Jurassic World (Post-release)

Westies14 said:
Somehow, despite all of these flaws, it's still fun to visit Isla Nublar (for me). Not a good film in its own right though.
Click to expand...

Pretty much sums it up for me too.

Problem is, it is difficult to watch this movie without thinking / feeling it has BIG shoes (J1) to fill too, which for me, it came nowhere close to doing.

Sadly, I give it a 6.5 / 10

I think a younger generation who wasn't weaned on J1 will enjoy it a TON more :D
 
MooCriket said:
I think it was Horner who pushed and convinced them to add the Spinosauraus as the big baddie in JP3. Happy there was no repeat of that in JP4. I did like the Irex a lot more than I expected. One thing has remained true with each film...the Raptors are bad ***!
Click to expand...

It's possible although I was unaware that he had any involvement in JP3 nor that he had anything for the spinosaurus. I suspect that it was more because it was the new, big thing out there in the dinosaur world, even though there was still little known about it except that it was larger than a T-Rex. However, even back in the '30s, when the first partial skeleton was found, it was long thought that they were fish eaters based on their long, crocodilian like snout, and their smooth, conical teeth. Of course, now we know that it was likely aquatic, or at least semi-aquatic and probably would have lost out to the T-Rex in a fight, but it is Jurassic Park so it can all be hand waived away by saying something about what kind of other DNA they used to rebuild it. That still doesn't explain why the Indy Rex had teeth like spinosaurid when its DNA was T-Rex and raptor, both of which have curved, serrated, blade like teeth.
 
Alan Castillo said:
Pretty much sums it up for me too.

Problem is, it is difficult to watch this movie without thinking / feeling it has BIG shoes (J1) to fill too, which for me, it came nowhere close to doing.

Sadly, I give it a 6.5 / 10

I think a younger generation who wasn't weaned on J1 will enjoy it a TON more :D
Click to expand...

I find it's more about what your expectations were going in. Yes, compared to J1 most movies are garbage. It could never fill those shoes. Instead compare it to the sequels we're used to from this franchise and it looks like Lawrence of Arabia. :lol

Besides, as a guy who prefers Roger Moore to Sean Connery and Daniel Craig your opinions on films are null and void in my eyes. :D

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2
 
harrisonp said:
They basically gave themselves a pass to make the dinos behave any way the plot requires through the further explanation of the filling of DNA gaps with other animals. Once I heard that I figured any trait that isn't accurate can be explained away through that process, so maybe the pterodactyls had some gator, or some eagle in them which gave them those behaviors.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this wasn't in line with their thinking when they wrote the scene but in the original JP book the reason the aviary is closed is because the pterosaurs where extremely territorial and violent. They'd dive bomb people but wouldn't be picking them up. Not sure if there's any scientific proof of such a claim but I know there are plenty of animals that are extremely territorial. Anyone who's walked too close to a nest in a tree knows what I'm talking about.
 
CynicalMormon said:
I'm sure this wasn't in line with their thinking when they wrote the scene but in the original JP book the reason the aviary is closed is because the pterosaurs where extremely territorial and violent. They'd dive bomb people but wouldn't be picking them up. Not sure if there's any scientific proof of such a claim but I know there are plenty of animals that are extremely territorial. Anyone who's walked too close to a nest in a tree knows what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Interesting to know that it was addressed in the book, even if it isn't exactly the same circumstances it's still cool that it has been thought of.

I think I was also meaning that statement (about DNA) gave them an even more clear way to acknowledge their shortcomings in the past, like "yeah yeah raptors and feathers etc.. It's frog DNA anyway" haha. Almost in a meta way I guess.
 
Riceball: Yup, a little of both. I watched a documentary where Horner was talking about de-evolving chickens into Dinos, and he specifically mentioned the Spino, and went on to say that he had suggested using it for JP3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regarding the critiques: JP was hardly seen as a work of art when it came out. It caught a LOT of flack for being shallow popcorn schlock. Most people thought the characters were thin and the plot nonexistent, and they ripped on things like the silly hacker girl saving the day and a million other quibbles. I remember clearly. I was there. But 22 years later, we see it as a classic. JW probably won't stand the test of time, but it's worth noting that ALL the critiques I've read were leveled at JP back in the day.
 
harrisonp said:
Interesting to know that it was addressed in the book, even if it isn't exactly the same circumstances it's still cool that it has been thought of.

