MovieChat Forums > Jurassic Park (1993) Discussion > Why set up all the guns and then almost ...

Why set up all the guns and then almost never use them?


They set up that Jurassic Park has a well-stocked armory with multiple weapons, yet almost nobody uses them. Muldoon has a SPAS-12 shotgun, but he never gets the chance to use it. Very frustrating. Plus, you'd think an experienced hunter like Muldoon would use a long range, high-powered hunting rifle instead of a shotgun.

Worse still, Grant only gets one scene with his SPAS-12 shotgun, and we don't even get to see him fire it at the raptors--it just cuts to Hammond on the phone hearing the shots. I'm not saying that Muldoon and Grant had to turn into Rambo and blow away a thousand dinosaurs, but it might have been nice to see them at least take down one or two raptors and dilophosauruses.

It seems like poor screenwriting to set up all those weapons and then practically never use them. They may as well not have had the guns at all if they weren't going to use them for much.

reply

Why would he use a long range rifle in such a heavily densed jungle environment?

Let's be bad guys.

reply

The recoil isn't typically as bad on a rifle as it is on a shotgun and they're lighter than the SPAS 12. Also, the jungle wasn't that dense. If he sees a dino at several hundred yards, he can take it out. But with a shotgun, he has to wait till it's up close and by then it could be too late. Plus, rifles have better stopping power at longer ranges. SPAS-12s can also have problems with jamming, especially if they're shooting heavier loads and/or not maintained properly.

Don't get me wrong. I think the SPAS 12 looks cool and would be very effective weapon at short range. But after so many yards, it wouldn't be as useful as a rifle.

reply

The Jungle was actually quite dense. There was a raptor hiding right next to him and he didn't see it. That's a dense jungle. Not the best location for a rifle.

Let's be bad guys.

reply

I agree that one section was dense, but if you look at most of the movie there are lots of wide open spaces and less dense jungle terrain. Also, raptors are very good at sneaking up on prey.

reply

but if you look at most of the movie there are lots of wide open spaces


But that's not where they were headed. Muldoon and Satler were going into the control center which was in a heavily densed area.

Also, raptors are very good at sneaking up on prey.


All the more reason to have a short range weapon.

Let's be bad guys.

reply

Maybe Muldoon could've carried a rifle and a shotgun.

reply

Why carry two bulky weapons? They're heavy and might slow him down. Or he might grab the wrong one in a hurry.

Let's be bad guys.

reply

Why carry two bulky weapons? They're heavy and might slow him down. Or he might grab the wrong one in a hurry.


In case one weapon failed for some reason, ran out of ammo, or he lost one of the guns along the way.

reply

So then why not just take two of the same? Or better yet, give one to Sattler.

Let's be bad guys.

reply

Sounds good.

reply

Sounds like Jurassic World would be more your speed. Why would a film like this need excessive gunfights? That's not the kind of movie it was, it'd diminish the glory of these creatures' aesthetic to watch Grant shooting them in the face and seeing them lying dead on the ground.

---
Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame.

reply

I disagree. I think shooting one or two of them or maybe a few at most wouldn't be too bad, so long as their deaths aren't lingered on. Remember, the raptors are trying to kill the humans and they would only be firing in self defense.

Besides, people didn't feel bad when the aliens were blown away in Aliens. Same deal here.

reply

Same deal here.


Not at all. Aliens was an action movie, Jurassic Park was an adventure movie. Aliens was about a bunch of military soldiers, Jurassic Park was about a bunch of civilians. The Xenomorphs of the Aliens franchise are a horror movie creation. The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park are specifically the opposite of the way horror movies had portrayed dinosaurs, the entire point of the way they wanted to portray dinosaurs in this movie was the show them as natural animals. Very different movies with extremely different tones. Jurassic Park was meant to revel in the beauty of this nature, not to shoot it in the face with a rifle. That's why they chose to cut away before Grant shoots at the animals, it was likely a very deliberate choice by Spielberg for this very reason.

Not to mention, Aliens is an R-rated movie for older kids & adults. Jurassic Park is a PG-13, fun for the whole family movie 13+ film.

