My issues with the new movies are that the dinosaurs act like sentient monsters instead of animals. In the first movie the acted like how real animals would act but these new ones just hunt and hunt without stopping even if they are not hungry
The animatronic dinosaurs in Jurassic Park look like real animals that are really in the scene with the actors. The dinosaurs in Jurassic World just look like computer generated images on a screen, they have no weight to them.
The Lost World is criminally underrated. It still has some very memorable characters, intense action sequences, the best special effects until Fallen Kingdom 20 years later, a masterful score that perfectly captures the new safari feel, and some outstanding cinematography. Certainly not perfect but not nearly as bad as everyone says. Pete Postlethwaite was amazing as Roland and deserves more credit.
Probably because grant wasnt in it. I found goldblums character annoying in the first one so I can see why it's overlooked . It sucks that the cool hunter dude never came back. It would have been badass if he had saved Grant and killed the spino, and tea leonis character.
- "Hey you!" *12 years old girl kicks a raptor off a window* - Freeing a bunch of dinosaurs from captivity which sets up chaos at camp, resulting in multiple people getting killed. - Picking an injured baby T-Rex and taking it to the only trailer the main characters have, resulting in the trailer being pushed off the cliff by the angry T-Rex parents. - Taking out the bullets from Pete Postlesthwaite's rifle so he can't shoot down the T-Rex that is about to kill many people in San Diego. I can go on and on... there are appaerntly lots of dumb moments in that movie.
@DVJFan it was still better than jurassic world. The issue with jurassic world just like many of the sequels and remakes that we get for old movies is they think bigger is better. The title of the movie even gives that away "world" vs "park." The lost world sucked but at least there was still some good elements to it. Jurassic world just sucks.
@DVJFan Yeah, it was. But at least it knew what it wanted. the travesty that is the World-spinoffs have no effing clue. Jurassic World 1 is a garbage fire that has meta humor, torture porn, family drama, military stupidity, annoying brats, science fantasy etc and can't make those work. It also has the possibly dumbest quote in the history of cinema. "People are tired of dinosaurs!"-Fucking really? FUCKING REALLY MOVIE? Well I'm glad that people don't like zoos and shit then so we'd need to make better fucking tigers. The asshole who wrote that line should be flogged. Jurassic World 2 has a severe case of the Slasher's, and some Umbrella Corp inspired baloney. Like both of those movies are far, far worse than Lost world or even JP 3.
The first sequel is called The Lost World! The title of Jurassic Park is the subjects letting you know it's the same universe it's not about the park. Yes John Hammond explain why the dinosaurs were lose in the 2nd movie. You obviously didn't do much research because in the book and the first movie they had knowledge the volcano and say they run on geothermal power that's why they built it on a volcano they use it for energy.
I can definitely see both camps. I enjoy all the movies, and there’s nothing wrong with having a fun time with a dumb action flic, but I think the main point he’s trying to make is Jurassic Park is TIMELESS because if its attention to detail, careful camerawork, and shot composition. While a bombastic action blockbuster can indeed be exciting, it can feel a bit tired cause we lack an emotional connection to the characters. Many movies feel the need to do everything bigger, louder, funnier; so we end up with stock character thay don’t feel real, or situations that are so alien to us we can’t project ourselves into the scene. Suspension of disbelief works best when there is something to anchor us to what we’re seeing. Sometimes less is more.
It also helps that the first movie went out of its way to present the dinosaurs as accurately as possible based on the science of the time (there's a few exceptions, but there's logical reasons for them. IE they Dilophosaur was made smaller to avoid confusion with the T. rex, and added the frill to set it apart from the raptors). However the subsequent films abandoned that. I mean in Jurassic World you have a pterosaur carrying an adult woman who outweighs it by AT LEAST 80lbs.
It pissed me off more that Zara got a full thirty seconds devoted to getting brutalized and vored by the dinosaurs yet the military prick that basically caused the whole thing died offscreen with a wimpy scream and a pissy squirt of blood
I agree the lost world actually was more appealing than Jurassic world. It was just exciting and made sense. They wanted to bring the Dinos to a zoo in San diego.
You're right it was. Can't believe this guy praises the joke that was Jurassic World. I suggest klayton fioriti's channel if you want someone who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to JP.
Yes i think it has that moral inocence and respect for the animals. And cool scenes like that fall scene folowed by the glass scene . Even the theme song is second best
@@SaurianStudios1207 Jurassic World was a children's movie. Kids riding on dinosaurs, trained raptors and that stupid ending with the fucking raptor and t rex teaming up to take down the "bad dinosaur" lol. If you like it then that's perfectly fine but I personally hated it. It didn't have the same thrill as the first two movies.
@@SaurianStudios1207 Jurassic World wasn't bad. It wasn't great, but it wasn't _bad_ - a little better than JP///, I'd say. Nowhere near JP or TLW levels of quality, but still a good time. It was definitely campy and a lot more family-friendly than its predecessors, but it did maintain some of the horror elements of the genre and it's enjoyable to watch overall.
@@theproducertm Tbh, that's when I zoned out too. >.> (And Disney's Dinosaur should def at least be sitting at the low end of mediocre, even by my cynical asses standards.)
I still have one of those hand puppets of the purple dinosaur's head that I got from... McDonald's? Burger King? Somewhere. Disney's Dinosaur is great - this guy has zero credibility.
I don't care what anyone says, Jaurassic Park 2 and 3 were pretty damn good. I think those two movies came closest to touching the magic of the first JP
The Lost World is a fuckin brilliant movie, how some people don't like it I'll never know. Love JP3 as well. I love that it's a self contained plot with Alan Grant... Hello. Trying to survive on Site B. It's just like hey you like dinosaurs and Alan Grant, well here you go have fun. Yes, yes I will thank you.
@@jedi196 “how some people don’t like it I’ll never know” -Extremely annoying unlikable characters -Slowly paced at times -Cringeworthy dialogue and writing -Very questionable scenes like gymnastics part -And worst of all; Vince Vaughn, yuck Look I hate the movie but If you like it, that’s fine, I just personally don’t understand why but again that’s just my take, If you like the lost world then that’s great. But I’m just saying why I do not.
@@blunew467 extremely annoying characters... really like who? The kid and Sarah? The film is perfectly paced, thank god it takes its time and gives the scenes/characters breathing room. You're never in a scene for too long or too little (although I think the Stego scene went on a bit) "cringeworthy dialogue" again like what? "Very" questionable scenes... yeah like what? And for the gymnastics yeah so she kicks a raptor out the window, she had an opportunity to do it, so she did.. big deal. The scene lasts like 5seconds, I would hardly add that to making the film overall suck. Ok you don't like Vince Vaughn but he plays a character in TLW, so do you not like the character he plays or is it just Vince you don't like because he is pretty cool in the movie.. has witty comments/remarks, is working undercover to sabotage Ingen, helps the baby Rex, helps save Sarah, rallies the mercenaries to move, steals Rolands shells from his Rifle.. forcing Roland to switch to Tranqs witch gets Roland to end up liking him also he is the one to go off and call for evac. That isn't Vince doing that it's the character Nick and you don't like him after all that?
I'll excuse you if you're a teenager/kid, but Jurassic World does not come close to the "great" category. Not even close. ...but it did have a park. Just not in the title funny enough.
I was raised on the first and had it memorized before age 5. I'm 28 years old, so I've definitely been on for the ride for some time, but honestly Jurassic World was insanely nostalgic and honestly everything that the 5 year old me had dreamed of in the sequels. I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt it was perfectly balanced between being related to the original and being its own ride. Maybe it was the long wait and anticipation after the third one, but I shed tears in my car after seeing JW in theaters. My childhood was validated after 14 years of waiting.
Ian Malcolm said life finds a way. Basically the point being nature can't be controlled. Fast fwd to JW: trained raptors acting like dogs. Completely against the spirit of JP.
@@SaurianStudios1207 Ironic. Also if you're going to escalate to petty name-calling over f'n Jurassic World, make sure you understand the meaning of the words you're regurgitating.
@@SaurianStudios1207 bro you're the only guy ranting on comments about world being that good. EVERYONE else here says lost world is better than Jurassic world
@@net_news Dude, the JP video game turns Grant into a badass hunter, and it's challenging, and it adds extra cool what-if levels AND you get to play as the Raptor from the start (stupid LW PSX game...) AND it has a really cool, over-the-top sequel called Rampage Edition. AND the T-Rex Roar at the SEGA screen. Can't forget about that.
I mean most islands are part of a highly active volcanic or earth quake prone fault line, that's why islands exist at all. Obviously they thought it wouldn't blow anytime soon like people thought of Mt St Helens and what we still do with Yellowstone
Jack Jack Thank you! I thought The Lost World was still pretty good. At least the characters seemed intelligent. I don't get why everyone hated it so much.
It had a dumb plot, tbh. the novel was much better. having the main characters doing stupid things/making bad decisions in order to push the plot further all while enjoying a very conveniet plot armor, is what ruined it for me.
@@Yickerd Save your money and save your time by staying the hell away from it. If you've seen The Lost World, then you know the entire plot of Fallen Kingdom (minus the Indoraptor bullshit).
