The big difference between JP and JW

I just re-watched Jurassic Park and realized (once again) how the pacing really makes the movie. It's peculiar to think how Jurassic World is often considered the best sequel to JP (and I actually agree with this), while it's, as far as the pacing is concerned, the most different from the 1st one.

Kinda every scene in Jurassic Park has its time, its pacing, its build-up. Let's take just the action scenes:
- the T-Rex breakout is suspensful, it has a huge build-up (electricity falls, goat disappears, water circles), no music, it's like 5 mins long or so.
- the Dilophosaurus scene is slow too. Dilo is introduced first by the only feet, then the sound, then the face, then (always without music), it's slowly stalking Nedry until he dies.
- Muldoon's death is full of suspense and so tense, no need to describe the scene here
- should I even talk about the kitchen scene?

Does Jurassic World have this kind of pacing? I don't think so. But I'm not saying it needs to. It's just a thought.

I noticed that, to me, watching JP is like:
- long action sequence with suspense (no music)
- long dialogues
- long action sequence with suspense (no music)
- long dialogues
- long action sequence with suspense (music)
etc etc...

Watching JW is like:
- action scene (music)
- dialogue
- action scene (music)
- action scene (with some dialogues during the action scene) (music)
- action scene (music)
etc etc...

But then why we (some of us, at least) say Jurassic World is the closest sequel to JP?
I think that, despite the entirely different pacing, JW still have some JP feelings here and there.
Which sequences are, for you, the ones that resemble the most JP?

I'm thinking at Masrani visiting the paddock, for example. Him looking at the broken glass (that one is really beautiful and sadly underrated moment, anticipating the madness and strength of the animal), him seeing the Indominus walking hidden by the trees (it's sad that the trailers ruined everything by showing the Indominus before the film release), the Jurassic-esque music, the cool one-liners, and the good acting in that scene.
Or the Indominus breakout, IMO the only action scene with a decent suspenseful build-up.

What do you guys think?

I think the reason why people say it's the closest sequel, is because it skips over TLW and JP/// and gives us something directly from the first film: a shitton of nostalgia. It gives us Nublar, it gives us old Park, it gives us tons of things for us to connect it back to the first film, while TLW and JP/// take us to a new setting, with new locations, and bring us new ideas about what InGen was doing.

My main issue with Jurassic World is there isnt any build up, like...at all. Oh, now were on the island, now were at the I. rex paddock, oh no she escaped--oh no she can camouflage--oh no she is attacking the boys--OH NO SEND IN REXY! It just doesnt stop to take a breather. It's just a barrage of action and then boom roll credits. Granted, there are speckles of dialogue and calming scenes here and there, but not enough as I'd want (imagine Zach and Gray spending the night in the VC with the Indominus hiding in the jungle nearby, Owen and Claire forced to return back to the park, her getting a call from Karen and her having to bullshit why she cant talk to them "*stammering* They are asleep! I dont wanna wake them, they've had a long day with Zara, you know.").

Jurassic Park had excellent buildup. We had Grant at the digsite, him meeting Hammond, then we had Nedry meeting Dodgson, the trip to Nublar, then we see the Brachs, then were at the Visitors Center, we learn about the dinosaurs, we go on the tour, no-shows, look a Triceratops!. It helps work you up to the good stuff. JW just shoves it right in front of you. Which is why I rank it below TLW.

Richard Levine wrote:

My main issue with Jurassic World is there isnt any build up, like...at all. Oh, now were on the island, now were at the I. rex paddock, oh no she escaped--oh no she can camouflage--oh no she is attacking the boys--OH NO SEND IN REXY! It just doesnt stop to take a breather. It's just a barrage of action and then boom roll credits. Granted, there are speckles of dialogue and calming scenes here and there, but not enough as I'd want (imagine Zach and Gray spending the night in the VC with the Indominus hiding in the jungle nearby, Owen and Claire forced to return back to the park, her getting a call from Karen and her having to bullshit why she cant talk to them "*stammering* They are asleep! I dont wanna wake them, they've had a long day with Zara, you know.").

