I found her death very disturbing and unsettling to watch, but obviously amazing and really great that it evoked such a response.
I saw an article saying it's a really terrible decision by a film maker to have such a horrific death shot so close up to a character that didn't deserve to die in such a horrendous way.
Anyone agree / disagree with me or the article?
EDIT: article is here http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2015/06/15/the-strangely-cruel-and-unusual-death-in-jurassic-world
[deleted]
"But...but...she's attractive!"
-literally the only reason people have a problem with her death.
I find people tend to get off on watching attractive actors die in movies. (Slasher movies, for example).
Sig...
DING, DING, DING!!! You head the nail right on the head. Had she been a guy there'd be no issue, like with the other innocent guys that died, but since she's a pretty girl it's an "issue." Although it's really not an issue compared to the crappy dialogue, so so plot, bad acting and characters with little to no character development.
shareTell that to the people who hate Eddie Carr's death.
shareWhy don't people have a problem with Gazelle's death in Kingsman then?
shareBecause she was a villian.
shareSo was Jaws, but the ending of The Spy Who Loved Me was altered to show he survived.
shareHaven't seen that movie.
sharePoint still stands, test audiences didn't want him to die, despite his status as a villain.
shareIt's not always about who audiences want to die.
shareTime to backtrack:
Someone claimed people are only upset with Zara's death because she's attractive.
I pointed out nobody cared when Gazelle died, despite her also being attractive.
You stated viewers didn't care about Gazelle's death because she's a villain, implying an audience is incapable of being bothered by a villain dying.
I pointed out that test audiences were bothered by the villainous Jaws dying in The Spy Who Loved Me, so the film was re-shot to show he survived.
This demonstrates people will complain about a villain's death, which in turn shows that people didn't care about Gazelle's death just because she was evil, and proves Zara's status as an attractive woman isn't the only reason viewers were upset with her exit from Jurassic World.
Audiences can be bothered by any character's death, even if it's a villian or not. When it's a villain, his or her death is expected, so usually there is no much complain about it.
I actually liked Gazelle pretty much, and didn't want her to die, but I already it was likely she would die since the start of the film.
Yet people did complain about Jaws' death, which is why he survived the final cut of The Spy Who Loved Me.
share"But...but...she's attractive!"
-literally the only reason people have a problem with her death.
That random worker's death was a lot quicker.
share[deleted]
Why would the dinosaurs care if a person deserved to die a certain way or not?
shareBecause the dinosaurs are following the orders of Colin Trevorrow.
shareYes the dinosaurs are fake as is Zara. She wasn't real so get over it.
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
That doesn't change the fact that Trevorrow treated her character unfairly. Aren't we supposed to feel for the characters in a work of fiction?
shareAnd you feel bad for her. Mission accomplished.
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
Too bad I wasn't supposed to. Oops.
shareWhy weren't you?
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
Because after her death, she was never mentioned again.
shareBecause her character had like 2 minutes of screen time. Which is why it's baffling that people are so upset. She barely qualified as a plot point. That lead asain soldier guy got it pretty bad too but people aren't as upset because he isn't a pretty girl apparently.
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
So what? Even Jophrey, the worker who gets killed at the beginning of the first film, is mentioned after his death. People are angry with Zara's death because it was uncalled for. She didn't deserve what happened to her. Hamada was voluntarily putting himself in danger and at least he died as soon as the Indominus rex stepped on him. He was never held under water. People were also upset with the death of the middle-aged Eddie in The Lost World and I don't see anyone complaining about the beautiful Gazelle dying in Kingsman.
shareEddie was at least a character and Gazalle was a villain.
If only bad guys had bad deaths there would be no reason to be afraid for the good guys. And it would make no sense within the movie because the dinosaurs don't care who is good or bad.
Your attachment to a character with like 4 lines of dialog is weird.
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
How much more of a character was Eddie? He didn't have that much dialogue in The Lost World to begin with. And so what if Gazelle was villain? She's still a pretty girl and if you believe people are attached to a minor character simply because of her looks, shouldn't they also be attached to another attractive character they normally wouldn't care about?
When a good guy dies in a movie you're supposed to enjoy, the death should stay away from showing the graphic details (Arnold) and / or it should involve a character who willingly put his or her life at risk. Obviously, good characters have to die, but they don't have to be offed in such a drawn out fashion. Plus, it's hard to be afraid for the good guys when the only good characters are the ones you'd expect to die in the first place: redshirt security guards, a character who's been in the background for most of the movie, unnamed extras, and the billionaire who's partially to blame for the disaster that's unfolding.
So is the attachment to Boba Fett weird too?
Eddie actually had a character trait. He was brave.
I don't know why you think Zara and Gazelle are the same. Honestly it would be less weird if you were upset by her death since she actually did stuff.
Bobo Fett was cool. Zara gives you literally no reason to care about her fate. (Besides being pretty) Gazelle was at least pretty AND cool.
Why are you so attached to her seriously?
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
Zara has a character trait too. She follows her boss' orders, even when she's not happy with the assignments she's given.
You implied people were upset with Zara's death because she's a pretty girl. Gazelle is also a pretty girl, but viewers weren't sadden to see her go, which implies looks alone don't cause people to be attracted to characters. By being an antagonist, Gazelle deserved her death and audiences wanted to see her die. Zara did not deserve what happened to her.
What made Boba Fett cool? He looked cool, but in the films, he didn't do much. In short, it was his appearance that made people care about him. Kind of like how you think Zara's physical appearance is the only reason why people care about her. Gazelle got what was coming to her. More people cared when the middle-aged male Harry died.
It's not the character I'm primarily focused on, it's how the character was treated. Why are you still discussing her?
That's not a character trait. That is a character action. (And she didn't even do it well)
Gazelle being a villain was exactly the point I was making and why people aren't upset about her death.. You are contradicting your own arguement.
Bobo Fett fought Jedi's without a light saber, took no *beep* from Darth Vader and captured Han Solo.
Why do you care how her character was treated if you don't (and are given no reason to) care?
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
Loyalty is an action? By that logic, Eddie's bravery is a character action because trying to save his friends was an action on his part. Zara chose to stay with the kids, even when they were being attacked by flying reptiles. And that's what got her killed. She died because the kids decided to stop running and she didn't have in it her to abandon them. So she also stopped running, giving the Pteranodon a chance to grab her.
You're missing my point. Zara and Gazelle are both characters whose deaths aren't supposed to upset the audience. With Gazelle, it's because she's a villain, and with Zara, it's because she's a minor character. You claimed Zara's status as a pretty girl made people care about her, even though they weren't supposed to. By that logic, they also should have cared about another pretty girl they weren't supposed to care about: Gazelle. But they didn't, which indicates your claim is wrong.
I didn't say Boba Fett did nothing; I said he didn't do much. He didn't last long against Luke and was accidentally killed by a blinded Han Solo. He wouldn't have captured Han Solo if it wasn't for Darth Vader. He said one or two insubordinate lines to Darth Vader and weren't you criticizing Zara for barely having any dialogue? But he looked cool, he sounded cool, and he had an aura of coolness and mystery around him. So people cared about him. And let's not forget that he was a villain, which shows people can become attached to villains. It just takes more than physical attractiveness for that to happen.
In fact, let's take a look at Return of the Jedi. People were upset by the death of Boba Fett, a male antagonist who didn't do much. But I don't know many people bothered by the death of the female Oola. That's because Oola's death was handled tastefully and it was beneficial to the film. Her death wasn't even shown, let alone drawn out. Her death hinted at a creature Luke would have to face later on and heighted the suspense for his eventual showdown with the Rancor. The Mosasaurus, on the other hand, never menaced the human characters again.
