One of the big points in Jurassic World 2 that makes people thinking is genetic engineering.
Should it be allowed? After all, it would bring with it a large number of opportunities. But also risks, or unforeseeable events.
You are confronted with genetic engineering right from the start. Anyway, this is how the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park were recreated. If you put yourself in the position of the film, genetic engineering is more advanced than in the present. In the first Jurassic World, DNA can already be mixed, and in Jurassic World 2 it can even be edited very precisely.
So one looks into the future, at least technologically. At the beginning of the film Dr. Ian Melcolm talks about letting the dinosaurs die. The extinction was decided by nature, so the human being must not bring them back. This volcanic eruption is therefore an appropriate opportunity for a correction.
However, the creation of the Indoraptor puts genetic engineering in a bad light. It was misused to make a weapon.
When the majority of the still living dinosaurs reach the open air, people have to live with them, at least if they are not killed.
Dr. Ian Melcolm concludes that the human being cannot take responsibility. Too many boundaries have been crossed. There's no turning back now.
He cites nuclear technology as an example: Who could have known that after the discovery of nuclear fission there would be such a swarm of nuclear weapons? It will be the same with genetic engineering, according to Melcolm. After all, it is unlikely that it will end with the recreation of the dinosaurs. There will be drastic consequences, dangerous ones, as with nuclear technology.
At this point, however, it must be stressed that Dr. Ian Melcolm is a chaos theoretician. It is practically a condition that he warns of the consequences of genetic engineering. But the risks are there, definitely.
And even if the dinosaurs were to die out again, the experience in the field of genetics would remain.
I would like to mention something else in this regard:
In the film the viewer learns that Maisie Lockwood, the alleged granddaughter of Sir Benjamin Lockwood, is in fact his daughter, or the copy. So he used his dead daughter's DNA to recreate her. Besides, that was also the reason why he and John Hammond had split up in the past.
If one takes this into account in the evaluation of genetic engineering, one can certainly suspect bad things.
If Dr. Ian Melcolm is right and it does not end with the recreation of dinosaurs, which would make sense, genetic engineering could also be applied to humans in the future. It is certain that this cannot mean anything good. One could edit people as one likes. This would be criticized if only because many people would not allow some genetic engineers to play "God". In this sense, genetic engineering would not have a good future.
But there are other things I really liked about the movie.
The viewer is asked again and again whether the dinosaurs should die or not.
First one gets to know what happens to Isla Nublar. A volcano is going to erupt. Should the dinosaurs now be saved or should they become extinct again?
At first, Dr. Ian Malcolm argues in an understandable way. The dinosaurs were chosen by nature, and as a result the humans could evolve. They should never have created them again.
But then Claire, who wants to save the dinosaurs, speaks on the phone and mentions that the children of today's generation grew up with living dinosaurs. How could they bear it if they let the dinosaurs die? It tears the viewer back and forth.
When Claire then visits Sir Benjamin Lockwood, the rescue is decided. For the time being.
But you can't be that sure. When the mercenaries on the island escalate the action with a shot at Blue, the viewer gets a little confused. What happens next? Will the dinosaurs now be saved? What happens to them?
Some are loaded, Owen finds out after the stranding on the beach. He sees a dinosaur being transported by a helicopter. Maybe it's the same one who was threatening Claire and Franklin before. Probably the Baryonyx.
Shortly after, everyone makes it to the ship. From there, some, including Claire, watch the last dinosaurs living on the island being killed by the pyroclastic flow.
This sight could lead to a change of opinion among some viewers. Especially since the dying longneck there could be the same dinosaur that the viewer saw first in the first Jurassic Park.
Is this how the dinosaurs are supposed to die? Some may have been grateful that at least some dinosaurs have been saved.
This is reinforced by Blue's rescue. Especially he has grown very close to the viewer's heart, and in addition, he is the only Velociraptor still alive.
Later, however, the real project becomes apparent: The dinosaurs are not supposed to live peacefully on a self-sufficient island, on the contrary: they are supposed to be sold either to live in cages or to be used for other human purposes. So they should have been let to die after all?
