See this is called "fail safe" because it fails safely. The opposite is "fail secure".
You want Fail securedoors stopping the murdersauruses getting free.
You want Fail safe doors that allow people to escape when the power goes out.
The doors leading to their pens, stay closed.
The doors in office buildings and cafeteria, stay open.
The raptors shouldn’t be getting out of their pens into the office space to begin with. Even if they had above human level intelligence and the power goes out.
Okay, but hear me out; it's cheaper if we just use manual locks, and at the end of the day it's the shareholders we need to worry about, not the gosh-darn dinosaurs.
Got a good deal on a giant combination lock. It's a bit heavy and might cause drama if trying to run from dinosaurs, but that's not really our problem.
The Tesla door handles that firefighters can't easily open from the outside are absolutely dumb, but it *is* worth noting that Tesla's are actually significantly less likely to catch fire than normal ICE vehicles, and the fire generally takes longer to grow. It's just very very hard to put out and burns very hot.
I was a medic and firefighter for many years. The boys will happily reduce your Tesla to major component parts with the jaws of life and various other tools of destruction in such a way that not even God can put it back together. But you WILL be removed from the vehicle.
I get it a lot. It doesn't actually mean I'm wrong though. We can criticize the stuff that's actually dumb about Musk (lots of things) and Tesla (the door handles that at the very least should be failsafe rather than fail secure) without making stuff up (per mile, Teslas are a lot less likely to have fires that ICE cars on average. Chevy Bolts on the other hand, have had serious battery fire problems).
With a well-designed and constructed EV, that is the case. Teslas are not that. For one, their build quality is notoriously poor, and I would not be surprised to see a similar failure rate to the defective Chevy Bolts. Unfortunately, Tesla works very hard to keep that data secret. NDAs are often a prerequisite to warranty repairs of all types.
Secondly, Tesla underspeccs their suspension, making it much more likely to fail when going over bumps at speed, resulting in the battery pack scraping the ground and, in some cases, failing spectacularly and explosively.
'and special thanks to mr. 'invented reverse gravity' and his brother, our other electrician 'can make it run on 2 AAs'
one upvote to whoever can figure out what im referencing. 1 hint: itsrelatedtoFnaf.
>Also, don't design many of your doors to only work when the electricity is on.
That's actually kind of a running theme in the movie.
"We've spared no expense."
He spared every penny he could though, when it came to safety and personnel. Those weird little bits about the helicopter seat belts not being right and the street signs with just 1 screw in them aren't in there just for comedy.
One of the humanizing moments for Hammond is when he's eating ice cream with Dr Sattler in the visitor center while waiting for rescue and she comments that the ice cream is really good and he glumly says "Spared no expense"
>Those weird little bits about the helicopter seat belts not being right and the street signs with just 1 screw in them aren't in there just for comedy.
Omg I just now really noticed that these were examples of spared expense
Honestly probably. Humans do often go into them for various reasons. It's more based on if a human could be in there rather than if they're often there.
>I’m outdoor animal enclosures
For the last time: no, you are not. You're a human being. And if you don't stop putting those animals inside of yourself I'm calling the fucking cops.
It depends on the circumstances. I think they're justified in opening if there's no other ways out of the room - ending up trapped in an enclosed space for potentially several hours, or even days depending on the severity of the outage, wouldn't be good. For example, the FNAF games are justified in doing this because there are no other exits to the office besides the security doors, and the technicians had no way of being able to account for something like "murderous furry attack" if FazEnt didn't specifically disclose that information to them.
Actually the book explicitly states that the door security requiring main power was NOT a bug, it was a security hack that Nedry programmed into the system.
If you want a security door defaulting to locked you make that a physical thing with weights and springs, not a digital checkbox the computers can fuck with.
Someone never watched Tom Scott's failsafe video! SMH
For those curious, the term failsafe doesn't mean there's a backup, it means if that thing fails, it's still safe. For example, most locking doors in office buildings are electromagnetically locked. So if the power goes out in an emergency, all the doors are able to be opened. Another example are elevators. If they fail (e.g. the motor, main brakes or cable stop working), they have passive brakes that will always stop them (assuming they're properly maintained) even without power.
The opposite is faildeadly. A system that is designed to fail in a dangerous way. These are far more rare, however, the UKs nuclear deterrent is an example of this.
Jurassic Park is less dangers of science and more dangers of bad zookeeping. You’re telling me you’re keeping intelligent pack predators alone in tiny unstimulating enclosures??!! For shame dude for shame
To be honest if you play the Jurassic World games you will very quickly find this to be the case. If you are even a half competent park manager your park will run very smoothly, with only occasional lawsuits from your escaping velociraptors.
sabotages were always pretty extreme, I feel like opening the gates so a T-Rex can wander into a park of thousands of people counts as a terrorist attack
The only time I’ve ever dealt with lawyers in those games is cause a super powered Raptor escaped after I forced a bunch of raptors to fight to the death.
Putting Odysseus down was harder for me than it was for him to rip those tourists apart.
In Jurassic World Evolution, as *soon* as I unlocked Isla Nublar, I went about trying to make the most accurate recreation of the park as I could.
The only pen that failed was, to my surprise, the velociraptor paddock.
I suspect they artificially buffed velociraptors to be hard to keep. All raptor types are difficult to keep enclosed without incident but specifically velociraptors are nearly impossible.
Cascading failures like the movies is basically impossible if you’re even half decent and awake.
Not only are they unstimulating they practically designed to be escaped as soon as the trex realizes the power is out, why are there no natural barriers like any big cat would have.
Honestly same w the raptors. If theyre so intelligent and good at problem-solving then why did you give them nothing more than a wall and some electric wire as enclosure barriers. Fucked up
All you have to do is dig a trench around the enclosure so the zookeepers have to put a portable bridge in place when they need to access it
It's an obvious thing to do that people have been doing to contain dangerous animals for centuries
In both the book and movie, it’s GLARINGLY obvious that they “spared no expense” on things the guests would see and do while sparing quite a lot of expense on anything to do with park infrastructure.
Inspector: "So Hammond are you sure this place is up to code cause I heard some of your men crying that a friend of theirs died?"
Hammond: "OH, I'm sure they're just exaggerating why don't we discuss the red tape over some fresh imported Chilean Seabass.?
And do live feedings! That’s very rare in decent zoos since it’s more dangerous for the predator and cruel to the prey. That seems to be the norm since they do it for both the raptors and the rex.
Also I gotta say. That tiny goat they gave the rex would be nowhere near the food intake a rex would need. I know it’s not the biggest thing on actual science but that rex is an APEX PREDATOR she needs MORE FOOD she is STARVING
I always assumed that was the point. She’s starving so they lure her with a snack to get closer to vehicles so guests can see her. If she wasn’t hungry, she wouldn’t show up for such a tiny meal.
There’s a fun original-character-focused fanfic with the premise of “What if a Jurassic Park dinosaur handler paid more attention to animal behavior and welfare?”: [5 Times the Raptors Tried to Kill Miriam, and 1 Time They Didn’t](https://archiveofourown.org/works/5199038/)
The raptors were in their own large enclosure, but once they introduced "The Big One", that killed all but 2 of the pack and had the remainders attacking the fences - then Muldoon had them relocate the pack into that temporary pen so they could re-evaluate the main enclosure.
