Analysis of the original Jurassic Park

I’m glad to know that this is where the IC/ RS throughlines were in Building a Better Dinosaur, but I have to respectfully disagree. The most emotional scenes are the ones with dinosaurs in them. Jurassic Park’s biggest emotional scenes revolve around either awe or horror. All those screaming scenes have dinosaurs in them. When Grant first sees a living dinosaur, he goes on an emotional roller coaster from awe, to excitement, to being so overjoyed he has tears in his eyes when he says, “They move in herds. They do move in herds.” Again when he sees the sick triceratops, he lies on its chest as it breathes with a big goofy smile on his face, then tearfully recounts how the triceratops was his favorite when he was a kid. I just don’t see how anything with the grandkids comes close to that, emotionally.

To be fair I don’t reckon there’s been any more discussion in this thread than there is in any given few minutes of a User’s Group podcast.

I generally agree with this, though I think their mere existence is maybe taking it a step too far. The problem seems more related to the idea of having dinosaurs and people share the same space. Nearly all the talk about the sort-of playing god issues are contained within a single 4 minute scene, so I think we have to be careful when trying to expand that discussion to encompass the entire story.

I kinda disagree about Grant and the raptors though. I guess it depends on exactly what you mean by “creates conflict.” It’s come up a couple of times now, so I just now went back and rewatched those few minutes. Grant does seem stunned when he learns they’ve bred raptors, and he looks concerned when he first approaches the raptor paddock, but once he gets up close and is watching the raptors feed, he’s completely fascinated. He has a smile on his face. He fires off one question after another to Muldoon, the game warden, and whatever concern he might have had appears to have evaporated. So, I would say Grant is conflicted, but the raptors haven’t created any extra conflict between the characters.

This wavering between “dinosaurs are awesome” and “dinosaurs are dangerous” is what this story is about–or a big part of it. “How can we stand in the light of discovery and not act?” Hammond says. Grant goes from concern to fascination when he learns about the raptors. Grant is so excited at the thought of a living T-Rex, he nearly faints, but when he comes face to face with it, reality sets in. Then later, with a safe distance between them, he’s perfectly happy to stand back and observe the T-Rex feeding until Lex’s fear pulls him away. In that same scene he watches the flocking Gallimimus and nearly gets trampled, showing that even the herbivores can be dangerous.

This whole explanation (and mine as well) is why you have to look at the story as a whole. There are great reasons to look at the OS as either Physics or Universe. Seeing where the MC and IC lie would help to lock one of those in. I personally can’t pick out an MC problem for Grant that I’m able to separate from the OS. There may well be one there, I’m just not able to spot it. [quote=“Etherbeard, post:43, topic:1913”]
The problem seems more related to the idea of having dinosaurs and people share the same space
[/quote]
some, yes. Some, no. Sometimes the source of the problem looks like the physics of dealing with dinosaurs. We know it’s a problem because the dinosaurs eat the people. Sometimes the source of the problems look like the universe of dinosaurs being alive. We know it’s a problem because dinosaurs eat the people. Sometimes we know it’s a problem because the characters go “oh, shit, you’ve got dinosaurs? You can’t have dinosaurs, they’ll eat people, you don’t know how to control them, what if they learn how to get out? What if the power goes out? What if they learn? What if they breed? How do you know they can’t breed?”

It’s possible I’m not looking at this correctly at all, but conflict, tension, turmoil, one character getting that “oh crap, this isn’t good” look on his face.

This is not the Relationship Story Throughline.

The Relationship Story Throughline is about a relationship – not emotion.

“The most emotional scenes are…” is the same language used by Chris Huntley to argue for the kids being part of the RS with Grant. Maybe that’s not the best way to look for the RS, but surely I’m following a good example.

The process of Knowing about raptors and other dangerous things creates conflict in Grant, Sattler, and maybe Muldoon, and it creates conflict/tension between Hammond and the experts.

It’s not the best way, but the only thing in Jurassic Park remotely approaching a relationship is the one between Grant and the children.

The Relationship Story Throughline is not defined by emotion, because–as you can see–emotion is entirely subjective.

How is there not a relationship, or at least something remotely approaching one, between Grant and the dinosaurs?

I admit I have trouble articulating the RS and finding good examples within the text that don’t better belong to the IC through line… in general, not just in Jurassic Park, but if every piece of official Dramatica text uses the phrases “emotional heart” or “passionate argument” every time the Relationship throughline comes up, then I’m not sure how we’re meant to come away from it not thinking emotion is hugely important to the RS.

