How good of a movie is Jurassic World?

I agree with most points, but I do have to point out why some things in the movie were done.

JW wanted to show how stupid it would be to develop a plan for using raptors in combat.  However, these are genetically modified dinosaurs, so Hoskins and Wu probably tweaked the genetic codes of each raptor to make them trainable, since we never directly changed the entire genotype of cats and dogs while earlier humans were developping their domestication.  As well, it was pointed out early on that the raptors were absolutely willing to turn on Owen and Barry, given the chance.

Again, genetic manipulation at hand here, but this time for I.rex.  She was a prototype animal weapon, so a future plan was probably if the raptors and later I.rex breeds could work together.

Hyenas attack lions?  Certainly.  Different weight classes, but when the hyenas outnumber the lions by a wide margin, they won't hesitate to initiate a mission to attack.  One on one?  Only if the lion was severely weak.  And Rexy was most likely aware of a huge threat trespassing on HER island!  Those roars, shrieks, gun shots, and fights (not just from the raptors and I.rex, the Dimorphodons and Pteranodons contributed to the noise as well) along Main Street were loud enough for people AND dinosaurs to take notice, and Rexy was no exception, because of her great hearing.  She also SMELLED a large carnivore close to her enclosure, and given how the hypothesis that T.rex was a very territorial animal and frequently fought each other, Rexy wanted to defend her home when the chance was given.  Also, there was a brief standoff between Rexy and the I.rex, as the last resort for the I.rex could back down, given how she's younger and less experienced than Rexy, who has been the "island's ruler" for at least 10 years.  Rexy had a short temper, and when I.rex gave that last roar, she basically "asked for it".  Then, in the fight, there was no way Rexy would let I.rex live and still threaten her home.  She capitalized on every chance she got to wound and wear down I.rex after Blue came along.

I would agree with some things but also disagree.

Yes, the 22 year old car thing I totally agree with, I mean, It wasn't a Toyota.

Some things like the obidience thing, I both agree and disagree.

Based on our knowledge with the animals we know today might and probably are completely different as they were 65 million years ago. based on that reasoning, we cannot really get a sense on conclusion on what might of happened or why they did what they did.

For instance, the thing with the T-Rex attacking the I-Rex could be a possibility. Dinosaurs might of had an instinct of proving themselves by challenging those bigger than them but who knows since they are no longer here.

But based on what we know and see today, we can infer on how they might act, but around that topic, we can't really complain.

I was amazed on the thrill and story and fight scenes, and I didn't predict the raptors dying (other than Blue) but i often hear people complaing about some scenes that are completely off topic (for example Grey crying about their parents) but who knows what this little detail might do to the next Jurassic World, think of it as a part 1 and a part 2, we can only view Jurassic World as one whole movie with the two combined parts to get an overall movie review i personally believe.

But this is my opinion.

It's cool that you used the points we talked about and made them into a thread; I agree with everything stated here. Just to point out the Indominus was most likely the Hyena and Rexy was the Lion. The Hyena/Indominus could have taken out the Lion/Rex but in real life it would have been far too scared for it's life most of the time.

I mean even it had to know that it's arms were the only thing that surpassed T.rex.

I agree with a few thins here (especially the racism issue), but just one point-

The eggs hatching at the beginning were the Indominus and her sibling.

(Also, DON'T get me started on the fangirls and such for JW. Most of them haven't even seen at least the first film. Also, the JW fandom (not to be confused with the JP one (which includes JW) is slowly ruining itself. (JW is part of the JP fandom and has its own established fandom)).

The WORST thing about Jurassic World?

The cheap Hasbro merchandise.

@GorillaGodzilla, the fight was supposed to have taken place in real life, that's why we saw it.  She was a deranged, psychotic animal with great strength and cunning.  Of course she'd be more than willing to fight a similarly-sized animal as her.  If she was sane, and was raised in a healthy environment, she probably wouldn't have dared stood and fought the Queen.  And she had everything going for her...nothing up until that fight was able to stop her rampage. 

@Aplphadino65 you are corrects, nothing else was gonna really stop that deranged mental badass from destroying every piece of living ass

Alright, this is gonna be a long reply, haha.

@Alphadino65- Still, I've read about gene studies and it is not simple at all to insert genes here and there and just easily achieve what you want. Not to mention genes are very difficult to see how they all work with each other within each organism. For example, if you manage to "deactivate" a gene, then several other genes that are affected by how that gene works will be affected, and then those genes associated with those other genes will be affected, etc. It's a long process, which is why it takes several years for researchers to finally achieve what they were tyring to engineer.

