He technically did have back up generators. When Nedry locked up the system with his White_Rabbit command line it required them to completely reboot the systems. When they did they booted up under their auxiliary power. That’s why they had to turn the main power back on. Also the reason they were on an active volcano was for the geothermal energy source.
🤯why did i just realize at now o clock the mfn purpose, meaning & symbolic reputation the White Rabbit from Alan...iMean, Al &....ALice in WonderLand?🥵
Interesting theory but there are some issues with your evidence, particularly when looking at the books. Some have already mentioned, but the reason for setting up on an island with volcanic activity was geothermal power. Of the 2 islands we visit in the books (Nublar and Sorna) both run primarily on geothermal generators (especially Sorna). This was to insure that a storm shouldn't be able to knock out the power. As well, neither book mentions the volcanoes being near catastrophic eruption. If anything the volcanic activity described is similar to that of Yellowstone. There were back up generators, but only for primary areas like the main compound and the completed hotel. Nedry disabled the generator for the main compound so the security system wouldn't catch his theft. Upon trying to undo what Nedry did, they tripped the system so the main power generators and computers required a manual reboot. That was basically the purpose of White Rabbit object: to make sure they needed Nedry to undo it. Plenty of dinosaurs, including the Raptors, had escaped well before the main cast got there. No one realized because the motion sensor tracking system (which they did have) was programmed in a way to only count the expected number of dinosaurs since they were concerned more about losing one. When they realized this error, Hammond was at a complete loss about how the system even worked, and likely incapable of requesting it to be this way so they would find any additional dinosaurs. Also there's the great risk to Hammond and his family. Why would this man ever invite his grandchildren and build a permanent residence for himself on an island he set up to fail? Where he could (and does) get eaten upon this failure? The idea that the dinosaurs aren't really dinosaurs holds plenty of water (Wu basically admits it), but Hammond setting up for failure to get a payout doesn't make much sense.
Right. I think this theory sucks. And they do straight up admit that they're not genuine and have to replace holes in the DNA. That's why the dilophosaurus is venomous. In the books they're also yellow and black. Because their extra DNA was poison dart frog DNA.
One might also add that the Raptors in the books were actually able to multiply (most of the dinosaurs were but the raptors did it most successfully), so whatever genetic abominations Hammond and Wu created they clearly were able to survive on their own and didn't collapse after a few weeks. Yes, Hammond is a conman, the books makes this unmistakably clear (also in the books he's quite obviously an asshole) - not just did he lie to his investors about his chances of success, he also cut corners at literally every step of the way. The book spends a lot of time mentioning the myriad of problems the park had with dinosaurs becoming sick, dinosaurs and their reptile peers having unexpected traits (territiroalism in pterodactyls, the Dilophosaurus' venomus spit, the Raptors' murderous intelligence, the Compys poisonous bite, etc.) and how Hammond blames everyone but himself.
I agree But I also think this theory is created by someone who only saw the movies not read the books If there where no books this theory would make sense
Even if Hammond didn't plan to "accidentally" self-destruct the island, he thought he really had think of every potential, so he actually believed his own bullshit. He is guilty of hubris while being a con-man (something even the book points out)
I was actually wondering where he was. It took me to read the channel name a couple times to realize it wasn't the same thing...I guess that's the point
He lambasted that whole "React" fiasco and stated he was proud he was part of the group of people who made Fan Theories more mainstream So, he's probably fine with it At least in public Some of his personality always feels like a facade to me
I just watched this movie at a Drive-In theatre, which was my first time seeing this movie on the big screen. It was a very emotional experience, what a perfect movie, it holds up incredibly well after all these years
Not all the Dinosaurs were sickly, though. Rexy survived from the first Jurassic Park movie all the way to the Jurassic World movies. That's assuming that she wasn't successfully cloned and replaced with a duplicate with matching scars, of course. The park's security was pretty crappy, though. LOTS of expense spared there.
