There are TONS of designer imposters sold in big cities.
Course, there was also the point that they got some of the vegetation wrong, which was making the animals sick. Hence why she was digging through the dung.
Yeah, I mean they had preserved plant samples.
1. Never had a snack to tide you over?
2. Never dropped a crumb from your mouth? Specifically if you had no hands to help you?
3. It wasn’t finished or open yet, plus the hurricane evacuation.
4. He’s more than a mathematician.
5. Yes, this was alluded to in the movie. Plus, this answers Number 1, in that they would feed the T Rex to lure it to the edge of the enclosure. This is also how zoos work.
6. For safety reasons? You want people to be out there without a way to steer, caught on a slow-moving track?
7. Mr. DNA is specifically designed to cater to young visitors, which is why it is cartoonish.
8. You can’t carry something sharp in your pocket without lacerating yourself? Also, pretty sure it wasn’t as sharp as it once was, after millions of years.
9. As I answered below, Hammond specifically invited these people to the park AS HIS GUESTS. Of course he would be at that presentation.
10. This is what scientists and paleontologists do. They search for clues and answers.
11. Nedry left the door open.
12. Maybe, I don’t know, the big gaping hole in the wall? Or the large doors? It can lower itself, as seen in the movie.
13. I’ll give you the wires thing, but it’s not like it ruins the film.
14. Not really. The whole point is excess - Hammond would have gone to every expense to impress his visitors, whom he needed on his side to support and “sign off on” the park. They created dinosaurs; pretty sure they can afford an extra cheesecake.
15. The same way.
16. Who cares? Not a plot hole.
17. Who cares? Not a plot hole. Also - theoretically at least - it shouldn’t be a problem. Also, the point of the whole movie is man’s hubris.
18. Man’s hubris in creating and controlling nature. The point of the film, in fact.
19. Either stuffed between the seats or a design flaw. Our cars and modes of transportation do have design flaws sometimes.
20. So people could drink them. Specifically, the guy with the kids very well could have given them some water, since it was obvious he didn’t really know how to deal with/take care of kids.
21. If the sink was attached to the wall, it would have gone with the walls. My sink is currently attached to the wall in my bathroom, but the toilet is free-standing. Also, what a pedantic question.
22. Safety reasons. Why do airplanes have flares and other safety precautions? Let me get this straight - you want people to be stuck on a rail, with no method of steering, and no safety precautions? Hammond specifically states that no expense was spared, and they thought of everything when it came to safety precautions.
23. Again, man’s hubris in thinking they could control the flow of nature.
Most of these were answered in the movie. Or are easily deduced with simple reasoning. IE - Hammond was at the orientation because he specifically invited these people to show off the park/get their support/money. I don’t talk to every single guest that comes to my restaurant, but if I invited them there, wouldn’t it be rude not to?
Jesus, there’s some petty bitches down here. He was asked a question in an interview, and gave an answer. Sometimes I tell people things about me that happened decades ago too. Manufacturing petty drama is, well, petty. And he ain’t even calling anyone out; I’m sure some of the other boys probably were tired of touring and being in the limelight 24/7, and probably didn’t have the same drive to continue pursuing that career path. Calm yourselves, y’all are getting frothy at the mouth for no reason.
Response to People Are Accusing Kylie Jenner Of Repackaging Old Lip Kit Colors And They’re Pissed AF:
Oh my word, does anyone think it’s a new concept for companies to repackage and rebrand their products? It happens all the time.
That’s exactly what I thought - did anyone genuinely think they let Lady Gaga jump from the roof on live television?
That also doesn’t take lesbianism into account. Theoretically, we don’t want women to only talk about guys because it’s a shallow topic. But what of a woman confiding in her friend about anothet woman she likes?
I don’t mind trying to be better and striving for equality. In fact, I actively decided to pass the B-W test in the novel I’m working on. I would just point out though that a lot of male characters talk about women too. I feel like if two female characters are dishing about a guy, or fighting over him, then sure. But we could have two well-written, rounded, powerful female characters unite to rescue a man, totally flipping the damsel in distress plot point on its head, and it wouldn’t pass the test. I think there should be some wiggle room.
Can’t do it; saw the first question and I refuse.
This “article” feels like the lowest point in pop culture.
Response to Which Era Of Men Are You Most Attracted To?:
I got 1990’s. Accurate.
I love it when people tell celebrities to shut up and stick to acting/music/what have you. Christina Applegate has the exact same amount of freedom if speech as any other American. Also, I didn’t know one’s job precluded them from having an opinion. Not to mention, you hired a reality TV star for the job, so the argument holds no weight. You also don’t get to champion Stacey Dash or Chuck Norris for being so brave for having an opinion, while simultaneously telling other celebrities to shut up. There’s also no taking into account what some of these celebrities have been through. We don’t know all their upbringinings and traumas. Meanwhile, you elected a guy born into money, who got a loan of millions from daddy. Who, consequently, would have more money now if he just invested it; he’s not THAT great of a businessman. You don’t really get to complain that celebs are rich and out of touch, when you’ve hired a rich, out of touch celeb for the job.