We got the first JP on Blu-ray and that scene still gives us goosebumps. That movie holds up incredibly well.
Jurassic World
- Thread starter NeroShrimp
- Start date
I've never read any of Crichton's novels, though I'm given to understand that the Ian Malcolm character is presumed dead at the end of Jurassic Park, because of the many severe injuries he's had inflicted on him. So, I don't know how true the movie LOST WORLD was to the novel it's supposedly based on, but it's a horrible movie. If they are close at all, I have to wonder if there wasn't some collaboration between Crichton and Speilberg on it, because it's just one set-piece after another.
It's a Hollywood B-Movie with an A-List budget, with characters acting completely contrary not only to logic but even their own logic, at times. For example, Tembo's providing Earth First Guy every opportunity to screw with his gun. And how even though Hammond's Nephew Peter has the dinosaur's under control at his base camp, it's not his arrogance that sets him up - it's Earth First Guy's setting animals free and blowing up things. The result of which is some people dying and Earth First Guy (and/or Ian or the rest of them) is never held accountable for that.
What's more, the absolutely Ludacris scene where Peter, who's paying The Marlboro Men's (no doubt HEFTY) salaries, is snubbed by those very same Men, when he orders them to move out, in favour of obeying that same command from Earth First Guy!!! And this was AFTER he'd already put them all in danger and ruined their camp. He also ensures Eddy of his undeserved death when he carts off a baby T-Rex to the good guy's camp, to fix it's leg.
Only Tembo gets snapped at for his indifference regarding Eddy's death, while the actual culprit whose actions caused it NEVER gets a speech, or freaked out on, or anything of the sort. Time and again, LOST WORLD puts forward the suggestion that Dinosaurs are more important than people, in that regard. Now, whether that was Crichton's message in his sequel novel, I can't even speculate ... but the movie is a mess. Ian's girlfriend is no small part of that, either.
It's a Hollywood B-Movie with an A-List budget, with characters acting completely contrary not only to logic but even their own logic, at times. For example, Tembo's providing Earth First Guy every opportunity to screw with his gun. And how even though Hammond's Nephew Peter has the dinosaur's under control at his base camp, it's not his arrogance that sets him up - it's Earth First Guy's setting animals free and blowing up things. The result of which is some people dying and Earth First Guy (and/or Ian or the rest of them) is never held accountable for that.
What's more, the absolutely Ludacris scene where Peter, who's paying The Marlboro Men's (no doubt HEFTY) salaries, is snubbed by those very same Men, when he orders them to move out, in favour of obeying that same command from Earth First Guy!!! And this was AFTER he'd already put them all in danger and ruined their camp. He also ensures Eddy of his undeserved death when he carts off a baby T-Rex to the good guy's camp, to fix it's leg.
Only Tembo gets snapped at for his indifference regarding Eddy's death, while the actual culprit whose actions caused it NEVER gets a speech, or freaked out on, or anything of the sort. Time and again, LOST WORLD puts forward the suggestion that Dinosaurs are more important than people, in that regard. Now, whether that was Crichton's message in his sequel novel, I can't even speculate ... but the movie is a mess. Ian's girlfriend is no small part of that, either.
Yes, Ian Malcolm was retconned to be alive in The Lost World novel too. Chrichton was not originally going to write a sequel, but did so at Spielberg's urging, and the film was in production as soon as the book wrapped.
But all of that is inconsequential, since we were discussing Jurassic Park, not The Lost World. I'm not defending The Lost World, which was a mess.
By the way, Ludacris is a rapper and actor. The word you're looking for is "ludicrous."
But all of that is inconsequential, since we were discussing Jurassic Park, not The Lost World. I'm not defending The Lost World, which was a mess.
By the way, Ludacris is a rapper and actor. The word you're looking for is "ludicrous."
I'm still waiting to see the chameleon dinosaurs from the book be realized, though. That would be an awesome alternative to the raptors being the chief "bad dinos". The part where they were standing in front of the fence when the lightning struck and mimicked the effect with only a tiny delay and their shadows that gave them away was cool even in print.
Lost World was only pretty (well, extremely) loosely based on the novel, which I thought was vastly superior to the movie.
I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of Spielberg - after Duel and Jaws his films are generally rotten (E.T. I'm looking at you !) but ironically, J.P.'s one of the ones I like...
I agree wholeheartedly with the criticism of Spielberg - after Duel and Jaws his films are generally rotten (E.T. I'm looking at you !) but ironically, J.P.'s one of the ones I like...
