I get that these movies aren´t for everybody, but why can´t that be the end of it? Why all this effort to basically ruin the movies for other people, too?



That one with the chinook looks strangely like stop-motion, or some kind of stiff model.Is that Toby Young? Oh Toby, you should have stuck with Mackenzie Crook.I'm going to sound like a right prick with this response (I yam what I yam) so fair warning, but...Because while blockbuster films are no strangers to 'big and dumb', these days studios seem to be doubling down on 'big and dumb' to an offensively stupid degree, often while trying to look clever by cramming in an agenda in a hamfisted way.* But there always seems to be enough people swarming to see a bad film to make the investment worthwhile. (This may be starting to change, or at least it has it's exceptions)So studios may only listen to the box office take, but that's not going to stop people from expressing what they find so ridiculous about a film. Me, personally, I have to vent frustration that when they make 'films that aren't for everybody', it usually means they keep making lazy, bad, or defiantly ignorant films - especially sequels or remakes of once well-received stories - for people who like bad films, when people who like bad films and people who like good films, will both like a good film. (It's a very simple concept, I feel)So someone says they like bad films, that they can turn their brain off, that at least the effects and some action sequences were good? I'm not going to say 'good for you, YMMV' because they all but admit they're distracted by shiny things. They make me wonder how often that off switch is used. They make me wonder if the off switch ever made much of a difference anyway.It ruins the film for people? It was already ruined. Setting aside Doug's reaction of going to support a bad film out of spite**: it might make someone go and watch the film one less time out of umpteen dozen. It might be a thimbleful taken out of the rushing flood of punters going to justify the millions spent on bad storytelling, and I feel that's worth it. It might make a moviegoer more aware of the blatant flaws, watch the film with a more critical eye, and - God forbid - maybe even watch it with their brain turned on.If more people can be persuaded that a bad film is bad, (and 'ooh dinosaurs' =/= good) maybe, just maybe, it might eventually affect filmmakers where it counts (what they count), and they might consider making better films.Some of DTF's connections here might be tenuous, but I wonder if it's the first time some members have ever thought to critically evaluate the films. Or bits of them. At the very least it's a commentary on how the Jurassic World series is trading on a name from a quarter of a century ago***. It's got that, and 'dinosaurs' and 'safari park' linking it. Even the comparisons of the indoraptor to the xenomorph in the other thread show how much the franchise has lost it's identity, and slid into generic monster B-movie status. (With Treverrow's pontifications about the deep message of JWFK adding insult to injury) I hear 'indoraptor' I think 'CHUD'.As if the last one wasn't enough of an indication...* The agenda, or the seed of it, is usually not bad - race, civil liberties, women's agency, in this case animal rights - just the way they're handled and expressed.** Well you showed us. I have a DVD of Norbit you might like. Gimme a hundred bucks and you'll really stick it to the haters.*** And Jurassic World is just one symptom. Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Alien, Transformers, Batman and Superman, so on and so forth. As I said at the top, it's just about at breaking point. We need a consistent period of good movies, to shake it up; not just something flashy and distracting.