You shouldn't be asking me questions about caring when you care to still talk about Zara.
You are seriously comparing Zara from Jurassic World to Bobo freaking Fett.... An incredibly iconic character. Bobo Fett captured Han Solo. Zara talked on a phone for a couple minutes and died. I can't even with you.... There is never going to be a Zara fanfic or cosplay or action figure. If you are seriously comparing these two then I can't even talk to you anymore.
I ask you questions because you refuse to give an answer. Also of course I'm talking about Zara. What the *beep* you think we are talking about here? Do you not know the title of this thread?
Buddy the Elf. What's your favorite color?
An incredibly iconic character.
You're not even responding to most of my points anymore. Boba Fett only found Han Solo. It was Darth Vader and his Imperial forces who ensured Solo wasn't going anywhere. I don't agree with what this author wrote, but I understand where he's coming from:
http://www.i-mockery.com/minimocks/returnofthejedi/
"All that 'Boba Fett is awesome, despite no evidence of this in the actual films' crap is merely the stuff of fanboy wet dreams. He's nothing more than a douchebag Crocodile Dundee in a cool-looking suit, and that's it. And on top of that, he died in a gargantuan sand vagina."
At the end of the day, Boba Fett's appeal lies in his appearance and his aura of mystery and toughness. In The Empire Strikes Back, he mostly just stood around and we didn't actually see him do anything of note. In Return of the Jedi, we finally saw him in action, only for him to be killed by not only a blind Han Solo, but accidentally by a blind Han Solo. This isn't a character people would normally fall in love with, especially considering he's a villain.
Zara's appeal primarily stems from her death scene, which many people believe was unwarranted and too brutal. Do any of the human characters from Jurassic World have their own action figures? Kids want to play with the dinosaurs, not the humans. Katie McGrath has a sizable fanbase and with people already cosplaying as her character in Merlin, I don't know why they wouldn't cosplay as Zara either. As for fanfiction:
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11315403/1/Her-Other-Asset
https://www.fanfiction.net/s/11315194/1/Survived
Well, that didn't take long.
Your questions are just an attempt to steer away from the main topic at hand- Zara's death was uncalled for. That's why people discuss her character. If you think she's not even worth discussing, then don't even talk about her.
In The Empire Strikes Back, he mostly just stood around and we didn't actually see him do anything of note.Errrm did you even see the movie? What he did that was of note was "perform the smartest logical deduction" in the entire series. One that led to everything that subsequently happened in the third act of the movie.
Do we actually see him "perform the smartest logical deduction" in the series or is it just mentioned he performed it? Talking about a character's abilities isn't the same thing as actually seeing the character in action. You can talk about how skilled someone is all day, that doesn't mean anything if we don't see him live up to his potential. For as powerful as Boba Fett was supposed to be, he was killed when a blinded Han Solo accidentally hit his jet pack with a stick.
Zara's death was not played for laughs. You could make the case Boba Fett's was, with his status as an antagonistic character, Han Solo inadvertently causing his death, and the Sarlacc burping after he falls into it. But there's no humor in the way Zara dies. Nor Colin Trevorrow intend it to be humorous, he compared the scene to the opening of Jaws, which wasn't very funny. To quote the man himself, "You can imagine it happening to you. Being dunked in and out of water - we just waterboard this poor girl - it's awful..." Yeah, waterboarding- a real life torture method- isn't funny either. The death was unnecessary, uncalled for, undeserved, and unfitting with the rest of the movie.
Do we actually see him "perform the smartest logical deduction" in the series or is it just mentioned he performed it? Talking about a character's abilities isn't the same thing as actually seeing the character in action.I still wonder if you have seen, or rather if you remember, the movie.
Zara's death was not played for laughs. You could make the case Boba Fett's was,You can certainly make the case that Zara's death was played for laughs as well. Several people in the audience I watched it with started laughing while she was in the air and got really loud laughign when she was swallowed whole. Doesn't mean everyone found it funny but at least some did. share
Cool, Boba Fett demonstrated he was smarter than Imperial officers, the same guys who have been portrayed as being thoroughly incompetent throughout the series. In the same film, we see an Admiral - i.e., the ones supposed be in charge of the Empire's fleets - ignore one of his probe droids being destroyed, as well as its findings, and then wound up alterting the Rebels to the Empire's impeeding attack, giving the Alliance an opportunity to escape before they were completely destroyed. Outsmarting these guys is like doing better on an exam than the guy who never came to class. So not only did Boba Fett's deduction not require that much intelligence considering who Han Solo outsmarted, it only lasts a few seconds long. We only see Boba Fett do one thing of note for a few seconds.
The "No disintegrations" line demonstrates what I previous said about Boba Fett; he is held in high regard, but we never actually see him do anything worthy of his reputation. He's defeated by a blind man accidentally hitting him with a stick.
Just because people laughed during Zara's death scene doesn't mean it was supposed to be funny. Trevorrow's quotations regarding the scene show that he did not intend for the audience to be laughing at it.
Bobo Fett fought Jedi's without a light saber, took no *beep* from Darth Vader and captured Han Solo.
Oh, Jesus *beep* Christ dude. Get over it. Does it bother you that much? And before you use the argument about Eddie Carr or Muldoon or any of the other brutal deaths in the series, do you see a bunch of Eddie Carr or Muldoon threads on here or on the boards of the other movies? No, you don't. Because people are not obsessing over their characters or their deaths like weirdos or creeps. This is borderline obsession some of you guys have on here, crying over the death over a minuscule side character, if you can even call her that. She was practically an extra. If she hadn't been a woman, and she wasn't attractive looking we wouldn't even be talking about this nor would there be a million threads about her.
shareWhen did I say anything about Muldoon? Shows how much you're reading into my posts.
shareBut the dinosaurs wouldn't care, so why should Colin Trevorrow order them to care? Am I not supposed to buy into this being something the story of something that happened?
shareHe ordered them not to harm anyone who can't die in a mainstream blockbuster. When you have a body count devoid of surprises, it's kind of hard to believe the movie is an accurate depiction of how these events would unfold in real life.
shareI think her death is kind of the point of the movie.
If you see a million extras acting as people in a crowded park, running around in circles with CGI dinosaurs chasing them, you don't really think about any one particular person's problems and the loss of their life. Seeing the brutalization of a character that actually shows feelings (or at least has lines) helps you forget these are creatures and fictional monsters that normally only attack nameless people in the background. That's what gives the movie weight, stakes, tension, like a main protagonist (Pratt, Howard, Sy, Wong) could actually be seriously injured or die, that each human's life is seriously on the line. Anyone who's taken a film studies class could tell you that.
"Oh, my God. Bear is driving! How can that be?!"
So why not kill off a major character, an individual you expect to survive, instead someone who practically is a background character? It doesn't add tension when only those you know are going to die are the ones dying.
shareZara's death was somewhat unexpected and therefore a good idea and nevertheless within the usual principal of getting rid of characters who didn't contribute anything important to the main plot line, her only purpose was to show that Dinosaurs don't care who they eat.
Are you really suggesting that only faceless extras are going to die, preferably single white man in the middle 30ies to avoid any hard feelings? And what's the point in killing off a major character? I mean they are the heroes because they survived the attack otherwise they wouldn't be the heroes.
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
The only thing that was unexpected what the extent of how Zara was going die and that's not a good a thing. The trailers heavily implied her death and minor characters usually don't make it to the ending credits. You said it yourself, Zara's death was "within the usual principal of getting rid of characters who didn't contribute anything important to the main plot line." You know she's going to die. If the dinosaurs don't care who they eat, why are they always unable to consume the major characters?
