Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2017 18:58:37 GMT
That was the book though. The movies especially The Lost World is radically different. The movies are simplified pieces of entertainment for a younger audience. This eco system problem was not brought up in any of the movies (that I remember) and if it was such a prominent thing in the original book then it should have been brought up in that movie. You act as though its impossible for film to bring up this point. Its not. Its really not. It'd be easy to portray that the dinosaurs do not belong in the 20th/21st century. The films just chose to be lazy and dumbed down the material. It WAS a prominent thing in the book and it is a failing on all the films' parts that none of the filmmakers have brought it up. Don't act like Spielberg and all the other filmmakers are above making a mistake while producing these movies. The entire point of both the book and original film is that THE. DINOSAURS. DO. NOT. BELONG. HERE. MAN. PLAYED. GOD. AND. REAPED. THE. BLOODY. CONSEQUENCES. Did that somehow go over your head? The lack of people just shooting the dinosaurs in the original trilogy is also another huge flaw. Those films went out of they to come up with excuses to prevent characters from pumping dinosaurs full of lead, whereas in the book, things went to hell in a hand basket despite Muldoon and some of the other groundkeepers being able to put down some of the animals. And it reinforced the point that they were out of their depth much better that way. No, the hunters got killed because Nick Van Owen is an sociopathic asshole who sabotaged them. They only went after the herbivores and actually had the situation under control until Nick set them all loose in the dead of night. They weren't anywhere near the carnivores until after Nick necessitated it. Then he took their bullets later on when they all, "all" included Nick's team, needed them. The film completely failed to deliver the "arrogance of man" theme from the previous film. Every bad thing that happened in the second film had nothing to do with man overstepping his bounds. The second film was all about Nick and Sarah fucking other people over. They also killed four mercenaries. Upon arrival to the island, Grant's group completely got the dug pulled out from under them due to lack of planning. And then they got chased by the raptors because his assistant took some of their eggs. The third film did a better job of re-inforcing that theme than the second one did. It had no atmosphere. The sheer ridiculousness of the story and the unlikable nature of the "heroes" killed any atmosphere it might have had. You have to give a damn before a film can have atmosphere, and I didn't. And? John Williams is not necessary. Many films don't have him involvement. No, its completely irrelevant. Films may be a form of vision entertainment, but they don't need a ton of different dinosaur types. And The Lost World sucked. Not really.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 13, 2017 7:42:15 GMT
You act as though its impossible for film to bring up this point. No they could have brought up but they didn't. They never brought up in the movie that the dinosaurs were a danger to the eco system and they felt it was best they be left on the island. Therefore in this version of the story the dinosaurs were not a danger to the eco system so you're finding an issue that doesn't exist within that world. He sabotaged his gun after finding out that Roland wanted to capture a T-Rex and bring it back to San Diego. Now considering they did capture the T-Rex which then killed everyone on a ship and could have killed a vast amount of people in San Diego, of course this not being due to the heroes at all. Then it was for the best that Nick attempt to stop the T-Rex from being captured. That's why people watch them in the first place to see the dinosaurs. The other movies showcased a variety of dinosaurs both carnivores and herbivores so they were shown in different lights. Jurassic Park 3 however only focused on the nasty antagonist dinosaurs that just want to kill people. There was more to dinosaurs than that.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Dec 13, 2017 8:02:02 GMT
5/10
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Dec 13, 2017 13:54:53 GMT
He sabotaged his gun after finding out that Roland wanted to capture a T-Rex and bring it back to San Diego. Roland wanted to kill the T-Rex, not capture it and that's when Nick sabotages his gun. Roland notices this later during the Rex attack and he switches to tranquilizer gun. If Nick hadn't sabotaged the gun, it's likely that Roland would've killed the buck Rex and avoided the whole San Diego incident.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2017 22:33:38 GMT
No they could have brought up but they didn't. They never brought up in the movie that the dinosaurs were a danger to the eco system and they felt it was best they be left on the island. Therefore in this version of the story the dinosaurs were not a danger to the eco system so you're finding an issue that doesn't exist within that world. You ARE aware that The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a severely flawed movie, right? Don't act like every decision Spielberg made was the right one. Spielberg's vision was uncertain and confused at several points. Um, no, Roland just wanted to shoot the T-Rex to kill it. Tranqing it and taking it to the mainland was a consequence of Nick taking Roland's bullets. Had he not done that, Roland would have just killed the male Rex when it invaded the camp and the corporate guy wouldn't have been able to put it on a boat. Therefore, yes, everything that happened in the film is the fault of Vince Vaughn. So no, it wasn't for the best that Nick took his bullets. Like I said, the supposed "heroes" cause every death in this film. The former is a terrible movie, so its irrelevant how many dinosaurs it had. The latter is a fun movie despite only having a few.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 14, 2017 7:20:31 GMT
You ARE aware that The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a severely flawed movie, right? Of course it's flawed, Jurassic Park 3 just much more so. It was still their decision to bring it back home though rather just leave it unconscious on the island. That decision to bring it back which was nothing to do with Nick, cost a whole bunch of lives and destruction. Jurassic Park 3 isn't fun, it's a recycled version of The Lost World, except incredibly short, feels cheap and scales back, had an overabundance of cringey comedy, had a sheer lack of dinosaurs and lacked the wonder in seeing them as they were too focused on the evil Spinosaurus. There was more to the other movies than running away from man eating dinosaurs.
