OPINION: Everyone loves dinosaurs

During my time in college, I was given a thought experiment by a friend to make a list of movies for someone who has never seen a movie before. I always found it more interesting compared to creating a list of the greatest movies ever because accessibility becomes much more important. What would be a movie that would make someone understand the power of movies?

This line of thinking leads down a road of eliminating different movies for various reasons. Me and this friend argued about “La La Land” for ages, as I think the plot of that movie relies on prior knowledge of Hollywood musicals and the ending wouldn’t be palatable for someone not used to subversive storytelling.

Conversely, this friend was able to convince me away from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” citing the presentation and the view of a first-time watcher not understanding its more suppressed meanings. If someone didn’t know that “Ferris” was supposed to be ridiculous, they probably wouldn’t be able to dive deeper into it.

If there was at least one movie that my friend and I could agree on putting at the top of our lists, we both put “Jurassic Park.” It fits three criteria that we came up with to decide an “accessible” movie: spectacle and thrills, multi-genre tendencies and successful heroics.

“Jurassic Park,” from its concept, is already ticking boxes. A group of scientists trapped in an zoo park where dinosaurs have been brought back to life is a perfect fit for the screen, providing visual spectacle.

The movie also acknowledges the danger these creatures would be if they were alive today by building the more carnivorous ones as the nature-based antagonists. The conflict that arises from mankind’s tampering with the natural world ends up fighting back, providing requisite thrills to fit the criteria.

These thrills have roots in the horror genre, but it’s not the only genre “Jurassic Park” wields. Science-fiction is the core of the whole concept. A hint of espionage permeates through the first act of the movie. Comedy finds a rightful place in certain characters such as with Jeff Goldblum’s performance of Dr. Malcolm, whose ramblings about chaos theory perform a prophetic look toward the rest of the movie.

Throughout it all, there’s even a feel-good turn from Sam Neill’s Dr. Grant as he learns to function as a makeshift father. The genres are wielded to handle these varying emotions, providing thrills while still connecting with the audience.

The dinosaurs themselves function as a mixture of feelings. There’s clearly horror, but what draws the scientists into these creatures are the awe they inspire. These are massive land lizards unlike anything else on Earth. A sickly triceratops invokes a sadness that only comes from watching a creature in pain.

Dinosaurs provide gigantic odds to conquer, which makes the adventure that much more successful. An average person would most likely not survive the events of “Jurassic Park,” but it’s the reason why people can be drawn to the movie.

The scientists have to overcome the subjects of their research. Grant’s arc, where he comes to accept his role as a protector of the children he ends up traveling with through the prehistoric jungle, puts him in increasing danger for a strong reason. The dangers present, from velociraptors to a tyrannosaurus, are dangers he’s familiar with, which makes the close calls satisfying.

All of this are immediately accessible to an audience, and was accessible back in 1993 where the movie would become the highest-grossing film until “Titanic” would dethrone it a few years later. The movie exists at the apex of computer-generated imagery, which continues to affect (or haunt, depending on who you ask) the big-budget film industry today.

However, as I’ve come to realize since those conversations with my friend, accessibility doesn’t mean quality. The question of quality doesn’t apply to “Jurassic Park,” which has enough depth in its exploration of nature’s unstoppable power to be worth the time.

The irony is that these types of formulas and rules are what causes stale and bland movies to be sent out of studios with no regard for deeper understanding. To be accessible to some is just to be financially successful, which, in Hollywood’s indulgence in franchises, they’ve certainly understood.

Dr. John Hammond’s character, whose jolly obsession with dinosaurs leads him down a path where his grandchildren could be killed, feels parallel to this idea. “Jurassic Park” represents one of the few landmarks between big-budget inventive filmmaking and the schlock of franchises that would be pursued following its release. Perhaps we can just blame chaos theory for the damage since.