The Jurassic World films are MASTERPIECES next to the Star Wars Sequels. I would watch the Jurassic movies 1000x over, rather than watch Force Awakens even once.
The original only had 15 minutes of dinosaurs on screen. The t-rex only appeared at exactly the midpoint of the movie, to the second. Meaning it wasn’t just dinosaurs that made the first movie great. It was so many things, and the dinosaurs were just the icing.
ok its good they dont do that anymore in the world movies because the characters now are so shit that itd be even more of a bad time if they focused more on them.
Yeah a less is more approach is absolutely more memorable. Same with lightsabers, and how there are too damn many of them now (especially in Episode II)
There are endless essays on the internet explaining this. Bottom line: Dinosaurs were never the focus of Jurassic Park. It is a story about people within a setting that includes dinosaurs. No other director has ever understood this. They made dinosaurs the focus of the movie which is just not right.
There was an innocence in the first movie. Even though they knew that dinosaurs would be dangerous, the awe overtakes that. Every movie after is predictable. You knew something would go wrong and then the Dinos would start killing people off and then leave the end open for another. What killed it for me was bringing the military into it. Now it’s about the black market and underground trade, human clones, and weaponizing the Dinos. It’s taken such a turn that it’s too far off for me.
@@MrAgentTurner for them to keep it about Dino’s. Why does it have to be muddled with government and war? I agree with a lot who said that JP 3 should have been from Eric’s point of view and how he survived and what he went through. Instead of them coming to save him. Just a different angle like that. More creative.
Not really. If you know human history, that’s exactly how it would have turned out. If it exists, it was smuggled, weaponized, or stolen. Also, the whole series is about cloning. Where do you think the dinos came from? Human cloning was the next logical step aside from other extinct species, or even cavemen and early humans.
And wrong. If anything Jurassic World brings those questions back and expands upon them. Wu's conversation with Massrani is proof enough of that. Human greed and hubris is what created the Indomius Rex.
@@Webshooters1 agreed. I also don’t think “dominance” is right either, not for Owen. Cooperation with and respect of other living beings on this planet, is how I see Owen’s interactions with Blu. It’s befriending the wild, living in and with. Characters like Wu and Vic are the ones seeking power and dominance.
@@francinesmith1889 Finally, someone who doesn't act like Jurassic World didn't bring anything new to the franchise. Owen repeated countless times that his raptors will not hesitate to pounce if they see weakness or easy prey and they remember who treated them with respect versus just an object. Owen sought co-existence and respect. It was Wu and Hoskins who wanted dominance.
Wildly disagree. Yes, the VILLAINS believe power rests in dominance, but that's the case in all the Jurassic movies. If you think we're supposed to empathize with those characters, you're watching it wrong.
Horror is a genre that doesn't lend itself well to sequels. What makes the first installment fun is the characters slowly discovering the threat and them frantically figuring out how to deal with said threat. The sequels falter because once you know that the threat exists and how to deal with it, there's no danger, no fear, no horror.
I think the only way it would work is by twisting elements of the first to change our perception of the original. A good example is Alien and Aliens, alien is a haunted house in space with a threat unlike anything of its time and instilled a feeling of dread and nihilism. The sequel flips this on its head by exploring an element of the alien that was not only unseen but probably unpredictable at the time. And further instills dread because this isn’t a one off thing but this is a threat that is possibly everywhere and has possibly killed countless millions or billions. The horror goes from being a physical horror to one that is both physical and psychological.
@@Sci-Fi_Freak_YT I think of Aliens as being more of an action-thriller movie, which was a good pivot for the series to make. I think horror series need to do more of that. Stranger things is another good example of a successful horror series, since they use different monsters but from the same setting. So it's still a true sequel but the threat is new and the characters need to figure out how to stop it. Horror series need to follow the Aliens path of switching genres or the Stranger Things path of switching threats.
You know what the problem is? Directors suck, they have no vision. Did the lotr trilogy suck? No. Did harry potter suck? No. It’s the damn incapability of todays directors and the whole team- they have stupid ideas and alot of money.
@@paradiseb5950 I don't remember who made this point, but older media seems better than new media because we have forgotten all the bad media in the good old days. When we look back on the 2010s and 2020s, we'll remember only the great movies and series and forget the bad ones, and we'll have the same conversation then as we are now about media in the 2040s and 2050s.
As a series goes on, the villain tends to get more screen time and sympathy. Probably the worst example of this is Micheal Meyers in the Rob Zombie Halloween movies.
To me, every sequel to the original Jurassic Park has this sort of vibe that’s like the characters are saying “Sure, someone did this in the past and it led to numerous deaths and unimaginable catastrophe, causing the entire operation to be shut down without a fleeting hope of it ever working… but what if we tried it again?”
This is why I stopped watching after the first JW movie. If they haven't learned by now that it's a bad idea then idk what they're doing. I'm rooting for the dinosaurs now.
They need more catchy lines that stick in the pop culture lexicon…like “life a..a.., finds a way”. No one remembers any catchy lines from any of the sequels..nothing! Not..”shoot her!” or “must move faster”…nothing🤷🏻♂️
For me the two biggest problems with the sequels are: 1) The constant need to put children in the story just to add tension which is annoying because we know the writers aren't brave enough to actually kill them off. So we're stuck with a number of repetitive action scenes of kids being chased by dinosaurs, with the writers coming up with more and more unrealistic ways of them getting away (i.e. gymnastics kid). 2) Each sequel tries to come up with ways of having larger and larger numbers of dinosaurs roaming around but the only way they do it is by making the humans dumber and dumber to allow it. In the last movie, when they set all of the dinosaurs free to go live in the wilderness because they didn't have the heart to gas them all, I rolled my eyes so badly they almost fell out of my head. For a film franchise about science, there aren't too many intelligent characters left in the series.
1. I agree, though I'd say the biggest issue is that children are never going to be as good at acting as great adult actors, who they can afford to hire. Even as a child, I never liked those characters. I assume the idea is children want someone to relate to, but I always wanted to see an adult star I would dream about growing up to be, not the annoying kid that I was.
@@soraceant bro, not every movie has to be an emotional roller coaster with an oscar-worthy performance and a score that could win a Grammy. The Jurrasic World series has been great. As for the 2 movies after the original. *stashes them away
the gymnastics kid of number two was never that big of a problem to me, because at the beginning they talk about her gymnastics performance, where she mentions that she quit the team. So it didn't come out of nowhere. But otherwise, good points.
Um, Eddie Carr wasn't a bad guy. Ray Arnold wasn't a bad guy. The park worker who was attacked at the beginning of Juassic Park wasn't a bad guy. The little girl at the beginning of The Lost World wasn't a villain. Many 'Good Guys' get chomped by the dinosaurs in this franchise.
@@jmdnelson4891 He talks about Jurassic World. Well the Babysitter dies a horrible death here. But that one is kinda confusing because it is the most horrible death in the whole franchise. And other than that only bad guys get eaten.
I feel like the later movies just kind of lost respect for dinosaurs, which is why the first one works so well. You spend a LOT of time seeing characters being in awe of and really, truly excited to be around dinosaurs, there's a genuine love for them in that. I think that connects to the part in all of us that went through that "dinosaurs are AWESOME" phase when we were younger. A lot of us grew out of it but we remember that feeling. The first movie captured that beautifully, and then it showed you the reality of what it would be like if they were still around. The movies after that, they feel like generic monster movies. You could replace the various dinosaurs with any generic monster and the movie would be exactly the same.
Yes, this, in the video game: Jurassic world evolution 2 one of the loading screen phrases says (or what I can translate myself since I have the game in Spanish) “deextinction was a marvel 20 years ago, now kids see the stegosaurus as their average zoo elephants”
You know what, this is actually very on point. This is what separates the original from the rest of the sequels. The sequels treated the dinosaurs like a monster of the week, like a creature feature. Some of my favorite parts in the original movie are the scenes where the paleontologists see their favorite dinosaurs for the first time ever. They’re in complete shock and awe, almost to the point where they’re in tears, the same reaction and respect I would probably have to seeing these magnificent beasts.
One thing nobody has mentioned is the color. Look at how bright the original movie is. The brightness and color elicits wonder and joy and warm feelings. The sequels are so dark which is a pattern I'm seeing in many of today's sequels and reboots. I know the reason they do this is to hide ugly CGI and save budget, but they have a lot of exposition scenes that are unnecessarily dark. When two people are just sitting and spouting exposition, it doesn't have to be that dark.
The first film also works because of the isolation. There are limited people pushed into limited space, completely cut off from a civilization with no idea of where they were or even that where they were existed. It’s a spectacle of wonder turned low-key survival horror (written in part by Crichton himself; the man had a mastery of tight, tense storytelling.) Allowing the dinosaurs to leave the island creates issues that the movies, especially the World trilogy, pretends not to see. Putting a park on the island immediately invites oversight. The idea that a large scale disaster happens on that island without it immediately being not just abandoned but utterly firebombed is kind of laughable. Introducing the creatures to the wider world with no plan is a plot hole you can drive a tanker through. You lose the tension of isolation, and you shrug at the real implications, and the result is a trilogy of films with no story. Stuff just happens.
Not necessarily. The Lost World book was very good. Not quite as good as the original, but it would have made a great movie. I feel confident saying that because what was easily the most tense and exciting scene in the movie, the Rexes pushing the trailers over the cliff, was the only scene that actually was adapted from the book.
@@davidlundquist1979 Lost World the movie was also great, just not as much as the original. The audience (along with Ian) are the cautious veterans who have already been through the events of the first movie, and are seeing more clueless people be captivated by the dinosaurs, knowing the bliss will turn into horror. tldr; the Lost world move was great, for a different reason than the original.
@@davidlundquist1979 If they made the JP movies based on the books then it would be rated M and they would lose a shit ton of money and I bet you that Jurassic Park wouldn't be as popular as it is today.
@@biosyn-ab4261 They'd be rated R, definitely, but I can't imagine what in the story would bump that up to an M. There's no sexual content, drug use, or anything like that. The MPAA is incredibly lenient with ratings when it comes to violence alone.
Also, when JP was released, the message was very clearly stated by Goldblume's character, as a matter of ethics. Should something be done just because it could? At the time, genetic cloning was a few years off, and the ethical considerations were still being debated. The original movie pretty clearly showed that answer was no. In fact, after watching it, I had a tough time sleeping because of the weight of possible real life outcomes (Not reemergence of dinosaurs, but of many other things). Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep and absence of nightmares in real life, it's impossible to drum up that emotional punch with sequels that aren't asking any new questions.
Jurassic Park treated dinosaurs with the same awe and respect that Steve Irwin would treat crocodiles that he found in the Outback, whereas all subsequent films (especially the new franchise) treat dinosaurs how a lion tamer treats circus animals.
No, the problem with Steve Irwin and the reason he sadly died is that he didn't have remotely enough awe and respect for the creatures he dealt with. Not to disrespect all the excellent things Irwin did for wildlife preservation and protection, but his "Aww crikey it's a fabulously dangerous wild animal, reckon I'll poke it with a stick!" approach was sensational, not respectful. Respect for nature is non-interference, a point the films themselves repeatedly make. David Attenborough treats creatures with awe and respect, and he does so by staying the hell back and being quiet and still, while Irwin was incredibly rash and the harsh reality is that he essentially invited his own death with his lack of respect for the dangerous nature of the animals he dealt with. That's why Attenborough is still alive and Irwin isn't. The Lost World in particular is specifically making the point of contrasting these ideas. The naturalist-led approach that Malcolm, Harding, van Owen and Carr's group is set against the lion-tamer approach that the big Ingen-sponsored group have, and the hubris and disaster inherent in that attitude to the awesome power of both dinosaurs and the scientific knowledge behind their creation. Only Malcolm has any real idea, though. Early in the film, Harding (Julianne Moore's character) goes 100% Steve Irwin and tries to touch a baby Stegosaurus, leading to the adults attacking and her nearly dying; then they take the injured baby T-rex to their camp, leading to the T-rex attack. But she learns from this. But the fact Malcolm is the protagonist and holds the non-interference beliefs he does is very significant (this also applies to Grant in the third film, but the fact he's surrounded by humans who don't so much want to disrespect nature for profit as they just don't know nothin' 'bout nothin' waters this theme down significantly). To directly quote Hammond in Lost World: "These creatures require our absence". The Jurassic World series kind of acknowledge this, but they seem to have the view that you can't replicate that awe and respect a second time, so they just sprinkle the dinosaurs in very generously and hope spectacle will make it work. It largely doesn't, but the idea of Owen and his relationship with the raptors, particularly Blue, is an evolution of that idea of respectful non-interference vs. hubristic exploitation from the original films into deep, hands-on understanding built on respect vs. exploitation based on limited understanding and, again, massive hubris. Making a specific dinosaur into an actual character with development and an arc is a great move and doesn't seem to me to be disrespectful within the logic the story has set up.
The issue was the original always focused on the dinos being scary enough by themselves. The new ones focus on an external enemy. Evil madmen, evil scientist, shock troopers.
The thing is jurassic park didnt have villans(except Nedry, but he was more of an icing on top of a disasterous cake). It was man vs nature. And then in the lost world they started anding human villans. And from then on the series became realy childish and every movie from then had some form of villans. The other thing is that you cant make 6 movies in the similar premise beacuse it will get repetative.
@@Just_A_Guy_From_Serbia Actually Nedry was less of a villain and more of the plot device to kick the main plot off. If a villain in JP1 does exist, I would say the villain in JP1 is still the humans but it's more layered, in that the villain is the human need to push boundaries and the illusion of control. But otherwise it's man vs nature.
3:50 Alan and Ellie's relationship in the first film isn't just "inferred" by fans, it's an outright fact. The filmmakers didn't overplay the romance, but the signs are fairly obvious. Friends don't usually tell each other they want to have their children. Grant even confirms his and Ellie's relationship to Malcolm whe he asks if she's available, just before the T. Rex attack.
Since when does Ellie say that she wanted to have Alan's children? I remember her saying that she wanted children and asking Alan whether he wanted any.
Words cannot express how I felt when I first saw a dinosaur walking. Today's kids take such visuals as granted, but back when Jurassic Park came out, that was unheard of
Jurassic Park is a master class of filmmaking in nearly every aspect. The visuals are of course amazing, but Spielberg pulls out almost every trick in the book to make you feel the way you do when you see that first dinosaur. You've been teased for 20 minutes, and John Williams has been layering in one of the best scores of all time. Even then, you are first treated to reaction shots by two of the main characters first getting their initial glimpse of dinosaurs. Finally, as noted in the video, we as viewers take in the scene from a low POV shot, essentially making us one of the characters. I'm almost in tears every time I watch it. Most filmmakers today don't have the patience to let a scene breath and build emotion like that.
Calling The Lost World "loosely based" on the novel is an understatement. I actually prefer the second book over the first. The first movie, however, obviously remains supreme.
My favorite bit in the sequel book is when Levine is bugging Ian Malcolm about the existence of dinosaurs but he tries to brush it off with this long list of modern "techno-myths" like the Air Force has an alien, Tesla invented free energy, the CIA invented AIDS, etc. It was just a colorful, yet informative, rant out of nowhere. Very Crichton.
The movies are so low tier social/political garbage except for the 1rst one which at the very least was entertaining. I love the books and have such fond memories of them as a kid. I thank Steven Spielberg for making the first movie, which really captured the vibe of the park but not the story.