In the novel, Crichton described Hammond as an evil Walt Disney, so that isn't too far from the truth, and he was far more greedy/dark/sinister in the novel, even cursing his children towards the end. A lot of this was also talked about in The Lost World, about how the park was "too clean, too perfect, and too wonderful." Malcolm saw through the veil, but not so much through Hammond entirely.
Not a bad idea but he did clearly make real and plentiful and long lasting dinosaurs. Isla Sorna proves it It was a giant nature preserve that wasn't open to the public nor could generate any money IE there was no reason to fake anything. Hell I could see that being a reason to not give him funding because he blew it on that. And if we're taking the new films into consideration then the old T Rex is still around at that point, and Blue survived a rather long time too
I think you’re overlooking one tiny detail: there were real freaking dinosaurs running about and eating people. That’s nothing like the flea circus analogy.
@@Perceptence It wasn't that he didn't make dinosaurs, it was that he was knowingly making shitty ones and didn't care to improve them. He made ones that would live a very short period of time, days or weeks. Just long enough to go "Look, dinosaurs just like I said!" and then have an accident happen to prevent the park actually opening.
There is something about the Jurassic Park movies that drives me insane that nobody else seems to notice. Theme parks have accidents all the time. People will still show up the next day after they wash some fatality off the roller coaster just in the off chance of a discount. No matter how many people died (over time) the overall demand for that experience at Jurassic Park would have never ebbed. Hell deaths would have only pushed the park's notoriety higher.
There's a good chance I'm missing something here, but this theory makes little sense to me. "He wanted to fake making dinosaurs... by actually making dinosaurs". Once you've actually made dinosaurs, regardless of short life spans or other issues, the potential for making money off tourism would absolutely dwarf the potential earnings by scamming (not to mention some sort of hybrid where you scam AND actually allow paying customers). If you want to scam using this idea, then you avoid the astronomical problem of actually creating dinosaurs at all costs; create animatronic dinos or something.
Nooo, you missed the central aspect of his personality - he's a narcissist. One of the features of a narcissist is that they can't believe that anything would happen which _wasn't_ part of the plan - in essence, the world obeys them. That's why he brought his grandchildren to the park - to the viewer, it looks dangerous, but to him...there was no danger at all, because in his mind there was zero chance of events deviating from his plan.
This is damn near perfect. That’s exactly why the flea circus was mentioned and there was only a skeleton crew. I look forward to seeing the movie again!! Thanks for the fresh take
I’ve never liked Jurassic Park and I never knew why. Something didn’t sit well with me. Something seemed so off and so wrong about it. This is it! This must be what it was! This theory makes so much sense and makes me finally appreciate this story and film! 👍
The title is kind of a bit misleading. He may have faked what he promised to deliver but he very much did deliver dinosaurs, as evidenced by the massive amount of carnage and terror that occurred on the island.
I think this is a profoundly intriguing theory but I assert it only could apply to the book and not the movie (unless the movie were to come out with a directors cut with some significant and otherwise totally unaired deleted scenes) since the movie was heavily based on but not a direct adaptation of the book (so much was cut out or changed from the book). As happens in many movies and series, the screen adaptation can vary wildly even if a few central things are changed. To be fair, there is no hard and fast line when crossed makes the movie a different creature from the source material but I believe we know it when we see it. Changing the motivations of a central character can be the difference between a wholesome family film and a suspense/thriller. I contend based on the Spielberg's cinematography and Attenborough brilliantly warm well intentioned performance prevents this theory from gaining much traction without (as mentioned previously) more cinematic evidence being released.
I do think this theory makes sense but the sequels don't quite work in it's favor. I do think that the Dinosours were created from the DNA of current animals and not fossils.
I normally enjoy a good old fashioned fan theory becaue they are just entertaining even if they're not very sound.. however, this one is just dumb. Video was well done though so I'll check out some others on the channel.
This theory holds as much water as a sieve. There were dinosaurs running around that the characters did get to see, Dennis was a contractor who won the bid for designing Jurassic parks security system, since the park wasn’t open or finished they had a reduced staff, but also the majority of the staff had left on the boat heading to the mainland, the list goes on, and everything I have mentioned sinks the theory.