---
Pride is not the opposite of shame, but its source. True humility is the antidote to shame.

reply

The movie would not be improved with additional use of guns, do why add them?

reply

I disagree. I think the film would have been improved by showing the humans being competent enough to hit the broad side of a barn.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Instead they were competent enough to solve problems with their brains.
But really, there weren't many guns available. It would be illogical for Dr. Sattler to whip out a pistol and start shooting. Where would it come from? Why would she have one? Why would she have gun training?
The book set things up explaining clearly why they did not have access to guns (well, very limited access. I think they had three guns, all stored in a specific place).
This would be a very different movie if guns were used, and I don't think it would have been successful at all.

reply

If you call barely managing to get off the island with most of the other people who stayed behind getting eaten being "competent enough to solve problems with their brains", then yeah, sure. Let's go with that.

I'm not expecting Sattler to shoot anything, but Muldoon should have been able to pick off a couple of raptors like he did in the book.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

What deaths would have been avoided with guns?
Jophery died surrounded by guns. Guns didn't save him.
Genarro was a lawyer on a tour, sitting on a toilet. I doubt he'd have survived if he pulled out a gun, and what kind of gun is taking down a charging T Rex?
Nedry didn't even realize the dinosaur was dangerous, Arnold was taken by surprise, Muldoon had a gun and was trained to use it. His gun didn't help him. He killed raptors in the book, but if you remember, it was a huge challenge to get the guns, and there were tons more raptors.

Also, I don't see Jurassic Park setting up all of these guns, excluding in the opening sequence, which doesn't actually take place on the island, and even if it did, it's workers, not tourists. You don't generally hand out guns to tourists.
And they're expensive animals. If you've read the book you realize that Hammond absolutely did not want them to be shot, no matter what.
I fail to see how guns would have improved this movie in any way. The Lost World had lots of guns, and it did far worse in theatres and overall sales. Jurassic Park is not a shoot em up type of movie.

reply

Oh, for Pete's sake. Show me where I said EVERYONE should get a gun and start using them. Show me. I said that SOMEONE should have been able to use a gun to take down a couple of dinosaurs. The complete lack of dinosaurs with bullet holes in them is beyond my ability to buy.

Being an expensive animal didn't stop that gorilla from being shoot not long ago, did it?
It would have improved the movie because when you have wild animals on the loose and they're killing people, the first thing you do is let the expert marksman get one. Then you let expert blow a few brains out. It allows the more critical among us to suspend our disbelief. As is it, that the fact NO ONE was able to shoot even a single dinosaur defies reason.
There is no causation between the amount of guns in The Lost World and how it did in theaters. It did worse in cinemas because it was poorly written mess that Spielberg phoned in.
Jurassic Park might not be a shoot 'em up type movie, but it defies common sense that absolutely NO ONE landed a bullet in a dinosaur. You will never convince me otherwise, so you may as well stop trying.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Wow. No need to get upset. I didn't say everyone should have a gun, I didn't say you said everyone should have a gun, so before whining about me putting words in your mouth, don't put words in my mouth.
I pointed out that no one would have been saved by guns. Instead of refuting that you just complained. Thanks for having a mature discussion.
And do you really think a gorilla costs as much as a cloned dinosaurs that was made using the best technology of the time, using hundred million year old DNA?
Did the gorilla have an owner that was vehemently against killing it no matter what?
And that's not even getting into the fact that a T Rex weighs thousands of pounds and is NOT going down will a bullet.
I think the point of the movie went over your head. Perhaps a shoot em up is more your style.
Sorry that this incredibly popular movie that spawned a huge franchise and made millions wasn't to your personal taste. But I for one am glad because I didn't want to see some typical shot em up movie, and that is NOT what the movie was about, and it was NOT what the book was about.
Try watching some westerns. They might be more on your level.

<<absolutely NO ONE landed a bullet in a dinosaur>>
Try rewatching the movie. I guess you missed the opening sequence.

reply

Actually, guns could have saved a life if Muldoon had actually acted like a real game hunter instead of the Hollywood version. The only reason guns couldn't have taken down any of the smaller dinosaurs is because the filmmakers didn't allow it.
No, the dinosaurs would cost more than that gorilla, but both the grandchildren of the park owner were in very immediate danger. That right there makes the difference.
I didn't say they should try shooting the T-Rex. I'm referring to the smaller animals like the raptors. Get a frikkin' clue before you run your fingers. Dear God in heaven, you are dense. Show me where I said they should try shooting the T-Rex or any of the larger dinosaurs. Show me.
None of the film went over my head and you don't get to make assumptions about what kinds of films are more my style, a s s h o l e.
I'm not saying they should have made a typical shoot 'em up style movie. I said that at least one dinosaur would have bit to dust by way of bullets if the characters acted like real people in danger. Yes, because the film being popular means it was perfect.  Isn't that right, Justin Beiber?
I am very aware that the book and film were not about shooting dinosaurs. What I'm saying is that the book handled the subject of guns better than the film did. For someone who accuses me of not being able to debate, you sure don't read what other people type very well. I understand, though, the school system has lowered its standards for people like you.