Hammond tells you why Site B is even a thing in the 2nd movie it's a preserve where the animals can roam free, that and some of the 1st cloning experiments were on sorna
John Hammond dies in the Jurassic Park novel, so when Ian Malcom and crew arrive in Isla Sorna they don’t even know why Site B exists, part of the story is them figuring it out. Turns out that the dinosaur making facility at Jurassic Park was just a front for tourists to gawk at. The real genetic engineering work took place at site b. They were having trouble keeping the dinosaurs alive, they would be born seemingly heathy and normal but then die before reaching maturity and they couldn’t figure out why. In the end, out of desperation they just let them run wild on Isla sorna to mature on their own before recapturing some of them and shipping them to Jurassic Park. Ian Malcolm and the other characters discover that the dinosaurs were getting some sort of mad-cow like prion disease from the food ingen were feeding them and that’s why they kept dying.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. While I do agree that the Park was a key element and that taking it away did hurt the sequels, I think there other aspects missing that are far more important. I think probably the biggest aspect that made Jurassic Park work, not just as a dinosaur movie, but as a movie, in general, were the characters and how the theme and message of the film were expressed through those characters. John Hammond was all about progress and success at all cost. Alan Grant is the complete opposite. He is against progress, specifically technology and he also hates kids. As the film progresses, the supporting characters and the extreme situations that occur force Hammond and Grant to see the flaws in their ideologies and realize that they have to change. Hammond needs to realize that sometimes advancement and discovery are not as great as he believes them to be and he is wrong to think he can control the outcomes. Grant needs to realize that technology proves us with safety and security from the outside dangers and children are our precious future and need to be protected at all costs. The sequels have none of that character development at all. None of the characters are forced to look at themselves and come to an important catharsis. As a result, they lack the heart and emotional investment that the original had. That's not to say there wasn't potential for it. In Lost World, Ian Malcolm faces conflict on two very relatable fronts. He loves his daughter but he is absent from her life so much that she feels neglected and that he doesn't really know her. He wants to save his girlfriend from the potential dangers of the dinosaurs and yet she doesn't want to leave and points out other times in their relationship where she has needed him and he wasn't there. These flaws in his character are presented to us and yet the events of the film never really force him to look at these flaws and make a change. Instead, the film focuses on giving us one action scene after another. Jurassic Park 3 had great character potential if we look at the Kirby's. Mr. Kirby hires cons Alan Grant and a group of mercenaries in order to help find his son and the man his ex-wife is currently dating and she is also coming along for the ride. There is so much potential for character development in that and yet it's not focused on. And, Alan Grant literally has no reason to be there other than a paycheck and is given no character development at all (other than regretting some harsh things he said to Billy) Jurassic World definitely had the most potential in terms of set up, but because the characters aren't given much development, it falls short of the mark. Owen has a likable funny charm and is able to see the flaws others can't (like Ian Malcolm), a rugged look and personality, a love of dinosaurs, and a simple way of handling things (like Alan Grant), and a military/hunter tactical mind (like Muldoon). All of this makes his character very fun and entertaining, but he has no character flaws or internal conflicts than need to be resolved. Claire comes the closest to having an arc and yet she still falls short. She treats the dinosaurs like "numbers on a spreadsheet" but then she sees one of them die in front of her. It's a compelling moment, but it does nothing to serve the plot or give any indication of an important change she needs to make. She hasn't seen her nephews in years and the story puts her in a position where she has to save them, and yet (unlike Alan Grant in the original) she is given no time to actually bond with them because they are either on their own or too busy hanging out with Owen and commenting on how cool he is. Fallen Kingdom also had potential with the conflict of whether or not the dinosaurs should be saved or left to die. And yet, in the end, the choice was taken away from our main characters. Yes, I get the idea of the child being the one to make the final decision, and yet it robs our main characters of being allowed to look at their own flaws and the truth and make an important decision. The sequels all have far more action than the original and yet they don't have a fraction of the dedication to character development and only in the original do we see the themes of the story being expressed through the characters and their flaws/conflicts. As a result, the sequels can be fun to watch, but they have none the heart that the original had.
Now that’s what we should be complaining about not about this guy rightfully hating The overrated pile of garbage that is The Lost World. Peter Jackson is so good of a filmmaker and better than Steven Spielberg.
Apparently the Brachiosaurus that got swallowed up by the volcanic ash in Jurassic Pak Fallen Kingdom is the exact same we saw in the "Welcome to Jurassic Park" scene in the first movie. That's right, the first dinosaur we saw on Isla Nublar is also the last dinosaur we saw on Isla Nublar.
Dinosaurs are not going to attack cities and towns, there's a reason why Isla Sorna exists, some of the question you mention have answers that can be easily answered if you did some research on the JP franchise Why is there a second Dinosaur island ? in the end of the Jurassic Park novel The Island Isla Nublar was blown by the Costa Rica military, this event is know as the Costa Rica napalm bombing they destroyed the island to the point where no vegetation can recover it's destruction After the first Jurassic Park movie was released, Spielberg and Jurassic Park fans pressured Michael Crichton to make a second novel which is The Lost World Michael Crichton created the second Island, Isla Sorna because Isla Nublar was a wasteland after the bombing When Spielberg was working on The Lost World they film a scene of the InGen members having a meeting one of them mention that Jurassic Park and Isla Nublar being destroyed But that scene was ended up being deleted in the final film and that line is consider non-canon because Isla Nublar and the dinosaurs remind alive & well in later films until Fallen Kingdom Why couldn't they take the dinosaurs to Site B A.K.A Isla Sorna ? Well there's a disease on the island which killed half the dinosaur population & in matter of fact some of those dinosaurs in Jurassic World are from Isla Sorna they took the surviving dinosaurs to the other island for Jurassic World All of this is explained by the Jurassic Park official website and the people who work behind the film if you follow them oh and also Isla sorna is confirmed to have a volcano as well we can't just leave the dinosaurs on that island cuz it's possible Isla sorna will have interruption of its own And also there are reasons why Hammond bought an island with a volcano at first like everyone we though the volcano is dead and not active And also Hammond doesn't want to pay a whole lot of money for islands with no volcanoes even though he's wealthy Hammond has always been cheap with his money "Spare no expense" I mean in the first movie all the electricity is connected to one power source instead of each of them having their own power source And the villains in Fallen Kingdom, Greed & Corruption is one of the running theme in both Jurassic Park novels & in Michael crichton's view Corrupted or Greedy business people has always been present in the Jurassic Park films ever since the first novel In the book which is a bit different from the first Jurassic Park film if you don't know John Hammond's book counterpart was a selfish, ignorant, egotistical narcissistic man instead of a gentle Grandpa from the film series He cared about money and didn't care about his grandchildren unlike the movie counterpart and when the dinosaurs broke out he blame everyone else but himself and despite the situation he planning to make Jurassic Park in another Island despite what's happening which is dinosaurs breaking Free out of their cages killing people and not learning a thing from his own mistakes unlike his movie counterpart where he eventually dies by the same creation that he created Though they were other corrupted business people in the novels and it was about time they should be in the film and yet you people complain about it despite the fact they're in the book and isn't the point of books turning into movies is to obtain the characters & settings & all that into the film ? Remember Jurassic Park started off from 2 novels Jurassic Park and the Lost World Jurassic Park before both were turned into a film series and for us Jurassic Park fans who are aware about the novels and the events and characters and all that that happened in the books are aware about the corrupted business people in the franchise it wasn't a big deal when we first saw them in Jurassic world Fallen Kingdom cuz we knew they already existed it's no big deal at all And it's confirm if you follow the director of the Jurassic world films the dinosaurs won't be attacking towns and cities and all that they're going to stay in areas like forest / woods away from humane society Honestly people need to look up behind the scenes and follow people who work on the films like the director look up the official JP website that has Canon material and Jurassic Park TH-camrs who talk about the JP Franchise that's how we know that Isla Sorna isn't a safe place for dinosaurs.
The sad truth is that the concept for Jurassic World was promising, but very poorly executed. While I agree that the park aspect was important, I think what made the original so successful wasn’t just the park, it was the character development. The original movie doesn’t actually spend that much time with the dinosaurs, it focuses more on the people so when they are in peril, we actually care what happens to them as opposed to Jurassic World in which the characters felt very underdeveloped and fairly unlikeable, so I didn’t care if they died and sometimes, was wishing a character had been dino chow.
Exactly. Jurassic Park is just the setting - dinosaurs and chaos are just the backdrop. The plot and theme is "family". It's a story about Grant and Ellie's relationship and Grant coming around to Ellie wanting kids; it's why JP/// isn't canon, to me.
The first one also did a great job of building tension, something Jurrasic World lacked. I never felt the characters in Jurassic World were in real danger (except for the characters who were obviously written just to be killed off) ... but oh man, during the first JP, when the T-Rex busts through the sunroof of the car that Lex and Tim are in, there's a moment when you're convinced you're about to see two kids get killed.
Daniel J. Nickolas I know what you mean. One of my favorite parts of JP is how they treat the raptors. The entire movie builds them up like a villain in a horror film because even though they are presented as a genuine threat, they are hardly seen and only surface in the final act of the film, yet it doesn’t feel forced or out of place because they have been building towards this moment. It starts out with the murder at the beginning which serves two purposes, it gives a reason for our protagonists to go to the island and it sets up just how lethal these creatures are, yet the only part of the dinosaur we actually see is a closeup shot of an eye. The next time raptors are mentioned is Alan’s explanation of how deadly they are and how they hunted. We then get the baby and Alan’s concern when he learns there are grown raptors on the island. Next is the feeding scene once again solidifying their deadly nature and their intelligence. When the fences start failing, Muldoon specifically asks about the raptor fences. Later when the fences do get shut off, we see that they broke out, increasing the threat level. When Muldoon is attacked we get that callback to the first shot with the eye and finally, when Ellie and the kids start getting attacked, that is the first time we see the full scale raptors. That slow build-up and reveal is so successful that we are genuinely terrified for our cast because we have heard and seen throughout the entire film how dangerous they are and they already killed Muldoon and Arnold, so it feels quite possible that one of the other main characters could die.
Casual JP Fans need to know that the JP sequels aren't attempting to surpass Jurassic Park or trying to make you remember some iconic moments and the feeling of watching Jurassic Park for the first time That doesn't make them unoriginal by making visual references The scope has been growing and evolving: Jurassic Park: Select group discovering the dinosaurs for the first time The Lost World: The world discovers that dinosaurs exist Jurassic Park 3: Tourist and outsiders exploring the dinosaurs on their own Jurassic World: The whole world embraces the dinosaurs in their home Fallen Kingdom: The place where it all started is gone and the roles of humans and dinosaurs have reversed if all of this doesn't say "moving forward" or "taking the next step" then you need to go back and re-watch everything and this time PAY - FREAKIN' - ATTENTION the fact is that is impossible for the sequel to recreate the same feeling this is something unique to Jurassic Park why would you be impressed by the movie and it's dinosaurs in the same way twice ? The magic and Majesty of seeing dinosaurs for the first time are not the main focus of this franchise You can notice this on the characters in the sequels they only get impressed by a dinosaur when they are seeing these creatures for the first time in their lives but even so the ones that already saw dinosaurs before don't seem impressed by them anymore that's because the dinosaurs are not a novelty since the first movie beast characters are going to act and see them as they were that's pretty clear in Jurassic World where they make the Indominus Rex because the visitors are getting bored of regular dinosaurs But I don't see a reason for the characters to remember every time in a sequel about how was the first time they saw dinosaur I know it humanize them however that's not the focus the focus of this franchise is not on character is trying to survive a situation that they don't understand they understand the dinosaurs now and are trying to control them and fix the mistakes made in Jurassic Park We all know that all the attempts to regain control have gone wrong And these people don't seem to learn and leave the dinosaurs to die alone That makes a simple question why these people never freaking learn if they know that nothing is going to work in a lot of other people will die because of their decisions for me that's the same as asking why people continue to pollute the environment if they know it's not going to end well for the whole world in the future ? Don't they learn from the mistakes made in their past ? huh ? Huh ? as I said the Jurassic Park franchise is much more than people on an island trying to survive from dinosaurs they have to coexist and deal with them leading to crazy decisions that we surely don't agree Such as taking them to the mainland, creating hybrids, and militarizing them saving them for a new Extinction or selling them to greedy businessmen The focus of this franchise is on Humanity getting what it deserves for playing God with illegal genetic engineering and trying to control and defy the laws of nature for money and scientific progress Nature is striking back and the protagonist of the story are the dinosaurs the humans are only supporting characters witnessing the consequences of their actions turn into a butterfly effect of death and chaos Genetic power has been unleashed and the consequences of that are going to be catastrophic and were bound to happen since the first dinosaur was brought to life. This is the full realization from that debate scene made in the first movie and Michael Crichton's vision and ideas that weren't explored and adapted from the novels If the story focused more on human characters trying to survive than this catastrophic event the movies wouldn't work like many people say Imagine how unnecessary would it be to have another table debate to discuss what to do with the Dinosaurs of these events would happen anyway ? So what's the point they wouldn't listen to Dr. Malcolm anyway ! the franchise is doing this in a very intelligent way telling the story through visuals, dialogues and a lot of subtexts It's unfair to say that Colin Trevorrow doesn't know what he's doing while he's bringing in focusing on these elements and turning them into new stories this guy is the one responsible for people getting interest in the franchise again and for the creation of fresh content to the canon The characters learning from their mistakes are not the point of the story if it was there wouldn't be new things and we wouldn't see the humans finally getting what they deserve These movies weren't made to be pieces of screenwriting art they were made to tell the story that many fans wanted if you're watching this movie waiting for them to be straight up classic slide the first one or Cinema masterpieces you are wasting your money and your time these movies are not for you the sequels may have their mistakes but Jurassic Park is not a flawless masterpiece like many say don't get me wrong Jurassic Park is my favorite movie of all time and I consider it as a masterpiece but not a fawless one you'd be impressed if you knew that Jurassic Park got more mixed than positive reviews in 1993 with critics praising the special effects and Steven Spielberg's direction while criticizing the characters and the story saying that didn't make much sense and was Mediocre if compared to Michael crichton's novel most of these high scores from sites like rotten tomatoes came only after the re release in 2013 Showing that the movie age pretty well I guess in the case of the Jurassic Park franchise proper acknowledgement comes through time it happened to the first Jurassic Park and it's happening to the Lost World and I hope it happens to Jurassic World especially Fallen Kingdom and I hope that people learn that a movie doesn't need to be like it's predecessor to be good when it can honor its roots in their own way.