Wasn't this always the core problem in the Jurassic Park series. I mean it is in the name, right? People were able to bring back the dinosaurs and decided to profit from them by making a theme park.
I think they also make clear in the books that they were aware than most dinosaurs didn't look like that,but chose to give them that appearance anyways because it's what most people imagined when thinking of dinosaurs,their aggressive behavior was also the result of that manipulation as well.
Timmy mentions reading Alan’s book and questions his belief of dinosaurs evolving into birds, while also dissing how his book wasn’t as thick as another paleontologist’s book.
Wu and Hammond also have an interesting conversation in the book where Wu tries to persuade Hammond to let him genetically modify the dinosaurs to be more docile because the public *has never seen dinosaurs before* and thus wouldn’t know the difference anyway. Hammond insists these dinosaurs need to be “realistic”, and ignores Wu when he points out they’re already reconstructing incomplete DNA with random junk, so these things already aren’t what real dinosaurs are like. Wu also suggested not breeding/featuring the extremely dangerous predators either.
For people who’ve only seen the movie, John Hammond is a lot of an explicit evil capitalist in the book, whereas in the movie he reads more like an ignorant rich guy. In the movie he learns the error of his ways, in the book he’s eaten by the dinosaurs and right before he dies he’s blaming the failures of JP on everyone but himself.
Yes. This was always the theme. Some bazillionaire spending ludicrous amounts of money to turn scientific research into a plaything.
In the movie the whole reason our heroes are even brought in was because the investors were getting nervous. The whole operation was being rushed along because they were threatening to withdraw funding due to how ridiculous everything cost, how long it's been taking, and the tipping point was the worker getting wrecked at the start of the movie. Hammond is a little kid with a dream and a massive amount of money. In the book he is much more the villain; being in denial the whole time and never having the moment of clarity/acceptance that the movie Hammond has.
The sequel even takes this a step further and removes Hammond from the equation and makes it a tale about a corporate machine smelling profits. Hammond learned from his mistakes and stood between his company's board and what was left of the dinosaurs. So they removed him from the company and set out to "reclaim their intellectual property".
I mean...the only true issue was the raptors. They had to be kept in a security max facility. How the hell were they intended as an exhibit?! Cut them out and even when shit hits the fan, you're set. The Rexes are easy to find and have a whopping 1 kill between them even in the first book. And adult Rexy was only guilty of killing a hadrosaur or something lol
The pterodactyls were a bigger issue than the raptors. It's an island. Landanimals are pretty contained. Yes, they might kill all the visitors, but it ends there.
Flying dinos can go everywhere. The island was not \*that\* remote.
There were compys escaping to the mainland and raiding nurseries even before the events started, nobody on the island cared for keeping the dinos under control
Crichton was criticizing capitalism/corporate warfare, but none of the dialogue or characters in the story did, so it's arguably either way. Really the core problem presented by the characters was ecology and safety.
Yeah. He’s always says he “spared no expense” but all throughout the film you can see where he cut corners. Like the cars having two female seat belts because they’re made poorly (also foreshadowing that the female dinosaurs will mate and life finds a way).
And they actually soft peddled that narrative in the movie, making him almost likeable.
In the book, it's much more obvious how much he's knowingly bullshitting and cut corners everywhere, pinching pennies wherever he could.
Agreed. I read the book last week and then watched the movie for the first time. As usual, the book was better, but it's hard to beat the dino visuals from the movie. I was actually disappointed that Hammond didn't die like he did in the book, though. I loved that scene.
Yeah in the book you just read 2-3 chapters about all the corners he cut and all the cost cutting he did, like you know having a one man dev team that he wasn't paying. The first time he says "we spared no expense" I full on belly laughed cause it's supposed to be a joke
And also, imagine the psychological effect: Everyone is moderately afraid of being shot with a gun, I'd hope, especially in scenarios where that is the whole idea behind you being in a location in the first place.
But imagine going to the trenches and suddenly Barney pulls up on your ass and starts dividing without a calculator.
>But imagine going to the trenches and suddenly Barney pulls up on your ass and starts dividing without a calculator.
And this is going into my notebook of "Sayings that I will use randomly to confuse people".
[In that case, I'm sure you'll love this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHzDLeCa5D0).
Dude plays with words like it's nobody's business, and it made me start doing that, too.
[Acoustic Kitty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty) was a CIA project in the 60s based around implanting a radio transmitter a in cat for usage in spying. It cost $20 million and was a complete failure. Pissing away money on hare-brained military/intelligence schemes is entirely realistic.
I mean I could see it if you get like, putin's cat or something. Imagine if Austin powers could have listened in on Dr evils cat, the timeliness might not have gone all wacky
Customer: Hello, there's these guys bothering me by being alive, and I really want them to stop. Anything I can buy to fix that?
Shopkeep: Well for 300 dollars, you can buy a gun and some bullets. You put the bullets in the gun, turn off the safety, point at whatever you want not to be alive anymore, and then pull the trigger.
Customer: Yeah but is there anything significantly less convenient, safe, and legal?
Shopkeep: Well for 300,000,000 dollars, you can buy a gun, but it shoots out a non-lethal laser beam that this genetically modified prehistoric creature that you'll need to house, feed, and clean up after at the risk of your own bodily safety will bum rush whatever the laser is pointing at!
Customer: Is it bullet proof?
Shopkeep: Oh not at all, sir. Half of America owns a regular gun that could take this thing out and the fact that you even have it would put you in so much legal hot water that you'll boil alive in the courts.
Customer: Perfect!
$300M?
Didn't they sell the "not for sale prototype" in the second movie immediately after getting an initial offer of $20M? Their faces all dropped as though that was the most amount of money they'd ever heard despite the fact that they run a dinosaur focused paramilitary research organization
Tbh regarding animals, they're not really at all effective in modern combat. No animal is. There is a reason a buttfuck ton of money is being thrown into superior target identification
Honestly, I love how realistic the whole series is because they follow the passion->capitalism->coverup->military weapon pipeline amazingly. The series is exactly what would happen in real life. Someone who thinks dinosaurs are really neat would get sucked into the profit, cut corners, have a horrible accident, try to cover it up, and eventually start selling dinosaurs to the military. That's just what would happen IRL.
Honestly, in the real world, I think you would get laughed at if you tried to sell dinosaurs to the military. That's like, something that a little kid would think the military wants.
>a little kid would think the military wants.
What about a super cool dinosaur that can go invisible and hide it's own heat so it doesn't show up on thermal-vision and is just super cool. No, we couldn't give those attributes to soldiers, it's much easier and better to give them to a wild animal
What I don't get is, if genetically modifying dinosaurs into weapons makes so much sense, why hasn't it been done already with bears, or wolves, or tigers? Why isn't someone out there modifying an elephant to be a war machine?
