MovieChat Forums > Jurassic World (2015) Discussion > The very existence of the Gyrospheres...

The very existence of the Gyrospheres...


... proves that this movie was built on the foundation of weak plot devices. The plot itself was a carbon-copy of JP1's plot, minus the great characters and the engaging cinematography. But they couldn't even make the same story believable this time. Exhibit A: the Gyrosphere.

I don't think any security expert (hell, no one in their right mind!) would allow a ride like the Gyrosphere Even if the glass can stop a bullet, there are all kinds of dangerous places people can navigate that thing - getting stuck in a hole, ravine, etc.

And even if the riders inside are safe, it is still not a good thing to be rocked around by those spiky tailed dinos - one huge smash from their tail, and the occupants are likely creamed inside the capsule, just because of inertia. And if not creamed, then unconscious. These are not things you want to happen to the attendees of your park.

The very existence of the Gyrosphere was just plain stupid, and was clearly used by the writers to function as a plot point - they needed to somehow place the kids into a dangerous situation. Hell, a 6 year-old kid could point out some of the security risks of the Gyrosphere. I barely touched the surface in this post, there are other ten thousand things that can go wrong with that thing.

So they did not care about making the park believable in any way, shape or form (there were countless other unrealistic aspects of the park), and that's just lazy writing.

So sad, that not even the visuals could make up for it: the visuals of JP1 in 1993 were much more polished, crisp and believable - in JW even the CGI was mostly lazy.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

[deleted]

Thanks, yes, I did not even consider these, I focused on the safety aspect. But spot on, great observations.

In summary: they aren't even feasible on a practical level, and they are beyond unsafe.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

Nevermind rolling around on wet earth, all sorts of ground hugging fauna and possibly dinosaur excrement which would quickly block any sight out of the glass sphere...

Besides...can you imagine to be locked into a mostly airtight transparent pseudo-glass ball in the tropics ? Things must have fantastic air-con.

reply

Of course, I suspended criticism while watching the movie but putting a glass ball filled with kids in a dinosaur habitat is just plain silly. "Sorry maam, we had an accident. Apparently one of our dinosaurs tripped and landed on your children. Oops."

reply

Haha! I would watch that awkward conversation as a short sketch!

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

Ha! i just thought of kids aiming right for the first pile of Dino turds they spot. Imagine a pissed off maintenance worker having to wipe the balls down regularly. 😁

Terrible things Lawrence. You've done terrible things.

reply

Dinosaurs can't get near the Gyrospheres because of the invisible fence technology.

reply

Except they totally did in this film.



Cause I can't post without a body

reply

Yeah they did but in the restricted zone which is probably without these invisible fences.

reply

Then it's still unsafe if they can get into the restricted zone. They should not have the ability to go that way. The fence is supposed to prevent them from getting in the restricted zone.



Cause I can't post without a body

reply

[deleted]

The point is they shouldn't have been able to get near any dinosaurs and certainly not close enough for them to touch the gyrosphere yet we see that even before they go into the restricted area fence. And again if there is an invisible fence thats supposed to keep the gyrospheres in a certain area (this is their explanation, not mine)then how did they even get into the restricted area in the first place? Unless you think the I Rex found the invisible fence posts and ripped those out as well.



Cause I can't post without a body

reply

"Unless you think the I Rex found the invisible fence posts and ripped those out as well.
"

This was my thinking. But they should've explained it better that it was IRex causing havoc that allowed them to enter the restricted zone.

reply

Didn't they ride among a herd of dinos before venturing into the restricted zone?

reply

I expected them to be on rails or at least remote controlled by the theme park.

But like everything else in jurassic world it serves the plot not logic or common sense.

reply

I expected them to be on rails or at least remote controlled by the theme park.

Exactly. I wasn't so much bothered by the technical side and futuristic capabilities of the gyrospheres. I can buy them even though they looked completely unreliable and impossible to actually work. What really bothered me was the total freedom the visitors had in them.


So, the movie tells us that any man (let alone a child!) is given full control of the gyrosphere and can drive it anywhere he wants in this particular valley. No other JP staff inside the gyro, no rails, no remote controls, nothing. Which means that any lunatic can get in there and start bumping into dinosaurs if he wants.

How is that even logical? There would be accidents every single day with these things.



For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

I expected them to be on rails or at least remote controlled by the theme park.
Exactly. I wasn't so much bothered by the technical side and futuristic capabilities of the gyrospheres. I can buy them even though they looked completely unreliable and impossible to actually work. What really bothered me was the total freedom the visitors had in them.