The movie certainly lacks the melancholy that comes with the books. The books lean far more into Dr. Malcolms point of view(which maybe I'm crazy but I'm pretty sure he is Crichtons self insert). To add to that, Hammond almost serves as an antagonist, though a minor one. The book also covers corporate espionage(a lot of crichtons books do) very extensively. Its pretty pessimistic where corporations and gov'ts are concerned. I implore you to read the books. They may be a bit drier than the movies but they are captivating. Reminds me of Tom Clancy a little bit.
That volcano theory is misguided. You had a park with huge animals, and dangerous ones. You need real estate, and like Alcatraz a buffer from the taxpayers and dangerous animals. How many islands do you think are for purchase, with a large footprint and low to no inhabitants? That won't cost you the gdp of a small nation?
Your theory's reliance on "short-lived dinosaurs" is undercut by your lack of knowledge of terrestrial animal biology. How do you define "short-lived", Something the size of a Triceratops or a Brachiosaurus would need a long time to reach adult size. Elephants reach adulthood in about 14-15 years. A Triceratops would need at least that long, and a Brachiosaurus would probably need at least double that. Predatory dinosaurs, like the Tyrannosaurus, probably matured faster for their size (maybe 6 - 10 years), but that still a long time to be considered "short-lived".
I'd hardly say the movie painted Barnum as a good man. I saw a very flawed conman with a willingness to exploit the outward flaws of others to his own ends and who put chasing $ over his own family.
The novel depicts him as more of a greedy villain than the movie. He seems to intend on making real dinosaurs. There's a long conversation between him and Henry Wu where Dr. Wu argues the dinosaurs are too realistic and "underwhelming," and John is adamant he wanted real dinosaurs.
I think that it makes more sense for the book character who is an evil bastard. But your theory is viable. Though there is counterevidence that endanger your theory. You see, you appeal to Jurassic World to show that the island is an unstable volcanic environment. However, that means that Jurassic World is within the canon of your argument. So you have to account for the fact that many dinosaurs are seen being visited in the Jurassic World park. Now, that being said, Jurassic World also helps your argument. Within the movie, we find out that Masrani helped bail Hammond out and is the primary funder of the new park with InGen being only one mechanism, the laboratories and Hoskins' security division. Everyone else from Claire down to Owen seem to work for Masrani, not InGen. If your theory is correct, then both timelines worked out for Hammond. In the OG timeline (with Lost World and JPIII) Hammond was able to appeal to the governments to set up a preserve on Isla Sorna (Site B) and he is famous for his wanting to keep the Animals away from civilization but he still gets credit for creating them in the first place. In the JW timeline (with the JW trilogy) Hammond was saved by investors who proceeded to build a new park on the original Island with many of the original assets, as the director and producers have said that the T-Rex in Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom is the original T-Rex from Jurassic Park. A long way to say, good theory, bro.
I will go with the theory he intended it to fail on it’s own account eventually. However, the science did work. Far better than intended actually. The dinosaurs 🦕 wherewithal to be able 2 mate was supposed to be negated bt developed innately & Independently through the force’s of nature. Hence, he failed at his own failing 🤣👌
Do people not realize that JP is science fiction? People think because a movie mentions the religion of "science" that now it has to make sense? Science fiction isn't just Starwars and Star Trek.
The dinosaur population or “lack there of” as you put it has nothing to do with under developed assets IE slow creation of the dinosaurs. To highlight this you gotta look at why Ian was there in the first place and chaos theory and unpredictability plays a big role in it. He says it plain as day “ you see the tyrannosaur doesn’t obey any set patterns or park schedules. The essence of chaos.” This explains a lot when it comes to something like the dilphosauras and the raptors. The dilophosauras has no obligation to parade itself Infront of the cast at x time of day for their viewing pleasure. You can try to entice it all you want but it doesn’t change that it is a living creature that “has no idea what century it’s in” the raptors. Ingen bred 8 raptors, these are animals that at the time should cost millions of dollars each to create. Did they expect to lose 5 raptors to a single raptor? No. Chaos theory explains away basically all your reasons regarding the animals. Side note you hear Hammond say “ai yai yai why didn’t I build in Orlando” and actually had already built an amphitheater in San Diego prior to Jurassic park. To think they half assed it with the intention of pocketing cash is laughable.