The first film was such a huge cultural phenomenon because of not just the dinosaurs but the characters, acting, direction, writing, story, plot, cinematography, score, setting, chemistry between the cast and its freshness ! It is super hard to recapture that magic the original Jurassic Park had in the 1990s. This was a very good breakdown of the franchise.
I think they made some massive mistakes with the direction they went in. Firstly, the idea that people would get bored of seeing dinosaurs (and demand more teeth) is preposterous. The second is, they made them into horror films rather than science thrillers, and stopped discussing big ideas, the philosophy and morality. I reckon the best direction for future movies would be prequels, looking at how the original JP was set up.
JP was definitely more horror than thrillers. if not for Steve, the set, budget.... take that all away, it was , a B horror movies with creatures eating ppl I feel after first one , every movies feels more like action movies. last movie even felt like FF movie
@@dandansfuI totally agree man. I didn’t think any of the sequels captured the horror element at all. They all felt like action movies and truly I never felt scared for the characters in any of the sequels. I liked some elements of the LW and truly think the first 5 minutes of Fallen kingdom were pretty cool but then the movie is not like that at all.
@@giovannimoran9223 exactly they got to stop hiring big A list actors all actors for JP were established, but not like mega A++++ actors and kids were not known at all and Steven was smart and all the iconic scenes were just two young kids alone... which makes them vulnerable the problem with actor like Chris is you feel ZERO danger for him. you now not only he will survive, he will survive with minimal damage if that even would happen while looking awesome/kick ass if they can make it more grounded with realistic actors I think they have a chance to make it memorable again.
Well, the first flim was an intelligently written horror flim masked as a sci-fi, it showed us how beautiful and dangerous the dinosaurs were while also showing us the sensitive side of the animals. Now it's just Fast and Furious: Return of the Raptor Fury.
@@Alhawaii1 it’s basically a creature feature style horror movie. Horror doesn’t have to have excessive gore or paranormal terror; it’s a very broad genre.
I sincerely recommend the book to anyone who hasn't read it yet. The movie follows decently, but it takes out some parts that make the book more intriguing, but don't make the movie any less entertaining after reading it. Because a movie has a set time limit usually, they had to cut out a good chunk of Alan's adventure with the kids, and they cut out a LOT of Malcolm's talking, which is extremely philosophical and actually very important for nowadays. Again, I sincerely recommend reading it. It flies right by, since you have the movie, you don't need to imagine new characters and don't need to imagine the scenes from scratch.
The book for me is perfection: a cautionary tale of Man's attempt to play God. Crichton perfectly outlines that by trying to control nature, Man commits the ultimate folly. Now however, the Jurassic franchise is less about the ethical-philosophical conundrum of science and just Fast and Furious with Dinosaurs.
I may need to read Jurassic Park again, but I remember not liking it particularly much. Strangely, I loved the Lost World and read it about three times. I think it had that perfect balance for me of a scientific expedition having gone wrong, and characters thinking on their feet. If memory serves, the tension through most of Jurassic Park was shockingly low given the feel of the movie, which is pretty tense throughout.
@@geneparmesan8748 If you recall Jurassic Park as being low on tension, then your memory is not serving you well. For me, it was an intense slow burn, since the opening scenes showed clearly that the compies, at least, had already escaped to the mainland. So we, the readers, knew that something had already gone very wrong at the park, even if none of the human characters knew it yet. Then, following the initial T-Rex breakout, there was the effort by everyone in the control center to undo what Nedry did to the systems, at the same time the tyrannosaur was casually, almost lazily stalking Grant and the kids. Next, when the Rex finally goes down (Hours after being tranquilized via rocket launcher.) and things seems to be under control, it turns out the park systems have been running on backup power since being rebooted, meaning the electric fences never came back on after Nedry shut them off, meaning the raptors are loose. But not just three raptors like in the movie, but a full roster of eight maneaters, plus dozens more in the wild that haven't had any contact with people yet. And things only escalate from there. I should mention that I was eleven when I first read the book, and Dennis Nedry's death was absolutely the scariest thing I'd ever read in my life up to that point. The deaths of Ed Regis and Henry Wu aren't far behind, but they weren't depicted directly from the character's point of view like Nedry's was. Now, The Lost World was great, definitely, but the original was even better.
A lot of people don’t remember that it took a long time before they revealed the actual dinosaurs in the first movie. We’re almost to the middle of the movie when we see the first dinosaur. When they finally show us the first dinosaur, it starts with the look of the people first until it shows us the dinosaurs. It’s a powerful cinematic experience that will probably never be topped. I still get chills watching the Brachiosaurus reveal.
First Raptor is quite visible when it charges the gate at 02:40 Brachiosaurus is unveiled at 20:23 with a big ass herd right after that Baby Raptor at 29:00 Trike at 49:55 Now the _Rex_ shows up around halfway (1:03:08) I assume this was your point, but still. I think we could all benefit from cutting hyperbolic bullshit from our arguments. That stuff only diminishes viewpoints.
i watch that movie at least 2 times a year just for the feeling of it. it never fails to make me feel like a 12 year old in the theater the very first time.
A pattern that I noticed in bad sequels and reboots is the overly-complicated and overly-convoluted plot. We don't need 10 subplots in one movie. Dear Hollywood writers, I just want a movie where I know what the characters' motivations are. I want to know what they're trying to accomplish. I want to be able to follow the story along. When watching these sequels, a lot of times I'm asking myself "Wait what did the villain want again? Why did the protagonist do this? Why did they go to this place? What was the role of this faction?".
The original trilogy even with Jurassic Park 3 not being the best has brought me so much more enjoyment then world has. I don't exactly know why I like them all but the first three just hit different
For me everything in the original just felt pretty plausible. From where they get the DNA and how they splice it, to the overall idea of the park being like a Disney World, the over reliance on tech and I can't stress that enough because I still see it today in industry where a simple mechanical system would suffice but they decide on an electric circuit that needs sensors, controllers, and many more unnecessary parts, to the human greed, and even how vulnerable the kids are. Like in the third one, I believe it is, where the kid transforms into this ultimate survival specialist out of nowhere. The original had some hints of the kids wanting to quit and that's so more realistic, not these badass warriors like I see in so many movies now. The "chase scenes" in newer movies turn into a never ending corridor of narrow escapes. Turns a corner right before they bite you, then duck right before they bite you, then climb a ladder right before they bite you, get through a door right before they bite you, and it just keeps going. There's some of that in the og but it's not strictly reliant on it for all the suspense. Like in the og the scene where the T-Rex is trying to get the kids in the SUV feels like an eternity, but in a good way. It's an animal actually trying to figure out how it can get to their meal inside of this piece of metal. It really reminds me of when conservationists let a lion loose in the wild and it turns back onto the truck, trying to figure a way to attack before running off. Also with that scene is the use of animatronics not just everything cgi. Cgi never feels as real to me as animatronics and the blend of both in the original is done so well. Movies now just use so much cgi and it leads to bad camera and animal movement. Like you said in this video the directors wanted the camera to be another character and that feels so good compared to this magical camera flying around all crazy. Really I could keep going but this is already a novel.
They need Steven Spielberg's direction back with this franchise, with his unique storytelling and tone that he brings to his movies, like there's a childlike wonder to the original Jurassic Park that always keeps me in awe of it, much more than the recent movies, the original still holds up with it's effects because it was a mix of practical and digital blended together instead of the all digital route, even though they have improved CGI it just doesn't wow me like the original movie does, that's why Spielberg's unique stamp with Jurassic Park was something special, also the original 1993 movie had depth to it because it was based on a novel, one of the questions being should man play God with genetically resurrecting dinosaurs .
Agree. The World films have no focus. They try to be so many things and especially Dominion throws so many characters into the story that you don't know who or what to root for. There is no real depth.
@@bjornjohansen5397 Yes definitely, the new Jurassic Park movies might look good visually but it's missing something which is personality and soul, like the original 1993 movie had.
@@damiantirado9616 Oh really he doesn't, I totally understand that point of view. Yes story wise they're just milking the franchise as it not as deep as the original 1993 movie was as it was based on a novel by Michael Crichton.
Funny you say that, because he directed the second film as well, and the new director for the sequel trilogy is essentially rewriting Spielberg's plans/scripts for what he originally conceived as the original JP trilogy. The reason The Lost World was changed to have its third act set in San Diego was because Spielberg had to compete with a Kaiju movie at the box office (can't remember if it was Kong or Godzilla).
I think the first movie was as successful with presenting spectacle as analyzing the ethical implications of growing old apex predators. The new films constantly up spectacle but dilute their moral quandaries.
I think the issue with that is it doesn’t really work to constantly re-ask the same moral question that the first film already provides a pretty definitive answer to. I’m not saying that the sequels are particularly good, but I can see why they would choose to highlight spectacle over the moral implications. Despite being a dumb movie, I did appreciate that Fallen Kingdom did try to ask new questions such as whether or not dinosaurs deserved the same protection rights as modern animals.
Part of the first movies appeal was the idea itself that you could resurrect extinct species and the hubris of the humans who decided to do it for profit. It was such a cool idea and the dinosaurs highlighted the peril of such an idea to perfection. They aren’t the bad guys; the humans who made them are the bad guys. That makes their rampage scary AND understandable. The sequels dumb everything down.
The video not only refreshed the great memory of going through this spectacle but also is accurate in its analysis. The 1st one was and is pure magic. I remember once as a teenager, I was on vacation at a mountain range, My mind just filled the surroundings with imaginary dinosaurs running about. Such was the impact and you captured that perfectly.
The original film did confirm the relationship between Alan and Ellie. Ian inquires with Alan about whether or not Ellie is single, and when Alan gets visibly annoyed, Ian is like, "Are you guys, uh...?" and Alan answers yes. Ian is immediately apologetic because he realizes that he's been flirting with another man's girlfriend. It's also why, as Ellie and Alan are walking up the hillside, Alan asks Ellie if they want to have a kid, pretty much jokingly, but Ellie turns it into a more serious conversation by saying "I don't want that kid but a breed of child could be intriguing". It not only shows there is a relationship, but that their relationship is still young. They haven't had the "do you want kids?" discussion yet, they still kind of keep a subtle distance from each other (basically no PDA), and they aren't deeply romantic on screen. They share space in the trailer at the digsite, they are around each other quite often and follow each other around, and when looking for one another they have that emotional "I thought I lost you" reaction. Their relationship is there, it's part of their characters, but it's not all they are about. The writers did a phenomenal job at showing the dynamic of their relationship and its depth, making them a much more realistic couple than what we normally see in films. The relationship exists purely to show us that they exist as people and have real lives to get back to after this nightmare is over. Speaking of after the nightmare is over, the film also does a great job at showing Alan at the end with Lex and Tim sitting on either side of him, and the sweet gaze between him and Ellie, and this identifies without a single word that they've reached a point in their relationship where they are comfortable with having kids.
I think what’s missing is Spielberg The man is a wonder at making these magical , mesmerising films but with heart. The first had huge elements of horror but also majesty
Great script! I also think Jurassic Park happened at the right time - movie technology was at a point at which we were wondering how far it could go. So when we saw those amazing creatures (CGI or puppet) on screen, better than any stop-motion, we felt a similar kind of awe to the one the characters were feeling.
For me the first film works because like the characters i was seeing for the first time something amazing, the curiosity of the characters was the same as mine, every scene was something new but also believable...and the dinosaurs were treated like dangerous animals that needed respect...like you would do with a tiger or a lion... The sequels changed everything, because the dinosaurs became monsters, vengefull bad guys and weapons, the curiosity disapeared and the characters just became boring cliches....
Exactly this! They gave the dinosaurs human-like personalities and then played them up to a movie level. These are dangerous animals, but nothing more than that. Capture that majesty, and you have yourself a movie.
In defense of Jurassic World; control is indeed a theme here, but I think viewing Owen as dominating and taming the raptors is kind of cynical. D'nofrio's character certainly wants to control them for selfish reasons, and then you have the I-Rex controlling the raptors through some alpha bullshit. I think what the film was trying to demonstrate was that Owen had actually bonded with the raptors through healthy socializing as the might have in the wild (not that that's accurate to real raptors). Owen wasn't taming them, he was bonding with them, raising them like family, in contrast to the I-Rex getting none of that and becoming so severely maladjusted. It's a different sort of take on respecting nature. World may be average at best, but credit where it's due.
@@zafarharis why is it so unbelievable tho? They are supposedly very smart in this series (some of the smartest animals ever to live) smarts animals can be trained or tamed to a certain extent. Birds of prey (or raptors) can be trained. Dogs and cats as well. Hell even monitor lizards can be trained to a certain extent. So I don’t see why some people are so offended by the idea of an animal being able to be trained.
@@skygge1006 Nope. There were two Dinosaurs called Veloceraptor; the JP books & films used the bigger one, albeit in the films with a handful of innaccuracies / guesstimations of stuff not knowable from the fossil record. (though all differences can be explained by the plot, thus are irrelevant)
The statement about Grant and Ellie being a “couple” was hinted at in the first movie. In the book it was non-existent. Since Ellie was engaged to be married. For them to add a relationship as a primary character hook in Dominion clearly shows they aren’t interested in characters goals or intreats, but rather the relationships they could pursue.
I mean, in the movie, Malcolm actually specifically asks Grant if he and Ellie are a couple because he wants to ask her out, and Grant says yes, so Malcom backs off. So unless Grant was lying in that scene because he doesn’t like how arrogant Malcom is, they actually do make it clear it clear that movie Grant and movie Ellie are a couple.
@@meganlyb83 I could be reading it wrong, but I think Grant was lying. I've always thought he was trying to protect Ellie after hearing Malcolm say "I'm always on the lookout for the next Ex-Mrs. Malcolm". And there's nothing else in the film to suggest they had a romantic relationship.
I totally forgot Ellie was engaged in the book. I need to reread it. I stopped caring about the sequels after 3. Never liked JW and didn't see the rest. I like 3 more than Lost World, but they're both just...ok compared to Jurassic Park.
@@turtle_herd5250 The video shows them going around the excavation site in a sort of embracement, you know, walking hand in hand, touching and stuff, usually things that couples do. Hardly a "we're just friends" thing. In the book, Ellie is not only engaged to another man (was it Mark from JP3, I wonder?), she's also Grant's student, so she'd be much younger, I guess. Movie's Ellie isn't, she's his partner (in more than just the one obvious sense).
Took my kids to see the most recent one. I still remember being 9 and watching the first movie in 93. The awe I had. They're still very entertaining. There's SO much they could get into with corruption and greed etc but the movies focus on the action. Can't blame them. Hopefully one day there's some kind of series that get deeper into the corruption and politics.
I love that the first trilogy has actual scientist in it as protagonists, the first film specially lets you see the world trough the passion of the characters; you know Grant and Satler love these animals and you are in awe with them. The subsequent movies never reach that again, and I personally hate this new trilogy, I hate Owen and how the movies forget what makes the park so special, it's not just action for the sake of it. At least imo.
.....and Owen genuinely caring for the raptors was not passionate? Was he in it for the money? Wait....he wasn't....which is why he constantly turns down InGen in their offers to weaponize the raptors. Jesus fucking christ you all need to actually watch these movies before shitting all over them.
