Claire’s character development is that she is a career oriented woman who is not interested in having kids.
She is thrown in a survival situation where she must protect the kids and and in that situation she learns to appreciate and even care for the kids.
Many critics find this character arc to be sexist.
Does anybody remember Alan Grant’s character arc in the original film?
Strong independent, career oriented man who does not want kids.
Is thrown into survival situation and is forced to protect the kids and in this he learns to care for them.
Learning is fun.
The treatments in these moves are vastly different.
Alan is incompetent with kids and is not judged by anyone [or the camera] for it. Heck, in the beginning, it’s even played for comedy.
Claire is incompetent with kids and leaves them with someone with (allegedly) more experience and IS FUCKING SCREAMED AT. Oh, and an apparently important plot point of the movie is that said incompetent “nanny” person MUST be punished by being tortured by pterosaurs and then consumed by that giant dinosaur whale thing. Underlying message: women who fail to look after children deserve to die. Unless a man loves them.
Alan spends a majority of his time learning how to deal with the kids and learns that children aren’t little germ-infested shitbeasts with all the survival instincts of a concussed whelk[lies!]. Underlying message: Yay, Alan.
Claire spends a majority of her time trailing after a one-time fling in a supremely nauseating you-don’t-know-you-love-him-until-he-kisses-you “romance” plot for a relationship that is DOOMED TO FAIL because they’re EXACT FIRKIN OPPOSITES. She spends maybe ten whole minutes actually protecting the kids at the end of the movie and that is supposed to make it okay to want to start a family? Somehow?
It’s a similar arc, but the treatments of each character are V-A-S-T-L-Y different.