So, the movie tells us that any man (let alone a child!) is given full control of the gyrosphere and can drive it anywhere he wants in this particular valley. No other JP staff inside the gyro, no rails, no remote controls, nothing. Which means that any lunatic can get in there and start bumping into dinosaurs if he wants.

How is that even logical? There would be accidents every single day with these things.


I definitely can see a-holes running into the dinosaurs on purpose. You basically have to a-hole proof any major attraction anywhere.

The first film knew this and put the cars on rails.

reply

My own theory is it's in keeping with how much independence modern kids want. Kids have always wanted such independence, mostly because they're impatient, but also because a goodly number of them, in various ways, are fiercely determined to prove that they're "grown up."

As I detailed in another thread (which was supposed to be about the score), the existence of the Gyrospheres and how they function struck me as perfectly believable. Kids would want something that looked unusual, that they could control themselves, and that they could take out into the wilds without any adult supervision.

I suspect kids have always been this way. Impatient, overeager, wanting to prove how "grown up" they are. The problem is it's only relatively recently that we've actually begun indulging them. The difference between 90s kids and kids of today is the 90s kids wanted personal freedom, but didn't get it, whereas modern kids want it, probably get it, and worse, expect it, the spoiled little creeps.

As for adults riding the Gyrospheres, well, the desire for more and more control over things without any kind of guidance or supervision isn't limited to kids.

Now whether or not a major theme park would give them what they want in this manner is where we begin hitting rough terrain, as it were, but the Gyrospheres being controlled by the guests just seems like a natural outgrowth of the "me" generation, a society tired of guided tours and restrictions placed on them.

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

reply

Actually, the kids were still in the main area of the park at the time they drove among the dinosaurs. They don't cross into the forbidden area until they go through the fence gate, which doesn't happen until after the "majestic driving among the dinos" scene.

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

reply

Would the parents be bothered?

reply

Of course, because it means they can sue!

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

reply

Oh, I see what you mean they'll be like "yes, our kid is dead. Lawsuit here we come"

reply

Such a weak plot attempt to recreate the Dino breaking through windshield effect.

reply

Sunroof. :)

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

reply

Fair points, but if this park existed I think the lines for Gyrosphere and kayaks would be packed. Any chance to get up close and personal with these behemoths appeal to the visitors' desire "to be thrilled" (as the Verizon exec stated)

reply

Well, there was a petting area to get up close and personal to the safe dinos (one of the very few good ideas in the film), and I totally agree that people would jump to the chance to go out with the Gyrosphere - no doubt.

So this film could have worked on a deeper level, as a... satire perhaps on modern society, making a statement about the obsession of being thrilled, that everything should be bigger, better, flashier, etc. And that film would have had great ideas to explore. The way it is right now - absolutely unrealistic, and there was no in-universe explanation about why should the viewers not be concerned with the safety of these people.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

the petting zoo is completly riddiculous too:

1. why would they let those expensive dinos been abused by those kids who dont now what they are doing.

2. herbivores ( even little ones) are not safe, what if the trikes are upset and go on a rampage when a kid is riding it or even stand before it.Or if a kid sticks his hand per accident or on purpose in the mouth of a baby dinosaur(those have sharp beaks or teeth) there is gonna be blood verry soon.

so the park being open for 10 years already is beyond suspension of belief.

reply

Nice points!

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

2. herbivores ( even little ones) are not safe, what if the trikes are upset and go on a rampage when a kid is riding it or even stand before it.Or if a kid sticks his hand per accident or on purpose in the mouth of a baby dinosaur(those have sharp beaks or teeth) there is gonna be blood verry soon.


The same could be said of any petting zoo today. Goats, ponies and pigs could cause the same injuries. And I'm sure you're aware they would be monitored by park employees.

The petting zoo didn't bother me at all.

reply

Which from a practical standpoint makes the gyrospheres even more poorly handled. There were about a thousand people waiting in line for a chance to go out in one, and they were letting a couple of teens just take out for however long they felt like. You couldn't operate an attraction like that without having some way to control the duration of the ride or to automatically recall a sphere. Your going to have a huge problem when people just start rolling around in those things for two or three hours and you have a line of a thousand people. You'll literally have people wait all day in line who never get a chance before the attraction shuts down. Out would be like an amusement park putting the controls to a roller coaster inside the cars, people would get to hop in and just go around in cycles as long as they wanted to, nothing to stop them from going around the on coaster a dozen consecutive times while the line just grew longer and longer. You would have a park full of very unsatisfied guests.

reply

Yep, but things should have reasonable in-universe explanations. The Gyrosphere has a myriad of security problems that were not addressed in-universe. I don't want real life explanation (as I would expect from a documentary), I want an in-universe, fictional explanation. And that was not provided, ergo the movie has poor writing. And that's a huge problem for a (science) fiction film.

