Jurassic Park

[on:]

As jurassic park IV is about to begin filming i wondered which of the previous films you most enjoyed.

[Reply #1 on:]

Wrong forum, aside from that:

Jurassic Park

[Reply #2 on:]

Looks like a Film... goes in the TV/Film forum.

[Reply #3 on:]

Sorry! The forum description only mentions films right at the end and i didn't notice it.

[Reply #4 on:]

Jurrasic Park 1 is the obvious choice really.

[Reply #5 on:]

Oh God! I thought after JP3 it was as dead as a T-Rex!

[Reply #6 on:]

I liked all 3, but IMO they got slightly worse with each one 

[Reply #7 on:]

Personally i thought that 1 was the best, then III, then II was the worst. Bad idea taking dinos to town.

[Reply #8 on:]

Jurassic Park 1 has to be the best. It was so original and had a cool storyline. I've seen the 2nd and its Ok-ish, I definately dont like it as much as the 1st one, and by the 3rd they were just milking it. They should have just made the 1st one and left it at that IMO 

[Reply #9 on:]

The first Jurrasic Park was fun. However, I'm not sure whether one should look forward to a fourth installment...   

[Reply #10 on:]

All three are excellent. Jurassic Park is the one that's great allround and also stands as a milestone in visual effects (it's also the movie which made me realise what I want to do with my life, be an animator).
Jurassic Park 2 has the best opening scene, and the trailer/cliff setpiece contains some of the greatest suspense direction in history (Hitchcock eat your heart out). Other highlights are the raptors in the long grass, the compy attack, and the T Rex peering into the tent. Overall #2 surpasses the original in terms of action and excitment, but feels slightly empty in the story department. It's still an excellent (and underrated) adventure film.

Jurassic Park 3 has even better effects, and action than 1 & 2 combined! The Pteranodon aviary sequence is outstanding! The Spinosaurus is a good replacement for the TRex (although he does finish of the Rex a bit too quickly). Although #3 ends too sudenly and the story isn't groundbreaking, it's so well made and the cast are so good, you really don't mind.
So far the Jurassic Park series is shaping up to be one of the most consistent, well made, and enjoyable film sagas ever! Hopefully the 4th and final part will be live up to the high standards already set. 

[Reply #11 on:]

How do you know it will be the last? If the forth is popular there may well be another sequal. This is just speculation by the way.

[Reply #12 on:]

Spielberg has stated on several occasions that the fourth one is the last. He claims it has an even better story than number 1 (it's not just more running from dinosaurs) and is intended to end the series with a bang! Michael Crichton has helped with the screenplay too.

[Reply #13 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
Jurassic Park 3 has even better effects, and action than 1 & 2 combined! The Pteranodon aviary sequence is outstanding!

For me, that part saved the film. I wasn't all that keen on the 3rd installment, but I absolutely loved that scene. I think it's worth watching it just for that 

[Reply #14 on:]

all 3 are excellent except for the last 2

[Reply #15 on:]

What! More blasphemy!

[Reply #16 on:]

I love Jurassic Park, and the original has got to be the best.  It was one of my first favorite movies that used 'live people."

[Reply #17 on:]

Yup, M Jackson pretty much sums up my feelings. I'd also like to add that Jeff Goldblum kicks all seven flavors of ass. I liked the thrid slightly better than the second, but of course none will ever surpass the first. I have very, very high hopes for the fourth! Can anyone tell me who's starring/directing?

[Reply #18 on:]

Joe Johnston will direct again with Spielberg producing. Apparently Sam Neil is back and I've heard Jeff Goldblum could be too. The character of Lex is supposed to be in it but not played by the original child actress Ariana Richards. Ive also read somewhere that Richard Attenbourgh could feature in a cameo role, which would make a really good ending and wrap everything up nicely. There was an article in Total Film recently with Stan Winston saying his studio have started building and designing the dinosaurs. They are said to include the dilophosaurus (the spitter from #1!)

