Current Events > How did Jurassic Park manage to get worse with each film...

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Hash-Brown 04/27/17 11:56:15 PM #101:	Deadpool_18 posted... Hash-Brown posted... Deadpool_18 posted... I like how you guys are critiquing the first movie as if it wasn't based on an already tried and true classic novel. The movie and book are fairly different besides the main premise. Besides two deaths, there really aren't many distinguishing differences. Yeah there is. Only one TRex, characters that die, characters that don't die, the raptors getting off the island, the whole river ride with Grant and the kids. There is a lot of stuff different. --- http://i.imgur.com/wuFm3hd.jpg - My Hash Brownies. http://i.imgur.com/mQ7syoS.gif http://i.imgur.com/lY3erBp.jpg <cite>Hash-Brown posted [p:878051841] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>I like how you guys are critiquing the first movie as if it wasn't based on an already tried and true classic novel. </quote> The movie and book are fairly different besides the main premise.</quote> Besides two deaths, there really aren't many distinguishing differences.</quote> Yeah there is. Only one TRex, characters that die, characters that don't die, the raptors getting off the island, the whole river ride with Grant and the kids. There is a lot of stuff different.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Skye Reynolds 04/28/17 12:00:38 AM #102:	Hash-Brown posted... Skye Reynolds posted... Hash-Brown posted... In the end of JW there was a scene kind of like that. ~~The original Rex smashes the Indominus right through a skeleton of one during the fight.~~ knocking over a skeleton =/= defeating an opponent ~~She defeated an evil bigger opponent and learned the power of friendship.~~ You can't beat that. The friendship part is hokey. I did like the fight though. I still think there needs to be a film where a ~~tyrannosaurus defeats a spinosaurus in combat.~~ <cite>Skye Reynolds posted [p:878052115] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Skye Reynolds posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote>In the end of JW there was a scene kind of like that. The original Rex smashes the Indominus right through a skeleton of one during the fight.</quote> knocking over a skeleton =/= defeating an opponent</quote> She defeated an evil bigger opponent and learned the power of friendship. You can't beat that.</quote> The friendship part is hokey. I did like the fight though. I still think there needs to be a film where a tyrannosaurus defeats a spinosaurus in combat.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 04/28/17 12:01:43 AM #103:	You didn't even find out any the only two significant deaths until the end of the book. One of which wasn't even touched upon. The river raft ride would have been cool in the movie, but wasn't crucial to the story at all. It was the same end result with minor tweaks and changes. --- Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:878052189] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote>You didn't even find out any the only two significant deaths until the end of the book. One of which wasn't even touched upon. The river raft ride would have been cool in the movie, but wasn't crucial to the story at all. It was the same end result with minor tweaks and changes.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hash-Brown 04/28/17 12:05:55 AM #104:	Deadpool_18 posted... You didn't even find out any the only two significant deaths until the end of the book. One of which wasn't even touched upon. The river raft ride would have been cool in the movie, but wasn't crucial to the story at all. What are you talking about? ~~Genarro and Muldoon survive in the book, Wu and Hammond die, Malcolm too originally. Not to mention the character of Ed Regis is not in the movie.~~ --- http://i.imgur.com/wuFm3hd.jpg - My Hash Brownies. http://i.imgur.com/mQ7syoS.gif http://i.imgur.com/lY3erBp.jpg <cite>Hash-Brown posted [p:878052441] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>You didn't even find out any the only two significant deaths until the end of the book. One of which wasn't even touched upon. The river raft ride would have been cool in the movie, but wasn't crucial to the story at all.</quote> What are you talking about? Genarro and Muldoon survive in the book, Wu and Hammond die, Malcolm too originally. Not to mention the character of Ed Regis is not in the movie.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Skye Reynolds 04/28/17 12:11:50 AM #105:	Hash-Brown posted... Not to mention the character of Ed Regis is not in the movie. You know, it surprises me when characters who don't make it into the movies are left out of the movie sequels. <cite>Skye Reynolds posted [p:878052780] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote>Not to mention the character of Ed Regis is not in the movie.</quote> You know, it surprises me when characters who don't make it into the movies are left out of the movie sequels.