Movielopnik - The Summer's Biggest Blockbuster is ruined by Moviedom's Dumbest Scene

"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
06/17/2015 at 13:04 • Filed to: Movielopnik, Jurassic World

Yes, this is about Jurassic World. Yes, this is about the infamous scene depicted at left. Minor spoilers ahead.

There’s not much to really introduce here - given the typical summer blockbuster advertisement campaign you can’t even hide under a rock and not know what Jurassic World is, especially given that there were three widely popular movies preceding it with the most recent one being about a decade and a half old. There is a scene where the dinosaurs have their first major break-out and the female assistant to the protagonist kids (in both senses - they are the kids - well, nephews or so of the main female protagonist and are themselves a major focus of the movie) is snatched up by flying dinosaurs while in the middle of planning her wedding and then played with and dropped into the mouth of a giant fish.

Let me compile a list here of why this scene is just fucking stupid, starting with the major point first:

It’s A Goddamn Fucking Cartoon, And Even Cracked and Plagiarizers Know It

I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with cartoons. I love cartoons, and as a Millennial man-child I obviously know no shame in publicly announcing that. There’s a time and place for cartoons however, and a death scene, even a throwaway one with a character whose backstory was crafted specifically to squeeze out the most “shock” value isn’t the time or place for it.

All of the previous Jurassic Park films had death scenes emphasizing how we humans are just animated chunks of fast food to dinosaurs, but somehow they were...different. The first film handled dino dinner in a way more common with stock horror tropes with a little bit of SFX gawkery thrown in. Even being eaten while taking a shit on a port-a-potty was handled much more like a horror film confrontation, if not between the characters than for the audience. Jurassic Park - and the best horror films in general - are great at that. Film auteurs and people who like to pretend to be such constantly talk about the “contract” a piece of entertainment has with its participating audience, and the best films don’t just acknowledge that but actively use it to their advantage, a technique that Spielberg’s entire career is more or less built on. The first film wasn’t about the special effects, it was about using special effects to make the audience itself a part of the movie.

The scene in question does absolutely none of that. It’s half half-assed shock value, half cartoon. Hell it wouldn’t be so tonally out of place if it were accompanied by a slide whistle ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ). That draws the audience away from being in the movie - you know, the exact opposite of what you want to do.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

If all of what I’m saying so far sounds familiar, it should. In fact I’m hoping to God it sounds familiar, because it means I’m hardly alone (or original) in thinking this. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! when all we got was a fleeting hint of this scene in trailers. In fact his words were so good that it got repeated twice, quite literally, !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

It’s (Arguably) in Bad Taste

This one is subjective and it doesn’t necessarily ruin the movie for most people, but enough people are apparently bothered by it that I’ll be more than happy to let it pad out my list.

As I’ve said, the other movies sacrificed characters in the name of drawing the audience in and trying to convince them that they’re as much prey as the people actually standing on screen. They tried to convince viewers that this was a cinematic minefield and you can hardly go in any direction without getting your head bit off, and that the characters made it out alive as much through dumb luck as their own guile and intelligence. Whether successful or not, they made an earnest effort to convince you that the surviving characters survived by chance, not because they were the movie’s designated protagonists. Under this context, a man getting eaten while in the middle of taking a shit actually helps deliver a thematic and tonal message.

In Jurassic World, we have a woman being used as a volleyball by some flying dinosaurs and then dropped into the mouth of a giant fish like a cartoon object. It does two things - it lets the SFX depart say “hey look we can model giant fish and people substituting for volleyballs” and it lets the creative department say “ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! .” Absent from this list of accomplishments is someone, anyone, saying “hey look the main characters are actually in trouble and this death proves that people you care about are probably going to die too.”

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

When you have a death that’s meaningful and well done, you can get away with a lot more stuff no matter how shocking it is. People will concentrate on the death, the character, and the implications it has for the remaining characters and the rest of the plot. When you have an empty death that’s inserted mainly for shock value, it opens up your movie to both fair and unfair criticism that ultimately distracts from the movie, even during the actual viewing experience itself when some people are probably going to be having little internal monologues inside their heads. Stuff like “this scene reminds me of fucking Looney Tunes” and “damn why did the hot chick have to die like that” and “when I get home I’m going to look up vore porn on DeviantArt.”

Speaking of which....

It Creates Stupid Distractions and Discussion That’s More About Meme-ing It Up than the Actual Movie’s Merits

It’s already happening.

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

They say there’s no such thing as bad publicity when it comes to movies, but doing stupid stuff inside your movie risks it becoming a piece ripe for mockery in hindsight. Take the 2012 film The Dark Knight Returns for example. Is it remembered for being the crowning final piece in Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy? Or is it more remembered for:

1. Being the movie involved in that theater shooting

2. !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Let’s elaborate on that second point: the opening scene of the film where a CIA agent confronts Bane, simultaneously introducing that character. It was meant to emphasize Bane’s combination of cunning genius and brute strength, yet came off as ham-fisted and cheesy to such a degree it spawned a meme that refuses to die after three fucking years.

This accomplished turning the movie into one big joke, especially after it’s left the theaters. It’ll be the one thing people remember. The movie where we find out what happens to Bruce Wayne and the conclusion to that line about the hero that people deserve? Nah man, it’s the movie where the guy with the weird mask says I’m a big guy for you .