Trying to get obedience out of genes is even harder as there will be some side effects. For example, I read of a study where some silver foxes in Russia show that in some breeds floppy ears is linked to "obedience genes". Not also that, but you can't simply go to a set of genes and just randomly know which genes will affect the trait you're trying to engineer. Jack Horner talked about how it took several years to locate the genes associated with beak development in a chicken, not to mention they had to observe crocodiles, lizards, and other birds to even know where to start.

To me it wouldn't make too much sense even if Wu (established as a genuis in the novel and movies) were to somehow figure out how to engineer the raptors to any degree of obedience specifcally to humans in a short span. (20 years isn't that long when it comes to that type of research.) Of course the movie showed the raptors were willing to "betray" Owen but logically it should have happened way sooner, such as right away in the scene where Owen tries to stop the raptors with his hands.

Still, the raptors for war was still dumb to me, I mean dogs were used many times as weapons of war by the French and in World War 2, each failed, and dogs are arguably the most obedient animal to man. And dogs have been around with humans for at least 12,000 years to achieve that.

In this case I was talking how you don't see a hyena randomly attack a lion. Of course I can see scenarios where they would fight but the way it was in Jurassic World did not seem logical to me. I. rex I can understand since she's a killing machine but Rexy wouldn't want to randomly run towards it and just start attacking. Even if Rexy was territorial I don't think she would want to risk losing her life to an animal bigger than her.

I do understand what your viewpoints are.

@Darchrys- Of course there are many things we will literally never understand about the extinct dinosaurs with just their bones. However if it is true that dinosaurs such as T. rex were territorial wouldn't it be common to see injuries/scars inflicted on their fossils?

And it still wouldn't make sense if they fought a lot, unless they bred A LOT it would require a lot of natural selection that wouldn't make sense when it comes to the process of evolution.

The fight scene was still awesome but it still did not have a lot of logic behind it to me.

Perhaps you are right, but it doesn't seem like Zac and Grey will be in JW 2, but there's plenty of time for that to change, and that would be interesting to see how they developed that.

@GorillaGodzilla- Exactly, and yes I did use one of your points (hyena and lion) because it was an excellent example.

@Sci-FI King 25- Hmm, I guess that would make sense for the eggs being of the I. rex... I'll check for that later, but I feel it was raptors...

Yes, the unbirdled racism in Jurassic World absolutely disgusted me, especially by saying blue striped raptors were cooler than "plain" colored raptors!!!

#EndRaptorism #OrangeLivesMatter #RaptorEquality

UGHHH, those fangirls though. I don't think any of them have seen any JP film other than JW. One day I'll ask "Who is Michael Crichton?" and they probably wouldn't have a single clue.

My face when I walked into Target and saw the toyline was just dissapointment, the epitome of it...

RAPTOR-401 - Now this is a compelling thread! Hmm...was Jurassic World as good a film as many state? I would have to say that it is the best sequel to Jurassic Park - no mistake. However, it lacks the feeling and depth of character that makes a film truly fantastic. Given today's extraordinarily chaotic cinematic atmosphere, it may be some time before we see a true renaissance within the world of character and story-driven film. Regardless, Jurassic World was an enjoyable thrill ride! :)

SCI-TO KING25 - What is a Jurassic World fangirl? I am female and enjoyed Jurassic World. ;) 

AlphaDino- By real life I meant if the animals were actual dinosaurs, in OUR world not the film world lol. In real life, T.rex would only have attacked the Indominus had it attacked it first and challenged it's territory. In JW, Rexy just charged the Indominus for no reason, it was just standing there.

Tyrannosaurus was a very territorial animal, even within it's own pack. However, it was territorial to an extent and would only truly attack other predators when it was challenged.

Tbh, much like my own Nequit Dominum, Indominus Rex was a insane creature. But I caught a vibe that it still had intelligence involving other predators. It didn't up in-front kill the raptors like a deranged predator would have done (Nequit Dominum would have). It seemed like unless it was really angry it would have tried to communicate with Rexy before an attack.

Don't forget it killed things that couldn't truly do anything to it. Tyrannosaurus could and did destroy the Indominus rex, therefore I believe it was smart enough to realize and understand that T.rex is the one true Alpha Predator. Remember, Rexy roared first, Indominus retaliated like it did when the raptors fought back.

