Humans vs dinos

On Isla Nublar in Costa Rica, the conglomerate InGen operates a tourist attraction that features prehistoric creatures built from DNA remnants preserved in amber. The trouble is that dinosaurs no longer provoke the same scale of awe and terror as they did in previous years, so the owners feel they have to keep ratcheting up the fear factor among the public.

The solution is to genetically engineer new creatures, combining DNA from a variety of dinosaurs with those of other animals with genetic traits that should prove useful to any creature aspiring for uber-predator status.

That is the central conceit of the movie “Jurassic World,” which has so far grossed more than $500 million in worldwide box-office earnings. This is considered the biggest movie gross of all time, as well the first time that a film generated over $500 million worldwide in a single weekend (in China, reports have it that the film has earned more than $100 million).

So by itself, “Jurassic World,” the fourth and much-delayed film in the series that began some 20 years ago with “Jurassic Park,” is a newsmaker, deserving of some attention. But “Jurassic World” raises at the same time urgent questions about the limits to humanity’s exploitation of nature and technology. How far should scientists go in manipulating genetic traits with the aim of creating unique, untested and unknown creatures whose true natures and abilities can yet pose a threat to humanity?

Activists protesting the increasingly common and unbridled use of genetic testing and manipulation in plants call the products of such experiments “franken foods,” in reference to the creature created by Dr. Frankenstein as part of a bizarre experiment to create a “new man” from the various parts of dead persons.

The movie’s director, Colin Trevorrow, speaking of the creature that emerged from experiments carried out in the labs of “Jurassic World,” says the Indominus rex “is symbolic of consumer and corporate excess,” with the creature “meant to embody humanity’s worst tendencies. We’re surrounded by wonder and yet we want more, and we want it bigger, faster, louder, better.”

* * *

But who has time to ponder the ethics of genetic testing and experimentation when there’s a creature out there which is not only intelligent and canny, but which can also use camouflage, change its skin color and even its body temperature to evade capture? It also seems to be imbued with a human trait: malice, because it kills not out of necessity but out of pleasure.

Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), ex-Navy fighter and animal trainer, believes he has established rapport with the prehistoric creatures in “Jurassic World,” being the chief keeper of a quartet of Velociraptors, who have come to see him as their own “alpha male.” Audiences familiar with the “Jurassic” franchise know the raptors well, having figured as the uber-predators in previous movies. That Grady has been able to “control” these creatures speaks volumes of his skill and courage, but it seems he has met his match in the Indominus rex, the as-yet unseen attraction whom he first meets when it leaves tracks on the seemingly unscalable walls of its enclosure.

Joining Grady in his search for the escaped predator is Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), the park’s operations director who is seeking to rescue her nephews who have wandered off on their own. How she proposes to do this in a white suit with matching heels escapes me, although I would think she should have found the time to put on a pair of sneakers while chasing after the Indominus rex.

* * *

“Jurassic World” earns its huge box-office take. There are thrills and scares aplenty, and the CGI work is seamless. The dinosaurs not only look real, but in certain scenes, it seems we can simply stretch out our hands and feel their scales and slimy skin. But with all the CGI resources at their disposal, the special effects crew disappoints with the Indominus rex, which seems to be a rather generic version of the common public image of dinosaurs.

Some scientists, in fact, have decried the movie-makers’ failure to use the latest scientific data to portray how dinosaurs must have really looked like. For instance, latest scientific theory has it that many dinosaurs actually sported feathers, yes, even the dreaded T-rex. After all, not for nothing are dinosaurs considered the true ancestors of birds.

There is even a hint (spoiler alert!) of a sequel to “Jurassic World.” Toward the movie’s close, the head of the park’s laboratory (and in many ways the true father of the Indominus rex), Dr. Henry Wu (BD Wong), conspires with the security chief played by Vincent D’Onofrio to take the remaining eggs of the Indominus rex with them when they escape. Earlier, the security chief had designs on using the raptors for military purposes. What does he plan to do with the eggs of the Indominus rex?

* * *

We have tantalizing hints of the story arc that will follow. Perhaps we should take comfort from the movie’s closing shot: the T-rex, who helped defeat the Indominus rex, trudging across the attraction’s roof, roaring, and looking across the water where the humans have fled, declaring that in the war between humanity and nature, as symbolized by the dinosaurs, nature will end up the winner.

Nature may well win out against human greed, neglect and arrogance, but at what price? And who will pay for our need for bigger thrills and sensations, for profit and for ego?