Poll of the Day > Why does the Jurassic World franchise want to sell 'weaponized dinos' so bad.

(+) Yeah! (+)

When they tried to sell the idea of "Weaponized Dinosaurs" in Jurassic World everybody said the concept was non believable and stupid, but they're still trying to sell the idea in Fallen Kingdom and even go out of their way to try and justify why anyone would actually want "Weaponized Dinosaurs".
---

T Rex with rockets on its back got brought down by turok with a bow lol
---

Firstly, let me LOL at people complaining about the concept of the fifth installment of a franchise based on hundreds of extinct animals being magically cloned.

Secondly, in the movie, Blue (one of the "weaponized dinos") almost dies by getting shot in the leg with a handgun. That doesn't seem like a significant improvement.

On top of everything else, when you're not using the dinos, you would have to keep them locked up because they can't even be fully controlled. If there's one thing that the government/military hates, it's something that they can't control.
---

Every time I see a Jurassic Park movie I walk out saying "why haven't they learned their lesson yet?" because it's like.. Why haven't they? They're on what.. The sixth? Seventh? Movie.. And they still don't get that dinosaurs are dangerous? Idk it just doesn't make much sense to me but I'm just a layperson so what do I know.
---

Keebs05 posted...

Firstly, let me LOL at people complaining about the concept of the fifth installment of a franchise based on hundreds of extinct animals being magically cloned.

This is actually a hope of science, to revive dead species, so idk what your problem is.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Keebs05 posted...

Firstly, let me LOL at people complaining about the concept of the fifth installment of a franchise based on hundreds of extinct animals being magically cloned.

This is actually a hope of science, to revive dead species, so idk what your problem is.

No problem at all. Actual science has already said that cloning dinosaurs in the way that it depicted in the movies is not possible. I just think it's funny that people are getting their panties in a wad over the believability of "weaponizing" dinosaurs while completely believing that dinosaurs can be cloned despite evidence to the contrary.
---

Keebs05 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Keebs05 posted...

Firstly, let me LOL at people complaining about the concept of the fifth installment of a franchise based on hundreds of extinct animals being magically cloned.

This is actually a hope of science, to revive dead species, so idk what your problem is.

No problem at all. Actual science has already said that cloning dinosaurs in the way that it depicted in the movies is not possible. I just think it's funny that people are getting their panties in a wad over the believability of "weaponizing" dinosaurs while completely believing that dinosaurs can be cloned despite evidence to the contrary.

Suspension of disbelief.

In short, people will believe the impossible, but not the improbable.

"Weaponizing Dinosaurs" doesn't even make sense in Jurassic Worlds own narrative, which is a world with modern military technology, but for some reason the narrative states it's something that's highly desirable for the people within it.
---

this isn't the first time that the idea of weaponizing dinosaurs came around...

do a search on "Dino Riders"
---

Idk man, I wouldn't mind having that Endoraptor as a guard dog.
---

It's the same concept of computers taking over Terminator style or Planet of the apes for biological stuff. There are plenty of games and books with similar concepts to this.

Something we make we lose control of. I don't know why they chose to do it twice though, not typically how this plays out.

This storyline only makes sense if it were taking place during a pre-nuclear era. Now everything is just settled with missiles and bombs.
---

Jen0125 posted...

Every time I see a Jurassic Park movie I walk out saying "why haven't they learned their lesson yet?" because it's like.. Why haven't they? They're on what.. The sixth? Seventh? Movie.. And they still don't get that dinosaurs are dangerous? Idk it just doesn't make much sense to me but I'm just a layperson so what do I know.

and yet you keep seeing them.

Jen0125 posted...

"why haven't they learned their lesson yet?"

---

Its a movie with dinosaurs in the modern era, logic isnt a high priority.
---

It's a dumb idea... and not for anything in the movie.

We could have weaponized EAGLES right now, Torpedo Dolphins, Mine Turtles... we don't NEED dinosaurs
---

Technology is cool and all but in all seriousness, it's making us lazy and ignorant.
---

Lokarin posted...