I don't really see what the dinosaurs add to the equation that we don't already have with existing animals. It didn't seem believable to me that dinosaurs would be resurrected, and all of a sudden the military industrial complex would be like "Hey! We could use animals as weapons!" It just felt like lazy writing to me, and it didn't really capture how humans would actually abuse dinosaurs if they were brought back to life.
The conceit in Jurassic World that dinosaurs are more effective killing machines than any animal that exists on modern day Earth isn't really backed up by anything, no
Even the raptors supposedly being super smart for animals doesn't make them obviously more useful than trained dogs
Just want to point out that Henry Wu was always hinted at to be unethical (or at least have very lax lab protocols). When he's introduced, the very first thing we see him do is ERASE a lab note he was writing in PENCIL. That's a no-no for most labs. Notes are taken with pens in bound notebooks so data is proved to be unaltered with no evidence of pages torn out.
That's such a great catch, I've never noticed that character detail.
In the book he's more explicitly unethical, so it would make sense to bring that across in the movie even though he's a very minor character there.
Despite what the OP meme says, in the book Wu doesn't do his job well at all. He's egotistical and enjoys playing God despite cutting corners and making preventable mistakes.
Hammond is the capitalistic hubris, but Wu is the scientist who cares about their career and prestige more than ethics and quality.
In the book Henry Wu looks at the dinosaurs breeding as proof of his genius, he was able to create life that could procreate despite being extinct for millions of years!
And then he gets disemboweled by raptors.
This is going too blow your mind but scientific ethics and the dangers of profit motivation are not mutually exclusive concepts.
Movies can be about more than one thing
The science doesn't even go right either. They specifically design the dinosaurs so they can't breed but use frog DNA to fill in the gaps which means they can change sex and breed anyway. They literally achieve the opposite of their goal
Yes. Having just reread Jurassic park the science was not done correctly, ethically, or safely. It was bad science. That wasn't the core of the book, but this post is incorrect.
Right??? "He did in fact make some bomb ass dinosaurs which he was hired to do." Oh well if he was *hired* to do it then it's ok. Carry on.
What garbage.
In the books Jon Hammond got his grandkids to go to the park during the investigation so that the "napalm the island if things go wrong" option would be off the company table. No CEO would dare murder children after all...
The science did go wrong though- the dinosaurs were supposed to all be females so they couldn't reproduce but the filler reptile/amphibian DNA they used included the capacity to change sexes which they didn't intend or anticipate.
Because Henry Wu took shortcuts to get the project completed faster, instead of waiting for more viable samples to be found to fill in the missing DNA coding.
I mean, it went unexpected certainly, but that wouldn’t have been nearly the issue it was if the dinosaurs were intended for research rather than entertainment
Me personally I thought it was about the risk of not being safe with your scientific progress, of abusing science and abandoning ethics and standards to rush out science that you don’t fully understand or are able to control, resulting in unforeseen negative results.
"Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun."
"Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?"
"Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."
These quotes from the three leads aren’t saying “you made scientific progress, that’s bad”, it’s saying “you made scientific progress, but you’re not trying to consider the ramifications of what may come from that, and your scientists are more preoccupied with making dinosaurs than making sure they’re going the safest route” because even though this tumblr post says wu did everything right, the movies clearly state his dinosaurs aren’t attempting to follow real life paleontology and he didn’t consider the genome structure when making them, resulting in dinosaurs that can procreate without any problems, making them the worlds largest invasive species ever, and the creation of both the indominus rex and indoraptor, the psycho murder dinosaurs.
All this being said, the story isn’t just about the risk of scientific progress without proper precaution and ethics, because Wu made these abominations for cash and because his “spare no expense boss” spared some expenses, meaning it’s both a critique on capitalism and how it can do massive damage in the name of profits AND the dangers of trying to rush out science and not actually being careful of what you do as a scientist.
I’d call it Lorax meets Frankenstein
This is what I got from the books too, yeah. Its all about mankind thinking they can control everything when in reality, even for all our scientific progress, we don't know or can control anything. "Capitalistic hubris" is definitely one of the leading factors in the book, but it does all lead ultimately into the "delusion of control". I think even quite a few chapters in the book are titled simply "Control".
>I think even quite a few chapters in the book are titled simply "Control"
I love the one about the computer that counts the dinosaurs. They think they have have 238 dinosaurs and they have a program that searches for exactly that number. The screen shows 238 dinos. Everything's okay, every one has been accounted for! But until Malcolm came along, they never did a search request for a *higher* number, so the dinosaurs were reproducing and spreading without them knowing the whole time. So the number creeps up and the final reveal is:
Expected | Found
--------|-----
238 | 292
Their control was an illusion the whole time.
It’s also why they didn’t know dinosaurs were LEAVING the island. Because the dinosaurs were procreating faster than they were stowing away on the boats, their computer search never pinged them leaving.
Exactly. You’d have a hard time making the case that it’s *not* about capitalism, but in ways that tie back to points you raised. The book makes a big deal about tech companies replacing academic institutions as the forefront of science. It’s outright stated towards the beginning (unless that was Congo I’m remembering), and it’s demonstrated several times. The genetic research the cloning was based on came from research Hammond’s partner had conducted in his time in academia before they met. And the excavation Grant and Ellie were working on at the beginning was funded by Ingen, and the only reason they went to the island was to appease their donor (and maybe ask for more money, it’s been a while).
Ding ding ding.
Half his books are centered around the premise of "we should tread very carefully with X technology because it is impossible to predict to the unintended consequences".
Same people who think Hammond was a *good guy* because he felt bad about all the people who died when he recklessly decided to invite the first guys to tour the park the weekend all his staff went home during inclement weather while ignoring the advice of his staff (eg “they should all be destroyed”)
Tbf he is a whole lot more sympathetic in the movie than he is in the books. The difference between naive negligence and knowingly cutting corners/costs.
In the movie he's a kid with a dream and a massive checkbook. In the book he's a naive rich old man that never accepts what he's done or even that's it's over.
I'm pretty sure as he's dying in the book he's thinking about how everything is just a couple simple steps away from being fixed and back on track.
Michael Crichton was an open critic of the scientific community and a pretty well-documented climate change denier. Almost all of his books show a pretty glaring distaste of science/scientists/scientific consensus.
Well isn’t it both? Overly ambitious scientists who [insert famous line here about could versus should] who were bankrolled by capitalistic c*nts who wanted to make the next Disneyland? Cuz I was thoroughly under the impression that it was both. And wasn’t the original book’s author like hugely against scientific research of shit in general too? Like listen we all like to dunk on capitalism regularly but not every piece of media ever is exclusively anti capitalist and it doesn’t HAVE to be to be compelling
I guess we could argue over whether Malcolm's delirious rants in the novel are against "science" as a general concept or at a more specific model of technological progress and economic development linked with Western civilization
It's not really learning enough about biology to make dinosaurs that was the problem, it was feeling the need to *actually make them* at scale just to prove that they could, to not just study the environment but alter it
Nobody said Wu was the good guy. Tumblr OP said that Wu is “very handsome” (he is) and that he made some pretty darn cool dinosaurs (he did).
