead of her own during the dinosaur attack

...and then kill her off pretty brutally in one of the most graphic deaths in the entire Jurassic Park series and the only time a woman has been killed on screen in one of these movies.

If the rumors are true the director did this because the actress wouldn't sleep with him, but I ignore things like that when I use the third sight on a movie: Jurassic World is very subtly fucked up.

Oddly I really did like it when I first watched it.

edit: Also this is not my thought but it is strange that Zack never shows any interest in Zara at all. He's a teenage boy with a cheating boner who doesn't even look at the attractive older woman with a sexy accent that's been placed in a position of authority over him.

"It zeems that chu are in neet off DISCIPLINE unt TRRRRAINING."

("Did this movie just take a turn for the weird?"
"It's the Chuckman Super Secret Special Edition, just go with it."
"....I mean, I guess it's the sort of thing a Raptor would say, I just didn't expect it....")

Seriously, I have to write this Zara/Owen fanfic....

Gob Hobblin wrote:Seriously, I have to write this Zara/Owen fanfic....

I'd read it if it was Zara/Blue. I don't even know how that'd work, but I'd totally read it.

"Oh, Blue: your scale plumage is just, so ALLURING."

BRAAAAACK

"You say the sweetest things!"

HONK! HONK!

"But...no! We mustn't'! I have a fiance!"

SPIT-WHISTLE-SQUEAL-HONK

"You're...you're right! I don't care! You're the only one I have eyes for!"

BRAAACK! HISS! HONK!

"I love you, too, Blue! I always have!"

HONK!

Chuckman wrote:I am a certified bookologist and in my professional opinion there is no reason to show us that:

1. Zara is about to get married
2. Zara is genuinely upset she lost the boys
3. Zara puts their safety ahead of her own during the dinosaur attack

...and then kill her off pretty brutally in one of the most graphic deaths in the entire Jurassic Park series and the only time a woman has been killed on screen in one of these movies.

If the rumors are true the director did this because the actress wouldn't sleep with him, but I ignore things like that when I use the third sight on a movie: Jurassic World is very subtly fucked up.

Oddly I really did like it when I first watched it.

edit: Also this is not my thought but it is strange that Zack never shows any interest in Zara at all. He's a teenage boy with a cheating boner who doesn't even look at the attractive older woman with a sexy accent that's been placed in a position of authority over him.

If she trusted some technological anything that was probably enough for the movie looking at any death ever but as far as I remember she only used a phone and losing the kids did not cause the park downfall (though it could've but decades of carnage didn't stop them from opening a new park so...?).
Redhead and assistant aren't even on equal grounds to the alpha pen dude so it's not like assistant looks bad because she didn't choose to look in the woods. Not sure what parallels you can make to other relationships but the kill is just this shocking thing for clicks. mhe

Bagheera wrote:I'd read it if it was Zara/Blue. I don't even know how that'd work, but I'd totally read it.

Someone needs to read up on Christie Sims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTHmvNv3G_s

I know I know. necropost. But I feel this could add to the conversation. While I don't agree with Renegade Cut 100% he does often have some decent points to make about the movies he discusses.

Reichu wrote:It's the best possible route they could go, but it would be sort of like the scaly "raptors" in Jurassic World. Yes, it's justified in-film and there is social commentary attached, but it's more like the commentary was made to custom-fit an outdated practice, rather than the film's commentative contents being the organic product of a storyteller's vision. Basically, it's doing things backwards.

The dinosaurs in the novel are chimera creatures created for a theme park to meet the audience's expectations. Chricton actually baked an explanation for the no feathers thing into the original book and the first movie sort of made a passing reference to it.

Chuckman wrote:Chricton actually baked an explanation for the no feathers thing into the original book and the first movie sort of made a passing reference to it.

The book has absolutely no comment whatsoever on the feathers thing, probably because it was written before the slew of discoveries proving a broad spectrum of dinos had them, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Tumbling Down understood my meaning, in any case.

Reichu wrote:The book has absolutely no comment whatsoever on the feathers thing, probably because it was written before the slew of discoveries proving a broad spectrum of dinos had them, so I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Tumbling Down understood my meaning, in any case.

I think Chuck's point is that JW is relying not on something the creators dreamed up to justify their designs, but on something that was right there in the original source material and which was put there for exactly this reason. Crichton might not have been thinking of feathers specifically, but he probably was thinking about all of the creative liberties he took with his creations -- over-sized Velociraptors, pint-sized, poison-spitting Dilophosaurs, sex-changing dinos, etc. IOW it's not really doing things backwards when it's a direct reference to an element in the novel that started it all.

He probably didn't know about the feathers thing but a major theme of the book is that the dinosaurs were manufactured to be what the public expected to see.

The point being that the excuse was already in the book when it was published 26 years ago, the Jurassic World script didn't come up with it.

It's the major plot point and thematic drive of the novel. Michael Crichton really hates things being bastardized for pop culture. Westworld and Timeline deal with the same things.