So much to talk about here... - Overall thoughts from an entertainment perspective: Pure enjoyment in mind, I liked the movie. I enjoyed watching a big budget summer film that wasn't about superheros or space. As a Gen-X'r I also liked the call-backs to the original Jurassic Park. This movie made me excited about dinosaurs and feel like a kid. I think that's what it set out to do. - From a screenwriting perspective I think that there are a lot of takeaways from this movie on how to write an industry friendly script. For example: The two kids were great characters, in that they essentially represented "us" the audience. We could see Jurassic World through their eyes as they viewed it for the first time. It also allowed the writers to get a lot of exposition across (through them) without being boring or forced. Also, from a screenwriting perspective (current industry in mind), it's essential that we make sure our story justifies being on the "big screen". Jurassic World justifies being larger than life. It is larger than life, therefore to thoroughly enjoy it, you go to the theater and buy the ticket. - Make sure your villain (in this case the dinosaur and not the B-line military guy) is much tougher, smarter and better than your protagonist. That way your audience/reader stays in their seat to see how your protagonist overcomes said villain to win. That's all I have time for right now, but I'll try to jump on tonight to add a couple more thoughts. Excited to see more discussion.

general comments.. - It was a generally fun movie - I found it better that 2 or 3, but not quite as good as 1. - i loved the massive call backs to jurassic park - even though the movie worked as a standalone movie, it really respected those who had seen the first movie by giving hints to upcoming plot points based on knowledge of the first movie :) Very nice. - I was very annoyed at how the characters flip-flopped and the plot points didn't seem to all be pulling the same way - this leans heavily towards the themes in play, but i got annoyed by the characters motivations not being coherent - and seemingly in service of "cool" scenes. But this was more fridge logic moments on the way home and didn't interfere much with the enjoyment of the movie.

Brooke, all good points: * The nostalgia dynamic re the original Jurassic Park is perhaps the central theme of the movie. And while I'm sure many a Gen-X'r such as yourself enjoyed hearkening back to their youth, I had a somewhat different experience. I'll get to that in my own initial reaction in comments later. But certainly one key in the business JW has done. * The two brothers, as outsiders, is, as you say, a great way for the viewer to enter into the story, essentially the idea is for us to vicariously experience what goes on through their eyes and ears. That is a good takeaway for whenever we write a story about a unique subculture, other country, planet, etc. * The movie absolutely delivers on the question, "Is your story big enough to be a movie?" Indeed, it triples down on this front, quite literally with the gargantuan size of some key dinosaurs. * And your point about the Nemesis, in this case Indominus Rex, is bigger, stronger, tougher, and in some respects smarter than its human opponents. Basically once we see Indominus on the loose, there is a question set before us: How the hell are they going to kill this beast? And it's the spirit of this question which drives the entire plot. Thanks for that opening salvo, Brooke. Let's see what other folks thought.

Interesting you thought JW was superior to JP2, Kenny. My personal rankings: JP (by a mile) JP2 JW JP3 But as I say, there's no right or wrong when it comes to analyzing movies, and that goes for favorite lists as well. Your note about the "call backs" to JP is one of the main things I came away with from JW. I want to talk about that further in another comment. As to your point about characters flip-flopping, I'd be curious to read which ones you mean. Clearly the character work took a back seat to the plotting in JW and I would be tempted to say, "Well, that just goes with the territory with these big spectacle movies." But then there's Jurassic Park which had a terrific cast of characters. And Mad Max: Fury Road as a recent reminder. Which is to say there nothing by law or practice precluding good characters in a big movie. The problem with characters who act OUT of character, such as flip-flopping -- at least for me -- is their actions, feeling inauthentic, wrench me straight out of the movie universe. Instead of going with the flow and immersing myself in each moment, I will find myself thinking, "Why did they do that? That makes no sense." So I'm thinking about the construction and execution of the movie instead of losing myself in the story. And I have to say I had that experience a number of times when watching JW. So for me, it's different than a 'fridge logic moment.' I get that and think those are defensible. If a movie is so well-crafted that whatever logic issues are such you don't notice them AT THE TIME YOU ARE WATCHING THE MOVIE, but only LATER after you've had time to think about the story, that's one thing. There, I was still IN THE MOVIE while it was playing. Happy to debate the logic afterward by the refrigerator with my friends and family. But if something happens that causes me to back away from the story WHILE I'M WATCHING THE MOVIE, that's a whole other thing. And if it happens more than once or even a lot of times, that's a problem, at least insofar as my own experience of the story. So that's a question for folks: Were there any moments in JW that caused you to fall out of the story? Logic issues. Inauthentic character moments. Clunky dialogue. Did your experience of those moments diminish your enjoyment of JW or not? Thanks, Kenny. Glad you had a fun time at the movie.