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Deadpool_18 04/28/17 12:12:38 AM #106:	The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same. --- Jet fuel can't melt steel beams. <cite>Deadpool_18 posted [p:878052812] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote>The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hash-Brown 04/28/17 12:18:11 AM #107:	Deadpool_18 posted... The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same. Yeah, but there was a lot more in depth stuff about Chaos Theory between Malcolm and Hammond. Then there was the vet who was made into a random nobody. And Hammond was an actual asshole in the book. --- http://i.imgur.com/wuFm3hd.jpg - My Hash Brownies. http://i.imgur.com/mQ7syoS.gif http://i.imgur.com/lY3erBp.jpg <cite>Hash-Brown posted [p:878053138] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same.</quote> Yeah, but there was a lot more in depth stuff about Chaos Theory between Malcolm and Hammond. Then there was the vet who was made into a random nobody. And Hammond was an actual asshole in the book.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 04/28/17 1:17:42 AM #108:	Hash-Brown posted... Deadpool_18 posted... The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same. Yeah, but there was a lot more in depth stuff about Chaos Theory between Malcolm and Hammond. Then there was the vet who was made into a random nobody. And Hammond was an actual asshole in the book. Of course, a book can be 500+ pages and a film is 2 hours, so it's understandable that not everything will be exactly the same. The overall theme and ideas are the same. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:878055921] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same.</quote> Yeah, but there was a lot more in depth stuff about Chaos Theory between Malcolm and Hammond. Then there was the vet who was made into a random nobody. And Hammond was an actual asshole in the book.</quote> Of course, a book can be 500+ pages and a film is 2 hours, so it's understandable that not everything will be exactly the same. The overall theme and ideas are the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hash-Brown 04/28/17 1:28:58 AM #109:	Dash_Harber posted... Hash-Brown posted... Deadpool_18 posted... The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same. Yeah, but there was a lot more in depth stuff about Chaos Theory between Malcolm and Hammond. Then there was the vet who was made into a random nobody. And Hammond was an actual asshole in the book. Of course, a book can be 500+ pages and a film is 2 hours, so it's understandable that not everything will be exactly the same. The overall theme and ideas are the same. Like I said, the main premise was the same but there were a lot of changes to characters and story arcs. --- http://i.imgur.com/wuFm3hd.jpg - My Hash Brownies. http://i.imgur.com/mQ7syoS.gif http://i.imgur.com/lY3erBp.jpg <cite>Hash-Brown posted [p:878056368] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Deadpool_18 posted...</cite> <quote>The point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme and resolution of the story remained the same. The deaths you're referring to didn't happen or weren't revealed until the end of the book, which changed nothing about the majority of the story. Hammond was still around bitching and Malcolm was still injured on a table for the entirety. The key parts of the book were still the same.</quote> Yeah, but there was a lot more in depth stuff about Chaos Theory between Malcolm and Hammond. Then there was the vet who was made into a random nobody. And Hammond was an actual asshole in the book.</quote> Of course, a book can be 500+ pages and a film is 2 hours, so it's understandable that not everything will be exactly the same. The overall theme and ideas are the same.</quote> Like I said, the main premise was the same but there were a lot of changes to characters and story arcs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/28/17 5:14:19 PM #110:	Dash_Harber posted... thronedfire2 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Dash_Harber posted... Dr. Grant goes back for money, Ian goes back because his lover refuses to listen to him and he is worried about her. I mean, as far as believable motives go, the latter is way more believable than Dr. "I'm so moral" Grant saying "Man, I could use some extra money, I'm going to go back to the place that caused my PTSD and ruined my life for some mad profits!". Even worse, they aren't even going to the island that Dr. Grant was on, making him literally useless as a guide. Oh, and he doesn't realize they want to touch down, despite being surrounded by armed mercenaries and on a helicopter full of weapons. Also, Ian had nothing to do with the movie going to s*. He releases the dinosaurs from their pens and kills dozens. He's constantly going on about how wrong it is to mess with nature because it's dangerous, but he's the reason why it's dangerous. I don't even know why he wanted to save the baby t-rex so bad because according to him in the first one, nature selected them for extinction. Now he wants to save the dinosaurs and see them live in the wild? The whole holistic message of that movie was just annoying whereas Grant doing shit for money, I mean that's basically why Sam Neill is in the movie too so I thought that was a funny little wink. You don't even know which character you're talking about Like he didn't endorse every