I’ve been talking about Jurassic World for years, though naturally referring to it as Jurassic Park 4 for most of that time. I’ve followed rumours down dead ends and was excited when it was announced, though also a tad nervous. So with the release of the trailer I am finding a lot of friends interested in my opinion. There’s a lot to take in from such a short clip, but that is no surprise, I have been a Jurassic Park fan for 21 years, I even still own all of my old toys, so I am heavily opinionated when it comes to my beloved JP.
I don’t expect them to live up to the first film, but I at least hope that it is better than the third (which I still watch at least annually). The trailer has me feeling that it will be better than the third in many ways, but with many of its own shortcomings. JP3 rarely felt like a Jurassic Park film. The tone was all wrong, the dinosaurs were over the top, and overall it seemed like a lazy effort. Following Spielberg is no easy task, and Joe Johnston’s efforts were closer to Jumanji than Jurassic Park. Those snippets from the Jurassic World trailer suggest that Trevorrow might be able to get the right feel for the film, at least in terms of cinematography. That already is a big step up from the third.
I watch the trailer and I do feel pangs of excitement. The music is done beautifully, with the chilling piano version of the theme tune causing my hairs to stand on end. The cast looks strong, especially for anyone who fell in love with Guardians of the Galaxy this summer (I am Groot). We also have the possibility of dinosaurs we have not yet seen on Isla Nublar or Isla Sorna (hybrids not included). The Jurassic Park films have been fantastic for bringing less popular dinosaurs to the public’s attention and making them household names; I’m surprised that no celebrity has named their child Velociraptor yet. We can expect more of the same from the new film.
My views on this trailer are divided between three parts of me. The kid in me (that’s psychological, I am not a cannibal) is excited. It looks like an exciting monster film and it has dinosaurs in it! That’s really all I need if it is well directed and acted. I have high expectations for the effects (not based on the trailer) as many of the effects from the original film stand up rather well today. The near life-long Jurassic Park fan part of me is clinging to the positives that I have already mentioned, but has some negatives hampering that somewhat. The palaeontologist in me is conflicted. I will allow the latter two to speak negatively, though this is more an expression of my worries. Overall I am looking forward to it and will likely go to see it twice, even if I hate it.
As a Jurassic Park fan I want to see the first two films done justice (yes, I love The Lost World as well). I might not get all of the toys as I did when I was younger, but they had better produce some maps that I can get my hands on. I loved seeing the attractions they have, I wanted to be there, at least up until I saw the Gyrosphere. One of the things I love about Jurassic Park is that it is science fiction which feels like it could actually happen. Sure, once you delve into the more esoteric aspects of the science you hit lots of roadblocks, but it is believable enough to work as a plot device. Michael Crichton may have written a story which is rather anti-science, but he did put forth fantastical ideas which embraced up to date thinking at the time (ignore the The Lost World book though, he filled it with fringe ideas). I don’t think it is wrong of me to want Jurassic World to keep in line with the first film’s believability.
So why is the Gyrosphere an issue? It looks futuristic. So does the monorail, which is odd, considering monorails are not future technology. The Jurassic World park looks like it is in the future, not now. I can’t imagine myself sitting in a Gyrosphere, gazing at sauropods plodding past, especially when a jeep would have done a decent job. The park has been functioning for a few years as well, yet these things don’t even look used. This stands out in a trailer, but in the context of the film it might not pull me out, or at least I hope.
I was excited to see the giant mosasaur thing (though I am not looking forward to all the “aquatic dinosaur” misconceptions) and it didn’t bother me that they fed it a listed species. They clearly did it for effect and can get out of it by pointing out that their cloning technology can be used to maintain a population of sharks (If I was to create a flock on condors on this island, you wouldn’t have anything to say). But then they introduce the supposed ace up their sleeve – the hybrid dinosaur which is being dubbed the “D-rex”. I don’t want it. I fondly remember some of those early story ideas, where some of the DNA from Isla Nublar has been recovered by a different company, based in a castle in the Swiss Alps, cloning hybrid dinosaurs as weapons, trained by David Boreanaz. I fondly remember them because they sounded so bad. Yet it sounds scarily similar to what we are being offered in Jurassic World.
I do get it though. It is intended as a clever comment on the consumerist nature of the theme park attendees in the film, whilst also being a comment on the film goers watching this work of fiction. T. rex is not exciting enough? Here, have two. You want more? Here’s Spinosaurus. Where do you go from there when the audience wants things to get bigger and better? Trevorrow and colleagues have decided that ‘better’ means man has to tinker with nature. Sometimes this approach of adding more works, the prime example perhaps being Aliens, though that did not depend solely on expanding its xenomorph repertoire and count. I’ve spent a fair bit of time asking myself what they could add to excite your average film watcher who feels that they have seen everything Jurassic Park has to offer. And yes, I did consider hybrids.
I am not totally against hybrids. Those dinosaurs in the first film were hybrids using dinosaur and amphibian DNA, but they stayed close to what palaeontologists were discovering about dinosaurs at the time. A few tweaks to well known dinosaurs here and there could work well. Dilophosaurus in the first film might not have been accurate, but it was great to see and I would not want to face one. Though the dilophosaurs come across in the film as though they were a bit unexpected, it would be easy to attribute this to some of the DNA which didn’t come from the dinosaur. A slight tweak to a big predator could work very well. One which would have potential is found in The Lost World, where carnotaurs have the unexpected ability to blend in with their surroundings. The book doesn’t make much use of them, depicting them as ambush predators which don’t need to move much. But this could work well in a film, where they would be depicted as more aggressive.
