Jurassic Park Trilogy

I highly doubt it was intentional.  The Lost World has an extremely bad grasp of the characters.  Sarah Harding is supposed to be some expert paleo-scientist, but consistently makes dumb mistakes that the expert she is supposed to be shouldn't be making.  Vince Vaughn's character somehow has the respect of the mercenaries, yet is the one that screwed them over by destroying their camp.

There are some good moments, but the characters are pretty crappy and sloppily established.

Steve-o's worst in my opinion.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

I highly doubt it was intentional.  The Lost World has an extremely bad grasp of the characters.  Sarah Harding is supposed to be some expert paleo-scientist, but consistently makes dumb mistakes that the expert she is supposed to be shouldn't be making.  Vince Vaughn's character somehow has the respect of the mercenaries, yet is the one that screwed them over by destroying their camp.

 

There are some good moments, but the characters are pretty crappy and sloppily established.

That and only Pete Postlethwaite and Peter Stormare seem to actually get what sort of film they're in.

My disinterest in the other two movies are the reason that I'm not jumping on the sweet blu-ray deal that's been on sale lately.  I just don't want more stuff taking up space. 

Yes... I don't want these thin discs taking up space.  That's how little interest I have in the other two movies.

Oh, and no Jurassic Park thread is complete without:

I think one of Grant's students said that, based on his latter books, it felt like Grant didn't like dinosaurs anymore after the events of the first movie.  That's kinda how I feel about the other two movies.  The sense of wonder was lost.  Though I actually liked Billy from the third movie, who did bring back some of the "holy crap, real dinosaurs."

Kid in JP3 said that, that he liked Grants earlier work, back when he "liked' dinosaurs. 

I'm still kind of confused about the Site A, Site B stuff.  Was Site A always supposed to be the park?  It seems that Site B had a visitor center and such at the end of the island part of the film.  Also, the dinosaurs were born on Site A, then transferred back to Site B to grow, then shipped back again when grown enough?  Were they free range on Site B, or were they fenced in?  Don't seem to remember any in the Lost World. 

I took advantage of the Amazon deal and much like the Alien Anthology Blu Ray, I decided to give the much lesser sequels another chance and much like Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection, my opinion hasn't changed.

The Lost World is a mess. It was based on a half-assed book and even though the film ironed out a lot of the major problems with the book, it's still clunky and disjointed. There is something of an ethos running through the film but the messy narrative kills it. The characters are a big problem. Goldblum manages to look bored even when being chased by dinosaurs, the only saving grace of the cast is Pete Postlethwaite. Roland Tembo really deserved his own spin-off film, the guy is a total bad-ass. And then suddenly we're in San Diego and Vince Vaughn has disappeared. Notice the lack of a segue there between me talking about characters and the third act? Yeah, the movie is lacking those, too.

I like the more streamlined quality of III but it also hurts it. The plot is just too damn paper-thin and we're given characters I don't remotely care about. Sam Neill brings some much-needed class to the affair but other than that, characters and story are a loss. There's a brief mention of some more nefarious InGen practices but that falls by the wayside and suddenly the movie just ends. It feels rushed and lazy ultimately.

I found myself only mildly curious for a part four with Malcolm and Grant cameos, some guy who hasn't been introduced yet and dinosaurs with weapons on their back (!) but had the sequels been stronger, I may have even been flat-out looking forward to this total oddity of a film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike J 

 

I found myself only mildly curious for a part four with Malcolm and Grant cameos, some guy who hasn't been introduced yet and dinosaurs with weapons on their back (!) but had the sequels been stronger, I may have even been flat-out looking forward to this total oddity of a film.

I think that idea was scrapped a few years ago.

Flaws and all, I love The Lost World. It has this mean streak I like. JPIII is just... there. It feels like the movie starts during act 2. Also, having Billy survive at the end feels like a huge cop out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike J 

 

I like the more streamlined quality of III but it also hurts it. The plot is just too damn paper-thin and we're given characters I don't remotely care about. Sam Neill brings some much-needed class to the affair but other than that, characters and story are a loss. There's a brief mention of some more nefarious InGen practices but that falls by the wayside and suddenly the movie just ends. It feels rushed and lazy ultimately.

 

 

according to IMBD, there was supposed to be a Raptor vs Military battle at the end... but was scrapped due to time and budget. 

At least the book justified it by having the dinos be ultra dense and armored.  And Muldoon blew some up with a rocket launcher.

