My thoughts on Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom (SPOILERS)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paddy1989
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Paddy1989

Guest
Ok as I put in the title to Express my thoughts on the New Jurassic world movie I will have to reveal spoilers to the movie so if you interested in seeing this movie stop reading now.

To see cultural Marxism/materialistic atheism infect yet another franchise to put its point across is really starting to anger me. Another recent franchise it has infected and ruined is Star Wars. Jurassic Park was a horror/adventure movie, it wasn’t too scary to put off children but there was enough there to even stress adults out. The dinosaurs were what you imagined them to be if they were resurrected, giant intelligent, ferocious reptilian beasts the likes of which we have never seen which is why we are so fascinated, they acted in accordance with their nature. They were exciting adventure movies however and were lighthearted at best.

In this movie there is sense it tries to push forward much more philosophical ideas, one of which is do we have a right to interfere with genetics for our own Interests whether it be for entertainment or militaristic means. Also since the only Island in the world where dinosaurs currently inhabit is under threat from being destroyed by a volcanic eruption should we interfere and save them or should we let nature take its course. We are constantly fed with naturalistic ideas that we humans are the real monsters and that since animals hold as much value as we do then we have a duty to protect them at all costs even risk of our own extinction because the movie portrays humanity as almost a scourge to all of creation. The main stars of the movie feel that the dinosaurs should be saved and attempt to carry out a plan to rescue them and place them on a new island where they can live as peacefully or ferociously as they want with no human interferance.

As you can imagine all goes wrong, first the mission is just a ploy by greedy corporates whose only intention is to save the dinosaurs in a bid to sell them off to the highest buyer. The second half of the movie takes place in northern California at a huge private estate inside and underneath a huge mansion where the dinosaurs are Imrisoned in cages and then sold off to the highest bidder. The house is owned and lived in by Benjamin Lockewood, also who lives here is the successor to his billion dollar empire who is motivated by greed to such an extent he kills for it. Also a young girl who we later find out is a clone of Benjamin’s daughter who passed away in previous years (it appears they are cloning humans now), she later joins up with the main two stars of the movie.
 
Last edited:
Now one thing that really separates this from other Jurassic park movies is that almost all dinosaurs kills are done to the bad guys in which you are made to feel they deserved it and show empathy to the ferocious carnivores doing the killing acting only in self defense. The main stars intend to shut the operation down and release the dinosaurs out of their cages who go on the rampage as you can imagine. A very poisonous gas starts to release in the facility and the dinosaurs are trapped, the main stars stand over a control mainframe with a big red button that opens the huge blast doors that will save the dinosaurs from the positions gas but also release them into the American wild which would be catastrophic for the human population across all of America. The main actress torn by this decision and given advice by Christ Pratts character that once she pushes the button there is no going back decides rightly not to. They then stand over and watch as the dinosaurs slowly begin to suffocate from the poisonous gas torn about their decision however at this point we begin to see the blast doors opening releasing the dinosaurs into the world. The main stars turn around and see it is the young clone girl they embraced standing over the red button she pushed, she responds with an idiodic and cliche line such as they are alive just like I am alive and the main stars hearts are filled adoration for her action, an action that disobeyed her elders and effectively released the most dangerous predators In earth’s history onto the human population of America. We are then given some empathetic speech at the end of the movie about how there is now a new world of human and dinosaur coexistence. That we ought to be proud of the actions of the main stars responsible for millions of deaths of humans because afterall what makes a human more important and valuable than a dinosaur or any other living thing 😉

I was left thinking after the movie how unbelievably crazy pop culture society has become in thinking that we as the viewer could empathize with such ideas, what’s worse is that I feel many do empathize with it. Its stems from the naturalistic worldview that all we are is a collection of cells and this the fruit of what such an idea bears. This movie goes even further however In promoting the spirit of human hatred from modern marxists. The dinosaurs are seen as noble and innocent of their actions while the majority of humans are portrayed as having only evil intentions and that they deserve what they get for their actions possibly even extinction. You hear this from many today who feel that humans are sort of virus to the planet and that the world would be better off without us, they share much sympathy for animal rights while also ironically striving to take away the rights of the unborn to survive. Seeing how Star wars has been destroyed by gender Identity politics and forced diversity I am angry that politics and social issues are infecting our most loved franchises I grew up watching to the point they are unrecognizable. Does anyone else share my thoughts? Thanks
 
Last edited:
Interesting analysis. I haven’t seen the new movie yet but I think I agree with most of what you are saying. This whole human=bad, earth/animal/creation =good thing is getting WAY out of control. There are other movies that espouse this idea…Avatar and Noah (2014) come to mind.