Not sure where you got your interpretation of my comment from; I take issue with how Zara died, not who she was. Killing a major character is truly unexpected. It can show nobody is safe, therefore raising the tensions. If a kid dies, anyone can die. It can also solidify the character's status as a hero. A character isn't a hero simply because he or she survived the chaos; performing heroic deeds makes the character a hero. There is nothing more heroic than giving up your own life to save others. A hero who dies at the end so everyone else can live is a true hero.
a dead hero is a martyr, the main characters survived because they did the right things at the right time like repairing a landrover...Jurassic World was obviously too violent (and too loud) to be anything for children, the old Spielberg spirit of the first one is gone for good, what's left is just a solid monster movie, Zara's death had entertaining value the way it was choreographed, it wasn't sadistic, I would call it cynical if anything...actually it was quite funny... and I really don't see what suddenly made her so approachable, I mean I wasn't paying attention at all to why she was so occupied with the phone, all I saw was a hysteric scream queen like hundreds before that kicked the bucket in similar monster/horror movies.
Whether she deserved to die is a moot question considering that nobody really deserved to die, she died because she was too careless...
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
So the T-800 isn't the true hero of Terminator 2 since he dies at end of it? What if the right thing for the hero to do is sacrifice himself or herself, like in Terminator 2? A hero obviously has to be someone who performs heroic deeds and there's nothing more heroic than giving up your life to save others.
Jurassic World is PG-13, just like the previous entries. How does it lack the Spielberg spirit? Most of the people who die are expendable extras who work for the park; you don't see any confirmed tourist deaths. The bad guy dies, the kids survive, and most of the good guys (including the two leads) make it to the ending credits. Chris Pratt said it was supposed to be a fun thrill ride, which children are supposed to enjoy.
Good choreography can't make up for a scene that doesn't fit with the tone of the rest of the movie. Watching a non-villainous character fall a great distance and be repeatedly held underwater while she screams for her life until she's eaten is not enjoyable to watch. The scene would be fine in a true monster movie. The Host (the Korean film, not the one based on the Stephenie Meyer book) is a true monster / horror film because there are unexpected deaths. Not everyone you think is going to survive is still breathing by the end. Jurassic World is not a monster / horror movie. The majority of it follows blockbuster conventions.
Most of the characters who died in Jurassic World were either bad (Hoskins) or willing put themselves in dangerous situations (Masrani). Zara died because of the kids. First they ran away from her, which meant she had to go out in the open to find them. Then they stop running and stand still while the pterosaurs are attacking, which is why she gets grabbed in the first place.
I understand your point now better than before, of course a hero will give his/her live in a dead-end situation in order to save the world, however, becoming a martyr cannot be the ultimate definition of a hero because then any idiot who says: "leave me behind, I'm so fat that it will take the zombies hours to devour me which will give you handsome college people significant time to escape." is a true hero, no! T-800 is certainly not the true hero either, it's John Connor, a robot can never be as heroic as a human because it feels no pain...
I think Zara's death wouldn't fit in the tone of Jurassic Park whereas I'm not so sure about it, what about the little girl being eaten by dinosaurs in the opening of TLW, I found that much more disturbing than Zara's deadly rollercoaster ride and I think that she fits into the same category as Masrani (naivety meets arrogance), she was not watchful enough and lost the children who could have been killed because of this and as soon as she found them she got picked up by a Pterosaur, there is definitely a great portion of irony in play.
I think the only reason it got through with the PG rating is because there is no blood or guts gushing out of the victims and c'mon Monster-Horror movies are Monster-Horror movies because they contain monsters and horror, not just unexpected deaths,
JW contains much of monsters and lots of horror elements like a Dinosaur that can disguise itself and suddenly attack or what about night vision killing camera shots, a *beep* horror classic!
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
A character who tries to make the rest of his group go one without him is a hero because he's willing to give up his own life so the other characters can survive. Probably not the main hero, but still a hero. Those who refuse to leave that character behind are also heroic because they're putting their lives in jeopardy to ensure nobody is left behind.
The T-800 is the hero of Terminator 2. You might be the only person to claim otherwise. He's the only one on the poster, he's the one who saves John Connor, and he's the one who destroys the T-1000.
Then there's also Bruce Willis in Armageddon. He dies at the end, but he's the true hero of the film. One character has to stay behind to detonate the explosives and destroy the meteor. Ben Affleck is the one selected to do this, but Bruce Willis voluntarily sacrifices himself to save the world.
In The Lost World, the girl survived her attack. Which is kind of ridiculous considering those same dinosaurs killed a 6'2" man, but these movies aren't based on logic. She lived, which makes the scene a lot less disturbing than it could have been. With Masrani, he willing put himself into a dangerous scenario. He knew he might not survive, whereas Zara was thrown into the chaos without having a say in the matter. The only irony in her death is she was grabbed while she was telling the boys not to be standing still during a flying reptile attack. Problem is, it was the boys who caused her to stop running in the first place, so their stupidity more or less got Zara killed.
A PG-13 movie is typically not going to be too intense for children who've reached their double digits. The Conjuring had virtually no blood or guts in it, yet that was rated R. You see, a true horror film is supposed to give the audience a sense of dread, a sense that horrible things are going to happen to the main characters. You don't know who's going to make it out alive. The Host was a true monster / horror film because you were kept in suspense over who would be killed by the monster.
Jurassic World does not go for that approach. It goes for a roller-coaster approach; there's a sense of danger, but you know the main characters are going to be okay. There's no dread, no real tension, just an an adrenaline rush. The main monster isn't very scary when it's unable to kill anyone important to the story.
I know what makes a hero, you really don't need to explain me that, we were talking about hero stereotypes as depicted in movies, I just pointed out that T-800 may be the main character and he is certainly the hero of the movie but truly heroic can only be a human because T-800 was programmed to protect Connor, he has no sense of fear or pain, true heros need to overcome that in order to perform extraordinary deeds.
I think you're somewhat mixing heros with samaritans or martyrs, Sacrificing oneself for others isn't the main definition of a hero, it's of course a very important feature but fearlessness and extraordinary skills that are performed for a positive cause and a high sense of morality are more characteristic to heros especially in the context of a blockbuster.
Imagine Bruce Willis dying in Die Hard, it would be ridiculous.
The Conjuring wasn't R-rated in Germany but FSK 16, which means allowed for minors from 16 years and up because there were no too graphic scenes, you can take "Friday 13th", cut it a little bit and suddenly it's not R-rated anymore, in America, you can have a harmless comedy where someone is saying "*beep*" and suddenly it's R-rated, SW Episode 1 was allowed for six-year-olds, a bad joke, so c'mon this entire age rating system is too flawed to serve as a criterion for appropriateness.
What you said about the (wonderland) rollercoaster approach applies to Jurassic Park but Jurassic World clearly failed to evoke this Spielberg atmosphere, and you cannot deny all the obvious horror elements like the bloody handprint etc.
I think since they failed to come up with a creative story they had to improve on the thrill factor, so again Zara's yo-yo performance made it more interesting, I don't see that Jurassic World could be something worthwhile for children, the makers just needed the PG rating for a higher profit, the real target audience is apparantly older
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
That's what you claim, but you have a warped perception of what it means to be a hero. A hero is simply someone who performs heroic actions. They don't need to overcome fear or pain. In fiction, they need to overcome something, but it doesn't have to be internal. The thing they have to overcome can easily be external. In the T-800's case, he had to overcome a more advanced and more powerful machine. And he's the one who defeated the T-1000 in the end, making him the movie's true hero.