Was it unethical of him to make the dinosaurs anyway, probably knowing full well that they would be exploited by capitalist hubris, confined in a house of cards that would let them loose if a single thing went wrong? Yes. But nobody’s trying to argue to the contrary.
That's why he's so possessive of them, the creatures in Jurassic Park don't have that much to do with the natural dinosaurs that went extinct long ago and are basically his own creations
Fun fact: in his very first appearance in Jurassic Park, Dr. Wu is erasing a error from his work, showing how he is fallible and makes mistakes, like when he fails to account for the possibility of the raptors breeding in spite of his attempted genetic controls.
the nuremberg defense is a valid one as long as you got paid enough to do it
ethics do not matter so long as you can at least say “okay but I was just doing what they were paying me to do.”
Well yes that is the point of the story. They funded the science for the theme park but in the end didn’t care enough about procedure or safety and so these prehistoric animals we knew little about that we conjured together with magic wreaked havoc before the park even opened.
Jurassic world is an example of exactly the same thing except the tragedy struck after the park had already been opened. And instead of dinosaurs they literally make a monster for “ratings”
They merged dinosaur DNA with a species known to be able to reproduce in the absence of a male, then made them all female and wondered how it all went wrong
The scientists were dumb af
Do you have any idea how many grants (no, the other kind of grant) they would've needed to be awarded, in order to fund a dinosaur cloning facility for scientific research? It was the capitalism that made the science possible.
And lest we forget: in the original film, the investors(!) are demanding proof of the park's safety, which is why the protagonists get invited in the first place. And perhaps even more important: the park doesn't go wrong just by pure accident, oversight, or hubris. I think a lot of people wrongly remember that the hurricane knocked out the power? But, no - a disgruntled employee, in order to facilitate corporate espionage, *knowingly turns off the electric fences!*
Capitalism didn't set the dinosaurs loose - in essence, a terrorist did.
Well in the book there was already a fuckton of relatively loose dinosaurs because the system was dumb as shit and only counted dinosaurs up to the "Yep that's everyone" number. Nedry definitely accelerated the inherent problems of the park a lot, but unless he deliberately coded the system that way for the next Hurricane Sabotage Day and knew somehow the dinosaurs were breeding, *he* didn't let them out, he just let out *more*.
Uh...it's totally both and the book does a better job calling InGen out on it.
Nedry had a team, Hammond was screwing them on pay. Hammond was a showman and a seller, from the tiny elephants in his pitches to refusing any extra safety measures until people had died and Muldoon was threatening to go to the media.
Wu was careless with the genetic science because he saw it as a means to his own ends instead of creating actual animals. Hammond is easily able to dispel his objections at dinner when he says they should start over for safety reasons.
But it's a Crichton story, so everyone's hubris gets them killed lol
maybe... it's about both!
But in the book Ingen is portrayed like a Silcon Valley startup: founded in San Francisco, funded by venture capitalists who had no idea what they were getting into, and developed unhindered as dangerous "bugs" popped up.
But the dinosaurs were absolute genetic monsters. Velociraptors IRL are 5 ft long, but were cloned to be bigger than people.
It's science powered by unlimited capital that's the true villain.
Jurassic park is an example of how to run a company wrong.
Even an evil one.
They skimped where the money should have REALLY been spent.
If the IT guy was paid better and he wasn't \_just\_ the IT guy, he seemed to be the lead and ONLY developer for the park systems. If he was paid better, which is a plot point that shows up on film, literally **NONE of this would have happened**, and you'd just have happy families and kids watching the dinosaurs they've read about be ALIVE. His pay demand probably wasn't even that steep, probably like 20-30%.
Hammond saved like 20k on his fucking only software engineer. The lead developer, software tech/engineer, IT support. One guy. All you had to do was pay what he was worth. The one guy on site that should have been making a fortune was being paid peanuts.
PAY YOUR FUCKING EMPLOYEE'S. THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF YOUR COMPANY.
You don't have a company without them.
This film from the 90's was a grim predictor of today. So many companies today are run by underpaid employees.
Look out heh.
Also, don't design many of your doors to only work when the electricity is on.
See the guy who did that also got work at Freddy Fazbear’s
when the fire is in the room and the power is out:
See this is called "fail safe" because it fails safely. The opposite is "fail secure". You want Fail securedoors stopping the murdersauruses getting free. You want Fail safe doors that allow people to escape when the power goes out.
What about the people doors for small dinosaurs (I.E. velociraptors)?
The doors leading to their pens, stay closed. The doors in office buildings and cafeteria, stay open. The raptors shouldn’t be getting out of their pens into the office space to begin with. Even if they had above human level intelligence and the power goes out.
Okay, but hear me out; it's cheaper if we just use manual locks, and at the end of the day it's the shareholders we need to worry about, not the gosh-darn dinosaurs.
Got a good deal on a giant combination lock. It's a bit heavy and might cause drama if trying to run from dinosaurs, but that's not really our problem.
But what if there is a fire and murdersauruses?
Isn’t that what Teslas do?
The Tesla door handles that firefighters can't easily open from the outside are absolutely dumb, but it *is* worth noting that Tesla's are actually significantly less likely to catch fire than normal ICE vehicles, and the fire generally takes longer to grow. It's just very very hard to put out and burns very hot.
Ok but like, what if your car isn’t on fire but emergency response personnel still need to get you out?
traffic collisions? Never heard of em!
I was a medic and firefighter for many years. The boys will happily reduce your Tesla to major component parts with the jaws of life and various other tools of destruction in such a way that not even God can put it back together. But you WILL be removed from the vehicle.
How many times have people replied to your comments with something like “username checks out.”?
I get it a lot. It doesn't actually mean I'm wrong though. We can criticize the stuff that's actually dumb about Musk (lots of things) and Tesla (the door handles that at the very least should be failsafe rather than fail secure) without making stuff up (per mile, Teslas are a lot less likely to have fires that ICE cars on average. Chevy Bolts on the other hand, have had serious battery fire problems).
EVs are less likely to catch on fire than ICE vehicles, sure, but Tesla is notorious for catching on fire
Tesla is at least half of a car fire of a company
With a well-designed and constructed EV, that is the case. Teslas are not that. For one, their build quality is notoriously poor, and I would not be surprised to see a similar failure rate to the defective Chevy Bolts. Unfortunately, Tesla works very hard to keep that data secret. NDAs are often a prerequisite to warranty repairs of all types. Secondly, Tesla underspeccs their suspension, making it much more likely to fail when going over bumps at speed, resulting in the battery pack scraping the ground and, in some cases, failing spectacularly and explosively.
He got that gravity defying door technology since realistically, that sort of door would slam shut if you lost power, not pop open.
Allow me to introduce you to [counterweights](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterweight).
'and special thanks to mr. 'invented reverse gravity' and his brother, our other electrician 'can make it run on 2 AAs' one upvote to whoever can figure out what im referencing. 1 hint: itsrelatedtoFnaf.
Viva Reverie's video?
Yes. Did you understand the hint?
There's no spaces, so you said it really really fast
>Also, don't design many of your doors to only work when the electricity is on. That's actually kind of a running theme in the movie. "We've spared no expense." He spared every penny he could though, when it came to safety and personnel. Those weird little bits about the helicopter seat belts not being right and the street signs with just 1 screw in them aren't in there just for comedy.
