Jurassic Park IV

[Spider-Fan]

The world doesn't need a JPIV

 

[Spider-Who?]

considering when Crichton died, the producers said it would be wrong to make any more JP movies, I am not surprised this was debunked.

 

[marvelman2006]

The world doesn't need a JPIV

agreed, JP3 as an example of why we dont need anymore, theres nothing left thats interesting. Its one of those situations where no matter what idea you have it comes back to the theme ending up being people running form dinosaurs after they try to control them in the first act.

 

[chaseter]

That is like saying we don't need another Pirates movie because all it is going to be is Jack Sparrow going after something and a bad guy chasing him with hijinks along the way. We don't need another Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman etc. because it is always them saving people, fighting a bad guy, having inner turmoil, and then learning a lesson/accomplishing a feat. We don't need another Tron because all that boils down to is people going into a computer and fighting. We don't need another Bond because those movies are all fighting bad guys, uncovering an evil plot, saving the world and getting the girl.

Fact is, Jurassic Park is a very successful franchise and as long as the script and story are good then we deserve another one. To be honest, I wouldn't even mind them redoing the franchise and making them more faithful to the book. The books and the movies are almost completely different. The Lost World is really nothing like the movie...at all. As much as I love the first movie, I love the books as well and I love this franchise so I would love to see another movie.

 

[CGHulk]

The only real interest I have in seeing another Jurassic Park is to see ILM show off where they've come in doing Dino's from the other movies. If there was a story I'd say bring back the whole cast from the first movie, where all the Dinosaurs are lose in the States and they all come together to deal with the matter.

 

[Jick]

The Lost World is really nothing like the movie...at all. As much as I love the first movie, I love the books as well and I love this franchise so I would love to see another movie.

Could you tell me how is The Lost World book?
Why is it different?

 

[Spider-Who?]

That is like saying we don't need another Pirates movie because all it is going to be is Jack Sparrow going after something and a bad guy chasing him with hijinks along the way. We don't need another Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman etc. because it is always them saving people, fighting a bad guy, having inner turmoil, and then learning a lesson/accomplishing a feat. We don't need another Tron because all that boils down to is people going into a computer and fighting. We don't need another Bond because those movies are all fighting bad guys, uncovering an evil plot, saving the world and getting the girl.

Fact is, Jurassic Park is a very successful franchise and as long as the script and story are good then we deserve another one. To be honest, I wouldn't even mind them redoing the franchise and making them more faithful to the book. The books and the movies are almost completely different. The Lost World is really nothing like the movie...at all. As much as I love the first movie, I love the books as well and I love this franchise so I would love to see another movie.

I love the books. I’ve read the first one every year since the first movie came out. The movies were as much a part of my childhood as attending school. In short, this series means a great deal to me; but I have to disagree with you.

You’ve listed movies whose stories hang on the plight and growth of a main character…a character who is either focused on or plays an integral part of each movie in its franchise. We, the audience relate to and root for the character, hoping they can overcome the antagonistic aspects of the story, and be a better character for it. Yes, movies such as Spider-Man, Batman, etc involve similar events – saving the girl, defeating the bad guy – but you’re missing some important points:

1)The bad guy is nearly always different in each story
2)The bad guy has motivation
3)The main character deals with other emotional issues along side the battles
4)The main character grows as a person due to the conflicts of the story

Jurassic Park doesn’t really have any of this. Unlike the movies you mentioned, there is no central character that we follow through the series. Sure, we have a few returning characters, but their motivation, their character arch is weak at best, but mostly nonexistent. Jurassic Park isn’t about telling of the growth of a singular character (or even ensemble like Pirates); which is the case for all the movies you mentioned. Jurassic Park is about watching people get torn the **** up by dinosaurs. You can’t make 10 movies about that. Hell, you can’t even make 3.

There’s a different group of characters in each movie; the “bad guys” are the same (dinosaurs); and any other “bad guy” is a cookie-cutter character used solely as an excuse to get the protagonists to the island. I love Jurassic Park, but it was not created to be an ongoing series of books or movies. Crichton knew this, and was practically forced to write the second book. The premise of Jurassic Park itself has become a joke. There really isn’t much that can be done to reinvigorate the series and give it a fresh start without feeling like a clone of preexisting material, or being so vastly different that people wonder why its called Jurassic Park (I point to the script about cyborg dinosaur soldiers). The idea and premise of Jurassic Park is a precise one that it doesn’t leave a lot of room for quality expansion.