In the novel John Hammond is evil and blames everyone else for the downfall of Jurassic Park. He's already thinking forward and says to himself the next park will be perfect because I will hire the correct people. He blames Dr Wu, John Arnold and Dennis Nedry for the downfall of Jurassic Park when in fact it's his own fault
Predicting when a volcano would erupt is notoriously difficult. Hammond could get a few years before the Park was destroyed or several hundred plus. Not exactly the best idea if his goal is to plead ignorance and blame it on an act of God for more funding like you suggest.
nahhh that's a dumb theory. was he also conning all the employees of the park including Jackson? The rapters and the trex don't look sick, and how would the animals survive on site b for years?
since when has the technology in a film needed to be feasable in the real world? if it was all a scam there wouldn't be any dinosaurs on the island. and if the cloning technology doesn't work, where did all the dinosaurs come from?
🤯why did i just realize at now o clock the mfn purpose, meaning & symbolic reputation the White Rabbit from Alan...iMean, Al &....ALice in WonderLand?🥵
I mean the book version is pretty implicit about Hammond being a manipulative di*k. But the mobie version seemed more benevolent. It is cool that people are thinking more critically about the movie though
Does this guy feel stupid for that BLM banner at the beginning of the video? Falling for that ridiculous con job and then virtue signaling it in your own work... Yikes.
He technically did have back up generators. When Nedry locked up the system with his White_Rabbit command line it required them to completely reboot the systems. When they did they booted up under their auxiliary power. That’s why they had to turn the main power back on.
Also the reason they were on an active volcano was for the geothermal energy source.
🤯why did i just realize at now o clock the mfn purpose, meaning & symbolic reputation the White Rabbit from Alan...iMean, Al &....ALice in WonderLand?🥵
That we see the characters interacting with so many dinosaurs completely sinks this theory.
Interesting theory but there are some issues with your evidence, particularly when looking at the books.
Some have already mentioned, but the reason for setting up on an island with volcanic activity was geothermal power. Of the 2 islands we visit in the books (Nublar and Sorna) both run primarily on geothermal generators (especially Sorna). This was to insure that a storm shouldn't be able to knock out the power. As well, neither book mentions the volcanoes being near catastrophic eruption. If anything the volcanic activity described is similar to that of Yellowstone.
There were back up generators, but only for primary areas like the main compound and the completed hotel. Nedry disabled the generator for the main compound so the security system wouldn't catch his theft.
Upon trying to undo what Nedry did, they tripped the system so the main power generators and computers required a manual reboot. That was basically the purpose of White Rabbit object: to make sure they needed Nedry to undo it.
Plenty of dinosaurs, including the Raptors, had escaped well before the main cast got there. No one realized because the motion sensor tracking system (which they did have) was programmed in a way to only count the expected number of dinosaurs since they were concerned more about losing one. When they realized this error, Hammond was at a complete loss about how the system even worked, and likely incapable of requesting it to be this way so they would find any additional dinosaurs.
Also there's the great risk to Hammond and his family. Why would this man ever invite his grandchildren and build a permanent residence for himself on an island he set up to fail? Where he could (and does) get eaten upon this failure?
The idea that the dinosaurs aren't really dinosaurs holds plenty of water (Wu basically admits it), but Hammond setting up for failure to get a payout doesn't make much sense.
Right. I think this theory sucks.
And they do straight up admit that they're not genuine and have to replace holes in the DNA. That's why the dilophosaurus is venomous. In the books they're also yellow and black. Because their extra DNA was poison dart frog DNA.
One might also add that the Raptors in the books were actually able to multiply (most of the dinosaurs were but the raptors did it most successfully), so whatever genetic abominations Hammond and Wu created they clearly were able to survive on their own and didn't collapse after a few weeks.
