Breathtaking action scenes make Jurassic World: Rebirth a winner
Hollywood is hoping Jonathan Bailey's Dr Henry Loomis, a nervy researcher packing up his latest dinosaur exhibition, in Jurassic World Rebirth has it wrong.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
06-08-2025
- Perth Now
Jonathan Bailey hails 'extraordinary' Scarlett Johansson
Jonathan Bailey thinks Scarlett Johansson is "extraordinary". The 37-year-old actor starred alongside Scarlett, 40, in Jurassic World Rebirth, and Jonathan loved the experience of working with his showbiz pal. He told Extra: "She's one of my favourite people I've met. She's extraordinary." Jurassic World Rebirth was directed by Gareth Edwards and also starred the likes of Mahershala Ali, Rupert Friend, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, and Ed Skrein. Jonathan felt fortunate to work with such a talented group of people on the movie. He said: "We didn't actually talk about the script at all. But when you're going into something like this, it shows the sort of mercurial magic of, you know, putting people together, surrounding it with incredible special effects people, Gareth with his team and people he's worked with before." Jonathan jumped at the chance to become part of the Jurassic film franchise. The actor - who also stars the Wicked movies - shared: "When you're doing this, there's nothing to complain about, like at all! "You know, of course you wanna feel the heat, you wanna feel like you're about to pass out at points, but also, you know, like, wading through the mangroves in Thailand with a film crew. It's like..." Meanwhile, Scarlett recently revealed that she had to contend with some "extraordinary circumstances" on the set of Jurassic World Rebirth. The actress filmed the movie in places like Malta and Thailand, and Scarlett admitted that she found it to be an "insane" yet rewarding experience. Speaking to People, she shared: "We all laughed a lot, and we were thrown into such extraordinary circumstances physically. "Half our set would wash away, and then ten minutes later it would grow too large, and there's no continuity to anything because the sun was moving in. It was just insane." Scarlett actually recalled one particularly scary experience when they were filming in Thailand. The actress said: "When we first got to Thailand, we had to do a camera test of the full costume and all that stuff, and just putting all the pieces of the costume together and then standing in a mosquito-infested bush, I was like, 'This is really happening.'" In another scene, Scarlett wore a harness to navigate her way down a cliff. And the Hollywood star now admits that it was a painful experience. She said: "We wore harnesses under our actual harness. "You have a movie harness that looks like a harness, then you have an actual harness that's hooked up to a line, because you're not actually abseiling, you're on a stunt rig. "I was happy to say goodbye to the harness!"
ABC News
25-07-2025
- ABC News
Colossal Biosciences wants to bring the moa back from extinction
Thomas and Ollie, both 15, turn to a classic 1990s sci-fi film as a point of reference when the topic of "de-extinction" is raised. "It just depends on the animal and what it can do to society, like a dinosaur — that would just not be a good thing," Thomas says. "[So] not the plot of Jurassic Park." "I think the plot of Jurassic Park would be cool," Ollie says. Marvee, 14, thinks "some things would go wrong". "I've watched Jurassic Park," she says. The film is also a conversation starter for academics such as Nic Rawlence from the University of Otago's palaeogenetics laboratory. "It's like that quote out of Jurassic Park from Malcolm … 'We were so busy thinking about whether we could, that we didn't stop to think about whether we should,'" he says. But discussions about bringing extinct animals back to life are no longer limited to the genre of science fiction. American biotech company Colossal Biosciences has recently announced plans to bring back a flightless bird from New Zealand that could grow as tall as 3.6 metres. The moa became extinct about 500 years ago due to hunting, habitat destruction and