Jurassic World (2015)

"What happened to the sibling?" -Owen Grady
"She ate it."- Claire

"What kind of diet doesn't allow tequila shots?"- Owen Grady

**Contains Spoilers**

Jurassic World has dinosaurs. The dinosaurs are big.  The dinosaurs run amok. Children, tourists, and prissy business ladies are in danger. Different archetypes of masculinity vie to protect them.  That is all. Done and done.

On to a more interesting topic for Jurassic World. As evidenced by the weekend box office, there appears to be no law of diminishing returns on spectacle and WOW!!, financially. The more funding one puts into bigger, meaner, scarier, faster, sexier, destruction causing things the more it pays off. Yet, this is not the moral of Jurassic World. My takeaway was that the writers, director, and producer-Steven Spielberg- feel there are diminishing returns on spectacle.  Bigger, meaner, scarier, faster, sexier, destruction causing things lose their luster instantaneously, do not endure, and have diminishing, if not non-existent, artistic returns. Few movies have ever put forth a thesis so counter to their underlying financial raison dêtre.

Is it possible we are reaching a macro-leveling effect of visual effects effectiveness across the movie industry? Can audiences actually tell and demonstrably appreciate the differences between CGI in 2003 and CGI in 2015?  Or is the difference just less than between say 1988 and 2003? Perhaps the visual effects singularity is near at hand?

Back to Jurassic World. Watching the original T-Rex fight and defeat the new improved Indominus Rex was like watching an updated version of Godzilla 2000. Of course the foam suited Godzilla will defeat the 3D one. I would pick foam suit Godzilla to defeat 1993 T-Rex or even 2015 T-Rex.  No contest.

What do you all think?  Are there diminishing artistic returns on visual effects in film?

On scale of Technicolor to 3D, I give Jurassic World 2.89 out of 5 stars.