Great job Mike! I'm v impressed with the jump in production values - that retrospective must've taken ages to make! Lovely to hear you talk about something you absolutely adore.
i dont mean to be offtopic but does anybody know of a way to get back into an Instagram account..? I somehow forgot the login password. I appreciate any tips you can give me.
@Jamari Julius Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and Im in the hacking process atm. Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Jamari Julius HOLY **** IT REALLY WORKED! Literally hacked my Instagram account within ~ 30 mins of using the site. Just had to pay 15 $ but for sure worth the money :) Thanks so much you saved my ass!
Jurassic World is no where near as good as The Lost World, so I think that sort of dismantles your argument. I think The Lost World actually is a good film (though not nearly as good as the first) but it's so much better than Jurassic World. I say the series ends with Crichton, and together, the two movies work pretty well. JP3 and on ruins it.
Jurrassic Park was brilliant and from there the Jurassic films went down the toilet faster and faster as Hollywood became more desperate to squeeze money our childhood memories
That's an interesting take on the franchise you got there. It is agreed that the "magic" of the first Jurassic Park is not replicated in other movies because after the first one, dinosaurs were no longer this mysterious thing to neither us the audience nor the characters in story. Jurassic Park is very relatable as you said because everyone is experience it for the first time and that's very difficult to replicate with returning characters, and later when dinosaurs became public knowledge with over 10 years of exposure till boredom. For the sequels, the whole "discovery" thing is over. Now it's getting used to them being alive and dangerous. Kind of like how Resident Evil games evolved over the years. The characters went from weak and panicking over every monster they see, to them just "dealing with it" like it's another day at the office without raising an eyebrow. It's the natural evolution for these kind of stories. Jurassic Park can't bring back the park forever. We can't have "Something goes wrong in the park" plot again and again because then it'll be stale and not interesting. Fallen Kingdom knew just that and went the step beyond of combining the worlds of man and dinosaurs.
That is probably why they changed the "Park" in the name to "World", so that there wouldn't be a constantly stale connotation with a place that doesn't even play a part in what happens. It's kinda genius, actually.
Both Jurassic Park and the Land Before Time were from Spielberg. No wonder they are so good. But so was We're Back... I was eight or so when I saw that one, and I loved it back then. Can't remember much of it now though.
They do work. It’s just a matter of did they work for you. Jurassic Park is better than all the sequels for me yes, BUT I still enjoy the sequels for continuing the world. And not all fall far below the original for me. Bring on the 7th movie!
I've said it before, I'll say it again, one reason the sequels cannot match the original is that the original wasn't an action movie per se, it was a horror movie. And it was very stunning because people had NEVER BEFORE seen visuals that realistic and amazing. Beforehand, dinosaurs had been stop motion animated, and were often portrayed as slow and lumbering. Jurassic Park portrayed them much more realistically, also portraying them with intelligence and agility. The Raptors were especially terrifying. Now, the public is conditioned to such dinosaurs. Pulling off that scare factor is much more difficult (although not to say that the sequels couldn't be much better quality IMO). It is sort of like Saving Private Ryan---when that first came out, and the D-Day scene opens up with the whole boat getting shot up, and first-time viewers were like, OH. MY. GOD. because that kind of realistic portrayal of war and combat had never before been shown on screen. Now it is pretty standard fare. Family television today can consist of watching an episode of "The Walking Dead" where Rick tears the throat out of a guy with his own mouth :D :D
In my opinion, I think Jurassic Park would work for Jurassic World sequel. Everything been throughout just memorable. Include the sequels that don't fit the lost world jurassic park and jurassic park 3. That what doesn't work for me. Because it is not the same island besides with dinosaurs. No wonder why how far for this story to continue. That is the reason why when it feels weak. So, yeah!
Jurassic Park showed us cloning dinosaurs was a cool idea to try and make money. The sequels just showed us idiots wanted to do the same thing but better and don't seem to realize that if it didn't work the first time what makes you think it will work the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th. Dinosaurs had their time let them stay dead.
I don't see how anyone can say Jurassic World was anywhere close to the 2nd best of the JP movies. Aside from all the original movie Easter eggs thrown in (and yes, a functioning park) the whole thing sucked massively. The characters, plot, interactions, and even some of the deaths were all horrible. You say that you can only make so many dino-island movies, you're correct, but you can only make so many dino-park movies too. Especially when the dinos keep destroying the park. 1. Jurassic Park 2. Lost World 3-4 JP3/Jurassic World 5. Fallen Kingdom TBH I don't even consider the last 2 JW movies part of the original trilogy because they are so bad.
Up vote if Brush Brush still low key haunts your nightmares and also you never learned what the FUCK that was all about. Only 90's kids remember the library VHS horror. =p
I find myself agreeing with some points yet disagreeing with others. A good watch nonetheless. However, though someone has probably already mentioned this, I recommend rewatching jp: the lost world as many of the points against it were actually answered by Hammond when he summons Malcolm. The question also becomes, how many films in a dinosaur park where chaos ensues can you actually make without repeating itself?
The lost world is a perfect movie, It may not be better than jurassic park, but its a beautiful movie and scared me as a kid. I never understood and don't want to understand what people hate so much about the lost world.
I will say as someone who read the novels and loved them. That the only two good movies out of them is Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park: Lost World...if you want to get technical if they followed the original novel most the characters in what they do and how the movie progressed would have changed and Hammond himself would have died off, Genarro and Muldoon would have lived as well, and the ending would have ended with a good setup for a sequel as well. Oh and the characters in the lost world movie are actually somewhat present in the first novel as Dr. Harding is a vet on the island that tends to Malcom. Anyways I just see the first two movies as the best and then it getting progressively worse from there
I recently reread both of Crichton’s JP books and it’s pretty clear that someone offered Crichton a lot of money for him to write a sequel. Malcolm and Hammond both died in the first book and he had to jump through some hoops to close some plot holes. Still, JP is one of those movies that is better than the book it was based on.
The first movie had a constant sense of thrill without being cheesy or predictable, and the dialogue was much more sophisticated than in the latter movies. Also the build-up of the original film from safe to unsafe was something special. That said, I still enjoy the second movie "Lost World", it's a lot of fun to watch.
My only comment is about 4:30 to 4:45 why they had the embryos and everything on both islands. If you've read the books they explain. Isla sorna was a massive production facility that allowed isla nublar to have it's flawless appearance. The embryos on site are simply due to cooperative research between the islands. Also it could have been a backup because again in the book we learn about Isla sorna having issues with prions. Although the novels and movies differ from each other in this instance the novels a can provide an explanation for the movie.
Again at 7 min the fencing never went down on isla sorna in the lost world originally the animals were only juvenile and they roed openly around the island having the work areas be what has fencing. After the collapse of ingen the island was just left as is. There are no real "paddocks" for the animals.
So why they're bad? you just spend 13 minuts saying nostalgic things about the original and cannot surpass that. This is another video that cannot surpass the idea on why the original is the best. wow... how... groundbreaking. Undoubtly the original is excellent... And? I love every movie because they're very different. As Mills said in JWFK "You can't put it back in the box" the franchise is constantly moving forward. The excecution of the story might not be of the liking of everybody, granted, but it IS moving forward. Jurassic is about the constant ambition of man trying to control every change around him, not just nature but their own human nature to be "the master of all" q.e.d. God. because of this hubris humanity is looking to their own demise. Is not like Hammond said "Oh dinosaurs might escape, better not build the park then" Is because the stupid decisions why the dinosaurs are now on the mailand. But that decisions came first from our own humanity. Lockwood trust Mills, Claire trust on his idea and owen trust to keep Blue on his side, that trust was betrayed and now they're paying the consecuences, So... try to see this films on what they are: about moving forward, try not to dwell in the past.
Well said, someone that at least understands fallen kingdom and can enjoy it, and not just tear it apart just because its different. I'm really looking forward to jurassic world 3.
I think you're forgetting a key element. You focus on the fact that there's no park or science in the sequels, but consider the science aspect and the role it plays in the film and you then quickly realize that it's the moral conflict and debate - so key to the first film - that is missing. The lunch scene, one of the most engaging and thoughtful scenes in the original, is the only scene like it in the entire franchise. It hammers home the overarching theme of the story. It presents a discussion that is applicable to the real world. The sequels are just there to entertain, with no semblance of a moral dilemma or the posing of a question to the audience. You could argue that the issue of animal soldiers in Jurassic World does this, but that idea is too ridiculous to hold the weight that this "whether we could or should" problem does.
Not really. On it's own it's a painfully average Will Ferrell movie and as an adaptation of the television series its a goddamn insult to its source material
I think the big irony here is that the theme park was just a throwaway plot for Michael Crichton to have a reason for humans being chased around by dinosaurs.
Right?!? I loved it too as a kid and now lol. Was never aware for any of the hate towards the other movies. Ignorance is bliss with the annoying internet honestly.
@@ANT96-x8d who knows? People just piggyback opinions and thoughts from others and bitch and fight over inaccurate dinosaurs in a science fiction adventure fantasy. All Ik is all the movies are generally great and entertaining with the exception of fallen kingdom because I haven't seen that one. Also yeah this should be a franchise but the one that's upcoming should be the last one since it's gonna have the 3 original people back on board and it's a nice way of capping the whole thing off with them.