You seem to be implying a hero cannot also be a martyr or vice versa, which is also not correct. Again, a hero performs heroic actions. Giving up your own life to save others is a heroic action. You previously claimed certain characters "are the heroes because they survived the attack otherwise they wouldn't be the heroes." The fact that self-sacrifice is heroic says otherwise. Yeah, a hero in an action film meant to showcase his machismo (like Die Hard) would be ridiculous. In a horror film meant to keep you on your toes (which you claimed Jurassic World was), heroes can die. They're supposed to be vulnerable, which heightens the suspense.
An R rating means anyone at least 17 can see the film. That's one year higher than FSK 16, big difference. In fact, FSK 16 pretty much is the equivalent of an R rating. The next rating in Germany is FSK 18, which prohibits the exact same age group as an NC-17 rating does. I don't know where you're getting your examples to attack the rating system from; it's common knowledge the F-word can be said once (and just once) in a PG-13 movie. It would take more than just a few cuts to give Friday the 13th a lesser rating; it's far from bloodless and devoid of sex. Star Wars has always been intended to be viewed by nearly everyone.
Just because you believe Jurassic World failed to evoke the typical Spielberg atmosphere, that does not mean it was the intent of the filmmakers to do so. To quote Chris Pratt:
"It's gonna knock your socks off. It's just a fun, exciting spectacle in front of you."
The original Jurassic Park also had horror elements, like Arnold's severed arm and the T-Rex attacking the kids. Doesn't change the fact that was first and foremost a blockbuster you were supposed to enjoy, just like Jurassic World.
Zara's death is the only moment that goes against the norm, so instead of benefitting the movie, it just stands out in a bad way. It goes against the tone the movie was trying to establish. Jurassic World has the exact same rating as the previous entries. A PG-13 rating implies it might be too intense for younger children, but they can still see it if their parents allow it, and all teenagers can see it.
Alright killing the bad guy in the end and saving the world is certainly the lowest common denominatior of movie heroes, I know that and yet John Connor and even his mother are heroes too and in my opinion even greater ones,
You cannot overcome exterior obstacles without overcoming the inner ones first.
I said that a hero can become a martyr but that are different terms for a reason, as soon as a hero dies the world needs another hero. T-800 is a somewhat difficult example becaus he is rather a cool weapon than a typical hero, in fact he is more of an anti-hero.
You bringing up the example of dying as a last heroic act is an exceptional circumstance that is done willingly by the hero and in JW there was no need to do so, that's why I said certain characters "are the heroes because they survived the attack otherwise they wouldn't be the heroes." so Owen survived because of his abilities as a hero, if the dinosaurs had eaten him because his motorcycle tripped over a stone, he would have become a failed or ironic hero.
And even in Horror flicks there are certain heroes who would never die like the girl in Halloween.
I think Zara's death fits right in with the whole premise and atmosphere of this movie, why should her death be any more upsetting than the fearsome death of the worker in front of the car who had a real sad and frightened look on his face before the dinosaur devoured him, or a severed hand? C'mon, no 13 years old child would say:
"I liked the movie but Zara's death ruined the illusion of a harmless disneyland adventure, dude." I didn't even pay attention to her name because she was uninteresting from the beginning, I think Chris Pratt was right, the movie was an exciting spectacle just because of such scenes.
I could write an entire article to why the age rating system cannot be fully representative of the movies' appropriateness for children
btw, I watched the FSK 16 version of Friday 13th on tv, the difference is about actually showing the knife going through the throat or cutting right in between this moment and just showing the end result.
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
Overcoming whatever is causing the conflict of the movie is another thing that makes the hero a hero. For a cerebral picture, it's obviously better to feature internal conflict, but for a movie that's just trying to please a large crowd- like Jurassic World- the conflict will be primarily external. It's main objective is to entertain. What internal conflicts did Owen have to overcome? Fear of the I-Rex and other dinosaurs? Fear didn't inhibit his reasoning abilities. He knew to dose himself in gasoline when the I-Rex was looking for him and he knew he could control the raptors.
You can argue Sarah and John are the heroes of Terminator 2 all you want, that doesn't change the fact that the T-800 is the true hero. When one character- and one character only- is front center on an action movie's poster, odds are, he's the main hero. What does John do that's so heroic? He spends most of the movie being saved by other characters. The T-800 becomes a father figure to John and the audience loves seeing him in action. The audience wants to see him save the day. That's probably one of the reasons why most people prefer the second Terminator to the first; they want to see Arnold as the hero, not the villain. Nothing can change the fact that he was the one who destroyed the T-1000 and unlike the Mosasaurus that ate the Indominus Rex, the bulk of the movie focused on him.
There easily could have been a heroic sacrifice in Jurassic World. Owen and / or Claire could have sacrificed their lives to save the ends. Much of the movie was about them trying to protect Zach and Gray, so a heroic sacrifice could have worked from a narrative standpoint. If Owen did not die giving up his life to save others, at least his death would be unexpected and raise the stakes for the rest of the movie. Owen dying would demonstrate that nobody is safe from dying. The role of the hero could then be assumed by Claire.
Also, let's not forget about the kids. Zach and Gray survive, like you'd expect them to. If at least one of them died, it would also catch the audience off guard. Once a kid dies, anyone can die.
In a true horror film, nobody is safe. If there's a final girl who survives in the end, that was the director's choice. But you'll find many horror films that kill of the entire cast. Sometimes, you'll be deceived into believing the last remaining survivor will be alright, only for thing to take a very dark turn in the movie's final moments. Refer to The Lazarus Effect and Unfriended, which both came out this year. It Follows would be pretty boring if you knew the lead wasn't going to die.
The worker's death was only a few seconds long. The Indominus chomps down on him and that's it. Plus, by opening the main door, it was his fault the dinosaur got out in the first place. Zara's only fault was not keeping a closer eye on the kids, but it was Zach who made the decision to run away from her. If Zara was simply eaten in one bite, without the whole drowning part, that would have been fine. Instead, we see the woman suffer before she finally dies. Watching a young woman struggling to breathe is not exciting, it's unpleasant to watch. People are voicing their qualms with this scene for a reason.
The rating system has its faults, but most films receive the ratings they deserve. Jurassic World is no different in this respect. It's not more intense than the previous entries.
An edited for TV version of a movie still wouldn't get a PG-13 rating. The heavy cursing and sex is gone, but most of the violence is still kept intact. Censors have always been less sensitive towards violence.
Again I never said T-800 wasn't the hero in the movie, in the sense of a lead character, you completely ignored all my points and John Connor is pretty much a hero in development and a future savior, but I'm not remembering the movie so well that I could go into details now...
Zara's struggle took like 30 seconds and was full of excitement because at first it seemed as if she would make it and I personally don't think that she deserved it more or less than the worker who suffered a lot because he was aware that death was coming, you're arguing that since the main characters didn't die there was no need to kill her or rather kill her in this fancy fashion as if there is a good way to die by a dinosaurs which is not logical to me considering she was an unimportant side character anyway, I agree that a heroic sacrifice could have worked but why should they kill off the main hero as if this was the only way to be inventive, the movie is so formulaic that it's nowhere near a masterpiece and cutting Zara's death wouldn't have changed anything about the overall atmosphere it just would have left the movie without one more emotional impact, the fact that it caused so much discussion proves the authors right to keep it, don't you see that there were even some Predator references? You just expected a more positive undertone and now you're upset about it. I gave enough reasons why her death fitted into the formula the same way you did against it.
The main theme of the movie was turning dinosaurs into military weapons and creating a sort of Frankenstein's dinosaur monster, all horror movie themes...
I know lots of true horror movies where the main hero survives, so what.
