This past weekend, Jurassic World was released to a ravenous audience ready for a good sequel to the Spielberg classic. Expectations weren't very high for this one so the fact that this movie managed to gross more money it's opening weekend then Avatar or The Avengers is pretty surprising. The film itself though was okay at best but what's wrong with that? People wanted to see some cool dinosaur action and that's exactly what we got. A new hybrid Dino ran all over the place devouring innocent civilians, Pterodactyls lifted people up in the air as keepsakes for lunch, and the Raptors found themselves an all you can eat buffet at the guard lounging area! *For the record that last bit was just a joke, that doesn't actually happen in the movie*
What did take me off guard though was the reaction we got from Ken Ham. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he is the head of Answers in Genesis corporation and the Creation Museum. However I didn't come here to discuss evolution versus creation though. Ken Ham didn't particularly like the film saying that it was supporting movie violence and was helping desensitize people to death. Despite how much respect I have for him, I disagreed with him immensely on the film for a few reasons.
I am sure most of you know about the many popular horror franchises out there like Nightmare on Elm Street or Friday the 13th. These movies follow the exploits of two supernatural killers who go after a bunch of stereotypical teenagers and use their abilities to rip these cliches a new one. The focus of these film are often on not only how gory they can get but how creative the kills can be. Most people go to see these movies just to find out what sick ways the writers have come up with to kill off these characters. Jurassic World does the complete opposite of this. While their characters are just as flat and two dimensional as the body count for Freddy or Jason, they never show their deaths as some sort of piece of entertainment. When one of them dies, it is sad and even depressing at times. While we may not care for these people too much, the writer obviously does. Even when an Apatosaurus dies, the director portrays this scene as very heart breaking.
People get upset about movie violence mainly because they believe it might negatively affect their kids. Jurassic World in my opinion though actually teaches kids. Most films that are incredibly violent simply exist for that gore factor alone. They don't possess a message or have something meaningful to say, they just wanna see another person get ripped to shreds. However, Jurassic World doesn't try to go that route and instead stays in touch with the themes of the first movie: Man shouldn't mess with nature, We truly have no control, etc. etc. These scientist create this new dinosaur acting like it is no big deal and in the process, they inadvertently kill dozens of people. Their actions have unforeseen consequences and thus they have to pay for their nearsightedness. These are lessons that kids obviously need to know.
Some I think at this point might be asking how can something so violent actually be supporting good morals? Well for one thing, the dinosaurs that are killing people don't know any better. Like Christ Pratt's character said in the trailer, "These animals are thinking I gotta eat, I gotta hunt...". These creatures only have survival on their mind and let's face it, care little about how their lunch feels about that. Once again, I think this a good lesson for kids. Animals can be pretty cool and friendly at times, but there are quite a few who wouldn't think twice about taking a piece out of you. Yeah, scary I know but that's how reality is. Despite the fact that Jurassic World has it's whimsical moments, it doesn't try to paint a very nice picture of how nature really works.
Jurassic World was violent, but for all the right reasons. The movie tries to depict what dinosaurs might actually do in this type of setting and it pulls it off rather well. They don't try to sugar coat it nor do they try to glorify the harsh reality. Jurassic World aims for a good middle and hits it right on target.
What did you think about what I had to say? Did you think I was spot on, way off base, or just need a little bit adjustment? On a critical note, how did you think I wrote this article? This is my first so I would like to get better. I would love to hear your thoughts.
Did you agree with what I had to say?
What did you think of the article?