Same. I don't like the protagonists of the JW films at all. Owen is annoying and the concept of his training is just stupid. As for the lady character, she's a block of wood. I like that the actress is finding success in being a director though.
I love what you say about many Spielberg films, "...how can you not look at this in wonder?" It's so true: E.T., the first three Indiana Jones movies, Close Encounters Of the Third Kind, Goonies, Hook, Men In Black, A.I., Super 8, the list goes on. Even in classic horror movies like Jaws and Poltergeist, there's a sense of wonder and humanity that aren't often seen, or felt, in that genre.
They probably could have handled the story by touching people heart strings at least, or in a better way and I think it would have made the newer movies way more engaging.Fallen Kingdom I think it was, when the island's volcano is erupting, and we see a Brachiosaurus (I believe that what it was) on the edge while the dust is covering it until we no longer seem it was a powerful scene and made me feel real sad and worried about all the dinosaurs fate in the fictional world. Sentient powerful animals that are out of their time in a world in which they have no place. If they engaged the audience with cuestiones like that, could have been better honestly.
That was indeed the same Brachiosaur from the first movie's "Welcome to the Jurassic Park" scene. But you're wrong in one thing. You're assuming, they are "out of their time", like taken from their time period. Well they aren't. They aren't even real dinos, they are cloned chimaeras with mostly paleoDNA, but with gaps of it filled with parts of other animals. So they are basically created animals adapted into our world (they can breath our air just fine, while in the past, there was higher concentration of oxigen, they should be suffocating, or at least sports asthma like symptoms, but they don't, the herbivores eat modern grass just fine, while their gestative system shouldn't be able to process it and stuff like that), they don't seem to suffer our world's conditions, unlike pure dinos for sure would. They also don't possess any memories of those original dinos (genetic memory is really really a completely different thing, than what people imagine). So don't think of them like the poor animals torn out of their time, but more like modern animals just resembling dinos. Because THAT'S, what they are.
I loved the point you made about wonder. In the first movie that's such a big deal, how amazing and absolutely breath taking it is. Dinosaurs! Alive and roaming the earth again, like, how cool is that? To be able to actually see these creatures again, study them and be in absolute awe of how large, small, smart, sleek these creatures can be. There was an appreciation to nature and the animals themselves that the other movies don't have. When you have that wonder, you naturally have characters who *feel* that wonder - who are capable of being more than hardened bad asses. They're not people who need to be reminded of their other emotions that lay outside their areas of expertise, they already have them. That's what makes them likable and what makes you root for them to make it! I also feel the need to mention how the first movie doesn't force some love story in it. Yeah there's a sense of community and familial love, but they're not setting up these two hot people who hate each other and expect us to believe they'll be "together forever" when they inevitably kiss.
Hey nerdstalgic, got an idea for a video of yours: talking about the soft reboots. Like the mentioned Jurassic world, the force awakens or ghostbusters. But focus more on the part where they mimic the same introductions as the original, but more big and modern; like the new Jurassic world park, the new kid lost in space with his robot or the girls who start a ghostbuster agency.
@@SDfan2002 never mind I read some of your replies and have determined you are probably a kid so if you like that force awakens I don’t know what to tell you that’s your choice but definitely wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece like you said a masterpiece would be more like taxi driver or American Psycho or even the original Jurassic park
I actually watched the lost world (JP2) before the main series, and I think it worked out just fine. The new idea of T-rex rampaging the city while being seen by a child going out to pee (or probably other business) is an unforgettable movie scene. Not JP1 flavor, of course, but you can't hint the same thing over and over again. You can't tell people how majestic brontosaurs are in more than one movie. Instead, I think the biggest weakness of Jurassic world is that it clings too much to JP1, with random new dinos, one dependable male character, and two kids running around (I genuinely thought, "what the heck is this rip off?") Asking new questions, new themes, and new monsters are nice ideas, but they just don't have the right innovative settings to introduce a whole bunch of ideas while being glued to the original JP1. Spielberg is a legend and not only for JP movies, so his successors in JP failed to get out of his shadow. And probably the influence of Harley Davidson suddenly needing JP ads? Honestly, the only reason I remember Indomitrus Rex's full name is because it sounds similar to my favorite noodle. Indomie trus, Rek!! = Keep eating Indomie, Bro!
First off, I love how this video starts off saying that the "five attempted sequels" do not possess "a shred of the imagination and ingenuity of the original", even though at the time of this video the latest sequel Dominion hasn't come out yet in the U.S. Prematurely throwing shade, I like it.
7:44 She was NOT forced to wear them all the time. She, the actress, actively CHOSE to wear them at all times DESPITE what the director initially said.
@@Richard_Nickerson agreed. JW is definitely worse than the original, but I think it's far better than JP3 and arguably better than Lost World. I don't really understand the hate Bryce Dallas Howard's character gets
I feel like they understood suspense a lot better in the past, and knew how to handle pacing masterfully. They seemed to take their time, like a confident man walking down the street, while conveying emotion through the rawness of acting, videography, and music.
I think one issue is that it's almost an unreachable goal to hope that we will get a sequel that is equal to the first. For one thing, at least for me, who saw the first movie 3 times at the theater when it came out. Something I've never done before or since. I've never even seen a movie at the theater more than once. But the reason I went so many times wasn't just that it was a good movie, with great characters and a solid plot. It was because it was showing something that no one had ever seen before on such a large scale. Jurassic Park was pretty much the first big movie to really do CGI right. You had a couple of other movies like The Abyss, that did some good CGI moments. But nothing like Jurassic Park. I always found it funny that the scene where Grant and Ellie first see a dinosaur for the very first time, the looks of awe and bafflement on their faces were the exact same ones we as an audience had, because we were both witnessing something we've never seen before. And unfortunately you can't recreate that moment. But man oh man.....I sure wish they could get even close. Yet they have failed time and time again.
I gotta admit: I really like Jurassic World and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I enjoy Jurassic World because it showed us what it would actually be like if the park opened. It was interesting to see Hammond's vision finally come to life. It presents some interesting ideas and sequences that I think are great. I also like the characters and dinosaur designs. I don't like Fallen Kingdom nearly as much, but I still enjoy it. It's much more silly, but I really enjoy the characters and premise, with the island exploding and the auction. I like the world building it presents as well, with the Dinosaur conservative group and different view points being presented. Overall, I really enjoy these films and can't wait for Dominion.
I saw JW in IMAX and it was an amazing experience. I agree, it was so fun to see the Hammond experience come to life, with new Dinos and I think it still gave us the wonder like the first movie, especially when they first enter the park and are exploring before everything goes to crap.
I always got the feeling that was a bit of posturing/wishful thinking on Grant’s part. My read is that Grant/Sattler were exploring the possibility of a relationship, but their disagreement about kids is what caused hesitation about actually entering into a relationship.
@@smacain People don't typically say they want to have the other's children unless they're already romantically involved. I think the relationship is firmly established, if not overstated. Add to that, Sam and Laura recently confirmed the characters' relationship in a recent Hollywood Reporter interview.
Grant's statement in that exchange with Malcolm is a bit ambiguous to me. Based on the context of the scene, I always thought that Grant was trying to protect Sattler from Ian's potential advances directly after hearing about his past marriages and his views on marriage in general. Plus, to me at least, there's nothing else in the film that suggests anything other than a close working relationship between Grant and Sattler. Ofc they could have just been an extremely low key couple, but I never saw it. Also, I disagree with his assessment that (paraphrasing) "the third film almost demands Grant to pine over some lost relationship with Ellie". I don't really get that supposed subtext. It just seems like Grant is visiting an old friend and colleague with whom he shared a harrowing and traumatic experience. I also strongly disagree with his implication that the bonds of found family are more interesting and important than biological family, but that's a separate issue.
@@theST1NG Sattler never said she wanted to have Grant's children. She just stated that she wanted a child. And no part of the film establishes a firm romantic relationship between them. Besides what the actors have said, it pretty inconsequential to the overall plot. Not saying it isn't fun to theorize about.
@@turtle_herd5250 Grant: Kids... You want to have one of those? Sattler: I don't want that kid, but a breed of child Dr. Grant could be intriguing. I mean, what's so wrong with kids?
You know this movie is something special when even today I can watch it and for a split second still wonder “how’d they get the dinosaur to do that?” To have achieved that in 1993 is straight up black magic, lol
Original JP: velociraptors are awesome and scarily smart killing machines . Jurassic world: they are basically trained dogs who can understand English half the time .
Jurassic Park is my all time favorite movie. I always feel the need to clarify, just the first one. I can allow myself to enjoy the others for what they are because I just love dinosaurs regardless. But man, that first one is a masterpiece in every aspect!
I had my doubts going into Jurassic World, but there's this very meta bit in where they're discussing one of the characters wearing an original Jurassic Park t-shirt, and him basically saying that the old park didn't need all these fancy gimmicks to be cool. I feel like the writers were basically telling the audience that they shouldn't expect the magic of the first film. That part helped to set my expectations for the rest of the movie, and I was able to mostly enjoy it, as a fun popcorn flick. I haven't gone back to rewatch it though, and I didn't really have much of a desire to see the sequels. The original will always be not only the best movie in the series, but one of the greatest movies of all time.
^all of this. Those trashing JW don't fucking understand that they weren't trying to make it better than the original. JW is literally pointing out not only the toxicity of Hollywood greed, but the toxicity of greed in general. That point is further hammered home in Fallen Kingdom when a bunch of rich dudes start bidding on animals they have no idea what they are, let alone have the means to take care of said animals. The original was written as a cautionary tale of playing God. The sequels are the same but, rightfully so, add in the extra part of saying money will not save you from everything.
The Aarons are on-point. The whole 'jurassic park t-shirt' scene succinctly explains that anything, when produced at large scale and sold to the masses, will feel cold and flat. And how do we as society respond to that? By manufacturing bigger dinosaurs with more teeth! It's an excellent piece of satire.
@@saratreetravels I disagree, the JP T-shirt scene in JW is just one of the so many nostalgia baiting scenes that riddles the new trilogy. Nostalgia is the only positive thing it has to offer. I've seen satire being used before to explain these new movies, but it isn't there. Starship Troopers is satire, JW is just bad writing. I mean, that computer guy's quote from JW would work if the movie actually pointed out a major flaw in the JW way of working, but sadly the only reason why things go wrong in JW is because the characters are literally written as brainless bodies who only do things because the plot wants it to and the Indominus manages to escape in one of the least believable ways as possible. And no, Dr. Wu's "You wanted bigger teeth" doesn't work either. It's a cop-out to explain why things look like low-effort copies of JP dinosaurs without realizing that such an explanation wouldn't even have been necessary because in-universe JP dinosaurs were supposed to be real dinosaurs.
In the original, the dinosaurs were treated as like regular animals following their instincts which made them so much scarier. The sequels all reverted to making them just be movie monsters, running around and roaring at people then eating them.
The Dilo scene was a prime example. It was dangerous, but it felt like a 'you didn't want to make the wrong move just to buy you a little time' kind of creature. It was curious, maybe even playful at first, however once it gains enough confidence and decides you are dinner, then it's game over. That's what makes that scene so tense in the movie. Because Ned was stomach churningly naive chucking this stick around like a plonk and staring at directly it. Another interesting one was when Dr Grant was waving the flare around, and the T-Rex was bedazzled a bit, staring like a huge dog with teeth. It felt scarier because this T-Rex was seemed a unpredictable real animal, not a cartoon monster. The intelligence of the main character could get them killed or safe.
I have to say I've REALLY been enjoying the increased rate of content from this channel. I'm routine impressed by the production and writing quality over the years I've been subbed. Thank you for you and your team's work!
To me the first movie says nature is beautiful majestic but you can't control it doesn't matter how much power you think you have and the new ones say Big monster with teeth= scary
I know it's not a fair example, but it sort of reminds me of what happened with the Aliens franchise. The first movie and second movie nailed the formula, the aesthetic, the themes and characters, but then it started to go downhill from there. Either they try to replicate the original formula in a cookie cutter fashion, or they add some twist that doesn't really make any sense. Jurassic Park, although not a proper horror film, still possessed some horror/thriller elements, alongside a great score and some subtle yet effective philosophical and ethical discourse. Although there was some spectacle, it wasn't the focus (as with newer films). Like the early Aliens films, it was about a small group of humans, outgunned and outnumbered, trying to survive on an island (versus a ship/base in Alien(s)). There was a real sense of tension alongside the awe factor. Honestly, I think Jurassic Park, much like Aliens was "done" after the second films.
The first worked because it was like nothing we had seen before. It was unique and exciting. I saw it in the cinema in 1993 and it was my favorite movie for ages. It's still the best cinema experience I've ever had.
As someone who watches and actually likes some of Jurassic sequels, I appreciate that this review actually presented a very thoughtful and well written argument for why there is such disconnect between them and their classic predecessor. By the title and the thumbnail I was preparing for an insufferable bash fest, but bravo for making this into one of my new favourite analysis videos.
I wouldn’t say impossible but it seems less likely and common nowadays. But apparently the new top gun is great I want to watch it, I think 1917 was great etc
It's not impossible. There are plenty of good movies including horror. You either haven't found them or you just hate movies. You should probably stop watching them.
I think a big issue with these current action movies is that they’re so far from grounded (well as grounded as you can get with fictional plots lol). The original Jurassic movies had, in a nice way, bumbling characters. They had NO clue how to deal with their situations, as you’d expect regular people to be like when they’re trapped on an island with dinos. They weren’t trained pros that are one step away from being Superman. Thus making the original films more “relatable”
The only thing that annoyed me about JP3 was the guys show off these giant guns and then immediately run away the moment the spino shows up. Like...the .50 cal will work on the spino just as well as the rex
Did you not watch the rest of the movie? (I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.) That spinosaurus had Wolverine-like powers of regeneration. It got its spines chopped by airplane propellers, then was bitten in the throat by a T-Rex shortly after, and it shrugged both injuries off as if they never happened. But in that respect, it foreshadowed the Indominus Rex pretty well.
Depends on which movie series you take. In JP, the sequels were kinda alright but reboot simply killed the series off. But because the reboots made a lot of money, of course the studio was happy!
I agree! I gotta admit: I really like Jurassic World and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I enjoy Jurassic World because it showed us what it would actually be like if the park opened. It was interesting to see Hammond's vision finally come to life. It presents some interesting ideas and sequences that I think are great. I also like the characters and dinosaur designs. I don't like Fallen Kingdom nearly as much, but I still enjoy it. It's much more silly, but I really enjoy the characters and premise, with the island exploding and the auction. I like the world building it presents as well, with the Dinosaur conservative group and different view points being presented. Overall, I really enjoy these films and can't wait for Dominion.
Easiest question to answer of all time: Jurassic Park was an ORIGINAL STORY that didn't have to be compared to anything else, or had to live up to anything. It brilliantly combined special effects (that are BETTER than special effects used today), with the original story to truly make something one-of-a-kind. And, I cannot express this enough, THE DIALOGUE. It was real, deep and some of the most brilliant scenes are just dialogue between the characters. The movie isn't about the dinosaurs, it's about man vs. nature, chaos theory, and the philosophical debate surrounding genetic engineering; a REAL cutting-edge story at the time. It didn't present the debate as cartoonish...it actually consulted real paleontologists and reflected the REAL philosophical debate between actual scientists.