Of course once the movie leaves the box office the people creatively and financially vested in that movie start caring less anyway, but do you really want your movie to be remembered for its dinosaurs or “that one movie where the hot chick got ate and killed by the cartoon effect?”

And thus:

It Risks Turning Your Big-Budget Dino Movie Into a Literal Joke

Watching a random lady get killed by a cartoon effect is bad enough on its own. It’s so tonally disconnected it kicks the audience right out of their suspension of disbelief, and it’s so inherently stupid on its own face that it’s become its own meme as if it were the movie’s climax - all for the sake of the SFX crew wanting to show off. Consider David Christopher Bell’s points again - movies aren’t movies anymore, they’re extended-length SFX tech demos that theaters are charging a full Alexander Hamilton a pop for (or more). Instead of the raw awesomeness - and I mean !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! - of a T-Rex being brought to life or seeing a killer robot from the future battle another, even deadlier killer robot from the future, we see Hollywood’s obsession with rag doll physics and a level of over-the-top oneupmanship that’s more at home on a DisneyXD cartoon.

Just like Arnold’s post-political career - I’m crediting David Christopher Bell so I can both say that and use this image now ( !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ).

Of course, given the runaway opening success of Jurassic World, not to mention other CGI ragdoll physics-fests like last year’s Transformers: Age of Extinction maybe it’s what the audience wants anyway. To which I say - I’ll be in the corner, huddling my Blu-Rays of the original Alien and Star Wars movies.

DISCUSSION (14)

Dr. Zoidberg - RIP Oppo > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
06/17/2015 at 13:15

I disagree.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
06/17/2015 at 13:18

Oops, I went to the bathroom right as that happened. Good thing I didn’t miss much

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
06/17/2015 at 13:46

I know this feel, and it’s the reason it’s the reason I rarely pay to see big-budget action movies. Yeah, they can be entertaining, and some are better than others. But I feel that movies like the Avengers, Transformers, and Jurassic World aren’t much more than exercises in CGI and have little artistic merit otherwise.

If you took Jurassic World, and cut out all the scenes that don’t advance the plot arc, how much do you think you would be left with?

yamahog > Santiago of Escuderia Boricua
06/17/2015 at 13:49

Wait... Did they have bathrooms at the drive in or did you just piss on someone else’s car?

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > yamahog
06/17/2015 at 13:55

Lol they’re on the side of the concessions building

yamahog > Santiago of Escuderia Boricua
06/17/2015 at 13:57

Still not entirely convinced you didn’t hose down my tires.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > yamahog
06/17/2015 at 13:59

It would be the cleanest part of the jeep

Berang > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
06/17/2015 at 14:00

I’ve only seen two movies in theaters in the past three years... and one was a documentary. I don’t plan on seeing this, or really anything else this year.

But if you want a bad movie with ridiculous effects, the Dungeons and Dragons movie is hard to beat.

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed
06/17/2015 at 14:06

A Mercedes commercial?

Sir_Stig: and toxic masculinity ruins the party again. > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
06/17/2015 at 14:11

It really did pull me out of the movie, I found it very odd that the dinasours dying was suppossed to make me (and the heroine) feel bad, but the other workers dying was just “woops, looks lie we will need to hire some new people once this is over”, and then to have this scene where we are supposed to laugh(?) at the assistant dying because she’s the “cold bitch” of the movie struck me as incredibly poor taste. It’s much like the final scene in Kingsman, where they play up “LOL BUTTSEKS” with the damsel in distress.

That and the stupid SUV she drove in multiple scenes (IT’S CALLED HANDSFREE, USE IT) really bugged me.

DoYouEvenShift > Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed
06/17/2015 at 14:12

The whole point of summer blockbusters is to be loud action packed big budget CGI movies. For entertainment. If you go in expecting a life changing plot, like those French arty black and white movies with the guy smoking a cigarette. Youll be disappointed. Just go in there, relax, and enjoy the carnage, explosions, cars, hot women.

Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed > DoYouEvenShift
06/17/2015 at 14:32

You’re right of course, that’s just not my scene. Then again, action and compelling cinema aren’t mutually exclusive. I think Predator and Fury Road are good examples of a movies that work on both levels; they have muscles and explosions, but retain the suspense and character development of more traditional movies.

DoYouEvenShift > Short-throw Granny Shifter is 2 #blessed 2b stressed
06/17/2015 at 15:06

Its been year’s since Ive seen Predator, so honestly, I cant remember much about it. And as much as I love CGI, Im a fan of practical fx just as much.

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
06/17/2015 at 22:37

The scene is simple, context is missing. Here is my theory: she deserved it.

Here goes. We’re first introduced to her in the hologram scene with a camera pan over to her. We get a name and a clear image of her. The director clearly wants us to remember her. She’s wearing a similar outfit slightly younger?age of our main character. (Looking up to her role model.... or maliciously wanting to take over her bosses spot?).

She’s the assistant, #2. Claire is the organized number focused leader, could Zara been the cold discipline enforcer “pink slips” of the park (there were financial issues with the park, and references to guest satisfaction). Cracking down on employees or cost cutting.

Or just a super bitch to the kids, she was clueless on what to do and did take them to a ride for 5 year olds. When she’s said glad to see the kids, just before being swooped maybe because she was just faking it front of Claire and had mistreated the kids.

I would bet that scenes were cut and that she was supposed to have been a larger character