Wouldn't you agree?

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

[deleted]

JP1 was believable and it was also a "family monster movie", but Spielberg put much care into the depiction of the scenario. There were some security flaws, but it was believable that the designers would oversee certain things. Here, they just didn't care, the ridiculous things just piled up.

Primer is for an entirely different audience, I give you that, but is irrelevant to our conversation: I like fun action movies, but it bothers me when the creators don't care and just throwing in ridiculous plot points at random. You can make a decent Hollywood action monster movie that is believable - look no further than JP1.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

[deleted]

I'm just baffled that you don't bother to actually react to any of my arguments.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

They thought they had everything under control. Arrogance, which is a major theme with this series.

reply

There is arrogance, which JP1 portrayed fairly well.

And then there is stupidity which JW portrayed fairly well.

There is a huge difference between the two.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

I'm inclined to think Jurassic World portrays complacency rather than stupidity. Because the park had never had any major disasters in over ten years, nobody really knew how to handle one when it came up.

Overconfidence, too, again borne from a decade of no incidents, which paradoxically leads to lax security. It's interesting they have the "old-fashioned" dinosaurs in the high-tech areas with invisible fences and all sorts of fancy gizmos, while the "new age" hybrid is kept in a very basic, even antiquated-looking, walled fortress with nothing but the door preventing her from leaving.

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

reply

Well, to be fair, to some extent, they did, and had been operating for ten whole years without any problems that we're made aware of. Compare this to the original park, which didn't fail at startup because it never even made it to startup.

I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?

reply

The very existence of the Gyrosphere was just plain stupid, and was clearly used by the writers to function as a plot point - they needed to somehow place the kids into a dangerous situation.

You do know that this was intended right? This is a movie, not a documentary FYI.



Okay its just a movie. So have aliens come in and start riding the dinosaurs with zero explanation.
Because, ya know its just a movie. We don't need to explain what happens in them at all.

reply

It still has to fit within The parameters of Mr. Spielberg's vision. Which by the way, the Gyrosphere was his idea.

Terrible things Lawrence. You've done terrible things.

reply

The Gyrosphere itself is not a bad idea. The way the ride itself is depicted is highly problematic for the above stated reasons.

I was looking back to see if you were looking back at me to see me looking back at you

reply

Giving the excuse that "it's a movie" is a lazy as the writing was in this film. As others have stated, in-movie explanations need to be given for these sorts of things. They made a point of stating how the park has been open now for 10 years without incident, yet here they have a ride that would result in multiple incidents on a daily basis (for reasons that others have stated). On top of the safety issues, they would most certainly have trouble with mud (JP1 had copious amounts of it and this is the first film that didn't have heavy rain in it) and of course it is absurd that it is user controlled and not remote controlled. How do they have people waiting in line for a gyrosphere that may or may not return - that would only work if it was on a track or it was remote controlled.

If they weren't so lazy they actually could have used a track or remote control and had an explanation for them needing to manually drive it - Track: The Indominus causes a stampede and a Triceratops runs into the gyrosphere knocking it off its track or the track gets wrecked by the stampede or Indominus (ahead of the sphere, so they don't encounter the I-Rex yet); Remote Control: The I-Rex takes out an antenna at the wall he breaks through and they can't control the gyrosphere remotely any longer. For the off track scenarios Zach and Gray are alerted to return and they tell them they're no longer on the track and for the radio controlled scenario the ride operator tells them that the remote control is no longer working and tells them how to enable the manual override to drive the gyrosphere themselves (which he would also tell them when they're off the track).

Either of these would have taken very little time, but would have made the ride a bit more realistic.

Of course the only ride that would have made sense to go through this area would be an elevated chair-lift or tram.

reply

If you can accept the explanation that dino-DNA extracted from fossilized mosquitoes and combined with cuttlefish and frog DNA actually created living dinosaurs, not sure why you have such much trouble accepting the gyrospheres. Or the existence of a dinosaur park in any form. There's little to no chance of that ever realistically being safe, even if the science could do it, the chance of which is also little to none. You accept these things because they're fun to watch, not because they're realistic.