Yes, Hammond is a conman, the books makes this unmistakably clear (also in the books he's quite obviously an asshole) - not just did he lie to his investors about his chances of success, he also cut corners at literally every step of the way. The book spends a lot of time mentioning the myriad of problems the park had with dinosaurs becoming sick, dinosaurs and their reptile peers having unexpected traits (territiroalism in pterodactyls, the Dilophosaurus' venomus spit, the Raptors' murderous intelligence, the Compys poisonous bite, etc.) and how Hammond blames everyone but himself.
I agree
But I also think this theory is created by someone who only saw the movies not read the books
If there where no books this theory would make sense
@@stormwarrior007
The video mentions the books a few times though. And I don't agree that it holds water even excluding the books.
This is a movie theory not books two different cannons
Even if Hammond didn't plan to "accidentally" self-destruct the island, he thought he really had think of every potential, so he actually believed his own bullshit. He is guilty of hubris while being a con-man (something even the book points out)
I'm sure Matt Pat is not happy with this channel's name. But hey! That's just a theory....
🤣😆😂
That's just a theory...!
A _Film_ Theory!!
😂🤣🤣
I was actually wondering where he was. It took me to read the channel name a couple times to realize it wasn't the same thing...I guess that's the point
He lambasted that whole "React" fiasco and stated he was proud he was part of the group of people who made Fan Theories more mainstream
So, he's probably fine with it
At least in public
Some of his personality always feels like a facade to me
I just watched this movie at a Drive-In theatre, which was my first time seeing this movie on the big screen. It was a very emotional experience, what a perfect movie, it holds up incredibly well after all these years
I'd agree with this theory about book Hammond; movie Hammond seemed legitimately broken up by the failure of the park.
A conman puts on a good show
I used to watch this channel all the time, just struggled to find it again today
How did Hammond pull it off? There is no way that one single mosquito could have fed on that many dinosaurs!
Not all the Dinosaurs were sickly, though. Rexy survived from the first Jurassic Park movie all the way to the Jurassic World movies. That's assuming that she wasn't successfully cloned and replaced with a duplicate with matching scars, of course.
The park's security was pretty crappy, though. LOTS of expense spared there.
Def not a duplicate, the main reason people know it’s rexy in Jurassic world is because of the scars from the velociraptor fight in the first movie
In the novel, Crichton described Hammond as an evil Walt Disney, so that isn't too far from the truth, and he was far more greedy/dark/sinister in the novel, even cursing his children towards the end. A lot of this was also talked about in The Lost World, about how the park was "too clean, too perfect, and too wonderful." Malcolm saw through the veil, but not so much through Hammond entirely.
Thanks again for the
Roadhouse
Not a bad idea but he did clearly make real and plentiful and long lasting dinosaurs. Isla Sorna proves it
It was a giant nature preserve that wasn't open to the public nor could generate any money IE there was no reason to fake anything. Hell I could see that being a reason to not give him funding because he blew it on that.
And if we're taking the new films into consideration then the old T Rex is still around at that point, and Blue survived a rather long time too
Right, the "evidence" is actually ignoring the facts
It’s sad that we can no longer ask the one person who could definitively answer this question, Michael Crichton. Rest well old friend.
If you breakdown what he does in the movie, amd read the book, Micheal's intention for the kind of person hammond was is obvious.
I think this is the best and most sensical theory I’ve heard, I like it.
I think you’re overlooking one tiny detail: there were real freaking dinosaurs running about and eating people. That’s nothing like the flea circus analogy.
@@Perceptence It wasn't that he didn't make dinosaurs, it was that he was knowingly making shitty ones and didn't care to improve them. He made ones that would live a very short period of time, days or weeks. Just long enough to go "Look, dinosaurs just like I said!" and then have an accident happen to prevent the park actually opening.
And, the dinosaurs weren't actually real, as stated in the movie.
Haven’t posted in a year hope you’re doing alright miss your videos!
