Control was one theme that i totally agree with. The other one is "socialising relationship". Which is almost the counterpoint to the control. This was shown in how Owen bonded with the Raptor pack (imprinted at their birth, hand fed, etc) Claire trying replace "cool passes" for an actual relationship with the boys. How the I-Rex has no idea how it acts with other living things. Masrani also pointedly asked "how are the animals?" Claire saying they had nothing to measure that.. "yes you do, you look in their eyes". The idea of treating others with respect and care is the best way to deal with others - in counterpoint to trying to "control" by treating things as "assets" or things.

I got the impressesion that there was some sort of commentary about blockbusters in general. How the audience and focus groups want things bigger, badder, something with more teeth. Isn't the metaphor often used for a summer blockbuster a thrill ride? And didn't Spielberg himself make comments about the implosion of the film industry? Along with the homage to original JP by character dynamics and imagery and plot elements, JW referenced past blockbusters and monster movies. The whole hybrid idea. Taking a bit of this, taking a bit of that. I'm guessing the intent was to be a nostalgic ride down memory lane. Zara's death (a woman being thrashed around in water with the association of a great white shark) = Jaws https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrEvK-tv5OI predator = camouflage, thermal vision, two kids crawling out of the water https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMbx3WUf89k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luZklMqLgDs avatar = jump into the water to escape the monster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkjZbAyJ6Zs King Kong/The Hulk (if you consider that a monster movie): military shooting at monster. The Birds: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hplpQt424Ls Aliens (the scene when the marines are surrounded and attacked, the heart beat monitors and cams) = scene when the raptors turn on Owen Lake Placid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cONYIjOytm0 Hoskin's monologue = Deep Blue Sea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMwmqp3GLMc The imagery of Hoskins watching the raptor attack on a big screen while sitting back and sucking down a an extra large drink you'd buy at a theater. When the kids are in the back of the truck and being chased by the raptor, they toss out something like the scuba tank used to blow up Jaws. Chris Pratt, who often thought of as the next Harrison Ford, sliding under a gate that's coming down = Indiana Jones Even the poster: It has a great white shark (Jaws that is the quintessential summer blockbuster) being swallowed by a much larger monster. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

John - oh man now that you mentioned that it just jumps out at me, like those old 3D pictures. Now I've seen it I can't un-see it. Also the ending - "summon bigger monster" is what my wife said. I-rex -> T-rex -> Mosasaurus

Whilst watching the film I didn't pick up that the main beats (and Claire's arc) revolved around control but it makes sense. Additionally, the raptors struggle under the I-rex's influence - or rather, Owen struggles to free the raptors of the I-rex's control. I'm with John in that, what stood out to me was the self-aware commentary on the 'blockbuster' and what I thought JW was trying to do with it. For me this is where the biggest failure of the film lies - inadvertently playing into the very thing the characters condemn. So, as has already been pointed out the park begins from a place of 'bigger is better': - Park < World - Dinosaurs as exhibits in a zoo < dinosaurs as interactive activities/rides (kids on triceratops/gyrosphere to ride through the plains) + training the raptors - T-Rex < I-Rex Claire makes this all very clear upfront with her speech about audiences finding dinosaurs boring, needing a new exhibit every year etc. As the film develops and chaos breaks loose, we've got the whole "didn’t stop to think if they should." Dr Malcolm speech now being split between Owen's admonishments and Dr Wu's damning "Cooler, is what you said to me in the memo." indictment of Masrani (in the laboratory). The 'blockbuster' experience has backfired on the park. Interwoven into this we have the 'socialising relationship' that Kenny mentions above: that the dinosaurs are not exhibits, they are living animals. This is played out in the raptors relationship with Owen, the dying Apatosaurus (with Claire) and even with Claire's transformation from corporate to human. But despite the weighting of the counterargument toward something more human (character orientated) the final act devolves into solely delivering the 'blockbuster' experience. The 20,000 other visitors suddenly vanish after the Pterodactyl attack leaving only Owen, Claire and the boys. The final fight is a monster battle with no human cost - the characters merely herded through ruined buildings to keep within sight of the battle. Yes, sure it is Gray who realises "not enough teeth" so they should free the T-Rex and Claire who does so, but in the end it is the T-Rex, raptors and Mosasaurus who save the humans. So, the human characters - our core four anyway - leave the island with their relationships repaired, more whole as human beings (as per their arcs being completed), and are seemingly unscathed by the destruction. The only casualties to the island are minor characters or 'those deserving', none of whom we'd really care about and in fact Zara's death is treated like a joke (or at least a large portion of the audience met it with laughter). Therefore, I can't help but feel that the film has its cake and eats it too. Condemns the blockbuster for producing overstimulation and mass destruction (and not focussing on the human) and then in the end delivers the same destruction. The problem here is that, unlike in JP, we are supposed to revel in this destruction... this time around, we want and expect the park to go as wrong as it can because we are outside of the characters' perspectives. My concern is that this destruction is rarely converted into a human cost (unlike say Fury Road where the action directly correlates to individual actions) and so I wonder at how this affects the audience's ability toward empathy. And that the sci-fi based warning (the Dr Malcolm speech) finds little relevance for the audience come the happy ending - the problem is seemingly entirely solved. Sorry, very rambling, this has been kicking around in my head since I saw the film!