I know, I just like the use of the name in that regard - it's different, that's all.
As to my blaming Speilberg for concepts which Crichton's novels put forward, as I say, I've never read any, so it's very interesting to find that out.
You pointed out that the gun wouldn't have been useful, even if 1 of the kids got it, anyway - I'm thinking Timmy was the only one just standing around, doing nothing. I hadn't figured it that way and once everybody was cornered, even if the Raptor could be shot dead, eventually, somebody probably would've had to die to keep the scene "realistic," in that this thing wouldn't just be sniffing around.
The DNA cartoon being so deliberate in its goofyness didn't occur to me, either, as a reflection of their lack of respect for the end result. I'll still say it goes on for too long, though. A lot of this movie that doesn't involve dinosaurs, actually, could use a trim.
Regarding the dinosaurs, I like the genetic mutations excuse to explain some of the liberties, mistakes, or lack of information, at the time on their dinosaur designs. Dinosaur Planet and shows like that have presented feathered dinosaurs in a surprisingly cool way that I wished was in Jurassic Park. But the way they were in this movie's still cool.
I was hoping as the movies went on that they would use gene mutation or some other excuse to gradually have the dinosaurs morph into our more contemporary understanding of their appearance, with a nearly full covering of feathers on some of the Rexes and Raptors and so forth.
But apart from a couple feathers on a raptors head, that was about it. They thought feathers looked too silly.
But apart from a couple feathers on a raptors head, that was about it. They thought feathers looked too silly.
I was thinking more JP3 than the first two.
Doctorwhovian
Fleet Captain
Regarding TLW novel/movie differences:
-The movie actually opens with a scene adapted from early in the JP novel, the girl getting bitten by the compys on a beach. However if I remember correctly in the TLW novel a dead Dinosaur washed up on a beach is the catalyst for the novel.
-No Hammond (He dies in the first JP novel).
-Like in the film, a paleontologist goes alone to the island and Ian and co. go after him. But It's not Sarah in the book.
-Characters such as Nick Van Owen, Roland Tembo, Peter Ludow were created for the movie and I don't think appear in the book at all. The human villains in the book were Dodgson and his other "Biosyn" chronies (Ingen being the bad guys in the movie). They're the ones that try to steal from the T-rex nest. No mercenaries/hunters etc.
-Kelly appears but she is no relation to Malcolm.
-As mentioned above the Carnotaurus (Carnivores with short snoughts, small arms and two bull-like horns, hence the name) appear in the book and posses chameleon like abilities.
-No San Diego finale, and the public does not find out about the Dinosaurs.
Regarding JP3, although not really based on any novel it does borrow elements from scenes in the first book: Mainly the aviary confrontation with the Pteranodons and the river scene (although in the novel it's the T-rex and not the Spinosaurus).
-The movie actually opens with a scene adapted from early in the JP novel, the girl getting bitten by the compys on a beach. However if I remember correctly in the TLW novel a dead Dinosaur washed up on a beach is the catalyst for the novel.
-No Hammond (He dies in the first JP novel).
-Like in the film, a paleontologist goes alone to the island and Ian and co. go after him. But It's not Sarah in the book.
-Characters such as Nick Van Owen, Roland Tembo, Peter Ludow were created for the movie and I don't think appear in the book at all. The human villains in the book were Dodgson and his other "Biosyn" chronies (Ingen being the bad guys in the movie). They're the ones that try to steal from the T-rex nest. No mercenaries/hunters etc.
-Kelly appears but she is no relation to Malcolm.
-As mentioned above the Carnotaurus (Carnivores with short snoughts, small arms and two bull-like horns, hence the name) appear in the book and posses chameleon like abilities.
-No San Diego finale, and the public does not find out about the Dinosaurs.
Regarding JP3, although not really based on any novel it does borrow elements from scenes in the first book: Mainly the aviary confrontation with the Pteranodons and the river scene (although in the novel it's the T-rex and not the Spinosaurus).
Yeah, I always liked the part in the book where the T-Rex swam up on them in the raft like an alligator, just for the unconventionality of it compared to usual T-Rex depictions.
In the JP2 novel the Eddie character was an assistant to a character called Prof. Thorne - and he was the engineer that Eddie seemed to be in the movie. (Thorne lived, Eddie died) There was a little boy on the Island too.
