I agree. I haven't seen the movie yet, but the plot is relying on a lot of really questionable stuff from what I'm told. Regardless of how many times I'd see them, I'd still have the reaction Allan has when they first see those Brontosaurus when they arrived to Jurassic Park. I honestly can't imagine the idea of people getting bored of seeing dinosaurs.

Back when the first one came out didn't we still think raptors looked that way? As did we think that is what all those dinosaurs looked like so it would make sense that they looked that way back then, and because we know now that they didn't all look that way they added into this one that they only kept them this way because it adds more "wow factor" than if the raptors looked like more like a reptilian turkey. Unless I am completely missing what you are saying in which case I am sorry.

And to add to my post. The dumbest part of the movie for me was:

Another gripe for me was the fact that they tried to make the movie funny, honestly a common theme among movies these days even if isn't a comedy, for example:

I liked how in the original Jurassic Park the funny moments were thrown in there for the sake of making the movie funny, they just happened and it flowed nicely, in this movie it was very shoe-horned in.

It's funny. I'm both a fan and a hater of the Jurassic Park franchise. I love it because DINOSAURS, [censored] YEAH! The first film was what I had been waiting for my whole life, and it more than delivered with how life-like the creatures were, and the effects have held up astoundingly well.

But I hate it because the story is and always has been terrible. Even the first film's. Even the first book's. The human characters have never been interesting, the plots are always chock full of overt stupidity and inconsistencies, and the anti-science and anti-capitalist themes that they constantly espouse rub me the wrong way. The second film was the worst for this very reason, with all the proselytizing of how humans shouldn't interfere with the natural world of the dinosaurs...which were cloned in a lab, genetically tampered with, set loose in the wild over 65 million years past their timeline on an islands whose environment has been radically altered to accommodate them (up to and likely including driving out most of the natural fauna and flora). As much hate as the third film gets, it earns many points for shucking out most of the preachiness. Let's face it, the less attention you paid to the stories and more to the effects, the more you'll enjoy these films. Because I find Jurassic Park very intelligence-insulting as it is, even without taking the scientific inaccuracies into account.

I haven't seen it as of this posting, but if the fourth film ends up being a dumb but unpretentious action flick heavily laden with special effects, I'm all for it. I hope to have an enjoyable couple of hours.

And here's to hoping it will spawn a sequel or spiritual successor to Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis.

Brachiosaurus. Also, there is technically no such thing as a Brontosaurus; that name came about from mistakenly identifying a fossil of the already-discovered Apatosaurus as a completely new species. And that's our random dinosaur fact that nobody asked for of the day.

Fine, the Karen Long Neck member. Is that good enough?

https://youtu.be/8NaBHCuxqhA?t=79.