Sacrificing your life was never the main premise for someone to become a hero, the vast majority of heroes survive.
"Some people are immune to good advice."
-Saul Goodman
It's ironic you'd accuse me of completely ignoring your points, when that's what you're doing. You claimed Sarah and John were "greater" heroes than the T-800 simply because they're humans who could develop as characters, when that means nothing. Developing as a character is not always a heroic action. The primary protagonist should be a dynamic and round character, but that's not always the case, especially in action movies. With Terminator 2, the hero at least has a valid reason for not being dynamic, due to him being a robot. But he's still the true hero. He's still the one who destroys the T-1000, something you keep ignoring. John Connor is left with the potential to become a hero in later installments, but we're not talking about the later installments, we're talking about Terminator 2. In Terminator 2, the true hero is still the T-800, who dies at the end.
Zara's struggle was still a lot longer than the paddock supervisor's death. Whereas the supervisor was simply eaten in one bite, Zara had to deal with almost falling to her death and nearly being drowned before her life finally ended. There was suspense in both of their deaths, but at least the supervisor didn't endure additional physical suffering before he died. You ignored the fact that the supervisor was at fault for the Indominus Rex's escape, which is why his death was more deserved than Zara's. While being killed by prehistoric reptiles is rarely pleasant, Zara's death could have been a lot quicker. She could have been eaten by the Mosasaurus as soon as she landed in the lagoon. It was not necessary to show her dunked into the water before she died.
If the main character and / or a kid died (the latter you're ignoring), that would have been truly unexpected. You're claiming Zara's death was unexpected. It's not. Because she's a side character, her death was practically guaranteed. Having her die only preserves the movie's adherence to the blockbuster formula. Removing her death would at least keep the tone of the movie consistent. A moment of brutality clashes with Jurassic World's repeated attempts at being fun- tonal inconsistency is almost never a good thing. Just like how having a scene that provokes negative discussions isn't a good thing. A filmmaker rarely wants to hear about how poorly he handled a scene in his own movie.
So what if there were Predator references? This isn't Predator, nor does it have the same tone as Predator. Wayne's World had a reference to Terminator 2, your point is? As I've continually stated here, if a movie wants a certain tone, it needs to maintain that tone. When that tone abruptly shifts, that's bad, hence why Zara's death hurt Jurassic World. Your reasons for why you believe this scene is not unfitting are being refuted.
You mean experimenting on someone or something to make it more powerful is a horror movie theme? Captain America: The First Avenger was about a person being experimented on to become a living weapon. That certainly wasn't a horror movie.
Yeah, there are horror films where the main character survives. You're completely missing my point. In a horror film, you don't know if the main character survives. You are left in suspense over what's going to happen to them in the end, hence why it's a horror film. Their death is not guaranteed and I'm not arguing it is, you are simply unaware of their ultimate fate. In Jurassic World, it's clear the main characters were going to survive, hence one reason why it's not a horror film.
Likewise, I'm not arguing against the fact that most heroes survive in movies. I'm pointing out that if a hero dies in the end, that does not negate the fact that he or she is still a hero, contrary to what you previously claimed. A sacrifice is heroic, hence how a character can still be the hero, despite dying during the course of the narrative.
T-800 is a weapon that destroyed another weapon and an anti-hero who was designed to be Connors watchdog, he "died", no he got broken and nevertheless he'll never get a medal of honor for it.
The same way you could argue KITT in Knight Rider was the true hero of the movie and I wouldn't even disagree.
Sarah and John are struggling and overcoming weaknesses that's what makes them greater heroes for me. Sarah fought T-800 the movie before. I give T-800 credits for defeating a more advanced robot because there he overcame a sort of own weakness. Nevetheless he is the kind of action hero that can be gotten rid of because he is dispensable. I was talking about different types of heroes and action heroes that are different from everyday-life heroes.
I know you're point being that an heroic act makes a hero,
I think we differ slightly in our expectations and demands concerning heroes
Owen is simply the kind of hero, a sort of skilled adventurer who is likely to survive because it's already clear that he is a hero, we don't need to be satisfied with a final proof of his heroism, imagine Indiana Jones being killed by the Nazis in combat, it would be a heroic act of self-sacrifice with an aftertaste of defeat.
You're describing Zara's death like it was a scene from Saw, which it wasn't,
I expected to see exactly scenes like this where people got eaten by dinosaurs
I assume that there wouldn't be such an uproar if the same thing happened to a man and from a moral standpoint, you don't deserve to die for letting a door open in order to escape death, concerning movie logic Zara wasn't able to watch over the kids, and she stood around like the typical dinosaur dip that she became.
Although you disagree, there is a clear ironic, admittedly rather cynical aspect to that scene that was probably one of the most memorable and breathtaking scenes of the entire movie.
the whole movie was much more cynical and trashy horror-like than it's prequels.
If the main character and / or a kid died (the latter you're ignoring), that would have been truly unexpected. You're claiming Zara's death was unexpected. It's not. Because she's a side character, her death was practically guaranteed.
So what if there were Predator references? This isn't Predator, nor does it have the same tone as Predator. Wayne's World had a reference to Terminator 2, your point is? As I've continually stated here, if a movie wants a certain tone, it needs to maintain that tone. When that tone abruptly shifts, that's bad, hence why Zara's death hurt Jurassic World. Your reasons for why you believe this scene is not unfitting are being refuted.
You mean experimenting on someone or something to make it more powerful is a horror movie theme?
In a horror film, you don't know if the main character survives
Likewise, I'm not arguing against the fact that most heroes survive in movies. I'm pointing out that if a hero dies in the end, that does not negate the fact that he or she is still a hero, contrary to what you previously claimed.
A sacrifice is heroic, hence how a character can still be the hero, despite dying during the course of the narrative.
It was not necessary to show her dunked into the water before she died.
T-800 is a weapon that destroyed another weapon and an anti-hero who was designed to be Connors watchdog,
he "died", no he got broken and nevertheless he'll never get a medal of honor for it.
The same way you could argue KITT in Knight Rider was the true hero of the movie and I wouldn't even disagree.
Sarah and John are struggling and overcoming weaknesses that's what makes them greater heroes for me. Sarah fought T-800 the movie before.
I give T-800 credits for defeating a more advanced robot because there he overcame a sort of own weakness. Nevetheless he is the kind of action hero that can be gotten rid of because he is dispensable. I was talking about different types of heroes and action heroes that are different from everyday-life heroes.
I know you're point being that an heroic act makes a hero,
I think we differ slightly in our expectations and demands concerning heroes
Owen is simply the kind of hero, a sort of skilled adventurer who is likely to survive because it's already clear that he is a hero, we don't need to be satisfied with a final proof of his heroism, imagine Indiana Jones being killed by the Nazis in combat, it would be a heroic act of self-sacrifice with an aftertaste of defeat.
You're describing Zara's death like it was a scene from Saw, which it wasn't,
I expected to see exactly scenes like this where people got eaten by dinosaurs
I assume that there wouldn't be such an uproar if the same thing happened to a man
and from a moral standpoint, you don't deserve to die for letting a door open in order to escape death,
concerning movie logic Zara wasn't able to watch over the kids,
and she stood around like the typical dinosaur dip that she became.
Although you disagree, there is a clear ironic, admittedly rather cynical aspect to that scene that was probably one of the most memorable and breathtaking scenes of the entire movie.
the whole movie was much more cynical and trashy horror-like than it's prequels.
I said Zara's death was Somewhat! unexpected in the sense that I completely forgot about her and wasn't constantly waiting for her to die, so when it happened it was literally unexpected but of course not surprising afterwards considering she spoke like three lines.