Doctorwhovian, with all of these changes, do you find the book to be better, or the movie? Especially with the T-Rex rampaging through San Diego, that was both terrific and terrible. Terrific, because it really was what the audience wanted to see, I suspect. And terrible because it was a let down. Some of the action was really cool, like when he slammed the bus. Or when he burst through the warehouse - or even when he stopped to eat that guy. But otherwise, he didn't seem to do much else. Without even appearing, he caused a gas station's orb sign to roll, apparently. He may - or may not - have eaten a dog. He roars once and for 5 minutes cars keep crashing into eachother, without too much incentive. Etc., etc., etc. ...
The book TLW is awesome and definitely superior to the movie, but it's easy to see why the changes were made - the book has only a handful of baddies cruising around in a Jeep, not a whole rival expedition, it takes quite a while to get to Isla Sorna, and the big climax is Malcolm gets injured again and they dodge some more raptors on their way back to the mainland. Also, there's two kids, a black boy and a white girl (neither related to Malcolm as mentioned above) who're cool on the page, but would probably have felt like too much of a Tim/Lex retread on screen. And the whole plot is set into motion by a friendly colleague/rival of sorts to Malcolm, Richard Levine, who's a good character, but not exactly someone to base a huge blockbuster on.
I really gotta Netflix the movie just to skip to the San Diego sequence, though; I haven't watched that in over a decade.
The trouble with bringing a few dinos to the mainland as a sequel premise is... they're just a few cloned animals; they have to eat and sleep and rest like anything else, and are not that hard to kill. In the case of Bullets v. Dinosaurs, bullets always win.
I really gotta Netflix the movie just to skip to the San Diego sequence, though; I haven't watched that in over a decade.
The trouble with bringing a few dinos to the mainland as a sequel premise is... they're just a few cloned animals; they have to eat and sleep and rest like anything else, and are not that hard to kill. In the case of Bullets v. Dinosaurs, bullets always win.
How can "they" screw up a movie about dinosaurs, though? Almost doesn't seem possible ... yet, they always manage it.
^ I think it'd be really hard, actually. You want the dinos to have a prominent role, but they're just lizards - not exactly deep characters; even the smartest of them is no doubt dumber than your average dog.
You want them to be awesome; this means eating lots of of other dinos and people, but not too many of your protagonists' people, because then you start to dislike the dinos, and you go to a dino movie to love them.
Moreover, there's just no such thing as a fair fight between humans and dinos - if the humans are unarmed, the dinos win, period; if the humans have guns, especially automatic guns and RPGs, humans win, period.
So, to have dinos be awesome, you need a story in which they chase humans around, but not for too long, because dinos outrun humans, unless the humans are in vehicles, in which case they outrun the dinos. And you don't really want the humans to fight back with guns, but they can't fight back without them. And humans can strategize, but dinos can't; they just follow their instincts and eat stuff.
Sounds like a hell of a screenwriting challenge to me...
You want them to be awesome; this means eating lots of of other dinos and people, but not too many of your protagonists' people, because then you start to dislike the dinos, and you go to a dino movie to love them.
Moreover, there's just no such thing as a fair fight between humans and dinos - if the humans are unarmed, the dinos win, period; if the humans have guns, especially automatic guns and RPGs, humans win, period.
So, to have dinos be awesome, you need a story in which they chase humans around, but not for too long, because dinos outrun humans, unless the humans are in vehicles, in which case they outrun the dinos. And you don't really want the humans to fight back with guns, but they can't fight back without them. And humans can strategize, but dinos can't; they just follow their instincts and eat stuff.
Sounds like a hell of a screenwriting challenge to me...
^ That was very well put, actually.
Eddie's death is a lot more gruesome too, if I remember correctly. Instead of getting torn in half by two T-Rexes, he's pulled apart by six velociraptors. And I think Dodgson suffers Peter Ludlow's fate, but with multiple baby Rexes instead of one infant.
One of my favorite scenes from The Lost World book involves some people in a Jeep encountering a T-Rex and one of the occupants telling the other occupants to keep still, ala Dr. Grant. The T-Rex then proceeds to shit on the hood of the Jeep before going away
It has been confirmed that this film is going to take place 22 years after the incident at Jurassic Park. I have no idea why they would still attempt to build a new park after the failed attempts in the past, but who knows. Hopefully that will be well-explained. On the other hand, the director said during a podcast that he's hoping to open this movie to newcomers and try and capture the spirit of the original film.
http://jurassiccast.podbean.com/page/2/
