What happened to the crew on the ship?
If that t-Rex was still in the holding thing. Is there a deleted scene with more dinosaurs on the ship?
shareRaptors, but they ditched that idea
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) Discussion > What happened to the crew on the ship?
There were to supposed to have had Raptors be on the ship too and to have broken out but they scrapped them so it left that plot hole.
shareThere was a deleted scene where Raptos snuck onto the boat before it left the port and that's how there are dead crew members all over the place even though the T-Rex was still in holding. They just didn't reshoot the next scenes to make it tie in.
share[deleted]
Daddy Rex didn't start out in the cargo hold. When he's captured on Isla Sorna, he is placed in a framed harness/cage kinda thing. This is shown empty and bent on the deck, implying he got free, then was trapped below decks.
As to what actually transpired, here is what the movie suggests, by way of dialogue and visual evidence like the empty harness described above:
1. Because Roland shot him with too much tranquilizer, he started going into arrest during the voyage to San Diego.
2. The crew administered amphetamines to save him, but gave him too much.
3. He broke free of his harness and went on a drug-fueled killing spree.
4. Somehow, the final surviving crew member, fatally wounded, locked him in the hold, then died.
5. The pilotless ship kept going at top speed until it hit the pier.
Explained in a bit more detail with visual evidence here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2V0wfS-3DI
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
To be fair the guy in the YouTube clip is a little too dismissive of the untarnished wheel house as a goof. I guess it's a matter of opinion.
I've had a lot of sobering thoughts in my time Del Boy, it's them that started me drinking!
Fair enough. My stance, though, is that goof or not, it doesn't make everything else suggesting it was the T-rex go away.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
I think when people need to make stuff up to try to explain what we see in a film, then the film has simply failed on that score. And when things we're shown contradict the "explanation" (like, yes, the wheelhouse), then that explanation has failed.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
True. I think they wanted to tell a visual story, and let the audience conclude what took place using the clues, but they bungled it.
I still think the T-rex did it. At this point it's just something I have to take at face value. It's just the simplest explanation, if only because he was the only dinosaur confirmed to be aboard and no other explanation is presented.
The only question, then, is how it happened, and even though I maintain that the clues are there, the movie handled this entire sequence very, very badly because they weren't given the proper focus. Everything we need to know is there, but it's glossed over in the rush to get the dinosaur out of the cargo hold and on the rampage as quickly as possible.
The reason this is so bad is because I shouldn't have to analyze the scene to figure out what happened. That's doing the movie's job for it. And that's sloppy filmmaking. Even if we don't agree that the T-rex did it, we can at least, I think, agree on that.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs?
I'm highly sceptical when people say "The film leaves it open to you to decide what happened." I know that does happen in some films, of course, but I think the vast majority of times it's only on internet message boards. It's become one of those go-to phrases that people learn and burble because they think it makes them sound discerning; usually, it really means "I can't explain it either", and that the film merely ended up incoherent on that particular point in the final edit, for a whole range of reasons.
I shouldn't have to analyze the scene to figure out what happened. That's doing the movie's job for it.
Absolutely, I agree. In linear narratives, in big-budget tentpole flicks bound for the cineplex, the film should tell its story clearly. Sometimes a film-maker tries to be "clever" (as in Inception, a film I don't have a high regard for), but that's not what happened here.
BTW, I'm not saying it wasn't the T Rex. I'm just saying that the film doesn't give us enough to know, but does also give us information that doesn't fit that explanation. But that's kind of true about a lot of TLW, a film that reads like it had to be salvaged at many points -- not usual for Spielberg.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. share
I'm highly sceptical when people say "The film leaves it open to you to decide what happened."
In my defense, I never actually said that; I merely suggested that I thought the movie was trying to be clever by providing visual clus to let the audience piece together what happened and Spielberg (or whoever) bungled it. The clues are there, as detailed in the video, but their significance isn't immediately evident or they're not focused on enough.
For example if they'd lingered on the empty harness longer to emphasize that it's the same one we saw him in on the island and further drive home the point of "If he isn't in it, then where is he?" (or even better, had a character ask this very question), it'd make it clearer the T-rex had gotten free at some point before being locked in the hold.
It wouldn't entirely salvage the sequence, but it'd avoid some questions. "How did he kill the crew if he was in the hold the entire time?" being one of the most common. This question drives me bananas because he demonstrably wasn't, but I the more and more I dwell on it I realize I can't blame inattentive viewers. It's easy to miss the empty harness and assume the T-rex was always where we see him released from, and this is the movie's fault, not theirs.
Just a messy sequence all around. It didn't need to be though. That's what annoys me so much about both it and people's confusion over it; Spielberg is usually not this unclear.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs? share
In my defense, I never actually said that
No you didn't, mate, that's true. I apologise for my clumsy wording, because I wasn't meanign to suggest you needed to defend your opinion. I'm enjoying hearing your thoughts. What was going through my mind, I think, was an attempt to explain my thoughts on this kind of issue generally in case *I* sounded like I was coming on too heavy.
Just a messy sequence all around. It didn't need to be though.
It's hard to make sense of why it turned out this way, isn't it? I appreciated hearing your reference to the raptors being originally included but taken out at the last minute, because it helps explain why this sequence feels like there are bits missing. Maybe, in the shuffle, he ended up without the footage he would have needed to fill in the gaps.
To be honest, I think it made sense to take the raptors out; they'd had their screen time, and even more "running from the raptors" just would have been tiresome and devalued the previous "Kelly saves the day" sequence.
Spielberg is usually not this unclear.
He's not, I agree. I'm not much of a Spielberg fan myself, for very specific reasons, but one thing he's generally amazing at is the construction of fluid set-piece sequences. So it's always surprising to see him stumble on that score.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment. share
It's hard to make sense of why it turned out this way, isn't it? I appreciated hearing your reference to the raptors being originally included but taken out at the last minute, because it helps explain why this sequence feels like there are bits missing. Maybe, in the shuffle, he ended up without the footage he would have needed to fill in the gaps.
My problem with this is I've never seen a credible source for it. People mention it often, but can never tell me where they obtained their information from. The first I heard of it was here on IMDb. Where did it come from? A draft of the script we haven't seen? A book about the making of the movie? An interview somewhere? Storyboards?
Nobody's provided anything other than secondhand information, and the only thing even remotely suggesting it is that pesky undamaged wheelhouse, and since I haven't seen enough to believe the raptors' involvement is anything more than a fan theory that grew wildly out of control, I'll take it as a simple error instead of evidence for smaller predators for now, I hope you understand.
If the raptor thing turns out to be the real deal, I'll eat my shorts, but for the time being I'll consider it wishful thinking at best until I find out from whence it originated.
And even if it was originally intended, it must've been dropped before post-production, or possibly even during actual production, because I'm having difficulty seeing where it would've fit in. Plus, actually seeing the crew being killed (by raptors or T-rex, whichever) would kill much of the suspense in dock scene as the out of control ship draws closer and closer and finally crashes, and then everyone goes aboard; if the audience knows ahead of time that something got the crew, then they're ahead of the characters, ruining the mystery.
I mean, really, how many times will you look under Jabba's manboobs? share
This is probably the only "logical" explanation for the scene. My issue is how did the T-Rex reach everyone on the ship? Surely that thing wouldn't have the ability to stretch its neck in tight hallways. I'll buy it could've killed people on the bow or stern but how did it kill anyone who was hiding inside a captain's quarters? No way it could get its bigass head down there.
shareI could have liked this movie, but this plot hole makes me hate it.
share