Within my family and friend group we're split between thinking it's genius and crap. Personally, I found it better than Jurassic Park III but when it comes to Jurassic World, in the words of the absent Ian Malcolm, "That is one big pile of sh*t." As for it getting a sequel, of course the studio's going to make a sequel. Jurassic World has become the third highest grossing film of all time worldwide. They're making another one for the same reason they keep making those horrible Transformers movies: $$$ And unless I'm mistaken, I believe I heard they were planning on making at least two more sequels before Jurassic World was even released. ~Thylo
The trouble with the franchise now is that it's painted itself into a corner by refusing, or begrudgingly acknowledging,the discoveries that have happened since JP1. The films will be stuck with, to quote Alan Grant, "genetically engineered theme park monsters." When you consider Pixar have been doing realistic fur for 10+ years, I find it a bit lazy from Universal saying people don't want to see feathers on the dinos. Comparing current discoveries to JW, the movie dinos look practically alien! Or maybe that's more to do with the over-egged CGI.
Maybe a lot of people do prefer to see the standard, if outdated, portrayals of dinosaurs, but I find them rather boring. And I think the studio is just making excuses, really, feathered dinosaurs can be just as scary. Know what other animals are fluffy? Bears, wolves, lions. I wouldn't challenge any of those animals to a fight. For all the people who say they prefer older portrayals, well, I think they would change their minds if a movie like JW showed them some of the new stuff. Show creatures that are much more varied in appearance and behavior. (I mean, the stuff with the trained raptors was pretty well-received, so I think audiences can handle new things) After all, the first Jurassic Park film went against the typical public perception of dinosaurs, even changing it entirely.
The JP dinos are technically half Xenopus. Thats why the T. rex could only see moving prey. The orivinal hard sci-fi message was lost.
Thanks, but I just want it to be authentic. Or at least realistic... http://memeshappen.com/media/created/I39m-A-Excellent-Driver-Yeah-Excellent-Driver-meme-23710.jpg
Obviously this is my own personal opinion based on nothing but preference, but I thought it was pure crap. Cliché and predictable.
Hollywood is now meta, regurgitating franchises to sell toys. Spandex superhero films come to mind but JP counts. When was the last time you and friends traded great lines from a recent Hollywood movie? It doesn't inspire people anymore, merely cannibalise itself and remake things like Oshii's GITS. For years smart ppl have preferred European & Asian cinema but right now Hollywood entdrtains only 1) existing fanbases and 2) idiots.
The American movie industry still produces entertaining, original, exciting, inspiring...good or even great movies (not even counting TV series productions) - including even some of the "spandex" (?) category. You just have to be more choosey and determined to find the cinematic treasures among the trash. Watching Asian or European movies does not automatically make you a smart person; just as in the US, you might have to sit through mediocre to simply bad movies (including horrible arthouse flicks just meant for urban peer groups of snotty hipster art students) to find some true diamonds.
My friends and I are personally huge fans of a lot of the "spandex" films you mentioned, and we find ourselves quoting them all the time. Even the admittedly bad and money-grabbing ones can have their moments. Tell me, are we just part of a simple existing fanbase or idiots for finding joy and more complexity within movies you clearly think are below you? ~Thylo
Doesnt change the spandex superhero genre is niche, not normie appeal, and Hollywood goes for existing commercialised fanbases.
I have no real idea what you mean by 'normie', but I'm pretty sure I don't like the implication either. There's a difference between being a 'genre' film (not a term I'm fond of, but there isn't a better one) and being 'niche' (implying a limited audience).
As someone who waited over a decade for the film to happen, I was pleased with it. There are many, many ways it could have been worse than the final result, and I dare say the audience may have been spoiled by how many utterly terrible ideas were left on the cutting room floor, such as dinosaur-human hybrids, a much worse style motorcycle sequence, or a lack of dinosaurs entirely. I completely understand the desire to see realistic dinosaurs in a major, high-budget motion picture, and I'm hopeful this franchise can do that in the future, but I also think the "genetically-engineered theme park monsters" opens a lot of creative doors of its own, and commentates on some real ethical issues when it comes to genetic engineering. I think it makes far more sense than simply pretending the existing, inaccurate dinosaurs had been accurate in the first place. I think it'd be an interesting angle in a future film to see another source clone realistic dinosaurs and contrast them with the familiar ones from previous films openly. I'm open to where the franchise goes from here. This is highly overstated. The Velociraptor in the original Jurassic Park were far more willfully inaccurate for their time than anything any of the sequels, including Jurassic World, did on their own. Crichton openly admitted to basing them on Deinonychus but liking the Velociraptor name better. The Dilophosaurus' frill and debatable size adjustment. Jurassic Park's main shift was in portraying non-bipedal theropods and introducing dromaeosaurids to the world, but they were otherwise fairly close to what was well-known and took plenty of creative liberties. The narrative since JW's release that JP was amazing for its time and JW is ruining that legacy is surprisingly commonplace but not very accurate to me. These have always been special effects films first and foremost and they have always sacrificed accuracy.
JVM: Crichton was following GSP in lumping Deinonychus into Velociraptor. The inaccuracy is making them the size of Utahraptor.
So I just watched a trailer for the sequel to Jurassic World. There are some nice bits in it, and the CGI is good, but also just too many "here's a scene like from the original Jurassic Park" and the weird "horror movie" scenes and just all the general "this looks like absolute garbage" scenes. I think the movie itself will be much worse than Jurassic World.
Give it another movie or two and there won't even be any actual Dinos left, just whatever weird VelociraptorXT. rex hybrids they invent for this reason or that reason or for toys. It's a shame to see where the franchise is now considering the original is one of the great films of all time. ~Thylo
And then when they've wrung the concept dry, they'll go back to the original movie and insert dinosaur hybrids in it and re-release it for suckers.
We're years from that, though. First we need about six films of Michael Bay directed war between the Humans and mutant Dinos, then a film set 20 years into the future. Perhaps they'll even throw in a movie where Grant and Malcolm's great-grandchildren travel back in time to the events of the original film to try and stop it all from happening. Oh the possibilities. ~Thylo