We don't actually see the raptor die or get shot.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Wow, you're trying to suggest *I'm* dense while not understanding the movie. That's hilarious.
Try thinking for a moment. Hmm. Why did a trained game hunter not know how to kill a dinosaur? What could the writer or the director have meant by that? It couldn't be that they were suggesting that a trained game hunter wouldn't know how to deal with an extinct species could it? Well, that would be pretty obvious. It almost seems like they hinted at stuff like that throughout the entire movie and book.
And yes, the grandchildren were in danger, hence why Hammond suddenly decided to break out the weapons and okay killing his dinosaurs. A bit late, yes, but again, that's what the entire movie is suggesting.
So we have four deaths. Two involved people holding guns, and guns didn't save them (because that whole entire-point-of-the-movie thing), one involving a T Rex which you agree could not be killed with a bullet. That leaves Arnold, a computer guy, not trained in weapons. Are you suggesting he should have whipped out a gun and shot the raptor he didn't know was in the shed with him?
You keep saying a dinosaur should have been shot but at least one was, and you can't seem to figure out which other dinosaur should have been shot. And you can't seem to choose which character should have killed it.

Lol, and thanks for critiquing my education. I can pretty much guarantee I have more degrees than you do. If you have any at all, that is.

Once again, because you still seem really confused by the entire point of the movie: people aren't supposed to be able to kill dinosaurs like they would kill, say, a lion. The point of the movie, which you clearly missed, is that these aren't supposed to be real people in real danger. They are supposed to be real people dealing with a situation no real people have ever had to deal with before, therefore normal, common, or straightforward ways of killing the animals wouldn't work. The only person equipped and trained to deal with guns (Muldoon) died *because* he was trained to deal with modern animals, and he couldn't predict the patterns of a formerly extinct species.
What do you think real people do when confronted by dinosaurs? Since no one has confronted dinosaurs we can't guess. Hence the point of the movie. And no, popular doesn't equal perfect (which I didn't say, idiot). But it does suggest that perhaps the director knows more than some uneducated hick does.
Maybe you can watch the Land Before Time as a primer before working up to the slightly more difficult movies like this one. Maybe then you'd get it.

reply

You ARE dense, and I do understand the Crichton's material better than you.
Muldoon had been dealing with the raptors and the other animals at the park for years. He DID have some idea of what he was doing even if he was learning these creatures from the ground up. The book does a much better job of showing that than the film does. In fact, the book handled the whole "life will find a way" angle much better than the film did. a lot of crucial information about why the park would fail was lost in the adaptation from page to celluloid. Of course, I've actually read the book instead of just looking it up on Wikipedia like you did.
Oh, for crying out loud. That's not what I was saying at all.
No, they failed because of Hollywood-Induced Character Stupidity. I never said Arnold should have taken a gun, for crying out loud. Stop being an idiot. However, I will say he shouldn't have gone alone.
No, I know which character should have taken down a dinosaur with a gun: Muldoon, and he should have done it just like he did in the book. Of course, the entire film could have stood to be closer to the book.

You never graduated high school. You flip burgers at a McDonald's, at best.

No, I know that. I did not miss the point of the film. I am aware that the whole reason the things broke because they under-estimated the animals they spawned and didn't respect the power they wielded. I understand it better than you. In fact, having a few dinosaurs get shot and still have the situation turn just as dire for the characters would actually further reinforce how out of their depth these people were. You know, just like the book.
No, Muldoon died because Speilberg wanted to show that these raptors were for serious. Muldoon went up against the same odds in the book and came back in one piece.
What do you think real people who have dealt with dinosaurs for years while working at a park that engineers them would do when confronted by them? They'd have learned a thing or two about them in that time. Muldoon in particular took the time to do that, and that puts his chances several leaps above an average joe who stumbles across one. And when the chips are done, he's one of the few people to survived an encounter with the raptors, even if it was by the skin of his teeth. The point was that man tends to meddle where he shouldn't and will always reap the consequences when he does.
Your blind devotion to this film certainly seems to suggest that you do think it is perfect. The only thing the film's popularity suggests is that Spielberg knows people like dinosaurs. The only uneducated hick here is you.
The only one who can't understand difficult concepts here is you.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Yeah, you clearly understand the point of the plot. I guess we are all just wrong, and the point was supposed to be nothing can go wrong when dealing with a man made extinct species because we have guns. Got it.

