Yep doesn't take a genius to work out. A film based around a Dinosaur theme park, it's hardly going to be a film of any substance is it, just a Hollywood generic blockbuster with Dinosaurs, it may be a fun film, but nothing to get excited about.
it may be a fun film, but nothing to get excited about.
I think this sums it all up really, doesn't it? Fun and excitement can quite easily go hand in hand... I for one am quite excited about this. Hopefully it'll be better than the other sequels, of which I enjoy for what they are. Complaining that it's sticking somewhat close to the genre in which it's parked is somewhat like complaining that the Postman Pat movie was too similar to the show that inspired it, and it should have been a political thriller instead.
It's not going to be the most thought-provoking film of the year (although it's running with some very relevant themes) but it could very well be very enjoyable and that's all I can ever ask of a film.
There are an awful lot of people condemning all the jurassic park movies on here. .If i watched one film then watched the follow up and pulled them both to pieces I don't think I'd waste my time on a forum debating the fourth installment! .
I for one am looking forward to the new one. .I will take it for what it is an hour or two of entertainment...none of the films can recreate that awe felt seeing the dinosaur's from the first film..but the follow ups have been good.
Yep doesn't take a genius to work out. A film based around a Dinosaur theme park, it's hardly going to be a film of any substance is it, just a Hollywood generic blockbuster with Dinosaurs, it may be a fun film, but nothing to get excited about.
Yep, no way a dino movie could be anything other than all flash and no substance. Except for the original Jurassic Park of course....
Yep doesn't take a genius to work out. A film based around a Dinosaur theme park, it's hardly going to be a film of any substance is it, just a Hollywood generic blockbuster with Dinosaurs, it may be a fun film, but nothing to get excited about.
I kind of agree about the limitations. JP movies are (big) monster movies. You can only have awe at seeing them, destruction of stuff and chasing of people. People might be interested in the ethics of resurrecting extinct creatures but they probably don't want to see that discussed at length in a dinosaur movie. They don't want to see trade disputes played out in Star Wars either! Having said that there's no reason why a JP movie can't be good fun.
No even that didn't have any substance, just your average generic movie with the added bonus of dinosaurs.
Disagree. Saying that there can be no nuance or complexity in blockbuster films is simply untrue. Obviously Jurassic Park had all the classic action/adventure elements but it did have discussion of serious themes too. Obviously it's a balancing act and it has to fit certain requirements for box office success but that doesn't mean there can be nothing more.
Are you suggesting that all blockbusters are basically the same and without substance?
I mean, I would suggest that there is a large gulf between the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Transformers films for example, even though both have big special effects and fight scenes etc.
*Some geezers, including kids, go to the island and are in awe of it.
*One of the employees starts dicking around with DNA...
*...As a result, dangerous dinosaurs are set loose
*We follow the characters in their pursuit for survival.
*Some geezers, including kids, go to the island and are in awe of it.
*One of the employees starts dicking around with DNA...
*...As a result, dangerous dinosaurs are set loose
*We follow the characters in their pursuit for survival.
Pass on this, already seen it.
Stupid thing to say. You can boil any film down in a similarly cynical way.
Stupid thing to say. You can boil any film down in a similarly cynical way.
No, your response is a stupid thing to say. That is obviously how the film is going to play out. Trailers for movies like these aren't cryptic and the movie is just an extension of a superficial franchise. The only way my view will be seen as cynical in retrospect is if the film actually has something to say and features a big, unexpected twist - so nothing like the previous 3 JP movies.
Though they have a bit more room to move in a narrative sense, all Bond films are working to the same basic template. The point is how well they do it, and it's the same deal here. We all know roughly what to expect from a Jurassic film - it would be silly to expect much in the way of originality given the limited parameters. So the interest lies in how well it's been done and what's been done with its usual components. Nobody, at present, has seen that. Given the wildly varying quality of tentpole releases over the past summer alone, it's an intriguing prospect (unless your cynicism strains this far too).
The other thing is that JP and its sequels were released quite some time ago. I imagine for a large part of today's audience these are films they have seen on TV or some other medium. They'll be aware of what to expect, but also be aware that they were made for the 90s audience. Jurassic World, however, is the big screen Jurassic film for them, as it were, and probably very much made with them in mind.
Most films have a hackneyed plot, recycled from the past. It's how it's done.
The problem is that increasingly there are no real people up on the screen, no depth. Also you need convincing character motivation.
It seems a lot of his new wave of writers and directors can't direct and/or write. But they can do as they are told by a studio executive or two.
I'm sure you'll have an easy time in pointing out the depth, layered characterisation, richness in nuances, convincing motivations and such in old blockbusters like Airport 1975, The Towering Inferno, The High and the Mighty, King Kong, Earthquake, The Cannonball Run, Around the World in 80 Days, Smokey and the Bandit and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.
A studio executive or two has had their hand in films since the 1920s, too. The studio system, anyone? They weren't that shy in producing numerous films with hackneyed plots between the 1920s and the 1970s, either.
Seriously though, the ratio of those who could direct/write and those who couldn't during the 1940s is pretty much same as the one during the 2010s. Same old same old, really.
Just saw the superbowl spot and man I was disappointed.
I don't think this film will be good. Everything good about Jurassic Park has been sucked out dry. What made the JP films so unique was that the dinosaurs were both CGI and practical effects. Jurassic World just seems to be going down the lazy route and making it all CGI, thereby in my eyes sucking the true magic of the films out dry. Even Jurassic Park III had that, and despite it not being on par with I & II, I still admire it for using practical effects rather well.
Who knows. Maybe they will do that, but after watching this trailer, my expectations have dropped hugely. Plus until I hear that classic John Williams theme song, It won't be a Jurassic Park film to me.