I will most like only go and see this b/c my 13 yr old son love this franchise. Even then I may decline simply b/c it’s just too expensive lol! But in all honesty, I really loved the original Jurassic Park back in '93 and I enjoyed the novel. I saw it basically as a warning to NOT play around with genetics and to leave what was lost alone.

ETA: I love creation and try to be a good steward (recycle, reuse, reduce etc) but come on, it’s here for us to responsibly use.
 
Last edited:
Chesterton described Nature not as our “mother” but as our sister. We respect it because we have the same Father.

St. Francis never loved forests, he rather looked at THIS tree, at THIS deer, and it reminded him of God. What has happened is that without God, we end up assigning an artificial value to species in general, as if they have a worth in themselves. It might even be argued that (in movie fiction) dinosaurs, because they are an old species, have seniority and more value than many humans. Certainly far more value than unborn and disabled humans.

Read C. S. Lewis’ prophetic books “That Hideous Strength” (fiction) and “The Abolition of Man” (non fiction). Written during WWII, they describe in detail the philosophy that drives the later Star Wars and later Jurassic movies.
 
Last edited:
In the past most people held a deep conviction that humans aren’t animals. The thinking that only humans have souls was almost universal. At any rate the difference between man and other animals seemed to be unquestionably recognized. It’s odd to me that many people look only at the human body for evidence and I have to point to the distinct change to the world caused by human intellect for them to think we may be different…
 
Bishop Barron below gives a similar review on Jurassic world where he explains it’s issues more eloquently than I.

WHAT “JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM” GETS RIGHT AND WRONG
by Bishop Robert BarronJune 26, 2018
SPOILER ALERT
1054

530

0

1584

SPOILER ALERT

The original Jurassic Park film from twenty-five years ago rather inventively explored a theme that has been prominent in Western culture from the time of the Romantic reaction to the Enlightenment—namely, the dangers of an aggressive and arrogant rationalism. Beginning in the late eighteenth century, poets and philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Wolfgang von Goethe, Johann Herder, William Blake, and John Keats warned that the lust to understand and control nature would result in disaster for both the human soul and for the physical world. Goethe, for instance, railed against the Newtonian scientific practice, which involved the intrusive questioning of nature rather than the patient and respectful contemplation of it. And Blake memorably complained of the “Satanic mills,” which is to say, the forges and factories that had begun to blight the English countryside with the onset of the Industrial Revolution.

But the most famous and influential meditation on this theme was undoubtedly Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. It is hardly accidental, of course, that the author in question was the wife of Percy Bysshe Shelley, one of the greatest of the Romantic poets. As readers of Shelley’s book or viewers of the Boris Karlov movie can testify, Dr. Frankenstein’s successful attempt to create life artificially rather spectacularly backfired, producing misery on all sides. Shelley’s point was that seizing godlike authority over nature, though it perhaps satisfies our pride and our desire to dominate the world, in point of fact unleashes powers that we cannot, even in principle, control.

John Hammond, the character played so genially by Richard Attenborough in the original Jurassic Park, was an updated and far friendlier version of Dr. Frankenstein. Blithely turning back the momentum of evolution and placing ferocious life forms in a combination zoo/amusement park, he perfectly embodied the typically modern, rationalistic attitude that sees everything as an object of manipulation. That he was backed up by greedy financiers and lawyers only made him more dangerous. Jeff Goldblum’s character, the quirky chaos theory specialist, gave voice, wisely, to the standard Romantic critique: “John, the kind of control you’re attempting here is, ah, it’s not possible.” That the chaos theorist had it right was bloodily proven in the original movie and in pretty much every iteration of Jurassic Park since.
 
Last edited:
Well, in the most recent installment of the series, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, still other Dr. Frankensteins and John Hammonds emerge. This time they are an elderly tycoon, his youthful business colleague, a ruthless wrangler, and a whole coterie of unscrupulous arms-dealers willing to pay exorbitant prices so as to acquire and weaponize the dinosaurs. And once more, the tale is told through rampaging beasts and piles of corpses: “The kind of control you’re attempting here is, ah, it’s not possible.” Please don’t get me wrong: this is a good message. Mary Shelley was right and so are the makers of the Jurassic Park movies. And if you want Catholic confirmation of this theme, take a good long look at Pope Francis’ letter Laudato si, which excoriates our arrogant attempts to master and manipulate nature.