I do agree with you about one thing: I wouldn’t mind a remake that followed the books better.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Fact is, Jurassic Park is a very successful franchise and as long as the script and story are good then we deserve another one. To be honest, I wouldn't even mind them redoing the franchise and making them more faithful to the book. The books and the movies are almost completely different. The Lost World is really nothing like the movie...at all. As much as I love the first movie, I love the books as well and I love this franchise so I would love to see another movie.

This. I love the first movie to death, the sequels....ehh, I enjoy them. But TLW got kicked down about 5 notches in my book....when I read the book.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Could you tell me how is The Lost World book?
Why is it different?

Too many things to name...

Put it this way. The movie is a solid 1%; maybe 3% like the book.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Could you tell me how is The Lost World book?
Why is it different?

Oh man, there are so many things different...here's some major points:

The premise is vaguely similar – a party lead by Malcolm goes to the island to save a doctor, but the doctor is Malcolm’s friend, a dude named Levine. But the party consists of Malcolm, two high school students of Levine who stow away, a engineer named Thorne, and his younger assistant Eddie (Sarah Harding comes later on).

Sarah and Malcolm are not in a relationship. Malcolm does not have a kid. Nick Van Owen does not exist. Ingen, nor the rest of the characters from the movie, appear in the book. The only other humans are Dodgson (from Biosyn) and two companions and they’re on the island to get eggs. And I don’t even think that the two parties even run into each other until the very end; even then it’s more of a “hey! I can see you get eaten from across the field” situation. Nothing more. There is no T-Rex in San Diego sequence…The vast majority of the plot points are entirely different…honestly the only thing I recall from the book actually being in the movie is the T-Rex scene attacking the vehicles on the cliff. That’s it.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Hell, even the prologue wasn't in the book.



It was from the first book.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Hell, even the prologue wasn't in the book.



It was from the first book.

Ah, yup, thats true, too. And that was just a small part of the prologue from the first book.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Ah, yup, thats true, too. And that was just a small part of the prologue from the first book.

Even then they cut out a ton of stuff from the prologue.

I've never looked at TLW the same way after reading the book. I still enjoy it...but the book was so much better..

 

[Jick]

Too many things to name...

Put it this way. The movie is a solid 1%; maybe 3% like the book.

Oh man, there are so many things different...here's some major points:

The premise is vaguely similar – a party lead by Malcolm goes to the island to save a doctor, but the doctor is Malcolm’s friend, a dude named Levine. But the party consists of Malcolm, two high school students of Levine who stow away, a engineer named Thorne, and his younger assistant Eddie (Sarah Harding comes later on).

Sarah and Malcolm are not in a relationship. Malcolm does not have a kid. Nick Van Owen does not exist. Ingen, nor the rest of the characters from the movie, appear in the book. The only other humans are Dodgson (from Biosyn) and two companions and they’re on the island to get eggs. And I don’t even think that the two parties even run into each other until the very end; even then it’s more of a “hey! I can see you get eaten from across the field” situation. Nothing more. There is no T-Rex in San Diego sequence…The vast majority of the plot points are entirely different…honestly the only thing I recall from the book actually being in the movie is the T-Rex scene attacking the vehicles on the cliff. That’s it.

Thanks.
But then, what about the book is exciting?
Any new interesting dino that wasn't in the first? Velociraptors running after them? What did you like?

 

[marvelman2006]

That is like saying we don't need another Pirates movie because all it is going to be is Jack Sparrow going after something and a bad guy chasing him with hijinks along the way. We don't need another Spider-Man, X-Men, Batman etc. because it is always them saving people, fighting a bad guy, having inner turmoil, and then learning a lesson/accomplishing a feat. We don't need another Tron because all that boils down to is people going into a computer and fighting. We don't need another Bond because those movies are all fighting bad guys, uncovering an evil plot, saving the world and getting the girl.

Fact is, Jurassic Park is a very successful franchise and as long as the script and story are good then we deserve another one. To be honest, I wouldn't even mind them redoing the franchise and making them more faithful to the book. The books and the movies are almost completely different. The Lost World is really nothing like the movie...at all. As much as I love the first movie, I love the books as well and I love this franchise so I would love to see another movie.

did you not see the latest trailer? pretty much that.