No something I don't like the most problem in Jurassic Park 3 was talking movie velociraptor in the plane and the kid watching Barney the Dinosaur that's why is look bad
Well actually I kinda like it when the spinosaurus killed the T-Rex in Jurassic Park 3 mainly because it makes you think if something big enough was capable of killing a tyrannosaur then you know you’re in real danger
@@SaurianStudios1207 What an insightful and worthwhile comment. And here *I* thought it was his grandma's opinion. You're definitely a useful and respectful commentor on here and not just running around this comment section transparently swearing at and pissing on people who disagree with your opinion on Jurassic World while dressing it up under the guise of "shut the fuck up because opinion".
Yeah, saying Jurassic World is hovering around "Great" :25 seconds into the video, "Do you want me to question your judgement from the very beginning?"
My problem with virtually all the jurassic Park sequels is any lack of depth or intelligence. It's like the movies intentionally want to dumb down and be Roland Emmerich movies except it doesn't have the pull or action to be one. The writing in them is almost always awful. The villains were cardboard cut outs, rich and greedy capitalists. The heroes were stereotypes, boring and unrelateable.
I've never been so disappointed in a movie as I was with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. A two hour teaser for the third movie with some of the worst writing I've ever seen.
The original Jurassic Park isn’t even the same genre as the sequels. It was a sci fi story and it tried to present the dinosaurs as animals. The other ones are monster movies like King Kong.
I enjoyed ur view... what's ur thoughts on camp cretaceous n battle at big rock? I'm actually excited to see what JW3 has to offer. Yes it's not gonna be a park, but at least they're bringing something different to the table
4:21. Yeah, as fond as I am of TLW I will concede they should've had Hammond explain why he felt separating the theme park & breeding facility was necessary. It's always been my personal head canon that InGen took the two island approach because if something happened to Nublar then they'd have Sorna to fall back on. Which, we do see in the film via Peter Ludlow raiding the local dino population in order to save the company from bankruptcy.
It's explained a *little* better in the Lost World novel, beyond Hammond's "Nublar was the showroom, Sorna was the assembly line" summary in the film. Sorna was the "dirty little secret" of the park, the place where the less pleasant aspects of dinosaur creation were done outside the view of the park visitors. On Nublar, one was shown the process of dinosaur cloning in a "CPR" (Clean, Pretty, Reliable) setting, making it seem like everything went off with little to no problems. Sorna was were all the "refinements" seen on Nublar actually happened, hiding away all the failed hatchings, misshapen embyros, and any other horrors that went on during the process. Plus, if InGen wanted to perform, say, some "questionable" experiments on their dinosaurs, a second island the public wasn't aware of would be a perfect setting for such tests...
Lost me once you started singing praises of Jurassic World because it's set...in a park? Far inferior to Lost World imo. The argument for a park setting just doesn't work for me. By that logic Avatar and Pandora wouldn't work, nor would much of sci-fi. Jurassic Park worked not only because of its effective use of setting, but its strong focus on character, respect for the dinosaurs, score, etc, etc; aspects that both JW and JW:FK fell flat on its face trying to re-capture.
@SpyengoEen Yep. and despite the park being grander and covering more of the island, it felt strangely small, what with the fast travelling, ridiculous chance encounters between characters and the I Rex, and hideous overuse of CGI.
0:51 I remember seeing Carnosaur at the video rental store back when JP was also on the shelfs. I wasn't dumb enough to rent it even though I was at a prime age of 13.
I loved Jurassic park 2, the parts that stuck closest to the books. Honestly, would love a complete remake as true to the novels as possible. 2 Season on Netflix.
Once he said that, I knew I was in for a good time. That film is fantastic, to say the least. I essentially grew up on it and could never tire of seeing it.
The OG Jurassic Park is a beautiful timeless classic. No matter how many times you watch it, it feels like the first time! I love it! Jurassic Park 2&3 could have definitely been better if there was a couple changes, here & there. I still enjoy them, tho. I really like the idea JP3 had with a rescue mission, but I would have loved it more as a survival movie. If you think about it, How did Eric Kirby even survive for 6 or 8 weeks on his own on a dinosaur island? That could have been awesome! Jurassic World.......(deep inhale).........Those movies are like fan fictions, to put it nicely...... It had the idea, but couldn't execute! I would have loved to explore the park more, if the main characters had better development (and Claire getting eaten - I freaking hate that character). JW2 was HORRIBLE! I was able to predict the whole movie as soon as the trailers came out! I wanted to re-write both JW movies! Here's a link, (because I know someone will ask): www.quotev.com/story/10810935/I-Love-Movies/12
I agree with jurassic world 2 fallen Kingdom. Like it was a meh movie for me. I liked it but then the fact that they made a new Dino that is even weaker than I-rex it ruined it for me. A lot of things in It didn't make sense. Now released the dinos in the world for a 3rd movie sucks. It's gonna be a action movie with dinos battling each other for war purposes.i just hope they don't go that route with the war between dinos. It should be a survival of humans instead of battling.
Rewatching the hunting scene from "The Lost World" reminded me of how out of place I found the situation from the beginning. The hunting party appears to be thrown into action without any consideration or strategy at all.
‘The rest of the movies are missing the “Park” in Jurassic Park’ If I use the same logic for Jurassic World, the ending of Fallen Kingdom and the upcoming World movie are the closest to having “World” in the name. All I hear is that the movies have to have complete correlation to every word of the title, even if it’s a sequal and trying to expand.
Meh, you miss the mark entirely, it's not the lack of 'science', or a park that hurts the sequels, it's to much more basic fact that those movies have terrible plots. In 2, nearly all of the deaths are attributable to the _so called_ heroes, and in both, most of the cast are irredeemably stupid for much of the movies. It's not that that they're bad sequels, it's that they're bad movies period. As to the switch to Isla Sorna, it makes perfect sense to have a backup park, though the book reason for the switch (the Costa Rican Air Force burning the island with napalm) is absent, so it is a valid question.
I just watched another video explaining how the original JP used a taller aspect ratio.
I came from the same video, I think.
lauren thomas yo so did I!!!
@@Yickerd Me too, lol
"why Jurassic park looks better than it's sequels"
What an awesome, well made vidoe
Me too. And it made sense. I really liked that explaination better
My issues with the new movies are that the dinosaurs act like sentient monsters instead of animals. In the first movie the acted like how real animals would act but these new ones just hunt and hunt without stopping even if they are not hungry
The animatronic dinosaurs in Jurassic Park look like real animals that are really in the scene with the actors. The dinosaurs in Jurassic World just look like computer generated images on a screen, they have no weight to them.
The movie even literally stated this point, that they're animals that can't be controlled.
In the novel the raptors were pure evil. Cunning killing machines
The hybrids are the ones who act like murderous monsters, and the regular dinos still act like animals.
The Lost World is criminally underrated. It still has some very memorable characters, intense action sequences, the best special effects until Fallen Kingdom 20 years later, a masterful score that perfectly captures the new safari feel, and some outstanding cinematography. Certainly not perfect but not nearly as bad as everyone says. Pete Postlethwaite was amazing as Roland and deserves more credit.
Same as the others except for Jurassic Park three that was bad
Lost World was probably the second best Jurassic movie, better than Jurassic world in my opinion.
yeah lost world is pretty good i dont see why ppl seem to think its shit
Probably because grant wasnt in it. I found goldblums character annoying in the first one so I can see why it's overlooked . It sucks that the cool hunter dude never came back. It would have been badass if he had saved Grant and killed the spino, and tea leonis character.
- "Hey you!" *12 years old girl kicks a raptor off a window*
- Freeing a bunch of dinosaurs from captivity which sets up chaos at camp, resulting in multiple people getting killed.
- Picking an injured baby T-Rex and taking it to the only trailer the main characters have, resulting in the trailer being pushed off the cliff by the angry T-Rex parents.
- Taking out the bullets from Pete Postlesthwaite's rifle so he can't shoot down the T-Rex that is about to kill many people in San Diego.
I can go on and on... there are appaerntly lots of dumb moments in that movie.
@@uri0606 that was dumb, but TLW is still number two.
@@friendssmoking Because it's a mediocre film with several silly moments and a very bad final act?
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is sooo good for a Jurassic Park sequel. It actually ehem continues the story and treats the dinos with respect
@DVJFan it was still better than jurassic world. The issue with jurassic world just like many of the sequels and remakes that we get for old movies is they think bigger is better. The title of the movie even gives that away "world" vs "park." The lost world sucked but at least there was still some good elements to it. Jurassic world just sucks.
@DVJFan Yeah, it was. But at least it knew what it wanted. the travesty that is the World-spinoffs have no effing clue. Jurassic World 1 is a garbage fire that has meta humor, torture porn, family drama, military stupidity, annoying brats, science fantasy etc and can't make those work. It also has the possibly dumbest quote in the history of cinema. "People are tired of dinosaurs!"-Fucking really? FUCKING REALLY MOVIE? Well I'm glad that people don't like zoos and shit then so we'd need to make better fucking tigers. The asshole who wrote that line should be flogged. Jurassic World 2 has a severe case of the Slasher's, and some Umbrella Corp inspired baloney. Like both of those movies are far, far worse than Lost world or even JP 3.
Yess
I think the same
I still like Jurassic world better than 2 and 3
The first sequel is called
The Lost World!
The title of Jurassic Park is the subjects letting you know it's the same universe it's not about the park.
Yes John Hammond explain why the dinosaurs were lose in the 2nd movie.
You obviously didn't do much research because in the book and the first movie they had knowledge the volcano and say they run on geothermal power that's why they built it on a volcano they use it for energy.
He needed to find things to support his narrative not to do actual research.
I can definitely see both camps. I enjoy all the movies, and there’s nothing wrong with having a fun time with a dumb action flic, but I think the main point he’s trying to make is Jurassic Park is TIMELESS because if its attention to detail, careful camerawork, and shot composition.
While a bombastic action blockbuster can indeed be exciting, it can feel a bit tired cause we lack an emotional connection to the characters. Many movies feel the need to do everything bigger, louder, funnier; so we end up with stock character thay don’t feel real, or situations that are so alien to us we can’t project ourselves into the scene. Suspension of disbelief works best when there is something to anchor us to what we’re seeing.
Sometimes less is more.
“ ‘The Land Before Time’ was the first Hollywood animated movie to feature dinosaurs.”
Walt Disney’s ‘Fantasia’: Do I mean nothing to you?
1914's Gertie The Dinosaur?
That one was sick!!!
@@sumatrasumatra9336 That's not a movie, that's fucking history
It also helps that the first movie went out of its way to present the dinosaurs as accurately as possible based on the science of the time (there's a few exceptions, but there's logical reasons for them. IE they Dilophosaur was made smaller to avoid confusion with the T. rex, and added the frill to set it apart from the raptors). However the subsequent films abandoned that. I mean in Jurassic World you have a pterosaur carrying an adult woman who outweighs it by AT LEAST 80lbs.
It pissed me off more that Zara got a full thirty seconds devoted to getting brutalized and vored by the dinosaurs yet the military prick that basically caused the whole thing died offscreen with a wimpy scream and a pissy squirt of blood
"We're Back" in the bad category? Are you high and if so, can I have some?