We don't know whether any children died during the attack.
Again, you don't need unexpected deaths to tell a suspenseful story,
Zara's death wasn't "practically guaranteed" (putting the trailer aside) because again she easily could have survived the attack, the sea monster was the shocking twist.
Her death in the spirit of your own argument made it clear that really not even seemingly likable characters are save, it therefore "raised the stacks"
My point is that there are enough scenes that are not fun at all and convey a slightly evil and cynical atmosphere. Whatever tone they wanted (you seem to know) it turned out to be different from the prequels, I don't see the previous positive attitude, it's more a very expensive trashy action blockbuster monster flick that hides behind a child friendly mask, even the little kid seemed bored after a while and even became depressed over his parents and that's your definition of fun!? They took a forbidden path because looking at the dinosaurs didn't seem interesting anymore.
Tone shifts are not bad per se -> Forrest Gumb
In fact they a characteristical for intriguing movies!
Jurassic Park had a tone shift from innocent amazement to running for your life.
your supposed refutation is being refuted.
They created a serial killing moster that acts like a predator and is utterly evil, sure that's a horror movie theme!
You don't know it in any other genre as well, you're just assuming based on previous movie experiences and stereotypes and since most are just mainstream and uncreative you're often right.
I never claimed that sacrificing your life wasn't a heroic act, nor is it my conviction.
I just pointed out that it's very exceptional and rare within movie standards
and I also pointed out that someone who is dead after a sacrifice is more correctly called a martyr because usually heroes are associated with people who are alive or rather who survived
and I pointed out that heroism is about risking your life not necessarily about getting killed, those who fell are honored but the other ones are admired.
Someone who jumps in front of a car in order to protect a child is a hero in the moment he/she saves the child whether he/she survived the crash or not isn't important for the definition to be true.
I think true heroes are simply doing good things for others that require skills and courage and a strong will that most people are unable to do because they cannot overcome their inner weaknesses.
Usually the hero's death occurs in the end or the last part of a movie so that it likewise ends the narrative which confirms my point.
nothing of it was necessary that's the point, the entire movie was about an unnecessary accident that happened twice in the same park because of the same arrogance and greed of the same people,
so much for the regular movie goers' demands on a blockbuster plot.
Whether it's appropriate to dunk a woman under water once or twice or cut it in a movie like this is such a futile and nitpicky question that it cannot be answered objectively especially considering that the censors apparently found nothing really appalling about it hence the PG-13 rating.
And I gave enough reasons to why I believe that her death wasn't unfitting the overall theme and atmosphere or ruined the movie experience.
If you want a family friendly dinosaur action movie than I recommend this:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0130623/?ref_=fn_al_tt_4
It's very despicable that you derive all you attacks from a statement which I explained and restricted to a certain context by now, I wasn't talking about heroes in general
You yourself confirmed that my statement was right:
"I mean they are the heroes because they survived the attack otherwise they wouldn't be the heroes." I was referring to the movie's logic.
ndiana Jones couldn't die because of the tone of his movies. They fall into the action / adventure genre and audiences enjoy seeing the protagonist overcome whatever's opposing him. Killing the protagonist would end that enjoyment. Jurassic World is the same way; Owen can't die because that would ruin the fun factor. If this was a monster / horror film, he could die and he has to be in danger of dying because it's supposed to inspire dread, not enjoyment.
Yes you do. In action and adventure movies, the hero is typically safe from death.
In fact, those who give up their own lives to save others are the ones commonly deemed heroes by the media and the public. A person who jumps on a grenade is a hero, but not automatically a martyr because his action doesn't have to be motivated by religious convictions. It only has to be motivated by valuing the lives of others more than your own.
If the hero dies, that does not negate the heroic action.
There shouldn't even be a disagreement over what defines a hero at the term's most basic level.
Only in your fantasy world. You previous said "(Zara's) death was one of the very few really thrilling moments in the otherwise very unexciting rehash," so now it looks like you're contradicting yourself.
There was no legitimate reason to drag out her death.
In Terminator 2, the villains created a killing monster that could assume any form it pleased and would not stop pursuing its target until it killed him. Star Trek Into Darkness also featured the creation of genetically-created killer who wanted to eliminate anyone he deemed inferior. These are not horror movies.
Of course. But they don't have to survive to be admired as heroes.
It's very despicable that you derive all you attacks from a statement which I explained and restricted to a certain context by now, I wasn't talking about heroes in general
You yourself confirmed that my statement was right:
"I mean they are the heroes because they survived the attack otherwise they wouldn't be the heroes." I was referring to the movie's logic.
However, you can always find convincing ways to kill off the hero that it fits the tone or simply change the tone if you're creative enough.
and the fact that even horror movie characters survive makes your point moot.
You're not supposed to know within the movies' reality or rather supposed to forget during the movie
What if a movie doesn't have a main hero and the only "hero" of the movie is a villain.
Part of our misunderstanding is that we sometimes refer to lead characters as heroes although they are kind of shady
I agree and still dying is not a necessity
I never said or questioned that death makes a hero's deeds worthless!
We don't disagree but you should acknowledge the fact that sometimes it's debatable what makes a hero
for example if a soldier jumps on a grenade after killing innocent civilians it doesn't necessarily qualify him for a hero, or a historical example, the one who tried to kill hitler was first regarded as a traitor by the german majority and many years later honored for his heroic attempt.
The whole T-800 debate you came up with is just a very nitpicky and marginal point that has nothing to do with Zara's death,
T-800 didn't gave his life because he is not a living person, he is a mass product that will return in the next movie
and I don't consider him a hero because I prefer to call humans true heros period.
Your whole point is that Zara was supposed to die but not in this way because it was too violent and ruined the rollercoaster fun experience which I disagree with because I didn't found it too violent because it was too quick and bloodless and I didn't see that that the rollercoaster fun experience was too distinctive and predominant this time due to a more sinister and brutal atmosphere and obvious horror elements. That's just my opinion which I gave reasons for. To me, that scene was convincing and interesting enough.
You're basically saying that since Qwen didn't die unexpectedly, she had to die expectedly but not in an unexpected way which is a weak point to me.
I stil hold this opinion without contradicting myself because all in all the movie disappointed me.
There wasn't any legitimate reason to leave it in the first place,
maybe they will cut it in the tv version after this whining.
That's a typical example of how you're putting words into my mouth as if I didn't know what a horror movie is.
All this examples had horror elements without being a horror movie.
Nevertheless, the creation of a monster is an idea inspired by horror movies
nobody wishes his/her death, nobody admires the death of a hero, just his or her deeds and persona and doings while alive.
ok, I slightly overextended the definition of a martyr to inner convictions too which might have been a mistake.
but that's also not important to our main discussion that's why we should end this.
You keep changing your viewpoints on Jurassic World. One moment, you call it a rehash of the previous entries, the next, it's darker and missing the "Spielberg spirit" of the first film.
so you've been reduced to making things up in order to keep responding to me. Nothing in your original reply indicates your statement was "restricted to a certain context." You flat-out said "they are the heroes because they survived the attack." No additional context, no specifications
You can't do either of those things in movies that feature Indiana Jones, James Bond, or any other iconic protagonist. People watch these films to see those characters in action. They watch them to see the heroes triumph over every obstacle placed in their way.
Just because a death scene isn't bloody doesn't mean it isn't unpleasant to watch. Drowning is a painful way to go, despite the lack of blood. Hearing Zara scream the whole time until she's abruptly cut off by the Mosasaurus makes all the more uncomfortable to watch.