Welcome to Joe Johnstons entire celluloid ouvre.

I was always dissapointed Eliie and Grant didn't end up together in JP3.

I really like LOST WORLD, flaws and all. The series has NEVER been about the characters; I guess you could argue they're done better in the original film, but even that gives only perfunctory energy towards character "development." These films are about the dinos, and specifically about the dinos getting loose. LW's sequence with the tyrannosaur parents and the subsequent RV literal cliffhanger is vintage, classic Beard, IMNSHO. That the RV part is physics-defying doesn't bother me a bit. And I love Goldblum in it; I disagree that he's sleepwalking through it...but again, these movies aren't about character. 

Calling LOST WORLD worse than HOOK....I cannot agree. HOOK is tedious, boring, and lifeless. LOST WORLD has genuinely exciting sequences, solid performances (given the thinness of the material) and isn't boring.

JPIII I only tolerate for the dinos and Sam Neill. It's not very good, but I don't think that's Johnston's fault. The story/material is pretty sucky, and I think he wrings a watchable film from it. My two biggest disappointments in it were 1) Tea Leoni's character was not eaten and 2) Grant and Sadler didn't end up together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

 

Calling LOST WORLD worse than HOOK....I cannot agree. HOOK is tedious, boring, and lifeless. LOST WORLD has genuinely exciting sequences, solid performances (given the thinness of the material) and isn't boring.

I was with you, untill you said Solid Performances.  Jurassic Park had just as "thin" material for their characters, and the actors pulled it off.  How they could take, a fan favorite like Malcom, and make him unsuffarable is the biggest crime.  The script, the director and the actor were the cause of that.
 

There is no reality in which Lost World is worse than Hook.  There's no sequence in Hook where Spielberg is as remotely invested and having fun as he is with the San Diego rampage in Lost World.

And yeah, I'm the guy who'll defend that sequence.  Not only is it a callback to the original silent Lost World, but it's the one time the film gives us something different from the first one.  Sure, there's a hell of a lot of logical inconsistencies in setting it up, things that probably wouldn't exist if the thrust of the entire film was driving to that moment, but all that goes out the window the second we see that shot of the T-rex roaring at the skyline.  Hell, there's more fun and wonder in that one shot than in all 144 minutes of Hook.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

I was with you, untill you said Solid Performances.  Jurassic Park had just as "thin" material for their characters, and the actors pulled it off.  How they could take, a fan favorite like Malcom, and make him unsuffarable is the biggest crime.  The script, the director and the actor were the cause of that.
 

I'm willing to backpedal from solid, but I'm never not entertained by Goldblum, Vaughn, or Schiff in LOST WORLD. Hell, Malcolm has one of the all-time great parental lines in movie history: 
 

Sarah Harding: You know, I have made a career out of waiting for you.

Kelly Malcom: You know, Sarah does have a pretty good p--

Ian Malcolm: It's so important to your future that you do not finish that sentence.

So maybe not "solid" - but good, and all of them - especially Postlethwaite, as has been mentioned above - elevate the material greatly.

None of which can be said for any performance in HOOK.

To each their own.  I found that sequence to be the low point of the series (including the gymnastics scene).

Your going to defend, that InGen had no armed personnel on the dock?  They have 40 armed personnel present at the transfer of a Raptor, but not at the transfer of a full grown T-Rex in a crowded city?

The kid taking pictures of the T-Rex after eating his dog?  The Godzilla reference?  The lack of police?  You call in a bear to the police, and they are there in 3 minutes.... yet no police are seen when the Rex is tearing apart downtown San Diego.  Not one shot fired...

You can not possibly defend Malcolm's sudden change of heart.  How can a guy, who was nearly eaten by a T-Rex, thrown off a cliff by a T-Rex, saw his comrades eaten alive...  going to be like "let me risk my life so I can be a lifetime member of PETA".  I can see saving the baby, but to risk his life by leading essentially a 30 ton monster on a chase through down town San Diego is stupid. 

I don't buy the "the movie is supposed to be cheesy" sentiment either.  The first film was very serious, and inserted moments of comedy to relieve the tension.  This one tried the same formula, but once it got to San Diego it went full blown Leslie Neelson.  All that was missing was talking Dinosaurs at that point, luckily we got that in JP3!!!

speaking of Sarah's mission to save every last dinosaur.  In the beginning of the film, didn't Hammond say that the military was going to basically Napalm the entire island?  So, when InGen has dinosaurs captured, why did Sarah and Co. release them?  I don't think it was until after the T-Rex tore a hole in San Diego, did the Costa Rican government decided to preserve the island (which makes you wonder their true intentions?  Worldwide dinosaur superiority!!!) 