I really like the first 3 movies, so the classic Jurassic Park movies, before Jurassic World. The first is obviously the best, easily. The second one I think is quite great and the third is nothing special storywise, but still very enjoyable to watch for me. What doesn't work for me with the new Jurassic World movies is that all the modern technology that we have at our disposal nowadays. I'm sorry, but I can't really believe that with this much menpower, weaponary and technology that 30 runaway dinosaurs that even have trackers in them, would be hard to get rid of. Also the storyline with the laser tech was so comedically stupid, that it took me completly out of Fallen Kingdom. The villains also aren't compelling, they are cartoonish bad guys, who are being bad for the sake of being bad and had no redeeming qualities in any way, they don't care about anything or anyone as long as they get rich. Compare that to Dennis Nedry: His motivation was underpayment and underappreciation (at least he felt like that) for his work. However in his execution of the plan, he didn't want anyone to die. He didn't deactivate all fences, just the ones, he needed down to get to the docks in 15 minutes, then get back to the headquarter and put everything online again. I don't think I need to say much about Roland Tembo, as he was a fantastic antagonist or maybe even antihero? And even Peter Ludlow wasn't in all of this for personal riches, but to save the company he was leading from bancrupt, by getting their moneys worth out of a failed project, instead of doing all the expensive research and development over again. Are those particularly deep characters for the villains? No, but sufficient as to make us understand, what they want and how far they are willing to go, without coming off as completly unreasonable or evil for the sake of being evil.
I only watched the first World movie at the insistence of my friend and it was a fun if shallow ride, but that's as much as I can give it. I think you captured well the essence of the problem, being the lack of awe, but I would also call it a lack of heart. It felt like they were trying to throw a lot of character archetypes into it, which were fun in execution, but felt very unrelatable or unlikable. And turning a passionate if arrogant scientist like Dr. Wu into a borderline satirical mad scientist in World just felt like a bit of a slap in the face. I have nothing to say about the World sequels since I haven't and don't intend to watch them. I have the original Jurassic Park, and it'll never stop being amazing.
The Jurassic series finally jumped the shark in one specific moment: In Fallen Kingdom, the super-raptor-thing literally smirks and winks at the audience before goring the military guy. That was the moment when I knew Trevorrow, et al, were not trying any more. They are pumping out nonsensical cartoons for children (physically or mentally). I have tickets for the new one which I was given for free. I would not be seeing it if I had to pay. But I will go for free to see just how badly they mess up the next one.
Also... the Indoraptor is meant to be this super animal that can pick up scent so well etc. but it could not sense that Owen, Claire and the little girl were hiding behind the triceratops statue it was standing next to!
Trevorrow also had a lot less to do with Fallen Kingdom because he was heavily involved with Star Wars between 2015-2017 before being fired from Lucasfilm. Can't put blame solely on him.
@@foxl2020 Even if that's true, "I was busy" is no excuse. Compare these piles of poodoo to something like the recent film "RRR" to see what a truly talented filmmaker can do when they focus their attention. You get an action spectacle for the ages!! - - I wouldn't even mind an action-focused Jurassic movie if it were made in a somewhat competent manner, but the original Jurassic World was actually worse than Fallen Kingdom! It was insulting to the audience, insulting to the franchise, and a major bore to watch. To quote Jackie Chan: "Whatever you do, do the best that you can. Because the film lives forever. [Other directors make excuses, like,] ‘No, because you know, that day [it was] raining, the actor [didn’t] have time…’ I said, ‘Would you go to every theater to tell the audience? No. What the audience sees at the theater - good movie, bad movie - that’s all.'"
I think the reason why Jurrassic Park has depth to it is because it is based on the novel made by Michael Crichton. Crichton is a master of sci-fi thrillers that will make you think (even until now even if his work is made in the 90s) if the technology/innovations are worth the risk or sthg.
It's possible but it's going to be a different kind of movie. More scientifically accurate and therefore focused on a different kind of horror and adventure
What does scientifically accurate even mean really in terms of dinosaurs, like with the recent Prehistoric Planet where a great deal of the 'scientific accuracy' is still theoretical if not debated or outright artistic license. It's just "cool" to show how the first Jurassic Park movie is now "wrong."
@@beerosaurusrex they did get stuff wrong, by the creators own admission, the biggest mistake is that Dinosaurs were birds, we know that they had feathers.
The worst part about the Dominion was the complete lack of stakes for the protagonists. You just knew that all of the “good guys” were going to make it out just fine, no matter what dinosaur came their way. Compare that to the first Jurassic Park, where several named characters who got a good amount of screentime were killed off in memorable scenes and the viewer was left feeling like they had no idea who would survive. In Dominion basically the only named character who dies is the main bad guy who everyone knows is going to die from the beginning (because the same exact thing happens in the first two JW movies). Every other character that died in Dominion is just some random background extra or a henchman who the viewer feels zero emotion upon seeing their death. Meanwhile the main cast has this aura of invincible plot armor surrounding them, shooting off quirky Marvel-tier quips while being chased by what are supposed to be terrifying dinosaurs.
Honestly even the CG in the original still looks almost as realistic as that of the latest installments. Back then it was the icing on the cake of decades of prop expertise and cintematographic finesse. Now it *is* the cake 😂
Nothing will ever come close to the excitement surrounding the original that summer. Episode 1 came close, and the Marvel movies, to a point. But summer of 1993 was on a whole other level.
Even though the first Jurassic World critiques the hell out Hollywood, the rich, and those just trying to control everything? Jurassic World can't be Jurassic Park because they already know how to clone the dinosaurs and have finally built a park to house said dinosaurs safely....or so they think. The whole point of the entire fucking franchise is a cautionary tale to not fuck with shit we don't understand. In Jurassic World, they felt they finally understood the dinosaurs and how to control them, so they made hybrids. Hybrids had to be made because the rich people that could afford to go to said park got bored. The overarching theme of the whole franchise is don't fuck with shit you don't understand. The Jurassic World movies have fucking nailed that and are not "Hollywood" written. You're just too dumb to see it.
From what I remember, Bryce Dallas Howard wasnt forced to wear highheels the entire movie, the actress she actually refused to wear more sensible shoes...Against the director's wishes, so yeah.
You Forgot one of the Most Important things about the 1st one. It has a Mixture of Music and Zoo Facilities combined to give you the Feeling of the first time you got to see a Really Nice Zoo. Not just the Animals it's feeling of the Place itself.
I just watched the newest Jurrasic World and I must say it's not a movie. It's a reference all the way through. Most of them from Park 1-3. Another thing is the death toll, there are only shown few and there isn't mentioned that many people die off screen. I'd generally say that most sequels never top the orginal/first movie.
So many new carnivores....and in a couple hours I couldn't be bothered to care about a single death or injury. Samuel L. Jackson must have more talent in his one arm then all those people combined.
From a kid that loved dinosaurs growing up, man i just want to see another dinosaur movie that treats its dinos like animals, rather than movie monsters and superheroes. People like to point out how scientifically inaccurate the first Jurassic Park movie is, and the whole frog DNA mixing, to justify their appearence. But Jurassic Park literally revolutionised how the public looked at dinosaurs. Before it, they were just hyper aggressive mindless giant lizards. Jurassic Park showed them acting, moving and behaving like actual animals, as well as connecting them to birds instead of reptiles. How the Rex attacks the Jeep by observing it, flipping it and trying to eat the "belly", just like an animal would, or the calm moment with the Brachiosaurus on the tree. Sure we also had the super intelligent raptors and the venom spitting Dilophosaurus, but it's clear that a lot of effort behind the scenes was made to make these animals feel as real as possible. I can look over the lack of feathers and other inaccuracies when the movie did so much for mainstream audiences. Now, we're back to mindless movie monsters, exept for the dino "protagonists" like the rex and Blue, who seem to have a moral compass now and always save the day from the big bad dino. Even in the original, when the Rex saved the day, it was just because it was in the right place in the right time, it's still probably one of the cheesiest scenes in the movie, even if it's pretty iconic. And again, i wouldn't mind the scientific inaccuracies if the dinos actually behaved like animals. But without it, it just feel like a franchise stuck 30 years in the past. Hopefully documentaries like Prehistoric Planet will inspire more people to look at these creatures in a new light, it's just a shame that we don't have more mainstream movies pushing these kind of dinosaurs, instead we're still stuck on the big agressive plucked lizard because it's more iconic and sells more
As an outsider, and someone who’s watched the movies but isn’t obsessed with them, it kinda feels like they’re just beating a dead horse at this point. I think the first movie holds up because it’s original and we wanted to explore the horrific possibility of humans living alongside dinosaurs. Now the movies feel like we’re just supposed to think the dinosaurs are cool and the action sequences are badass. Which they are, but it’s not as important as storytelling.
Yeah, I was just plain confused by that part of the video. How could anyone think otherwise? Maybe because they weren't a couple in the book? But even so, if they're not a couple in the movie, then their conversation about having kids is REALLY weird.
@@davidlundquist1979 People are confused because Jurassic Park portrays a realistic relationship. They’re not constantly holding hands or nuzzling each other’s necks with gooey eyes and declarations of love. A lot of movies portray long-term partners as still being lovesick teenagers. Jurassic Park breaks the mould by having Alan and Ellie be professionals who are genuinely invested in their work. I know, crazy, right?
Jurassic Park is one of those films that was perfect and should have been left alone. Like the dinosaurs. Jurassic World is AWFUL and I don't see how they can recapture the magic. Let the franchise go extinct. (I know they won't).
there's a lot of weight given to the presence of individual dinos in the first film. We rarely see more than one at a time. The later films rapid cut between wide shots of 10+ dinos at a time (fallen kingdom in particular). Although they've been in movies for decades I still think dinosaurs can look striking and awe-inspiring if filmed in the right way.
Can Jurassic Park ever be topped?
This more a opinion question. I saw people where think ,,The lost world: Jutassic Park " is the best movie or ,,Jurassic World" .
Fun fact : Sam Neil defend Jurassic Park 3 .He said it's a pretty good movie.
@@masterpeter1913 I liked the raptors and the pterosaurs but that was about it for me.
The Jurassic World films are MASTERPIECES next to the Star Wars Sequels. I would watch the Jurassic movies 1000x over, rather than watch Force Awakens even once.
Alan.
The original only had 15 minutes of dinosaurs on screen. The t-rex only appeared at exactly the midpoint of the movie, to the second. Meaning it wasn’t just dinosaurs that made the first movie great. It was so many things, and the dinosaurs were just the icing.
ok its good they dont do that anymore in the world movies because the characters now are so shit that itd be even more of a bad time if they focused more on them.
they made the Dino an icing on this one too, apparently you need good script aswell lol
Yeah a less is more approach is absolutely more memorable. Same with lightsabers, and how there are too damn many of them now (especially in Episode II)
There are endless essays on the internet explaining this. Bottom line: Dinosaurs were never the focus of Jurassic Park. It is a story about people within a setting that includes dinosaurs. No other director has ever understood this. They made dinosaurs the focus of the movie which is just not right.
And that's why it can't be recreated again - people need constant action nowadays, doesn't matter if it makes sense or not
There was an innocence in the first movie. Even though they knew that dinosaurs would be dangerous, the awe overtakes that. Every movie after is predictable. You knew something would go wrong and then the Dinos would start killing people off and then leave the end open for another. What killed it for me was bringing the military into it. Now it’s about the black market and underground trade, human clones, and weaponizing the Dinos. It’s taken such a turn that it’s too far off for me.
this one was Fast & Furious with dinosaurs.
@@markmac2206 How ironic. Both are Universal properties and both once had a sense of charm and care…
So what do you want? Lol
@@MrAgentTurner for them to keep it about Dino’s. Why does it have to be muddled with government and war? I agree with a lot who said that JP 3 should have been from Eric’s point of view and how he survived and what he went through. Instead of them coming to save him. Just a different angle like that. More creative.
Not really. If you know human history, that’s exactly how it would have turned out. If it exists, it was smuggled, weaponized, or stolen. Also, the whole series is about cloning. Where do you think the dinos came from? Human cloning was the next logical step aside from other extinct species, or even cavemen and early humans.
"Jurassic Park raised questions about human-kinds responsibility and power, Jurassic world seems to think that power rests in dominance" Great line!
And wrong. If anything Jurassic World brings those questions back and expands upon them. Wu's conversation with Massrani is proof enough of that. Human greed and hubris is what created the Indomius Rex.
@@Webshooters1 agreed.
I also don’t think “dominance” is right either, not for Owen. Cooperation with and respect of other living beings on this planet, is how I see Owen’s interactions with Blu. It’s befriending the wild, living in and with.
Characters like Wu and Vic are the ones seeking power and dominance.
@@francinesmith1889 Finally, someone who doesn't act like Jurassic World didn't bring anything new to the franchise. Owen repeated countless times that his raptors will not hesitate to pounce if they see weakness or easy prey and they remember who treated them with respect versus just an object.
Owen sought co-existence and respect. It was Wu and Hoskins who wanted dominance.
@@zsbacskai7331 I was talking about Jurassic World not Fallen Kingdom.
Wildly disagree. Yes, the VILLAINS believe power rests in dominance, but that's the case in all the Jurassic movies. If you think we're supposed to empathize with those characters, you're watching it wrong.
Horror is a genre that doesn't lend itself well to sequels. What makes the first installment fun is the characters slowly discovering the threat and them frantically figuring out how to deal with said threat. The sequels falter because once you know that the threat exists and how to deal with it, there's no danger, no fear, no horror.
I think the only way it would work is by twisting elements of the first to change our perception of the original. A good example is Alien and Aliens, alien is a haunted house in space with a threat unlike anything of its time and instilled a feeling of dread and nihilism. The sequel flips this on its head by exploring an element of the alien that was not only unseen but probably unpredictable at the time. And further instills dread because this isn’t a one off thing but this is a threat that is possibly everywhere and has possibly killed countless millions or billions. The horror goes from being a physical horror to one that is both physical and psychological.
@@Sci-Fi_Freak_YT I think of Aliens as being more of an action-thriller movie, which was a good pivot for the series to make. I think horror series need to do more of that. Stranger things is another good example of a successful horror series, since they use different monsters but from the same setting. So it's still a true sequel but the threat is new and the characters need to figure out how to stop it. Horror series need to follow the Aliens path of switching genres or the Stranger Things path of switching threats.
You know what the problem is? Directors suck, they have no vision. Did the lotr trilogy suck? No. Did harry potter suck? No. It’s the damn incapability of todays directors and the whole team- they have stupid ideas and alot of money.
@@paradiseb5950 I don't remember who made this point, but older media seems better than new media because we have forgotten all the bad media in the good old days. When we look back on the 2010s and 2020s, we'll remember only the great movies and series and forget the bad ones, and we'll have the same conversation then as we are now about media in the 2040s and 2050s.
As a series goes on, the villain tends to get more screen time and sympathy. Probably the worst example of this is Micheal Meyers in the Rob Zombie Halloween movies.
To me, every sequel to the original Jurassic Park has this sort of vibe that’s like the characters are saying “Sure, someone did this in the past and it led to numerous deaths and unimaginable catastrophe, causing the entire operation to be shut down without a fleeting hope of it ever working… but what if we tried it again?”
This is why I stopped watching after the first JW movie. If they haven't learned by now that it's a bad idea then idk what they're doing. I'm rooting for the dinosaurs now.
Sound like the explanation of some political ideologies.