I understand there are certain boundaries to suspension of disbelief, and things should make a certain sense to the logic of a film, which is why it would spoil it if aliens dropped from the sky, or giant robots come in and kill all the dinosaurs, or something equally unrelated. But as a cool and yet totally irresponsible way to "wow" visitors, the gyrospheres make total sense in the logic of the film. Most of the time films (especially action films like this) are based on illogical or unlikely things because they're more enjoyable than if events always followed the course of logic or probability. All I thought of when I saw the gyrosphere scene is "Damn that would be super cool!" followed by "Those things are gonna break!" Maybe that's a bit predictable but obviously something bad is going to happen while the kids are in the park no matter what. Of course the gyrospheres are unsafe, the whole park is unsafe, that's the whole point of the film and basis of the action!

Maybe there could have been better ways to handle it, and I like your suggestion of a dino knocking the gyrosphere off the track. But think about this, too. Lots of things in real life happen because people did not think through the logic or attend to safety precautions. Look at how people sprayed DDT, or how negligent people can be around children with guns. If you had a movie about a child who accidentally shoots themselves with their parent's gun, you'd call it sloppy writing because you could argue no parent would be that negligent with their gun around their child, yet it happens all the time. Or it would seem like a sloppy cliche government conspiracy to say that they encouraged the use of something untested and dangerous like DDT, yet it actually happened. People do not always do things that are safe or logical, so I'm willing to give the writers a break here.

"every time godzilla loses to mothra I die a little bit more"--Godzillaswrath

reply

I liked the movie and I agree that the concept of the gyrosphere would be cool, but with a little more effort they could have made it stand up to the slightest of scrutiny - as others have pointed out, the way this ride was presented makes no sense. Suspending disbelief for the in-universe science of cloning dinosaurs is not the same as suspending disbelief over the problems with this ride. I haven't, and I don't think anyone else has, questioned the feasibility of making a working gyrosphere that keeps the riders upright, can be steered and has enough traction to move as quickly as it did - we were questioning how it wasn't controlled remotely, and how, allowing the riders to control it would inevitably lead to accidents (or the kayaking - Sarah Harding was attacked because her camera made some noise and scared a baby stegosaurus - what would happen if a dino got spooked by a kayaker? You just know some a-holes will try to splash a dino on the shore with their paddles).

Your analogy of a child accidentally shooting a gun actually proves the point that there is inherently something wrong with how they showed this ride - it's an accident waiting to happen (just like with the gun/child) - it would be less of a problem if the park just opened - but they've been open and had no incidents for 10 years.

reply

But again, the whole idea of the park is an accident waiting to happen. That's the point. Sure they could have them controlled remotely but I don't find that necessary. Then maybe there'd be a problem if the riders need to control them manually. Look at the cars on a track and controlled remotely in JP1. They were useless when the power failed. Even if there's a built-in manual switch, it would waste time explaining how the kids would figure that out. Just seems to be unnecessary embellishment to what's supposed to be a pretty simplistic plot.

They went without incident for 10 years because the Indominus rex hadn't broken out to distract people, smash fences, disturb the other animals, and screw things up. Had that not happened the gyrosphere with the kids would have come back without a scratch. The dinos were tame and were used to human interaction, thus not bothering them. As unrealistic as that might be, it's in the logic of the film. But when chaos theory takes over, one thing goes wrong and the rest goes to hell. Not the most original idea even in the first one, but I'd say it's consistent.

"every time godzilla loses to mothra I die a little bit more"--Godzillaswrath

reply

indeed, the OP definitely missed the point. If this movie was the first Jurassic Park then the story would have been unknown. You'd have to be quite stupid to sit down to watch Jurassic World and not realise that the theme park is going to *beep* qtuie soon. This said, the WHOLE POV of the viewer from the moment the kids enter their hotel room is THIS IS WRONG. Everything you see in rhe theme park is just totally wrong. People cheering, pumping fists into the air when the submerged dino eats the livestock. We all know that rhing could leave the pool and join the audience at anybtime. OP, you were supposed to feel everything was unsafe, it's a shame you didn't realise it at the time you saw the movie.

reply

You're mixing up two kinds of suspension of disbelief. The first kind is about fantastical things that aren't possible in real life (creating dinosaurs), the second is about common sense (basic safety stuff).

