Bullshit - Bullshit - Bullshit

I was at the "Industry Workshops" Saturday afternoon in London, which is an event where concept artist, 3d artists, professionals and aspiring professionals from the entertainment industry, films and video games meet, exchange ideas and network.

One of the lecturer was XXXX XXXX, a well known and respected concept artist.
He started to rant and go about how crap -verbatim- the action films had gone.
He went on comparing James Cameron's Terminator 2 with Michael Bay's Armageddon, told us how bad the latter was, and that it came down to the fact one film was only stimulating the reptilian part of our brain, whereas the other was speaking to our three brains ("reptilian brain", "limbic system", and "neo-cortex"). That was just before mentioning he had studied neuro science.
He gratified us with his deep comments on the consequences that type of films have on our children's brain and moral values, seeking for the crowd's approval and claps.

I don't know XXXX XXXX personally, and he might be a good and decent man, but his speech came across as pretentious, judgemental and reactionary. Maybe he didn't realize it himself so let me explain why.

1) First off, because you've just watched a bad series of films isn't a good enough reason to state the whole action film industry has turned to shit.
2) If you only look at Marvel films and VFX heavy films, surely you're not going to be satisfied. You're an adult now, your taste has changed and you're looking for something a bit more mature and with content. It doesn't mean that those actions films are worst than they were 10 years ago, just that you've changed and you're after something different.
If you're looking for films with content (by that I mean strong story, smart plots, and something that goes beyond just entertainment) then don't watch Guardians of the Galaxy. That's not for you. Believe me. There are plenty of good films out there... but maybe they aren't on Netflix. Pull your head out of the mainstream gutter you call culture.
3) You're nostalgic. It doesn't mean that what's done today is worst than what was done yesterday.
4) Comparing James Cameron's films to Michael Bay's films is ludicrous because they do entirely different things.
5) Michael Bay is well known for very little content and a lot of dressing. Form. Magnifying things, hollow performances, unimportant moments of a film. He does that very well, but it'll always leave you with some unsatisfied feeling, because it's hollow. No wonder.
6) James Cameron hasn't always made good films. Usually his films are big budgets, they're well executed, but are as hollow as Michael Bay's ones.
7) Liking James Cameron and hating Michael Bay isn't enough proof that something has gone wrong.
8) You haven't studied neuro science, you've only read 2 articles in wikipedia. Chill out.
9) If you want to be a critic reviewer of films, maybe you should be scientific about it and present unbiased arguments.
10) You shit where you eat. You criticize the action films industry, but aren't they your main employer? Aren't they the ones that have fed you all these years so you could come on stage with some legitimacy and blabber about how bad this is?

I left as the talk had to stop due to some technical difficulties after 10 minutes. Went home and checked your other talk on Jurassic Park.

----
On your Jurassic Park / Jurassic World talk.
I agree with everything you said in your talk, regarding the analysis of the family core threat, fear of fatherhood etc.
I wouldn't cast such a enthusiastic look on Jurassic Park and such a harsh look on Jurassic World though.

-1-
Jurassic World shows exactly the same fear of parenthood as the first Jurassic Park did.
The same arc for the characters: accepting to be a parent. And of course dinosaurs symbolize the same threat to the family's core. Family or family to be.

Both films convey the same conservative and non threatening, pro-establishment, good sentiment agenda. No difference.

The exclusive respect you show for the first film is questionnable, as it conveys exactly the same vision of society, a well accepted and acceptable, non-threatening, like-able and conformist views of family, and its associated values.
You fancy yourself as a film critic, but your pretentious scholar pseudo lecture (merely a paraphrase of the film) doesn't go beyond the form and doesn't question for instance, the conservative hidden agenda in this film, nor the slimy mayonnaise that dresses that tasteless story or the conventional format of the story and characters' stereotypes.
There's no allegory or metaphors, simply because all these strings are so heavy handed. Spielberg shoves that in our face for 2 hours. You don't question the Oh-so obvious recourse to children to acquire the audience's attention and sympathy. You don't because it's accepted, and then you read in that subterfuge a smart choice.
If you look for one moment at other Spielberg's films, he has always used the same tricks, over and over again. No complaints about that, even if those tricks are worn down.

You like this film. And that's fine. But it flows from the nostalgic and idealized memory you have of it, more than its intrinsic qualities.

If you fancy yourself a critic and an intellectual you should start by asking the right questions.
For instance: how has this film contributed to film history, to art history? Why is it a milestone? Very quickly you'd see that this film will be remembered because of its VFX, and because if its form, not so much its content.
Don't get me wrong, Spielberg is at the top of his game on that one: the editing, the pace, the arc of the characters, the visuals and the music (...) everything is very well executed. However, the story doesn't dig very deep in the fear of fatherhood, barely scratches the surface. The turning point of the film feels superficial, and more importantly the resolution of the arcs is very conventional and expected. Other films have taken much more original approaches and development of the themes. Erasure Head comes to mind. It's not a family friendly film, but you need to acknowledge what products are: either entertainment or work of art. Either they entertain, or they question. It's rarely going to be both.
Jurassic Park's message is ultra-conservative as the resolution of the arcs is that the established order and social conventions eventually prevail. On both fronts: the vision of family, and the vision of technological progress.