Oh, the sequence in no way fits with the rest of the film.  Which is why I like it.  It conjures up a better preceding 90 minutes that lead to it.

Hook is terrible as well, but for me, what brings down the Lost World is that it's a sequel to one of my favorite childhood films. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mongycore 

I've looked around but haven't seen anyone comment on it yet, but does the transfer on JP1 look like crap at times? I can't be the only one bothered by some of the cloudy looking night scenes in this...day time stuff looks pristine, but damn it annoyed me to no end.

Universal used an older encode for this. They should have fully remastered the video. The audio for all 3 on the blurays totally make up for it though. 

Audio would be huge for the first film.  To hear the T-Rex roar in HD sound would be amazing.  That roar, in the movie theater, is what scared the shit out of me as a kid.  Sure, seeing a realistic looking dinosaur was great, but hearing those stomps, and then the roar blasting in the cinema was what made me sink back into my seat and cover my eyes.

The Lost World is very inconsistent.  And Sarah is a very shitty scientist.  Her actions just don't make much sense if you think about them.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

 

speaking of Sarah's mission to save every last dinosaur.  In the beginning of the film, didn't Hammond say that the military was going to basically Napalm the entire island?  So, when InGen has dinosaurs captured, why did Sarah and Co. release them?  I don't think it was until after the T-Rex tore a hole in San Diego, did the Costa Rican government decided to preserve the island (which makes you wonder their true intentions?  Worldwide dinosaur superiority!!!) 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

Audio would be huge for the first film.  To hear the T-Rex roar in HD sound would be amazing.  That roar, in the movie theater, is what scared the shit out of me as a kid.  Sure, seeing a realistic looking dinosaur was great, but hearing those stomps, and then the roar blasting in the cinema was what made me sink back into my seat and cover my eyes.

The audio on these discs will shake the foundation of your house. One of the best sounding blus on the market.

I can only imagine the sounds in the jungle.  The leaves wrestling and such.  If only they did a single release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelM 

I really like LOST WORLD, flaws and all. The series has NEVER been about the characters; I guess you could argue they're done better in the original film, but even that gives only perfunctory energy towards character "development." These films are about the dinos, and specifically about the dinos getting loose. LW's sequence with the tyrannosaur parents and the subsequent RV literal cliffhanger is vintage, classic Beard, IMNSHO. That the RV part is physics-defying doesn't bother me a bit. And I love Goldblum in it; I disagree that he's sleepwalking through it...but again, these movies aren't about character. 

 

Calling LOST WORLD worse than HOOK....I cannot agree. HOOK is tedious, boring, and lifeless. LOST WORLD has genuinely exciting sequences, solid performances (given the thinness of the material) and isn't boring.

 

JPIII I only tolerate for the dinos and Sam Neill. It's not very good, but I don't think that's Johnston's fault. The story/material is pretty sucky, and I think he wrings a watchable film from it. My two biggest disappointments in it were 1) Tea Leoni's character was not eaten and 2) Grant and Sadler didn't end up together.

Lost World is almost worth it for the utterly batshit balls-to-the-wall fun of the double t-rex attack on the research truck as it's hanging off the cliff. There's some classic Spielberg tension building and action going on there, with him almost gleefully piling on one disaster on top of another. If the whole film could be like that it could have surpassed the original.

...and it's worth it for Goldblum. I lose all objectivity when it comes to the Prince Of The Pause.

I said this in the blu-ray thread when the discussion shifted to the JP trilogy blus, but Lost World feels almost like Spielberg had a free weekend and decided to make a movie with the first script on the pile.  The entire thing is shot in California, with the redwoods standing in for Isla Sorna, the Universal Studios parking structure was the cliff that the trailer got shoved off of, and San Diego was San Diego.  And it really doesn't nail the sense of wonder about the dinosaurs that the first or (contrary to some opinions) third do.  Schiff and Vaughn don't seem flat out amazed when they see the stegosaurs for the first time, and obviously Goldblum is intentionally playing it as 'fuck.  More dinosars.'  But even the mercs are unimpressed, with the slight exception of ersatz Jack Horner guy, who gives off a feeling of 'cool! Dinosaurs!'  But when you contrast that with Alan and Ellie's speechless and lightheaded reactions to the brachiosaur in one, it just doesn't work.   