Jurassic Park had excellent buildup. We had Grant at the digsite, him meeting Hammond, then we had Nedry meeting Dodgson, the trip to Nublar, then we see the Brachs, then were at the Visitors Center, we learn about the dinosaurs, we go on the tour, no-shows, look a Triceratops!. It helps work you up to the good stuff. JW just shoves it right in front of you. Which is why I rank it below TLW.

That is a major problem with it, too. Jurassic World reminds me of the Luncheon Scene from the first movie. "The world is passing by so fast and we're all running to catch up." Or better yet, Ian Malcolm's quote, which is a perfect representation of what Jurassic World is.

Quote :

"Um, I'll tell you the problem with the scientific power that you're using here, it didn't require any discipline to attain it. You read what others had done and you took the next step. You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it, you wanna sell it."

It's a movie about the dangers of rampant corporatism as much as it is about men and their monsters. The iRex is retreading a story already told in Jurassic World, but far more literal, and far more transparent. It's less subtle and less disciplined than the first movie. Trevorrow stood on the shoulders of a genius to create a movie Universal wanted created as quickly and cheaply as possible. Trevorrow told a story using what he had and by doing so, creating a Jurassic Park in his image. Take, for example, how inept the creators of Jurassic World are. Not the cast and crew that made the movie, the actual creators in the movie itself. They build the iRex Enclosure, and build it too small. Their safety measures are built around handling herbivores and recapturing carnivores who aren't intelligent or genetic monstrosities. And that's not a fault of the writing or the fault of the directing, because it was all intentional.  

The "ineptitude" was intentional by Trevorrow. He wanted to portray a park that was more successful, thus leading to more confidence (and therefore carelessness), but he always wanted to portray the Park as a corporate shill, and thus a shell of what the regal, grandiose style of the Park that Hammond dreamed of. He wanted to show that, had Hammond's Park been successful, this is the kind of bland, banal, flavorless park that it would become. It was no longer magnificent. It was watered down and Disney-fied. The Main Street itself is meant to evoke a kind of uninspired, unflattering copy of Main Street, USA, or the Epcot lagoon walk. Jurassic Park is a story about the hubris of man. It always has been and always will be. Every theme that we encounter through the films: Man VS nature, Man VS God, Life finding a way... they all come back down to one thing: that mankind is an arrogant species whose reach extends their grasp. And, in some ways, I feel like that's what happened with Jurassic World as a movie. It's reach extended it's grasp. It's a movie where it tries to replicate the first movie, and fails, because in Universal's arrogance, they believed that retelling the same story with less subtlety works. Jurassic World is not a subtle movie, not in the least, and it suffers for it. It's loud, and bombastic, and everything is bigger, louder, and more teeth. That's what Jurassic World is. It's a spoof of itself, and it knows it. 

Take some of the characters, like Gray vs Tim. Tim, while talkative, energetic, and fanatical like Gray, brings a more subtle lifelike representation of what it's like to be a kid in this kind of setting. Gray was simply over the top and annoying. He reminded me of Lex from the novel in many ways, minus the over exaggerated whining. The way he rattles off numbers and statistics is, as the reviewer points out, atypical for a character that's meant to be representative of the every-child. When the movie first came out, questions arose: "Is Gray on the Autism Spectrum?" "Is Gray ADHD?" These are not the questions asked regarding your typical, every-child character. I'm not saying it's wrong to make a character autistic, or ADHD. Hell, I'm ADD myself. However, either make the character so or don't. Don't write an every-character that has the traits of an overactive child.

The characters lacking in true personality. We fell in love with Ian Malcolm not because he was a Chaotician, because that wasn't what his personality, but because he was an oddball to the point of eccentricity. We didn't fall in love with Lex and Tim just because they were kids like we once were, not just because they represent a relationship of siblings that care about each even if they don't get along (just as Gray and Zach represent), but because they have their own distinct personalities. Tim is a dinosaur nut who idolizes Dr. Grant, and Lex is a reclusive computer nerd who gains a schoolgirl crush on Alan Grant. These are the traits that define them. Not just "annoyed yet caring older sibling" and "fanatical yet loveable younger sibling". The only characters that get personalities in the movie would be Owen, Masrani, and Lowery. Claire has character traits that make up part of a personality, but no real personality herself. What Claire has instead, is a character arc. She moves from obsessive work-a-holic to caring, brave aunt. So what? We've seen that before. Grant is the same character from the plot point of view. He went from obsessive work-a-holic focused only on dusty old bones, to a caring fatherly figure to two kids whose family is broken. 