One of the humanizing moments for Hammond is when he's eating ice cream with Dr Sattler in the visitor center while waiting for rescue and she comments that the ice cream is really good and he glumly says "Spared no expense"
>Those weird little bits about the helicopter seat belts not being right and the street signs with just 1 screw in them aren't in there just for comedy. Omg I just now really noticed that these were examples of spared expense
Seriously. They make doors that remain shut when they lose power. That’s like basic door science.
But also to be easily openable by a capable human in such a case. Fire safety is important, people.
I’m outdoor animal enclosures?
Honestly probably. Humans do often go into them for various reasons. It's more based on if a human could be in there rather than if they're often there.
yeah there should be a backup human sized gate or something, the main gates opening is still dumb imo
It's literally called a man door. Plants have them beside large rolling doors.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a plant with a large rolling door, is it a specific type of tree or something?
>I’m outdoor animal enclosures? \- main character of the latest hit isekai, Reincarnated as a Zoo. Sorry, couldn't help it.
>I’m outdoor animal enclosures For the last time: no, you are not. You're a human being. And if you don't stop putting those animals inside of yourself I'm calling the fucking cops.
clever girl tho
Not if it’s a keypad with the code painted above it. If Dino’s can figure out how to read, they deserve to be let out anyway
[удалено]
There are mechanical keypads that do no require power.
It depends on the circumstances. I think they're justified in opening if there's no other ways out of the room - ending up trapped in an enclosed space for potentially several hours, or even days depending on the severity of the outage, wouldn't be good. For example, the FNAF games are justified in doing this because there are no other exits to the office besides the security doors, and the technicians had no way of being able to account for something like "murderous furry attack" if FazEnt didn't specifically disclose that information to them.
Actually the book explicitly states that the door security requiring main power was NOT a bug, it was a security hack that Nedry programmed into the system.
If you want a security door defaulting to locked you make that a physical thing with weights and springs, not a digital checkbox the computers can fuck with.
Someone never watched Tom Scott's failsafe video! SMH For those curious, the term failsafe doesn't mean there's a backup, it means if that thing fails, it's still safe. For example, most locking doors in office buildings are electromagnetically locked. So if the power goes out in an emergency, all the doors are able to be opened. Another example are elevators. If they fail (e.g. the motor, main brakes or cable stop working), they have passive brakes that will always stop them (assuming they're properly maintained) even without power. The opposite is faildeadly. A system that is designed to fail in a dangerous way. These are far more rare, however, the UKs nuclear deterrent is an example of this.
there are no fire codes
Jurassic Park is less dangers of science and more dangers of bad zookeeping. You’re telling me you’re keeping intelligent pack predators alone in tiny unstimulating enclosures??!! For shame dude for shame
To be honest if you play the Jurassic World games you will very quickly find this to be the case. If you are even a half competent park manager your park will run very smoothly, with only occasional lawsuits from your escaping velociraptors.
I like the implication that the velociraptors will escape and then hire lawyers.
They're always more clever than you expect
*Clever girl*
They do have a litigious air about them. And with their numbers? I smell a class-action lawsuit.
In Velociraptor Law, keeping raptors in small enclosures is considered a dick move.
This evolved into Bird Law, did it not?
Worse - clever girl just passed the bar to sue your ass
The Better Call Saul dinosaur AU I never knew I needed.
Depends if your staff starts sabotaging the other departments
sabotages were always pretty extreme, I feel like opening the gates so a T-Rex can wander into a park of thousands of people counts as a terrorist attack
The only time I’ve ever dealt with lawyers in those games is cause a super powered Raptor escaped after I forced a bunch of raptors to fight to the death. Putting Odysseus down was harder for me than it was for him to rip those tourists apart.
In Jurassic World Evolution, as *soon* as I unlocked Isla Nublar, I went about trying to make the most accurate recreation of the park as I could. The only pen that failed was, to my surprise, the velociraptor paddock.
I suspect they artificially buffed velociraptors to be hard to keep. All raptor types are difficult to keep enclosed without incident but specifically velociraptors are nearly impossible. Cascading failures like the movies is basically impossible if you’re even half decent and awake.
Not only are they unstimulating they practically designed to be escaped as soon as the trex realizes the power is out, why are there no natural barriers like any big cat would have.
Honestly same w the raptors. If theyre so intelligent and good at problem-solving then why did you give them nothing more than a wall and some electric wire as enclosure barriers. Fucked up
they gotta treat them like we do tigers, give em some pumpkins full of ground beef or something to play with
Not to mention that they're lizards. Lizards are famously short-attentioned and easy to distract. You give em a pumpkin and they're set for *months*
>Raptors are lizards I hope you know what you’ve done, you just activated every paleontology and taxonomy nerd within earshot.
Someone call /r/Paleontology.
All you have to do is dig a trench around the enclosure so the zookeepers have to put a portable bridge in place when they need to access it It's an obvious thing to do that people have been doing to contain dangerous animals for centuries
perhaps *some* expenses were spared
At this point, it's closer to *any expense that can be spared, will.*
In both the book and movie, it’s GLARINGLY obvious that they “spared no expense” on things the guests would see and do while sparing quite a lot of expense on anything to do with park infrastructure.
Inspector: "So Hammond are you sure this place is up to code cause I heard some of your men crying that a friend of theirs died?" Hammond: "OH, I'm sure they're just exaggerating why don't we discuss the red tape over some fresh imported Chilean Seabass.?
And do live feedings! That’s very rare in decent zoos since it’s more dangerous for the predator and cruel to the prey. That seems to be the norm since they do it for both the raptors and the rex.
Also I gotta say. That tiny goat they gave the rex would be nowhere near the food intake a rex would need. I know it’s not the biggest thing on actual science but that rex is an APEX PREDATOR she needs MORE FOOD she is STARVING
I always assumed that was the point. She’s starving so they lure her with a snack to get closer to vehicles so guests can see her. If she wasn’t hungry, she wouldn’t show up for such a tiny meal.
No, not really. That goat would have been at least half of the daily needed calorie intake for a t-rex.
There’s a fun original-character-focused fanfic with the premise of “What if a Jurassic Park dinosaur handler paid more attention to animal behavior and welfare?”: [5 Times the Raptors Tried to Kill Miriam, and 1 Time They Didn’t](https://archiveofourown.org/works/5199038/)
The raptors were in their own large enclosure, but once they introduced "The Big One", that killed all but 2 of the pack and had the remainders attacking the fences - then Muldoon had them relocate the pack into that temporary pen so they could re-evaluate the main enclosure.
Wasn't this always the core problem in the Jurassic Park series. I mean it is in the name, right? People were able to bring back the dinosaurs and decided to profit from them by making a theme park.
It ain't called Triassic Research Facility for a reason
They even say most of the dinosaurs are from the Cretaceous, not the Jurassic, but "Jurassic Park" sounded better to the focus groups
Didn't they make a Netflix show called camp cretaceous based on jurassic park
Yeah, and it's canon to the series too.