introduced predators. The company has also been working to resurrect the woolly mammoth and the Tasmanian tiger. In October last year Colossal Biosciences announced the birth of what it said were the first dire wolves to be born in more than 10,000 years. The moa project has generated excitement among followers, including director Peter Jackson, who has invested about $23 million into the project. "It has given me more enjoyment and satisfaction than any films ever have," he says. "It's uniquely a New Zealand bird, so it's something that we've always been very fascinated with." But what does it mean to "de-extinct" a species? "The process of de-extinction is that we extract DNA from ancient bones and we sequence that DNA and assemble ancient genomes," Colossal Biosciences chief science officer Beth Shapiro says. "To de-extinct the moa we are collecting DNA from all nine species of moa. "We'll be comparing the genome sequences to genomes of living birds to identify what it is that made moa unique,and using the tools of genome editing to make those changes in the DNA sequence of the living, close relatives." This definition of de-extinction is a point of contention. "De-extinction, in the strictest sense, is bringing back an animal that has been extinct, bringing it back to life," says Associate Professor Rawlence says. Dr Rawlence explains that high-quality DNA is needed for cloning to be successful. "The problem with extinct animals is that, for the most part, their DNA is really badly degraded," he says. "It's like you've taken that DNA, and you've put it in a wood-fired pizza oven at 500 degrees overnight and it comes out fragmented in shards, crumbs, dust, chemically modified." This degradation means ancient DNA is too damaged to clone. Dr Rawlence says the only way to create an animal that is similar to one that is extinct is to use genetic engineering. "So bringing back the dire wolf, you've created a genetically engineered grey wolf — you would do the same with emu and moa," he says. "A good analogy is if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. "What we have is we've got something that looks like a dire wolf, but we're not entirely sure it actually behaves like a dire wolf." Ollie worries about how the behaviour of genetically engineered animals could disrupt ecosystems. "[The moa] might not have the same behaviours as it had a long time ago," he says. "It could disrupt the food chain or it could kill other animals." Zoe, 16, agrees. "Why do we need the moa, kind of?" she asks. "It's like, what purpose does it have here? It could maybe endanger emus." Gabriel, 16, says he thinks de-extinction projects could take money away from other scientific research. "If they're just taking an emu and sort of like changing it to bring [the moa] back, I mean, what are we really going to gain from this?" he says. "I don't think it's very necessary. "There's no need to bring them [the moa] back and take money out of the science … budget as a whole." Dr Rawlence says public interest is often the key to securing investment in projects. "It's something to be said that it's easier to get funding from the private sector and celebrities to de-extinct an animal than it is to, say, genetically engineer one [an animal] so it can survive," he says. "The public aren't interested and want to hear about Jurassic Park and de-extincting animals." Dr Rawlence is opposed to de-extinction but believes the technology involved is important and should be developed to help save endangered animals. "You could use this technology to genetically engineer animals to be resistant to a disease, giving them the chance to evolve with climate change in a fast-changing world," he says. "Colossal scientists said we have a moral obligation to bring back these species and undo the sins of the past. "I'd say we need to learn from them, otherwise we're doomed to repeat them." Marvee and Zoe's feelings about the technology depend on its application. "I think it's a really good idea just helping the endangered animals at the moment, like polar bears or rhinos," Marvee says. "If it's used for commercial purposes … that'll cross the line, I reckon," Zoe says.