second of it lol. What difference does it make? <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878095946] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thronedfire2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote> Dr. Grant goes back for money, Ian goes back because his lover refuses to listen to him and he is worried about her. I mean, as far as believable motives go, the latter is way more believable than Dr. "I'm so moral" Grant saying "Man, I could use some extra money, I'm going to go back to the place that caused my PTSD and ruined my life for some mad profits!". Even worse, they aren't even going to the island that Dr. Grant was on, making him literally useless as a guide. Oh, and he doesn't realize they want to touch down, despite being surrounded by armed mercenaries and on a helicopter full of weapons. Also, Ian had nothing to do with the movie going to s*. </quote> He releases the dinosaurs from their pens and kills dozens. He's constantly going on about how wrong it is to mess with nature because it's dangerous, but he's the reason why it's dangerous. I don't even know why he wanted to save the baby t-rex so bad because according to him in the first one, nature selected them for extinction. Now he wants to save the dinosaurs and see them live in the wild? The whole holistic message of that movie was just annoying whereas Grant doing shit for money, I mean that's basically why Sam Neill is in the movie too so I thought that was a funny little wink.</quote> You don't even know which character you're talking about</quote></quote> Like he didn't endorse every second of it lol. What difference does it make?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 04/28/17 7:03:00 PM #111:	wah_wah_wah posted... Dash_Harber posted... thronedfire2 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Dash_Harber posted... Dr. Grant goes back for money, Ian goes back because his lover refuses to listen to him and he is worried about her. I mean, as far as believable motives go, the latter is way more believable than Dr. "I'm so moral" Grant saying "Man, I could use some extra money, I'm going to go back to the place that caused my PTSD and ruined my life for some mad profits!". Even worse, they aren't even going to the island that Dr. Grant was on, making him literally useless as a guide. Oh, and he doesn't realize they want to touch down, despite being surrounded by armed mercenaries and on a helicopter full of weapons. Also, Ian had nothing to do with the movie going to s*. He releases the dinosaurs from their pens and kills dozens. He's constantly going on about how wrong it is to mess with nature because it's dangerous, but he's the reason why it's dangerous. I don't even know why he wanted to save the baby t-rex so bad because according to him in the first one, nature selected them for extinction. Now he wants to save the dinosaurs and see them live in the wild? The whole holistic message of that movie was just annoying whereas Grant doing shit for money, I mean that's basically why Sam Neill is in the movie too so I thought that was a funny little wink. You don't even know which character you're talking about Like he didn't endorse every second of it lol. What difference does it make? He didn't endorse anything. Jesus Christ, you are clearly trolling at this point. That, or you comically mixed up the movies and now are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:878102130] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thronedfire2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote> Dr. Grant goes back for money, Ian goes back because his lover refuses to listen to him and he is worried about her. I mean, as far as believable motives go, the latter is way more believable than Dr. "I'm so moral" Grant saying "Man, I could use some extra money, I'm going to go back to the place that caused my PTSD and ruined my life for some mad profits!". Even worse, they aren't even going to the island that Dr. Grant was on, making him literally useless as a guide. Oh, and he doesn't realize they want to touch down, despite being surrounded by armed mercenaries and on a helicopter full of weapons. Also, Ian had nothing to do with the movie going to s*. </quote> He releases the dinosaurs from their pens and kills dozens. He's constantly going on about how wrong it is to mess with nature because it's dangerous, but he's the reason why it's dangerous. I don't even know why he wanted to save the baby t-rex so bad because according to him in the first one, nature selected them for extinction. Now he wants to save the dinosaurs and see them live in the wild? The whole holistic message of that movie was just annoying whereas Grant doing shit for money, I mean that's basically why Sam Neill is in the movie too so I thought that was a funny little wink.</quote> You don't even know which character you're talking about</quote></quote> Like he didn't endorse every second of it lol. What difference does it make?