I found Jurassic World to be pretty meh myself, I liked the Lost World much better
I agree the lost world actually was more appealing than Jurassic world. It was just exciting and made sense. They wanted to bring the Dinos to a zoo in San diego.
Agreed. It was not good not bad. Just a meh.
I respectfully disagree, i take JW over All the sequels anyday
You're right it was. Can't believe this guy praises the joke that was Jurassic World. I suggest klayton fioriti's channel if you want someone who actually knows what he's talking about when it comes to JP.
@@ArticalWolf Well it's just a movie, his thoughts are a subjective opinion, he's not really wrong, he just feels differently.
sorry the only thing i don"t agree on is The lost world. it may not be in a park but way better for me at lease then Jurassic world.
Yes i think it has that moral inocence and respect for the animals.
And cool scenes like that fall scene folowed by the glass scene . Even the theme song is second best
They both suck.
I literally just commented the same thing. Is this guy on drugs? For all it’s faults, Lost World is a solid movie.
@@TheJarman9hey it's his opinion how would you like it if I insulted you for having your opinion
@@blunew467 that's your opinion
"Jurassic World, the second best movie in the Jurassic Park saga" hahaha that was a good joke
Well which one do you think is second best?
Jurassic world was actually pretty good, so jokes on you. Haters are gonna hate
@@twoplustwoskin7084 The Lost World
@@SaurianStudios1207 Jurassic World was a children's movie. Kids riding on dinosaurs, trained raptors and that stupid ending with the fucking raptor and t rex teaming up to take down the "bad dinosaur" lol. If you like it then that's perfectly fine but I personally hated it. It didn't have the same thrill as the first two movies.
@@SaurianStudios1207 Jurassic World wasn't bad. It wasn't great, but it wasn't _bad_ - a little better than JP///, I'd say. Nowhere near JP or TLW levels of quality, but still a good time. It was definitely campy and a lot more family-friendly than its predecessors, but it did maintain some of the horror elements of the genre and it's enjoyable to watch overall.
Aw, I liked “We’re Back” it’s a cute feel good movie.
I remember being so mad when the cute girl had to prick her finger to sign that contract. XD I had a big crush on the girl from Ferngully, too.
That’s true I liked we’re back also.
Disney's Dinosaur a bad movie? Is this a joke?
He called Jurassic World the second best Jurassic Park movie. I certainly won't take this man seriously.
The Good Dinosaur is a great movie too.
@@theproducertm Tbh, that's when I zoned out too. >.> (And Disney's Dinosaur should def at least be sitting at the low end of mediocre, even by my cynical asses standards.)
That was the first movie i ever saw. I know its not great but James Newton Howards score is fucking amazing.
I still have one of those hand puppets of the purple dinosaur's head that I got from... McDonald's? Burger King? Somewhere. Disney's Dinosaur is great - this guy has zero credibility.
I don't care what anyone says, Jaurassic Park 2 and 3 were pretty damn good. I think those two movies came closest to touching the magic of the first JP
Both of them were nominated for a Razzie for Worst Sequel so whatever man.
The Lost World is a fuckin brilliant movie, how some people don't like it I'll never know. Love JP3 as well. I love that it's a self contained plot with Alan Grant... Hello. Trying to survive on Site B. It's just like hey you like dinosaurs and Alan Grant, well here you go have fun. Yes, yes I will thank you.
@@jedi196 “how some people don’t like it I’ll never know”
-Extremely annoying unlikable characters
-Slowly paced at times
-Cringeworthy dialogue and writing
-Very questionable scenes like gymnastics part
-And worst of all; Vince Vaughn, yuck
Look I hate the movie but If you like it, that’s fine, I just personally don’t understand why but again that’s just my take, If you like the lost world then that’s great. But I’m just saying why I do not.
@@blunew467 extremely annoying characters... really like who? The kid and Sarah? The film is perfectly paced, thank god it takes its time and gives the scenes/characters breathing room. You're never in a scene for too long or too little (although I think the Stego scene went on a bit) "cringeworthy dialogue" again like what? "Very" questionable scenes... yeah like what? And for the gymnastics yeah so she kicks a raptor out the window, she had an opportunity to do it, so she did.. big deal. The scene lasts like 5seconds, I would hardly add that to making the film overall suck. Ok you don't like Vince Vaughn but he plays a character in TLW, so do you not like the character he plays or is it just Vince you don't like because he is pretty cool in the movie.. has witty comments/remarks, is working undercover to sabotage Ingen, helps the baby Rex, helps save Sarah, rallies the mercenaries to move, steals Rolands shells from his Rifle.. forcing Roland to switch to Tranqs witch gets Roland to end up liking him also he is the one to go off and call for evac. That isn't Vince doing that it's the character Nick and you don't like him after all that?
@@blunew467 you're being very vague for someone that "hates" the movie.
I'll excuse you if you're a teenager/kid, but Jurassic World does not come close to the "great" category. Not even close.
...but it did have a park. Just not in the title funny enough.
I was raised on the first and had it memorized before age 5. I'm 28 years old, so I've definitely been on for the ride for some time, but honestly Jurassic World was insanely nostalgic and honestly everything that the 5 year old me had dreamed of in the sequels. I thoroughly enjoyed it and felt it was perfectly balanced between being related to the original and being its own ride. Maybe it was the long wait and anticipation after the third one, but I shed tears in my car after seeing JW in theaters. My childhood was validated after 14 years of waiting.
@Frost just like you, you fucking dumbass who cant respect other people's opinions.
Yes it does. It’s great.
Hurricane Clarissa knocked out the facilities on Isla Sorna in The Lost World according to John Hammond.
The Lost World is infinitely better than Jurassic World.
Geert van der Plas agreed
Exactly, Jurassic World was dumb. It doesn't work. Without Dr Grant and Ian Malcome I don't want to see any new sequels.
Yeah while in Jurassic World there was that cool "park is opened" concept. The story was by far the dumbest out of all 5 movies imo
Totally agree. JW is garbage
Ian Malcolm said life finds a way. Basically the point being nature can't be controlled. Fast fwd to JW: trained raptors acting like dogs. Completely against the spirit of JP.
Jesus. You really think World is even half as good as Lost World? Come on.
And youre a fucking nihilistic hater who doesn't respect other people's opinions.
@@SaurianStudios1207 Bro, you're the one up here swearing in the comments at this dudes reasonably incredulous and mild af reaction to an opinion.
@@SaurianStudios1207 Ironic. Also if you're going to escalate to petty name-calling over f'n Jurassic World, make sure you understand the meaning of the words you're regurgitating.
It definitely is. And Jesus’s name isn’t an exclamation.
@@SaurianStudios1207 bro you're the only guy ranting on comments about world being that good. EVERYONE else here says lost world is better than Jurassic world
The lost world is a million times better than Jurassic world 😡
Yeah what the hell. Lost world beats Jurassic World in a long shot.
even the JP Genesis videogame is better than Jurassic World... stupid unnecessary movie.
Jurassic world was actually pretty good, so jokes on you.
I would agree if it didn't have Sarah and Nick, those two were so annoying and stupid, it nearly ruined the movie.
@@net_news Dude, the JP video game turns Grant into a badass hunter, and it's challenging, and it adds extra cool what-if levels AND you get to play as the Raptor from the start (stupid LW PSX game...) AND it has a really cool, over-the-top sequel called Rampage Edition. AND the T-Rex Roar at the SEGA screen. Can't forget about that.
I mean most islands are part of a highly active volcanic or earth quake prone fault line, that's why islands exist at all. Obviously they thought it wouldn't blow anytime soon like people thought of Mt St Helens and what we still do with Yellowstone
The Lost World (first sequel) was great, almost just as good as the first. But that's where I leave off.
Yep
I really liked them all, I have t seen fallen kingdom but I thought the four of them were great.
Jack Jack Thank you! I thought The Lost World was still pretty good. At least the characters seemed intelligent. I don't get why everyone hated it so much.
It had a dumb plot, tbh. the novel was much better. having the main characters doing stupid things/making bad decisions in order to push the plot further all while enjoying a very conveniet plot armor, is what ruined it for me.
@@Yickerd Save your money and save your time by staying the hell away from it. If you've seen The Lost World, then you know the entire plot of Fallen Kingdom (minus the Indoraptor bullshit).
Hammond tells you why Site B is even a thing in the 2nd movie
it's a preserve where the animals can roam free, that and some of the 1st cloning experiments were on sorna
John Hammond dies in the Jurassic Park novel, so when Ian Malcom and crew arrive in Isla Sorna they don’t even know why Site B exists, part of the story is them figuring it out.
Turns out that the dinosaur making facility at Jurassic Park was just a front for tourists to gawk at. The real genetic engineering work took place at site b. They were having trouble keeping the dinosaurs alive, they would be born seemingly heathy and normal but then die before reaching maturity and they couldn’t figure out why. In the end, out of desperation they just let them run wild on Isla sorna to mature on their own before recapturing some of them and shipping them to Jurassic Park.
Ian Malcolm and the other characters discover that the dinosaurs were getting some sort of mad-cow like prion disease from the food ingen were feeding them and that’s why they kept dying.
Respectfully, I have to disagree. While I do agree that the Park was a key element and that taking it away did hurt the sequels, I think there other aspects missing that are far more important.
I think probably the biggest aspect that made Jurassic Park work, not just as a dinosaur movie, but as a movie, in general, were the characters and how the theme and message of the film were expressed through those characters.
John Hammond was all about progress and success at all cost. Alan Grant is the complete opposite. He is against progress, specifically technology and he also hates kids. As the film progresses, the supporting characters and the extreme situations that occur force Hammond and Grant to see the flaws in their ideologies and realize that they have to change. Hammond needs to realize that sometimes advancement and discovery are not as great as he believes them to be and he is wrong to think he can control the outcomes. Grant needs to realize that technology proves us with safety and security from the outside dangers and children are our precious future and need to be protected at all costs.
The sequels have none of that character development at all. None of the characters are forced to look at themselves and come to an important catharsis. As a result, they lack the heart and emotional investment that the original had.
That's not to say there wasn't potential for it.
In Lost World, Ian Malcolm faces conflict on two very relatable fronts. He loves his daughter but he is absent from her life so much that she feels neglected and that he doesn't really know her. He wants to save his girlfriend from the potential dangers of the dinosaurs and yet she doesn't want to leave and points out other times in their relationship where she has needed him and he wasn't there. These flaws in his character are presented to us and yet the events of the film never really force him to look at these flaws and make a change. Instead, the film focuses on giving us one action scene after another.