When we find out what they have done and will do with the DNA, namely to sell dinosaurs and even make weapons out of some of them, the viewer is re-tuned again. Shouldn't dinosaurs rather die than be mistreated like this?
After that, there is another chance to kill all the dinosaurs still in Lockwood's mansion by letting them die in hydrogen cyanide gas. Owen warns Claire not to do so, and finally Claire decides against saving the last dinosaurs. But at the very last moment, Maisie Lockwood opens the gate.
So the dinosaurs end up in the free. Some already sold dinosaurs stay with their new owners. Should it have come to this?
Afterwards, as mentioned above, Dr. Ian Malcolm gives a speech on the possible consequences. It should never have come to this.
Whether life or death of the dinosaurs, each should decide for himself. In my opinion, the living dinosaurs should be allowed to live. They are animals just like everyone else.
However, I also believe that genetic engineering should never have been abused so much. If one had never created the dinosaurs, then one would not have to ask oneself if they have a right to live freely on our planet.
Another point crossed my mind during and after the film: Are people like Eli Mills to blame for the fact that there will never be a world peace? He mentions in the film that humans have a connection to war and there will be wars forever.
I think it's wrong.
I'm sure there will always be violence, envy, jealousy, vengefulness. But war, that one kills a mass of people in order to achieve selfish goals, does not have to exist. Today more people are striving for world peace than ever before. World peace, in the sense that there is no discrimination against people of special "races" or peoples, may well exist.
But I don't want to digress: By introducing the Indoraptor, a kind of genetic or biological armament would begin, perhaps as with nuclear weapons in the Cold War. If the development of new weapons were ceased, escalation could be avoided.
But what surprises me is that Eli Mills uses the alleged fact that humans are tied to war, and animals have always helped people to do so, as an excuse to earn money.This is confirmed by the fact that, as agreed with Dr. Wu, he only wanted to present the Indoraptor to the audience and under no circumstances wanted to sell it. But when more than 24 million dollars are offered, he nevertheless enters into a sale against the will of Dr. Wu. It is therefore not primarily concerned with development, but merely with the rapid sale of weapons. This proves both the bribery and the greed for money of some people.
Finally, I would like to mention a few other points that really impressed me with this film!
I think it is good that there is once again a scene before the actual beginning of the film, namely the scene in the storm, in which the skeleton of the Indominus-Rex is found. It starts directly with action, the viewer is brought directly into the happening. The following Jurassic World 2 logo provided me with the prospect of a successful film.
What I also think is great is that there are many different situations. This is what I mean: There is some horror, there is tension, there is humour, and even sadness. There is a wide range of feelings that this film arouses. During the pyroclastic flow, when Owen, Claire and Franklin had to flee, there was a great deal of tension throughout the cinema. „What happens now? Are they gonna make it?“
There was also horror in a small sense. There were some jumpscares, as in the end, when Mills was distracted by Carnotaurus, and then suddenly killed by the Tyrannosaurus.
The Indoraptor also provides tension after its breakout. After his death, however, it quickly becomes calm again, fitting to the end of the film.
Sadness reigns above all when the long neck sinks in the pyroclastic flow. Some people in the cinema may have cried tears.
Humour is also represented. It struck me that Franklin is also responsible for this. I liked the conversation after the Indoraptor died best: "How are you?" "...Good! And how are you?"
"Bad!".
Finally, the open end also inspires thinking. What will happen next? Will people really have to live with dinosaurs? Although the number of dinosaurs freed is not enough to reach a really large population, some dinosaurs are owned by merchants. Genetic engineering could therefore ensure an increase in this area, for better or for worse..
The last scene with the flying dinosaurs on the tower in Las Vegas also provides for further thinking.
Last but not least, I would like to praise the soundtrack. I like it a lot. Basically, I like soundtracks, but there is a wide range of different music stills that enhance each scene well. I like the soundtrack of the Indoraptor the most, a very appropriate and well used leitmotif.
I have heard from many friends that they are far less impressed by Jurassic World 2 than I am. Most liked the first part better than the second.
It's a different style, I'm sure of it. That is why I cannot respond to most of the criticism because it is based on opinions. I cannot and will not go into it.