@@jayscott8583 I agree 🤣
This reminds me of this one line from Tom Cargy Parody Song "The fences are taller now ... RUN" xD
You could say that vibe extends to the movies themselves.
"Sure every sequel has been a failure...but what if we tried again?"
"Life finds a way."
But film studios won't find a way to make a better film than the original...
Life finds a way, but nobody said it'll be how you imagined it to be
Life please find a good script.
Ahem... *Shrek 2*
They need more catchy lines that stick in the pop culture lexicon…like “life a..a.., finds a way”. No one remembers any catchy lines from any of the sequels..nothing! Not..”shoot her!” or “must move faster”…nothing🤷🏻♂️
Top Gun: Maverick begs to differ
For me the two biggest problems with the sequels are:
1) The constant need to put children in the story just to add tension which is annoying because we know the writers aren't brave enough to actually kill them off. So we're stuck with a number of repetitive action scenes of kids being chased by dinosaurs, with the writers coming up with more and more unrealistic ways of them getting away (i.e. gymnastics kid).
2) Each sequel tries to come up with ways of having larger and larger numbers of dinosaurs roaming around but the only way they do it is by making the humans dumber and dumber to allow it. In the last movie, when they set all of the dinosaurs free to go live in the wilderness because they didn't have the heart to gas them all, I rolled my eyes so badly they almost fell out of my head.
For a film franchise about science, there aren't too many intelligent characters left in the series.
1. I agree, though I'd say the biggest issue is that children are never going to be as good at acting as great adult actors, who they can afford to hire. Even as a child, I never liked those characters. I assume the idea is children want someone to relate to, but I always wanted to see an adult star I would dream about growing up to be, not the annoying kid that I was.
I wish they'd actually kill characters off, cus the people getting offended at deaths arent your target audience anyway.
I hope you got those eyes checked out afterwards
@@soraceant bro, not every movie has to be an emotional roller coaster with an oscar-worthy performance and a score that could win a Grammy. The Jurrasic World series has been great. As for the 2 movies after the original. *stashes them away
the gymnastics kid of number two was never that big of a problem to me, because at the beginning they talk about her gymnastics performance, where she mentions that she quit the team. So it didn't come out of nowhere. But otherwise, good points.
I was born in 1983. So seeing this movie at 10 years old was an incredible experience. I fully believe that Jurassic Park is my generations “Jaws”.
1982 here, could not agree more with your statement
It was awe inducing for us kids for sure.
1995 here, agreed!
Certainly blew The Land Before Time which I already liked as a kid.
2007 but i watxhe the first movie at 5 and loved it ever since i was a nerdy kid and it made me love both dinosaurs and philosophy
It’s hard to fear the dinosaurs when they only ever kill bad guys.
Um, Eddie Carr wasn't a bad guy. Ray Arnold wasn't a bad guy. The park worker who was attacked at the beginning of Juassic Park wasn't a bad guy. The little girl at the beginning of The Lost World wasn't a villain.
Many 'Good Guys' get chomped by the dinosaurs in this franchise.
@@jmdnelson4891 hes talking abt newer movies
@@jmdnelson4891 He talks about Jurassic World. Well the Babysitter dies a horrible death here. But that one is kinda confusing because it is the most horrible death in the whole franchise. And other than that only bad guys get eaten.
@@blackwolf4653 what about masrani’s death
@@EnzoNotFerrari21 Who is masrani.?
I feel like the later movies just kind of lost respect for dinosaurs, which is why the first one works so well. You spend a LOT of time seeing characters being in awe of and really, truly excited to be around dinosaurs, there's a genuine love for them in that. I think that connects to the part in all of us that went through that "dinosaurs are AWESOME" phase when we were younger. A lot of us grew out of it but we remember that feeling. The first movie captured that beautifully, and then it showed you the reality of what it would be like if they were still around. The movies after that, they feel like generic monster movies. You could replace the various dinosaurs with any generic monster and the movie would be exactly the same.
Hit it right on the nose. The last two sentences are the absolute root of the problem with the franchise these days.
Yes, this, in the video game: Jurassic world evolution 2 one of the loading screen phrases says (or what I can translate myself since I have the game in Spanish) “deextinction was a marvel 20 years ago, now kids see the stegosaurus as their average zoo elephants”
You know what, this is actually very on point. This is what separates the original from the rest of the sequels.
The sequels treated the dinosaurs like a monster of the week, like a creature feature.
Some of my favorite parts in the original movie are the scenes where the paleontologists see their favorite dinosaurs for the first time ever. They’re in complete shock and awe, almost to the point where they’re in tears, the same reaction and respect I would probably have to seeing these magnificent beasts.
One thing nobody has mentioned is the color. Look at how bright the original movie is. The brightness and color elicits wonder and joy and warm feelings. The sequels are so dark which is a pattern I'm seeing in many of today's sequels and reboots. I know the reason they do this is to hide ugly CGI and save budget, but they have a lot of exposition scenes that are unnecessarily dark. When two people are just sitting and spouting exposition, it doesn't have to be that dark.
The first film also works because of the isolation. There are limited people pushed into limited space, completely cut off from a civilization with no idea of where they were or even that where they were existed. It’s a spectacle of wonder turned low-key survival horror (written in part by Crichton himself; the man had a mastery of tight, tense storytelling.) Allowing the dinosaurs to leave the island creates issues that the movies, especially the World trilogy, pretends not to see. Putting a park on the island immediately invites oversight. The idea that a large scale disaster happens on that island without it immediately being not just abandoned but utterly firebombed is kind of laughable. Introducing the creatures to the wider world with no plan is a plot hole you can drive a tanker through. You lose the tension of isolation, and you shrug at the real implications, and the result is a trilogy of films with no story. Stuff just happens.
It’s a concept that only works once. Like most films, it’s a story that works well one time.
Not necessarily. The Lost World book was very good. Not quite as good as the original, but it would have made a great movie. I feel confident saying that because what was easily the most tense and exciting scene in the movie, the Rexes pushing the trailers over the cliff, was the only scene that actually was adapted from the book.
@@davidlundquist1979 Lost World the movie was also great, just not as much as the original. The audience (along with Ian) are the cautious veterans who have already been through the events of the first movie, and are seeing more clueless people be captivated by the dinosaurs, knowing the bliss will turn into horror. tldr; the Lost world move was great, for a different reason than the original.
@@davidlundquist1979 If they made the JP movies based on the books then it would be rated M and they would lose a shit ton of money and I bet you that Jurassic Park wouldn't be as popular as it is today.
@@biosyn-ab4261 They'd be rated R, definitely, but I can't imagine what in the story would bump that up to an M. There's no sexual content, drug use, or anything like that. The MPAA is incredibly lenient with ratings when it comes to violence alone.
Also, when JP was released, the message was very clearly stated by Goldblume's character, as a matter of ethics. Should something be done just because it could?
At the time, genetic cloning was a few years off, and the ethical considerations were still being debated. The original movie pretty clearly showed that answer was no. In fact, after watching it, I had a tough time sleeping because of the weight of possible real life outcomes (Not reemergence of dinosaurs, but of many other things).
Since the successful cloning of Dolly the sheep and absence of nightmares in real life, it's impossible to drum up that emotional punch with sequels that aren't asking any new questions.
Jurassic Park treated dinosaurs with the same awe and respect that Steve Irwin would treat crocodiles that he found in the Outback, whereas all subsequent films (especially the new franchise) treat dinosaurs how a lion tamer treats circus animals.
Great comment
Amazingly put. Have a like!
??
Holy fuckin shit
No, the problem with Steve Irwin and the reason he sadly died is that he didn't have remotely enough awe and respect for the creatures he dealt with. Not to disrespect all the excellent things Irwin did for wildlife preservation and protection, but his "Aww crikey it's a fabulously dangerous wild animal, reckon I'll poke it with a stick!" approach was sensational, not respectful. Respect for nature is non-interference, a point the films themselves repeatedly make. David Attenborough treats creatures with awe and respect, and he does so by staying the hell back and being quiet and still, while Irwin was incredibly rash and the harsh reality is that he essentially invited his own death with his lack of respect for the dangerous nature of the animals he dealt with. That's why Attenborough is still alive and Irwin isn't.
The Lost World in particular is specifically making the point of contrasting these ideas. The naturalist-led approach that Malcolm, Harding, van Owen and Carr's group is set against the lion-tamer approach that the big Ingen-sponsored group have, and the hubris and disaster inherent in that attitude to the awesome power of both dinosaurs and the scientific knowledge behind their creation. Only Malcolm has any real idea, though. Early in the film, Harding (Julianne Moore's character) goes 100% Steve Irwin and tries to touch a baby Stegosaurus, leading to the adults attacking and her nearly dying; then they take the injured baby T-rex to their camp, leading to the T-rex attack. But she learns from this. But the fact Malcolm is the protagonist and holds the non-interference beliefs he does is very significant (this also applies to Grant in the third film, but the fact he's surrounded by humans who don't so much want to disrespect nature for profit as they just don't know nothin' 'bout nothin' waters this theme down significantly). To directly quote Hammond in Lost World: "These creatures require our absence".
The Jurassic World series kind of acknowledge this, but they seem to have the view that you can't replicate that awe and respect a second time, so they just sprinkle the dinosaurs in very generously and hope spectacle will make it work. It largely doesn't, but the idea of Owen and his relationship with the raptors, particularly Blue, is an evolution of that idea of respectful non-interference vs. hubristic exploitation from the original films into deep, hands-on understanding built on respect vs. exploitation based on limited understanding and, again, massive hubris. Making a specific dinosaur into an actual character with development and an arc is a great move and doesn't seem to me to be disrespectful within the logic the story has set up.
The issue was the original always focused on the dinos being scary enough by themselves. The new ones focus on an external enemy. Evil madmen, evil scientist, shock troopers.
The thing is jurassic park didnt have villans(except Nedry, but he was more of an icing on top of a disasterous cake). It was man vs nature. And then in the lost world they started anding human villans. And from then on the series became realy childish and every movie from then had some form of villans. The other thing is that you cant make 6 movies in the similar premise beacuse it will get repetative.
@@Just_A_Guy_From_Serbia Actually Nedry was less of a villain and more of the plot device to kick the main plot off.
If a villain in JP1 does exist, I would say the villain in JP1 is still the humans but it's more layered, in that the villain is the human need to push boundaries and the illusion of control. But otherwise it's man vs nature.
3:50 Alan and Ellie's relationship in the first film isn't just "inferred" by fans, it's an outright fact. The filmmakers didn't overplay the romance, but the signs are fairly obvious.
Friends don't usually tell each other they want to have their children. Grant even confirms his and Ellie's relationship to Malcolm whe he asks if she's available, just before the T. Rex attack.
Since when does Ellie say that she wanted to have Alan's children? I remember her saying that she wanted children and asking Alan whether he wanted any.
@@diddles3383
Grant: Kids... You want to have one of those?
Sattler: I don't want that kid, but a breed of child Dr. Grant could be intriguing!
Words cannot express how I felt when I first saw a dinosaur walking.
Today's kids take such visuals as granted, but back when Jurassic Park came out, that was unheard of
And that Brachiosaurus still holds up to this day. Which is even more astounding.
The special effects from 1992 still hold very good these days. Modern X-men movies have way suckier CGI.
The scene in the kitchen somehow still manages to scare me, also because the effects still hold up even compared to modern stuff.
this, we were kids and was one of the first time a film was so fantastic to seems real
Jurassic Park is a master class of filmmaking in nearly every aspect. The visuals are of course amazing, but Spielberg pulls out almost every trick in the book to make you feel the way you do when you see that first dinosaur. You've been teased for 20 minutes, and John Williams has been layering in one of the best scores of all time. Even then, you are first treated to reaction shots by two of the main characters first getting their initial glimpse of dinosaurs. Finally, as noted in the video, we as viewers take in the scene from a low POV shot, essentially making us one of the characters. I'm almost in tears every time I watch it. Most filmmakers today don't have the patience to let a scene breath and build emotion like that.
jurassic park aged unbelievably well. It blows my mind that the movie is nearly 30 years old, some of the CGI holds up to this day
yes, they knew the limitations of the technology and actively tried to prevent showing those limitations
Yet the dinosaurs look fake as hell
The T-Rex stepping out of the paddock for the first time still looks incredible and is one of my favorite scenes in cinema history.
@@dinosaurtimeandfunnyvideos probably because it was in 1993. Ya know, when CGI was FIRST becoming a thing?
@@Phobie_2000 dont say it holds up then
Calling The Lost World "loosely based" on the novel is an understatement. I actually prefer the second book over the first. The first movie, however, obviously remains supreme.
My favorite bit in the sequel book is when Levine is bugging Ian Malcolm about the existence of dinosaurs but he tries to brush it off with this long list of modern "techno-myths" like the Air Force has an alien, Tesla invented free energy, the CIA invented AIDS, etc. It was just a colorful, yet informative, rant out of nowhere. Very Crichton.
@@HonestObserver
Yeah, the second book has a lot more of those kinds of tangents, and I'm there for them.
The movies are so low tier social/political garbage except for the 1rst one which at the very least was entertaining.
I love the books and have such fond memories of them as a kid. I thank Steven Spielberg for making the first movie, which really captured the vibe of the park but not the story.
Agreed I much prefer the lost world novel to the film. And the first Jurassic park film probably won’t be topped
I agree. I actually prefer JP3 over The Lost World because of how bad they adapted the story.
The first film was such a huge cultural phenomenon because of not just the dinosaurs but the characters, acting, direction, writing, story, plot, cinematography, score, setting, chemistry between the cast and its freshness ! It is super hard to recapture that magic the original Jurassic Park had in the 1990s. This was a very good breakdown of the franchise.
I think they made some massive mistakes with the direction they went in. Firstly, the idea that people would get bored of seeing dinosaurs (and demand more teeth) is preposterous. The second is, they made them into horror films rather than science thrillers, and stopped discussing big ideas, the philosophy and morality.
I reckon the best direction for future movies would be prequels, looking at how the original JP was set up.
Naw i dont want no prequels, they need to leave the franchise as it is
I like the horror genre tbh. But it’s just not enough horror to make it a good horror movie though
JP was definitely more horror than thrillers. if not for Steve, the set, budget.... take that all away, it was , a B horror movies with creatures eating ppl
I feel after first one , every movies feels more like action movies. last movie even felt like FF movie
@@dandansfuI totally agree man. I didn’t think any of the sequels captured the horror element at all. They all felt like action movies and truly I never felt scared for the characters in any of the sequels. I liked some elements of the LW and truly think the first 5 minutes of Fallen kingdom were pretty cool but then the movie is not like that at all.
@@giovannimoran9223 exactly
they got to stop hiring big A list actors
all actors for JP were established, but not like mega A++++ actors and kids were not known at all and Steven was smart and all the iconic scenes were just two young kids alone... which makes them vulnerable
the problem with actor like Chris is
you feel ZERO danger for him. you now not only he will survive, he will survive with minimal damage if that even would happen while looking awesome/kick ass
if they can make it more grounded with realistic actors
I think they have a chance to make it memorable again.
Well, the first flim was an intelligently written horror flim masked as a sci-fi, it showed us how beautiful and dangerous the dinosaurs were while also showing us the sensitive side of the animals.
Now it's just Fast and Furious: Return of the Raptor Fury.