Jurassic Park 3 had great character potential if we look at the Kirby's. Mr. Kirby hires cons Alan Grant and a group of mercenaries in order to help find his son and the man his ex-wife is currently dating and she is also coming along for the ride. There is so much potential for character development in that and yet it's not focused on. And, Alan Grant literally has no reason to be there other than a paycheck and is given no character development at all (other than regretting some harsh things he said to Billy)
Jurassic World definitely had the most potential in terms of set up, but because the characters aren't given much development, it falls short of the mark. Owen has a likable funny charm and is able to see the flaws others can't (like Ian Malcolm), a rugged look and personality, a love of dinosaurs, and a simple way of handling things (like Alan Grant), and a military/hunter tactical mind (like Muldoon). All of this makes his character very fun and entertaining, but he has no character flaws or internal conflicts than need to be resolved. Claire comes the closest to having an arc and yet she still falls short. She treats the dinosaurs like "numbers on a spreadsheet" but then she sees one of them die in front of her. It's a compelling moment, but it does nothing to serve the plot or give any indication of an important change she needs to make. She hasn't seen her nephews in years and the story puts her in a position where she has to save them, and yet (unlike Alan Grant in the original) she is given no time to actually bond with them because they are either on their own or too busy hanging out with Owen and commenting on how cool he is.
Fallen Kingdom also had potential with the conflict of whether or not the dinosaurs should be saved or left to die. And yet, in the end, the choice was taken away from our main characters. Yes, I get the idea of the child being the one to make the final decision, and yet it robs our main characters of being allowed to look at their own flaws and the truth and make an important decision.
The sequels all have far more action than the original and yet they don't have a fraction of the dedication to character development and only in the original do we see the themes of the story being expressed through the characters and their flaws/conflicts. As a result, the sequels can be fun to watch, but they have none the heart that the original had.
Whoah, why in the hell is King Kong (2005) being placed in the "mediocre" section. That movie was phenomenal.
Because he made a YT video with his opinion and we're supposed to accept it, I guess ?
Better than the new Godzilla movies and better than the new kong movies as well imo
Now that’s what we should be complaining about not about this guy rightfully hating The overrated pile of garbage that is The Lost World. Peter Jackson is so good of a filmmaker and better than Steven Spielberg.
@@blunew467 You are so butthurt. Both movies are masterpieces and for your information… without Steven Spielberg there would be no STRANGER THINGS
@@blunew467Peter Jackson is good. But Steven Spielberg is equally if not more good. But there are multiple essays done on why lost world is good.
Apparently the Brachiosaurus that got swallowed up by the volcanic ash in Jurassic Pak Fallen Kingdom is the exact same we saw in the "Welcome to Jurassic Park" scene in the first movie. That's right, the first dinosaur we saw on Isla Nublar is also the last dinosaur we saw on Isla Nublar.
Wow...and I thought the Trex neck snap in jp3 was a kick to the balls.
It was a fantastic scene, whatever else you think of the movie
The colours are different.
The first one is reddish in colour.
The new one is grey.
Dinosaurs are not going to attack cities and towns, there's a reason why Isla Sorna exists, some of the question you mention have answers that can be easily answered if you did some research on the JP franchise
Why is there a second Dinosaur island ?
in the end of the Jurassic Park novel The Island
Isla Nublar
was blown by the Costa Rica military, this event is know as the Costa Rica napalm bombing
they destroyed the island to the point where no vegetation can recover it's destruction
After the first Jurassic Park movie was released, Spielberg and Jurassic Park fans pressured Michael Crichton to make a second novel which is The Lost World
Michael Crichton created the second Island, Isla Sorna because Isla Nublar was a wasteland after the bombing
When Spielberg was working on The Lost World they film a scene of the InGen members having a meeting one of them mention that Jurassic Park and Isla Nublar being destroyed
But that scene was ended up being deleted in the final film and that line is consider non-canon because Isla Nublar and the dinosaurs remind alive & well in later films until Fallen Kingdom
Why couldn't they take the dinosaurs to Site B
A.K.A
Isla Sorna ?
Well there's a disease on the island which killed half the dinosaur population & in matter of fact some of those dinosaurs in Jurassic World are from Isla Sorna they took the surviving dinosaurs to the other island for Jurassic World
All of this is explained by the Jurassic Park official website and the people who work behind the film if you follow them
oh and also Isla sorna is confirmed to have a volcano as well we can't just leave the dinosaurs on that island cuz it's possible Isla sorna will have interruption of its own
And also there are reasons why Hammond bought an island with a volcano at first like everyone we though the volcano is dead and not active
And also Hammond doesn't want to pay a whole lot of money for islands with no volcanoes even though he's wealthy
Hammond has always been cheap with his money
"Spare no expense"
I mean in the first movie all the electricity is connected to one power source instead of each of them having their own power source
And the villains in Fallen Kingdom,
Greed & Corruption is one of the running theme in both Jurassic Park novels & in Michael crichton's view
Corrupted or Greedy business people has always been present in the Jurassic Park films ever since the first novel
In the book which is a bit different from the first Jurassic Park film
if you don't know John Hammond's book counterpart was a selfish, ignorant, egotistical narcissistic man instead of a gentle Grandpa from the film series
He cared about money and didn't care about his grandchildren unlike the movie counterpart and when the dinosaurs broke out he blame everyone else but himself and despite the situation he planning to make Jurassic Park in another Island despite what's happening which is dinosaurs breaking Free out of their cages killing people and not learning a thing from his own mistakes unlike his movie counterpart where he eventually dies by the same creation that he created
Though they were other corrupted business people in the novels and it was about time they should be in the film and yet you people complain about it despite the fact they're in the book and isn't the point of books turning into movies is to obtain the characters & settings & all that into the film ?
Remember Jurassic Park started off from 2 novels Jurassic Park and the Lost World Jurassic Park before both were turned into a film series
and for us Jurassic Park fans who are aware about the novels and the events and characters and all that that happened in the books are aware about the corrupted business people in the franchise it wasn't a big deal when we first saw them in Jurassic world Fallen Kingdom cuz we knew they already existed it's no big deal at all
And it's confirm if you follow the director of the Jurassic world films the dinosaurs won't be attacking towns and cities and all that they're going to stay in areas like forest / woods away from humane society
Honestly people need to look up behind the scenes and follow people who work on the films like the director look up the official JP website that has Canon material and Jurassic Park TH-camrs who talk about the JP Franchise
that's how we know that Isla Sorna isn't a safe place for dinosaurs.
"Peter Jackson's King Kong is mediocre." So you have chosen death.
The sad truth is that the concept for Jurassic World was promising, but very poorly executed.
While I agree that the park aspect was important, I think what made the original so successful wasn’t just the park, it was the character development. The original movie doesn’t actually spend that much time with the dinosaurs, it focuses more on the people so when they are in peril, we actually care what happens to them as opposed to Jurassic World in which the characters felt very underdeveloped and fairly unlikeable, so I didn’t care if they died and sometimes, was wishing a character had been dino chow.
Exactly. Jurassic Park is just the setting - dinosaurs and chaos are just the backdrop. The plot and theme is "family". It's a story about Grant and Ellie's relationship and Grant coming around to Ellie wanting kids; it's why JP/// isn't canon, to me.
They made the characters feel human and real.
The first one also did a great job of building tension, something Jurrasic World lacked. I never felt the characters in Jurassic World were in real danger (except for the characters who were obviously written just to be killed off) ...
but oh man, during the first JP, when the T-Rex busts through the sunroof of the car that Lex and Tim are in, there's a moment when you're convinced you're about to see two kids get killed.
Daniel J. Nickolas I know what you mean. One of my favorite parts of JP is how they treat the raptors. The entire movie builds them up like a villain in a horror film because even though they are presented as a genuine threat, they are hardly seen and only surface in the final act of the film, yet it doesn’t feel forced or out of place because they have been building towards this moment. It starts out with the murder at the beginning which serves two purposes, it gives a reason for our protagonists to go to the island and it sets up just how lethal these creatures are, yet the only part of the dinosaur we actually see is a closeup shot of an eye. The next time raptors are mentioned is Alan’s explanation of how deadly they are and how they hunted. We then get the baby and Alan’s concern when he learns there are grown raptors on the island. Next is the feeding scene once again solidifying their deadly nature and their intelligence. When the fences start failing, Muldoon specifically asks about the raptor fences. Later when the fences do get shut off, we see that they broke out, increasing the threat level. When Muldoon is attacked we get that callback to the first shot with the eye and finally, when Ellie and the kids start getting attacked, that is the first time we see the full scale raptors. That slow build-up and reveal is so successful that we are genuinely terrified for our cast because we have heard and seen throughout the entire film how dangerous they are and they already killed Muldoon and Arnold, so it feels quite possible that one of the other main characters could die.
It was well executed.
Casual JP Fans need to know that the JP sequels aren't attempting to surpass Jurassic Park or trying to make you remember some iconic moments and the feeling of watching Jurassic Park for the first time
That doesn't make them unoriginal by making visual references
The scope has been growing and evolving:
Jurassic Park: Select group discovering the dinosaurs for the first time
The Lost World: The world discovers that dinosaurs exist
Jurassic Park 3: Tourist and outsiders exploring the dinosaurs on their own
Jurassic World: The whole world embraces the dinosaurs in their home
Fallen Kingdom: The place where it all started is gone and the roles of humans and dinosaurs have reversed
if all of this doesn't say "moving forward" or "taking the next step" then you need to go back and re-watch everything and this time
PAY - FREAKIN' - ATTENTION
the fact is that is impossible for the sequel to recreate the same feeling this is something unique to Jurassic Park
why would you be impressed by the movie and it's dinosaurs in the same way twice ?
The magic and Majesty of seeing dinosaurs for the first time are not the main focus of this franchise
You can notice this on the characters
in the sequels they only get impressed by a dinosaur when they are seeing these creatures for the first time in their lives
but even so the ones that already saw dinosaurs before don't seem impressed by them anymore
that's because the dinosaurs are not a novelty since the first movie beast characters are going to act and see them as they were
that's pretty clear in Jurassic World where they make the Indominus Rex because the visitors are getting bored of regular dinosaurs
But I don't see a reason for the characters to remember every time in a sequel about how was the first time they saw dinosaur
I know it humanize them however that's not the focus
the focus of this franchise is not on character is trying to survive a situation that they don't understand
they understand the dinosaurs now and are trying to control them and fix the mistakes made in Jurassic Park
We all know that all the attempts to regain control have gone wrong
And these people don't seem to learn and leave the dinosaurs to die alone
That makes a simple question why these people never freaking learn if they know that nothing is going to work in a lot of other people will die because of their decisions for me that's the same as asking why people continue to pollute the environment if they know it's not going to end well for the whole world in the future ?
Don't they learn from the mistakes made in their past ? huh ? Huh ?
as I said the Jurassic Park franchise is much more than people on an island trying to survive from dinosaurs
they have to coexist and deal with them leading to crazy decisions that we surely don't agree
Such as taking them to the mainland, creating hybrids, and militarizing them
saving them for a new Extinction or selling them to greedy businessmen
The focus of this franchise is on Humanity getting what it deserves for playing God with illegal genetic engineering and trying to control and defy the laws of nature for money and scientific progress
Nature is striking back and the protagonist of the story are the dinosaurs
the humans are only supporting characters witnessing the consequences of their actions turn into a butterfly effect of death and chaos
Genetic power has been unleashed and the consequences of that are going to be catastrophic and were bound to happen since the first dinosaur was brought to life.
This is the full realization from that debate scene made in the first movie and Michael Crichton's vision and ideas that weren't explored and adapted from the novels
If the story focused more on human characters trying to survive than this catastrophic event the movies wouldn't work like many people say
Imagine how unnecessary would it be to have another table debate to discuss what to do with the Dinosaurs of these events would happen anyway ?