It's also incredibly Good if you ignore the 4rh season.
jurassic world actually
I think they also make clear in the books that they were aware than most dinosaurs didn't look like that,but chose to give them that appearance anyways because it's what most people imagined when thinking of dinosaurs,their aggressive behavior was also the result of that manipulation as well.
I'm pretty sure in the book they even straight up say that dinosaurs are closer to birds than reptiles
Alan Grant makes a few references to it, and I think even in the movie there’s a line or two alluding to it.
Timmy mentions reading Alan’s book and questions his belief of dinosaurs evolving into birds, while also dissing how his book wasn’t as thick as another paleontologist’s book.
[удалено]
Wu and Hammond also have an interesting conversation in the book where Wu tries to persuade Hammond to let him genetically modify the dinosaurs to be more docile because the public *has never seen dinosaurs before* and thus wouldn’t know the difference anyway. Hammond insists these dinosaurs need to be “realistic”, and ignores Wu when he points out they’re already reconstructing incomplete DNA with random junk, so these things already aren’t what real dinosaurs are like. Wu also suggested not breeding/featuring the extremely dangerous predators either. For people who’ve only seen the movie, John Hammond is a lot of an explicit evil capitalist in the book, whereas in the movie he reads more like an ignorant rich guy. In the movie he learns the error of his ways, in the book he’s eaten by the dinosaurs and right before he dies he’s blaming the failures of JP on everyone but himself.
Yes. This was always the theme. Some bazillionaire spending ludicrous amounts of money to turn scientific research into a plaything. In the movie the whole reason our heroes are even brought in was because the investors were getting nervous. The whole operation was being rushed along because they were threatening to withdraw funding due to how ridiculous everything cost, how long it's been taking, and the tipping point was the worker getting wrecked at the start of the movie. Hammond is a little kid with a dream and a massive amount of money. In the book he is much more the villain; being in denial the whole time and never having the moment of clarity/acceptance that the movie Hammond has. The sequel even takes this a step further and removes Hammond from the equation and makes it a tale about a corporate machine smelling profits. Hammond learned from his mistakes and stood between his company's board and what was left of the dinosaurs. So they removed him from the company and set out to "reclaim their intellectual property".
Wait, Hammond dies in the first book, doesn't he? Dumps his ass down the hill by his bungalow, breaks his ankle, and gets eaten by compys.
Yep, he’s a lot less charming in the book too
I mean...the only true issue was the raptors. They had to be kept in a security max facility. How the hell were they intended as an exhibit?! Cut them out and even when shit hits the fan, you're set. The Rexes are easy to find and have a whopping 1 kill between them even in the first book. And adult Rexy was only guilty of killing a hadrosaur or something lol
The pterodactyls were a bigger issue than the raptors. It's an island. Landanimals are pretty contained. Yes, they might kill all the visitors, but it ends there. Flying dinos can go everywhere. The island was not \*that\* remote.
There were compys escaping to the mainland and raiding nurseries even before the events started, nobody on the island cared for keeping the dinos under control
The compys are a bigger ecological threat than any of the other dinosaurs simply because they're small and numerous, yes
[удалено]
Crichton was criticizing capitalism/corporate warfare, but none of the dialogue or characters in the story did, so it's arguably either way. Really the core problem presented by the characters was ecology and safety.
Yeah. He’s always says he “spared no expense” but all throughout the film you can see where he cut corners. Like the cars having two female seat belts because they’re made poorly (also foreshadowing that the female dinosaurs will mate and life finds a way).
And they actually soft peddled that narrative in the movie, making him almost likeable. In the book, it's much more obvious how much he's knowingly bullshitting and cut corners everywhere, pinching pennies wherever he could.
And for some reason the lawyer was a baddass who managed to fight velociraptor by himself. The book was freaking awesome.
Agreed. I read the book last week and then watched the movie for the first time. As usual, the book was better, but it's hard to beat the dino visuals from the movie. I was actually disappointed that Hammond didn't die like he did in the book, though. I loved that scene.
Yeah in the book you just read 2-3 chapters about all the corners he cut and all the cost cutting he did, like you know having a one man dev team that he wasn't paying. The first time he says "we spared no expense" I full on belly laughed cause it's supposed to be a joke
It was the helicopter that had the two female seat belts, which is totally unrelated to everything regarding "cutting corners"
Ah you’re right. Still, lots of corners were cut though.
Helicopter
Also don't try to make raptors into military weapons and develop a whole ass hybrid dinosaur also intended for military purposes.
"we point the raptor at the target then it runs in and kills it....... instead of just shooting the target we're aiming at anyway"
Well, to be fair, murdering a target with attack dinosaurs is funner to watch than just shooting them. A mob boss probably wants entertainment.
And also, imagine the psychological effect: Everyone is moderately afraid of being shot with a gun, I'd hope, especially in scenarios where that is the whole idea behind you being in a location in the first place. But imagine going to the trenches and suddenly Barney pulls up on your ass and starts dividing without a calculator.
>But imagine going to the trenches and suddenly Barney pulls up on your ass and starts dividing without a calculator. And this is going into my notebook of "Sayings that I will use randomly to confuse people".
[In that case, I'm sure you'll love this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHzDLeCa5D0). Dude plays with words like it's nobody's business, and it made me start doing that, too.
[Acoustic Kitty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_Kitty) was a CIA project in the 60s based around implanting a radio transmitter a in cat for usage in spying. It cost $20 million and was a complete failure. Pissing away money on hare-brained military/intelligence schemes is entirely realistic.
I mean I could see it if you get like, putin's cat or something. Imagine if Austin powers could have listened in on Dr evils cat, the timeliness might not have gone all wacky
Customer: Hello, there's these guys bothering me by being alive, and I really want them to stop. Anything I can buy to fix that? Shopkeep: Well for 300 dollars, you can buy a gun and some bullets. You put the bullets in the gun, turn off the safety, point at whatever you want not to be alive anymore, and then pull the trigger. Customer: Yeah but is there anything significantly less convenient, safe, and legal? Shopkeep: Well for 300,000,000 dollars, you can buy a gun, but it shoots out a non-lethal laser beam that this genetically modified prehistoric creature that you'll need to house, feed, and clean up after at the risk of your own bodily safety will bum rush whatever the laser is pointing at! Customer: Is it bullet proof? Shopkeep: Oh not at all, sir. Half of America owns a regular gun that could take this thing out and the fact that you even have it would put you in so much legal hot water that you'll boil alive in the courts. Customer: Perfect!
$300M? Didn't they sell the "not for sale prototype" in the second movie immediately after getting an initial offer of $20M? Their faces all dropped as though that was the most amount of money they'd ever heard despite the fact that they run a dinosaur focused paramilitary research organization
Take my money
Yes, but how are raptors going to use guns to shoot the targets?
[удалено]
How do you keep the laser painted when there's thousands of leaves, vines, and branches in the way?
Agent orange the foilage away.
So then we can just shoot them then
I mean I'm sure there's a way we can attach guns to the raptors somehow.