Now, maybe this where I’m having trouble, but is it accurate to say the characters’ emotions are subjective from our perspective? Surely not, otherwise how can we determine the Judgment? I picked out those examples because Grant is objectively more emotional in them than at any other point.

What is the relationship that is not exclusively in Grant’s domain? He loves dinosaurs – that’s his schtick. The dinosaurs couldn’t (and don’t) care anything for him on a relationship level. There is no “we” perspective shared between Grant and the dinosaurs.

By your definition, Ellie and Hammond also have relationships with the dinosaurs. The commonality is that their are all in the Overall Story throughline, and any relationship exists is an objective view of how humans and dinosaurs fit together (or not), which is an objective view of their relationships, not a subjective view.

I’m a little confused by this, not in relation to Jurassic Park but on a theory level. Isn’t it possible for an IC to influence the MC without even being aware of him? I’m sure I’ve read (or heard on a User’s Group podcast) that, strictly speaking, the MC and IC don’t have to share any scenes together. All that’s required is that the IC be able to influence the MC somehow. Now, I realize that’s not the same as the RS throughline, but if that situation is allowed by Dramatica in a complete story form, then a functioning RS must be implied even though the IC can’t care about the MC on a relationship level if they’ve never met.

For example. A couple years ago the User’s Group analyzed Laura. In that story Laura is the IC, even though for the first half, she is essentially a figment of the detective’s imagination. All he has is a painting of her and the stories told about her… Maybe a diary–I don’t recall exactly. So, prior to her actual appearance in the story, is there a relationship throughline? Are all the signposts squeezed into that second half?

Having an MC and IC in a coherent storyform will indicate what the RS (relationship story throughline) is, but that doesn’t mean the work will have it. The best example of this is The Nightmare Before Christmas. Jack is MC and Sally is IC, but every time it looks like there is going to be an RS scene, the film cuts away or Jack changes the subject. It takes two to tango, so to speak, so a one-sided relationship can only exist for so long before it is clear there is no relationship.

In Laura, Laura is absent in person for the first half of the story but Det. Mark McPherson begins falling in love with her from the evidence he discovers about her long before they get together in person. The difference between Laura and The Nightmare Before Christmas is that Laura has the RS all the way through the story – an necessity for it to be considered a throughline – even when the IC is absent, whereas The Nightmare Before Christmas has both MC and IC present but never develops the RS.

1 Like

Also the way the RS is explained as push and pull, it sounds more like a dynamic between characters. Grant loves and fears the Dinos and it’s pretty static. There’s no push and pull in that. There is some push and pull between Grant and the kids.

My confusion stems from your comment that the dinosaurs “couldn’t care anything for [Grant] on a relationship level.” Which I take as a disqualification of the dinosaurs on the basis that they aren’t people and therefore incapable of what a proper relationship throughline requires. This strikes me as being at odds with Laura in which Mark is in a proper relationship throughline with Laura from early in the story even though she doesn’t know he exists until around the midpoint, iirc.

I’m not using this to try and further an argument for the dinosaurs as IC in Jurassic Park; the fact that they don’t seem to have a relationship to Grant much separated from their relationship to the other characters has convinced me I was on the wrong track. Rather, I’m trying to understand how it is they’re disqualified based on their non-human nature. Or were you saying that the dinosaurs as they are presented in Jurassic Park couldn’t have a relationship throughline?

Where I would have made the argument is that if Grant loves the dinosaurs, as Hammond does, that’s static, and if Grant fears the dinosaurs, as Malcolm does, that’s static, but Grant loves and/or fears the dinosaurs to various degrees from scene to scene or beat to beat. That is not static. That love versus fear dynamic would have been the push and pull. Instead, I reckon that’s all in the OS, which strengthens my thoughts that if Jurassic Park has a storyform at all, it’s in the lower right quad with the OS in Situation-Present, which contains issues of Attract/ Repel (and Work/ Attempt).

Incorrect assessment of my meaning. IC’s do not need to be people. My comment comes from what is shown in the film, Jurassic Park – nothing else. The dinosaurs are shown as animals and have no interpersonal relationship with Grant in the story. This is an evaluation of what IS shown, not what COULD BE shown.

1 Like