I see what your saying but there is a difference between spiderman, batman etc and dinosaurs chasing people through the jungle. How many times will general movie goers pay to see a T-rex chase a doctor and raptors attack the main hero ultimately for them to get off the island. They played with the idea of dinosaurs getting onto the mainland in the 2nd but went back to the island in the 3rd. Now I never read the books so I dont have a frame of reference here nor do I read much movies based off books or vice versa because it ultimately distracts me, but if hollywood has taught us anything in there movie making ways then the only story they think will make bank is the same old wash, rinse and repeat story of the heroes coming to the island and then all hell breaks loose and we have the chase. There might be better stories out there worth telling that can be interesting but I dont think hollywood does.

 

[marvelman2006]

edit double post

 

[Spider-Who?]

Thanks.
But then, what about the book is exciting?
Any new interesting dino that wasn't in the first? Velociraptors running after them? What did you like?

Far as new dinosaurs...hmmm...there were stegos, pachycephalosaurs, one or two others. There were two T-Rexes, and the small sublot revolving around helping a baby rex - the scenes involving the Rex are awesome.

If I recall, there were more monologues and diatribes about the nature of science and how discovery hurts nature than the previous book, so you may or may not like that. And it does take a lot longer to get to the island than the first. The book had plenty of interesting and edge of your seat moments in it, don't get me wrong (a jeep and Raptor chase sequence was especially harrowing). I really don't want to give any particular plot points away, in case you decide to read it...I'll just say that it IS a good book, and to not use the fact that the movie changed so much to assume otherwise.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

My only problem with the book, is you can tell how tacked on of a sequel it is..because of certain events in the first book.

 

[Spider-Who?]

My only problem with the book, is you can tell how tacked on of a sequel it is..because of certain events in the first book.

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, Crichton was pretty much forced to write the second one. He had no intention of writing a sequel when making the first.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Yeah, like I mentioned earlier, Crichton was pretty much forced to write the second one. He had no intention of writing a sequel when making the first.

Exactly.

You can tell, hell even in the first chapter.

In the finale of the first book,

Spoiler

Malcolm is as dead as a doornail. In the second, "I almost died.

Book was still fantastic though.

 

[Spider-Who?]

Exactly.

You can tell, hell even in the first chapter.

In the finale of the first book,

Spoiler

Malcolm is as dead as a doornail. In the second, "I almost died.

Book was still fantastic though.

its been some time, but wasnt...

Spoiler

Malcolm's death simply stated as Grant asking about Malcolm, and someone just shaking their head...and when they're being held in Costa Rica, they merely stated that there wasn't to be a funeral?

I mention that only to illustrate that it wasn't a done deal - obviously Crichton felt that his ending wasn't so clear cut to not allow him to be in the next book. But in either case, I do wonder why Malcolm was chosen to be in the second instead of other characters, since you couldnt really call Malcolm a main character in the first.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

its been some time, but wasnt...

Spoiler

Malcolm's death simply stated as Grant asking about Malcolm, and someone just shaking their head...and when they're being held in Costa Rica, they merely stated that there wasn't to be a funeral?

Yup, that was about it.

I mention that only to illustrate that it wasn't a done deal - obviously Crichton felt that his ending wasn't so clear cut to not allow him to be in the next book. But in either case, I do wonder why Malcolm was chosen to be in the second instead of other characters, since you couldnt really call Malcolm a main character in the first.

Probably because, unlike movie-grant, you couldn't pay him enough to go back, rescue mission or not.

 

[chaseter]

I love the books. I’ve read the first one every year since the first movie came out. The movies were as much a part of my childhood as attending school. In short, this series means a great deal to me; but I have to disagree with you.

You’ve listed movies whose stories hang on the plight and growth of a main character…a character who is either focused on or plays an integral part of each movie in its franchise. We, the audience relate to and root for the character, hoping they can overcome the antagonistic aspects of the story, and be a better character for it. Yes, movies such as Spider-Man, Batman, etc involve similar events – saving the girl, defeating the bad guy – but you’re missing some important points:

1)The bad guy is nearly always different in each story
2)The bad guy has motivation
3)The main character deals with other emotional issues along side the battles
4)The main character grows as a person due to the conflicts of the story

Jurassic Park doesn’t really have any of this. Unlike the movies you mentioned, there is no central character that we follow through the series. Sure, we have a few returning characters, but their motivation, their character arch is weak at best, but mostly nonexistent. Jurassic Park isn’t about telling of the growth of a singular character (or even ensemble like Pirates); which is the case for all the movies you mentioned. Jurassic Park is about watching people get torn the **** up by dinosaurs. You can’t make 10 movies about that. Hell, you can’t even make 3.