The second kind is actually much harder to swallow than the first. You can give fantastic movie stuff a pass much easier, especially if there is some quasi-scientific explanation for it. But stuff that denies everyday common sense is much harder to swallow. You wouldn't even let kids ride in these things in a wildlife park with elephants and lions, let alone dinosaurs. Your common sense starts to protest and suspension of disbelief is cancelled.




reply

You're mixing up the logic of the real world (and not even applied there most of the time) with the cinematic/artistic world. People do stupid stuff in movies all the time--that's how plots get driven forward. If you were to apply the basic rules of common sense and safety you'd have to say, "Hmm, maybe putting kids in a theme park full of giant, dangerous animals we barely know anything about and barely control isn't such a safe idea" and POOF! no movie.

Look at circuses. Elephants, lions, and tigers escape and hurt people repeatedly, with kids aplenty around. Seems like common sense would say that's not a good idea but it happens anyway.

"every time godzilla loses to mothra I die a little bit more"--Godzillaswrath

reply

Look at circuses. Elephants, lions, and tigers escape and hurt people repeatedly, with kids aplenty around. Seems like common sense would say that's not a good idea but it happens anyway.


That's true, people are pretty stupid in real life too.

I think there is however, a limit to the way you can sin against common sense in a movie without loosing you're audience because it's a little too convenient. Your example with the kid and the gun for example. A scene where a parent hides the gun in a drawer and leaves the house, kid finds gun by accident and blows own brains out: fair enough, could happen. You also have a nice suspense when the kids goes through the drawers looking for some toy or something.

Parent leaves a gun on the middle of the table and leaves the house with the kid in it: too stupid, people wouldn't buy it and disconnect. Also no suspense because it's too obvious what's gonna happen.

JP: gun in drawer - stupid, but not too stupid to disconnect from movie
JW: gun on table - too stupid, disconnection from movie.

reply

OK, but I don't think it was simple as leaving a gun on the table. That would have been like them walking the kids right up to the Indominus rex or raptors and telling them to pet them.

I get it, it was too predictable and illogical for you. For me it wasn't a problem and I still felt suspense even though I knew what was coming--hell, maybe because I knew it was. That's the fun of sequels. Everyone reacts differently.

"every time godzilla loses to mothra I die a little bit more"--Godzillaswrath

reply

Yeah maybe it wasn't that farfetched after all. I meant it more as a theoretical thing, you can discuss whether it was the case in this specific movie.

I don't know if it are things like these that made JW less scary for me. I think it's actually more the overall tone of the film, the way scenes are build up, the way characters react. I think it's more about that than a detail like the Gyrosphere.

reply

It's not about viewers accepting the science, it's about the writers paying their dues. JP1 showed the amber mine and brought in Mr. DNA to explain how it worked. And they even mentioned the patching they did with frog DNA. Was it real science? No way. But the dues were paid, and we were free to enjoy the movie.

Good point on the gun scenario though. Some people want every movie character to be a survivalist obsessed with worst-case scenarios.

reply

We are told, in the video with Jimmy Fallon, that safety is the number one concern and that the Gyrosphere is made with aluminum oxy-nitrade glass - "so tough it can stop a fifty calibre bullet" - and is behind an "invisible barrier system". We aren't told exactly what that is but it's obviously meant to imply some kind of 'fence'. They are out in a giant field of grass with no indication that they can go anywhere that isn't part of the giant field of grass. The dinosaurs we see in that area are all herbivores and it's safe to assume that they have been engineered to be as non-aggressive as possible. Obviously they would never have to deal with predators and would be very used to having the Gyrospheres driving about. None of this is difficult to swallow - even remotely - in a movie which has dinosaurs being brought to life and modified using DNA from other creatures.

So...

As others have stated, in-movie explanations need to be given for these sorts of things.


An explanation is given in the video and shown by them driving about.

They made a point of stating how the park has been open now for 10 years without incident, yet here they have a ride that would result in multiple incidents on a daily basis (for reasons that others have stated).


Obviously any theme park will have multiple incidents on a daily basis. Clearly they are talking about dangerous incidents, or incidents in which people are hurt etc. We don't know whether the Gyrospheres have been available for the full 10 years but, given what we do know and the explanations provided, it's quite easy to believe that no one has ever been hurt or in danger whilst using them.

On top of the safety issues, they would most certainly have trouble with mud (JP1 had copious amounts of it and this is the first film that didn't have heavy rain in it)...


