#sci fi downgraded in favor of circus tricks I guess

[betterbemeta]

I feel like some things in the Jurassic World movies are actually a step backward in the science-fiction zone from Jurassic Park III. I think that was the one where it was revealed that the raptors had a 'language' and complex communication that implied not just 'intelligence' but 'sapience'-- and I understand that some people felt this jumped the shark a little.

(yes I know its a dream sequence, SHUT UP, they went there,)

But I remember seeing it when I was little and it made perfect sense to follow the original beats of how the raptors were scary in previous movies because they could interact with human environments like doors. They could use deception, 'tactics' and could not easily be contained.

If you're implying that these are beings that can reason, and further acting as if this reasoning ability is more threatening than the reasoning ability of a chimpanzee or something, then you're not afraid of 'what' is hunting you, but 'who.'

And that they could have reasons beyond being hungry bloodthirsty animals to be aggressive toward you.

That you have imprisoned 'people' and not 'animals' or even 'beneath animals' (creatures that have no natural existence, creations, toys, etc.)

But there's something disappointing to me about the stuff with Blue and Chris Pratt and all of that. It feels more like the fantasy of an animal tamer at a circus who has mastery of dangerous creatures (something that most modern circuses have cut) than it feels like a relationship with an intelligent creature capable of complex communication.

(Tell me how this is different from the image of a 'lion tamer' with a chair between him and his 'beasts?')

It doesn't even feel like the level of communication that you should be having with your dog, or cat. But the raptors of course obey Chris Pratt's fantasy expertise and fantasy rules surrounding their social behaviors because the point is to depict Chris's character as skillful. 'The right way to approach raptors' is whatever the writers want it to be, unlike real dogs, cats, horses, bears, big cats, etc.

In reality, there are a lot of failed 'animal whisperers' out there, hucksters that fake being an animal behaviorist to impose fantasy-like rules on animals while abusing them, and dominance-based trainers who get sued for animal abuse if they aren't attacked by the animals first.

The Jurassic World movies seem to mitigate this idea with that the raptors are not natural creatures (but living 'in the wild' seems to be a conclusion for at least one of them?) and that they vary in intelligence level, with Blue being the most intelligent. My issue with this is that complex communication required for coordination also requires multiple parties that understand it. Why aren't the raptors basically having constant misunderstandings between their differing mentalities, or misunderstanding their handler who doesn't seem to vary his approach between them?

Basically my point is. The place Jurassic Park was going, it was fine. You made Frankenstein's Monsters, classic sci-fi dilemma. It kind of sucks that they downgraded Dinosaur Frankensteins into... the emotional replacement for circus animals in the modern day when we know dancing bears and elephants aren't ethical. However 'cool' they are on their own, that type of creature in a narrative is there to demonstrate the bravery of their 'tamer' and any 'trust' the animal has with that tamer is just the same. It's not about any creature actually making its own decisions, let alone a highly intelligent one.

It doesn't really matter that Jurassic World movies try to have it both ways, with some lip service to 'respecting' the raptors, and sometimes other dinosaurs, showing the antagonists being 'disrespectful' by contrast. If we continued the themes from JPIII, the type of 'respect' that is supposedly the 'good' position, is not the kind of respect you'd want to give to a person.