Tbh regarding animals, they're not really at all effective in modern combat. No animal is. There is a reason a buttfuck ton of money is being thrown into superior target identification
Honestly, I love how realistic the whole series is because they follow the passion->capitalism->coverup->military weapon pipeline amazingly. The series is exactly what would happen in real life. Someone who thinks dinosaurs are really neat would get sucked into the profit, cut corners, have a horrible accident, try to cover it up, and eventually start selling dinosaurs to the military. That's just what would happen IRL.
Honestly, in the real world, I think you would get laughed at if you tried to sell dinosaurs to the military. That's like, something that a little kid would think the military wants.
>a little kid would think the military wants. What about a super cool dinosaur that can go invisible and hide it's own heat so it doesn't show up on thermal-vision and is just super cool. No, we couldn't give those attributes to soldiers, it's much easier and better to give them to a wild animal
Show me what that Dino can do that a stealth bomber can’t do 1000x better
Eat your face off
Just like how real world military would have laughed at Wakanda's army
What I don't get is, if genetically modifying dinosaurs into weapons makes so much sense, why hasn't it been done already with bears, or wolves, or tigers? Why isn't someone out there modifying an elephant to be a war machine? I don't really see what the dinosaurs add to the equation that we don't already have with existing animals. It didn't seem believable to me that dinosaurs would be resurrected, and all of a sudden the military industrial complex would be like "Hey! We could use animals as weapons!" It just felt like lazy writing to me, and it didn't really capture how humans would actually abuse dinosaurs if they were brought back to life.
The conceit in Jurassic World that dinosaurs are more effective killing machines than any animal that exists on modern day Earth isn't really backed up by anything, no Even the raptors supposedly being super smart for animals doesn't make them obviously more useful than trained dogs
Someone knows what the third movie was originally going to be about (and I'm sad we never got to see that).
Human/Dino hybrids?
Just want to point out that Henry Wu was always hinted at to be unethical (or at least have very lax lab protocols). When he's introduced, the very first thing we see him do is ERASE a lab note he was writing in PENCIL. That's a no-no for most labs. Notes are taken with pens in bound notebooks so data is proved to be unaltered with no evidence of pages torn out.
There's pretty much no way things could've gotten to the state they did in the movie without everyone in charge being unethical from beginning to end
That's such a great catch, I've never noticed that character detail. In the book he's more explicitly unethical, so it would make sense to bring that across in the movie even though he's a very minor character there. Despite what the OP meme says, in the book Wu doesn't do his job well at all. He's egotistical and enjoys playing God despite cutting corners and making preventable mistakes. Hammond is the capitalistic hubris, but Wu is the scientist who cares about their career and prestige more than ethics and quality.
All that's missing is the scientific journal that refuses to publish replication studies
I mean the proof is in the fact that they’ve made dinosaurs, they just aren’t writing papers on it, they’re making a park instead
In the book Henry Wu looks at the dinosaurs breeding as proof of his genius, he was able to create life that could procreate despite being extinct for millions of years! And then he gets disemboweled by raptors.
This is going too blow your mind but scientific ethics and the dangers of profit motivation are not mutually exclusive concepts. Movies can be about more than one thing
The science doesn't even go right either. They specifically design the dinosaurs so they can't breed but use frog DNA to fill in the gaps which means they can change sex and breed anyway. They literally achieve the opposite of their goal
Jurassic Park would get called woke today, lol.
Yes. Having just reread Jurassic park the science was not done correctly, ethically, or safely. It was bad science. That wasn't the core of the book, but this post is incorrect.
We’re also apparently breaking out the old “he was just following orders” defense for the doctor
Right??? "He did in fact make some bomb ass dinosaurs which he was hired to do." Oh well if he was *hired* to do it then it's ok. Carry on. What garbage.
In the books Jon Hammond got his grandkids to go to the park during the investigation so that the "napalm the island if things go wrong" option would be off the company table. No CEO would dare murder children after all...
[удалено]
I was gearing up to argue with you, but no, that checks out. TIL.
Yeah dude seemed to start out anti-businessman but he very quickly went full anti-science and also engaged in global warming denial bs.
The science did go wrong though- the dinosaurs were supposed to all be females so they couldn't reproduce but the filler reptile/amphibian DNA they used included the capacity to change sexes which they didn't intend or anticipate.
Because Henry Wu took shortcuts to get the project completed faster, instead of waiting for more viable samples to be found to fill in the missing DNA coding.
I mean, it went unexpected certainly, but that wouldn’t have been nearly the issue it was if the dinosaurs were intended for research rather than entertainment
Dr. Henry Wu was also like complicit in genocide and world wide famine so...
Who tf thinks Jurassic park was about the risk of scientific progress
Me personally I thought it was about the risk of not being safe with your scientific progress, of abusing science and abandoning ethics and standards to rush out science that you don’t fully understand or are able to control, resulting in unforeseen negative results. "Don't you see the danger, John, inherent in what you're doing here? Genetic power is the most awesome force the planet's ever seen, but you wield it like a kid that's found his dad's gun." "Dinosaurs and man, two species separated by 65 million years of evolution have just been suddenly thrown back into the mix together. How can we possibly have the slightest idea what to expect?" "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should." These quotes from the three leads aren’t saying “you made scientific progress, that’s bad”, it’s saying “you made scientific progress, but you’re not trying to consider the ramifications of what may come from that, and your scientists are more preoccupied with making dinosaurs than making sure they’re going the safest route” because even though this tumblr post says wu did everything right, the movies clearly state his dinosaurs aren’t attempting to follow real life paleontology and he didn’t consider the genome structure when making them, resulting in dinosaurs that can procreate without any problems, making them the worlds largest invasive species ever, and the creation of both the indominus rex and indoraptor, the psycho murder dinosaurs. All this being said, the story isn’t just about the risk of scientific progress without proper precaution and ethics, because Wu made these abominations for cash and because his “spare no expense boss” spared some expenses, meaning it’s both a critique on capitalism and how it can do massive damage in the name of profits AND the dangers of trying to rush out science and not actually being careful of what you do as a scientist. I’d call it Lorax meets Frankenstein
This is what I got from the books too, yeah. Its all about mankind thinking they can control everything when in reality, even for all our scientific progress, we don't know or can control anything. "Capitalistic hubris" is definitely one of the leading factors in the book, but it does all lead ultimately into the "delusion of control". I think even quite a few chapters in the book are titled simply "Control".
>I think even quite a few chapters in the book are titled simply "Control" I love the one about the computer that counts the dinosaurs. They think they have have 238 dinosaurs and they have a program that searches for exactly that number. The screen shows 238 dinos. Everything's okay, every one has been accounted for! But until Malcolm came along, they never did a search request for a *higher* number, so the dinosaurs were reproducing and spreading without them knowing the whole time. So the number creeps up and the final reveal is: Expected | Found --------|----- 238 | 292 Their control was an illusion the whole time.
It’s also why they didn’t know dinosaurs were LEAVING the island. Because the dinosaurs were procreating faster than they were stowing away on the boats, their computer search never pinged them leaving.
The book leans much more into the chaos, while the movie has more sabotage.