@Something Real- Well I personally went with The Lost World being the best sequel to me, but you could argue Jurassic World was the best sequel. It was enjoyable and a fun movie, and a worthy successor but what I meant with this topic that it wasn't as great as people are saying.

And Somethign real, there's a difference between fans and fangirls/fanboys. I mean one's annoying and one is not. I consider all of us here to be fans. :D

RAPTOR-401 - Indeed; it is not the exceptional film some laud it to be. It is a fun film, but not an amazing one. As for The Lost World, I would say it is on equal standing with Jurassic World in my eyes. They're both very entertaining!

    With regards to the fangirl statements: I know. I was simply attempting to have a little fun with SCI-TO KING25. I could not resist. ;)

Ugh! I meant SCI-FI KING25. Why does this new platform insist on utilizing the wrong characters? I deduce it takes exception to me and, as such, I must state that the feeling is mutual! Grr!

Even then I thought The Lost World had more amazing moments such as the T. rexes getting their baby back from the trailer. To me it's a perfect scene. The scenes with the raptors in the tall grass will always be one of my favorite Jurassic Park moments.

lol, Sci-to King...

RAPTOR-401 - I completely understand and respect your viewpoint. Indeed; the moment in which the baby T.rex is reunited with her mommy and daddy is wonderful! 

    As for the SCI-TO KING25 mishap: laugh it up, goofball! ;)

My main gripe was how they got rid of the The best and most accurate(For JP standards) Raptor design.

@Raptor-401, I agree! #EndRaptorism #AllRaptorsAreEqual #AreWeReallyStartingThisAgain #WhyAmIUsingSoManyHashtagsThisLongAgain #RaptorismAgain #IShouldStop

Also, it slightly saddens me when someone hasn't seen at least the first film before watching JW. So many overlooked Easter Eggs! I found around 10 of them!

@Something Real, The JW fangirls (term used in this topic to describe a few JW fans), are the people who call JW the best movie of all time without seeing any of the first three (I saw one on the Internet who loved JW but hated anything to do with the first 3). (They also have a tendency to like Blue... BUT NOT ANY OF THE OTHER RAPTORS! #ENDRAPTORISM)

@lopsquid- I was like that at first but then I liked it because it shows a theme of Jurassic Park that no matter how hard you try you won't be able to bring a real, 100% authentic dinosaurs. (Except birds, of course.)

@Sci-FI King25- #IHateHashTags #WhichMakesMeKindofaHypocrite #RaptorEquality #PrepareForARevival

I know it is annoying. Not to mention a top of those references to the movies alone, there were MANY references to the novels. So many it made me happy they kept the spirit of Crichton AND the movies.

God all those fangirls love Blue, where as I like Blue but my problem is Raptors are supposed to be the VILLIANS not helpers... Still annoys me. Not to mention T. rex is supposed to be an antihero, not really a full out "hero", if that makes any sense.

^Yeah! Well, at least the raptors got to kill some people at the end...

BUT WHAT ABOUT CHARLIE, ECHO, AND DELTA?!?!?!

#RAPTOREQUALITY

I mean I know they kill some people but not the way they did in the other movies, a in a clever way.

#ENDRAPTORRACISM

SCI-FI KING25 - That is extremely strange to me. Why on Earth would anyone want to exclude Jurassic Park from their viewing enjoyment? Hmm...I shall have to look into this phenomenon. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. :)

The WORST thing about Jurassic World?

The cheap Hasbro merchandise.

^ WE never get merchandise here, but JW all of them the same weekend that usa got it, all for what? :( 

@SR , I guess the girls didn't take in count the.. old old movies , haha, since they migth be like 12, and all inlove of the sexy co-star, look at his hair XD

**AL** - Hahaha! Oh, indeed; he is just so very dreamy! Allow me to expound a bit: as a woman, I found that young fellow to be more of a twerp and slightly strange than a hunk in training. He really should learn that we ladies like conversation - not being stared at soundlessly! ;)

Is it just me or that guy, Zac I think was his name, seemed very creepy and kinda like a future serial killer developing?

^ You always jump to the creepiest possible conclusion XD.

Also, another issue. They didn't show enough of the park. Even a minute more would be enough. Barely any of it was shown (Probably due to pacing and budgets and stuff but still).

ALSO, did you know that the Mosasaurus was allegedly confirmed by the filmmakers to be just over 72 feet long (but the website says sixty)? The thing I read said that they upped the size to make it more possible that it could jump out to get the Indominus.