Let me say up top, I thought Jurassic World was better than many spectacle movies I've seen in the last decade or so. Indeed, if I were to put on my producer's hat, I'd applaud the effort of the filmmakers in the respect that they didn't screw up the franchise, in fact, breathed new life into it after what I think most would agree has been a downward spiral in terms of storytelling from the excellent original JP to JP2 to JP3. I'll go further, I thought the plotting was a strength. A few key plot twists, such as the revelation that Indominus was part raptor and 'talking' the raptors into turning on the humans, stand out. That said, some subplots were set up, then they just disappeared, some were serviced thinly, suggesting that content was shot, but ended up on the cutting room floor. Easy to justify when making a movie like this where action trumps all else, but that doesn't make for a satisfying story experience. My main touch point in analyzing the movie is the whole nostalgia dynamic. There were SO MANY REFERENCES to Jurassic Park, not just the park itself, but the actual MOVIE, that at times the narrative felt more like a REMAKE or at the very least an homage to top all homages. I mean, there were probably dozens of camera shots which recalled the original JP (e.g., the dino in sideview mirror, dino attacking kids in a vehicle, racing among a herd of running dinosaurs, the T-Rex bellowing at the end). Putting on my producer's hat (again), I absolutely see the value in that. Each homage aroused nostalgia in one segment of the target audience -- Gen X'rs and Millennials. I'm sure many if not most of them LOVED being reminded of a movie which is so important in their personal cinematic history. For me, what each of those homage moments did was remind me of one big fact: JP was directed by Steven Spielberg. JW was not. In aggregate, it's a reminder of how brilliant Spielberg is at providing spectacle AND humanity, thrills AND emotion. So along with moments of logic and characters acting out of character, I kept finding myself thinking about how great Spielberg was, which kept pulling me out of the story experience. This is really an unfair critique because there is only one Steven Spielberg, and since he didn't direct JW (although he did exec produce ), how could one reasonably assess JW on that basis? Good question. However that IS part of the equation. JP and Spielberg are intimately tied together. So JW had a huge challenge to meet trying to measure up to the original. On the spectacle front, it did pretty well. On the human and emotional front... not so much. At least for me. And some part of that experience was influenced by the movie's very embrace of nostalgia for the original JP which continually reminded me of the magic Spielberg is capable of... and this movie did not have. At the end of the day, Universal Pictures probably could care less about those considerations. After all, JW is already in the Top 5 highest box office grossing movies of all time. Did anyone else have an experience like that, the nostalgia dynamic actually distracting from the story itself?

My girlfriend and I wanted to do a movie date, something we could both enjoy. I had read an article about the director/screenwriting team in the LA times, so I was excited to see the film. We saw the film in 3D, which I feel 3D is only good for animation and not live action. However, it did not distract me to much. I did enjoy the film. The world of the story was amazing. As a production note, I was impressed with the "extras" and how they were orchestrated throughout the scenes. They all looked exactly like the audience who where in the theater with me. It was also a good decision to have "diversity" in the cast which again reflected the audience. I fell out of the story with the scene between the InGen CEO Jurassic owner Simon Marani and Claire Dearing, when they were standing in the enclosed balcony overlooking the Indominus Rex compound. I don't know why I was distracted but I think I was not clear on the exposition and could not keep up with the logic. I had a difficult time understanding the actor who played Simon Marani. Whenever he spoke, I had a hard time understanding his words. I felt that in the helicopter scene too with him and the military chasing Indominus Rex. I'm not hating on him, he is a good actor, I just could not understand him when he spoke. So, it was somewhat of a distraction. The inciting incident when the Indominus Rex escaped the compound was very good. In fact the entire film was paced very well. I also enjoyed how the stakes keep raising throughout the entire second act. I thought the raptors and the Indominus Rex twist in the jungle was wicked. I did not see that coming. Dr. Henry Wu as the false ally partnering with Hoskins, I also did not see coming. And of course the final battle and the surprise with the Mosasaurus killing the Indominus Rex. I think it was a good summer movie and delivered on what it promised. Interested to learn and hear other thoughts.

