Jurassic Park

2

Comments

  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,195
    Forum Member
    bazzaroo wrote: »
    Fabulous film, being a huge Michael Crichton fan i'd read the book before seeing the film and wondered how it would translate to a family orientated blockbuster. Needless to say Spielberg produced a groundbreaking cinematic experience, the first sight of the dinosaurs is still my biggest WOW moment after years of cinema going.

    His Lost World book is crap though. I'm glad they changed it.
    (Well not about the T-Rex doing his Godzilla impersonation)
    But the rest of it.
  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    dee123 wrote: »
    His Lost World book is crap though. I'm glad they changed it.
    (Well not about the T-Rex doing his Godzilla impersonation)
    But the rest of it.

    Some say Crichton did it under protest. He does not like sequels but found himself under pressure to write one. It may not have translated that well to film if kept as it was.
  • boddismboddism Posts: 16,436
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I remember when Jurassic Park came out.

    When you first saw the dinosaurs back in 1994 it was just a gobsmacking moment. Hence why the characters in the film just stand there with mouths wide open, stunned (just like the cinema audiences) Funny/clever moment created by Speilberg!

    I remember being stunned & moved by the film, not the dinos themselves, not the plot certainly!

    But by the fact that I was witnessing for the first time a major leap in cinematic art. Cinema history was being made on the screen in front of me.I knew this film heralded a game change and cinema would now change for ever. (which it has done) So much CGI can seem lame today, but nothing beats witnessing it in that superb form for the first time.

    I saw the film at the cinema 4 times
  • lalalala Posts: 21,175
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    boddism wrote: »

    When you first saw the dinosaurs back in 1994 it was just a gobsmacking moment.

    Just a slight correction. Jurassic Park came out in the summer of 1993 not 94. 1994 is when Flintstones The Movie came out. :D
  • ASIFZEDASIFZED Posts: 1,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Query: how was the lycene (?) contingency (as i think it was referred to), supposed to work? Specifically, the dinosaurs already running amok.

    Never quite got that.
  • fastest fingerfastest finger Posts: 12,862
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ASIFZED wrote: »
    Query: how was the lycene (?) contingency (as i think it was referred to), supposed to work? Specifically, the dinosaurs already running amok.

    Never quite got that.

    The dinosaurs had to be regularly supplied with Lysine suppliments by the staff at Jurassic Park to survive. By witholding the Lysine the creatures would all die. It also meant that if a creature were to leave the Island it would not survive for long.

    Perhaps it would normally have been distributed via fresh water supply.

    I guess Hammond would have insisted that Lysine should still be available to them, even though they were loose on the island, against his colleagues advice.
  • ASIFZEDASIFZED Posts: 1,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ok, thanks. I could potentially see how that might have worked in all the dinosaurs still safely in captivity, but just seemed that was a flawed solution to those out in the wild already.. unless they'd already been made dependent on the lysine in the first place.

    Still - a great, eminently rewatchable movie. The less said about the sequels, the better.
  • MissDexterMissDexter Posts: 1,644
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ASIFZED wrote: »
    Ok, thanks. I could potentially see how that might have worked in all the dinosaurs still safely in captivity, but just seemed that was a flawed solution to those out in the wild already.. unless they'd already been made dependent on the lysine in the first place.

    Still - a great, eminently rewatchable movie. The less said about the sequels, the better.

    Neither sequel is as good as the original but they don't deserve "less said about them the better"
    They both have great stand out moments and have a lot of talent on show.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,293
    Forum Member
    I guess Hammond would have insisted that Lysine should still be available to them, even though they were loose on the island, against his colleagues advice.

    Probably.

    The novel makes it pretty clear that Hammond is a nutjob, who constantly ignores precautionary advice from his experts.

    Gennaro expected 12 animals on the island. Hammond bred 200+. Wu wanted to make the dinosaurs more docile and controllable. Hammond insisted that they be wild. Muldoon wanted to be armed to the teeth. Hammond originally insisted on no guns anywhere on the island. Nedry designed a computer system that even Arnold said was excellent, but Hammond made excessive further demands on him that drove him into financial ruin, causing him to accept a bribe from a rival company

    They tone Hammond down in the film, but he's still a misguided old tool
  • terry66532terry66532 Posts: 581
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    watched this at the cinema when i was 13 , there was a huge buzz about this film and i was so excited , it didnt dissapoint.
  • ASIFZEDASIFZED Posts: 1,388
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MissDexter wrote: »
    Neither sequel is as good as the original but they don't deserve "less said about them the better"
    They both have great stand out moments and have a lot of talent on show.

    Disagree, though don't wish to detail this appreciation thread. JP2 was the point of Spielberg downturn as a director; simply an awful, lazy, vicious and insipid film with annoying characters and one of the worst tacked on illogical endings I've ever seen in a film. Hate JP2 with a passion. One of the worst sequels ever. JP3 was a poor tv-movie effort, with even more annoying characters (take a bow, Ms Leoni). Sam Neill must have done it purely for the paycheck.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    ^ I liked JP3 the best :o

    A straightforward, no-fuss monster film with none of the original's overblown pomposity, and a blessed relief after the deeply boring first sequel (has Spielberg ever seemed this disinterested? Mind you, everyone was phoning it in here).

    Oh, and Pteradactyls rule.
  • BesterBester Posts: 9,698
    Forum Member
    I remember initially I was a little disappointed that the movie wasn't as good as the novel. That rapidly subsided though, and on subsequent viewings I've always found it to be a cracking film on its own merits.
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,293
    Forum Member
    ^ I liked JP3 the best :o

    A straightforward, no-fuss monster film with none of the original's overblown pomposity, and a blessed relief after the deeply boring first sequel (has Spielberg ever seemed this disinterested? Mind you, everyone was phoning it in here).