Kenny, I think you're right, that theme is in play in the movie. Reminds of a blog post I did about the philosopher Martin Buber. There are inauthentic relationships, which Buber called "I-It" in which the "I" figure looks at the "It" character as an object, not a genuine individual equal in value to the "I" character. And there are authentic relationships, which Buber called "I-Thou" (or I-You) in which "I" DOES recognize the legitimate individuality of the other. Owen related to the Raptor pack as I-You, signified by how he treated them and dealt with them by name. Hoskins looked at the raptors as "It". Claire moved from a relationship with her nephews that became more of an I-You connection. The I-Rex saw everything other than itself as an It. So yes, I think you're onto something there in the way of theme at work in the movie.

John, you absolutely nailed this point. When I walked out of the theater with my son Luke, I said to him, "Do you know what I think this movie is about? Nostalgia." It's all over the place, something I alluded to in my comments on Monday. But seeing your list of items really drives home the point. From a marketing and sales standpoint, it's actually a brilliant strategy: * Target Millennials and Gen Xer's who grew up with Jurassic Park as children. * Second audience: Children who will enjoy the movie for what it presents as an action-adventure film. * Parents of Millennials and Gen Xer's who ALSO shared the JP experience with their children. My guess is Spielberg was behind the wheel for that idea as JW is, as I suggested, almost more of a remake of JP than a sequel, so many 'homages' to the original. This is not unique to JW, rather we see it EVERYWHERE amidst all of the comic book / superhero / franchise movies. They hearken back to 18-40 year olds' youth, giving them a chance to relive days gone by. Plus so much easier to market given the pre-awareness built into the IP. Had a thought. I wonder if one reason why some of these big spectacle franchise movies like Transformers and JW which are admittedly pretty light on character work for the target audience in part because the viewer SUPPLIES much of the emotional content. That is, their OWN. It's THEIR connection with their own YOUTH they bring with them, so there is LESS NEED for compelling characters within the actual story. Thoughts? Again great comment, John. Thanks for the time and effort you put into aggregating those links. Really solid effort!

Excellent analysis, Jacob. You've run with what Kenny and John posted, and taken it up another notch with the idea that the filmmakers are consciously taking a rather meta view of the narrative, using the story to comment on challenges of creating a blockbuster movie yet at the same time enjoying the benefits of producing a blockbuster. It's rather post-modern in a way, isn't it? Not so much Tarantino, but perhaps more like Charlie Kaufman. Indeed, remember how the Robert McKee character in Adaptation told Kaufman he could salvage his script project by delivering a big third act... which is precisely what happens in the movie. Well, as you seem to be suggesting, the first two acts of JW kind of go tongue-in-cheek about what the audience will bring to the movie-viewing experience insofar as their knowledge of JP, tweaking the cheek of blockbuster filmmaking... but then chucks all that with a big-ass Act Three. I seriously wonder how much of this type of thinking was rolling around in Spielberg's head when he was in those story meetings with Treverrow. Who knows? This meta approach may have been there in the Jaffa & Silver drafts. Thanks for that insight. I think you're well on target with that analysis.

I believe you've put into words what blockbuster sequels/remakeboots are made of and why they attract such huge crowds: the nostalgia. Leaving the theater, I had a similar conversation with my boyfriend. JW was preceded by trailers, of course, and one of those was for GENISYS. We couldn't help sharing looks of light amusement and strong disbelief because those 2'30 seem like a sort of mash-up of the first three films, nothing else. We also picked up on all those references that John mentions above (great work, John, thanks for the links), and that led us to the same sort of conclusion, that some producers feel it's enough to keep giving us more of the same and we'll eat everything, bones and feathers included. Thing is, we don't really have that much of a choice. Of course, we could not go but hey, don't we all love an entertaining blockbuster? :)