There is something about the Jurassic Park movies that drives me insane that nobody else seems to notice. Theme parks have accidents all the time. People will still show up the next day after they wash some fatality off the roller coaster just in the off chance of a discount. No matter how many people died (over time) the overall demand for that experience at Jurassic Park would have never ebbed. Hell deaths would have only pushed the park's notoriety higher.
There's a good chance I'm missing something here, but this theory makes little sense to me. "He wanted to fake making dinosaurs... by actually making dinosaurs". Once you've actually made dinosaurs, regardless of short life spans or other issues, the potential for making money off tourism would absolutely dwarf the potential earnings by scamming (not to mention some sort of hybrid where you scam AND actually allow paying customers).
If you want to scam using this idea, then you avoid the astronomical problem of actually creating dinosaurs at all costs; create animatronic dinos or something.
Nooo, you missed the central aspect of his personality - he's a narcissist. One of the features of a narcissist is that they can't believe that anything would happen which _wasn't_ part of the plan - in essence, the world obeys them. That's why he brought his grandchildren to the park - to the viewer, it looks dangerous, but to him...there was no danger at all, because in his mind there was zero chance of events deviating from his plan.
interesting, thanks
so much better than the film theory with fatpat
This is damn near perfect. That’s exactly why the flea circus was mentioned and there was only a skeleton crew. I look forward to seeing the movie again!! Thanks for the fresh take
Cool Jules! Btw. Lysine is an amino acid not a drug
in the book, Hammond does die at the end, eaten by the little dinos.
mom can we have Film Theory? No. We have Film Theory at home.
Film Theory at home:
I’ve never liked Jurassic Park and I never knew why. Something didn’t sit well with me. Something seemed so off and so wrong about it. This is it! This must be what it was! This theory makes so much sense and makes me finally appreciate this story and film! 👍
Finally you remembered this channel again
You jinxed us. Lol
@@chadcognac5626 Nooooooooooo
Have u seen Legally Eagle video on this movie.....oh so many OSHA laws broken
Legal* Eagle
This is like the theory that NASA faked the moon landing by filming it on Mars.
Loveeeee this channel!!! More theory’s coming my man
I wish!
Guess again.
So, is this the last episode?
Blah that theory was a waste of time
Imagine that...
Agreed
Most definitely. Thankfully I bailed before the end.
The T Rex lived for over 30 years, the fact that the dinosaurs couldn’t live long is just not the case.
Finally another episode.
The title is kind of a bit misleading. He may have faked what he promised to deliver but he very much did deliver dinosaurs, as evidenced by the massive amount of carnage and terror that occurred on the island.
2:17 that’s actually possible but you can’t just get an ancient mosquito with blood in it like a seashell on a beach
I can see your points and they’re well made and articulated, however you reduce it to the basic plot of The Producers.
The problem with your theory, is that there was dinosaurs all over the park.
The T-Rex from the first film is still living in the upcoming one.
I think this is a profoundly intriguing theory but I assert it only could apply to the book and not the movie (unless the movie were to come out with a directors cut with some significant and otherwise totally unaired deleted scenes) since the movie was heavily based on but not a direct adaptation of the book (so much was cut out or changed from the book). As happens in many movies and series, the screen adaptation can vary wildly even if a few central things are changed. To be fair, there is no hard and fast line when crossed makes the movie a different creature from the source material but I believe we know it when we see it. Changing the motivations of a central character can be the difference between a wholesome family film and a suspense/thriller. I contend based on the Spielberg's cinematography and Attenborough brilliantly warm well intentioned performance prevents this theory from gaining much traction without (as mentioned previously) more cinematic evidence being released.
I think we watched a different movie.
I do think this theory makes sense but the sequels don't quite work in it's favor. I do think that the Dinosours were created from the DNA of current animals and not fossils.
I normally enjoy a good old fashioned fan theory becaue they are just entertaining even if they're not very sound.. however, this one is just dumb. Video was well done though so I'll check out some others on the channel.
The flaw in the logic of this video regarding the short lifespans of the not-dinosaurs is Rexxy being still alive for the first Jurassic World film.