RAPTOR-401 - Hahaha! Well, I would not necessarily jump to such an, um, "extreme" outcome. However, I will say that Zac is likely to have problems with establishing relationships with women as he matures. Only King Kong gets a free pass at staring at women like an oaf! ;)

@Gorilla Godzilla and Something Real- Well sometimes I do jump to the "creepiest" conclusion but come on the staes he gives kind of evoke something sinister to come... I mean he had a girlfriend but was staring at those girls... Just creepy...

@Sci-Fi-King- That too, would have been cool to show a minute montage of the park, such as various attractions and exhibits. That makes sense on the mosasaurus, after all one of the themes of Jurassic Park was to show how inaccurate they made the dinosaurs to the point where they were barely dinosaur-like.

RAPTOR-401 - I have a feeling that the director was trying to evoke a more "I'm hot stuff" feel for Zac. However, you are right when you state that it came off in a stranger fashion than was likely the intent. Fortunately, however, we will not (hopefully) have to deal with then likes of Zac in the next film! :)

Honestly I place this film more on level with the unfairly maligned Jurassic Park 3, with Jurassic Park as the far away masterpiece and The Lost World trailing far behind in second place. Jurassic Park 3 and Jurassic World are neck and neck behind that for different reasons--This is if I had to rank them anyway.

I think the more Jurassic World sits with me the less I like it. The same thing happened with me and the way I look at Godzilla '14 to some extent. Unlike Godzilla '14 I find less and less reasons to revist Jurassic World.

While I enjoy the direction Jurassic World took the franchise in, with the really over-the-top ideas and it's unfettered supporting numskulls, I'm not entirely sure the meta-filmmaking worked. The Indominous Rex is largely supposed to represent the film's existence: Unnecessary, but bigger, faster and wilder because that's what audiences want. So Trevorrow practically admits the movie is catering to everything wrong with modern blockbusters today. Alright...

Then, to pay some overzealous respect to the original film, the Indominous Rex gets defeated by the original stars of the Jurassic Park franchise and the two creatures it was created from: The T-Rex and the Velociraptor--As if to also admit its an inferior product to the original.

There's some kind of reflexive genius in the stupidity of the film's execution. It's almost like Trevorrow tried to make a bad, stupid movie just to nail a point home. I'm not suggesting that's what he intended, but it sometimes comes off that way and I think if the film were trying to make a comment on modern blockbusters and "bigger" sequels it needed to be done with more finesse. And that would include better dialogue, more practical effects, a stronger emotional base (Masrani dies, who cares?) and less left field plot elements. (OH! Their parents are getting a divorce. OH! It's blended with Raptor DNA!)

As it stands the strongest emotional element in the film was the nostalgia with the old compound--Something that will have less impact on repeat viewings because it doesn't rely on an emotional core that Jurassic World established. It relies on what we remember about another movie. We need more than that chew on and statements on blockbusters aren't enough.

@Gman- Well I mean the movie was still good, but I think it's above Jurassic Park 3. I mean I still like the third movie and enjoy the CGI, and I do find it to be kind of a fun movie to watch but I still think it's the least best of the whole series.

Jurassic World had plenty of stupid things, granted, that's part of the reason why I felt like writing the topic. And sometimes it's not that bad to give the audience what they want. I mean after the sixth and hopefully final Jurassic Park movie comes out, that will definitely be enough.

Another problem that I had with Jurassic World is that it missed so much it could explore the past sequels did not such as dinosaur migration. especially showing how the raptors made it to Costa Rica by the beginning of the first novel. It could have explored more of any possible "dark" history and secrets of Hammon and Site B.

But it just focused on just having some monster and nostalgia- which is great, but as you say will get old with each re-watch.

I feel Trevorrow was just trying to create a fun summer movie that wasn't meant to be deeply analyzed, but now it's trouble seeing that there's too many "fans" of JP now, and I have an actual bad feeling it may give fans like me a bad rep.

However I still felt the movie was better than Jurassic Park 3. It left more potential, such as what will happen to the park and the dinosaurs on Isla Nublar, where Jurassic Park 3 didn't leave much to wonder or question about, except the hinted migration of the pterodactyls and the fate of the Spinosaurus.

When I watched Masrani's death I still find it kind of emotional, I found his character to actually have a good personality and mindset. (My sister actually thought (somehow) it was racist that they killed him off...)