What I find most interesting about this whole nostalgia dynamic in these type of movies - prequels, sequels, remakes, reboots - is there seems to be a substantially different point of connection between what young people (18-30) are looking for and experiencing in movies today as compared to my generation. Back in the 60s and 70s, we weren't nostalgic, rather we wanted entertainment that was relevant, controversial, and mind-expanding. Think movies like Easy Rider, The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, M*A*S*H, Midnight Cowboy, Dog Day Afternoon, Taxi Driver. I'm not stating as fact that filmmaking was better back then, although an argument can be made that that's the case, rather I just find it curious how different the contrasting sensibilities are with young people today compared to four decades ago. I also wonder this: If big franchise blockbuster movies like JW fully embrace a kind of post-modern referentialism to past iterations of the franchise, could this be a sign that we are beginning to tap out this well? I mean if the new thing is to indulge in homage gone wild, what next? How can you top that? Where can you go after that? Maybe target audiences will NEVER get tired of nostalgia. And perhaps they are right to want to escape reality as much as possible. Sometimes the Zeitgeist does feel pretty pre-apocalyptic. What better way to avoid thinking those dark thoughts when you can watch a movie that reminds you of happier times, connects you with your childhood, and gives you an excuse to bust out your toys again, or attend Comic-Con in costume. Fortunately, there is a counterbalance to these trends and that is indie films. Some incredible movies have come out the last several years. We just need to do our part and support them when they are in theaters and hit digital platforms. If you're looking to cleanse the palette after having seen JW or some other franchise film, I recommend Me and Earl and the Dying Girl. Won both the Audience and Grand Jury Awards at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival. A wonderful movie. I'd love to analyze it in a blog series, however I doubt if very many folks have seen it. Anyway apologies for the ramble. And thanks all for some terrific analysis. Next topic: Takeaways.

Thanks for the encouragement, Scott. I am loving this fortnightly series and I think you've got a fantastic way of opening up discussions and provoking ideas in how you approach the analysis. Plus, it's fun to read everyone else's ideas! As for the meta approach: Whilst I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with it, it's a sign of our post-post-modern times that we require everything to be deconstructed and aware, the really human side of me yearns for the mythic and metaphysical in storytelling (at least when it comes from Hollywood) and this delivery seems to be what is lost in that overly knowing process.

That's a really noteworthy point, Jacob. Telling a story with the kind of heightened self-awareness present in whatever era of post-modernism we currently exist can be fun, but if it detracts from the ability of the viewer to FULLY ENTER into the story itself, always existing on the surface as this or that self-reference causes us to think about the point of reference, not the characters WITHIN the story universe, isn't that a concern? Isn't the point of at least SOME stories to pull the viewer out of their own world and into this OTHER WORLD, a full immersion into these other characters' lives? Ya' know... go INTO the story? I'll say this for Charlie Kaufman, who I think we can safely describe as a post-modern storyteller: His stories ALWAYS have a strong emotional core, key characters who have things going on in their lives with which we can identify on a human level. So while the meta storytelling antics play out, there's always that psychological and emotional connection to keep us within the story universe. When we see some of these post-post-post modern film techniques, such as all of the homage moments in JW as detailed in this discussion, yet don't create an authentic or deep emotional core to the story, what is it we end up with? Obviously people find it entertaining. But it's kind of like texting during a movie. You sort of pay attention to what's going on on screen, but you keep getting diverted by this reference to JP or that reference to Jaws, the nostalgia dynamic making the movie experience more about you and your connection to your past rather than you and your connection to the characters within the story universe. Maybe it's no big deal. Maybe with the studios going all in with their respective story sources (Star Wars, Marvel, DC Comics, etc) where each story is but a part of a larger web of stories, referentialism within the narrative may become the norm. The intention is not to enter so much into THIS story as to experience as part of a larger context of OTHER stories. In theory, I guess that's not a problem on a wider cultural level. But I teach one course a semester at a prominent university, so I intersect with a lot of young people between the ages of 20-22. In one course, we screen together a movie each week. I know it's a challenge for them to sit there for 2 hours with no access to social media. They're not used to doing that. It feels discomforting. That whole FOBO (Fear Of Being Offline) thing. So if there's that... and the movies themselves are crafted in such a way that the homages and referential aspects are so prominent they keep pulling the viewer out of the actual narrative... Will we be raising a whole generation of people who won't be able to fully immerse themselves in a story?

Yeah, I feel you! I miss the Mythic and Metaphysical. Probably why i get such an attachment to many older (way older) sources - the myths and legends and fairytales of different cultures.