Nothing else in the movie matches the brutality of this scene and the character's final fates align with what you assume is ultimately going to happen to them
What horror elements did Star Trek Into Darkness have?
You claimed the creation of "a serial killing moster that acts like a predator and is utterly evil" is a horror movie theme, I responded by pointing out non-horror movies that contained this theme.
I argued it didn't because you already knew Zara was going to die and in order to raise the tension, you have to kill off someone the audience is expecting to survive.
If a movie is formulaic to the core, you can stay at least two steps of ahead of it.
Making accusations without any logical foundation to support them isn't going to work.
You don't have anything left to offer, so you've been reduced to making things up in order to keep responding to me.
Yes they do. They admire the bravery of the hero and the fact that the hero put the lives of others in front of his or her own
So that goes back to my original point- a hero who dies saving others is still a hero.
The one who returns isn't going to be the same one who saved John Connor's life when he was young and became a father figure to him. The T-800 from Terminator 2 isn't coming back and he sacrificed himself for the greater good. He had to ensure his technology didn't wind up in the wrong hands.
Just because you don't consider him a hero doesn't mean he isn't one.
I'm not changing the viewpoints, because I never said Jurassic World was exactly the same as Jurassic Park in all respects, it's a rehash especially in terms of story and characters with a darker tone this time concerning certain scenes, while it shares the same main idea with JP and they obviously tried the Spielberg atmosphere but it didn't convince me this time with my conclusion that the Spielberg atmosphere is gone for good.
In other words: JW is like JP with better effects and a darker tone
the contradiction is just in your fantasy world.
We were talking about Owen and Claire in a thread about Jurassic World, a direct response to your rhetorical question to why Owen didn't die. there you have your context and specifications.
That's exactly what I was talking about when I said the statement above, so you just confirmed the correctness of it.
And yet it would be possible to kill an Iconic figure to end the franchise, you cannot argue that.
You're just saying that you couldn't handle her death personally which is a matter of personal taste not necessarily of story telling
as other viewers found it just within certain boundaries otherwise it wouldn't have gotten the PG 13 rating in the first place.
I gave enough reasons to why I think that other deaths were brutal as well,
especially the fatalistic closup look of the worker's face before getting killed after the monster slowly approached him. (a typical horror scenario)
I know he deserved it more than Zara and he wasn't sure as pretty but nevertheless,
but nevertheless,
that their fates met your expectations doesn't mean Zara cannot be a slight exception.
One example would be Kahn's dread-inspiring enhanced voice, he had basically the voice of a demon for God's sake!
non-horror movies contain certain horror movie themes as part of their story
I was talking about style elements in movies, nowadays the genre boundaries are more fluent.
or you just show a pretty girl die in an unexpectedly inventive and brutal way.
They had no legitimate reason to refrain from showing a spectacular death
again, you can based on previous movie experiences
you're basically pleading for a formulaic movie to stay formulaic in every respect, what a boring demand,
Zara's death may have touched the outer limits of the formula with a seconds long drowning scene and that's all there is to that,
even the dinosaurs were more brutal this time,
an action monster movie like Jurassic World would be nothing without such scenes,
if they cut Zara's death scene then they should cut every death scene in order to keep an overall upbeat child friendly atmosphere, that would only be truly consequent.
You also implied that you wouldn't have had any problems with her death if Owen or a child also had died which wouldn't have made her death less violent and her death made tha savageness of the dinosaurs more threatening
and introduced a darker tone shift that's also the reason why soon after that the sun set and night fell.
Unexpected deaths are not specific to a certain tone, it is depending on their execution and context.
Now, you're also being somewhat condescending, while you're constantly repeating the same handful of arguments which I responded to.
Exactly my point, they just don't admirer their deaths because nobody wishes to die, even the hero doesn't wish to die, he just does what's necessary, they honor his death but they admirer him.
That's true unless we're talking about movie characters because than things are getting insofar complicated as often the hero is immune to dying by classical movie standards and therefore survival is sometimes the only or rather very significant criterion, so he just saves everybody without dying and if he died it wouldn't negated his actions but certainly his status as a classical action hero, I know you saying he would still be an action hero, yes but a dead one that is replaced by a new one likewise passing on his title. Action heroes are replaceable.
John will meet him in the future and send him back,
this father figure model doesn't fully live up to their relationship as John teaches him a lot and makes him do certain things.
the new movie will contain a defacto same T-800 persona,
I never denied him being an action hero, but he cannot be a real hero to me,
the ones who risked their lives by reprogramming him and sending him back would be heros in real life, they would probably build a monument of T-800 like they do of cannons for example to remember a battle...
the same applies to you btw.
You flat-out called Jurassic World a "very unexciting rehash." That means it's primarily the same movie. Not exactly the same- and you can pull the literal card here all you want, that won't change what you said-
You're not even explaining how Jurassic World has a darker tone than its predecessor. There's just one horrific scene and that's it.
You're contradicting yourself in this very paragraph. You claim the filmmakers "obviously tried the Spielberg atmosphere," with the implication that they failed at achieving that atmosphere and that's a bad thing. But if they did get that atmosphere, that would also make Jurassic World even more of a rehash of the first film. And according to you, being a rehash is also a bad thing. So you're somehow criticizing Jurassic World for being different from Spielberg's film, while also criticizing it for being too much like Spielberg's film. That's interesting.
No we weren't. Or at least I wasn't. The user I was responding to claimed Zara's death was necessary because "seeing the brutalization of
That's not what you previously said. You said "you can always find convincing ways to kill off the hero that it fits the tone or simply change the tone if you're creative enough." Keyword: always.
Arthur Conan Doyle tried to kill off Sherlock Holmes in The Final Problem, but was ultimately forced to bring him back. Ian Fleming meant to kill James Bond in From Russia, with Love, yet Bond was soon back for his next novel. Certain heroes are just unkillable.
To anyone with a rational mind, watching a young woman scream for her life until she's killed normally isn't pleasant viewing.
Once again, you've contradicted yourself. You previously said the "entire age rating system is too flawed to serve as a criterion for appropriateness" and now you're using it to prove the scene wasn't too intense.
If you’re going to include one death that deviates from the norm, you need more deaths that follow suit. Otherwise, that death isn’t going to fit with the rest of the movie; it's unlike the rest of the events.
That goes beyond grasping for straws. The way a character sounds has virtually no impact on a film's atmosphere. By that logic, Bubble Boy has horror elements because Matthew McGrory and his "dread-inspiring" voice are in it.
And your point is? Having horror elements doesn't change the fact that Jurassic World is primarily an action-adventure blockbuster.
or you just show a pretty girl die in an unexpectedly inventive and brutal way.
Which you're not elaborating on- and it's incorrect. Refer to The Host. During the monster's first attack, it kills a girl listening to music. This sequence doesn't increase the tension. It's a moment of dark humor;
Another blanket statement that's incorrect. It's usually not a good idea to radically alter the tone of a movie in one scene.
You claimed "you're not supposed to know within the movies' reality" what's going to happen next. The fact that I knew Big Hero 6's twist regarding its antagonist ahead of time is concrete evidence that you can predict what's going to happen in a movie, even if you're not supposed to
t goes well outside the formula of Jurassic World's genre. This movie is supposed to be enjoyable and Zara's death is anything but that. It's technically seconds long, but it's also noticeably longer than the other death scenes.
even the dinosaurs were more brutal this time,
A claim you're not backing up.
Now you're dealing in absolutes, which is rarely the right way to solve a problem. The problem isn't the simple fact that Zara died, it's how she died. The manner of her death upset the tone of the movie due to its gratuitous nature, whereas the other deaths showed some restraint and / or were suited to the deceased characters. Simply altering Zara's death to make it less drawn out keeps it in line with the other demises in the movie.