A point I've been talking about for a while now is that is lacks suspense. Like Richard Levine says above me, it lacks any form of build up to it's action sequences. This is something Spielberg was always good at, and something missing his touch in this movie. "Jaws", "Jurassic Park", "Saving Private Ryan", they all have exceptional build up and suspense to their action. This film has a problem with a suspenseful third act for the humans. You come to care more about the dinosaurs as characters than you do the humans. When you see the Raptors get hurt, you care for them, because you've come to know them better as characters than you have the humans. There's little tension to the Raptor chase because Owen trusts these animals, and has repeatedly made it a point of fact that he can have a relationship with them based on that mutual trust. So when you see them turn wild it doesn't feel like there's wild animals after you. They feel more like untrained dogs. Acting on instinct, sure, but there's still that human-animal bond that exists. Even Barry is able to have a relationship with them. Owen is still able to draw their attention and trust even after they've gone feral. The way the third act Raptor chase is shot is meant to evoke the Long Grass scene, and the Visitor Center chase, but it doesn't hold that tension because unlike the first movie - where you're repeatedly told these animals are dangerous to the point of needing to be destroyed or at least feared - in Jurassic World, we're repeatedly told these animals have a mutual relationship built on trust and respect with Owen, and Owen is one of the primary protagonists, so you can trust him too. There's a level of trust between the Raptors and the audience that wasn't there for the first three movies. Because that level of trust is there, you don't fear the Raptors as much as you should. 

This has turned into a much lengthier post than I originally intended, so I'll wrap it up here. No, it doesn't have the same spirit of the first film, but that's okay. It's enough like the first film already. However, it does feel like it's missing the spirit of the franchise as a whole, and that's not okay. It became less of a film about man vs nature, and more about anti-Hollywood corporatism. In that sense, these anti-establishment sentiments make Trevorrow a perfect candidate for a Star Wars movie, but a less than perfect director for a Jurassic Park one. The problem with JW sometimes is that it tries to be similar to JP on a technical and story level, but then turns around and doesn't take into serious consideration what it means to truly be a Jurassic Park movie on a thematic, atmospheric, pacing, and symbolic level. It has the skin and clothes of a JP movie, but the soul of a modern action flick.

Great post, CC-1138, although I don't agree with every point.

Quote :

Jurassic World is not a subtle movie, not in the least, and it suffers for it. It's loud, and bombastic, and everything is bigger, louder, and more teeth. That's what Jurassic World is. It's a spoof of itself, and it knows it.

I used to think the same after I saw the movie for the 1st times. But afrter a lot of watching and reading on the internet, I noticed a lot of subtlety in JW, and for example all the anti-corporatism messages you mentioned, but also many references to chaos theory, even to the man vs nature thing you say it's missing: the whole final battle is a living allegory of that, or the fact man always want to control nature but he can't, that's throughout the whole movie. You could notice it even oply by the very first released clip when Owen say "I don't control the Raptors, it's a relationship, based on mutual respect". He's talking about the relationship between man and nature, and how it should be like: something based on respect, trust, love (Owen and Raptors bond in the movie is a strong representation of it).
But guess what, many humans don't respect that and treats dinosaurs like assets/attractions (Claire in her first scenes), things to gain profit (the corporations) that are even sponsored ("Verizion Wireless presents the Indominus Rex", completely lowering to Zero the level of respect to a living creature, like a "number on a spreadshit" more than an animal), or weapons to be controlled and used in war (Hoskins and InGen plans).
In the end, nature rebels against the men who wanted to control them and used them for profit/war/etc reasons, but respects the ones who created a bond with them, a respect.
Final battle being the literal fight between Nature and Human Hubris.

The only exception though, is that while Jurassic Park's subtelty is clear in many scenes (long dialogues, etc), in Jurassic World it's less explained and more just shown, so maybe it's more difficult to notice, and easier to think at just a fun thrill-ride (which for a big part is, I'm not denying that).