There’s a different group of characters in each movie; the “bad guys” are the same (dinosaurs); and any other “bad guy” is a cookie-cutter character used solely as an excuse to get the protagonists to the island. I love Jurassic Park, but it was not created to be an ongoing series of books or movies. Crichton knew this, and was practically forced to write the second book. The premise of Jurassic Park itself has become a joke. There really isn’t much that can be done to reinvigorate the series and give it a fresh start without feeling like a clone of preexisting material, or being so vastly different that people wonder why its called Jurassic Park (I point to the script about cyborg dinosaur soldiers). The idea and premise of Jurassic Park is a precise one that it doesn’t leave a lot of room for quality expansion.

I do agree with you about one thing: I wouldn’t mind a remake that followed the books better.

There are so many different dinosaurs they haven't used that would be something else to see. You could even throw man into the mix and have a human threat as well as the dinosaur threat. There is a ton of stuff you can do that would provide an interesting story. A virus, dinosaurs being engineered else where like in the Congo or Brazil where natives claim to see dinosaurs, or you could even have a terrorist cell making camp on Isla Sorna. Who knows...the possibilities are endless. The problem is, nobody cares and just throws it off as them not wanting to see dinosaurs chasing people in a jungle anymore but they will fork over $15 to see other sequels that follow the same formula.

But I think a remake at this point would be best.

 

[Solidus]

Yea I was a fan of the books. TLW was almost nothing like the book at all. I would have loved to see TLW way more faithful. If I remember correctly there was only 3 bad guys, and to me it felt a lot like a survival horror kind of story more then a flat out action one. I remember the part with the Raptor's nest, and the 7 foot chameleon dinosaur that was stalking them.

I remember when I was young and the book came out it frightened me. I saw the film, and was like what was this?

I too would like to see a more faithful adaptation of the books though. Jurassic Park III was the left overs that were stuff from the book they never used in the films. I remember feeling the Jurassic Park series were more horror/survival kind of adventures more so then the more adventure "light hearted" kind of affair the films tried to portray.

I love the first film still it's a classic, but I would be interested to see more faithful adaptations.

 

[Spider-Who?]

There are so many different dinosaurs they haven't used that would be something else to see. You could even throw man into the mix and have a human threat as well as the dinosaur threat. There is a ton of stuff you can do that would provide an interesting story. A virus, dinosaurs being engineered else where like in the Congo or Brazil where natives claim to see dinosaurs, or you could even have a terrorist cell making camp on Isla Sorna. Who knows...the possibilities are endless. The problem is, nobody cares and just throws it off as them not wanting to see dinosaurs chasing people in a jungle anymore but they will fork over $15 to see other sequels that follow the same formula.

But I think a remake at this point would be best.

Adding new dinosaurs would not solve the problem. Look at JP3. I appreciate and respect your opinion and ideas, but to be honest, I don’t see the ideas you point out as being be something that could be considered a Jurassic Park movie. Yes, the possibilities are “endless”, but all those possibilities are nothing but an excuse to have people being eaten by dinosaurs. Jurassic Park was created as a one trick pony (and I don’t mean that in a bad way), and to try and milk the idea to the point where we’re writing scripts that deviate so far from what Crichton originally created….that just doesn’t sit well with me.

I would LOVE another Jurassic Park movie – hell, I even tossed an idea for JP4 on here a while back (most people shrugged it off as too close to JP1, and that’s totally cool), but I would only want the name ‘Jurassic Park” on it if it held true to what Crichton created, and was not a matter of beating a dead horse.

If people want to make a refreshing dinosaur movie that is separate from the JP universe, that is something different (and a movie I hope to see one day). I do like your idea about dinos in the congo – a few years back, I starting writing a novel based on the actual writings of 19th and early 20th century adventures who claimed to haved stumbled on large reptilian beasts in the jungles of South America and Africa, as well as including the myths of ancient cultures (Babylonians, for instance claimed to have caught a “dragon” in northern Africa and brought it back to be worshiped as a god) that could presumably be surviving dinosaurs. I never finished it, but that, I believe, could be an interesting story. Nothing remotely like Jurassic Park, but dinosaurs nonetheless.

In short, if people want to see another dinosaur movie – that’s great. Let’s do it. But don’t milk the JP franchise any further. That is only beating a dead horse and limiting the possibilities in an effort to maintain the essence of the franchise. Do something different.