That's the best way to put it
Wasn't anything close to horror. The term "horror" gets thrown around WAY too much these days. It's losing meaning
Damn you nailed it
Except Fast and Furious movies are at least a little enjoyable
@@Alhawaii1 it’s basically a creature feature style horror movie. Horror doesn’t have to have excessive gore or paranormal terror; it’s a very broad genre.
I sincerely recommend the book to anyone who hasn't read it yet. The movie follows decently, but it takes out some parts that make the book more intriguing, but don't make the movie any less entertaining after reading it. Because a movie has a set time limit usually, they had to cut out a good chunk of Alan's adventure with the kids, and they cut out a LOT of Malcolm's talking, which is extremely philosophical and actually very important for nowadays. Again, I sincerely recommend reading it. It flies right by, since you have the movie, you don't need to imagine new characters and don't need to imagine the scenes from scratch.
The book for me is perfection: a cautionary tale of Man's attempt to play God. Crichton perfectly outlines that by trying to control nature, Man commits the ultimate folly. Now however, the Jurassic franchise is less about the ethical-philosophical conundrum of science and just Fast and Furious with Dinosaurs.
I may need to read Jurassic Park again, but I remember not liking it particularly much. Strangely, I loved the Lost World and read it about three times. I think it had that perfect balance for me of a scientific expedition having gone wrong, and characters thinking on their feet. If memory serves, the tension through most of Jurassic Park was shockingly low given the feel of the movie, which is pretty tense throughout.
@@geneparmesan8748 If you recall Jurassic Park as being low on tension, then your memory is not serving you well. For me, it was an intense slow burn, since the opening scenes showed clearly that the compies, at least, had already escaped to the mainland. So we, the readers, knew that something had already gone very wrong at the park, even if none of the human characters knew it yet.
Then, following the initial T-Rex breakout, there was the effort by everyone in the control center to undo what Nedry did to the systems, at the same time the tyrannosaur was casually, almost lazily stalking Grant and the kids. Next, when the Rex finally goes down (Hours after being tranquilized via rocket launcher.) and things seems to be under control, it turns out the park systems have been running on backup power since being rebooted, meaning the electric fences never came back on after Nedry shut them off, meaning the raptors are loose. But not just three raptors like in the movie, but a full roster of eight maneaters, plus dozens more in the wild that haven't had any contact with people yet. And things only escalate from there.
I should mention that I was eleven when I first read the book, and Dennis Nedry's death was absolutely the scariest thing I'd ever read in my life up to that point. The deaths of Ed Regis and Henry Wu aren't far behind, but they weren't depicted directly from the character's point of view like Nedry's was. Now, The Lost World was great, definitely, but the original was even better.
The books are very intellectual and negotiate a lot 💝
A lot of people don’t remember that it took a long time before they revealed the actual dinosaurs in the first movie. We’re almost to the middle of the movie when we see the first dinosaur.
When they finally show us the first dinosaur, it starts with the look of the people first until it shows us the dinosaurs. It’s a powerful cinematic experience that will probably never be topped.
I still get chills watching the Brachiosaurus reveal.
Exactly. Being 9 and seeing a realistic dinosaur on screen for the first time was magical.
First Raptor is quite visible when it charges the gate at 02:40
Brachiosaurus is unveiled at 20:23 with a big ass herd right after that
Baby Raptor at 29:00
Trike at 49:55
Now the _Rex_ shows up around halfway (1:03:08)
I assume this was your point, but still. I think we could all benefit from cutting hyperbolic bullshit from our arguments.
That stuff only diminishes viewpoints.
This is what I was going to say:
The original took its time. The sequels race to squeeze in as much spectacle as possible.
i watch that movie at least 2 times a year just for the feeling of it. it never fails to make me feel like a 12 year old in the theater the very first time.
A pattern that I noticed in bad sequels and reboots is the overly-complicated and overly-convoluted plot. We don't need 10 subplots in one movie. Dear Hollywood writers, I just want a movie where I know what the characters' motivations are. I want to know what they're trying to accomplish. I want to be able to follow the story along. When watching these sequels, a lot of times I'm asking myself "Wait what did the villain want again? Why did the protagonist do this? Why did they go to this place? What was the role of this faction?".
The original trilogy even with Jurassic Park 3 not being the best has brought me so much more enjoyment then world has. I don't exactly know why I like them all but the first three just hit different
I would rather watch JP3 on repeat than endure any of the JW garbage _once._ The JW movies are irredeemable trash.
@@Skrenja even the first Jurassic world? Personally I loved that one. Fallen kingdom was ok. Now Dominion is the real garbage out of the series.
Fallen kingdom made the franchise worse
I think the Lost World deserves more aprecciation, it's nowhere near Jurrasic Park, but, it works flawlessly as a decent sequel.
@@prjoliphant7951 3 was pretty bad, it was barely a full feature-length movie.
I was a 7 year old boy when JP came out. I can't even begin to explain what a cultural centrepiece this was to kids in 1993.
Same. I'm 86 born. Me and my mum had to leave the cinemas due to how scary it got.
I was 9 and when the T-Rex breaks through the sunroof glass I screamed so loud in the theater
I was 10 and it was the most amazing movie I had seen. Still my favorite to this day.
For me everything in the original just felt pretty plausible. From where they get the DNA and how they splice it, to the overall idea of the park being like a Disney World, the over reliance on tech and I can't stress that enough because I still see it today in industry where a simple mechanical system would suffice but they decide on an electric circuit that needs sensors, controllers, and many more unnecessary parts, to the human greed, and even how vulnerable the kids are. Like in the third one, I believe it is, where the kid transforms into this ultimate survival specialist out of nowhere. The original had some hints of the kids wanting to quit and that's so more realistic, not these badass warriors like I see in so many movies now. The "chase scenes" in newer movies turn into a never ending corridor of narrow escapes. Turns a corner right before they bite you, then duck right before they bite you, then climb a ladder right before they bite you, get through a door right before they bite you, and it just keeps going. There's some of that in the og but it's not strictly reliant on it for all the suspense. Like in the og the scene where the T-Rex is trying to get the kids in the SUV feels like an eternity, but in a good way. It's an animal actually trying to figure out how it can get to their meal inside of this piece of metal. It really reminds me of when conservationists let a lion loose in the wild and it turns back onto the truck, trying to figure a way to attack before running off. Also with that scene is the use of animatronics not just everything cgi. Cgi never feels as real to me as animatronics and the blend of both in the original is done so well. Movies now just use so much cgi and it leads to bad camera and animal movement. Like you said in this video the directors wanted the camera to be another character and that feels so good compared to this magical camera flying around all crazy. Really I could keep going but this is already a novel.
that’s exactly what i thought in this new one 1,000 times they are about to get eaten but then they duck at the last second
They need Steven Spielberg's direction back with this franchise, with his unique storytelling and tone that he brings to his movies, like there's a childlike wonder to the original Jurassic Park that always keeps me in awe of it, much more than the recent movies, the original still holds up with it's effects because it was a mix of practical and digital blended together instead of the all digital route, even though they have improved CGI it just doesn't wow me like the original movie does, that's why Spielberg's unique stamp with Jurassic Park was something special, also the original 1993 movie had depth to it because it was based on a novel, one of the questions being should man play God with genetically resurrecting dinosaurs .
Agree. The World films have no focus. They try to be so many things and especially Dominion throws so many characters into the story that you don't know who or what to root for. There is no real depth.
@@bjornjohansen5397 Yes definitely, the new Jurassic Park movies might look good visually but it's missing something which is personality and soul, like the original 1993 movie had.
Steven Spielberg doesn’t want to direct more of those movies because he believes the story is over.
@@damiantirado9616 Oh really he doesn't, I totally understand that point of view. Yes story wise they're just milking the franchise as it not as deep as the original 1993 movie was as it was based on a novel by Michael Crichton.
Funny you say that, because he directed the second film as well, and the new director for the sequel trilogy is essentially rewriting Spielberg's plans/scripts for what he originally conceived as the original JP trilogy. The reason The Lost World was changed to have its third act set in San Diego was because Spielberg had to compete with a Kaiju movie at the box office (can't remember if it was Kong or Godzilla).
I think the first movie was as successful with presenting spectacle as analyzing the ethical implications of growing old apex predators. The new films constantly up spectacle but dilute their moral quandaries.
I think the issue with that is it doesn’t really work to constantly re-ask the same moral question that the first film already provides a pretty definitive answer to. I’m not saying that the sequels are particularly good, but I can see why they would choose to highlight spectacle over the moral implications. Despite being a dumb movie, I did appreciate that Fallen Kingdom did try to ask new questions such as whether or not dinosaurs deserved the same protection rights as modern animals.
The new films are visually impressive but in terms of story and plot they are convoluted and not engaging.
Like how the Rambo sequels completely ruined the message of the first movie.
Part of the first movies appeal was the idea itself that you could resurrect extinct species and the hubris of the humans who decided to do it for profit. It was such a cool idea and the dinosaurs highlighted the peril of such an idea to perfection. They aren’t the bad guys; the humans who made them are the bad guys. That makes their rampage scary AND understandable. The sequels dumb everything down.
Now they’re romanticising the dinosaurs, all moral quandaries mostly ignored.
The video not only refreshed the great memory of going through this spectacle but also is accurate in its analysis. The 1st one was and is pure magic. I remember once as a teenager, I was on vacation at a mountain range, My mind just filled the surroundings with imaginary dinosaurs running about. Such was the impact and you captured that perfectly.
How old were you in 1993
The original film did confirm the relationship between Alan and Ellie. Ian inquires with Alan about whether or not Ellie is single, and when Alan gets visibly annoyed, Ian is like, "Are you guys, uh...?" and Alan answers yes. Ian is immediately apologetic because he realizes that he's been flirting with another man's girlfriend. It's also why, as Ellie and Alan are walking up the hillside, Alan asks Ellie if they want to have a kid, pretty much jokingly, but Ellie turns it into a more serious conversation by saying "I don't want that kid but a breed of child could be intriguing".
It not only shows there is a relationship, but that their relationship is still young. They haven't had the "do you want kids?" discussion yet, they still kind of keep a subtle distance from each other (basically no PDA), and they aren't deeply romantic on screen. They share space in the trailer at the digsite, they are around each other quite often and follow each other around, and when looking for one another they have that emotional "I thought I lost you" reaction. Their relationship is there, it's part of their characters, but it's not all they are about.
The writers did a phenomenal job at showing the dynamic of their relationship and its depth, making them a much more realistic couple than what we normally see in films. The relationship exists purely to show us that they exist as people and have real lives to get back to after this nightmare is over. Speaking of after the nightmare is over, the film also does a great job at showing Alan at the end with Lex and Tim sitting on either side of him, and the sweet gaze between him and Ellie, and this identifies without a single word that they've reached a point in their relationship where they are comfortable with having kids.
I think what’s missing is Spielberg
The man is a wonder at making these magical , mesmerising films but with heart.
The first had huge elements of horror but also majesty
He worked on all 3 lmao
I completely agree
Great script!
I also think Jurassic Park happened at the right time - movie technology was at a point at which we were wondering how far it could go. So when we saw those amazing creatures (CGI or puppet) on screen, better than any stop-motion, we felt a similar kind of awe to the one the characters were feeling.
For me the first film works because like the characters i was seeing for the first time something amazing, the curiosity of the characters was the same as mine, every scene was something new but also believable...and the dinosaurs were treated like dangerous animals that needed respect...like you would do with a tiger or a lion...
The sequels changed everything, because the dinosaurs became monsters, vengefull bad guys and weapons, the curiosity disapeared and the characters just became boring cliches....
Totally agree with this
Exactly
Spot on!!
Exactly this! They gave the dinosaurs human-like personalities and then played them up to a movie level. These are dangerous animals, but nothing more than that. Capture that majesty, and you have yourself a movie.
YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!
In defense of Jurassic World; control is indeed a theme here, but I think viewing Owen as dominating and taming the raptors is kind of cynical. D'nofrio's character certainly wants to control them for selfish reasons, and then you have the I-Rex controlling the raptors through some alpha bullshit.
I think what the film was trying to demonstrate was that Owen had actually bonded with the raptors through healthy socializing as the might have in the wild (not that that's accurate to real raptors). Owen wasn't taming them, he was bonding with them, raising them like family, in contrast to the I-Rex getting none of that and becoming so severely maladjusted.
It's a different sort of take on respecting nature. World may be average at best, but credit where it's due.
the fact that he's controlling is so un-believable - its not believable - feels like a movie
@@zafarharis that’s because *checks notes*…it is a movie 😵💫
@@zafarharis there is no such thing as velociraptors as shown in the movie to begin with so by that logic Jurassic park is a bad movie.
@@zafarharis why is it so unbelievable tho? They are supposedly very smart in this series (some of the smartest animals ever to live) smarts animals can be trained or tamed to a certain extent. Birds of prey (or raptors) can be trained. Dogs and cats as well. Hell even monitor lizards can be trained to a certain extent. So I don’t see why some people are so offended by the idea of an animal being able to be trained.
@@skygge1006 Nope. There were two Dinosaurs called Veloceraptor; the JP books & films used the bigger one, albeit in the films with a handful of innaccuracies / guesstimations of stuff not knowable from the fossil record.
(though all differences can be explained by the plot, thus are irrelevant)
The statement about Grant and Ellie being a “couple” was hinted at in the first movie. In the book it was non-existent. Since Ellie was engaged to be married. For them to add a relationship as a primary character hook in Dominion clearly shows they aren’t interested in characters goals or intreats, but rather the relationships they could pursue.
I mean, in the movie, Malcolm actually specifically asks Grant if he and Ellie are a couple because he wants to ask her out, and Grant says yes, so Malcom backs off. So unless Grant was lying in that scene because he doesn’t like how arrogant Malcom is, they actually do make it clear it clear that movie Grant and movie Ellie are a couple.
@@meganlyb83 I could be reading it wrong, but I think Grant was lying. I've always thought he was trying to protect Ellie after hearing Malcolm say "I'm always on the lookout for the next Ex-Mrs. Malcolm". And there's nothing else in the film to suggest they had a romantic relationship.
I totally forgot Ellie was engaged in the book. I need to reread it. I stopped caring about the sequels after 3. Never liked JW and didn't see the rest. I like 3 more than Lost World, but they're both just...ok compared to Jurassic Park.
@@turtle_herd5250 The video shows them going around the excavation site in a sort of embracement, you know, walking hand in hand, touching and stuff, usually things that couples do. Hardly a "we're just friends" thing.
In the book, Ellie is not only engaged to another man (was it Mark from JP3, I wonder?), she's also Grant's student, so she'd be much younger, I guess. Movie's Ellie isn't, she's his partner (in more than just the one obvious sense).
Took my kids to see the most recent one. I still remember being 9 and watching the first movie in 93. The awe I had. They're still very entertaining. There's SO much they could get into with corruption and greed etc but the movies focus on the action. Can't blame them. Hopefully one day there's some kind of series that get deeper into the corruption and politics.
I love that the first trilogy has actual scientist in it as protagonists, the first film specially lets you see the world trough the passion of the characters; you know Grant and Satler love these animals and you are in awe with them. The subsequent movies never reach that again, and I personally hate this new trilogy, I hate Owen and how the movies forget what makes the park so special, it's not just action for the sake of it. At least imo.
