The follow-up to Jurassic World is looking more appealing now.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jeff-goldblum-joins-jurassic-world-sequel-997569
Now all they need to do is bring back Sam Neill, Julianne Moore, and Laura Dern. How awesome would that be?
I always forget about Julianne Moore being in the 2nd one. Course it is the one JP movie I've re-watched the very least.
Liked her in other movies though. Top notch in Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and that Alice movie.
Quote from: johnnygobbs on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, 00:17
Now all they need to do is bring back Sam Neill, Julianne Moore, and Laura Dern. How awesome would that be?
Agreed, especially about Sam Neill.
Two blockbuster movies I disliked in 1997, Batman & Robin and The Lost World. Nowadays I enjoy B&R, but, outside of a few cool dinosaur scenes, I still can't stand TLW.
I enjoyed Jurassic World: of all the sequels with a 20 year lag I can think of, or of all the modern movies primarily relying on nostalgia for an older movie, it was maybe the best.
I love The Lost World.
It's much like Batman Returns in the sense it aims for a different atmosphere. Where Jurassic Park emphasised wonder and magic, The Lost World was a darker and more cynical take. That is reflected in the soundtrack. It's more tribal and suspenseful. The main theme is rarely used. And when it is, it's played subtly. It's more of a haunting reminder that Hammond's dream is now dead. Case in point the old painting Nick glimpses when he's walking around with his flashlight.
The Lost World offered a look behind the curtain. Isla Sorna was where the animals were first created before being sent over to Nublar. The original island had fences. The sequel had no fences. The set pieces were excellent. The trailer dangling over the cliff is probably better than anything we see in the original. The long grass sequence is also a franchise highlight. Along with the fact the small compys were made just as lethal as anything else you'd encounter on one of these islands.
Jurassic Park III is total filler and I wish it was never made.
Jurassic World offered a new slant because it presented a Park that had been open and running successfully for a long period of time. The hybrid dinosaur was interesting even if they went too far with its intelligence levels. I loved that Henry Wu came back. But is the film better than The Lost World? Not for me. It's a rather uneventful and tension free movie. The only things that really happen are the pteradon breakout and the iRex finale. I was a bigger fan upon release. But I now find it a rather boring movie as time goes on. It's not awful.
I wasn't that keen about the trained raptors or the implications the dinosaurs will be militarized. But when you're dealing with sequel after sequel with these films, new concepts have to be explored to justify their existence. I get that.
Honestly, I would've been perfectly content with the first two Spielberg films. But as a fan of those two, I still remain interested in the franchise.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, 06:40
I love The Lost World.
It would be interesting to read your take on the actions of the designated heroes (the Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore characters) in TLW.
Hell, just remembered the scene where they grab the Tyrannosaurus cub, the peril that followed was entirely their fault.
Mistakes are what drive drama, especially in films such as Jurassic Park.
Just a few examples:
The kids turning on the flashlight during the T-Rex breakout?
The kids in the gyrosphere going into a restricted area and ignoring warnings to return?
Billy stealing raptor eggs and carrying them?
Using a megaphone on the island?
Not checking the i-Rex's tracker before sending someone into the pen, which causes it to escape?
All dumb.
The Lost World's characters don't have exclusivity on this stuff. Jurassic World 2 will be the same.
Anyway, since I'm not one for analysis, this article sums up my feelings about it pretty accurately.
Ten Things I Hate (and a whole lot more) about The Lost World: Jurassic Park (http://jabootu.net/?p=650)
QuoteIf you're a scientist like Sarah, or an environmentalist like Nick the Photographer, a.k.a. Earth First Guy (Vince Vaughn), you're automatically morally superior to the grubby capitalists. Therefore, it's OK to sabotage their camp, even if it gets a lot of people killed. And no one will in any way imply that you're a terrorist. This is an example of Douglas' Designated Hero™ rule, which partly stipulates that those that a movie chooses as its heroes shall never be held responsible for any deaths caused by their actions.
QuoteSarah was originally doing work at the San Diego zoo, but is apparently horrified by the idea that the dinosaurs would be captured and...taken to a zoo in San Diego.
QuoteInherent in Douglas' Designated Hero/Villain rule is that positions won't be judged on their objective merit, but rather on who is advancing them. Peter's position that they have a right to 'exploit' the dinos (i.e., put them on display) because his company created them is hardly insane. However, the film dismisses the argument because it's being advanced by the Evil Capitalist. More to the point, it has the argument advanced by the Evil Capitalist so that it can be dismissed. Yet, because Earth First Guy is a hero, his causing the deaths of literally dozens of people is ignored. In other words, the film openly judges the caging of (artificially created) animals to be more of a crime than killing other humans.
When you become wise to the Designated Hero bit, you find all sorts of interesting ideas... coming from the mouths of villains in order to discredit those ideas without rationally answering them.
Good on you for noticing.
For everything else, well, it's worth remembering that as talented a filmmaker as Steven Spielberg might be, (1) The Lost World is an absolute dud (2) it's a money-grab and (3) Spielberg is just another Hollywood liberal... to say the very least.
Of course TLW sucks. I tried rewatching it a few weeks ago but I couldn't force myself to sit through the entire farce of idiotic characters doing idiotic things. I realize that a certain amount of stupidity breeds drama. There's all the obvious stuff from the original JP to consider on that. But the idiocy of TLW far surpasses the dumb mistakes and bonehead plays of JP. The idiocy of TLW borders on retardation.