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Dec 14, 2017 8:32:17 GMT
5.5/10- the worst of the franchise, worse than Jurassic World
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Dec 14, 2017 8:57:35 GMT
7.5.
As an old fashioned kind of film JP 3 was the most traditional although the ending felt rushed. It was more like a matinee adventure than the first. Less story problems than the second. Tea Leoni was annoying but at least this time the main kid wasn't so bad and served the plot better than the previous two.
And we finally we have some satisfying characterization and conflict (such as between Grant and his assistant).
I liked that Grant had not gone all gushy loving kids as the heavy-handed message of JP 1 was suggesting--he ends up not only losing the girl but being rather sour on dinosaurs due to the island experience. The movie was about him overcoming his animosity/trauma about dinosaurs and bonding with his assistant. And the family drama was also one of reconciliation. Tacky perhaps but no worse than the forced family drama of the previous two.
It was also a welcome change of pace that the raptors were not the default villains either.
As for the Lost World-it had some of the best CGI scenes of the series but there were story flaws. I think it was more of a black comedy-and somehow it managed to have a little irony which is the last thing I expected from Spielberg. The baby t-rex kills the villain. Loved that bit. Good Williams' score too.
Roland was an interesting character but Spielberg made him into a SJW crusader which does not work--Roland wanted to kill the male t-rex--is thwarted by Nick (a clumsy scene with the gun being left conveniently for him), but then feels disillusioned because his Indian tracker died. He is set up as an asshole along with Ludlow but Spielberg went soft on him, just as he did with Hammond in the first film-who was gleeful about seeing a captive steer ripped apart by raptors--he would have loved working in a Chinese zoo). The really bad death is reserved for Eddie who heroically saves them from the cliff.
The resulting chaos is due to Ludlow and Roland not Nick. If they had left the island alone nothing would have happened. Blaming Nick and Sarah would be like complaining if an invading army captures prisoners, someone rescues them, and the prisoners retaliate in self-defense (though in the case of the dinos they were just breaking free).
The whole point of Nick's involvement was to prevent Ingen from disturbing the habitat of the dinos. He was also responsible for calling the rescue team. Roland was going to shoot the male t-rex dead. If he had, Ludlow would have probably taken the baby t-rex as an attraction anyway since it was the most easily available at that point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 16:15:32 GMT
You ARE aware that The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a severely flawed movie, right? Of course it's flawed, Jurassic Park 3 just much more so. It was still their decision to bring it back home though rather just leave it unconscious on the island. That decision to bring it back which was nothing to do with Nick, cost a whole bunch of lives and destruction. Jurassic Park 3 isn't fun, it's a recycled version of The Lost World, except incredibly short, feels cheap and scales back, had an overabundance of cringey comedy, had a sheer lack of dinosaurs and lacked the wonder in seeing them as they were too focused on the evil Spinosaurus. There was more to the other movies than running away from man eating dinosaurs. No, The Lost World is more flawed. That option to take it from the island was only open to them because Nick took their bullets. Otherwise, Roland would have just killed the male Rex leaving them with a carcass. So yeah, this is still on the "heroes". In fact, the only reason they were desperate enough to take one of carnivores is also because of the "heroes". Otherwise, they'd have just nabbed some herbivores and put them in the zoo. They actually had the situation perfectly under control until Nick and Sarah sabotaged them. Jurassic Park 3 is a fun film, and much better than The Lost World. Nothing you complained about just now bothers me because its a better written and paced film with no last minute third act taking place on the mainland tacked on. And THe Lost World sucked at being more than people running away from man eating dinosaurs. It was an overly political mess of a film that had no idea what it was doing.
