Anyone like Jurassic Park?

[Lord Paul]

I love Jurassic Park! My fav of them is JP1 because it's the coolest, and it has the T-rex as the star(They should do that on all of the JP movies)! TLW was kinda boring, voilent, and i hated that part where the dog got eaten by the T-rex. I HATED JP3 because it was unrealistic (especially the part where the T-rex got its neck BROKEN AND KILLED by the SPINOSAURUS and the part where the kid collects T-rex pee ). Anyone like Jurassic Park?











P.S. I heard that there going to make a JP4, and then, two years after that, there going to make a JP5!!!!! I CAN'T WAIT!!!!!

 

[Perfection]

Jurrasic Park was good, the rest became the same old story, people go to island, dinos chase them around, bad guys get eaten, good guys live, the end!

 

[Skullbones]

I saw the first one. I don't think I saw the second one. It was ok. The people eating scenes were cool. Uhm... I don't really remember it much though. Wasn't there some dinosaur that spit poison? Yea, that was cool when it melted that guy.

 

[Perfection]

I saw 1&2, if you've seen one Jurrasic park you've seen them all. 2 was such a crappy rehash that it just wasn't worth it.

 

[Jeratain]

The book was outstanding. The sequel, The Lost World, was also well written.

The first film was well done and suspensful. They ruined the sequel by creating an entirely new screenplay that was basically crap. I don't even remember the third.

 

[Al Zan]

one is the best!

 

[Alex the Great]

I agree with Jeratain. The books rule. Napalm and compies, in the first one alone. At first I enjoyed the movies, then I noticed how much it was skewed against InGen, especially The Lost World. The movies are good for the dinosaur eating scenes, and nothing else. I do suggest everyone read the books.

 

[Dark Ascendant]

I liked the first one because it had originality. The second was an okay continuation.

The third one was pure BS. Partly because it had no originality, partly because the plot was so boring.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

I liked the first Jurassic Park, but I've never been to big a fan of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are overrated. We mammals could whoop dinosaur ass any day!

 

[Zarn]

I only liked the first one. I'm not too much of a dino fan. Actually, I'm not a dino fan at all.

 

[Turner]

Watching the movies is okay. . .turn the ol' brain off for a couple of hours. JP2 was, at the end, kinda out there. JP3. . .it had it's moments. . . like the Velociraptor that jumped out from behind the tank. . . that was cool.

Much prefer the books. JP was so much darker than the movie. . .

 

[kangyio]

I've seen 1,2 and 3.The flying dinos are cool,as are the huge ones.The dino fighting scenes are exceptional I have to say,I still remember them quite clearly,they are pretty unique.

 

[Eastern Knight]

I've seen III, it was okay, not that exciting, and too short. Just when it's getting good it ends, :sigh: zzzzzz......

 

[Speedo]

The books are great.

Movies:
JP1 was pretty good
JP2 was uh... bearable
JP3 sucked

 

[jeriko one]

JP is still good after 10 years. It showed peple how non-existing creatures can be created in computer. The rest sucked.

 

[thestonesfan]

Books - The first was a near-perfect techno-thriller. A true classic. The second one was also excellent. Recommended without reserve.

Movies - Blah. The only saving grace in them was the cool dinos, which were definately cool. As far as the story goes, they changed the best parts of the books with consistent stupidity. I HATE Jeff Goldblum to the point where it's difficult for me to watch any movie he is in. I haven't seen the third one, but it sounds like they pumped up the Spinosaurus a little bit. One of those would have a tough time against a T-Rex. A T-Rex outweighs a long, slimmer Spinosaurus by a couple tons.

 

[Martacus]

Honestly, not even the first movie did it justice. Too much was changed. Three things in particular bothered me (by the way, I read the book first, a full year before the movie came out):

The list of survivors. Totally different in the book. They killed off the lawyer in place of the PR head; the lawyer was one of my favorite characters in the book, and survived there. Don't get me started on the rest.

The weapons. In the book they had rocket launchers and massive tranquilizer guns. In the movie, we get...shotguns. Which are only used once, and offscreen at that. Provoking rage in Hammond, who seems to have been canonized by Spielberg.

Missing/changed scenes. I really wanted to see the "egg" scene from the book; it was one of the most suspenseful parts in my opinion. And of course the ending. Just a reluctant retreat form an island paradise, not a massive mlitary operation that wipes the place out. Which brings up one more thing: they removed the government angle from the book entirely. Grant was prompted by the government to report his findings on the suspicious, illegal activities going on on the island.

I will admit the movie was visually impressive, but it was all eye candy and didn't carry the same wieght the book did.

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Perfection
Jurrasic Park was good, the rest became the same old story, people go to island, dinos chase them around, bad guys get eaten, good guys live, the end!

Isn't that the same with everything else in life? It's the same old story every where else like watching sunrise and sunset every day or getting up and go to work every day. Like in most movies, the bad guys rules the world, live a good life, and win for awhile. In the end, they would lose and die a horiable death. Just like basketball, there are two teams and they each trying to put the ball into the other team basket; that's it - there isn't any new there - it's kind of old if you ask me. Like Civilization III, we all start a game with one settler, kissing AI feet for awhile until we are strong enough, then take over the world - the end. And yet, we keep on playing it game after game. It's really the same old story everywhere I go and it's getting worst. We all came into this planet in a bodysuit, spend some time to do the mumble jumble that we call life, then in the end, we will die - the end of the story.

 

[kangyio]

Such generalised statement is a bit too sad.Well,definitely nobody can have negative attitude of this level.The point of this post here must be different from how you feel in the real world I believe,is it not?

 

[thestonesfan]

I don't like the first movie in the least. My points of contention, in addition to Martacus' gripes -

The 'raptors on the roof scene near the end of the book was left out of the movie. Geez, that was tense. It seemed to me that the theme of the book really stood out there - nature was taking over the place, and there wasn't a damn thing you could do about it, short of simply surviving. Sattler's utter desperation being the one thing that saved her as she made the leap to the pool. Muldoon backed into the drainpipe armed with a rocket launcher, hoping his hindquarters weren't exposed - classic.

Wu's conversation with Hammond was nixed. That would have been a great scene.

They killed Muldoon in the movie.

The casting was atrocious. Maybe the worst I've ever seen. Nedry was good, the kids were good...then it breaks down. Neill as Grant was passable - barely. Laura Dern was terrible, Goldblum laughable, the lawyer not even remotely the same character. Attenborough playing a lovable Grandpa instead of a cutthroat, complex businessman was a big mistake. The characters that were well cast had bit parts - Samuel L. Jackson, the guy who played Muldoon, Wu, Harding...the dinos were the clear stars.

The ending was pathetic. Come on...the Tyrannosaur coming to the rescue? Why on earth would a Tyrannosaur break through the wall to attack some 'raptors?!? Instead of them succeeding thanks to their wits(the brilliant egg scene), they are saved by some freak occurrance. I hate that.

Such potential for a great movie, and they totally dropped the ball.

And the Lost World isn't even worthy of discussion.