I think I was also meaning that statement (about DNA) gave them an even more clear way to acknowledge their shortcomings in the past, like "yeah yeah raptors and feathers etc.. It's frog DNA anyway" haha. Almost in a meta way I guess.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't explain why they flew half-way across the island to kill people though... Maybe they need to up the food budget?
 
cayman shen said:
Regarding the critiques: JP was hardly seen as a work of art when it came out. It caught a LOT of flack for being shallow popcorn schlock. Most people thought the characters were thin and the plot nonexistent, and they ripped on things like the silly hacker girl saving the day and a million other quibbles. I remember clearly. I was there. But 22 years later, we see it as a classic. JW probably won't stand the test of time, but it's worth noting that ALL the critiques I've read were leveled at JP back in the day.
Click to expand...
I don't remember any of this.
In fact I'm pretty sure everything I've ever heard about the movie was positive. There may have been one or two haters (there always are) but I highly doubt it was as bad as you make it out to be. The original JP is far from a 'cult classic' and your description seems to convey that.
Have you got some sources on this?
 
The original movie could fairly take its lumps for having some simplistic characters and plot devices, but despite that it was truly awe-inspiring. It was solidly structured and paced. The cinematography was stellar. The animals were treated with respect. We saw DINOSAURS on film, and more importantly the actors saw them and we experienced it through their eyes.
 
CynicalMormon said:
I don't remember any of this.
In fact I'm pretty sure everything I've ever heard about the movie was positive. There may have been one or two haters (there always are) but I highly doubt it was as bad as you make it out to be. The original JP is far from a 'cult classic' and your description seems to convey that.
Have you got some sources on this?
Click to expand...

Just my memory. Maybe I lived in a really critical town. And read snotty magazines. But here's a People article for instance that could be about JW: http://www.people.com/article/people-magazine-original-review-jurassic-park
 
cayman shen said:
Just my memory. Maybe I lived in a really critical town. And read snotty magazines. But here's a People article for instance that could be about JW: http://www.people.com/article/people-magazine-original-review-jurassic-park
Click to expand...

There were definitely reasons to be critical of somethings but I think the overall consensus was that it was a great movie. That People article is pretty harsh but I usually don't go to them for my reviews... or anything for that matter. :lol
 
Haha People was just one of the first things that came up when I googled orig reviews. My family actually read Newsweek when JP came out :) But I worked in a video store (I was a senior in high school) where the staff was given a free movie ticket a week as long as they wrote a review of the film for the manager. It was his pre-internet way of gauging how many copies of a tape to buy. The consensus among us late teen/early twenties film nerds was that the action was top notch, the plot/characterization thin. Mind you, we all LIKED it, but we didn't see it as a work of art. And the manager did get like seventy rental copies when it came out, so as with today, people's perception of quality and the movie's popularity had almost no bearing one one another :lol

Time leaves some movies behind, elevates others. JP was rightly elevated. It's an amazing movie. But a lot of the gripes people have with JW could be leveled at JP. ANY movie where a precocious child with adult skills saves the day automatically gets five points knocked off the top in my opinion. The JP series has made a habit out of that...

Hell, a lot of critics slammed the bejeebers out of SW and history has treated that one okay :lol
 
I think the general consensus at the time was that it was a pretty impressive accomplishment, overall, and time has only reinforced that. It's got a 93% (critics) and a 91% (audience/user) rating on rotten tomatoes, which aggregates reviews from publications on release. Anything over 90 is really impressive, and I don't know how often the critics rate a film higher than audiences!

Jurassic World is riding at 71% among critics, which doesn't rank it with the universally panned schlock like Transformers at least.
 
The mighty Wiki isn't usually my go-to for citations, but they do have some examples that support caymen shen's memory.