Hey, genius, what did Muldoon say about the raptors after his years of working with them? Do you remember? Hmm. Seems like he said they should be destroyed because they were smarter than most predators. Looks like he was right, and he ended up dying because even with his training and knowledge. He couldn't anticipate their moves. His last words were about how he'd been outsmarted by the dinosaur. In other words, the person best suited to deal with a raptor still died when in contact with it because essentially, man shouldn't play God. You apparently got an entirely different version of the book than everyone else.
"These raptors were for serious." And you question my education? I've taught at university level. Did you even go to university?

The movie had guns, the movie had dinosaurs get shot. Sorry it wasn't gratuitous enough for you. I know some people don't have imaginations and can't use their brain to fill in the blanks, so it must go difficult for you.

Enjoy The Land Before Time.

reply

Wow. Just wow. You're intentionally misreading what I type now. I'm not even going to respond to that top paragraph. I am so sorry you were constantly dropped on your head as a child, though. I really am.

Only in the movie where they had him acting like a complete pillock. In the book where he was more methodical and better-prepared, he lived.
The wording for the "for serious" statement was intended as a joke, moron. The fact you can't even tell says a lot about your lack of intelligence. You don't teach anywhere. You never even attended university. I like said, you flip burgers. You are nothing.

No dinosaurs were shot in the movie. If they had, there would be one raptor less during the finale, instead of the full trio. Yeah, you don't get to talk to me about lacking imagination when you can't even see how contrived this movie can be at times. That's alright, I won't pick on someone who has the ride the short bus too much.

Enjoy Barney and Friends.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Look at that. You didn't refute my points, you merely resorted to childish ad hominem.
<<someone who has the ride the short bus too much.>>
Nice sentence there, princess. Don't worry. There are sequels to the Land Before Time for you, cupcake. My post stands. Thanks for playing.

reply

You have no points to refute, but I still countered every comment you made. Lastly, you don't get to talk to anyone about childish ad hominem.

The first sign of a person who knows they're losing an argument is when they start picking apart the grammar. Don't worry. There's a whole twelve years of Barney the Purple Dinosaur for you, cupcake. You post never stood. Thanks for playing.



"All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you." -Gandalf

reply

Also, I don't see Jurassic Park setting up all of these guns, excluding in the opening sequence, which doesn't actually take place on the island, and even if it did, it's workers, not tourists. You don't generally hand out guns to tourists.


The opening scene does take place near the Velociraptor pen, on the island (Isla Nublar). The workers are transporting the Raptor to the holding pen.

reply

After I posted I realized that.
It's still a different situation. Dinosaurs being transported by professionals versus dinosaurs behind electric fences (they think) being viewed by tourists, with the point being, we can't predict the behaviour of animals we've never encountered

reply

After I posted I realized that.
It's still a different situation. Dinosaurs being transported by professionals versus dinosaurs behind electric fences (they think) being viewed by tourists, with the point being, we can't predict the behaviour of animals we've never encountered


That was the point of the film (and novel, the film had to get this across in a shorter amount of time); the animals are so new to us we have no idea how they will behave. Another good example is the encounter with the sick Triceratops; the animals become ill and the vets can't figure out why. There is a resolution, but this was cut from the film - in the end, it works even better to illustrate how difficult it is to make the park a success and keep the animals healthy in the very limited time there is left before the planned opening.

Reason why Muldoon did not have the advantage in the jungle; the Velociraptors hunted and trapped him the way Grant predicted. Muldoon, despite his experience, did not anticipate this or overlooked the possibility of the dinosaur coming at him from the side.

As for him not being able to shoot the Velociraptor; the animal was too close and he acted a little too slow. It's Malcolm's theory about unpredictability and systems falling apart at work.

Personally I do not believe more guns (or more characters with guns) would have made for a better film. It truly became a man vs. nature film without too many weapons, and nature almost won - the Tyrannosaurus saving the day was chaos at work as well (in the advantage of Grant, Sattler and the children.) , no one would have predicted that "rescue" as a possibility.

(In the original script, Grant would kill one of the Velociraptors in the Visitors Centre by trapping it in the Tyrannosaurus skeleton, and Hammond would shoot the last Velociraptor - but this scene was changed in favor of the more spectacular finale.)

reply