Instead of tweaking known dinosaurs, they have gone further. The hybrid is rumoured to be a cross between a T. rex, a Velociraptor, a snake (I forget which), and a cuttlefish. Those cuttlefish genes might give it the ability to blend with its surroundings, just like those carnotaurs, but they had to throw more in there. (I have seen a rumour that it can fly, based on some of the camera shots and the comments about how it escaped, but it seems more likely to me that it can camouflage itself.) So this hybrid is taking us close to the old rumours, though those also included dog DNA for loyalty, chimp DNA for whatever reason, and even human DNA. It is also rumoured that subsequent films will be heading further in that direction. I can only hope that these beasts actually look good and draw me in, though realistic dinosaurs would do a far better job for me personally.
So having cringed at the Gyrosphere and the hybrid dinosaur, I was then treated to more cringing at the end, when Star Lord rode out on his motorbike with a posse of raptors. When I first saw Jurassic Park in the cinema I fell in love with the raptors. During my favourite scene, where Phil Tippett allowed the raptors to run free in the kitchen, I actually jumped onto my dad’s knee. I was frightened. And in awe. Those clever girls were formidable. They were the xenomorphs of the franchise – cold, calculated killing machines. They were glorious. The Lost World had that excellent long grass scene, followed by the exciting, yet at times silly, scene in the compound. But then Jurassic Park III came along and tried to put too much emphasis on their intelligence, pushing them into the realms of the ridiculous. Ignoring the talking raptor in Alan Grant’s dream, their behaviour was jarring. They had gormless conversations and constantly gave that knowing look which makes them look like cartoon characters. I want my older raptors back; they scared me as a kid and I loved it. But now we find that they have been trained.
I can see the appeal in training them. Not just from the perspective of the characters in the film, but from an animal behaviour point of view. We see large predators interacting with humans without killing them, having reared them and engaged them for their whole lives. It makes sense to try this with raptors, even if you don’t intend to use them as bio-weapons. But it does take the edge off of them. I liked my raptors when they couldn’t be contained, the raptors which gave Robert Muldoon cause to declare that they should all be destroyed. I have my fingers crossed that using them backfires horrifically. I would like to see raptors doing more mundane things, such as lazing about, but I also want to see them in killing mode.
The palaeontologist in me has some concerns which may be quite predictable. I am aware that said palaeontologist in me is potentially more informed than the vast majority of the target audience, having acquired a degree in palaeobiology. You will also find my name in the acknowledgements of Dean Lomax’s excellent book Dinosaurs of the British Isles, which I mention in the hope that any dinosaur lovers reading this will go and buy it (I think I actually distracted him more than I helped). Us palaeo-nerds don’t want to spoil the fun. Science is exciting, that’s why we obsess about it. A lot of palaeontologists, from budding palaeontologists through to the professionals, and not forgetting avid fossil collectors who do it as a hobby, have been inspired by Jurassic Park. We have a vested interest in it. And let’s not forget that palaeontologists are part of the audience.
By the time I saw the trailer I had largely gotten over some of the scientific issues. When Trevorrow tweeted that there would be no feathers I had a massive rant, but since then have come to terms with it. I understand the continuity argument, even though there are ways around it (it’s a new company, it’s potentially a new batch of dinosaurs, they have updated their approach by using bird DNA instead of amphibians, for example). Hopefully they will put emphasis on these being genetically modified theme park monsters. I may be able to suspend disbelief if they do that, just as I won’t seriously question where they got mosasaur DNA, or why that wasn’t a mosquito in amber in the trailer.
Perhaps the lack of up to date dinosaurs is Henry Wu’s doing (the only character returning from the first film). If I remember correctly, in the book he wanted to tinker with the dinosaurs to make them fit the public conception, make them easier to control, and even easier to see. Instead the park ended up hosting dinosaurs which fit the scientific research of the time, which they are no longer trying to do.
So continuity is fine, but as someone who has studied science to degree level I have another issue. A lot of Crichton’s work set scientists up as the bad guys; they don’t stop to think of the consequences of their advances. This was a major theme of the first film and has returned for the fourth. This understandably grates on me, but I will let it slide. But then the trailer has one particular line which stings a bit: “We have learnt more in the past decade from genetics, than a century of digging up bones.” Whilst it is true that genetics is the better dataset to study evolution, at least in terms of phylogeny and mechanisms, it is not the better dataset for studying dinosaurs. However, if we were to acquire dinosaur DNA, it would be extremely useful for studying dinosaurs, and in the Jurassic Park universe they have done just that. But to have such a line in a film which rejects what we have learnt in the last twenty years “digging up bones” is a big middle finger to hard working palaeontologists.
Why do we want a monster film to provide more accurate dinosaurs? It is not hard to find dinosaurs in the media, they are everywhere. The media provides the public with their conception of dinosaurs and Jurassic Park managed what even the best documentaries struggle to do – they got scientifically up to date dinosaurs right in the public’s view. Palaeontologists aren’t film makers, most aren’t even artists in a more general sense, they don’t have the ability to do what Jurassic Park can do, nor do they have the money. Even when supposedly scientifically accurate dinosaur documentaries come out, the experts aren’t always listened to. Jurassic World could do the palaeontology world a favour, even with their ridiculous hybrid in there, it could update the public perception of dinosaurs, and can you imagine the reviews from experts? But instead it seems that Trevorrow has embraced the anti-science aspect of Crichton’s writing whilst ignoring the side which embraced new discoveries.
Overall I am trying to stay open minded. I have worries because I love the franchise so much and because I love palaeontology. The film has so much potential, but the more I learn about it the more my worries increase. It is like I have seen that there are free drinks at the bar, only to find that the only free drink is water. I’d rather have a beer, but the water will do fine, except that it seems I only get water because I love palaeontology. I am sincerely hoping that the film is so well made that I get lost in it.