Quote :

Take some of the characters, like Gray vs Tim. Tim, while talkative, energetic, and fanatical like Gray, brings a more subtle lifelike representation of what it's like to be a kid in this kind of setting. Gray was simply over the top and annoying. He reminded me of Lex from the novel in many ways, minus the over exaggerated whining. The way he rattles off numbers and statistics is, as the reviewer points out, atypical for a character that's meant to be representative of the every-child. When the movie first came out, questions arose: "Is Gray on the Autism Spectrum?" "Is Gray ADHD?" These are not the questions asked regarding your typical, every-child character. I'm not saying it's wrong to make a character autistic, or ADHD. Hell, I'm ADD myself. However, either make the character so or don't. Don't write an every-character that has the traits of an overactive child.

That's supposing that the film needed a classic every-character kid. I think there's nothing bad in having a little genius/autistic as the main kid. Also, it doesn't look that different from an ordinary kid, IMO.

Quote :

We didn't fall in love with Lex and Tim just because they were kids like we once were, not just because they represent a relationship of siblings that care about each even if they don't get along (just as Gray and Zach represent), but because they have their own distinct personalities. Tim is a dinosaur nut who idolizes Dr. Grant, and Lex is a reclusive computer nerd who gains a schoolgirl crush on Alan Grant. These are the traits that define them. Not just "annoyed yet caring older sibling" and "fanatical yet loveable younger sibling".

and here you're just ignoring the fact Gray has an entire scene dedicated to him crying because of his parents' divorce, or the fact he's constantly looking for his brother's attention failing in that (all the times he wants to explain some Jurassic thing to Zach for example), or the fact he loves dinosaurs and he's an expert of the park. Just like Tim is a dinosaur nut who idolizes Dr Grant, Gray is a dinosaur nut who idolized the park (and Owen, apparently, when he meet him).
Zach is indeed an annoyed yet caring sibling. Well, he wasn't caring at all at first, but he became then throughout the story. Not that much, and indeed I think he was a character that alone is meaningless, but that it works in his chemistry with Gray.

Quote :

The only characters that get personalities in the movie would be Owen, Masrani, and Lowery. Claire has character traits that make up part of a personality, but no real personality herself. What Claire has instead, is a character arc. She moves from obsessive work-a-holic to caring, brave aunt. So what? We've seen that before. Grant is the same character from the plot point of view. He went from obsessive work-a-holic focused only on dusty old bones, to a caring fatherly figure to two kids whose family is broken.

Care to explain why you think Owen, Masrani and Lowery are the characters with personalities? Just curious
Claire has a similar character arc to Grant, I agree, but I think Claire's one is more prominent. Not saying it's better, just that her change his more intense and radical than Grant's. Also, I think Claire has a personality, not just a character arc. Just like Grant.
Claire is a very emotional woman (a factor that at times tries to hide, but it becomes evident as soon as the Indominus breaks out, or during the last act of the movie), she always tries to be kind to people and often smiles, and in this she reminds a bit of Bryce Dallas Howard herself, but at times she can be arrogant and sarcastic (towards Owen or Lowery for example), and that's when his work is criticized or when she's reminded to act more naturally and get rid of her uptight "clothes"(metaphorically), a thing that she's apparently afraid to do, until the moment she finds herself forced to do that for the love of her nephews and the sudden revelation that the dinosaurs are not just assets but living emotional creatures, since all the years in the control room made her lose the sense of awe towards those beautiful animals. The heels themselves defines her personality, since she decides to get rid of her white clothes, but still keep them, because while she decides to abandon her stiff/corporate attitude, she doesn't abandon a thing that defines her, her pride.
I think Claire actually has a personality.

