Bizarre Trends in Movies and Their Sequels

(SPOILER ALERTS: I SPOIL ALL THESE FILMS)

Story, characters, setting. So much goes into how we view a movie. And when we enjoy those things it just makes perfect sense that another version of that film will be made using those initial elements. But sometimes other elements are carried from film to film in a franchise and it always seems like an odd choice by the filmmakers.

Children of Divorce Love Dinosaurs (Jurassic Park Films)

"They could've bought me a puppy
instead."

I’ll be honest, if my parents ever got divorced I’m sure going to an island full of dinosaurs would cheer me up. But so would a lot of things. Ice cream for example. Going to Disneyland. See another Jurassic Park movie. But no, the people who live in the world (like the earth not the world like Jurassic World) of the Jurassic park movies seem to all think the best place for a kid after divorce is on dinosaur islands.

"Why don't we just have another kid?"

The first movie it is Hammond’s grandchildren who we learn at the beginning of the movie their mom, Hammond’s daughter, has just gotten in a divorce. In the second movie it is Ian Malcolm’s daughter who he shares custody with his ex. Jurassic Park 3 we have the divorced parents joining together to find their missing son whose stepfather (or mother’s boyfriend, they were kind of unclear on that) took him parasailing. And finally in the recently released Jurassic World we have two kids who have sent to see their cool Aunt who works on Dinosaur Island because their parents are, you guessed it, getting a divorce.

I know the statistic “Half of all marriages end in divorce” but in the Jurassic Park world it seems to be a solid 100%. The closest we get to seeing a happily married couple is a brief scene with Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern’s character from the first film) and her husband and young child in Jurassic Park 3. Other than that everyone is either divorced or a child of divorce. Or some kind of childless paleontologist or hunter who is more interested in animals than in other people.

"I hate you mom and dad!"

Part of me gets it. Dinosaurs are a fascinating subject for children, so it makes sense that a movie featuring dinosaurs would have some kids in it. And like any character you need a reason for those characters to be there. But it seems lazy that it is the same reason every time. And the only film where it makes sense is the third one, because the parents come together by the end to save their child. It’s a touching idea. But every other time it seems a stretch. Especially in Jurassic World. Why can’t the parents just be really cool and bought their kids tickets to see cool Aunt Dino Lady?

Government Can’t Be Trusted (All the Marvel Movies)

Granted, if you turn on Fox News or any conservative leaning media outlet, it seems no one trusts the government anymore. Hell, we have a presidential candidate who is winning because his entire campaign is about people not trusting government. I understand the feeling. But that being said, the Government is revealed to be corrupt or incompetent in almost every Marvel movie.

In Iron Man 3 we learn the Vice President is conspiring with the Mandarin. In Captain America: The Winter Soldier we learn that the head of Shield is actually a member of Hydra. In The Avengers the World Security Council decides to nuke New York City. Plus there are always cops or soldiers who seem to be quick to act without thinking (shooting Quiksilver in the arm in Age of Ultron). It’s even true on far away planets where we meet the guards at the prison in Guardians of the Galaxy who are all corrupt.

Now it is true that if the government was a well oiled machine the various Marvel heroes would not be needed. We would have police and military who are capable of dealing with threats before the intervention of super heroes would have to occur. Stay home Avengers, the Airforce got this. But they don’t need to be the bad guys. Even Nick Fury, who is supposed to be a good guy, manipulates the Avengers into fighting Loki. He smeared blood on Coulson’s trading cards in order to have a prop to encourage the team to fight.

It makes sense that in Captain America: Civil War that when Cap learns the Avengers are going to have to be under the control of the U.N. he is hesitant to sign on. All the Marvel governments are bad.

Batman Never Kills. Except He Does All The Time (Batman Movies)

If you saw Batman V. Superman, you know one of the biggest complaints from that movie is the number of times Batman kills someone in that film. But if you go back and watch all the Batman movies (with the exception of the Adam West Batman) you’d realize, Batman kills people all the time.

"Why am I wearing goggles
over a mask?"

