The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum (
-   Off Topic Discussions (
-   -   Jurassic Park IV release month set (

Quark 01-11-2013 03:59 PM

Jurassic Park IV release month set
Finally, some new information regarding the up and coming Jurassic Park film. According to IMDb, Steven Spielberg will produce the next movie and it will be released June of next year. In addition, the film is planned to be in 3D as well. I was not a fan of the third Jurassic Park film, and I hope this film will redeem itself but at the same time I'm not sure if it really needs to be made. In either case, I'm going to check it out! :001_cool:

martok2112 01-11-2013 04:56 PM

The original Jurassic Park is supposed to be re-released to theaters in April, full IMAX 3D remaster. That's one opportunity I don't plan to miss. I never did see JP on the big screen.

Perhaps, like the extended LotR theatrical release a couple weeks before The Hobbit's debut, this is a promotional effort for JP4.

Quark 01-12-2013 05:01 PM

I saw all three films in theaters. My least favorite:

martok2112 01-12-2013 06:02 PM

I never saw III, but as I understand it, it's a lot of folks' least favorite. :)

Quark 01-12-2013 07:21 PM

Yeah, where the first two films were masterpieces, the third one was just an original story and only 93 minutes long. It was essentially a B-movie and slasher flick. Spielberg didn't direct it and John Williams didn't do the music for it. They practically spent a high amount of money just to bring Sam Neill back. The script was also unfinished. The movie was rushed. Not cool. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly watchable, but mainly forgettable.

martok2112 01-13-2013 01:10 AM

I imagine it probably felt more like Starship Troopers 2 or 3 (albeit with better visual effects at least). :) (Now there were two sequels that did NOT need to be made....but the CGI Starship Troopers: Invasion, that blew both of those movies away. :)

Roysten 01-13-2013 01:35 AM

The third one was very disappointing, but not completely unexpected really.

Good to have Spielberg onboard, looking forward to this new outing!

horatio 01-13-2013 01:39 AM

Without having thought much enough about it, my hunch is that the first movie works best not merely because of the typical 'first one is frech, second and third one are lame copies' effect but because the characters are interesting (OK, Goldblum's funky mathematician and Attenborough' naive park-owner are utter clichées but gee, I love them) and because the movie features Spielberg's typical absent father motive we have known since the days of ET.

The basic idea is that that ET has to come down because the father is absent and once this issue is solved (Isn't there a scientist who plays a substitute dad or something like that?) ET can leave again respectively that the entire adventure with the dinosaurs is merely there in order to make Sam Neill's character discover his parental instincts.
The scenes where Neill's character protects the two kids and travels with them through the park are for me the best ones which is why Spielberg's obsessive absent father motif isn't just some stupid theme you can talk about afterwards but actually the ingredient makes the movie into more than just a movie about dinosaurs. Not that there is something wrong with that.

MigueldaRican 01-16-2013 05:17 AM

Oh God, a thread about Jurassic Park.

The books Jurassic Park and The Lost World are the only books I have read a number of times that is somewhere in the teens.

It's not that they are that good. It's that Jurassic Park was the first original adult novel (not one based on a movie) that I have ever read, and I read it in 7th grade. The techno stuff made me feel smart back then, like I knew stuff most kids my age had no idea about.

I loved everything about it. The techno babble and the suspense. Michael Crichton being probably my favorite author, I now understand what made his books so awesome: he made all that techno stuff understandable to the common person and still managed to make it relevant to the story. When characters went off on wild tangents (like Ian Malcolm), it was acceptable as part of their character.

If I had seen the movie now, I probably would have been disappointed. Back then, I thought it was the best movie ever. We can tear it apart, and say it was loaded with mistakes (it was, it really, really was) and that it reeeeeeeally changed a lot from book to screen (less characters, less technobabble, less dinosaurs, dinosaurs changed sizes, people changed age and looks, less gore... yeah, gore, if the movie had been a better adaptation, the movie would be R-rated), but the movie deserves the hype for being the first dino flick in a long time (I saw and loved "Baby") and one that featured them the way Crichton and modern science has talked about them: fast moving animals resembling (and probably were) warm blooded creatures with some reptile qualities like skin and skull structure, instead of the big, slow, dumb monsters as they were thus far depicted.

Read the second one in high school. Actually thought it was better than the first. Crichton took the risk of actually blatantly contradicting the first book (remember the famous T-Rex doesn't see you if you don't move? Yeah, not only does he say that's not the case, one of the characters actually refers to Alan Grant as an idiot for perpetuating the theory). The book was suspensful.

You would think with a book like this, they wouldn't have to take too many liberties with it and change too much with a movie adaptation, right? I mean a camoflaging dinosaur! Not too many characters, just a small cast would be needed. A nice touch bringing the villain from the first story, into the second one. Really, really no need to change much, right?


Wow... my... god... Why? Why did they... Why? Why why why?

So for this second movie, we're gonna go big. Big big big big big!!!! Tons more dinosaurs! Huge cast! Just throw tons of humans at the screen!

Story? F*** the story! Not even the same plot. Dodgeson (the villain) not even in the movie. They got rid of the villain, and went with their own. What sort of steel are your balls made out of when you do a move like that? Gonna do a Lord of the Rings movie, but get rid of Sauron. Don't like 'im, f*** 'im. The new LotR villain is gonna be cyclops troll named Chunkor with a hunchback who wants to melt the ring into thong for wifey.

And then, when you thought the movie could NOT get worse, the climax of the film then turns into a Godzilla movie.

No. No no no no no. No...

Jurassic Park III (couldn't put another poster in)

As bad and as unneeded as this was, it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. What is sad is that this movie actually came closer to the second book than the second movie did. Still... how much more besides what Crichton himself has already written, can be said about this story.

And they're going with a 4th one now? Why? What else?

Just make another dinosaur flick. Or redo the adaptations with PeterJacksonlike dedication to the story. It really just boggles my mind where could they possibly go with the story now.

NCC-73515 01-16-2013 12:51 PM

Lost World I also read twice (along with The Hobbit and The Visit).

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.