It always struck me that that was the main takeaway for me from JP3.

....never spotted that! :D thanks

True, there is so much there. As I kid, I always thought it was a stand-out scene. Now as an adult, I think the same. Alan was modelled after Indi Jones - the hat and everything - but here Alan is listening to a pregnant mother's belly, and I believe in this scene he gets his hat blown off by her powerful breath, the hat, a symbol of the character's identity which he defends many times with his life, and here he doesn't even care, he just marvels and gushes like a dad.

Yes! Good point. It subconsciously suggests that metaphorically it was "all just a bad dream" - a horrible experience that ends well takes on a dreamlike quality in our memory. The gentle, childlike orchestration of the musical theme here also suggestive of our parent closing the fairy-tale book and saying "and they all lived happily ever after." Further reinforcing that the dinosaurs in this story are the same as fairy tale monsters, and that this story was really an allegory about people and family after all.

Also the birds shown at the end might be pelicans, but they it kind of look like storks. Probably telling us a baby is on the way now.

ALLLLLL films are like this; we are watching and learning ideologies we are totally unaware of, unless you are into the Kabbalah or New Age teachings or Wicca, etc. They even tell the truth of the world. They are purely propaganda and truth wrapped in fiction. Jay Dyer is good to learn from as well. For example, the Bond series tells you the symbol of the octopus is SPECTRE, SPECTRE is the shadow gov't, it also shows Bond is apart of SPECTRE, it is all dialectics and of course makes you think Bond is the hero, but he is a sad, sad character. If you notice the octopus on the British flag at the Olympics ceremony in England, well that is truth in plain sight, The symbolism tells it all.

@@cody6469 are you a Christian?

You should look up Jordan Peterson.

I feel the same way !! ^_^

@@DouggieDinosaur So do I

Not ironically, mine too!

Never doubt that. Even artists love when their work is dissected especially for tender things such as these - a family allegory in a "monster" movie. Where can you go wrong?

Read the book.

@@AOHara-vo9fy I did, each a couple of times.

Six years late, I know, but here’s a few cents about the deaths in the movie. Starting from Nedry, his relationship to the “God” that Hammond plays was already wrought by turmoil long before he went all Judas and betrayed his employer by exploiting the system that he himself had helped create because he had already made a deal with the devil of Lewis Dodgson. As told in the bible, those who defy God are led to ruin by their own sinful acts. The Dilophosaurus would symbolize such a fate for Nedry’s Judas who foolishly looked back at a force of nature that he didn’t understand during his escape and was turned to a pillar of salt akin to Lot’s wife in the tale of Gomorrah and Sodom. As for Gennaro, his purely capitalism driven and disrespectful attitude never sat well with Hammond(aka “God” of Jurassic Park). To this man the dinosaurs only represented dollar signs. Later on Donald selfishly abandoned the children to a premature extinction and was therefore unfit to be a father figure like Grant. In a surprising act of redemption Ian Malcolm’s “Devil” leads the T.rex away to distract it so that Alan could save the children and towards the same hiding spot as sort of a parallel to the lawyer’s cowardice which nonetheless gets Malcolm injured and leads to Gennaro’s demise from the very animal that he had wanted to capitalize upon. He was punished for his greed and for disobeying God’s will. Muldoon doesn’t play a prominent role but has a sense of honor and traditional chivalry, helping Ellie in the search for Grant and the kids, saving Malcolm from the T.rex and ultimately giving his life in a noble sacrifice to the raptors so that Ellie’s “mother figure” gets a chance to restore the power vital to the nuclear family’s escape from the predicament. He was a traditional knight in the servitude of “God” and went out like a warrior.

As bad of a movie as Jurassic World Dominion is, I got to give it credit for at least attempting to fix that error by giving Alan and Ellie another shot at being a loving couple like they were supposed to be.

The movie, yes. But the book wasnt short on science.

Just cut that frequence with a very narrow and steep EQ.

I wouldn't say he is a trickster or trying to "deceive" people for his own greed. He is genuinely passionate about what he has created and I think (at least in the movie, it's been too long since I've read the book) he is genuinely well meaning in wanting to share the experience of seeing living dinosaurs with the rest of humanity. He even rebukes the lawyer when he suggests they could charge anything they want and "have a coupon day" by saying he doesn't want the park to just be for the rich. The problem with Hammond is that he refuses to see the risks in what he is doing, he doesn't respect the forces that he's playing with (Malcolm calls him out specifically on this) and he thinks he can control something that ultimately won't be controlled ("life .... finds a way"). I think this is also how Hammond comes to his end in the novel, to the very last moment believing he can gain back control of the situation. If only he could just get this or that system up and running again, or even just try again in a different place and correct some of the mistakes which have by now become obvious to him... but then the situation overwhelms him and literally eats him alive. His sense of control was an illusion. Of course you can read plenty of subtext in this for how humans are innately driven to discovery and creation, but not so good at predicting the risks and consequences of their discoveries. Ultimately there's always this tension between the next great invention or discovery that could change the world for the better, but could also destroy it if things go wrong. I guess there's an element of deception in the way that Hammond pretends that what he has created is showing dinosaurs as they were millions of years ago, but Grant and Sattler point out that even if the animals are real, the whole situation of the park is still an illusion. The animals are not in their natural habitat, they are not allowed to display their natural behaviour, they are not even in their own time! And ultimately life will rebel against this illusion and against the attempt to control it. But I wouldn't say it's a conscious deception on the part of Hammond. There's a scene where Hammond talks about his youth and how he had this flea circus with pretend fleas doing tricks but it was all fake of course. So perhaps this is a way of telling that back then, Hammond knew what he had was an illusion, but now with the park, he has come to believe that his flea circus is actually real.

Now that's... chaos theory.

The original novel didn't focus on family - It was explicitly re-written for the screen with the family themes. I believe Spielberg chose to make Jurassic Park because he saw the opportunity of merging the high-concept (dinosaur creation) with the allegorical tale (starting a family)

Interesting. I always felt the original JP was the best and had that feeling of being a great movie from the first time you see it. What do you think about Lost World's themes?

Juanito G you are a really unintelligent person. Quoting Einstein and using it in the wrong context doesn't make you smart. His lecture is completely sound and based on reason, he demonstrates his line of thinking using the film itself. Plenty of filmmakers work like this and bury allegory within their movies. Movies can be smart nuanced and layered. Maybe you are just being skeptical for skepticisms sake. Perhaps elaborate on how he is "grasping at straws"? Spielberg has been called a great story teller by plenty of his contemporaries as well from actors, crew and producers that have worked with him. Get smarter sir.

It's 100% planned - you don't get to be a critically acclaimed, commercially successful director if you don't understand this stuff. Even Spielberg's debut, "Duel", aside from being a nail-bitingly tense thriller, shows incredible aptitude at establishing themes and symbolic, archetypal motifs dealing with masculinity, insecurity, competition and survival.

It's deliberately written and directed that way with parental allegory - so much so that even the sequel LOST WORLD and JP3 had parental subtext and plot-lines in them - And another movie you could bring to example is ALIENS by JIM CAMERON, that has a deliberate 'Mother' theme along with the Vietnam War allegory. Those are some great examples from 2 amazing directors - Recently though Not many big movies do allegory so greatly.

I got that too. The cinematopgrahy was no tthe same. For example, the original didn't use wide-frame, making the sheer scale of the dinos something we marvel at even more. So him mentioning cinematography is an error. Otherwise, such a brilliant presentation.