What safety issues? They're behind an "Invisible Barrier System" (IBS), encased in bullet-proof glass, driving around on a giant field of grass amongst non-aggressive dinosaurs that are used to having Gyrospheres driving about. There are no safety issues.

As for the mud, once they leave the giant field of grass there is a lot of mud. What's the point?

...and of course it is absurd that it is user controlled and not remote controlled.


It's not absurd at all. It seems like a fantastic 'ride' to me. If it were possible to bring dinosaurs back into existence by splicing their DNA with modern creatures then I would drive around amongst non-aggressive herbivores in a bullet-proof Gyrosphere that had an IBS for sure! Why would it be absurd to let people drive where they want to if they can't go anywhere except a giant field of grass that's surrounded by a wall? I can think of many much more dangerous real life things that people can do any day of the week.

How do they have people waiting in line for a gyrosphere that may or may not return - that would only work if it was on a track or it was remote controlled.


This is not a serious question obviously so I won't bother responding. Unless you're suggesting that no one, anywhere, ever rents out paddle-boats, or cars, or bikes, or strollers, or skis, or ANYTHING because it's IMPOSSIBLE to get people to ever return them?

If they weren't so lazy they actually could have used a track or remote control and had an explanation for them needing to manually drive it - Track: The Indominus causes a stampede and a Triceratops runs into the gyrosphere knocking it off its track or the track gets wrecked by the stampede or Indominus (ahead of the sphere, so they don't encounter the I-Rex yet); Remote Control: The I-Rex takes out an antenna at the wall he breaks through and they can't control the gyrosphere remotely any longer. For the off track scenarios Zach and Gray are alerted to return and they tell them they're no longer on the track and for the radio controlled scenario the ride operator tells them that the remote control is no longer working and tells them how to enable the manual override to drive the gyrosphere themselves (which he would also tell them when they're off the track).


All your explanations do is show why you should never go into screen writing...

1. "...a Triceratops runs into the gyrosphere knocking it off its track..." - this is a terrible idea. One minute you're complaining about there being no incidents, the next minute you're suggesting that the dinosaurs should be able to touch the Gyrosphere. Talk about absurd! Obviously it wouldn't be safe for the dinosaurs to be able to come into contact with the Gyrosphere - there would be dangerous incidents all the time - and that's why they have the IBS (which, for obvious reasons, doesn't work once they leave the Gyrosphere area).
2. "The I-Rex takes out an antenna at the wall he breaks through and they can't control the gyrosphere remotely any longer..." - this is also a terrible idea. Not only is it a complete waste of time - adding something to the plot, only to then break it and not use it - but you've now done exactly what you're complaining about; adding something which then has no explanation. People like you are going to complain that the Gyrospheres are capable of driving around without the track but there's no explanation for why they're then on the track in the first place! Why aren't people allowed to drive them around in a big grassy area that's contained by a wall and only has non-aggressive herbivores in it? I mean... the Gyrospehere could even have an IBS...
3. "For the off track scenarios Zach and Gray are alerted to return and they tell them they're no longer on the track and for the radio controlled scenario the ride operator tells them that the remote control is no longer working and tells them how to enable the manual override to drive the gyrosphere themselves (which he would also tell them when they're off the track)". Why??? Why on earth would you waste time and effort on this??? It serves absolutely no purpose. You've introduced this new person - Remote Control Guy - who's only purpose is to explain to them how to use the broken Gyrosphere manually. It's absurd! That's not how a movie works. How it works is you have a video with Jimmy Fallon, inside the Gyrosphere, in which he explains that the ride is safe and SHOWS that the instructions for driving the thing are there too. It takes 10 seconds and achieves EXACTLY the same result as your convoluted, time wasting suggestions which do nothing other than add unnecessary complexity.

Either of these would have taken very little time, but would have made the ride a bit more realistic.


Either of them would have taken a LOT of extra time - I don't think you fully comprehend how time in movies actually works - AND a new character, Remote Control Guy, AND would have made the whole thing LESS realistic. For some reason the Gyrosphere is on a track, even though it doesn't need to be, then it's knocked off the track by a triceratops - which has never happened before for some other strange reason - then the boys don't head back 'home', even though they'd be scared $h1tless now, and for yet another strange reason they decide to head out of the safe zone...

NOT. REALISTIC. AT. ALL.

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

Oh stop! The Gyrosphere was awesome!

reply