    Oh, and Pteradactyls rule.

    JP3 had two major problems.

    A poor ending. It should have ended with raptors vs the spino, or raptors vs the pteranodons. The raptors running away after getting their eggs was a dud ending

    The second problem was Tea Leoni. She was even more annoying than Vince Vaughn and Julianne Moore in JP2, and seemed intent on actually trying to get killed.
  • BlurayBluray Posts: 661
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jurassic Park IV due to be released June 13th 2014, filming in 3D unfortunately but I'll book my ticket in 2D.

    Spielberg producing.

    No more details as yet.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    Jurassic Park is my favourite film of all time - I was less than two years old when it came out, and watched it a number of years later. It is such a strong film, that admittedly deviates from the novel, but then both are brilliant and it allows you to enjoy the experience twice, essentially.
    - The cast of the movie was fantastic on all fronts, and the toned down turn of John Hammond from Lord Richard Attenborough made the character almost loveable... it added a solemnity and warmth to the sort-of messages of the film.
    - The plot is something that many people undersell these days. Whilst it has probably dated more than any other aspect, the concept of dinosaurs being more like birds than reptiles was a new slant on prehistory - even long after its release, people were laughing at such an idea but now it seems so natural that we take the film as a very simple one for pointing out that scientific advancement. Truth be told, the storyline isn't too taxing all the same, but it doesn't need to be. There's always enough going on to keep it interesting, and to keep it from falling into the territory of a high-budget b-movie.
    - Most praised and rightly so are the effects. I recall hearing that less than 16 minutes of the whole film actually contains effects, which emphasises the films other strengths but also the films clever decision to not overdo the CGI. Many films today look impressive, but the CGI is so often over done for shock appeal and 'cool factor'. Age has done these effects no harm, for they still look the part and blend brilliantly into natural backgrounds. The shots of the T-Rex and the raptors stood out particularly well, and even today that Brachiosaurus at the beginning delivers a real sense of awe when you watch it.


    The sequels weren't in the same league, no. But they were decent films all the same.
    The Lost World: Jurassic Park could have used more interesting characters - even Ian Malcolm disappointed a little, though his one-liners were most welcome. The effects were again impressive, but more awesome than beautiful, aside from that Stegosaurus scene early on. The plot was a decent enough one, though wreaks of 'sequel' and 'merchandise'.
    Jurassic Park 3 was a very simple affair that probably could have used a bit more fleshing out. The acting talent is there once again, even if I think that Ellie should have been back on the island to liven things up a bit. A few too many things were rehashed from the second film, and there wasn't really a massively memorable CGI moment - the pterosaurs and the Spinosaur/Rex fight were brilliant though. The biggest crime though was the sudden ending of the film - it was half hour shorter than the other two, and all so that they could use a real military landing in the shoot. There had been script problems previously, but selling the film out without a proper ending was rather sad, especially seeing as it's been the ending of the trilogy for eleven years so far.
    I look forward to the new film immensely - hopefully they'll announce an interesting cast for the piece. Whilst I think it'd be a mistake to get back any familiar faces on the island, a nice cameo from Attenborough would be lovely to establish some familiarity. I hope they don't totally overdo it on the effects and deliver something a little different to the so far similar efforts in the sequels. It's Jurassic Park with a producing Spielberg..it's potentially in very good hands :D
  • treefr0gtreefr0g Posts: 23,596
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    imo,the T-Rex attack has never been bettered as far as cgi is concerned.

    They didn't just make a dinosaur movie. They sat back and came up with the recipe for the best dinosaur movie that will ever be made.
  • jenziejenzie Posts: 20,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    REALLY hope they actually move the story along, and not just rehash it AGAIN!!!
  • PJ68PJ68 Posts: 3,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    i'm a bit confused here - they're rereleasing JP in 3d in april... wasn't it rereleased in 3d last year too?? i swear i saw it at the cinema in 3d..
  • BlurayBluray Posts: 661
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PJ68 wrote: »
    i'm a bit confused here - they're rereleasing JP in 3d in april... wasn't it rereleased in 3d last year too?? i swear i saw it at the cinema in 3d..

    It wasn't 3D on its rerelease last year
  • Big Boy BarryBig Boy Barry Posts: 35,293
    Forum Member
    The story for Jurassic Park 4 should be set on Isla Sorna

    The movie should show what happened when that hurricane wiped out Site B. Scientists battling for survival, animals escaping etc...

    In essence, it would be a "mid-quel" between Jurassic Park and The Lost World.
  • AbominationAbomination Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    I would love for them to move away from the 'ruined island' concept that we saw in The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3 - tonally, they're too similar, and I far preferred the shiny and new approach in the first film. That being said, I have no idea how you'd work around that now.

    And my Great Nan presented me with a late 21st birthday present the other day... it's one of the original 100 Jurassic Park books, signed by Michael Crichton. She has been saving it all this time, and considered it an amazing coincidence it ended up being my favourite movie :D:p
  • Bandit1200SBandit1200S Posts: 60
    Forum Member
    I would love for them to move away from the 'ruined island' concept that we saw in The Lost World and Jurassic Park 3

    I've read that JP4 will have the Dinosaurs on the mainland this time.

    As for the original JP, great film and as always the book is much better, actually listened to the audio book of it the other night, what I liked about JP the film as much as anything was the sound though, especially the T-Rex scene, this film prompted me to get my first home cinema surround sound system, recently bought the JP Blu Ray boxset, and again the sound is incredible, looking forward to JP4 in 3D and 2D this summer and eventual Blu Ray release too.
  • royllsroyceroyllsroyce Posts: 1,163
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    JP4 will be a prequel
Sign In or Register to comment.