I found this....
"Some of the guys over at the Amblin offices were kind enough to fill me in on just exactly what these plot details, rumored mind you, entale. It goes something like this: In the early eighties when InGen was starting up Jurassic Park they were having problems with a sickness in their dinosaurs called DX. Not much thought was given to it as it seemed to be contained before the incidents in 1993 and since there was no way for the dinosaurs to get off the island, or so they believed, they believed DX was contained on Sorna and Nublar only. Yet, when dinosaur carcasses are discovered on several beaches in the surrounding areas and a mysterious sickness is infecting locals, Biosyn comes to light in admitting that they knew of the spread of DX and have been trying for a long time to clean up the sickness before it got out of hand. Yet, the sickness, as they feared, is now totally out of control and dinosaurs have escaped onto the mainland jungles of South America and the only way to finally divert the sickness is to kill all InGen's dinosaurs off".

[Reply #19 on:]

 

M Jackson wrote:
A lot of cool stuff.

I love you.

It looks like the plot is a throwback to the original novel. I'm suddenly much more excited about this.

[Reply #20 on:]

Jurassic Park II was best. Then JP I. And a movie i will never watch aigen, JP III.

[Reply #21 on:]

What didn't you like about #3? I'm just curious because it delivers pretty much everything you get in #2 (which you said is your fav) and more!
Remember the Pteranodon scene, that was incredible!

[Reply #22 on:]

 

Originally posted by davids:
Personally i thought that 1 was the best, then III, then II was the worst. Bad idea taking dinos to town.

agreed

[Reply #23 on:]

Jurassic Park was ok but the other two sucked.

[Reply #24 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
What didn't you like about #3? I'm just curious because it delivers pretty much everything you get in #2 (which you said is your fav) and more!
Remember the Pteranodon scene, that was incredible!

It was just a joke. I wanted to see the response. But JPIII was not as good as JPII, and JPI.

 

[Reply #25 on:]

You know, JP II doesn't follow the book all that closely. The part where the T-rex rampaged across the city wasn't even in the book. I actually think the movie version was better. JP III was spoiled by a friend who likes to blab during the movie. I didn't think it was that great anyway. Now they're making a four? NOOO!

[Reply #26 on:]

Well Steven Spielberg sais that JP4 has a better story then JP1. And what i have heard about it, it sounds really good. 

[Reply #27 on:]

Once you read the plot synopsis for #4 (see above) I think it needs to be made. it's a good idea and a fitting end to the series. It also borrows many of my favourite previously un-used aspects and scenes from Michael Crichtons second book.

[Reply #28 on:]

First one: good, but it had a lot of annoying aspects(mainly those bratty kids, going through hell and still not dying)

II: not the worst movie ever, but I wasn't fond of it. Again with stupid kids

III: better than the other three in a lot of ways--it still had a stupid kid in it, but it wasn't as annoying. It focused on action, which is pretty much the only thing that worked in the first two movies. The action wasn't as good/suspenseful as JP1, which had some amazing scenes, but I still thought it was good.

Fourth one might be ok. Hopefully the writers can pull a good story out of their asses, and Johnston can keep it short and action-packed.

[Reply #29 on:]

Jurassic Park is still my favorite movie of all time.  Technically, it was not only a milestone, but it was they key that opened the door for all CG creatures in movies produced in the ten years since it came out.  Artistically, it couldn't compare to the book, but not many films hold true to their literary heritage.  I've said it once (I think regarding the Harry Potter books/movies) and I'll say it again: movies sacrifice a lot of storytelling to maintain motion.  The Lost World would have been a great movie to watch if they hadn't used the title of Chichton's second book of the series.  Throughout the film I kept telling myself to shut up about the inconsistencies between the novel and the movie.  Inconsistencies or not, seeing a T-Rex going on a bender in San Diego is pretty bitchin'...what I wouldn't have given to see that happen in Pittsburgh...  The third film was, as it was stated before, pretty light on plot.  It also had a relatively low body count (four, compared to JP's five and the countless hunters in JP2).  JP3 also took a lot more chances in the visual effects department.  There were more and longer shots of the animals in broad daylight, which looked a bit phony at times.  I think my biggest disappointment in the film was that the T-Rex died.  The T-Rex was always my favorite good-guy, whether he/she/whatever was saving people from raptors, eating slime ball executives and lawyers, or distracting the Spinosaur, the T-Rex always came through in the clutch.  The fourth film sounds pretty cool if we can believe what we're hearing.  I had speculated that the third film would be about dinosaurs on the mainland. 