It's worth noting, in the novel he's much worse, and he dies at the hands of his own creation
Well, he WAS cloning dinosaurs. You can't get more real than that!
This theory holds as much water as a sieve. There were dinosaurs running around that the characters did get to see, Dennis was a contractor who won the bid for designing Jurassic parks security system, since the park wasn’t open or finished they had a reduced staff, but also the majority of the staff had left on the boat heading to the mainland, the list goes on, and everything I have mentioned sinks the theory.
So this whole channel got abandoned, huh
I would back a dump truck of money off and offer my first born or a testicle for a mini elephant.
It sounds to me like Jules is describing the majority of all modern science funding
You missed the fact that Hammond and Dennis were in on the "betrayal" together
The movie certainly lacks the melancholy that comes with the books. The books lean far more into Dr. Malcolms point of view(which maybe I'm crazy but I'm pretty sure he is Crichtons self insert). To add to that, Hammond almost serves as an antagonist, though a minor one. The book also covers corporate espionage(a lot of crichtons books do) very extensively. Its pretty pessimistic where corporations and gov'ts are concerned. I implore you to read the books. They may be a bit drier than the movies but they are captivating. Reminds me of Tom Clancy a little bit.
Was the sound a little low on this one or am I crazy lol
That volcano theory is misguided. You had a park with huge animals, and dangerous ones. You need real estate, and like Alcatraz a buffer from the taxpayers and dangerous animals. How many islands do you think are for purchase, with a large footprint and low to no inhabitants? That won't cost you the gdp of a small nation?
Now i want a tiny elephant.
Your theory's reliance on "short-lived dinosaurs" is undercut by your lack of knowledge of terrestrial animal biology. How do you define "short-lived", Something the size of a Triceratops or a Brachiosaurus would need a long time to reach adult size. Elephants reach adulthood in about 14-15 years. A Triceratops would need at least that long, and a Brachiosaurus would probably need at least double that. Predatory dinosaurs, like the Tyrannosaurus, probably matured faster for their size (maybe 6 - 10 years), but that still a long time to be considered "short-lived".
I was on board until the last minute.
But he spared no expense...
Hammond is P.T. Barnum. And like that movie with Hugh Jackman, this movie paints him as decent when he was anything but decent.
I'd hardly say the movie painted Barnum as a good man. I saw a very flawed conman with a willingness to exploit the outward flaws of others to his own ends and who put chasing $ over his own family.
My friend : "That film theory" is cancelled
Me: You damn fools you finally did it ....God, damn you! Damn you all to hell!!!
The novel depicts him as more of a greedy villain than the movie. He seems to intend on making real dinosaurs. There's a long conversation between him and Henry Wu where Dr. Wu argues the dinosaurs are too realistic and "underwhelming," and John is adamant he wanted real dinosaurs.
It's a science fiction movie. Not meant to be based in reality.
Could you give the Reddit link?
HAMMOND: EVIL PARK. he was the villain!
But then why did he send Jeff Goldblum to the second island in Lost World?
They are never coming back...
Fun theory, but aside from papering over the DNA problem it is a little to holey for my taste. Good vid though! 👍
I think that it makes more sense for the book character who is an evil bastard. But your theory is viable. Though there is counterevidence that endanger your theory. You see, you appeal to Jurassic World to show that the island is an unstable volcanic environment. However, that means that Jurassic World is within the canon of your argument. So you have to account for the fact that many dinosaurs are seen being visited in the Jurassic World park. Now, that being said, Jurassic World also helps your argument. Within the movie, we find out that Masrani helped bail Hammond out and is the primary funder of the new park with InGen being only one mechanism, the laboratories and Hoskins' security division. Everyone else from Claire down to Owen seem to work for Masrani, not InGen. If your theory is correct, then both timelines worked out for Hammond. In the OG timeline (with Lost World and JPIII) Hammond was able to appeal to the governments to set up a preserve on Isla Sorna (Site B) and he is famous for his wanting to keep the Animals away from civilization but he still gets credit for creating them in the first place. In the JW timeline (with the JW trilogy) Hammond was saved by investors who proceeded to build a new park on the original Island with many of the original assets, as the director and producers have said that the T-Rex in Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom is the original T-Rex from Jurassic Park.