</quote> He didn't endorse anything. Jesus Christ, you are clearly trolling at this point. That, or you comically mixed up the movies and now are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/28/17 7:36:59 PM #112:	Dash_Harber posted... He didn't endorse anything. Jesus Christ, you are clearly trolling at this point. That, or you comically mixed up the movies and now are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it. I don't even understand your point other than to repeatedly launch awkward ad hominems rather than argue my points. Where is the scene where Malcom refuses to go along with his girlfriend and the rest of the group that is persistently on this "don't mess with nature" kick? Where's that scene, Dash? There's no scene of the sort. He goes along with it. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878104064] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't endorse anything. Jesus Christ, you are clearly trolling at this point. That, or you comically mixed up the movies and now are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it. </quote> I don't even understand your point other than to repeatedly launch awkward ad hominems rather than argue my points. Where is the scene where Malcom refuses to go along with his girlfriend and the rest of the group that is persistently on this "don't mess with nature" kick? Where's that scene, Dash? There's no scene of the sort. He goes along with it. Every. Step. Of. The. Way.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 04/28/17 8:00:36 PM #113:	wah_wah_wah posted... Dash_Harber posted... He didn't endorse anything. Jesus Christ, you are clearly trolling at this point. That, or you comically mixed up the movies and now are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it. I don't even understand your point other than to repeatedly launch awkward ad hominems rather than argue my points. Where is the scene where Malcom refuses to go along with his girlfriend and the rest of the group that is persistently on this "don't mess with nature" kick? Where's that scene, Dash? There's no scene of the sort. He goes along with it. Every. Step. Of. The. Way. Because he wants to protect his girlfriend and then realizes his daughter stowed away? He tries to convince her not to go. Where is the scene where he lets the animals out of the cage? It's not an ad hominem if you demonstrated that you don't actually know what character you are talking about. You stated he literally opened the cages and directly killed people with that action. You are wrong. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:878105539] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote>He didn't endorse anything. Jesus Christ, you are clearly trolling at this point. That, or you comically mixed up the movies and now are trying to weasel your way out of admitting it. </quote> I don't even understand your point other than to repeatedly launch awkward ad hominems rather than argue my points. Where is the scene where Malcom refuses to go along with his girlfriend and the rest of the group that is persistently on this "don't mess with nature" kick? Where's that scene, Dash? There's no scene of the sort. He goes along with it. Every. Step. Of. The. Way.</quote> Because he wants to protect his girlfriend and then realizes his daughter stowed away? He tries to convince her not to go. Where is the scene where he lets the animals out of the cage? It's not an ad hominem if you demonstrated that you don't actually know what character you are talking about. You stated he literally opened the cages and directly killed people with that action. You are wrong.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/29/17 8:22:45 AM #114:	Dash_Harber posted... Because he wants to protect his girlfriend and then realizes his daughter stowed away? He tries to convince her not to go. That's when you get your daughter out of there and then break up with your girlfriend. Besides token protests he stays with her even though she pretty much murders all of those people by releasing the dinosaurs from their pens. Dash_Harber posted... Where is the scene where he lets the animals out of the cage? You're like one of those people that's like, "Hitler never killed any Jews!" <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878132020] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote> Because he wants to protect his girlfriend and then realizes his daughter stowed away? He tries to convince her not to go.</quote> That's when you get your daughter out of there and then break up with your girlfriend. Besides token protests he stays with her even though she pretty much murders all of those people by releasing the dinosaurs from their pens. <cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote> Where is the scene where he lets the animals out of the cage? </quote> You're like one of those people that's like, "Hitler never killed any Jews!"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
masterpug53 04/29/17 8:55:12 AM #115:	Hash-Brown posted... ~~She defeated an evil bigger opponent and learned the power of friendship.~~ You can't beat that. My Little Raptor: Friendship is Delicious Humans --- Simple questions deserve long-winded answers that no one will bother to read. <cite>masterpug53 posted [p:878132749] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Hash-Brown posted...</cite> <quote>She defeated an evil bigger opponent and learned the power of friendship. You can't beat that.</quote> My Little Raptor: Friendship is Delicious Humans</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