Even in three you have Alan going from very cynical and annoyed about the 'genetically engineered theme park monsters' that inGen created on Site B to lighting up once he sees them from the plane window, and then to 'no time to be amazed, we are so fucked' (but still with moments of amazement when he realizes his theories about velociraptor communication are true) once the plane lands.

And I like that Ellie and Alan weren't married in three.  It seemed realistic to me that the experience of Jurassic Park may have brought them closer together in the short term, but that Alan became a bit more bitter and less excited about dinosaurs and I get the impression that Ellie gave up palaeontology/botany altogether.  Ultimately they weren't the same people any more, and they couldn't be with each other because if they were it would be a constant reminder of one of the most horrifying experiences of their lives.

okay, something that is probably answered out there somewhere.  Spinosaurus... where the hell did he come from?  Did inGen create him like the other dinosaurs?  I thought Allen inferred it was some type of crazy evolution process caused by inGen DNA tampering?  Or maybe it was a new mosquito?

I thought he said that there was stuff InGen was working on that wasn't readily known.  It was in response to Billy saying that it wasn't one of the original species that was created for Jurassic Park, presumably there was some report that became public after the incident.

Cheeky Bastards of InGen....

Spino was a cool big bad, probably the best of the series.  I still LOVE the scene of kid reuniting with his parents... then the ring.  Seeing the Spinosuarus just standing there was creepy and funny all at the same time.  Good thing InGen makes it's factory doors stronger then their fences.

Obviously an homage to Peter Pan, right?  Croc with the clock?

No, it had been discovered, though I don't know how much was based on the actual dinosaur.

On the other hand, the raptors are all wrong.  They discovered raptors the size of the ones in the first movie concurrently with the shooting of the movie, but that's not what they used.  Velociraptors, I believe, are about the size of turkeys.  Utahraptors are closer to what are seen in the movies.

Science, as it is with Sarah Harding, is not one of the movie's strongsuits.

Well, blame that on Michael Crichton first.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/feb/08/jurassic-park-dinosaur-inaccuracies

Known simply as "raptors" in the film, Velociraptor was portrayed as a person-sized, terrifyingly fast and vicious predator that tormented the unfortunate Sam Neill and his Hollywood co-stars. A star was born (Velociraptor, not Neill) - but the portrayal was inaccurate, both in terms of size (in reality, Velociraptor stood barely half a metre high), and its lack of feathers ("quill knobs" proving that Velociraptor was feathered were overlooked until 2007 when they were discovered on the forelimb).

Size-wise, and in terms of its large sickle-shaped talons on each foot, the dinosaur in the film is more like Velociraptor's larger dromaeosaurid cousin, Deinonychus (although it too was a feathered theropod).

It is speculated that this incorrect portrayal came about because of mislabelling of Deinonychus as a subspecies of Velociraptor in the 1988 American book, Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, whose author, Gregory Paul, is credited as an inspiration by Crichton at the end of his first novel.

Looks more like the Utahraptor to me...  Minus the crazy tail.

True.  Them's the breaks though.

as the years go buy, Jurassic Park will look more and more crazy.  I think many scientists have agreed, that the T-Rex was covered by feathers.

To be fair, what we're seeing aren't actually dinosaurs.  They've got frog DNA and a whole bunch of stuff added in.

Even Grant says that they're not real dinosaurs, and if there's one dino-scientist you can trust in this franchise, it's Dr. Grant.

good point.  and a nice fail safe for the series as well.

Can you imagine the T-Rex escape in the first one with a feathered covered Rex? It'd be like a vicious Big Bird with tiny arms trying to eat kids. That'd be funny to me.

one of the cases, were fiction can be more scary then reality.  I may have to photoshop the T-Rex out of a pic of that scene, and insert Big Bird.  Imagine the scene where the T-Rex is smashing in the glass roof with it's snout.  Replace that with Big Bird, try not to laugh.

Jurassic Park came out when I was going into the fourth grade, that year, everyone had Jurassic Park t-shirts, lunch pales.... then our music teacher caught on.  We had a program, called Jaws of the Jurassic.  http://www.musick8.com/store/alphadetail.php?product_group=415  link to the songs we sang.  It was basically, a Jurassic Park themed musical program.  We all had paper dino hats,... I look back at it and laugh, but I remember our music teacher actually giving us all a letter to our parents, encouraging them to let us see Jurassic Park, so we could get into the "mood" for the program.  Some parents weren't too happy about that.