*Some geezers, including kids, go to the island and are in awe of it.
*One of the employees starts dicking around with DNA...
*...As a result, dangerous dinosaurs are set loose
*We follow the characters in their pursuit for survival.
*Some geezers, including kids, go to the island and are in awe of it.
*One of the employees starts dicking around with DNA...
*...As a result, dangerous dinosaurs are set loose
*We follow the characters in their pursuit for survival.
Just saw the superbowl spot and man I was disappointed.
I don't think this film will be good. Everything good about Jurassic Park has been sucked out dry. What made the JP films so unique was that the dinosaurs were both CGI and practical effects. Jurassic World just seems to be going down the lazy route and making it all CGI, thereby in my eyes sucking the true magic of the films out dry. Even Jurassic Park III had that, and despite it not being on par with I & II, I still admire it for using practical effects rather well.
Who knows. Maybe they will do that, but after watching this trailer, my expectations have dropped hugely. Plus until I hear that classic John Williams theme song, It won't be a Jurassic Park film to me.
It's not all CGI. Animatronics are going to be used and most of the CGI isn't even completed.
Comments
Super psychic.
Yep doesn't take a genius to work out. A film based around a Dinosaur theme park, it's hardly going to be a film of any substance is it, just a Hollywood generic blockbuster with Dinosaurs, it may be a fun film, but nothing to get excited about.
Is this a DS record?
I think this sums it all up really, doesn't it? Fun and excitement can quite easily go hand in hand... I for one am quite excited about this. Hopefully it'll be better than the other sequels, of which I enjoy for what they are. Complaining that it's sticking somewhat close to the genre in which it's parked is somewhat like complaining that the Postman Pat movie was too similar to the show that inspired it, and it should have been a political thriller instead.
It's not going to be the most thought-provoking film of the year (although it's running with some very relevant themes) but it could very well be very enjoyable and that's all I can ever ask of a film.
I for one am looking forward to the new one. .I will take it for what it is an hour or two of entertainment...none of the films can recreate that awe felt seeing the dinosaur's from the first film..but the follow ups have been good.
Yep, no way a dino movie could be anything other than all flash and no substance. Except for the original Jurassic Park of course....
No even that didn't have any substance, just your average generic movie with the added bonus of dinosaurs.
Disagree. Saying that there can be no nuance or complexity in blockbuster films is simply untrue. Obviously Jurassic Park had all the classic action/adventure elements but it did have discussion of serious themes too. Obviously it's a balancing act and it has to fit certain requirements for box office success but that doesn't mean there can be nothing more.
Are you suggesting that all blockbusters are basically the same and without substance?
I mean, I would suggest that there is a large gulf between the Lord of the Rings trilogy and the Transformers films for example, even though both have big special effects and fight scenes etc.
Still on islands though.pretty much the same as each other.
*Some geezers, including kids, go to the island and are in awe of it.
*One of the employees starts dicking around with DNA...
*...As a result, dangerous dinosaurs are set loose
*We follow the characters in their pursuit for survival.
Pass on this, already seen it.
Stupid thing to say. You can boil any film down in a similarly cynical way.
What you think it's really going to be any different to that?
No, your response is a stupid thing to say. That is obviously how the film is going to play out. Trailers for movies like these aren't cryptic and the movie is just an extension of a superficial franchise. The only way my view will be seen as cynical in retrospect is if the film actually has something to say and features a big, unexpected twist - so nothing like the previous 3 JP movies.
The problem is that increasingly there are no real people up on the screen, no depth. Also you need convincing character motivation.
It seems a lot of his new wave of writers and directors can't direct and/or write. But they can do as they are told by a studio executive or two.
Though they have a bit more room to move in a narrative sense, all Bond films are working to the same basic template. The point is how well they do it, and it's the same deal here. We all know roughly what to expect from a Jurassic film - it would be silly to expect much in the way of originality given the limited parameters. So the interest lies in how well it's been done and what's been done with its usual components. Nobody, at present, has seen that. Given the wildly varying quality of tentpole releases over the past summer alone, it's an intriguing prospect (unless your cynicism strains this far too).
The other thing is that JP and its sequels were released quite some time ago. I imagine for a large part of today's audience these are films they have seen on TV or some other medium. They'll be aware of what to expect, but also be aware that they were made for the 90s audience. Jurassic World, however, is the big screen Jurassic film for them, as it were, and probably very much made with them in mind.
I'm sure you'll have an easy time in pointing out the depth, layered characterisation, richness in nuances, convincing motivations and such in old blockbusters like Airport 1975, The Towering Inferno, The High and the Mighty, King Kong, Earthquake, The Cannonball Run, Around the World in 80 Days, Smokey and the Bandit and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.
A studio executive or two has had their hand in films since the 1920s, too. The studio system, anyone? They weren't that shy in producing numerous films with hackneyed plots between the 1920s and the 1970s, either.
Seriously though, the ratio of those who could direct/write and those who couldn't during the 1940s is pretty much same as the one during the 2010s. Same old same old, really.
I don't think this film will be good. Everything good about Jurassic Park has been sucked out dry. What made the JP films so unique was that the dinosaurs were both CGI and practical effects. Jurassic World just seems to be going down the lazy route and making it all CGI, thereby in my eyes sucking the true magic of the films out dry. Even Jurassic Park III had that, and despite it not being on par with I & II, I still admire it for using practical effects rather well.
Who knows. Maybe they will do that, but after watching this trailer, my expectations have dropped hugely. Plus until I hear that classic John Williams theme song, It won't be a Jurassic Park film to me.
20,000 people on the island.
Come on, it's kind of true. even the person in charge is wearing a white suit