So what's the point they wouldn't listen to Dr. Malcolm anyway !
the franchise is doing this in a very intelligent way telling the story through visuals, dialogues and a lot of subtexts
It's unfair to say that Colin Trevorrow doesn't know what he's doing while he's bringing in focusing on these elements and turning them into new stories
this guy is the one responsible for people getting interest in the franchise again and for the creation of fresh content to the canon
The characters learning from their mistakes are not the point of the story
if it was there wouldn't be new things and we wouldn't see the humans finally getting what they deserve
These movies weren't made to be pieces of screenwriting art
they were made to tell the story that many fans wanted if you're watching this movie waiting for them to be straight up classic slide the first one or Cinema masterpieces you are wasting your money and your time these movies are not for you
the sequels may have their mistakes but Jurassic Park is not a flawless masterpiece like many say don't get me wrong Jurassic Park is my favorite movie of all time and I consider it as a masterpiece but not a fawless one
you'd be impressed if you knew that Jurassic Park got more mixed than positive reviews in 1993 with critics praising the special effects and Steven Spielberg's direction while criticizing the characters and the story
saying that didn't make much sense and was Mediocre if compared to Michael crichton's novel
most of these high scores from sites like rotten tomatoes came only after the re release in 2013
Showing that the movie age pretty well I guess in the case of the Jurassic Park franchise proper acknowledgement comes through time
it happened to the first Jurassic Park and it's happening to the Lost World and I hope it happens to Jurassic World especially Fallen Kingdom and I hope that people learn that a movie doesn't need to be like it's predecessor to be good when it can honor its roots in their own way.
SUPER GAMER XD a.k.a Zabuza wow! You must be quite the fan!
Great job Mike! I'm v impressed with the jump in production values - that retrospective must've taken ages to make! Lovely to hear you talk about something you absolutely adore.
Just rewatched the Hobbit trilogy because of you guys! If you fast forward through the really terrible parts, the movies are not half bad :p
i dont mean to be offtopic but does anybody know of a way to get back into an Instagram account..?
I somehow forgot the login password. I appreciate any tips you can give me.
@Elisha Shawn instablaster =)
@Jamari Julius Thanks for your reply. I got to the site through google and Im in the hacking process atm.
Seems to take quite some time so I will reply here later with my results.
@Jamari Julius HOLY **** IT REALLY WORKED! Literally hacked my Instagram account within ~ 30 mins of using the site.
Just had to pay 15 $ but for sure worth the money :)
Thanks so much you saved my ass!
Jurassic World is no where near as good as The Lost World, so I think that sort of dismantles your argument. I think The Lost World actually is a good film (though not nearly as good as the first) but it's so much better than Jurassic World. I say the series ends with Crichton, and together, the two movies work pretty well. JP3 and on ruins it.
Jurassic park 3 I feel is very good but I agree that the first is by far the best of all of the 5 Jurassic park movies
I can't believe I found someone who thinks Jurassic Park 3 is "very good."
I'd say it's okay - like, Iron Man 3 levels of okay - but it's not great.
I'll admit that I've run out of things to say for today and just leave this here to appease the TH-cam algorithm.
You can never run out of things to say, Gimli son of Gloin.
If this reviewer was ever in a dinosaur movie he be the first one eaten.
the fact I got an ad for an upcoming 2021 jurassic park while watching this...sure is something
Jurrassic Park was brilliant and from there the Jurassic films went down the toilet faster and faster as Hollywood became more desperate to squeeze money our childhood memories
That's an interesting take on the franchise you got there. It is agreed that the "magic" of the first Jurassic Park is not replicated in other movies because after the first one, dinosaurs were no longer this mysterious thing to neither us the audience nor the characters in story. Jurassic Park is very relatable as you said because everyone is experience it for the first time and that's very difficult to replicate with returning characters, and later when dinosaurs became public knowledge with over 10 years of exposure till boredom. For the sequels, the whole "discovery" thing is over. Now it's getting used to them being alive and dangerous.
Kind of like how Resident Evil games evolved over the years. The characters went from weak and panicking over every monster they see, to them just "dealing with it" like it's another day at the office without raising an eyebrow. It's the natural evolution for these kind of stories.
Jurassic Park can't bring back the park forever. We can't have "Something goes wrong in the park" plot again and again because then it'll be stale and not interesting. Fallen Kingdom knew just that and went the step beyond of combining the worlds of man and dinosaurs.
That is probably why they changed the "Park" in the name to "World", so that there wouldn't be a constantly stale connotation with a place that doesn't even play a part in what happens. It's kinda genius, actually.
Both Jurassic Park and the Land Before Time were from Spielberg. No wonder they are so good.
But so was We're Back... I was eight or so when I saw that one, and I loved it back then. Can't remember much of it now though.
They do work. It’s just a matter of did they work for you. Jurassic Park is better than all the sequels for me yes, BUT I still enjoy the sequels for continuing the world. And not all fall far below the original for me. Bring on the 7th movie!
Have you done any videos on Back to the Future Trilogy?
at 8:57 is that Ariana Richards from the first movie making a cameo?? It looks EXACTLY like her now
*see's Disney's Dinosaur being a bad Dinosaurs movie*
Me: Excuse me... WHAT?!
I've said it before, I'll say it again, one reason the sequels cannot match the original is that the original wasn't an action movie per se, it was a horror movie. And it was very stunning because people had NEVER BEFORE seen visuals that realistic and amazing. Beforehand, dinosaurs had been stop motion animated, and were often portrayed as slow and lumbering. Jurassic Park portrayed them much more realistically, also portraying them with intelligence and agility. The Raptors were especially terrifying.
Now, the public is conditioned to such dinosaurs. Pulling off that scare factor is much more difficult (although not to say that the sequels couldn't be much better quality IMO). It is sort of like Saving Private Ryan---when that first came out, and the D-Day scene opens up with the whole boat getting shot up, and first-time viewers were like, OH. MY. GOD. because that kind of realistic portrayal of war and combat had never before been shown on screen. Now it is pretty standard fare.
Family television today can consist of watching an episode of "The Walking Dead" where Rick tears the throat out of a guy with his own mouth :D :D
The park in the Lost World was more of a National Park like the Kruger National Park instead of a Zoo like in the first one.
In my opinion, I think Jurassic Park would work for Jurassic World sequel. Everything been throughout just memorable. Include the sequels that don't fit the lost world jurassic park and jurassic park 3. That what doesn't work for me. Because it is not the same island besides with dinosaurs. No wonder why how far for this story to continue. That is the reason why when it feels weak. So, yeah!
This pretty much sums up how I felt about those movies.
Jurassic Park showed us cloning dinosaurs was a cool idea to try and make money. The sequels just showed us idiots wanted to do the same thing but better and don't seem to realize that if it didn't work the first time what makes you think it will work the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th. Dinosaurs had their time let them stay dead.
I don't see how anyone can say Jurassic World was anywhere close to the 2nd best of the JP movies. Aside from all the original movie Easter eggs thrown in (and yes, a functioning park) the whole thing sucked massively. The characters, plot, interactions, and even some of the deaths were all horrible.
You say that you can only make so many dino-island movies, you're correct, but you can only make so many dino-park movies too. Especially when the dinos keep destroying the park.
1. Jurassic Park
2. Lost World
3-4 JP3/Jurassic World
5. Fallen Kingdom
TBH I don't even consider the last 2 JW movies part of the original trilogy because they are so bad.
*Land before time is my childhood* 😢
Up vote if Brush Brush still low key haunts your nightmares and also you never learned what the FUCK that was all about. Only 90's kids remember the library VHS horror. =p
I find myself agreeing with some points yet disagreeing with others. A good watch nonetheless.
However, though someone has probably already mentioned this, I recommend rewatching jp: the lost world as many of the points against it were actually answered by Hammond when he summons Malcolm.
The question also becomes, how many films in a dinosaur park where chaos ensues can you actually make without repeating itself?
The lost world is a perfect movie, It may not be better than jurassic park, but its a beautiful movie and scared me as a kid. I never understood and don't want to understand what people hate so much about the lost world.
I will say as someone who read the novels and loved them. That the only two good movies out of them is Jurassic Park and Jurassic Park: Lost World...if you want to get technical if they followed the original novel most the characters in what they do and how the movie progressed would have changed and Hammond himself would have died off, Genarro and Muldoon would have lived as well, and the ending would have ended with a good setup for a sequel as well. Oh and the characters in the lost world movie are actually somewhat present in the first novel as Dr. Harding is a vet on the island that tends to Malcom. Anyways I just see the first two movies as the best and then it getting progressively worse from there
And the few good elements present in Jurassic Park 3 are those taken from Crichton’s novels that weren’t used in the first two movies.
I recently reread both of Crichton’s JP books and it’s pretty clear that someone offered Crichton a lot of money for him to write a sequel. Malcolm and Hammond both died in the first book and he had to jump through some hoops to close some plot holes. Still, JP is one of those movies that is better than the book it was based on.
the lost world is miles ahead of the trash that jurassic world is.
I don't know if it's an actual good movie, but I love ”The land that time forgot.”
Loved this video. A spot on summary I’d have to say!
The first movie had a constant sense of thrill without being cheesy or predictable, and the dialogue was much more sophisticated than in the latter movies. Also the build-up of the original film from safe to unsafe was something special. That said, I still enjoy the second movie "Lost World", it's a lot of fun to watch.
my biggest issue with JP2 was the San Diego part that made no sense to me ... I liked the book for the movie alot better
What didn't make sense about it?
My only comment is about 4:30 to 4:45 why they had the embryos and everything on both islands. If you've read the books they explain. Isla sorna was a massive production facility that allowed isla nublar to have it's flawless appearance. The embryos on site are simply due to cooperative research between the islands. Also it could have been a backup because again in the book we learn about Isla sorna having issues with prions. Although the novels and movies differ from each other in this instance the novels a can provide an explanation for the movie.
Again at 7 min the fencing never went down on isla sorna in the lost world originally the animals were only juvenile and they roed openly around the island having the work areas be what has fencing. After the collapse of ingen the island was just left as is. There are no real "paddocks" for the animals.
So why they're bad? you just spend 13 minuts saying nostalgic things about the original and cannot surpass that. This is another video that cannot surpass the idea on why the original is the best. wow... how... groundbreaking. Undoubtly the original is excellent... And? I love every movie because they're very different. As Mills said in JWFK "You can't put it back in the box" the franchise is constantly moving forward. The excecution of the story might not be of the liking of everybody, granted, but it IS moving forward. Jurassic is about the constant ambition of man trying to control every change around him, not just nature but their own human nature to be "the master of all" q.e.d. God. because of this hubris humanity is looking to their own demise. Is not like Hammond said "Oh dinosaurs might escape, better not build the park then" Is because the stupid decisions why the dinosaurs are now on the mailand. But that decisions came first from our own humanity. Lockwood trust Mills, Claire trust on his idea and owen trust to keep Blue on his side, that trust was betrayed and now they're paying the consecuences, So... try to see this films on what they are: about moving forward, try not to dwell in the past.