We could have weaponized EAGLES right now

I believe it was the Danish military that tried training eagles to take down unauthorized drones that were flying where they shouldn't be. They were actually very good at it, since attacking prey from above is kind of what they do. Calling that "weaponized" is a bit of a stretch, but it's sort of an example.
---

Keebs05 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Keebs05 posted...

Firstly, let me LOL at people complaining about the concept of the fifth installment of a franchise based on hundreds of extinct animals being magically cloned.

This is actually a hope of science, to revive dead species, so idk what your problem is.

No problem at all. Actual science has already said that cloning dinosaurs in the way that it depicted in the movies is not possible. I just think it's funny that people are getting their panties in a wad over the believability of "weaponizing" dinosaurs while completely believing that dinosaurs can be cloned despite evidence to the contrary.

You're confusing setting consistency and realism with "real-world realism". This is something a ton of people seem to do; it comes up all the time. People can't seem to separate the two. Someone complains about fresh food in Draugr tombs in Skyrim, and people laugh "you can shoot magical fire out of your hands at dragons flying above you, but you draw the line at fresh food in tombs?".

In the Jurassic Park universe, the ability to resurrect dinosaurs isn't magic. This science works.They have a plausible (if now disproven) explanation for it.

However, is there anything in the Jurassic Park universe that explains why dinosaurs would be effective if weaponized? Not that I know of, they seem to be treated mostly as animals, rather than creatures with teeth that can tear through tanks, with skin that can handle how powered gun shots. Same reason no one weaponizes elephants or lions. It's just not worth the time or resource investment. That's why complaining about how "unrealistic" it is makes sense.

Similarly, to go back to the Skyrim example. Dragons and magic are things that 100% exist within the Elder Scrolls setting. They're documented, they're studied within the setting, there are lore explanations. But there's no explanation for fresh food in the tombs, it's just... there. So we just assume that's a design oversight. That oversight could be fixed if they would add a story saying that Draugr like to leave their tombs to raid farmlands because they believe they still need to eat. Then fresh food in tombs wouldn't be a problem, it would be realistic within the setting.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

and yet you keep seeing them.

Hell yeah I do. They're entertaining. And now they have Chris Pratt and he's hot af
---

If you want weaponized dinosaurs, then maybe the way to go is like how Horizon Zero Dawn did it.

i.e. robots shaped like dinos.

...Well, they could still be defeated with a bow though.
.
---

Keebs05 posted...

No problem at all. Actual science has already said that cloning dinosaurs in the way that it depicted in the movies is not possible. I just think it's funny that people are getting their panties in a wad over the believability of "weaponizing" dinosaurs while completely believing that dinosaurs can be cloned despite evidence to the contrary.

I don't think actual science can talk.
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvpYbq7m7SE" data-time="
---

Jen0125 posted...

Every time I see a Jurassic Park movie I walk out saying "why haven't they learned their lesson yet?" because it's like.. Why haven't they? They're on what.. The sixth? Seventh? Movie.. And they still don't get that dinosaurs are dangerous? Idk it just doesn't make much sense to me but I'm just a layperson so what do I know.

It's because of $$$

Had the first movie been a stand-alone with no sequels, they would not have made as much money.

Also, the ONLY way you can do Jurassic Park while it still makes sense, is to play either Operation Genesis or Evolution.

They have nothing to do with the movies plots, since they are park building sims.

TheWorstPoster posted...

Jen0125 posted...

Every time I see a Jurassic Park movie I walk out saying "why haven't they learned their lesson yet?" because it's like.. Why haven't they? They're on what.. The sixth? Seventh? Movie.. And they still don't get that dinosaurs are dangerous? Idk it just doesn't make much sense to me but I'm just a layperson so what do I know.

It's because of $$$

Had the first movie been a stand-alone with no sequels, they would not have made as much money.

i'm not talking about the actual movies. i know why they make the movies. i'm talking about the people in the movie universe.
---

idk, might be more cost effective to use dinos than soldiers.
---

Zeus posted...

idk, might be more cost effective to use dinos than soldiers.

The movie estimates 1 weaponized dinosaur is like 30 million, which is honestly a gross under valuing of the dinosaurs even for non weaponized versions, but even if that was the case it wouldn't make them more cost effective than soldiers.
---

I haven't seen the second JW movie, but I just assumed the guy who wanted them in the first one was nuts.
---

Gynthaeres posted...

