My thoughts on the Jurassic Park Movies, especially Jurassic Park 3

Raptor-401

So a while ago, some people had been talking about Jurassic Park 3, most of it in a negative way. I wanted toexpress my fullest opinion on the movie on a discussion, not just a reply. I guess I will also talk about the first 2 movies

Here we go

Jurassic Park

Man, a great movie. Ignoring the boook version, Jurassic Park is definately a masterpiece. It has some humor, themes, and sci-fi action, and of course, dinosaurs. The movie was made for ALL ages. I mean, the movie isn't necessarily for kids, but you can tell they made it so kids would find it more entertaining, like the classic line Hammond says:

"Welcome to, Jurassic Park." And of course the classic theme plays and shows the classic shot of dinosaur herds with scientific innacuricies taht bother me, even thought at that time, dinosaurs were thought to be like that.

One thing I love too is, at that time, it was almost 100% scientifically accurate. Dinosaur positions and characteristics were accurate, but of course now there are dozens of innacuracies and probably even more to be found in the future.

It was also different from other dinosaur movies. You see, a lot of times I find other dinosaur movies stupid, let me explain why. A lot of time, dio movies are about some explorers finding dinosaurs, and that supposedly for 65 GOD DAMN MILLION YEARS, dinosaurs have always been alive and survived the asteroid that hit them, and they were NEVER noticed by people, which bothered me. I am pretty sure you all can get what I mean. Jurassic Park was different, though. We all know cloning dinosaurs, for now, is virtually impossible for many reasons. Jurassic park, though, gave a LOGICAL way of how dinosaurs would now be able to coexits with humans, not that stupid thing where, again, the dinosaurs were secretly alive for millions of years and gone unoticed.

Jurassic Park also had a theme. We all see different themes in movies and books, I think the theme was to show that we should not mess with Mother Nature/God or whatever you believe in. It was also to show that we, as humans, will never know what to expect to happen when we tamper with something we have never expierenced with, like dinosaurs. Even in the book version, Muldoon is thinking to himself about how he remembered that when they cloned the Dilophosaurus, it was all a surprise to them when they found out that they were posionous and had a frill. Michael Crichton, the author, did this to show we have NO idea what to expect if we tamper with nature.

That's my general thought on the movie, as a stand alone movie, I give it a 10/10. As a movie adaptation from a book, I give it a 8/10. None the less, it will still be my favorite movie.

Jurassic Park: The Lost World

When I watched this movie, I was surprised to find it was a bit darker than the first one. In this movei, I felt like they stopped catering for kids and just made a movie meant for pre-teens, teens, and adults to enjoy, mostly adults, how I see it. 

The movie does take a good 45 minutes or so to get that "JP feel" to it, but I think as a movie, it's greatness can compete with that of Jurassic Park. I mean come on, TWO Rexes, who are mommy and daddy and go out looking for their little baby and knock a RV/Train off a cliff in anger, Raptor packs killing people like a short version of "And then there were none," A T-Rex taking the role of Godzilla and terrorizing a city! (They even include a Godzilla reference, if you remember.)

I think the movie focused more on setting a theme for the audience to relflect about after watching it. It showed us how stupid humans can be, never learining from their mistakes. Good old Hammond, still not learning his lesson, Ingen still trying to open up a park, THIS TIME in a city, not off an island. It's like people even got more stupid in this one. It showed us too that we still have no right to mess with nature and animals, we all remember that scene where the people arive on the Island and start stealing the dinosaurs and put them in cages.

As a stand alone movie, I give it also a 10/10/ You still have to wait a good amount of time for it to get rwally good and more action, but in the end, it's worth it. I would watch that movie again just to hear Jeff Goldblum say:

"Mommy's very angry."

However, as an adpatation from a book, I give it a 5/10. I think they changed the book, plot, and characters too much, I mean COME ON, the book has an entirely different PLOT itself.

Now, on to the reason I made this discussion in the first place.

Jurassic Park 3

Man, the reason why we have dumb fanboy wars on this forum, you all know what I am talking about.

I can honestly say they did a pretty good job.

While most people say it didn't have the Juarssic Park "feel" to it, you must not forget for this movie, that there was no book for it to be based off of, Steven Spielberg didn't direct it, and they wanted to put a "new" king.

Spinosaurus, when they created the movie, they, for some reason, wnated to show who the "true" king was, at that time, they thought SPinosaurus was the most powerful creature ever. If you watched some of the bonus commentaries for JP 3, they said that they did the fight between Rex and SPino to show that they weren't kidding about this thing being powerful. Of course, many fans werew angered that some "Red fin thing killed the "KING" of the dinosaurs!" Of course, there comes the bad parts.

For JP 3, I felt there was no theme to it. I felt like they made this movie into some cliche sci-fi monster movie. They made the dinosaurs act and look like MONSTERS. This movie, I felt, was not made AT ALL for kids, strictly for adults and older teens to enjoy. They made Spinosaurus into some comic supervillain who was invincible. While I among the few who think that Spinosaurus was very powerful, it was ridiculous of how it survived a plane crashig into it and breaking through a metal gate, with no problem or any injuries. Then, it has trouble breaking through some weak and wooden door.

Movie logic.

As a stand-alone movie, I give it a 5.5/10

As an entry to the Jurassic Park Trilogy, I give it a 2/10.

Thansk for reading, and please leave your thoughts.

-Raptor401

Lord Vader

I agree with you there. Man, that Spinosaurus. A plane crashed into it, it killed a T-Rex. But, a tree and a small door were a bit much for it. At least the T-Rex could get through a tree. If you watched the video I posted, you know exactly where I got that.

Raptor-401

Yah, thank you.

Have you finally read the Lost World?