Well said, someone that at least understands fallen kingdom and can enjoy it, and not just tear it apart just because its different. I'm really looking forward to jurassic world 3.
Someone who gets it, couldn't have said it better myself.
Reboots would be awful dinosaur movies
Fun Fact:Planet of the dinosaurs 🦖 is a real thing it came out in 1978 1 year after Star Wars
_And there is a clue in the title of the movie_
Jur-ASS-ic Park?
😂
Fallen Kingdom turned Jurassic Park into Resident Evil.
What an insult to Resident Evil. What did the series every do to you? >3>
@@valkyrie-randgris Well, I do mean the movie series, which, at closer inspection, seems less obvious than I thought.
@@valkyrie-randgris The Resident Evil movies were an insult to Resident Evil.
I once got chashed by a mountain lion in a park in south london before , i threw it my wallet and it ran off into the trees
BiG Al Probably spent the money in it on hot cougars
@@ksoundkaiju9256 I'd be lion if I said that didn't make me laugh.
I think you're forgetting a key element. You focus on the fact that there's no park or science in the sequels, but consider the science aspect and the role it plays in the film and you then quickly realize that it's the moral conflict and debate - so key to the first film - that is missing. The lunch scene, one of the most engaging and thoughtful scenes in the original, is the only scene like it in the entire franchise. It hammers home the overarching theme of the story. It presents a discussion that is applicable to the real world.
The sequels are just there to entertain, with no semblance of a moral dilemma or the posing of a question to the audience. You could argue that the issue of animal soldiers in Jurassic World does this, but that idea is too ridiculous to hold the weight that this "whether we could or should" problem does.
6:55 Hammond says Hurricane Clarissa wiped out the facility on Site B, meaning that the animals were free to roam without borders to keep them in.
Dude, the land of the lost(the movie) is a great movie. It's hilarious.
Not really. On it's own it's a painfully average Will Ferrell movie and as an adaptation of the television series its a goddamn insult to its source material
By all means feel free to dislike the movie, some of us are just to enjoy the ride. Meanwhile, MATT LAUER CAN SUCK IT!
I think the big irony here is that the theme park was just a throwaway plot for Michael Crichton to have a reason for humans being chased around by dinosaurs.
yep, this guy doesn't know what hes talking about
@@Linnnaeus I feel for the vid maker
I loved Jurassic park 3 I thought it was great as a kid
Right?!? I loved it too as a kid and now lol. Was never aware for any of the hate towards the other movies. Ignorance is bliss with the annoying internet honestly.
What I don’t understand is why some say that Jurassic Park should’ve only been a one hit wonder with no sequels or franchise.
@@ANT96-x8d who knows? People just piggyback opinions and thoughts from others and bitch and fight over inaccurate dinosaurs in a science fiction adventure fantasy. All Ik is all the movies are generally great and entertaining with the exception of fallen kingdom because I haven't seen that one. Also yeah this should be a franchise but the one that's upcoming should be the last one since it's gonna have the 3 original people back on board and it's a nice way of capping the whole thing off with them.
of course you did you were a kid
No something I don't like the most problem in Jurassic Park 3 was talking movie velociraptor in the plane and the kid watching Barney the Dinosaur that's why is look bad
Well actually I kinda like it when the spinosaurus killed the T-Rex in Jurassic Park 3 mainly because it makes you think if something big enough was capable of killing a tyrannosaur then you know you’re in real danger
I can’t believe you think highly of #4. It was cliched, cruel and childish.
It's his opinion buddy.
@@SaurianStudios1207 What an insightful and worthwhile comment. And here *I* thought it was his grandma's opinion. You're definitely a useful and respectful commentor on here and not just running around this comment section transparently swearing at and pissing on people who disagree with your opinion on Jurassic World while dressing it up under the guise of "shut the fuck up because opinion".
KaijusaurusG2K well his opinion is hot ass
i like We're back the dinosaur story and 2005 king kong(after they get to the island that is)
Jurassic World better than Lost World??? What’re you smokin’, dude???
Today there's to much CGI and not enough fantasy in the film industry. Technique alone makes a movie not a masterpiece.
Lost me when you said Jurassic World was good.
Yeah, saying Jurassic World is hovering around "Great" :25 seconds into the video, "Do you want me to question your judgement from the very beginning?"
My problem with virtually all the jurassic Park sequels is any lack of depth or intelligence. It's like the movies intentionally want to dumb down and be Roland Emmerich movies except it doesn't have the pull or action to be one. The writing in them is almost always awful. The villains were cardboard cut outs, rich and greedy capitalists. The heroes were stereotypes, boring and unrelateable.
I've never been so disappointed in a movie as I was with Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. A two hour teaser for the third movie with some of the worst writing I've ever seen.
The 1925 lost world is a masterpiece dude c'mon. That movie was like what when it came out.
Dinosaur by Disney was also massively underrated
I agree Jurassic Park is the best but I don't think Jurassic World is second best. It's one of the worst.
Wrong, Fallen Kingdom makes all the other sequels look like masterpieces.
The original Jurassic Park isn’t even the same genre as the sequels. It was a sci fi story and it tried to present the dinosaurs as animals. The other ones are monster movies like King Kong.
That's actually a very succinct way of explaining it. It stands out because it is different.
I'll defend The Good Dinosaur until the day I die. Underrated gem.
I enjoyed ur view... what's ur thoughts on camp cretaceous n battle at big rock? I'm actually excited to see what JW3 has to offer. Yes it's not gonna be a park, but at least they're bringing something different to the table
Jurassic world is one of the biggest pieces of hot trash. Also peter Jackson’s King Kong was pretty damn good. Are you drunk?
4:21. Yeah, as fond as I am of TLW I will concede they should've had Hammond explain why he felt separating the theme park & breeding facility was necessary. It's always been my personal head canon that InGen took the two island approach because if something happened to Nublar then they'd have Sorna to fall back on. Which, we do see in the film via Peter Ludlow raiding the local dino population in order to save the company from bankruptcy.
It's explained a *little* better in the Lost World novel, beyond Hammond's "Nublar was the showroom, Sorna was the assembly line" summary in the film. Sorna was the "dirty little secret" of the park, the place where the less pleasant aspects of dinosaur creation were done outside the view of the park visitors. On Nublar, one was shown the process of dinosaur cloning in a "CPR" (Clean, Pretty, Reliable) setting, making it seem like everything went off with little to no problems. Sorna was were all the "refinements" seen on Nublar actually happened, hiding away all the failed hatchings, misshapen embyros, and any other horrors that went on during the process.
Plus, if InGen wanted to perform, say, some "questionable" experiments on their dinosaurs, a second island the public wasn't aware of would be a perfect setting for such tests...
Lost me once you started singing praises of Jurassic World because it's set...in a park? Far inferior to Lost World imo.
The argument for a park setting just doesn't work for me. By that logic Avatar and Pandora wouldn't work, nor would much of sci-fi. Jurassic Park worked not only because of its effective use of setting, but its strong focus on character, respect for the dinosaurs, score, etc, etc; aspects that both JW and JW:FK fell flat on its face trying to re-capture.
@SpyengoEen Yep. and despite the park being grander and covering more of the island, it felt strangely small, what with the fast travelling, ridiculous chance encounters between characters and the I Rex, and hideous overuse of CGI.
0:51 I remember seeing Carnosaur at the video rental store back when JP was also on the shelfs. I wasn't dumb enough to rent it even though I was at a prime age of 13.
I loved Jurassic park 2, the parts that stuck closest to the books. Honestly, would love a complete remake as true to the novels as possible. 2 Season on Netflix.
My problem in The Lost World Jurassic Park I don't like the most is t rex killed the poor dog is bad sequel 🐶
@@beyondlegacy6132 yeah that isn't in the books.
Would you count Godzilla as a dinosaur movie? If you how would you classify the first Godzilla?
We're back is a great movie forget your bad pile mang!
That’s true, I love We’re back.
Nonsense, Disney's Dinosaur is incredibly underrated and the only Jurassic film I'd genuinely say is completely shitty would be Fallen Kingdom.
Lost World will always be my personal favorite
And 2005 King Kong mediocre? That movie is a masterpiece of cinema.
Absolutely. This video is mediocre lol
Once he said that, I knew I was in for a good time.
That film is fantastic, to say the least. I essentially grew up on it and could never tire of seeing it.
Enjoying the new channel! Keep up the good work!
Shut up I love All Jurassic sequels and I love Disney's Dinosaur
6:28 Jurassic Park 6 seems to finally be addressing this it looks like they're going to have Dodgson back from biosyn
The OG Jurassic Park is a beautiful timeless classic. No matter how many times you watch it, it feels like the first time! I love it!
Jurassic Park 2&3 could have definitely been better if there was a couple changes, here & there. I still enjoy them, tho. I really like the idea JP3 had with a rescue mission, but I would have loved it more as a survival movie. If you think about it, How did Eric Kirby even survive for 6 or 8 weeks on his own on a dinosaur island? That could have been awesome!
Jurassic World.......(deep inhale).........Those movies are like fan fictions, to put it nicely...... It had the idea, but couldn't execute! I would have loved to explore the park more, if the main characters had better development (and Claire getting eaten - I freaking hate that character). JW2 was HORRIBLE! I was able to predict the whole movie as soon as the trailers came out!
I wanted to re-write both JW movies!
Here's a link, (because I know someone will ask): www.quotev.com/story/10810935/I-Love-Movies/12
I agree with jurassic world 2 fallen Kingdom. Like it was a meh movie for me.
I liked it but then the fact that they made a new Dino that is even weaker than I-rex it ruined it for me.
A lot of things in It didn't make sense. Now released the dinos in the world for a 3rd movie sucks. It's gonna be a action movie with dinos battling each other for war purposes.i just hope they don't go that route with the war between dinos.
It should be a survival of humans instead of battling.
Give it ~20 years and the new movies will be regarded as great, same thing happened with the first 2
Thank you for your work! I subbed to your new channel before watching this first vid from here! Best of luck!
Rewatching the hunting scene from "The Lost World" reminded me of how out of place I found the situation from the beginning. The hunting party appears to be thrown into action without any consideration or strategy at all.
‘The rest of the movies are missing the “Park” in Jurassic Park’
If I use the same logic for Jurassic World, the ending of Fallen Kingdom and the upcoming World movie are the closest to having “World” in the name.
All I hear is that the movies have to have complete correlation to every word of the title, even if it’s a sequal and trying to expand.
Meh, you miss the mark entirely, it's not the lack of 'science', or a park that hurts the sequels, it's to much more basic fact that those movies have terrible plots. In 2, nearly all of the deaths are attributable to the _so called_ heroes, and in both, most of the cast are irredeemably stupid for much of the movies. It's not that that they're bad sequels, it's that they're bad movies period.
As to the switch to Isla Sorna, it makes perfect sense to have a backup park, though the book reason for the switch (the Costa Rican Air Force burning the island with napalm) is absent, so it is a valid question.