Hopefully the people making Jurassic World 2 will understand what worked and what did not work in Jurassic World and make a better movie. Jurassic World is a good movie, kind of an interesting story, but it's a movie that the more you think of it you realise a lot of it is really stupid. Especially raptors in the military... Still won't get over the cringeworthy villain, Vic Hoskins.

Also, Jurassic World was kind of annoying with sudden attempts at plot twists, like you mentioned. I found it really illogical that just because I. rex has raptor DNA suddenly it can talk with the raptors like good friends... I mean if you put a alpha wolf in front of several chihuahuas, the alpha wolf isn't gonna just bark commands and force the dogs to serve it... That's not how DNA works. (I use that example since dogs of course have extreme similarities to wolves genetically.)

But the movie certainly does not deserve all the high praise it's getting.

I think Jurassic Park 3 edges out Jurassic World by a couple of hairs largely based on special effects artistry and technique. This was some of the last of Stan Winston's animatronic work and, most certainly, the last of his wizardry on a Jurassic Park film. This is something Jurassic World desperately needed more of. Even the animatronic Apatasaurus was overlaid with some CG which was disappointing. The amount of sub-par to par CG in a Jurassic Park movie has never been more obvious and it really took me out of the film. Compare that with the Spinosaurus attack on the airplane which gave actors more to interact with and looked something with weight was really attacking.

Again, I don't mind the camp factor about the movie and the direction it went. Raptors being used for the military? Sure! Spliced dinosaurs? Go for it! Sounds fun! Dinosaurs teaming up to defeat a spliced monster? Sounds like fun. My issue is that the execution undermines its own integrity--Practically admitting its by-the-numbers mindless, inferior material instead of genuinely enjoying itself as a reimagined monster movie. Yeah, the original Jurassic Park is a masterpiece. We get it. We didn't need the reminder, we didn't need the nostalgia and reflexive nods about inferior sequels.

Granted the movie's still fun regardless, but the emphasis on what it is and is not is retroactively eyerolling.

And I agree, Hoskins was a bit too much...

A point I also missed was that on the effects. Jurassic Park 3 at least still had that realism to it that will never look fake to me, like The Lost World and Jurassic Park.

Then with Jurassic World were many times the CGI was great and other times made me cringe and miss Stan Winston. (Most of the Jurassic World fans I know probably never even heard of him.)

I mean the reason why the raptors in the military bothered me was because Jurassic Park did thinks that would be logical if it were to happen. But it just sounded way too stupid to me. The more I think about it the more it just annoys me. VIc Hoskins and his constant lines about "Raptors running the battle line" and "them on the enemies side" just just made me sigh on the inside.

When I rewatched it I realised the movie dealt way too much with the original Jurassic Park and the novel. I get it, the movie was a masterpiece, I get it that scene with Nedry was funny and scary, I get it Rexy is awesome, I get it the original park was cool, I get it some of the book scenes were cool, etc.

However it still was fun but if I were to watch it a third time will be quite a while from now.

I thought it was good, the high heels never really bothered me.

How funny, today I decided to watch all the Jurassic Park films. I got to say, I totally agree and hear where you're coming from...though compare it to other movies today, and well, you can see why it's so great. Otherwise, the day the movie was on theaters, I never glorified it. Which I find it completely unfair to have people call the other sequels horrible and crown this one better. I love them all the same, cause it's funny how each sequel equally missed a long shot to make each on par to the first. However that's not to say each sequel did not stand out and aren't unique from one another.  

@Levian- First off, it's nice to see you back. (I thought you were gonna be gone forever, lol)

That is somewhat true, but there are plenty of films that were really good such as the Planet of the Apes reboots. I'm not crowning sequels but I do think The Lost World was a better sequel while Jurassic Park 3 was the least best sequel. Although in the past I've berated Jurassic Park 3, I do it out of fun mainly and I don't mean everything I say about it.

Jurassic World was good, but as I said already I stand by it doesn't deserve all the extremely high praise it gets.

I feel some of these points are a little nitpicky. Whenever viewing a film that isn't a documentary a certain amount of suspension of disbelief is required to watch the movie and enjoy it. This would be like watching the original and saying that filling in the genetic code with frog DNA is completely ridiculous and would never work and any way, shape or form. The movies job is to keep its story within a decent margin of the level of disbelief it's asking you to have. That being said I don't think most of these things are too far away from what the film expects to to be able to accept when watching it.