ABC News
22-07-2025
- ABC News
Extinct Species
MICHELLE WAKIM, REPORTER: What do you think about bringing extinct animals back to life? PERSON: I think it's a bit scary, but I think it's a really cool idea. PERSON: The world has adapted without them, but then if they come back, the right climates and stuff won't be right for them. PERSON: It would be really cool, but it could interrupt the food web or the food chain. PERSON: It could go really wrong. PERSON: It could very wrong. PERSON: Some things would go wrong. PERSON: It just depends on the animal and what it can do to society, like a dinosaur, that would just not be a good thing. PERSON: Well, I watched Jurassic Park. So not the plot of Jurassic Park? PERSON: Yeah, no, not the plot of Jurassic Park. PERSON: I think the plot of Jurassic Park would be cool. When we talk about de-extinction, bringing extinct animals back to life, Jurassic Park, the 1993 sci-fi film, often comes to mind. JURASSIC PARK: Welcome to Jurassic Park. But now, in real life, America Biotech company Colossal Biosciences has announced plans to de-extinct this. Do you know what this animal is? PERSON: An emu? PERSON: Uh, it looks like an emu. PERSON: I don't know. PERSON: An emu? This is the moa, and to be fair, it is in the same family as the emu. Moa were big flightless birds that once inhabited New Zealand and became extinct around 500 years ago due to over-hunting, habitat destruction and introduced predators. And the moa isn't the first animal Colossal Biosciences is keen to de-extinct. They've been working on woolly mammoths, the Tassie tiger, and these guys, which the company says are the first dire wolves to be born in more than 10,000 years. BETH SHAPIRO, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: The process of de-extinction is that we extract DNA from ancient bones, and we sequence that DNA and assemble ancient genomes. DNA, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, is like a blueprint that exists inside the cells of all living things. It's made up of chemical bases, adenine, thionine, cytosine, and guanine. They form the building blocks of DNA, which determines how all living things look and act. Sometimes you can also find DNA preserved in dead things. Now might be a good time to bring in Associate Professor Nick Rawlence. Part of his job is to get DNA out of archaeological, and fossil remains. NIC RAWLENCE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO: So, think Jurassic Park, but we don't bring back dinosaurs. De-extinction in the strictest sense is bringing back an animal that has been extinct, bringing it back to life. The only way to do that is through the process of cloning. So, if we think of Dolly the sheep. NEWS REPORTER: When the world first said, 'Hello Dolly' there were hopes this was the beginning of a revolution. Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned and was born back in 1996. But the thing about cloning is you need really high-quality DNA for it to work. ASS. PROF. RAWLENCE: The problem with extinct animals is that for the most part, their DNA is really badly degraded. It's like you've taken that DNA, and you've put it in a wood-fired pizza oven at 500 degrees overnight, and it comes out fragmented in shards, crumbs, dust, chemically modified. Nic says while we can take these damaged bits of DNA and kind of put them back together like a puzzle, there will be missing pieces and holes in the final product. Sound familiar? JURASSIC PARK: Gaps in the DNA sequence. We use the complete DNA of a frog to fill in the holes and complete the code, and now, we can make a baby dinosaur. So, if ancient DNA is too damaged to clone, what is Colossal Biosciences actually doing when they claim to de-extinct animals? BETH SHAPIRO, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: To de-extinct the moa, we are collecting DNA from all nine species of moa. We'll be comparing the genome sequences to genomes of living birds to identify what it is that made moa unique, and using the tools of genome editing to make those changes in the DNA sequence of the living close relatives. ASS. PROF. RAWLENCE: So, the only way to get an animal that's similar to one that was extinct is to use genetic engineering. So, bringing back the dire wolf, you've created a genetically engineered grey wolf; you would do the same with emu and moa. A good analogy is if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. What we have is we've got something that looks like a dire wolf, but we're not entirely sure it actually behaves like a dire wolf. PERSON: If you made it look like it and genetically put it together like that, then it might not have the same behaviours as it had a long time ago. PERSON: If they're just taking an emu and sort of like changing it to bring it back, I mean, what are we really going to gain from this? I don't think it's very necessary. PERSON: Why do we need the moa, kind of? It's like, what purpose does it have here? It could maybe endanger emus? PERSON: They might create a new animal, that's nothing like the original one, that went extinct. So, knowing all of this, we're left with the classic dilemma. JURASSIC PARK: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. ASS. PROF. RAWLENCE: I'm against de-extinction. I would say by all means develop the technology but use it to save what we've got left. You could use this technology to genetically engineer animals to be resistant to a disease, giving them the chance to evolve with climate change in a fast-changing world. Colossal scientists said we have a moral obligation to bring back these species and undo the sins of the past; I'd say we need to learn from them, otherwise we're doomed to repeat them. PERSON: If it's used for commercial purposes, that would cross the line, I reckon. If it's used to kind of help the environment and save endangered species or stuff like that, that could be really good. PERSON: Maybe like polar bears. I know they're, like struggling because of climate change. So maybe, yeah, doing something for the polar bears. PERSON: If it's going to cause more harm than good then there's no need to bring them back and take money out of the science budget as a whole. PERSON: Especially with climate change it's a much better idea to focus on the animals that we have now because, like, we don't know if in a while those animals are going to be extinct as well.