Critical response[edit]

Jurassic Park received generally positive reviews.[113] High praise was heaped on the visual effects, musical score, and Spielberg's direction, although there was some criticism leveled at departures from the book. Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes retrospectively gave the film a "Certified Fresh" rating of 93%, based on 115 reviews, with rating average score of 8.3/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Jurassic Park is a spectacle of special effects and life-like animatronics, with some of Spielberg's best sequences of sustained awe and sheer terror since Jaws."[114] Metacritic gave the film a score of 68 out of 100, based on 20 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[113]

Janet Maslin of The New York Times called it "a true movie milestone, presenting awe- and fear-inspiring sights never before seen on the screen... On paper, this story is tailor-made for Mr. Spielberg's talents...[but] t becomes less crisp on screen than it was on the page, with much of the enjoyable jargon either mumbled confusingly or otherwise thrown away."[115] In Rolling Stone, Peter Travers described the film as "colossal entertainment—the eye-popping, mind-bending, kick-out-the-jams thrill ride of summer and probably the year [...] Compared with the dinos, the characters are dry bones, indeed. Crichton and co-screenwriter David Koepp have flattened them into nonentities on the trip from page to screen."[116] Roger Ebert noted, "The movie delivers all too well on its promise to show us dinosaurs. We see them early and often, and they are indeed a triumph of special effects artistry, but the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values."[117] Henry Sheehan argued, "The complaints over Jurassic Park's lack of story and character sound a little off the point," pointing out the story arc of Grant learning to protect Hammond's grandchildren despite his initial dislike of them.[40] Empire magazine gave the film five stars,[when?] hailing it as "quite simply one of the greatest blockbusters of all time."[118]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JP benefits from its perfect release timing as well. In 1993 no one had seen ANYTHING like that before and it was done so well that it stands up to this day. It's very well crafted and a landmark for visual effects. No sequel could ever capture that moment back.

However I do agree that the dinos in that film were treated better. For instance, Trex didn't continue to persue people after they got away. He went about his business. The only dinos that actively hunted the characters were the raptors and that was part of their "superior intelligence" plot so it made sense.

It also made sure to balance the awe with the terror. That opening dino shot with them seeing the dinos for the first time was truly the stuff of movie legend as much as the Trex getting out was.

Sent from my SGH-I317M using Tapatalk 2
 
Doing a bit of research (okay, finding the wikia), I have solved the question of "what happened to the can?".

The fate of the can is apparently revealed in Telltale Games' Jurassic Park: The Game (available for PC, Mac, PS3, Xbox 360, and iPad 2 or higher). The people who had been waiting to take Nedry off the island go looking for him, and after they find him
one ends up dead, and the other escapes with the can. It gets stolen, then stolen back, and, depending on the ending, either is trampled by the T-Rex or is left to decay on the island
.

Apparently, the game is official to movie canon.
 
Games are games. No way that was the intent of the storytellers at the time.

(okay, last time I'll beat my chest about this :) )
 
I saw it yesterday with my 6 year old. I had planned on seeing Inside Out with him but once he saw the Jurassic World poster, he went nuts. I told him he might be scared because its loud and scary but he didnt care haha. He really enjoyed it actually. Although his least favorite part was when the raptors were chasing the piggy lol.

The movie was awesome! It kept my attention through the whole movie and I never got bored. I LOVED the nods to the first movie!! I was like YESSSS every time there was a reference. There were just so many to list. My FAVORITE one was when Caire went to Paddock 9 and led the T Rex out using the flare. I thought Chris Pratt was a good choice for the main character. He was very witty. I felt Bryce Howard (Claire) was equally as good, as well as the kids. Owens work with the raptors was pretty cool. "Charlie dont give me that S***) lol. I saw the questions on here about Blue and was pleased to find out blue was a girl (and survived at the end). The final fight scene was EPIC!!! I was saddened when the T Rex almost lost but was instantly lifted back up when Blue came running in to help. When they pushed the Indominous Rex to the edge of the water I was like "OH YES, I SEE WHAT YOUR DOING" and them BAM! EATEN!

Definitely the best of the series for me just edging out the first! Cant wait for it to come out on Blu Ray!
 
This thread is more than 7 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.

Similar threads

JediMichael
Jurassic Park 30th Anniversary
2
Replies
23
Views
1,523
JediMichael
JediMichael
_Lee_
UK release date for Mayans season 5?
Replies
0
Views
306
_Lee_
_Lee_
James Kenobi 1138
'Wonderwell' Carrie Fisher's last movie finally set to release, new trailer
Replies
2
Views
491
Halliwax
Halliwax
peterquill
Planes, Trains & Automobiles 4k Uhd Release
Replies
13
Views
1,109
frosty
frosty
bondoking
Deadpool trailer released
Replies
0
Views
242
bondoking
bondoking
Back
Top