|
|
|
Post by scabab on Dec 14, 2017 16:41:14 GMT
Otherwise, they'd have just nabbed some herbivores and put them in the zoo. They actually had the situation perfectly under control until Nick and Sarah sabotaged them. Which they also weren't supposed to be doing. They shouldn't have been there at all. If the hunters hadn't shown up in the first place none of the problems afterward would have happened. Dinosaurs and mankind are not meant to coexist. It is has been proven to not go to plan in three movies now. That's not political, it's not a political movie at all. It was a conflict of opposing factions between movie characters. It wasn't perfect but it felt like a big step in scale from Jurassic Park, it was entertaining, had memorable action sequences and a lot of dinosaurs. Jurassic Park 3 was the opposite. Scaled down, the same thing a second time, the most memorable scene in the movie is memorable for dividing fans and had a lack of dinosaurs. It also started this trend of focusing on a particular dinosaur as a villain.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2017 16:52:33 GMT
Otherwise, they'd have just nabbed some herbivores and put them in the zoo. They actually had the situation perfectly under control until Nick and Sarah sabotaged them. Which they also weren't supposed to be doing. They shouldn't have been there at all. If the hunters hadn't shown up in the first place none of the problems afterward would have happened. Dinosaurs and mankind are not meant to coexist. It is has been proven to not go to plan in three movies now. That's not political, it's not a political movie at all. It was a conflict of opposing factions between movie characters. It wasn't perfect but it felt like a big step in scale from Jurassic Park, it was entertaining, had memorable action sequences and a lot of dinosaurs. Jurassic Park 3 was the opposite. Scaled down, the same thing a second time, the most memorable scene in the movie is memorable for dividing fans and had a lack of dinosaurs. It also started this trend of focusing on a particular dinosaur as a villain. Considering that InGen owns the island and they had permission to be there, I'd say they were in their rights. No, had Nick not sabotaged them, none of the problems afterward would have happened. It was too late for dinosaurs and mankind not to coexist, and as I've said before, they wouldn't survive for long on that island considering how their very presence was destroying the ecosystem. No, it was a political movie. We're meant to side with the Greenpeace characters because that's the Liberal thing to do. Er, no, it did not feel like a big step in scale from Jurassic Park. It was not entertaining, had no memorable action sequences, and it doesn't matter if it had more dinosaurs. Jurassic Park 3 was just the right scale, did everything Lost World did better, and had plenty of memorable scenes in it. The previous two films did that, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2017 4:31:01 GMT
5/10 is generous.
|
|
ravi02
Sophomore
@ravi02
Posts: 795
Likes: 418
|
Post by ravi02 on Dec 29, 2017 23:19:03 GMT
6.5/10
It has its fun moments, but overall very slight on story and characters. Probably my least favorite of the four films thus far.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Dec 30, 2017 15:49:33 GMT
A-
It's my ideal of what the JP premise should be. JP B+ piles of exposition & the annoying kids keep it from more for me. JP2 B the Michael Bay'ish final act douses its fire. JP3's short run time is icing on the cake.
+ - No fences, no guards, no whiny children, no military grade help on island. - The dino selection is cool, the pterodactyl cage being one of my fav set pieces of the entire franchise. - 'Speaking' with the raptors really is a wash for me... an odd premise with practical effect - Grant afterall is using an actual raptor fossil to attempt communication, not some mobile app we'd probably see nowadays. It showed development of the raptors that they were more than caged maniacs. - Sam Neill as Dr. Grant is a nice mild throwback. I'm sure I'd probably feel less about this film if we'd had some new dino specialist we've no past with. Grant was through the JP war already once, he let's us not doubt his decision making.
- - While the cell phone gag can be a bit much for some, for me it's the lone slapstick angle + it keeps the film timely to its release. I know it's likely the film's weakest angle, & yet I still laugh out loud. The toddler answering the cell phone call was the reach for me admittedly, a bit much during such a climactic sequence. - Laura Dern, never been a big fan, including JP. That she was a key to SW TLJ was a negative for me there too.
JW put me to sleep, literally. JW2 trailer looks worse than Sharknado - I truly hope it bombs miserably.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 29, 2018 9:04:10 GMT
5/10
|
|