What is bothersome in the latest film is the emergence of a new and much more problematic motif—namely, the moral equivalence of human beings and other animals. The heroes of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom want to rescue the dinosaurs from Isla Nublar, which is threatened by a catastrophic volcanic eruption—and, as Jerry Seinfeld would say, there is nothing wrong with that. However, when the dinosaurs end up on the mainland in cages and are menaced by the release of toxic chemicals (watch the movie for the plot details), one of the heroes elects to open their prisons and let them go free, which is to say, to wander out into the forests of Northern California. The final scene of the film depicts a velociraptor looking down from a ridge over a densely-populated area, evidently free to hunt at will. As she presses the button, freeing the dinosaurs, the young hero says, “We can’t let them die. I had to. They’re alive like me.” The pretty clear implication is that the dinosaurs have the same dignity as human beings and deserve to live as much as we do. They must be released, even if it means thousands of people will die.

Well…no. Nature should always be respected, and the arrogant attempt to manipulate nature indeed results in disaster. However, since there exists a qualitative difference between human beings and other living creatures, one must always, in a case of conflict, opt for the former over the latter. The Bible is quite insistent on the goodness of nature and how the non-human world is ingredient in God’s great plan of salvation, but it is equally insistent that human beings are made specially in the image and likeness of God and hence have a unique dignity and inviolability. No matter how magnificent an animal might be, it is not a subject of infinite value, as is a human person, and when that distinction is blurred, another version of Frankenstein’s monster is unleashed.
 
Huge Jurassic Park fan.

Watched it last night and keep crying over the Brontosaurs boat pier scene. I haven’t been this sad about a film death since I watched the horse die in Never Ending Story.
 
Last edited:
The significance was that the little girl realized that she owed her very existence to the same technology that created the dinosaurs. They were alive like her.
 
It’s just a rehash of “Lost World”. By the way, that movie stank too.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
She put the value of dinosaurs at the same level as every person and disregarded the decision by her elders who did the right thing by trying to avoid human catastrophe. She was made to appear as some sort of hero for her action, as if she did a good moral act. This would only make sense to someone with a naturalist worldview
 
Last edited:
I’d disagree on her being made a hero. Soon after she does it, we get that speech about how the proverbial cat is out of the bag and that dinosaurs may very well outlast humans now. That the world they’re to live in is going to be drastically different than before, not necessarily for the better. Plus with Blue overlooking a suburban neighborhood with the obvious implications.
Plus when we go back to when the button was pushed, right before that one of our big protagonists didn’t press the button and while she was sad, Owen and the others (girl excluded) stood by that even though it wasn’t a happy end in their opinion. When the girl then presses the button they don’t congratulate her for doing what they were too weak to do, but have more of a “Well, that just happened.” kind of expression.
In other words I got more of a “This is gonna get uncomfortable.” vibe than a “Woohoo we did it.” vibe.
 
Not a big fan of the whole “cultural marxism” terminology, but in regards to misplaced priority given to animals over humans, I’m reminded of the scene in The Last Jedi where Finn and Rose
free the space horses and saying “now it’s worth it” when, meanwhile, they left the slave stablehand children behind in slavery. How much better if they had escaped with the Resistance?

Anyway, I haven’t seen the newest Jurassic World movie yet. Sounds like a spin on The Lost World (good book, bad movie, that whole going to the states thing never happened in the book). Judging from what was said, I imagine the release was intentional to set up a third movie which deals with the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Just seen this movie. Just a bunch of constant peril scenes with no dialogue. Bad movie.The girl at the end made a bad decision to let the dinosaurs free since many more human lives are now at stake.
 
It would be one thing for a person to allow killing animals to live, free, if you were the only person they would kill. It is something else to allow them to go free and kill OTHER people, who have no warning. where you perhaps have a head start on possible safety, with knowledge and warning.

The elevation of animal rights goes along with accepting abortion and euthanasia. Society, which means the media, can grant rights, and withhold them, at will.
 
Again. I dispute that she was made a hero. In the context of the movie, it felt more like a “What did you just do?” moment.
 
The movie did not endorse this option. Perhaps it was presented as 90 percent wrong. But a movie made decades ago would not have even considered this option. In future movies this kind of option will be depicted as only 60 percent wrong.
 
Not wanting to analyze the movie.
Liking the franchise in general.
But this particular movie 👇 🙁
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top