The raptor training isnt something I was ever fond of all the way from the previews that showcased it. That being said the film does establish they don't have control of the raptors. Owen entering the Raptor cage the first time showcased this with him barely escaping with his life. That being said later the film 180s and the Raptors ultimately choose him over something that is much closer to their species. Overall I'd say well executed at first, lacking later.

The raptors and their use in combat seemed pretty obvious to me. Dogs the military have had a variety of roles some more successful than you seem to give them credit for. The raptors and dinosaurs overall seemed like more of a offensive idea. The concept in my mind would be that essentially if you can point them in a direction they do the rest. The way the military is currently working with the idea of unmanned fights like drones ect suports this idea. The difference is the unmanned things they use now cost millions of dollars each whereas these raptors after the first batch can self sustain and breed as they have been shown to do in past movies. This means it's a cheaper alternative to the unmanned crafts, and not to mention the mental toll it would have on opposing sides having pretty much monsters charging at you. Not saying this is 100% legit, but it's not without some credence.

I wouldn't put the characters too much lower than any Jurassic Park movie. They aren't strong, but they filled the roles they needed.

I think the romance aspect is funny since if you watch the original there's absolutely no chemistry between Alan and Ellie that on screen. Their scenes together are almost cringeworthy and while Owen and Claire aren't the best at least something appears to be there.

The final scene and raptor/Irex communication didn't really bother me. 

Overall I agree with the bad CGI, and that the movie is by no means great, but definitely enjoyable. Still behind the original by a huge margin, and kind of sits with the other 2 for me.

@401: Haha yeah, thanks for the welcome back! xD 

I'll never abandon this website or community, it's one of the best there is! Plus, I enjoy a good chat with fellow Park fans. There are really smart people here, and it's fun to see their point of views. Anyways, I get what you're saying bud. You should watch Honest Trailers: Jurassic World. It pretty much said most of the subjects you mentioned. x) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8tmJbaFuYM 

@Durp004- Well first off in the original film to be fair not much was known about DNA and hwo the field of genetic engineering would play out. In a way they "Guessed" on many things. It wasn't till after that scientissts realised that the way Jurassic Park cloned their dinosaurs would be impossible and wouldn't work today, even with technology advancing constantly. Granted there is of course gonna have to be some suspension of disbelief with the science of the film.

But Jurassic World required too much from me. I mean of course there must be some success with training animals in the military but remember those animals are domesticated, they have been with humans for literally thousands of years, co-evolving with each other. The movie did show Owen was never in control but how I saw it was that when he met with him they would have killed him anyway, without more than a second of hesitation.

But it would also cost a lot of money to put suits on the raptors to protect them from gunfire and bombs, not to mention the enemy side could just find a way to disguise themselves as the raptor's allies, or they would just find some way to trick the raptors.

All in all the raptors in the military I think would have been okay had it not been for Hoskins mentioning them walking into the battlefield with equipment and weapons every 20 minutes... As Gman said earlier, he was a bit too much.

However I disagree with what you say with the characters of the Jurassic Park movies. In Jurassic Park the characters had interesting personalities, Ian Malcolm being a pretentious, sarcastic, humorour personality. Alan Grant seemed responsible and a respectable man. Ellie Sattler seemed liek a happy woman that tried to enjoy everyone she met. John Hammond was a naive man who wanted to do something great but didn't realise his mistakes until it was too late. Muldoon was a very cool character who did his role excellently. I coudl go on and on about how the characters are well thought out and protrayed, but Jurassic World's characters weren't really like that.

Jurassic World's characters were kind of mediocore and boring. Owen was just some guy who was respected for his accomplishments... And uh he likes women. Claire was some CEO (I think...? Legit forgot...) and she didn't like family too much. The kids were just kind of there... Not that much emotion. Masrani I found to be charasmatic, that I will give credit. And the other characters I don't even remember too much... Some characters I foudn to not even be one dimensional, such as that girl in the control room...

The romance in JP was very small and the movie didn't focus on it. All it did was establish that they were a couple. They had similar careers and interests. And then in Jurassic World there really is no reason for Owen and Claire to jook up... I mean besides working a job involving the JP dinosaurs, what similarities do they share?

The CGI... Some parts were really good, and then some parts would make Stan Winston roll over in his grave. Especially being a sequel to a movie that is still praised for its everlasting realism that started a new "era" so to speak in special effects.

Of course I enjoy the movie, but I mainly made this discussion because I thought it's getting way too much praise.