Not sure I'll be able to chime in throughout the week, so I'll try to sum up in general comments. Strengths: 1. Climactic moments. The writing, special effects, directing, etc. allowed the viewers to have a few of the much needed heart pounding moments that a thriller should have. Weaknesses: 1. Story sequence. The original Jurassic Park was based on the fact the a T-Rex was loose which caused complete mayhem. At the end of Jurassic World, the T-Rex is loose and suddenly everything is calm? As a viewer, I was confused. 2. Characters. This is a big comment. I saw the movie with a friend who has no clue about screenwriting. He is the average, American, blockbuster-loving movie goer. He innocently made a comment afterwards..."I didn't care enough about the characters, so I didn't care whether or not they died." 3. Dialogue. Some cheesiness can be allowed in an action packed thriller, but let's not overdo it. That last love line about sticking together for survival caused a few eye rolls around me. For the Jurassic franchise, nothing will ever top the original, but this was definitely an improvement. Just seemed like the writing was rushed to get to those special effects. Not discouraging the writers. I applaud anyone who can make the plot work enough to sell something so big. Certainly a success for Hollywood. Just a style that goes against many things we Indie-type screenwriters are taught.

Oh...and as I mentioned on Twitter, was that a Hitchcock copy in there? The Birds? No? Maybe it was just me...

Marc, you and I are in sync re some of the plot choices which are represent a strength of the story. Some nice twists. Interesting word choice: "A good summer movie." That's worth a blog post. What do people think of when they hear "good summer movie"? Whatever the responses, a movie like Mad Max: Fury Road resets the entire discussion. When you can have spectacle AND compelling characters AND strong themes AND a well-structured plot... That blows up the notion that all the studios have to do is serve up 100+ minutes of eye candy. That can work. But why not aspire to more? Why not aim for great storytelling?

u90677, I hear you. If one were to strip away the presence of Jurassic Park (the original movie), then Jurassic World would probably come off as a pretty strong summer franchise movie. However JW hit the nostalgia theme over and over and over and over again, referencing JP which, as I have suggested, keeps reminding us of the brilliance of Steven Spielberg. JW does not have that magic. Critically as your friend notes, "I didn't care enough about the characters, so I didn't care whether or not they died." That is a baseline requirement. If you don't care about the characters, then all the movie is is spectacle. Evidently that's sufficient enough for $1.5B+ business. But aesthetically re story, it's a problem. Personally I'm with your friend. I didn't feel any authentic emotion for any of the characters in JW. The whole divorce storyline felt manipulative, especially the way it was dropped in when Gray raises the subject with his brother on the tram ride. Basically out of nowhere and contextually quite awkward. I suspect there is footage to support that storyline which ended up on the cutting room floor, but as experienced in the movie, it comes across as forced. By contrast, the very next night after seeing JW, I went to a funky low-rent indie film theater to see "Me and Earl and the Dying Girl". Within 2 minutes, I had more of an emotional connection to the story than at any point of JW. That is probably not fair. Dying Girl and JW are completely different movies. OTOH a fair question: Should summer franchise movies be recused from having authentic human / emotional dynamics in play? They may work at the box office. But they are just PRODUCTS. That does not qualify them as STORIES. Re The Birds: Yes. Another homage.

You're not the only one who picked up on that - it was the first thought in my head during that scene :)

It would seem that, at least from these comments, most people are in agreement about JW. Great entertainment - check. Nostalgic - check. Weak characters - check. Incoherent plot points - check. You guys have already summed up how I felt about it so I won't go into all that again. I'll just add that the Indominus was a great idea poorly executed. We get all these great explanations about what it is and what it can do but apart from the escape scene, we never see any of that in action. Same with the mosasaurus. Would've been nice to see it chase down the shark instead of just jumping out the water (oh, trailer spoiler moment, why??) or just prolonging the subsequent underwater scene. So that was a little disappointing. Still, I enjoyed it a lot and that lovely John Williams score immediately speaks to our inner adventurous child, no? Scott, you raise an interesting point above: "Should summer franchise movies be recused from having authentic human / emotional dynamics in play?" Simpe answer: nope :) But I'm guessing it's not as simple as that...