Quote :

A point I've been talking about for a while now is that is lacks suspense. Like Richard Levine says above me, it lacks any form of build up to it's action sequences. This is something Spielberg was always good at, and something missing his touch in this movie. "Jaws", "Jurassic Park", "Saving Private Ryan", they all have exceptional build up and suspense to their action. This film has a problem with a suspenseful third act for the humans. You come to care more about the dinosaurs as characters than you do the humans. When you see the Raptors get hurt, you care for them, because you've come to know them better as characters than you have the humans. There's little tension to the Raptor chase because Owen trusts these animals, and has repeatedly made it a point of fact that he can have a relationship with them based on that mutual trust. So when you see them turn wild it doesn't feel like there's wild animals after you. They feel more like untrained dogs. Acting on instinct, sure, but there's still that human-animal bond that exists. Even Barry is able to have a relationship with them. Owen is still able to draw their attention and trust even after they've gone feral. The way the third act Raptor chase is shot is meant to evoke the Long Grass scene, and the Visitor Center chase, but it doesn't hold that tension because unlike the first movie - where you're repeatedly told these animals are dangerous to the point of needing to be destroyed or at least feared - in Jurassic World, we're repeatedly told these animals have a mutual relationship built on trust and respect with Owen, and Owen is one of the primary protagonists, so you can trust him too. There's a level of trust between the Raptors and the audience that wasn't there for the first three movies. Because that level of trust is there, you don't fear the Raptors as much as you should.

While I think the Raptors trust thing is one of the best and most original things in the movie, I totally agree with your post. In the TLW long grass scene you see wild animals in their territory ripping people apart without problems and you feel like humans are easy prey and the sense of terror is there. In Jurassic World, the raptors ambush is indeed like an untrained dogs attack, and since you've already had a "bond" with the raptors, you can't even totally blame them XD and the terror effect suddenly disappears. I think the Indominus Rex breakout was actually the only JW scene with some bit of terror and suspense in it, and that's impressive cosidering it was a scene under daylight.

I think the visitors were not really in that much danger. the only reason that they are is because the movie chooses to have the entirety of the visitors just sitting in the middle of main street for no reason. We know form the viral site that every visitor gets a hotel room, so they could have just stayed in their hotel.

owenpratt wrote:

Great post, CC-1138, although I don't agree with every point.

That's supposing that the film needed a classic every-character kid. I think there's nothing bad in having a little genius/autistic as the main kid. Also, it doesn't look that different from an ordinary kid, IMO.

Genius I don't mind, but then again the movie never takes the time to explain any of Gray's personality. He just... does things. That's going back to what I mean about subtlety, the movie is low on exposition and doesn't take the time to flesh out the fact that Gray is autistic, or ADHD, or anything. He's just some hyperactive child that rattles off numbers and statistics. There's no "I hate computers" moment, no "I don't like kids moment", or anything like that where the movie takes the time to explain that Gray isn't some hyperactive child. It reminds me of what happened to Ajay's character: they half-assed cut him. Originally, Gray WAS supposed to be autistic... but they cut it, but left the underlying traits, so it just comes across as bad. 

owenpratt wrote:

Care to explain why you think Owen, Masrani and Lowery are the characters with personalities? Just curious
Claire has a similar character arc to Grant, I agree, but I think Claire's one is more prominent. Not saying it's better, just that her change his more intense and radical than Grant's. Also, I think Claire has a personality, not just a character arc. Just like Grant.
Claire is a very emotional woman (a factor that at times tries to hide, but it becomes evident as soon as the Indominus breaks out, or during the last act of the movie), she always tries to be kind to people and often smiles, and in this she reminds a bit of Bryce Dallas Howard herself, but at times she can be arrogant and sarcastic (towards Owen or Lowery for example), and that's when his work is criticized or when she's reminded to act more naturally and get rid of her uptight "clothes"(metaphorically), a thing that she's apparently afraid to do, until the moment she finds herself forced to do that for the love of her nephews and the sudden revelation that the dinosaurs are not just assets but living emotional creatures, since all the years in the control room made her lose the sense of awe towards those beautiful animals. The heels themselves defines her personality, since she decides to get rid of her white clothes, but still keep them, because while she decides to abandon her stiff/corporate attitude, she doesn't abandon a thing that defines her, her pride.
I think Claire actually has a personality.

