Down In The Park Part 4: Killed By Numbers.

I gotta admit, I've always had a bit of a soft spot for Jurassic Park 3. Partly I suppose because this is the film that introduced the Spinosaurus into the popular conciousness. Or, in my case, the unpopular conciousness. Then were the awesome happy meal toys that I managed to amass nearly a full collection of.

These things were SO COOL. I wish I still had them.

Mostly of course the main thing that's great about Jurassic Park 3 is simply that it ISN'T Jurassic Park 2.

I suppose it's like the mirror universe sequel in a way. One of the main points I harped on about last time regarding the second film was, after all, how it had no right to be as bad as it was. And so when we get to this one where they actually have ditched the original creative team in order to crap out another sequel we can't help but feel that this one has no right to be any good at all. And yet... I kinda like it. I'm not saying it's GREAT. But it's actually an alright movie. It's especially good when you consider what they had to work with. Sure, it's basically a rehash of what's gone before, but it's.... honest about it in a strange way. Like the film knows there's no particular reason it should exist, outside of some merchandising deal, but if it's going to get made anyway it might as well put in some effort and have some fun whilst it's doing it.

The key problem at heart of the film is simply that it's made entirely of leftovers. I said before how when you're adapting a story from one medium to another there's always going to be some stuff that get's changed or left out. And I also mentioned how pretty much the only thing the second film bothered to take from it's source novel AT ALL was a couple of set pieces. And so when we get to making Jurassic Park 3, rather than attempting to come up with anything actually NEW they pretty much just went to the tattered remains of the two novels and stitched together a story out of the remaining pieces.

So it's quite remarkable they managed to get a coherent story out of it at all when you think about it.

Now, in the interests of full disclosure this is something that also happened in part 2. There are 3 scenes in there that were left over from the original Jurassic Park novel that got reused. Only there they were doing it in place of actually bothering to adapt the story from the second book. So we have the intro of the tourist child being attacked by compys, a dude falling down an incline and being attacked by compys (fun fact, in the novel this is how John Hammond dies. because in the novel he isn't played by Richard Attenborough) and a brief bit of people being menaced by a T-Rex through a waterfall.

Actually, thinking about it, part 2's refusal to make any sense actually helps part 3, because they actually get to use some of the leftover plot. Specifically the part where we're going to the island to find and rescue someone who turns out to have been surviving there against the odds for longer than anyone might expect. Only now instead of a scientist it's a kid. Because apparently we have to child characters in these things for some reason.

It's a secret to everybody.

What I particularly like though is the WAY our resident Wesley get's stranded. He goes paragliding nearby, boat goes through a patch of mist, suddenly the crew is reduced to a couple of red smears.

That's no ordinary mist. That's the mist form of the VAMPIRE T-REX!

I fucking TOLD you the T-Rex was a vampire. You want more evidence? How about the fact that he bites the Spinosaurus in the throat, but rather than just die, Ol' Spiny rises from his grave and comes back more powerful than ever?

JOIN ME IN DEATH AND WALK THE NIGHT ETERNALLY!

There are several approaches to resolving the question of who would actually win in such a fight. Obviously the T-rex, dating several million years later than the Spinosaurus would be more likely to have access to the sort of time travel technology required to instigate such a combat. But the Spinosaurus, having better developed forelimbs, would be better able to operate the controls. Ultimately I think they'd probably have to forget all this unnecessary antagonism, team up and then go have adventures in time and space together. Like Doctor Who, but with more blood and fish.

If we're being serious for a moment then it really comes down to does the rex bite first. Because it has a bite force of approximately ALL THE BITE FORCE. So whilst the Spinosaurus is undoubtedly way cooler it's kinda tricky to fight back when your whole neck has been reduced to tattered and bloody this-space-for-rent sign.

However this isn't much of a problem here, partly because he's now invested with the powers of darkness but mostly because, in the fine tradition of many an episode of Ultraman the quickest way to show how much better the latest version is is to have it put down last seasons boss monster.

Poor old Zetton. You kill Ultraman ONE TIME, and suddenly your being kicked in the face every other series.

Now, obviously we should probably spend some time critiquing the depiction of Spinosaurus as a rampaging, bloodthirsty carnivore when all the evidence points towards it being primarily piscivorous. But I'm not entirely sure that's entirely fair to be honest. I mean, yes, it was picked out as the boss monster primarily on the basis of being theoretically larger than T-rex and more visually distinctive than the other options. And no, I don't think it would necessarily behave in quite that manner. But it's not like it had access to the sorts of fish it normally would, and there is plenty of supporting evidence that it wasn't EXCLUSIVELY a piscivore. So maybe it would develop a psychotic lust for tinned food, who's to say?

What's really fun is that we actually do get a reasonable scene of the Spinosaurus hunting in the water ENTIRELY BY ACCIDENT. That whole bit with boat was another leftover from the first novel. Only obviously in that it's the T-rex that attacks.

Oh, I only just realized something. You know how there's that REALLY odd bit where the Spinosaurus smashes through a high security fence like it's made of paper, but the can't get through an ordinary door? Yet more proof that it's become a vampire. Remember, vampires are super strong, but they can't enter a house unless you invite them in.

It all makes sense. I kinda wish that it didn't, but there's no escaping the facts. The Jurassic Park sequels are actually about VAMPIRE DINOSAURS. I honestly can't decide of I want to cry or have an erection right now.

Shit, now I've distracted myself. Where were we? Leftover plot and scenes still?

Okay, so there's the Pterasaur sequence, again leftover from the first novel, and I guess the army showing up at the end also counts. Then of course we must retread the whole "flee from the large predator, get caught by the small ones" bit. Because everybody loves to say raptor, even if they should really be saying Deinonychus.  Another gripe of course being the whole feathers on raptors argument. I think the quills on some of the raptors are actually a reasonable middle ground, although there should probably be a few more than were actually on display. Velociraptors being pretty much fully feathered I can buy, but these animals AREN'T ACTUALLY VELOCIRAPTORS. They're a lot bigger, so it's not unreasonable to posit that any integument they may possess would be somewhat less pronounced. And whilst we can also hand wave such things by mumbling something about genetics at the end of the day we really need to just accept the fact these films have an accepted visual style, and they need to keep that at least relatively consistent within the films. Hard truth but there it is. Better to just bitch about such inaccuracies afterwards and wait for the inevitable reboot and hope they get it closer then.

Seriously, couldn't we like kickstarter a scientifically accurate Jurassic Park reboot or something? You wouldn't even need a huge effects budget as it'd basically come down to 2 hours of arguing about why it's called Jurassic Park if it has so many Cretaceous species. It'd be hilarious.

I'm digressing again aren't I?

So, yeah, the film. Like I said, it's not great, but it's not horrible either. If Jurassic Park 1 distracts you from it's plot holes with slick directing, and part 2 rubs your face in it's ghastly mess whilst cackling malignly, part 3 feels more like it's more friendly. Cheerfully admitting it's deficiencies because it knows that we know just how much worse it could have been.

It's not brilliant, but it knows it isn't, and has come to terms with that. Disposable perhaps, but at least it manages to to do it's job properly.