What a great bunch of films.  I think I'm going to go watch one right now.

[Reply #30 on:]

 

Originally posted by mads:
Well Steven Spielberg sais that JP4 has a better story then JP1. And what i have heard about it, it sounds really good.   

Funny thing about JP1 was, that I had seen the movie first and read the book afterwards. After finishing the book I was pretty disappointed about the movie, because the filmmakers had simplified the story alot.

[Reply #31 on:]

That wasn't funny.

[Reply #32 on:]

*dreams about Jerky being ripped apart by a bunch of hungry Velociraptors*

Btw, I don't care.

[Reply #33 on:]

  *puts on football helmet*

[Reply #34 on:]

My ranking of Jurassic Park movies from best to not as good as the previous are:
1.Jurassic Park 1
2.Jurassic Park 2
3.Jurassic Park 3
Notice the pattern? Anyway, the new one does sound promising. Sounds like a mix between Resident Evil and the end to JP2. With light differences of course. Could be good could be bad. If Jeff Goldblum IS in it I will definatly see it when it's in theaters ,if not I'll probably wait for it to come out on DVD like I did for JP3. Jeff Goldblum's character ,though whiny at times, really pulls the movies together.

[Reply #35 on:]

JP1 was the best one. When 80% of the original cast of characters is missing in the sequels, you know they're gonna suck. I didn't enjoy much of the second part - I thought some of the plot ideas could've been drawn out more. But we can probably see an improvement on quality with part 4.

[Reply #36 on:]

I loooooooved the first movie--the second one has somehow erased itself from my memory--and the third one was GOD AWFUL. I have no idea how anyone liked it. The ending seemed like it was written by a 4 year old--and how the hell did that one dude survive? And why the heck would the dinosaur dude (I can't remember any of their names anymore) not cash the check BEFORE going on the excursion? And all those adults get eaten--but because that stupid little kid read some books he lives?!?

I care WAY more about storyline than special effects any day. That movie should have ended like half an hour before it did--and the writers could have at least made more than one draft of the screenplay. It just seemed sloppy to me. It was crappy writing riding on a profitable franchise.

[Reply #37 on:]

 

And why the heck would the dinosaur dude (I can't remember any of their names anymore) not cash the check BEFORE going on the excursion?

I think you mean Alan Grant (Sam Neils character). Even if he had cashed the check it would have bounced, as Paul Kirby (William H Macy's character) is a fraud, he's not a millionare, he runs a DIY shop.

Somehow Alan Grant ringing him up the following day and telling him his check bounced would not have made quite such an exciting film.

[Reply #38 on:]

 

Originally posted by OC_James:
My ranking of Jurassic Park movies from best to not as good as the previous are:
1.Jurassic Park 1
2.Jurassic Park 2
3.Jurassic Park 3
Notice the pattern?

Prior to the release of the third film, I had suspected that it would be the greatest movie ever made, due to my Rule of Movie Trilogies.

• First Movie: Should be good enough to warrant a sequel.
• Second Movie: Sucks compared to the first movie.
• Third Movie: Totally rocks and adds another major star.  Generally speaking, some of the behind-the-scenes staff changes too.

This theory works on Die Hard, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars (the original trilogy).

JP3 had all the earmarks of completing the theory.  It added both Bill Macy and Tea Leoni, was not directed by the same person, was not scored by John Williams, wasn't written by David Koepp, and it looked to raise the bar on special effects once again.  Once I had seen the film, I was disappointed that my theory failed and suspected that something else was afoot.

This seems appropriate to post again.

[Reply #39 on:]

 

Originally posted by M Jackson:
 I think you mean Alan Grant (Sam Neils character). Even if he had cashed the check it would have bounced, as Paul Kirby (William H Macy's character) is a fraud, he's not a millionare, he runs a DIY shop.

Somehow Alan Grant ringing him up the following day and telling him his check bounced would not have made quite such an exciting film.

Yeah--and instead they could have written a plausible plot. . .what an idea