-2-
If Jurassic World had been made in the same smart and well crafted way as the original film, you would have destroyed it anyway.
Why?
Because everything that could be said on Dinosaurs and the central themes, has already been said in Jurassic Park. There's no point in making a second film. Except making money, which also the point of the first film. Entertainment films have a sole purpose: entertain. They aren't there to educate or elevate your mind, or even cast an original look on a particular matter. Jurassic Park is no exception. So it's funny how people are so prompt to analyse and review their favorite film from a pseudo demanding intellectual standpoint. But these films don't stand up the critical scrutiny for a minute.

-3-
You didn't even bother to explain why Jurassic World was bad.
If you got to compare, at least be scientific and thorough about it.

-4-
Amblin (that is Spielberg) signed off on Jurassic World. So say goodbye to your hero.

-5-
And somehow I can't disagree with you: Jurassic World isn't a great film, but solely because it's a repeat, not only because of its lacking intrinsic qualities. The film has pretty much the same structure, arcs, and allegories as the first one. It's not as well executed and for instance the actors' performances and dialogues are poor.

If I looked at Jurassic World and came up with a similar agenda driven analysis, I could probably come up with some completely bullshit pseudo analysis myself, something along those lines:

<BULLSHIT>

JURASSIC WORLD: A RENEWED CRITIC OF MODERNITY

Jurassic World continues to successfully explore the theme of mankind struggling with modernity. Faithful to the allegoric Dinosaurs from the first Jurassic Park film, JW goes a little further in dissecting our fears before two old enemies: the technological progress and our struggle to survive, more specifically preserve the family unity.
This new iteration takes a closer look at motherhood.
Claire, the main protagonist is a successful on the outside yet insecure career woman, who's chosen to mute her maternal instinct. She's put distance between herself and her family. At heart, she's afraid of becoming a wife and a mother. The constant stream of distractions and excuses she's created to shield herself from her biological reality, as well as her lack of commitment with Owen are merely the unconscious by-products of modern education where women's autonomy has got in the way of creating a family. In that sense the film will solve that plot the same way Jurassic Park did, and will offer the same normative, anti-feminist and ultra-conservative vision of social order and family: the woman-wife-mother stays at home, makes kids, the man-husband-father goes out to do the hunting and bring back food on the table.
During the film, she will slowly move to becoming a lover, a wife, eventually a mother, accepting to take responsibilities for her ersatz children.

At the beginning of the film, the social pressure and conventions are embodied by her sister, that distant, older self. Her sister and brother-in-law are transparent and distant characters just like social conventions can be: their are absent, no one can really tell who they are or why they do exist, but they are present and have some weight on our life. Having children is an abstract idea that is planted in her reality.

She will overcome the fear of losing her virginity and letting herself go, as symbolized by her different encounters with Owen, also coming in 3 parts, echoing the socially accepted 3 dates before intercourse.
Intimacy between the 2 protagonists will slowly evolve from her revealing her body, to finally facing the beast: fear of penetration. The loss of her virginity is portrayed by a series of phallic symbols throughout the film. Her holding the flare this time around isn't only a tribute to the first film.

Jurassic World somehow revisits Jurassic Park from a feminine protagonist standpoint. And delivers on its promisse. It deals with the inner fear of a woman who's about to commit to motherhood.

Eventually Claire will accept to seduce Owen and reconnect with her femininity.

The last obstacle for Claire will be to accept the possibility that her child will not be perfect.
The Indominus-Rex is that child that no one wants. That inbred, of the wrong color of shape. A baby that you can't face, you'd rather it was invisible. And yet you can't ignore it.
The inbred will be defeated by the pure blood, and the help of god. A Deus Ex Machina like in the first film. The family is safe, human race is safe, thanks to a Deus, allegory for God (the Mosasaurus in the film).
The film follows the same line as the first one: eventually putting god and nature's laws above the humans'. Furthermore, by suggesting that this (re-)established social order is the only one worth fighting for and allowing the human race to survive and being saved, the writers imply that this is so because this order is godly, and anyone who will get in the way of that order will be punished.

POST-MODERN ASPECTS OF THE FILM
It seems that the only purpose for the creators of the park, and the investors backing them up, was to make their attractions bigger "with more teeth". In that way it questions not only the moral probity and intellectual vacuity of the enterprise, but also the meaning of making a sequel to Jurassic Park, which in itself is a self contained work of art that doesn't require one.
The moto of the theme park is the same as the slogan for the film.
That's where the film gets smarter: it questions its very own existence, in a subtle way: "bigger, louder, more teeth..." isn't a purpose, it's just greed. And greed isn't enough to survive, or at least to find a meaning to an existence. The film includes itself in this critic: you can probably survive with this moto ("more..."), but you can't find a purpose.

So Jurassic World was an interesting film, entertaining and yet offering a new take on the themes explored in the first film.

</BULLSHIT>


My point is that it's easy to over read in something. It's easy to destroy a film because it's today's trend.