See - those very scenes are the ones that pissed me off to no end - especially as they seemed incoherent to the rest of the movie and the ideas it was seemingly proposing. like Indominus - Own going off about how bad it was treated - alone, unsocialised, only good relationship was with the feeding claw. So we were setup to see it as the bad-guy(?) and acting violent. Yet late in the movie we get to see the T-Rex and are expected to see it as the "good guy" coming to the rescue... even though it was also alone, unsocialised, and the only relationship it has is with the flare indicating food... And the Raptors in the jungle - also peeved me. We had made a big deal over the relationship with Owen, the trust of being raised from an egg, imprinting etc. The the big deal of "dont shoot my raptors", then they just swap sides? It didn't ring true. The scene would have been so much better if the raptors had been shot by accident and they would team up on the shooters - which sets of more shooting etc which Own could try to calm down - because showing the Raptors as unworth of trust made the end scene "payoff" that much weaker. I just felt that the idea of connecting - of treating others well and building trust - was something that was touched on in many threads (the kids vs Clair, Owen and Raptors, Marani and corporate employees, etc) but then at so many points was undermined so that it didn't matter. Many of the "cool" action sequences could be done while changing the instigating actions of characters - to let the characters have more integrity and give more meaning to their actions...

I am a bit late to the discussion so I will keep my comments brief. I really enjoyed Jurassic World. I thought it was the sequel the first film deserved. I loved the plot, in terms of each attempt to fix the problem of the i-Rex only made it worse, with the stakes getting higher and higher. I still cannot believe the writers made us cheer for raptors and a T-rex! Also loved the sequel set up with Dr. Wu escaping. What I thought was weakest about the film was the Owen-Claire romance. It felt forced and some of the dialog was really on the nose. Owen had some lines that were borderline sexist. Fury Road is a great example of a man and woman teaming up successfully without a contrived romance. Still, I would see the film again, maybe in 3D or Imax next time.

The nostalgia was fun at first, but started to feel lazy, to be honest. Especially once I watched JP a few days later and recalled "hey, kids were attacked in the car again."

Scott- You make a great point. I have to admit, I fell into the trap of the JP nostalgia and loved that aspect of JW. I didn't think about it from the perspective that you're coming at. Spielberg is...Spielberg, it's difficult to compare his artistry to a current director. He knows how to create the entire experience - character, plot, theme, emotion. I actually just went through an evening of reading and then watching ET and was absolutely memorized by both. Not to mention learning that the screenplay was written by a woman -- don't know how I missed that. That being said, the nostalgia didn't pull me out of the film, it actually helped draw me into it more.

Also late, but have to say I love this discussion. I enjoyed the movie as did you all and for many of the same reason. I agree with the comments regarding characters. I didn't care about the aunt, she was, well, superficial as was her romance with hunky raptor whisperer. Agree that divorce theme felt pasted on. Vincent D'onofrio, what a waste of a great talent and a story line that never really goes anywhere. I would have liked to see him be clearly a nemesis instead of a man with questionable ethics and ambitions. But that would have interfered with monster in the house theme. Agree that the intelligent dino didn't get to show off his smarts enough. Considering that the squirrels in my yard are almost as resourceful trying to get in bird feeders. As to the "socializing theme", might have been explained as in raptors are social animals whereas TRex is not. Psychological fact: monkeys raised alone or with "wire" mothers are more aggressive. Another theme that was only partly developed. Despite all that it was fun to watch.

I enjoyed the nostalgia elements less for the actual sense of nostalgia that it inspired in me (I never really grew up with the original) but more because they were rare times for the film to breathe and allow characters time to talk about *things that aren't dinosaurs*. They also gave the island far more depth; the Jurassic World park is too clean and new and never really shown as a actual functional location: we don't get to see any living space, only control rooms, laboratories and 'rides'. The exploration of the grounds of the original park are tactile in a way (the same charge can be levelled at the differences between JP and JW). As for what the 'wonder' element that Spielberg delivers that is mostly absent here, I think you could make a strong argument that it should be missing here as that would tie in thematically to the oversaturated hype culture as commented on by the film/characters - however, I think the studio intention would have definitely have still been toward CG grandeur, no matter the thematic territory.

Scott, first of all, kudos for your site. It's simply the best screenwriting resource out there. Now to JW. Disappointed. I felt the narrative was trying too hard, and lost its sense of escalating danger about mid way thru. After the 'kids in the gyroscope pod sequence' -- which was truly scary -- the next sequences didn't take me beyond that level, and, worse, many were exposition-heavy. For example, when the kids are in the back of the truck being pursued by the raptors: this is not nearly as threatening or engaging as the pod sequence which occurred many minutes earlier. The rule of saving the best/biggest threat for last, applies here. By the time we got in to Act 3 I was rooting for the dinos. The pic seemed more concerned about recreating a thrill ride, vs. an engaging story. Much as I'm a huge Amanda Silver fan, JW is less impressive than other of her work.