JP Carnotaur

I agree the first movie was amazing but I liked the second one a lot to. The third one was ok and even though I am a Rex fan I'm glad they added the Spinosaurus. Now us JP fans have something to fight about:)

Rex Fan 684

I agree with you overall Raptor.

Raptor-401

In a way, that's true we have something to debate about. I think Jurassic Park and the Lost World, both movies and books, are just equally as good!

Raptor-401

Thanks Rex Fan!

Lord Vader

I haven't had time to read TLW. I've got homework on a daily basis, and I work everyday. Also, I'm not an indoor person, so usually target shoot with my .22 in my free time when I'm not on the forums.

Raptor-401

You should really read it. Of course, you might get a little mad about how much they changed the story and characters and all that stuff...

Lord Vader

I know I should read it, but I'm too damn busy.

Raptor-401

Well maybe you should leave this forum for a while and read it, then come back and post a review, that's what I did, well, sort of.

Also, in jurassic Park 3, I think they made the Velociraptors TOO smart.

Lord Vader

True.

About the Raptors, then explain how Grant tricked them with that damn call thingy. Oh, wait, that movie is as inconsistent as the T-Rex strictly scavenger theory.

Raptor-401

Like I said,

movie logic.

Lord Vader

Everyone involved in JP3 logic more like. As a dinosaur movie, it's fine. As a Jurassic Park movie, it's a slap in the face. They killed the charactor of Alan Grant, they had Sattler married to some guy they showed in one scene (that was also BS), and that Spino was freaking ninja. In the first two, you could hear the T-Rex coming and see water rippling. In Jurassic Park 3 (as I watched the scene where it walks away before running through that metal fence, but not a tree), the Spinosaurus didn't make a sound. It's walking away and all you hear is the thing hiss. They even screwed up the JP theme in there.

Raptor-401

Yeah, forgot about that.

I think they already killed the charcater of Alan Grant when they made the first moivie off the book...

Lord Vader

They killed movie Grant in JP3. In the first movie, he strongly disliked kids. By the end, at the very least, he could put up with them. 

In that video I posted, the guy said Jurassic Park 3 is held togather by unlikeable characters and a plot so thin you couldn't spread it over toast. Sorry, but I completely agreed with that guy.

Raptor-401

Well it did have some sub-plots like how the Eric kid had some family problems and all that other stuff.

Xenothinker

Completely disagree with you. Now, as a preface, please note I adore the JP series as a whole.

JP 1 - Terrific movie that balanced the intrigue of the creation and science of the dinos, as well as some terrifying moments and cinematography. It was not perfect though, as an adaption, but it was a pretty damned good one. 

JP 2 - This is, in my opinion, the weakest of the three. The character of Malcom is portrayed completely different than that of the man we were introduced to in the first movie. In JP 1 we may not have gotten much of the Chaos Theory as the book, but the character was very much grounded in these beliefs. In JP 2, we lose all of that as the character focuses on love and survival. This is before we mention the dreadful and unneeded Rex in San Francisco. 

The pacing in JP2 is off, there is no real sense of intrigue, or majesty, with the dinos. We don't get a chance to care for any of the characters except the good guys (which is fine, but many of the inGen party are not blood thirsty mercs). 

It's still an enjoyable movie, but as an adaption it drifts too far from the source and becomes more convulted in FanFic than the Hobbit movies. I mean, 90% of the cast are mere creations, as is the plot - which in itself is rather weak. A multi-billion dollar company is being sued out the ass for the folly of the first park...yet somehow has the funding (and tenacity) to bring this park to the mainland? To me this is a rather large stretch considering the whole purpose the scientists were on the island in JP1 were there to investigate, and reccomend, upon investor concerncs. By the end of the movie, even Hammond has given up on the park...a move which would cost inGen most, if not all, of its investors.

JP2 does succeed in setting up the idea of a natural nature preserve as (for the second time) Hammond has given up on the JP.

JP 3 - This is a hit or miss with many people, I can see why. However, it is, in my opinion, more JP than JP 2. In this movie we have parents desperate to get to this island to search for their son when the Costa Rican gov't doesn't step in. They use the power of money to lure Dr. Grant to the isle - which is very important considering the financial stresses of his field. This movie has more justified reason and logic than the previous.

This movie shows more insight into the inGen operations, growing the animal species on the island, while still maintaining a level of forboding. Grant does not want to be there and Sam Neil makes the audience feel this. The whole movie the audience is left wondering how will they survive? How will they get off the island? Where is the kid? Poor Dr. Grant. 

JP3 even touches on the greedy, deceptive nature of man in a more subtle way than JP2 or even the original. 

JP3 is a tight movie, and although it misses out on a lot of the dinos, we are given the chance to learn more about the characters within the film then we do in previous instalments. 

Raptor-401

Sorry, but I stopped reading ater you said JP 3 was more JP than The Lost World.

JP 3 had no science to it, I could go on and on, but I won't.

Something Real

TheMoreYouKnow

When the Spinosaurus breaks through the fence, it can get the whole weight of its body behind it. If you look you can see it almost hits it with its shoulder in order to break it down. When it comes to the door, because of its low height it can only use its legs or possibly its head. Therefore it cannot put nearly as much force behind its hit on the door. We also have to consider the possibility that it broke bones or something when it smashed through the fence, so it might not be up to the task. Also, the plane didn't "crash into it", it grazed the top of the animal. You can see this because of the minimal amount of blood, which would have been much greater if it would have taken a full on hit from a plane.

Raptor-401

Good point.

Sci-Fi King25

I read the first JP novel, but not the second. I didn't notice Muldoon's thoughts on the Dilophosaurus. Eh, the movie was better.