thronedfire2 04/29/17 10:00:18 AM #116:	wah_wah_wah posted... Dash_Harber posted... thronedfire2 posted... wah_wah_wah posted... Dash_Harber posted... Dr. Grant goes back for money, Ian goes back because his lover refuses to listen to him and he is worried about her. I mean, as far as believable motives go, the latter is way more believable than Dr. "I'm so moral" Grant saying "Man, I could use some extra money, I'm going to go back to the place that caused my PTSD and ruined my life for some mad profits!". Even worse, they aren't even going to the island that Dr. Grant was on, making him literally useless as a guide. Oh, and he doesn't realize they want to touch down, despite being surrounded by armed mercenaries and on a helicopter full of weapons. Also, Ian had nothing to do with the movie going to s**. He releases the dinosaurs from their pens and kills dozens. He's constantly going on about how wrong it is to mess with nature because it's dangerous, but he's the reason why it's dangerous. I don't even know why he wanted to save the baby t-rex so bad because according to him in the first one, nature selected them for extinction. Now he wants to save the dinosaurs and see them live in the wild? The whole holistic message of that movie was just annoying whereas Grant doing shit for money, I mean that's basically why Sam Neill is in the movie too so I thought that was a funny little wink. You don't even know which character you're talking about Like he didn't endorse every second of it lol. What difference does it make? Isn't one of his most well known lines from that movie 'this is a very bad idea'? I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point so I'm it gonna bother with more than this --- I could see you, but I couldn't hear you You were holding your hat in the breeze Turning away from me In this moment you were stolen...* <cite>thronedfire2 posted [p:878134685] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>thronedfire2 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote> Dr. Grant goes back for money, Ian goes back because his lover refuses to listen to him and he is worried about her. I mean, as far as believable motives go, the latter is way more believable than Dr. "I'm so moral" Grant saying "Man, I could use some extra money, I'm going to go back to the place that caused my PTSD and ruined my life for some mad profits!". Even worse, they aren't even going to the island that Dr. Grant was on, making him literally useless as a guide. Oh, and he doesn't realize they want to touch down, despite being surrounded by armed mercenaries and on a helicopter full of weapons. Also, Ian had nothing to do with the movie going to s***. </quote> He releases the dinosaurs from their pens and kills dozens. He's constantly going on about how wrong it is to mess with nature because it's dangerous, but he's the reason why it's dangerous. I don't even know why he wanted to save the baby t-rex so bad because according to him in the first one, nature selected them for extinction. Now he wants to save the dinosaurs and see them live in the wild? The whole holistic message of that movie was just annoying whereas Grant doing shit for money, I mean that's basically why Sam Neill is in the movie too so I thought that was a funny little wink.</quote> You don't even know which character you're talking about</quote></quote> Like he didn't endorse every second of it lol. What difference does it make?</quote> Isn't one of his most well known lines from that movie 'this is a very bad idea'? I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point so I'm it gonna bother with more than this</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/29/17 10:29:15 AM #117:	thronedfire2 posted... Isn't one of his most well known lines from that movie 'this is a very bad idea'? I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point so I'm it gonna bother with more than this So saying "This is a very bad idea" and then completely going along with it while doing absolutely nothing to stop it makes it OK. I can see why you won't bother with it because you're in denial that Malcom is not part of the whole thing. And it's idiotic. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878135697] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>thronedfire2 posted...</cite> <quote> Isn't one of his most well known lines from that movie 'this is a very bad idea'? I'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point so I'm it gonna bother with more than this </quote> So saying "This is a very bad idea" and then completely going along with it while doing absolutely nothing to stop it makes it OK. I can see why you won't bother with it because you're in denial that Malcom is not part of the whole thing. And it's idiotic.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 04/29/17 6:55:23 PM #118:	wah_wah_wah posted... You're like one of those people that's like, "Hitler never killed any Jews!" Really? Complain about ad hominem and then try the old Nazi comparison fallacy? Hitler gave orders and preached murder, Ian pointed out had bad their plan was. Anyway, trying to compare anyone to Nazis is the signal that your argument has failed and you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong, so I win. I'm done with you. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:878159975] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> You're like one of those people that's like, "Hitler never killed any Jews!"</quote> Really? Complain about ad hominem and then try the old Nazi comparison fallacy? Hitler gave orders and preached murder, Ian pointed out had bad their plan was. Anyway, trying to compare anyone to Nazis is the signal that your argument has failed and you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong, so I win. I'm done with you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/29/17 11:54:55 PM #119:	Dash_Harber posted... Really? Complain about ad hominem and then try the old Nazi comparison fallacy? Hitler gave orders and preached murder, Ian pointed out had bad their plan was. I guess it isn't a perfect analogy. Hitler at least didn't directly help out his henchmen survive through their murderous goals. Dash_Harber posted... Anyway, trying to compare anyone to Nazis is the signal that your argument has failed and you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong, so I win. I'm done with you. Yeah notice you're the one that has to declare you won, and I'm the one open to new arguments. That shows the shittiness of your character more than anything I could ever point out. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878174685] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote>Really? Complain about ad hominem and then try the old Nazi comparison fallacy? Hitler gave orders and preached murder, Ian pointed out had bad their plan was. </quote> I guess it isn't a perfect analogy. Hitler at least didn't directly help out his henchmen survive through their murderous goals. <cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote>Anyway, trying to compare anyone to Nazis is the signal that your argument has failed and you don't have the guts to admit you were wrong, so I win. I'm done with you. </quote> Yeah notice you're the one that has to declare you won, and I'm the one open to new arguments. That shows the shittiness of your character more than anything I could ever point out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
iPhone_7 04/29/17 11:58:52 PM #120:	Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM --- Sig User Logic http://i.imgur.com/lA5fm7w.jpg <cite>iPhone_7 posted [p:878174831] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote>Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wedge Antilles 04/30/17 12:00:38 AM #121:	I really liked 2 myself, but that may be because Ian Malcolm was my favourite character in #1 and I loved seeing him get the spotlight. --- I used the knife. I saved a child. I won a war. God forgive me. <cite>Wedge Antilles posted [p:878174903] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote>I really liked 2 myself, but that may be because Ian Malcolm was my favourite character in #1 and I loved seeing him get the spotlight.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/30/17 12:00:44 AM #122:	iPhone_7 posted... Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM lol not that scene certainly. I think the original JP is overrated but try making that exact comment and post the t-rex escape scene <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878174908] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM</quote> lol not that scene certainly. I think the original JP is overrated but try making that exact comment and post the t-rex escape scene</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MakoReizei 04/30/17 12:34:34 AM #123:	iPhone_7 posted... Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM what's so bad about that scene? --- http://i.imgur.com/K9jfKpU.png <cite>MakoReizei posted [p:878176423] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM</quote> what's so bad about that scene?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 04/30/17 12:46:09 AM #124:	wah_wah_wah posted... Yeah notice you're the one that has to declare you won, and I'm the one open to new arguments. That shows the shittiness of your character more than anything I could ever point out. You said Ian released the dinosaurs. We pointed out you were wrong. You changed your answer, saying that he "practically" released them by telling people too. We pointed out you were wrong because he never encouraged that and the closest behavior was telling everyone how bad of an idea it was. You basically called me a holocaust denier in response. There is nowhere to go after that. I have nothing else to say. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:878176966] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> Yeah notice you're the one that has to declare you won, and I'm the one open to new arguments. That shows the shittiness of your character more than anything I could ever point out.