People either like something or they don't. People here don't like TLW and that's life.
I think TLW is a good piece of entertainment and I never really understood the brutal hate that exists for it. It's as if the different tone rubbed people the wrong way. Those who wanted a replication of the original were left cold. Batman Returns haters are much the same. Opinions become set and each side just doubles down.
TLW isn't a perfect film which needs to be placed into the hall of fame. The characters in the film aren't all Einsteins - just like the other JP films. But if anything is an absolute dud and a money grab, it's Jurassic Park III which plods through the motions. Nothing in that film reaches the heights of The Lost World in my opinion. Nothing. I argue the same for Jurassic World. Not one set piece in that film bests the trailer going over the cliff or the long grass raptor hunt. Pratt isn't better than Goldblum either.
Peter Postlethwaite was one of the best actors of all time, and he's also good in TLW. I actually prefer him to Muldoon in the original. I also dig that Spielberg ended the film in the city with the T-Rex rampage. For some people it's a big weakness, but it doesn't bother me. If another film in the franchise goes for that angle it's not new territory. It has already been done.
I wouldn't say I flat out hate TLW, but it's just my least favorite. That's all.
With the 1993 original, it was a favorite of mine as a kid. Having never read the original Michael Crichton book, I remember once I knew that Crichton was going to write a follow-up, I then made a conscious point in reading that book. I can't tell you why my interest wasn't to just start from the very beginning and learn of the differences between the JP novel and the film, but that was my mindset back then. After completing TLW book, I remember my anticipation was even more amped up since I, for the most part, enjoyed the book. My folks and I were there opening day, and I was indeed pretty excited, but by the time we were walking out of the theater, I do distinctly recall being disappointed overall. I mean, I did like the opening well enough, the fun cutaway in re-introducing Malcom yawning, the cameos featuring John Hammond and the kids, the dumb Michael Bay-esque T-Rex rampaging thru San Diego. All cool stuff. Alot of the other stuff was either simply OK to me, or just flat out dull. This film, was probably my very first experience in comparing a book and a movie in my head, since it may very well be the 1st time I read the book BEFORE seeing the movie, and couldn't help but compare, but I remember being disappointed in scenes from the book, characters from the book, being completely eliminated from the TLW movie.
From what I can remember, Crichton wrote TLW book as more of a sequel to the film version, than his own book. Having said that, I liked the idea that the character of Lewis Dodgson returned in TLW to complete the mission that Dennis Nedry ultimately failed to achieve. A character we see very little of in the original film, getting a much more expanded role in the sequel and displaying just how much of a scumbag he really is. That was my expectation, a human villain that may not be as sleazy as Dennis Nedry, but definitely no less antagonistic. Sadly, this was not to be, and I'm not sure why Spielberg chose to just go with a newly introduced self-serving greedy corporate guy that we've seen a thousand times already.
Quote from: The Dark Knight on Thu, 27 Apr 2017, 08:59I think TLW is a good piece of entertainment and I never really understood the brutal hate that exists for it. It's as if the different tone rubbed people the wrong way. Those who wanted a replication of the original were left cold. Batman Returns haters are much the same. Opinions become set and each side just doubles down.
I don't know if I completely agree with that.
In JP, the characters all had rational causes for doing what they did. The entire team was assembled by Hammond. A lawyer to figure out if something like this is legal. A paleontologist and a paleo-botanist to determine if this is feasible. A mathematician to determine if this is even possible. And some of them get chewed up.
Everybody has a motive and a reasonable agenda.
TLW catches a lot of heat because, deep down, people know a money-grab when they see it. And when it's as shameless as TLW, it's hard to countenance. I mean, commercial film is a business. We all know this. Batman movies keep getting made because, in the main, they're profitable. But we can see past the profit and recognize the amazing Batman stories that have been told in film. What financial considerations might have been going on, there was usually an earnest desire to tell a story.
With TLW, the characters exist either to string action scenes together or grind a political ax. And not always necessarily in that order.
When I was younger, I believed the problem was bad film when it came to Jurassic Park. The powers that be simply needed a better vehicle to tell the story.
Nearing middle age, I now realize that Jurassic Park is a great film... and that's just about where it should've ended. Making sequels is attempting to capture lightning in a bottle. And how often does that ever work?
Jurassic World was fun and I rather enjoyed Pratt and Howard in the movie. But it's not likely to be the bona fide classic that JP is.
And yet, I'm a big hypocrite because I plan to see the Jurassic World sequel. My interest is piqued even more by Goldblum's uh, uh, uh, involvement.
I have no scruples.
Something that appeals to me with a concept like Jurassic Park is the atmosphere. Just as I like to watch Batman Returns with the air-conditioner set to arctic temperatures, I think JP is a film that is amplified when you watch it during a stormy night. Especially during the scene when the storm approaches in the original. That whole scene with Nedry driving in the rain is great.
Even with just Grant and Malcolm sitting in the disabled vehicles as the rain pitter patters on the glass. The Lost World also went for that rainy night ambience and I just really appreciate that. This was the case for me especially as a youngster. I'm all about tropical islands where you see fresh muddy footprints and hear roars off into the distance.
For my money Jurassic Park III and Jurassic World don't manage to capture that same type of mysterious atmosphere. Jurassic World had potential to be great. The whole idea that people were bored of dinosaurs was an example. But it just wasn't explored enough in my opinion.