Same reason no one weaponizes elephants or lions. It's just not worth the time or resource investment.

I assume that you mean no one weaponizes elephants anymore.
---

But what if...we fill those dinos with bombs and drop them from planes?
---

dainkinkaide posted...

Gynthaeres posted...

Same reason no one weaponizes elephants or lions. It's just not worth the time or resource investment.

I assume that you mean no one weaponizes elephants anymore.

Not even joking, Fallen Kingdom uses elephants as a point of comparison to try and justify why weaponized Dinosaurs isn't stupid, without mentioning the reason people stopped using elephants, that is, they have military vehicles and tanks which are just better in every way.
---

The writers just kind of wanted weaponized dinosaurs in the movies and didn't care if it made sense.

They keep talking about the ethical implications of using dinosaurs for combat but don't talk about how ineffective and impractical it is.

But the ethics discussion has no weight since what they claim is unethical makes no sense to be doing in the first place.
---

Zeus posted...

idk, might be more cost effective to use dinos than soldiers.

Obligate carnivores are pretty expensive to feed, to say nothing of what's involved in keeping them trained and contained.
---

ForteEXE3850 posted...

The writers just kind of wanted weaponized dinosaurs in the movies and didn't care if it made sense.

They keep talking about the ethical implications of using dinosaurs for combat but don't talk about how ineffective and impractical it is.

But the ethics discussion has no weight since what they claim is unethical makes no sense to be doing in the first place.

How would it even be unethical anyway since they're all dead and just cloned from DNA?
---

Revelation34 posted...

ForteEXE3850 posted...

The writers just kind of wanted weaponized dinosaurs in the movies and didn't care if it made sense.

They keep talking about the ethical implications of using dinosaurs for combat but don't talk about how ineffective and impractical it is.

But the ethics discussion has no weight since what they claim is unethical makes no sense to be doing in the first place.

How would it even be unethical anyway since they're all dead and just cloned from DNA?

Clones are no less alive than the original organisms would be. There's no reason to consider them distinct from naturally-generated animals for ethical purposes.
---

They're making robots and shit that look/run like quadrapeds for the military. Dinos don't seem that far-fetched. Though I could see trikes/stegos/galimimus being used as pack animals to get goods over rough terrain way before I could see like a Dino Delta Force made of raptors.
---

adjl posted...

Clones are no less alive than the original organisms would be. There's no reason to consider them distinct from naturally-generated animals for ethical purposes.

Clones are clones and not a real thing. It wouldn't matter what people do to them. If we could harvest organs from clones I would support it 100%.
---

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Clones are no less alive than the original organisms would be. There's no reason to consider them distinct from naturally-generated animals for ethical purposes.

Clones are clones and not a real thing. It wouldn't matter what people do to them. If we could harvest organs from clones I would support it 100%.

Dolly argues otherwise
---

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Clones are no less alive than the original organisms would be. There's no reason to consider them distinct from naturally-generated animals for ethical purposes.

Clones are clones and not a real thing. It wouldn't matter what people do to them. If we could harvest organs from clones I would support it 100%.

In the (extremely unlikely) hypothetical event that a human was born with exactly the same DNA sequence as another human, should that human be deprived of any sort of rights because they aren't a real thing? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. Being genetically identical does not make clones any less of an individual organism.
---

adjl posted...

Revelation34 posted...

adjl posted...

Clones are no less alive than the original organisms would be. There's no reason to consider them distinct from naturally-generated animals for ethical purposes.

Clones are clones and not a real thing. It wouldn't matter what people do to them. If we could harvest organs from clones I would support it 100%.

In the (extremely unlikely) hypothetical event that a human was born with exactly the same DNA sequence as another human, should that human be deprived of any sort of rights because they aren't a real thing? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. Being genetically identical does not make clones any less of an individual organism.

Regardless, the point of view the movies push is obviously that the dinosaurs are alive and should be treated with respect, even if they were brought to life by humans and keep killing humans because things keep going wrong.
---

JoanOfArcade posted...

T Rex with rockets on its back got brought down by turok with a bow lol

Lmao. Beat me.
---

adjl posted...