But being an emotional woman isn't a personality trait, it's a cliche. Anybody can be emotional, it's not anything unique. A personality is something unique that puts one person out in a crowd. A personality should be like a fingerprint... and Claire doesn't have that. She's... blah. Arrogancy and sarcasm are actions, not personality. Emotions and action do not describe a personality. The subtle way somebody behaves does. And that once again goes back to my point about subtlety. Hoskins, for example, is a thintelligent ciche. It take the idea of the Bond villain and twists it into a dorky Saturday Morning Cartoon villain. Claire is the same way: taking the idea of the work-a-holic yuppie and twists it into being her only defining character trait. Yes, she can be caring, yes she can be emotional, but unlike Owen, or Lowerey, or Masrani, that's all she is. She's the cliche emotional woman yuppie. But Owen, he brings personality into it. He's witty, he's caring, but sensible, he's relatable. Same with Lowery. Lowery is relatable because he represents a real person, as well as the fan in all of us. He's not perfect. He justifies having crap all over his desk to his boss. He ends up in a one sided relationship with Vivian. He wears a Jurassic Park T-shirt, even though he acknowledges that what happened at Jurassic Park was horrible. His character is subtle. He brings a lifelike quality to a character. Masrani is the same way. He's genuine. He wants to know how his park is doing, but not about costs. He's the modern billionaire capitalist who cares about something other than money. He cares about legacy, and knows he's handling somebody else's. He's aware that Jurassic World has imperfections, and unlike Claire, doesn't brush them aside. When things go bad, he takes responsibility for them, and doesn't go off blaming somebody else. Masrani is respectable, admirable. 

That's the problem with Claire... she's not genuine. She doesn't feel genuine. She feels like a used car salesmen trying to sell a worn product to a gullible buyer. And that's what Jurassic World is, a worn product. It's the product of two repeated failed attempts to build a dinosaur park, and though it runs for a good ten years, the idea is worn down and well used already. And Claire peddles that to investors. She's gotta sell sell sell, or else she doesn't keep her job. She ignores her family, and her friends in order to sell sell sell. That's what makes her personality bland. Every meet a used car salesman? They're boring personality wise. They're kind of person who lies through their teeth, who are total sycophants and has no qualms about it. Claire is given any challenge, and never backs down from it because she feels like that's her job. Her job is to ensure that Jurassic World runs smoothly without hiccups or breakdowns. When she sees hiccups or breakdowns, she immediately becomes defensive. There's hints of a personality there, but unlike Lowery, Owen, or Masrani, it doesn't feel genuine enough.

Quote :

Genius I don't mind, but then again the movie never takes the time to explain any of Gray's personality. He just... does things. That's going back to what I mean about subtlety, the movie is low on exposition and doesn't take the time to flesh out the fact that Gray is autistic, or ADHD, or anything. He's just some hyperactive child that rattles off numbers and statistics. There's no "I hate computers" moment, no "I don't like kids moment", or anything like that where the movie takes the time to explain that Gray isn't some hyperactive child. It reminds me of what happened to Ajay's character: they half-assed cut him. Originally, Gray WAS supposed to be autistic... but they cut it, but left the underlying traits, so it just comes across as bad.

Yeah, it would have been cool to take at least a brief moment to explain his autism (or whatever), I agree with that. Also, I don't know if it's true, but I've read somewhere that in the game, Gray kinda stalk various people showing them his drawings of dinosaurs. It's not that much, but it would have been cool to see in the movie, to give another little distinctive touch to his character.
But I don't think Gray is a bad character. I actually think he's the best (or one of the best) kid characters in the series. I never found him annoying, and actually in some parts he's even funny to watch.

About Claire, your thoughts make sense for the most part. I think that Claire has this particular arc because she's meant to represent the story of the movie, just like Trevorrow and Connolly themselves said in multiple occasions. This could be a risk and bring her character to a cliche arc character, relying too much on delineating the arc itself than to give her a true lifelike personality.
But again, I think she has a personality, and that she's relatable.
What you say are actions/cliches, to me they are part of her personality.
I agree about Owen, although I still wanted him to have more dimensions. He's relatable, and cool, and Chris Pratt give him personality, but still it's like we saw only a little part of his character, like just one dimension.

owenpratt wrote:

I just re-watched Jurassic Park and realized (once again) how the pacing really makes the movie. It's peculiar to think how Jurassic World is often considered the best sequel to JP (and I actually agree with this)

At first Jurassic World had hype but that was more due to the fact that it was the first major thing Jurassic in 14 years than the movie itself.

Right from the get go it did get hate and while many casual moviegoers see it as a fun popcorn flick, it is also hated for many reasons.