The second film is really baffling. Just a weird film, politically, ethically, morally etc

So the billionaires company is going into receivership and the board wanting to generate profits approves a team to go and catch dinosaurs from a second resort island they were making so they can put them in a zoo and charge money. And like I get that's ethically wrought with some issues but it's really not that evil by big business standards. These guys didn't make the dinosaur and it would be cool to seem a dinosaur in a zoo.

So Ian Malcolm (backed by the original billionaire) gets sent with a team of scientists and environmentalists to stop them/rescue another person there. But it's like the dinosaurs aren't indigenous to the island, they're genetically engineered creations displacing whatever rare fauna and flora was on that isolated island in the first place.

The company has hired a big game hunter whose meant to be sinister and really wants to kill a T-Rex, but Peter Posthelwaite plays him outright heroically, he even has an arc where he becomes disillusioned with killing animals. He's basically stoic, pragmatic and always correct. The "good guys" sabotage the dinosaur catching operation leading to dozens of humans getting killed. Even then the "bad guys" capture them and could have killed them or simply just leave them to fend for themselves, they put their differences aside so they can all escape together.

And then in this life or death situation of a forced march to the sea through raptor territory, Vince Vaughan's character still sabotages Peter Posthelwaite's ammunition to pursue his own environmentalist agenda. I mean at that point he didn't know it would be used against a T-Rex at a crucial moment, instead he might have killed them all had the guy not been able to shoot a raptor or something in self defence. Like it would make sense if he was being portrayed as an unreasonable hippy environmentalist but the film thinks he's cool and good.