In the (extremely unlikely) hypothetical event that a human was born with exactly the same DNA sequence as another human, should that human be deprived of any sort of rights because they aren't a real thing? Of course not. Don't be ridiculous. Being genetically identical does not make clones any less of an individual organism.

More like impossible. Also that would still be an actual human anyway. A clone is just a clone.
---

TigerTycoon posted...

Not even joking, Fallen Kingdom uses elephants as a point of comparison to try and justify why weaponized Dinosaurs isn't stupid, without mentioning the reason people stopped using elephants, that is, they have military vehicles and tanks which are just better in every way.

Yeah, it would be silly to go through all the hassle of strapping a cannon to an elephant when you can just buy a tank.

...and strap an elephant to it.
---

Honestly, if not for the scarcity and protected status of elephants (and also tanks relative to other vehicles), you'd probably find someone who would strap an elephant to a tank.

You know, like how people strap a deer to their SUV.

...I wonder if anyone has ever hunted a deer and strapped it to a tank.
.
---

Revelation34 posted...

More like impossible

Astronomically improbable, yes. Impossible? No.

Revelation34 posted...

Also that would still be an actual human anyway. A clone is just a clone.

How does a clone differ from an organism that's genetically identical to another, extant organism? If you were to hypothetically find an animal species that reproduced asexually and therefore had offspring that were genetically identical to it, would those offspring not be considered individual organisms afforded the same ethical consideration as sexual offspring?
---

adjl posted...

Astronomically improbable, yes. Impossible? No.

Nah impossible.

adjl posted...

How does a clone differ from an organism that's genetically identical to another, extant organism? If you were to hypothetically find an animal species that reproduced asexually and therefore had offspring that were genetically identical to it, would those offspring not be considered individual organisms afforded the same ethical consideration as sexual offspring?

"Also that would still be an actual human anyway. A clone is just a clone."
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nah impossible.

What do you believe makes it impossible? I'll fully admit that it's so improbable that there's no reason to suspect that it might ever happen, but that's very different from truly being impossible.

Revelation34 posted...

"Also that would still be an actual human anyway. A clone is just a clone."

A tautology is not a convincing argument. You were asked two questions there, and you failed to answer either.
---

adjl posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Nah impossible.

What do you believe makes it impossible? I'll fully admit that it's so improbable that there's no reason to suspect that it might ever happen, but that's very different from truly being impossible.

Revelation34 posted...

"Also that would still be an actual human anyway. A clone is just a clone."

A tautology is not a convincing argument. You were asked two questions there, and you failed to answer either.

That's how DNA works. I already answered both.
---

So no one here sees the value of a clone army that can be easily replenished, obeys your every command, requires no training, can be genetically altered to any combat zone, and zero human friendly casualties? I guess just me then : /
---

yutterh posted...

So no one here sees the value of a clone army that can be easily replenished, obeys your every command, requires no training, can be genetically altered to any combat zone, and zero human friendly casualties? I guess just me then : /

You know it's not just stick some DNA in a machine and out pops an adult dinosaur, right?

You've got to raise and feed those dinoclones until they reach adulthood. Tyrannosaurs, for instance, took about 20 years to reach sexual maturity and lived for up to 28 years. That's just not cost effective.
---

dainkinkaide posted...

yutterh posted...

So no one here sees the value of a clone army that can be easily replenished, obeys your every command, requires no training, can be genetically altered to any combat zone, and zero human friendly casualties? I guess just me then : /

You know it's not just stick some DNA in a machine and out pops an adult dinosaur, right?

You've got to raise and feed those dinoclones until they reach adulthood. Tyrannosaurs, for instance, took about 20 years to reach sexual maturity and lived for up to 28 years. That's just not cost effective.

That's where the whole genetically modified bit comes into play. Yeah it's not stick some DNA in a machine but neither is building a tank or recruiting trained soldiers. Every thing takes time. Hell the dinos feed themselves on missions by eating their prey. Yeah the science isn't complete yet but what I said is basically what they are trying to reach and obtain. Cause once they perfect it and can grow a controlled indominousrex in 3 years. That's how long it took it to reach its adult hood. So no, the 20 years won't be a issue.
---