In the first Batman movie, directed by Tim Burton, we are presented of several instances in which Batman either doesn’t care if someone dies, or just straight up murders someone. First we hear the story about a thug who fell off a roof and died, attributed to Batman (maybe he did it, maybe he didn’t, I think he did). Then there is the instance where he drops Jack into the acid vat (granted it didn’t kill Jack, but it could have). Now having just seen Batman hang a crook over a rooftop it is pretty obvious that he has the strength to lift Jack back up off the railing, but he lets him go. And finally he shoots a grapple to pull the Joker off of the helicopter where he plunges to his death. That is clear cut murder, no arguments.

And in Batman Returns the killing totally continues. Perhaps my favorite example of Batman being a coldhearted murderer is in that film. In the beginning of the movie, Batman is called in to stop a group of evil circus performers. One of them is a fire eater, that he straight up sets ablaze with the jet engine of the batmobile. He doesn’t stun or beat him into submission, he uses a hydraulic lift to turn the batmobile around 180 degrees and then FWOOSH! lights this the guy on fire with a burst of flame from his rocket car. Sure the guy is a fireeater so he might have some mild protection from minor burns, but not for a giant fireball in the face.

"FOR MARTHA!"

It seems like a tradition to basically let the bad guy die in Batman films. Two-Face dies in Batman Forever. Ras’Al Ghul dies in Batman Begins. Two-Faces dies (again) in The Dark Knight (while The Joker lives, perhaps making up for the Tim Burton Batman film).  Bane and Talia both die in Dark Knight Rises. All deaths either caused by Batman or could have been easily prevented by Batman.

And yet with all these dead at his feet, Batman still can say he has “one rule” that he won’t break. He won’t kill. Now maybe he’s not gunning down crooks willy-nilly like The Punisher, but he’s still killing. Even when he’s not killing, some of the injuries he doles out to crooks on the street could cripple people for life. Kind of just as bad if instead of killing someone you turn them into a paraplegic.

The Enterprise keeps bumping into Worf (Star Trek: TNG films)

Space is supposed to be big. Space is so big that most of it is just empty. Yet in the Star Trek films, featuring the cast of The Next Generation, space is not so big that the crew of the Enterprise doesn’t keep bumping into their Klingon friend, Commander Worf.

Okay, if you’re not a huge Trek fan, this complaint may not make sense. After the Next Generation ended, the property continued on in films. And in the first film, the classic Enterprise 1701-D was destroyed. At the same time Star Trek: TNG had spun off another series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. In the fourth season of that series they featured a conflict with the Klingons and Worf, who had previously served on the Enterprise, was now assigned to Deep Space Nine.

"Do you have a little Klingon
in you? Ya want some?"

So we have one character isolated in a far flung part of the Galaxy. Chances are we wouldn’t see him again the next time the crew of the Enterprise went on an adventure. Nope. Worf shows up in First Contact commanding the U.S.S. Defiant (the battleship assigned to protect DS9) in a fight against the Borg who are attacking Earth. Luckily the Enterprise showed up just in time to save the crew of the Defiant who are about to ram into the giant Borg cube. Then there’s a whole story about time travel, but that has nothing to do with the point. My point is lucky that both Worf AND the New Enterprise decided to head to earth to defend it. Okay, this first coincidental meet up can be forgiven. We have two groups crossing paths that in all honesty would cross paths. Protecting Earth is important for Star Trek, all hands would be called in to do it. Makes sense.

Okay, but the next Star Trek movie has absolutely no explanation for why Worf is onboard the Enterprise. The crew is on a diplomatic mission welcoming a new species into The Federation. Worf is not a diplomat. But Picard and company turn a corner on their ship and there he is, WORF. Just hanging out on the Enterprise and they decide to take him along on the mission. No regard to if he has duties on Deep Space Nine, where he is actually assigned to work, the crew of the Enterprise brings along their Klingon friend because, well, because Klingons, I don’t know.

"Here we go again."

Worf also makes an appearance in the final Next Generation movie. This time because he is at a wedding for Riker and Troi, and then hitches a ride to their next wedding on Betazed. Now this I have a bit of a problem with because on Deep Space Nine, Worf got married and NONE of the Next Gen crew were there. So why did Worf have to drop everything and attend not just one but two weddings for people who couldn’t be bothered to attend his? Also why was Worf’s wife not with him? Was Dax not invited to the wedding? Is the crew of the Enterprise some kind of exclusive Members Only Club?  I mean, even Wesley came back for the wedding (it was a deleted scene but he was there).