.....and Owen genuinely caring for the raptors was not passionate? Was he in it for the money? Wait....he wasn't....which is why he constantly turns down InGen in their offers to weaponize the raptors. Jesus fucking christ you all need to actually watch these movies before shitting all over them.
Same. I don't like the protagonists of the JW films at all. Owen is annoying and the concept of his training is just stupid. As for the lady character, she's a block of wood. I like that the actress is finding success in being a director though.
@@Vynzent "The lady character"? Really? Tell me you're sexist without telling me you're sexist.
@@foxl2020 What a dumbass. I wouldn't even remember Chris Pratt's character if it wasn't for the OP mentioning Owen in his comment.
@@foxl2020 how was that sexist lol get over yourself
"Your screenwriters were so preoccupied with whether or not they could
that they didn't stop to think if they should"
I love what you say about many Spielberg films, "...how can you not look at this in wonder?"
It's so true: E.T., the first three Indiana Jones movies, Close Encounters Of the Third Kind, Goonies, Hook, Men In Black, A.I., Super 8, the list goes on. Even in classic horror movies like Jaws and Poltergeist, there's a sense of wonder and humanity that aren't often seen, or felt, in that genre.
And yet he gave Lost World and Kingdom of Crystal Skulls.
@@atwunz yeah, they aren't ALL winners. When you do something for decades, mistakes/compromises will be made.
What about the new West Side Story?
@@hunterolaughlin What about Empire Of the Sun?
@@rolmodel12. Ok, last one.
What about The Color Purple?
They probably could have handled the story by touching people heart strings at least, or in a better way and I think it would have made the newer movies way more engaging.Fallen Kingdom I think it was, when the island's volcano is erupting, and we see a Brachiosaurus (I believe that what it was) on the edge while the dust is covering it until we no longer seem it was a powerful scene and made me feel real sad and worried about all the dinosaurs fate in the fictional world. Sentient powerful animals that are out of their time in a world in which they have no place. If they engaged the audience with cuestiones like that, could have been better honestly.
Yep. Even sadder part was it was the same one we saw back in the first movie
That was the most memorable part of that movie.
That was indeed the same Brachiosaur from the first movie's "Welcome to the Jurassic Park" scene. But you're wrong in one thing. You're assuming, they are "out of their time", like taken from their time period. Well they aren't. They aren't even real dinos, they are cloned chimaeras with mostly paleoDNA, but with gaps of it filled with parts of other animals. So they are basically created animals adapted into our world (they can breath our air just fine, while in the past, there was higher concentration of oxigen, they should be suffocating, or at least sports asthma like symptoms, but they don't, the herbivores eat modern grass just fine, while their gestative system shouldn't be able to process it and stuff like that), they don't seem to suffer our world's conditions, unlike pure dinos for sure would. They also don't possess any memories of those original dinos (genetic memory is really really a completely different thing, than what people imagine). So don't think of them like the poor animals torn out of their time, but more like modern animals just resembling dinos. Because THAT'S, what they are.
Jurassic park was both heart warming and terrifying at the same time. That’s a very hard feeling to replicate
I loved the point you made about wonder. In the first movie that's such a big deal, how amazing and absolutely breath taking it is. Dinosaurs! Alive and roaming the earth again, like, how cool is that? To be able to actually see these creatures again, study them and be in absolute awe of how large, small, smart, sleek these creatures can be. There was an appreciation to nature and the animals themselves that the other movies don't have.
When you have that wonder, you naturally have characters who *feel* that wonder - who are capable of being more than hardened bad asses. They're not people who need to be reminded of their other emotions that lay outside their areas of expertise, they already have them. That's what makes them likable and what makes you root for them to make it!
I also feel the need to mention how the first movie doesn't force some love story in it. Yeah there's a sense of community and familial love, but they're not setting up these two hot people who hate each other and expect us to believe they'll be "together forever" when they inevitably kiss.
Hey nerdstalgic, got an idea for a video of yours: talking about the soft reboots. Like the mentioned Jurassic world, the force awakens or ghostbusters. But focus more on the part where they mimic the same introductions as the original, but more big and modern; like the new Jurassic world park, the new kid lost in space with his robot or the girls who start a ghostbuster agency.
Force Awakens rises way above the rest
@@SDfan2002 force awakens is a joke the best is return of the Jedi but let me guess you think empire strikes back is the best how did I know?🤣💀
@@SDfan2002 never mind I read some of your replies and have determined you are probably a kid so if you like that force awakens I don’t know what to tell you that’s your choice but definitely wouldn’t say it’s a masterpiece like you said a masterpiece would be more like taxi driver or American Psycho or even the original Jurassic park
I really love The Lost World I feel like if they wanted to make Jurassic World a monster movie Lost World would be what it should be more like.
I love that movie
Jurassic Park 3 is Oscar worthy compared to Dominion
I actually watched the lost world (JP2) before the main series, and I think it worked out just fine. The new idea of T-rex rampaging the city while being seen by a child going out to pee (or probably other business) is an unforgettable movie scene. Not JP1 flavor, of course, but you can't hint the same thing over and over again. You can't tell people how majestic brontosaurs are in more than one movie.
Instead, I think the biggest weakness of Jurassic world is that it clings too much to JP1, with random new dinos, one dependable male character, and two kids running around (I genuinely thought, "what the heck is this rip off?")
Asking new questions, new themes, and new monsters are nice ideas, but they just don't have the right innovative settings to introduce a whole bunch of ideas while being glued to the original JP1. Spielberg is a legend and not only for JP movies, so his successors in JP failed to get out of his shadow. And probably the influence of Harley Davidson suddenly needing JP ads?
Honestly, the only reason I remember Indomitrus Rex's full name is because it sounds similar to my favorite noodle.
Indomie trus, Rek!! = Keep eating Indomie, Bro!
First off, I love how this video starts off saying that the "five attempted sequels" do not possess "a shred of the imagination and ingenuity of the original", even though at the time of this video the latest sequel Dominion hasn't come out yet in the U.S. Prematurely throwing shade, I like it.
7:44
She was NOT forced to wear them all the time. She, the actress, actively CHOSE to wear them at all times DESPITE what the director initially said.
wtf why?
@@vivivalley
She said it was in-character. The director stopped protesting when she proved she could run in the jungle in them.
I love that. That detail alone vastly improves the character
@@tiberiuscodius5828
It's also like half the complaints I hear about the movie, so I think it eliminates one's ability to criticize the movie over it.
@@Richard_Nickerson agreed. JW is definitely worse than the original, but I think it's far better than JP3 and arguably better than Lost World. I don't really understand the hate Bryce Dallas Howard's character gets
I feel like they understood suspense a lot better in the past, and knew how to handle pacing masterfully. They seemed to take their time, like a confident man walking down the street, while conveying emotion through the rawness of acting, videography, and music.
I think one issue is that it's almost an unreachable goal to hope that we will get a sequel that is equal to the first. For one thing, at least for me, who saw the first movie 3 times at the theater when it came out. Something I've never done before or since. I've never even seen a movie at the theater more than once. But the reason I went so many times wasn't just that it was a good movie, with great characters and a solid plot. It was because it was showing something that no one had ever seen before on such a large scale. Jurassic Park was pretty much the first big movie to really do CGI right. You had a couple of other movies like The Abyss, that did some good CGI moments. But nothing like Jurassic Park. I always found it funny that the scene where Grant and Ellie first see a dinosaur for the very first time, the looks of awe and bafflement on their faces were the exact same ones we as an audience had, because we were both witnessing something we've never seen before. And unfortunately you can't recreate that moment. But man oh man.....I sure wish they could get even close. Yet they have failed time and time again.
I gotta admit: I really like Jurassic World and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I enjoy Jurassic World because it showed us what it would actually be like if the park opened. It was interesting to see Hammond's vision finally come to life. It presents some interesting ideas and sequences that I think are great. I also like the characters and dinosaur designs.
I don't like Fallen Kingdom nearly as much, but I still enjoy it. It's much more silly, but I really enjoy the characters and premise, with the island exploding and the auction. I like the world building it presents as well, with the Dinosaur conservative group and different view points being presented.
Overall, I really enjoy these films and can't wait for Dominion.
Agree!! Jurassic world is one of my favorite summer movies
@@PrettyXXEmpty Crap
@@Cpt_Katsuragi how old are you? 😬
Laser guided dinosaurs 💀💀💀
I saw JW in IMAX and it was an amazing experience. I agree, it was so fun to see the Hammond experience come to life, with new Dinos and I think it still gave us the wonder like the first movie, especially when they first enter the park and are exploring before everything goes to crap.
The first movie will forever be my favourite and the best, however the first Jurassic World is pretty good and enjoyed it very much!
4:09 Their relationship was not just hinted at. It was stated outright before the jeeps stop, when Malcolm asked Grant if Sattler was available.
I always got the feeling that was a bit of posturing/wishful thinking on Grant’s part. My read is that Grant/Sattler were exploring the possibility of a relationship, but their disagreement about kids is what caused hesitation about actually entering into a relationship.
@@smacain People don't typically say they want to have the other's children unless they're already romantically involved.
I think the relationship is firmly established, if not overstated. Add to that, Sam and Laura recently confirmed the characters' relationship in a recent Hollywood Reporter interview.
Grant's statement in that exchange with Malcolm is a bit ambiguous to me. Based on the context of the scene, I always thought that Grant was trying to protect Sattler from Ian's potential advances directly after hearing about his past marriages and his views on marriage in general. Plus, to me at least, there's nothing else in the film that suggests anything other than a close working relationship between Grant and Sattler. Ofc they could have just been an extremely low key couple, but I never saw it. Also, I disagree with his assessment that (paraphrasing) "the third film almost demands Grant to pine over some lost relationship with Ellie". I don't really get that supposed subtext. It just seems like Grant is visiting an old friend and colleague with whom he shared a harrowing and traumatic experience. I also strongly disagree with his implication that the bonds of found family are more interesting and important than biological family, but that's a separate issue.
@@theST1NG Sattler never said she wanted to have Grant's children. She just stated that she wanted a child. And no part of the film establishes a firm romantic relationship between them. Besides what the actors have said, it pretty inconsequential to the overall plot. Not saying it isn't fun to theorize about.
@@turtle_herd5250
Grant: Kids... You want to have one of those?
Sattler: I don't want that kid, but a breed of child Dr. Grant could be intriguing. I mean, what's so wrong with kids?
You know this movie is something special when even today I can watch it and for a split second still wonder “how’d they get the dinosaur to do that?”
To have achieved that in 1993 is straight up black magic, lol
Original JP: velociraptors are awesome and scarily smart killing machines .
Jurassic world: they are basically trained dogs who can understand English half the time .
Jurassic Park is my all time favorite movie. I always feel the need to clarify, just the first one. I can allow myself to enjoy the others for what they are because I just love dinosaurs regardless. But man, that first one is a masterpiece in every aspect!
I still have my widescreen laserdisc of Jurassic Park. Timeless movie.
Almost as good as Billy and the Cloneasaurus.
What were you thinking, sir?!?!?!
I had my doubts going into Jurassic World, but there's this very meta bit in where they're discussing one of the characters wearing an original Jurassic Park t-shirt, and him basically saying that the old park didn't need all these fancy gimmicks to be cool. I feel like the writers were basically telling the audience that they shouldn't expect the magic of the first film. That part helped to set my expectations for the rest of the movie, and I was able to mostly enjoy it, as a fun popcorn flick. I haven't gone back to rewatch it though, and I didn't really have much of a desire to see the sequels. The original will always be not only the best movie in the series, but one of the greatest movies of all time.
^all of this. Those trashing JW don't fucking understand that they weren't trying to make it better than the original. JW is literally pointing out not only the toxicity of Hollywood greed, but the toxicity of greed in general.
That point is further hammered home in Fallen Kingdom when a bunch of rich dudes start bidding on animals they have no idea what they are, let alone have the means to take care of said animals.
The original was written as a cautionary tale of playing God. The sequels are the same but, rightfully so, add in the extra part of saying money will not save you from everything.
@@foxl2020 They're not as deep and self aware as you try to pretend they are. Lmao.
The Aarons are on-point. The whole 'jurassic park t-shirt' scene succinctly explains that anything, when produced at large scale and sold to the masses, will feel cold and flat. And how do we as society respond to that? By manufacturing bigger dinosaurs with more teeth! It's an excellent piece of satire.
@@saratreetravels I disagree, the JP T-shirt scene in JW is just one of the so many nostalgia baiting scenes that riddles the new trilogy. Nostalgia is the only positive thing it has to offer.
I've seen satire being used before to explain these new movies, but it isn't there. Starship Troopers is satire, JW is just bad writing.
I mean, that computer guy's quote from JW would work if the movie actually pointed out a major flaw in the JW way of working, but sadly the only reason why things go wrong in JW is because the characters are literally written as brainless bodies who only do things because the plot wants it to and the Indominus manages to escape in one of the least believable ways as possible.
And no, Dr. Wu's "You wanted bigger teeth" doesn't work either. It's a cop-out to explain why things look like low-effort copies of JP dinosaurs without realizing that such an explanation wouldn't even have been necessary because in-universe JP dinosaurs were supposed to be real dinosaurs.
In the original, the dinosaurs were treated as like regular animals following their instincts which made them so much scarier. The sequels all reverted to making them just be movie monsters, running around and roaring at people then eating them.
The Dilo scene was a prime example. It was dangerous, but it felt like a 'you didn't want to make the wrong move just to buy you a little time' kind of creature. It was curious, maybe even playful at first, however once it gains enough confidence and decides you are dinner, then it's game over. That's what makes that scene so tense in the movie. Because Ned was stomach churningly naive chucking this stick around like a plonk and staring at directly it.
Another interesting one was when Dr Grant was waving the flare around, and the T-Rex was bedazzled a bit, staring like a huge dog with teeth. It felt scarier because this T-Rex was seemed a unpredictable real animal, not a cartoon monster. The intelligence of the main character could get them killed or safe.
One thing I hate about this movies, is that they treat dinosaurs as monsters, they don't treat them like normal animals
I have to say I've REALLY been enjoying the increased rate of content from this channel. I'm routine impressed by the production and writing quality over the years I've been subbed. Thank you for you and your team's work!
Wow, really appreciate this. Thanks for the kind words
To me the first movie says nature is beautiful majestic but you can't control it doesn't matter how much power you think you have and the new ones say Big monster with teeth= scary
I know it's not a fair example, but it sort of reminds me of what happened with the Aliens franchise. The first movie and second movie nailed the formula, the aesthetic, the themes and characters, but then it started to go downhill from there. Either they try to replicate the original formula in a cookie cutter fashion, or they add some twist that doesn't really make any sense. Jurassic Park, although not a proper horror film, still possessed some horror/thriller elements, alongside a great score and some subtle yet effective philosophical and ethical discourse. Although there was some spectacle, it wasn't the focus (as with newer films). Like the early Aliens films, it was about a small group of humans, outgunned and outnumbered, trying to survive on an island (versus a ship/base in Alien(s)). There was a real sense of tension alongside the awe factor. Honestly, I think Jurassic Park, much like Aliens was "done" after the second films.
The first worked because it was like nothing we had seen before. It was unique and exciting. I saw it in the cinema in 1993 and it was my favorite movie for ages. It's still the best cinema experience I've ever had.
100% agreed my eyes couldn't believe the images in the cinema back in 93, it was SHOCKINGLY AMAZING VISUAL EFFECTS.