</quote> You said Ian released the dinosaurs. We pointed out you were wrong. You changed your answer, saying that he "practically" released them by telling people too. We pointed out you were wrong because he never encouraged that and the closest behavior was telling everyone how bad of an idea it was. You basically called me a holocaust denier in response. There is nowhere to go after that. I have nothing else to say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/30/17 6:41:17 AM #125:	Dash_Harber posted... You said Ian released the dinosaurs. We pointed out you were wrong. You changed your answer, saying that he "practically" released them by telling people too. We pointed out you were wrong because he never encouraged that and the closest behavior was telling everyone how bad of an idea it was. You basically called me a holocaust denier in response. You're not getting that getting that small detail wrong doesn't really make him a much better person at all. And even in your opinion that it does, that doesn't mean we don't spend the rest of the movie with the character that does - that Ian doesn't stand by that character 100%. Saying "This is a bad idea" isn't the same thing as saying "You're a monster who endangered my child and I'm breaking up with you" <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878186334] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote>You said Ian released the dinosaurs. We pointed out you were wrong. You changed your answer, saying that he "practically" released them by telling people too. We pointed out you were wrong because he never encouraged that and the closest behavior was telling everyone how bad of an idea it was. You basically called me a holocaust denier in response. </quote> You're not getting that getting that small detail wrong doesn't really make him a much better person at all. And even in your opinion that it does, that doesn't mean we don't spend the rest of the movie with the character that does - that Ian doesn't stand by that character 100%. Saying "This is a bad idea" isn't the same thing as saying "You're a monster who endangered my child and I'm breaking up with you"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
cjsdowg 04/30/17 7:02:49 AM #126:	I didn't like World, and the woman lead was horrible and she got off so easy. --- Bender: Well, everybody, I just saved a turtle. What have you done with your lives? <cite>cjsdowg posted [p:878186727] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote>I didn't like World, and the woman lead was horrible and she got off so easy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Hash-Brown 04/30/17 7:38:11 AM #127:	cjsdowg posted... and she got off so easy. Well the leading guy was Chris Pratt. Even I would get off easy to that. --- http://i.imgur.com/wuFm3hd.jpg - My Hash Brownies. http://i.imgur.com/mQ7syoS.gif http://i.imgur.com/lY3erBp.jpg <cite>Hash-Brown posted [p:878187443] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>cjsdowg posted...</cite> <quote>and she got off so easy.</quote> Well the leading guy was Chris Pratt. Even I would get off easy to that.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The X Dawg 04/30/17 10:56:23 AM #128:	MakoReizei posted... iPhone_7 posted... Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM what's so bad about that scene? I actually love that scene. <cite>The X Dawg posted [p:878192920] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>MakoReizei posted...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM</quote> what's so bad about that scene?</quote> I actually love that scene.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 04/30/17 10:58:42 AM #129:	The X Dawg posted... MakoReizei posted... iPhone_7 posted... Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM what's so bad about that scene? I actually love that scene. lol it's stupid but it feels real, which isn't what I can say about the ILM CGI garbage in later movies. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:878193010] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>The X Dawg posted...</cite> <quote><cite>MakoReizei posted...</cite> <quote><cite>iPhone_7 posted...</cite> <quote>Yes because the original Jurassic Park was such a master piece https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWEp1gLXhtM</quote> what's so bad about that scene?</quote> I actually love that scene.</quote> lol it's stupid but it feels real, which isn't what I can say about the ILM CGI garbage in later movies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Kajagogo 04/30/17 3:52:52 PM #130:	What's "stupid" about it? --- By Grabthar's Hammer....what a savings. <cite>Kajagogo posted [p:878208249] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote>What's "stupid" about it?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dustin1280 04/30/17 4:01:50 PM #131:	evoL_nekorB posted... This would be my ranking: 1 > W > 2 > 3 How about everyone else? This is accurate IMO --- Smash DS Code: 4554-0120-5368 SB4 Name: Roz RIP: Orlando of the Axe Karma: 1642 --he delivered! <cite>Dustin1280 posted [p:878208746] in How did Ju... [t:75271449]...</cite> <quote><cite>evoL_nekorB posted...</cite> <quote>This would be my ranking: 1 > W > 2 > 3 How about everyone else?</quote> This is accurate IMO</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > How did Jurassic Park manage to get worse with each film... (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > How did Jurassic Park manage to get worse with each film...