Katie McGrath, Mosasaur Toy & I. Rex’s Mommy Issues

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

Right on the heels of the new trailer, we got some Jurassic World news and speculation today. First of all: we’ve known for a while that Katie McGrath has a role in the movie, but people are beginning to think she has a bigger part than we previously suspected. From Sickle_Claw at JPLegacy, here’s why.

There’s a good chance that this is her, playing the unlucky lady in the best part of the trailer:

30j17qo.jpg

Here she is in the Hilton lobby. Look very, very closely and you’ll see her in the lower right corner, wearing this same outfit:

hilton-lobby

Combine that with the fact that Jurassic World Hilton offers concierge services:

Concierge
With time-bending powers!

And add in the fact that a few extras have said they’ve seen her– and the leaked script page that shows Zack and Grey meeting a concierge at the hotel– and we’ve got some pretty solid evidence that she’ll at least have a role on the larger end of minor. In Sickle_Claw’s speculative words:
So in summary. I believe Katie McGrath plays the Concierge, who will have a connection with the boys even in a protective way in the opening scenes. Maybe we get a scene in the crowd where she recognizes them and shouts at them to come with her…and the boys are about to when she gets grabbed.

That makes a lot of sense, and I actually would like to see that character arc happen. It could add some emotional depth to the story. Plus she’d be the first woman killed in a Jurassic Park movie (which people on the JPL forums are really excited for, whatever makes you happy I guess) so there’s a historical moment.

Next, it’s the moment we’ve all been waiting for. I present to you the first image of a Jurassic World Mosasaur toy (also posted by Sickle_Claw, bless that guy:

11973bs.jpg

As for the toy itself, I like it a LOT. The body is nice and streamlined, the fins and tail look good and overall it looks very trailer-accurate. What I don’t like is the giant hinge between the neck and the body. I realize that a few things might need to be sacrificed for greater play value and the head and jaws should move if the body can’t, but Mosasaurus was a very streamlined animal, specifically involved to be as sleek and fast as possible. I don’t really like how the head just looks tacked on. I’m sure it’ll look better once it hits store shelves, though. Also, note her size. I think she’s just a little too big, but the one in the movie is too big, too; probably for the same “bigger with more teeth” reason the geneticists made the I. rex.

The submarine and scuba diver make me wonder. The submarine thing has a giant claw and some kind of rocket launcher, so we can pretty much assume it’s made for underwater capture. In that case, someone will probably have to go after an escaped Mosa in the movie, and they’ll have to do it somewhere bigger than her tank. I assume that means she’ll get into the ocean, in which case, good luck getting her back with a flimsy little thing like that. That tiny claw couldn’t even get around her tail! So does this mean Mosa is going to swim to the mainland, or at least try? And if she gets to the ocean, how will she escape her presumably-landlocked tank? Could the guy feeding us a bunch of rumors be right– could there be a series of underground pipes for waste disposal that lead to the ocean? This is shaping up to be a really interesting part of the movie, and I can’t wait to hear more.

Finally, Colin Trevorrow did an interview with USA Today, in which he revealed some interesting information about the I. rex:

Director Colin Trevorrow’s upcoming fourth entry into the dino-mite movie franchise pits Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard vs. this beast created in a lab that is, as Trevorrow told us, quite sizable at 40 feet tall. “That’s one of the selling points: ‘Bigger than a T. Rex!’ looks real good in an advertisement.”

“When you grow up in captivity, you don’t know your mother and you’ve never seen another thing like you. Farmers will tell you that hybrid cows are a little crazy. What we did was had this corporation create something new with modern genetics but it was driven by that need to constantly offer the audience something with more teeth. As a result, there’s only one of them, so it’s ‘the other,’ and it makes these other synthetic dinosaurs into something organic in comparison to this.”

So the I. rex feels sort of lonely and not quite right. That’s the general feeling I got from this. She never had a mother or a parental figure, her gene splicing is starting to take its toll and it’s the only dinosaur of its kind in the whole world. Wow, that’s… that’s really, really sad.

These conditions pretty much exemplify how an extinct dinosaur brought back to life would feel, by the way; it’d whack out because its genes weren’t quite right (especially if it was the first try), it would get lonely really fast and generally would have a pretty unpleasant life. That’s one of the reasons people advocate against ancient extinct animal cloning. So, in a way, is the story of the I. rex trying to tell the audience that actually bringing dinosaurs back to life is a really bad idea? Funding for dinosaur-cloning research has increased ever since the first movie came out, and experiments like Jack Horner’s chickenosaurus project are steadily progressing. If the movie wants to give a serious message, this would be a pretty effective and hard-hitting one. If arguments like Malcolm’s and scenes of dinosaurs breaking out and killing people didn’t convince the majority of people that dinosaur cloning shouldn’t happen, maybe humanizing a cloned dinosaur and showing what it’s going through will.

This could also tell us about I. rex’s motivations. Maybe she’s not a big, angry monster, maybe she’s been mistreated– albeit unintentionally– and thinks enough is enough, so she finally lashes out. She doesn’t have another I. rex to keep her company and can’t interact or sympathize with the other dinosaurs, so she’s lonely and miserable. Trevorrow’s talked in the past about how this isn’t a monster movie– it’s about dinosaurs as real animals reacting to the presence of humans on the earth they used to rule– so since the movie is already sympathetic to the other dinos, why not I. rex?

Anyway, this movie might be a kill-the-Godzilla story, but more of a fleshed-out and possibly sad one. But bear in mind, that’s in the movie. For now, all forms of advertising for Jurassic World are showing I. rex as a big, scary monster with more teeth. Maybe that’s to make the sympathetic outlook in the movie seem like more of a surprise (which I’m guessing won’t show up until the end, when the characters realize her true intentions). But now we’re supposed to think she’s scary and awesome. So GO I. REX!

Source:

http://entertainthis.usatoday.com/2015/01/30/the-new-jurassic-world-dinosaur-is-pretty-much-the-deadliest-thing-ever/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s