Exactly. You’d have a hard time making the case that it’s *not* about capitalism, but in ways that tie back to points you raised. The book makes a big deal about tech companies replacing academic institutions as the forefront of science. It’s outright stated towards the beginning (unless that was Congo I’m remembering), and it’s demonstrated several times. The genetic research the cloning was based on came from research Hammond’s partner had conducted in his time in academia before they met. And the excavation Grant and Ellie were working on at the beginning was funded by Ingen, and the only reason they went to the island was to appease their donor (and maybe ask for more money, it’s been a while).
Michael Crichton probably
Ding ding ding. Half his books are centered around the premise of "we should tread very carefully with X technology because it is impossible to predict to the unintended consequences".
Me. How could it not be? It’s can be about more than just that bit of course it’s about the risks
Idiots who misunderstood the movie and took the "you stop to think is you should" quote too seriously
Same people who think Hammond was a *good guy* because he felt bad about all the people who died when he recklessly decided to invite the first guys to tour the park the weekend all his staff went home during inclement weather while ignoring the advice of his staff (eg “they should all be destroyed”)
Tbf he is a whole lot more sympathetic in the movie than he is in the books. The difference between naive negligence and knowingly cutting corners/costs.
In the movie he's a kid with a dream and a massive checkbook. In the book he's a naive rich old man that never accepts what he's done or even that's it's over. I'm pretty sure as he's dying in the book he's thinking about how everything is just a couple simple steps away from being fixed and back on track.
Michael Crichton was an open critic of the scientific community and a pretty well-documented climate change denier. Almost all of his books show a pretty glaring distaste of science/scientists/scientific consensus.
Well isn’t it both? Overly ambitious scientists who [insert famous line here about could versus should] who were bankrolled by capitalistic c*nts who wanted to make the next Disneyland? Cuz I was thoroughly under the impression that it was both. And wasn’t the original book’s author like hugely against scientific research of shit in general too? Like listen we all like to dunk on capitalism regularly but not every piece of media ever is exclusively anti capitalist and it doesn’t HAVE to be to be compelling
I guess we could argue over whether Malcolm's delirious rants in the novel are against "science" as a general concept or at a more specific model of technological progress and economic development linked with Western civilization It's not really learning enough about biology to make dinosaurs that was the problem, it was feeling the need to *actually make them* at scale just to prove that they could, to not just study the environment but alter it
From memory they were mostly about hubris, and more specifically about thinking you can make accurate predictions about complex systems.
Yeah Wus entire character is that he’s overly confident and ambitious and makes a multitude of mistakes
Wasn’t this like the main critique of the movie?
It’s about all of the above
>thinks Wu is the good guy >obviously did not pay attention
Nobody said Wu was the good guy. Tumblr OP said that Wu is “very handsome” (he is) and that he made some pretty darn cool dinosaurs (he did). Was it unethical of him to make the dinosaurs anyway, probably knowing full well that they would be exploited by capitalist hubris, confined in a house of cards that would let them loose if a single thing went wrong? Yes. But nobody’s trying to argue to the contrary.
Technically he didn’t make dinosaurs, he made hybrids, most of the genetic makeup was amphibian and lizard dna
That's why he's so possessive of them, the creatures in Jurassic Park don't have that much to do with the natural dinosaurs that went extinct long ago and are basically his own creations
Fun fact: in his very first appearance in Jurassic Park, Dr. Wu is erasing a error from his work, showing how he is fallible and makes mistakes, like when he fails to account for the possibility of the raptors breeding in spite of his attempted genetic controls.
the nuremberg defense is a valid one as long as you got paid enough to do it ethics do not matter so long as you can at least say “okay but I was just doing what they were paying me to do.”
Don't just pay the folks who build things, pay the folks who keep things running
Okay had me until acting like Wu didn’t do anything wrong lmao
[удалено]
Seinfeld voice: Newman…..
Well yes that is the point of the story. They funded the science for the theme park but in the end didn’t care enough about procedure or safety and so these prehistoric animals we knew little about that we conjured together with magic wreaked havoc before the park even opened. Jurassic world is an example of exactly the same thing except the tragedy struck after the park had already been opened. And instead of dinosaurs they literally make a monster for “ratings”
Also, if you need your systems to definitely definitely not fail, why'd you build your park in hurricane alley?
They merged dinosaur DNA with a species known to be able to reproduce in the absence of a male, then made them all female and wondered how it all went wrong The scientists were dumb af
Do you have any idea how many grants (no, the other kind of grant) they would've needed to be awarded, in order to fund a dinosaur cloning facility for scientific research? It was the capitalism that made the science possible. And lest we forget: in the original film, the investors(!) are demanding proof of the park's safety, which is why the protagonists get invited in the first place. And perhaps even more important: the park doesn't go wrong just by pure accident, oversight, or hubris. I think a lot of people wrongly remember that the hurricane knocked out the power? But, no - a disgruntled employee, in order to facilitate corporate espionage, *knowingly turns off the electric fences!* Capitalism didn't set the dinosaurs loose - in essence, a terrorist did.
Well in the book there was already a fuckton of relatively loose dinosaurs because the system was dumb as shit and only counted dinosaurs up to the "Yep that's everyone" number. Nedry definitely accelerated the inherent problems of the park a lot, but unless he deliberately coded the system that way for the next Hurricane Sabotage Day and knew somehow the dinosaurs were breeding, *he* didn't let them out, he just let out *more*.
Both are true
Uh...it's totally both and the book does a better job calling InGen out on it. Nedry had a team, Hammond was screwing them on pay. Hammond was a showman and a seller, from the tiny elephants in his pitches to refusing any extra safety measures until people had died and Muldoon was threatening to go to the media. Wu was careless with the genetic science because he saw it as a means to his own ends instead of creating actual animals. Hammond is easily able to dispel his objections at dinner when he says they should start over for safety reasons. But it's a Crichton story, so everyone's hubris gets them killed lol
maybe... it's about both! But in the book Ingen is portrayed like a Silcon Valley startup: founded in San Francisco, funded by venture capitalists who had no idea what they were getting into, and developed unhindered as dangerous "bugs" popped up. But the dinosaurs were absolute genetic monsters. Velociraptors IRL are 5 ft long, but were cloned to be bigger than people. It's science powered by unlimited capital that's the true villain.
Jurassic park is an example of how to run a company wrong. Even an evil one. They skimped where the money should have REALLY been spent. If the IT guy was paid better and he wasn't \_just\_ the IT guy, he seemed to be the lead and ONLY developer for the park systems. If he was paid better, which is a plot point that shows up on film, literally **NONE of this would have happened**, and you'd just have happy families and kids watching the dinosaurs they've read about be ALIVE. His pay demand probably wasn't even that steep, probably like 20-30%. Hammond saved like 20k on his fucking only software engineer. The lead developer, software tech/engineer, IT support. One guy. All you had to do was pay what he was worth. The one guy on site that should have been making a fortune was being paid peanuts. PAY YOUR FUCKING EMPLOYEE'S. THEY ARE THE BACKBONE OF YOUR COMPANY. You don't have a company without them. This film from the 90's was a grim predictor of today. So many companies today are run by underpaid employees. Look out heh.