The dilophosaurus spit to paper rip cut at the end; excellent!
As someone who watches and actually likes some of Jurassic sequels, I appreciate that this review actually presented a very thoughtful and well written argument for why there is such disconnect between them and their classic predecessor. By the title and the thumbnail I was preparing for an insufferable bash fest, but bravo for making this into one of my new favourite analysis videos.
Why is it impossible to make a good movie in general, especially horror movies 😔
Because Horror needs tension.
Watch the movie called “Don’t be afraid of the dark” from 2010.. Outstanding horror movie
I wouldn’t say impossible but it seems less likely and common nowadays. But apparently the new top gun is great I want to watch it, I think 1917 was great etc
It's not impossible. There are plenty of good movies including horror. You either haven't found them or you just hate movies. You should probably stop watching them.
Because there become lazy, instead of making actual horror there just throw a bunch of stupid jumpscares.
Jurassic Park is a Masterpiece. It's like trying to make another Gone with the Wind or Godfather or Jaws. It's just never gonna be as Good.
Well, they did do another even better Godfather.
@@MaxIronsThird Godfather 3 had Sofia Coppola.....uhggghhh
@@crakatoot5480 Did you skip 2 for some reason?
Considering they just announced a new sequel is in the work, it’s sad to see the franchise being milked like this.
I think a big issue with these current action movies is that they’re so far from grounded (well as grounded as you can get with fictional plots lol). The original Jurassic movies had, in a nice way, bumbling characters. They had NO clue how to deal with their situations, as you’d expect regular people to be like when they’re trapped on an island with dinos. They weren’t trained pros that are one step away from being Superman. Thus making the original films more “relatable”
The only thing that annoyed me about JP3 was the guys show off these giant guns and then immediately run away the moment the spino shows up. Like...the .50 cal will work on the spino just as well as the rex
Did you not watch the rest of the movie? (I wouldn't blame you if you didn't.) That spinosaurus had Wolverine-like powers of regeneration. It got its spines chopped by airplane propellers, then was bitten in the throat by a T-Rex shortly after, and it shrugged both injuries off as if they never happened. But in that respect, it foreshadowed the Indominus Rex pretty well.
I love a lot of the sequels. They’re not as good as the first, but they’re really good in my opinion.
really good?
Depends on which movie series you take. In JP, the sequels were kinda alright but reboot simply killed the series off. But because the reboots made a lot of money, of course the studio was happy!
I agree!
I gotta admit: I really like Jurassic World and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. I enjoy Jurassic World because it showed us what it would actually be like if the park opened. It was interesting to see Hammond's vision finally come to life. It presents some interesting ideas and sequences that I think are great. I also like the characters and dinosaur designs.
I don't like Fallen Kingdom nearly as much, but I still enjoy it. It's much more silly, but I really enjoy the characters and premise, with the island exploding and the auction. I like the world building it presents as well, with the Dinosaur conservative group and different view points being presented.
Overall, I really enjoy these films and can't wait for Dominion.
This franchaise deserve more love.
Easiest question to answer of all time: Jurassic Park was an ORIGINAL STORY that didn't have to be compared to anything else, or had to live up to anything. It brilliantly combined special effects (that are BETTER than special effects used today), with the original story to truly make something one-of-a-kind. And, I cannot express this enough, THE DIALOGUE. It was real, deep and some of the most brilliant scenes are just dialogue between the characters.
The movie isn't about the dinosaurs, it's about man vs. nature, chaos theory, and the philosophical debate surrounding genetic engineering; a REAL cutting-edge story at the time. It didn't present the debate as cartoonish...it actually consulted real paleontologists and reflected the REAL philosophical debate between actual scientists.
I really like the first 3 movies, so the classic Jurassic Park movies, before Jurassic World. The first is obviously the best, easily. The second one I think is quite great and the third is nothing special storywise, but still very enjoyable to watch for me.
What doesn't work for me with the new Jurassic World movies is that all the modern technology that we have at our disposal nowadays. I'm sorry, but I can't really believe that with this much menpower, weaponary and technology that 30 runaway dinosaurs that even have trackers in them, would be hard to get rid of. Also the storyline with the laser tech was so comedically stupid, that it took me completly out of Fallen Kingdom. The villains also aren't compelling, they are cartoonish bad guys, who are being bad for the sake of being bad and had no redeeming qualities in any way, they don't care about anything or anyone as long as they get rich.
Compare that to Dennis Nedry: His motivation was underpayment and underappreciation (at least he felt like that) for his work. However in his execution of the plan, he didn't want anyone to die. He didn't deactivate all fences, just the ones, he needed down to get to the docks in 15 minutes, then get back to the headquarter and put everything online again.
I don't think I need to say much about Roland Tembo, as he was a fantastic antagonist or maybe even antihero? And even Peter Ludlow wasn't in all of this for personal riches, but to save the company he was leading from bancrupt, by getting their moneys worth out of a failed project, instead of doing all the expensive research and development over again.
Are those particularly deep characters for the villains? No, but sufficient as to make us understand, what they want and how far they are willing to go, without coming off as completly unreasonable or evil for the sake of being evil.
couldnt say it better myself.
I only watched the first World movie at the insistence of my friend and it was a fun if shallow ride, but that's as much as I can give it. I think you captured well the essence of the problem, being the lack of awe, but I would also call it a lack of heart. It felt like they were trying to throw a lot of character archetypes into it, which were fun in execution, but felt very unrelatable or unlikable. And turning a passionate if arrogant scientist like Dr. Wu into a borderline satirical mad scientist in World just felt like a bit of a slap in the face. I have nothing to say about the World sequels since I haven't and don't intend to watch them. I have the original Jurassic Park, and it'll never stop being amazing.
The Jurassic series finally jumped the shark in one specific moment: In Fallen Kingdom, the super-raptor-thing literally smirks and winks at the audience before goring the military guy. That was the moment when I knew Trevorrow, et al, were not trying any more. They are pumping out nonsensical cartoons for children (physically or mentally).
I have tickets for the new one which I was given for free. I would not be seeing it if I had to pay. But I will go for free to see just how badly they mess up the next one.
Dominion is nothing like Jurassic Park was. It is just bad as JW and Fallen Kingdom. Don't waste your time.
Also... the Indoraptor is meant to be this super animal that can pick up scent so well etc. but it could not sense that Owen, Claire and the little girl were hiding behind the triceratops statue it was standing next to!
Trevorrow also had a lot less to do with Fallen Kingdom because he was heavily involved with Star Wars between 2015-2017 before being fired from Lucasfilm. Can't put blame solely on him.
@@foxl2020 Even if that's true, "I was busy" is no excuse. Compare these piles of poodoo to something like the recent film "RRR" to see what a truly talented filmmaker can do when they focus their attention. You get an action spectacle for the ages!! - - I wouldn't even mind an action-focused Jurassic movie if it were made in a somewhat competent manner, but the original Jurassic World was actually worse than Fallen Kingdom! It was insulting to the audience, insulting to the franchise, and a major bore to watch.
To quote Jackie Chan: "Whatever you do, do the best that you can. Because the film lives forever. [Other directors make excuses, like,] ‘No, because you know, that day [it was] raining, the actor [didn’t] have time…’ I said, ‘Would you go to every theater to tell the audience? No. What the audience sees at the theater - good movie, bad movie - that’s all.'"
Winks at the audience? Are you lying on purpose to trash on the movie?
Spielberg knew how to make movies, that's why.
💯💯. He really did
A movie that's as old as I am still holds up infinitely better than every other movie in its franchise and always will.
I think the reason why Jurrassic Park has depth to it is because it is based on the novel made by Michael Crichton. Crichton is a master of sci-fi thrillers that will make you think (even until now even if his work is made in the 90s) if the technology/innovations are worth the risk or sthg.
Can't believe it's been nearly 30 years since we last had a good Jurassic Park film.
Thank god for Audible. Scott Brick really knows how to read a story. There’s so many chapters that still send chills down my spine
Jurassic world was ok though
@@bradley8575 it was ok but unnecessary
C'mon... Lost World ain't that bad..
Lost world is okay jurassic world is good
It's possible but it's going to be a different kind of movie. More scientifically accurate and therefore focused on a different kind of horror and adventure
In your dreams. I saw it and Dominion is bad as Fallen Kingdom and Jurassic World.
What does scientifically accurate even mean really in terms of dinosaurs, like with the recent Prehistoric Planet where a great deal of the 'scientific accuracy' is still theoretical if not debated or outright artistic license. It's just "cool" to show how the first Jurassic Park movie is now "wrong."
@@beerosaurusrex they did get stuff wrong, by the creators own admission, the biggest mistake is that Dinosaurs were birds, we know that they had feathers.
@@atwunz Neeyengane kandu?
Jurassic World Forbidden Kingdom... first movie I've ever contemplated walking out on.
Do you mean "Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom"
@@terry.c8133 when you have so little respect for a movie, why bother with getting the name right?
@@Spartan0430 hundreds of people still worked hard on the movie weather or not you liked it
@@terry.c8133 so? how does that change the fact that the movie was bad?
The worst part about the Dominion was the complete lack of stakes for the protagonists. You just knew that all of the “good guys” were going to make it out just fine, no matter what dinosaur came their way. Compare that to the first Jurassic Park, where several named characters who got a good amount of screentime were killed off in memorable scenes and the viewer was left feeling like they had no idea who would survive. In Dominion basically the only named character who dies is the main bad guy who everyone knows is going to die from the beginning (because the same exact thing happens in the first two JW movies). Every other character that died in Dominion is just some random background extra or a henchman who the viewer feels zero emotion upon seeing their death. Meanwhile the main cast has this aura of invincible plot armor surrounding them, shooting off quirky Marvel-tier quips while being chased by what are supposed to be terrifying dinosaurs.
Honestly even the CG in the original still looks almost as realistic as that of the latest installments. Back then it was the icing on the cake of decades of prop expertise and cintematographic finesse. Now it *is* the cake 😂
Nothing will ever come close to the excitement surrounding the original that summer. Episode 1 came close, and the Marvel movies, to a point. But summer of 1993 was on a whole other level.
Episode 1 was the ultimate hype train.
Man I just wanna watch movies with dinos in it. Doesn't have to be perfect
In short: the first film was based on a well thought out, researched book. The rest were 'hollywood' written.
Even though the first Jurassic World critiques the hell out Hollywood, the rich, and those just trying to control everything?
Jurassic World can't be Jurassic Park because they already know how to clone the dinosaurs and have finally built a park to house said dinosaurs safely....or so they think. The whole point of the entire fucking franchise is a cautionary tale to not fuck with shit we don't understand.
In Jurassic World, they felt they finally understood the dinosaurs and how to control them, so they made hybrids. Hybrids had to be made because the rich people that could afford to go to said park got bored. The overarching theme of the whole franchise is don't fuck with shit you don't understand. The Jurassic World movies have fucking nailed that and are not "Hollywood" written. You're just too dumb to see it.
Exactly 🍿🎬👏🏾
From what I remember, Bryce Dallas Howard wasnt forced to wear highheels the entire movie, the actress she actually refused to wear more sensible shoes...Against the director's wishes, so yeah.
You Forgot one of the Most Important things about the 1st one. It has a Mixture of Music and Zoo Facilities combined to give you the Feeling of the first time you got to see a Really Nice Zoo. Not just the Animals it's feeling of the Place itself.
I just watched the newest Jurrasic World and I must say it's not a movie. It's a reference all the way through. Most of them from Park 1-3. Another thing is the death toll, there are only shown few and there isn't mentioned that many people die off screen. I'd generally say that most sequels never top the orginal/first movie.
So many new carnivores....and in a couple hours I couldn't be bothered to care about a single death or injury. Samuel L. Jackson must have more talent in his one arm then all those people combined.
From a kid that loved dinosaurs growing up, man i just want to see another dinosaur movie that treats its dinos like animals, rather than movie monsters and superheroes. People like to point out how scientifically inaccurate the first Jurassic Park movie is, and the whole frog DNA mixing, to justify their appearence. But Jurassic Park literally revolutionised how the public looked at dinosaurs. Before it, they were just hyper aggressive mindless giant lizards. Jurassic Park showed them acting, moving and behaving like actual animals, as well as connecting them to birds instead of reptiles. How the Rex attacks the Jeep by observing it, flipping it and trying to eat the "belly", just like an animal would, or the calm moment with the Brachiosaurus on the tree. Sure we also had the super intelligent raptors and the venom spitting Dilophosaurus, but it's clear that a lot of effort behind the scenes was made to make these animals feel as real as possible. I can look over the lack of feathers and other inaccuracies when the movie did so much for mainstream audiences.
Now, we're back to mindless movie monsters, exept for the dino "protagonists" like the rex and Blue, who seem to have a moral compass now and always save the day from the big bad dino. Even in the original, when the Rex saved the day, it was just because it was in the right place in the right time, it's still probably one of the cheesiest scenes in the movie, even if it's pretty iconic. And again, i wouldn't mind the scientific inaccuracies if the dinos actually behaved like animals. But without it, it just feel like a franchise stuck 30 years in the past. Hopefully documentaries like Prehistoric Planet will inspire more people to look at these creatures in a new light, it's just a shame that we don't have more mainstream movies pushing these kind of dinosaurs, instead we're still stuck on the big agressive plucked lizard because it's more iconic and sells more
❤️❤️❤️
Owen raised Blue from an egg, they have a bond, that is why she saves him.
it shows that not all velociraptors are aggressive towards everyone
All subsequent sequels have this cynical greed that completely overshadows the original vision.
As an outsider, and someone who’s watched the movies but isn’t obsessed with them, it kinda feels like they’re just beating a dead horse at this point. I think the first movie holds up because it’s original and we wanted to explore the horrific possibility of humans living alongside dinosaurs. Now the movies feel like we’re just supposed to think the dinosaurs are cool and the action sequences are badass. Which they are, but it’s not as important as storytelling.
uNREALISM AND stupidity is yet another big problem for this franchise
Alan and Ellie WERE a couple in the original. It was so painfully obvious and Alan even heavily implies so when Ian Malcolm straight up asks him
lol
Yeah, I was just plain confused by that part of the video. How could anyone think otherwise? Maybe because they weren't a couple in the book? But even so, if they're not a couple in the movie, then their conversation about having kids is REALLY weird.
@@davidlundquist1979 People are confused because Jurassic Park portrays a realistic relationship. They’re not constantly holding hands or nuzzling each other’s necks with gooey eyes and declarations of love. A lot of movies portray long-term partners as still being lovesick teenagers. Jurassic Park breaks the mould by having Alan and Ellie be professionals who are genuinely invested in their work. I know, crazy, right?
I've been saying this for years. There's only one Jurassic Park scenario worth doing and Spielberg nailed it the first time.
Jurassic Park is one of those films that was perfect and should have been left alone. Like the dinosaurs. Jurassic World is AWFUL and I don't see how they can recapture the magic. Let the franchise go extinct. (I know they won't).
How was Jurassic World awful?
Ha, seriously???@@aaronflowers8881
there's a lot of weight given to the presence of individual dinos in the first film. We rarely see more than one at a time. The later films rapid cut between wide shots of 10+ dinos at a time (fallen kingdom in particular). Although they've been in movies for decades I still think dinosaurs can look striking and awe-inspiring if filmed in the right way.
Doing away with joy and wonder...excellent summing up of the later Jurassic Park movies...