this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2024
109 points (100.0% liked)
Movies & TV
22879 readers
130 users here now
Rules for Movies & TV Discussion
-
Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
-
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
-
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.
Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean in a lot of ways it was otherwise too. The film misses almost no opportunity to show how, if able to operate without regulation, a capitalist will recklessly endanger all human life in pursuit of establishing their money machine
Honestly I don't think it did a good job articulating that because it kind of gets lost in the "wow cool dino!" spectacle and in amongst the hi-tech sci-fi stuff. Like I can't remember the book too clearly but I do remember it kind of lavishing on how cheaply made everything was and how it was falling apart even before the park opened and how shortsighted and naive the park designers were.
The movie kind of just established some of the "doing it wrong" stuff InGen did in building the park as conventions of its worldbuilding, like how they were relying on "cool hi-tech gadgets" that were fragile and needed electricity instead of just hiring a zoo engineer to tell them "yeah just make like a ditch and some concrete earthworks high enough that the large, mundane animal can't just reach out or something, don't waste money and power on a fragile little electric fence for no reason."
IDK I just rewatched a few weeks ago and it's hard to imagine them ringing the bell any louder. Every scene in the first act em references the fact that Hammond is reckless, cutting corners with safety and the park is cheaply made. Like the entire reason the scientists are there is because investors are spooked at how sloppy it all is.
They make it really obvious when their cars on rails get stopped by a power outage right in front of a an electric fence that is the only thing between them and the giant flightless bird.
Honestly the movie should have keeped Hammond as the greedy bad guy intead of a good dude who makes a mistake
They did make him way too quaint and charming instead of casting/directing him as a sleezy dipshit, and it's way too easy to sympathize with him after the whole "I just wanted everyone to see cool dinos and be happy" dialogue.
Not just that, but the majority of the park's troubles seem to really be that he hired ONE programmer to do it AND he skimped on that guy's salary.
Yeah I agree with that they don't seal the deal in the end
Honestly I prefer Hammond as a well meaning grandpa.
Hammond in the film is kinda a stand-in for Spielberg himself, the entire flea circus monologue is Spielberg lamenting about his role in the entertainment industry and whether he did more harm than good in it.
To me it just reinforces that the problems with Jurassic Park were systemic. It was doomed to fail no matter how well meaning the creator. The problem isnβt the individuals, itβs capitalism.
To be fair, T-Rex can't really reach
In the movie I remember hearing "we spared no expense" a lot
...but the downfall was ultimately caused by a critically important employee struggling to get a pay raise