Senior year in High School, one of our teacher picked books we had to read, do reports on, and take quizes on, was Jurassic Park.  LOL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

I think many scientists have agreed, that the T-Rex was covered by feathers.

Not covered in feathers.  Given its size and structure it would've already had enough heat exchange issues.  If it were covered in feathers it wouldn't have been able to move without overheating and collapsing.  This is also why it's generally considered to have been a scavenger and not a predator, which was oddly enough supported in The Lost World in the dialogue about the T. Rex having an extremely keen sense of smell due to it possessing the second largest ratio of nasal cavity to skull size of any known animal species, with the turkey vulture having the largest.

It's also unlikely it would've been able to run as fast as it did in the movies.  To quote an actual post-grad dino-scientist from another board 'T rex weighed at least 5 tonnes (maybe up to 8) and only had two legs. It would have to be made of space metal to do much more than a fast walk (which still would have been ~20 mph).'

Yeah not necessarily covered with feathers, but they certainly had a few - and a more bird-like posture apparently as well...

A T-Rex with feathers? The old-school dino nerd in me doesn't know what to make of that, true or not. The center of gravity, tail posture, and feeding habit theories went down fine, but I hope people have more proof than "they're basically prehistoric birds, so they must have had feathers". All mammals have some hair, but rhinos and naked mole rats have so little. I'd assume the young T-Rexes might have some, and like baby elephants or baby seals, eventually become less fuzzy (EDIT: like this). Guess I'd better find a Time Machine on ebay to make sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fafhrd 

Not covered in feathers.  Given its size and structure it would've already had enough heat exchange issues.  If it were covered in feathers it wouldn't have been able to move without overheating and collapsing.  This is also why it's generally considered to have been a scavenger and not a predator, which was oddly enough supported in The Lost World in the dialogue about the T. Rex having an extremely keen sense of smell due to it possessing the second largest ratio of nasal cavity to skull size of any known animal species, with the turkey vulture having the largest.

 

It's also unlikely it would've been able to run as fast as it did in the movies.  To quote an actual post-grad dino-scientist from another board 'T rex weighed at least 5 tonnes (maybe up to 8) and only had two legs. It would have to be made of space metal to do much more than a fast walk (which still would have been ~20 mph).'

I believe they said to have run as fast as he did in Jurassic Park, his legs would contain upwards of 85% of it's total muscle. 

As far as the feather thing, article that refferences Scientists hypothizing it was covered in feathers.  http://www.geekologie.com/2010/11/nooooooo_what_the_trex_really.php

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

 

You can not possibly defend Malcolm's sudden change of heart.  How can a guy, who was nearly eaten by a T-Rex, thrown off a cliff by a T-Rex, saw his comrades eaten alive...  going to be like "let me risk my life so I can be a lifetime member of PETA".  I can see saving the baby, but to risk his life by leading essentially a 30 ton monster on a chase through down town San Diego is stupid. 

 

I never understood why they needed to lead it on a chase through the city, putting countless people and property in their path at risk.  JUST TRANQUILIZE IT, LOAD IT ON A FLATBED TRUCK, AND DRIVE THE UNCONSCIOUS FUCKER BACK TO THE DOCK!  We are led to believe that ONE SHOT from the gun Sarah fires on the ship at the end is enough to knock that big motherfucker out.  Why couldn't she just take the gun with her on the drive to find the damn thing, and then shoot it when she found it?  Does that not make more sense than pissing it off by flaunting the baby in front of it and engaging it in a high-speed chase?!

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

I never understood why they needed to lead it on a chase through the city, putting countless people and property in their path at risk.  JUST TRANQUILIZE IT, LOAD IT ON A FLATBED TRUCK, AND DRIVE THE UNCONSCIOUS FUCKER BACK TO THE DOCK!  We are led to believe that ONE SHOT from the gun Sarah fires on the ship at the end is enough to knock that big motherfucker out.  Why couldn't she just take the gun with her on the drive to find the damn thing, and then shoot it when she found it?  Does that not make more sense than pissing it off by flaunting the baby in front of it and engaging it in a high-speed chase?!

Because then you don't the heroic T-Rex killing the big bad corporate goon at the end.  

I don't care what anyone says the book was phenomenal. There was a chase scene in that that would have been awesome to see.