A long way to say, good theory, bro.
...better than MatPat's theories. Just saying. You are Christopher Nolan to matpat's M Night Shyamalan
Ah this old chestnut.
I will go with the theory he intended it to fail on it’s own account eventually. However, the science did work. Far better than intended actually. The dinosaurs 🦕 wherewithal to be able 2 mate was supposed to be negated bt developed innately & Independently through the force’s of nature. Hence, he failed at his own failing 🤣👌
You know it's not real, right?
Damn...this is like Star Citizen🤔
Spoilers for Fallen Kingdom. God damn it.
So, did this die with Ash’s departure?
Sovthis is Mel Brooks "The Producers" with brutal death
Flea circus. Fleece the customer.
I think you should read the book if you really think this theory is legit. The book tears this theory apart.
soooo this channel is just dead huh?
WHO CARES ITS A FREAKIN MOVIE
Do people not realize that JP is science fiction? People think because a movie mentions the religion of "science" that now it has to make sense? Science fiction isn't just Starwars and Star Trek.
It works for me, I read the book and hated Hammond. He was an oportunist creep.
The dinosaur population or “lack there of” as you put it has nothing to do with under developed assets IE slow creation of the dinosaurs. To highlight this you gotta look at why Ian was there in the first place and chaos theory and unpredictability plays a big role in it. He says it plain as day “ you see the tyrannosaur doesn’t obey any set patterns or park schedules. The essence of chaos.” This explains a lot when it comes to something like the dilphosauras and the raptors. The dilophosauras has no obligation to parade itself Infront of the cast at x time of day for their viewing pleasure. You can try to entice it all you want but it doesn’t change that it is a living creature that “has no idea what century it’s in” the raptors. Ingen bred 8 raptors, these are animals that at the time should cost millions of dollars each to create. Did they expect to lose 5 raptors to a single raptor? No. Chaos theory explains away basically all your reasons regarding the animals. Side note you hear Hammond say “ai yai yai why didn’t I build in Orlando” and actually had already built an amphitheater in San Diego prior to Jurassic park. To think they half assed it with the intention of pocketing cash is laughable.
In the novel John Hammond is evil and blames everyone else for the downfall of Jurassic Park. He's already thinking forward and says to himself the next park will be perfect because I will hire the correct people. He blames Dr Wu, John Arnold and Dennis Nedry for the downfall of Jurassic Park when in fact it's his own fault
My god, Hammonds smart
Thanks, Jules. Really enjoyed that.
......... how dare you besmirch this nice old man
Love this channel!
He killed all those people
Predicting when a volcano would erupt is notoriously difficult. Hammond could get a few years before the Park was destroyed or several hundred plus. Not exactly the best idea if his goal is to plead ignorance and blame it on an act of God for more funding like you suggest.
So he just stole a theory and didn't credit?
nahhh that's a dumb theory. was he also conning all the employees of the park including Jackson? The rapters and the trex don't look sick, and how would the animals survive on site b for years?
since when has the technology in a film needed to be feasable in the real world? if it was all a scam there wouldn't be any dinosaurs on the island.
and if the cloning technology doesn't work, where did all the dinosaurs come from?
sooo. this channel is dead i persume?
If this is true, Hammond is a sociopath for no other reason than he brought his grandkids to the doomed park.
Rexy is 30 years old but ok
🤯why did i just realize at now o clock the mfn purpose, meaning & symbolic reputation the White Rabbit from Alan...iMean, Al &....ALice in WonderLand?🥵
I mean the book version is pretty implicit about Hammond being a manipulative di*k. But the mobie version seemed more benevolent.
It is cool that people are thinking more critically about the movie though
Does this guy feel stupid for that BLM banner at the beginning of the video? Falling for that ridiculous con job and then virtue signaling it in your own work... Yikes.
I they live short time, how they have grown up adults?