1. It's Time This Fact-Obsessed Movie Criticism Stopped
While it would certainly have been nice from a scientific standpoint to have a box office busting movie that showed the feathered theory in all its glory, Jurassic World just wasn't the movie to do it. But even in the face of the previously stated evidence, people are still going to moan about how it didn't, which is really just endemic of a wider problem within the online film community. Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity took audiences into space like never before, yet people still came out of the breathtaking ride complaining about the presentation of the distance between various satellites. Christopher Nolan's Interstellar used classical techniques to accurately represent its out-there science, yet many baulked at the sci-fi ending to a sci-fi film. You can only imagine what that same crowd would have made of 2001: A Space Odyssey if it wasn't regarded as an untouchable classic. It's fine to pick up on major logic leaps, but only if they don't work within the world a film has set up. Right from the early days of cinema film has always been about a suspension of disbelief, and for about a hundred years everyone seemed OK with that. But, with the rise of people who gleefully declare they f*cking love science (not a dig at the site - IFLScience is awesome and offered up some great links while researching this article) without grasping the whole picture, we're in a world where if a sci-fi film isn't 100% down-and-dirty realistic then it's treated as a creative failure. Yes, Indominus Rex should have been coated in fluff, but you know what? Its a lot more fun that she wasnt. But for those of you who can't quite jump on board with that, you might as well get thinking about the next big cinematic ruining of science. Star Wars: The Force Awakens - Why Explosions In Space Ruin The Film? Yeah, that'll do. Agree with this article? Or do you think Jurassic World's dinosaurs needed feathers? Share your thoughts down in the comments.