Nothing I've said implies Zara's death would have been less violent if Owen, Claire, Gray, and / or Zach died. But killing at least one of those four characters would have made the dinosaurs more threatening because it would have established anyone could die, not just the minor characters you expect to be part of the body count. Zara's death does not accomplish that task because you already knew she was going to die due to her being a minor character. In anything, her death reinforces the fact that these reptiles are only going to kill those who are expendables, weakening the dinosaurs' threat.
Just because the lighting gets darker doesn't mean the tone is darker.
Says the guy who told me "the contradiction is just in (my) fantasy world." When you make up points, you're going to be called out on it. The arguments I repeat are ones you have been unable to refute.
They admire what the hero did in his or her final moments, contrary to what you claim. There isn't even a correlation between admiring a hero's death and how "nobody wishes to die."
But we're not talking specific types of heroes here. We're talking about heroes in general. So whatever you're trying to prove here about "classical action heroes" is irrelevant.
Are you proposing fathers can't learn anything new from their children?
I'm not going anywhere because you're wrong and everytime you reply to me, I'm going to remind you that you're wrong. So if you want this discussion to end, you're the one who has to stop responding.
You are constantly pulling the literal card,
what I said wasn't contradictory
I was explaining it in every post and there was more than one horrific scene.
There is no contradicttion, a rehash that conveys the same feel and entertainment is better than a rehash that fails in doing so and still the fact that it is a rehash doesn't speak in favor of the movie.
The adventurous tone was'nt predominant this time as already said before.
You practically admitted that we were talking past each other
Keyword: can, the possibility is "always" there but is very rarely used so that you can say as I did and as you confirmed that "heroes (in movies like JW) wouldn't be heroes if they died" because such heroes are not supposed to die especially from a fanboy perspective.
This also confirms the correctness of my statement before and yet Sherlock really died which caused the uproar.
Movies are full of scenes of brutalization and ultimately are serving entertainment purposes,
I wouldn't want to see Zara's scene in a children movie but in Jurassic World it fitted and was convincing and exciting and also funny due to it's trashiness and absurdity.
no contradiction, I used the point to indicate that it sure wasn't too overly graphical in terms of violence not that it wasn't too intense.
not necessarily, just your opinion, all deaths were not normal
It has an impact, nobody found Kahn's voice funny,
Bubble Boy obviously used horror elements to make fun of horror elements, a moot example.
My point is that JW is an action-adventure blockbuster with horror elements and not a children's movie
I'm elaborating on everything whether you find it convincing or not.
the scene sure increased tension in a way and established a certain undertone or premise
That's incorrect, the tone wasn't radically altered, the whole premise was slowly built up
it's not concrete evidence, just a poor example in which an adult predicts a villain of a Children's movie, wow, how impressing!
it's enjoyable for all horror fans, and most teenagers, ok probably most boys wouldn't even blink at this, that's of course just a rhetorical assumption in order to illustrate that a violent scene doesn't appear as violent to everyone.
I am and I was, look at Ind. Rex it didn't behave normally
You're generalizing all the time, and you are using isolated examples from different genres to say general arguments on movies as if all action adventures are the same. According to Imdb Armageddon FSk 12 is the same genre as JW (action, adventure, sci-fi) and yet you used Armageddon to show that the Hero's death was possible in a movie like Armageddon whereas it wasn't possible in JW, which proofs that not all action adventures have the same outcome or follow the same conventions unlike you previously implied,
my examples show that you cannot generalize everything concerning genre expectations.
If a hero dies, it briefly changes the main tone, like Zara briefly changed the main tone, so what.
That's a valid point.
that's your main issue and I simply disagree that the scene unfitted the atmosphere, I gave reasons for that, whether you liked them isn't so important.
that's not correct, the dinosaurs were very threatening, look what they did to poor Zara!
It doesn't necessarily but in this case it does up until T-Rex appears!
You said "just in your fantasy world" previously, it was a reference.
repeating your arguments doesn't make them right, it's not my job to refute them, just to state why I disagree.
You're repeating what I said in order to convince me of what I said, kind of ridiculous.
There is a correlation: if dying would be pleasant and easy, they wouldn't admire his/her deeds leading to death.
We're talking about action heroes in contrast to general heroes,
that you were talking about general heroes was irrelevant to our main discussion in the first place in my opinion.
it's not important whether you consider it irrelevant.
no I'm not, T-800 learned something a child would learn from his father not the father from his child
T-800 is an inanimate object too.
He has no free will what so ever, they didn't ask him to please save the world.
Outside the movie, he is not a real hero in general because he is not risking his life while saving the world, he is just an object, does he feel pain and sorrow?
You cannot talk about heroes in general without talking about certain hero types
Is it heroic to perform a life saving appendectomy?
Some will consider that doctor a hero, some won't.
The term "hero" is charged with too many archetypes and connotations that we could agree upon a single definition.
A suicide bomber is considered a hero by his people, do we consider him a hero, no certainly not!
Whatever you say in general doesn't represent a totally accepted truth.
Ah, so you are the one to decide that you were right and I wrong from the beginning!??,
"My apologies your Highness for daring to question your high and irrefutable authority on matter of opinions concerning movie logic"
Under such a premise it really makes no sense to continue a reasonable discussion with you,
I acknowledge the fact that some people found Zara's scene over the line, however, I don't agree that it unfitted the movie,
take care,
I won't read your replies any more, they are predictable anyways.
Zara's death was somewhat unexpected and therefore a good idea and nevertheless within the usual principal of getting rid of characters who didn't contribute anything important to the main plot line, her only purpose was to show that Dinosaurs don't care who they eat.
I am curious if Zara had more scenes at one point or if what we saw was really the extent of her character.
shareHas anyone here mentioned the fact that Zara did a HORRIBLE job taking care of Zach and Grey?! She dies because she spends all her time with them not focused on them but on her phone. They are able to easily escape her because she's so distractable. Claire is ultimately to blame for this, of course, but Zara obviously played a major role in the kids getting lost in the park!
shareThe kids themselves, Claire and the parents are just as blameable.
shareJeez Louis people are overreacting. Her death was only midly disturbing, but I've seen much worse. And like someone else said, she really is a non-character. It's beyond me why anyone would care so much about her. Yeah it sucks and died, but we didn't go to see dinosaurs having tea and discussing the weather.
shareThe problem is her death is out of place in the type of movie Jurassic World is. We watched it to be entertained and have a fun time. There's nothing enjoyable about her death. Although she's a minor character, that doesn't mean she deserved what happened to her.
shareI honestly didn't feel like it was out of place at all. She happened to be in the middle of the chaos and was killed. The writers probably did that on purpose, as it has more affect (which clearly it does). I personally just don't see the big deal. A man is ripped in two in TLW, as well as a man being dragged out of a waterfall and chomped to death. It happens.
Go Mischa/Marissa(2003-2006)
Wisdom is freedom
It's one thing to kill her, it's another thing to draw out her death scene. And for what? To show the threat of the Pteranodons? They're dispatched pretty quickly. To show that Zach and Gray are in danger? They're obviously not, since they just escaped from the Indomnius rex and the pterosaurs ignored them while they were standing still. To show the power of the Mosasaurus? That power is truly established when it kills the Indomnius rex. Really, the scene could be removed with little to no impact on the story. Zara's death is just too mean spirited. People complain about Eddie's demise in The Lost World too and at least he died a hero. Not only was Burke's death off-screen, it was hard to feel sorry for him because he went out like an idiot; running into the mouth of the T-Rex because a harmless snake crawled down his shirt.
share