Best Jurassic Park/World Movie?51 RepliesAdd A Reply
Which movie from the Jurassic franchise is best in your opinion and why? Whether it's the cast, the plot, or the effects be sure to explain your reasoning in detail!
My opinion: Personally I'll always love the first movie the most. This was the movie that spurred my love of dinosaurs into action. This was the movie that drove me to purchase and covet every piece of merchandise. This was the movie that pushed me to pursue paleontology.
To me, almost everything about this movie is perfect. Even the inaccuracies and mistakes. Especially the inaccuracies and mistakes. For all it's factual errors the movie manages to make long dead creatures alive and terrifying. Through practical effects it survives today's world of CGI monsters. The work, time and dedication put into making the animatronics and props still shows today. Stan Winston and his team did an amazing job.
The casting was perfect and yet surprising. Who knew Sam Neil would make the perfect Alan Grant? Especially when you consider that Harrison Ford was Spielberg's original choice! Jeff Goldblum did a bang up job portraying the witty and sometimes annoying Dr. Malcolm. Let's not forget Laura Dern in her magnificently cast role of Dr. Ellie Sattler. And, of course, Sir Richard Attenborough. His acting on the part of John Hammond was supreme! Who else could play a rich old white guy better than a rich old white guy?!
The plot, though it has a few holes, is well modified for the silver screen. Spielberg made cuts and additions where he deemed necessary. That waterfall scene with the helicopter pad? Totally Spielberg's work. The titillating scene when the rex looks straight at Lex and the eye dilates? Another stroke of genius on the director's part.
In all, the original Jurassic Park is a masterpiece that will never be trumped by any of it's sequels. Some may come closer than others however. We'll see just how close when the second Jurassic World comes out on June 22, 2018.
On an aside, thanks for reading that loooooooong entry. I'm new to scified and still learning my way around.
XENORAPTOR - Welcome to SCIFIED! It is always good to see new faces! I happen to believe Jurassic Park is the definitive and most exciting portion of the Jurassic franchise! This is due to the fact that the original was groundbreaking in its visual elements and was unlike any other dinosaur film before it! Once again, welcome to SCIFIED! :)
None of the sequels have or will touch the original movie. Not even close. It's a masterpiece that's able to transcend its flaws due to its vision, atmosphere and imagination. There was nothing like it beforehand and there's been nothing like it since then.
Over 20 years later it seems like blockbusters are still trying to capture the same magic the original Jurassic Park had to no avail. It will still be a hard one to top in another 20 years and I have no doubt it will continue to stand the test of time.
GMAN2887 - Well said! Hear, hear! :)
10. Jurassic Park III
3. Jurassic Park: The Lost World
2. Jurassic World
1. Jurassic Park
The original Jurassic park! Jurassic world did a great job but it will never beat the 1st one!
Dinosaurs incredible creatures who roamed the Earth 65 million years ago. Never had nature been filled with so much terror and beauty...
Xenotaris- Yeah I'd agree with that order. I think I'd bump up Jurassic Park III to an equal standing with The Lost World though.
Yeah have to agree with the sentiment that the first is far and away the best. We've talking one of the best movies of all time when looking at Jurassic Park.
The rest are fine, but they can't compare with the original.
I liked Jurassic Park: The Lost World better than Jurassic Park III, so...yeah.
I always liked The Lost World, but Jurassic Park is a very close second.
“Banana oil.”- George Takei, Gigantis: The Fire Monster
Honestly, I think The Lost World is a superior film to Jurassic World. Jurassic World is pure, dumb fun, but The Lost World had more sincerity to its scenes and characters.
And as weak as Jurassic Park III is, it's not nearly as bad as some say.
GMAN2887 - "...Alan...". ;)
^LOVE that part. :P
GMAN2887 - Hahaha! Cinematic genius at work! ;)
I will probably get a lot of hate but Jurassic world by miles I just love the effects and I love the part where Rexy and Indominus Rex fight it is such a good movie
Stand Your Ground, Never Back Down
Jurassic World was a heck a lot better than JP III. To me Jurassic World almost rivaled Jurassic Park original, but of course Jurassic Park one will always be the best.
I think Jurassic World merely edges out Jurassic Park III and that's only because it has more going on in its story than JPIII. Jurassic World wants to be looked at as a meta piece of filmmaking, but its mere existence sort of contradicts what its preaching.
Whereas Jurassic Park III largely has stronger acting and more interesting effects shots--Particularly the amazing practical effects. In a way Jurassic Park III can be looked at as the last of a particular brand of effects craftsmanship.
I don't think Jurassic World is bad, but its reflexive nature is contradicting and it relies far too much on nostalgia which will feel meaningless a few years from now.
I do love how the film makers know its a goofy, dumb movie and play that up though.
Jurassic Park III had stronger acting.... Hahahaha, good one, that's the funniest thing I've read.
If were talking about special effects the reason why Jurassic World relied more of CGI is because of budget restraints.
Jurassic Park III was freaking terrible, with a spinosaurus that could kill T. rex and can smash through a metal fence but couldn't break through a twelve year old wooden door.
Sam Neil, William H. Macy and Tea Leoni are classically trained actors with stage credits and numerous awards. Neil in particular has some of the most notable chops. Even the poor dialog they were given in Jurassic Park III was delivered stronger than some of the best dialog that weaker talents such as Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard were given in Jurassic World. (Which, to be fair... they weren't given a lot of decent dialog. At all.) To claim otherwise is feigning ignorance.
The reason Jurassic World relied on CG was not because of budget restraints. It was because of "reliability" and executive decisions. Producers are so dependent on CG today, that they fear the risk of practical effects not working correctly, failing on screen or not being ready in time for a shoot. It has nothing to do with budget which, in many cases, would be decreased through the use and manpower of practical effects.
Jurassic Park III is the weakest entry, no doubt. But if your main complaint is the Spinosaurus then you seem to be missing the point either way.
On the CGI thing, that's not what Colin Trevorrow said.
Also I thought the dialogue in Jurassic World was fine.
Yes my main complaint is the spinosaurus, it tried too hard to be a Tyrannosaurus replacer as in lacked personality where as the tyrannosauruses in the previous films behaved more naturally: Rexy wasn't hounding the main characters all the time and when she did appear was on mere happenstance, also she actually hunted other dinosaurs and gave up chasing humans when they weren't worth the extra distance while Buck and Doe only chased the main characters around because they smelled their infants's blood on Sarah's jacket and they took their infant.
Spinosaurus just chased the main characters around and never hunted any of the dinosaurs (Mr. Green/JPIII T. rex doesn't count since it was a duel and not a hunt) and it felt to me spinosaurus was trying to hard to replicate all the T. rex scenes.
1. Prior to the airplane crash the Spinosaurus runs across the runway to eat Cooper, then the plane's propeller hits the spinosaurus since we know that blood couldn't be Cooper's as the plane was pulling up its propellers where near its freaking ass and not near its face. That would of been a fatal wound to the spinosaurus and we know that its the same spinosaurus since when they were digging in its dung, they found cooper's sunglasses.
2. The Fight between Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus ruined the movie for me, since Spinosaurus has weaker jaws and cannot use its arms that way. Mr. Green (my nickname for the JPIII T. rex) delivered the first bite on the Spinosaurus and I don't care what Joe Johnston says that it was a subadult, it should of killed that Spinosaurus.
3. Spinosaurus breaking through the metal fence, it was like it was trying to make a statement that "T. rex is a wuss they could only chew through fence, me strong, me smash through fence!" only to be stopped by an 11 year old wooden door with some flimsy metal strains (Since Isla Sorna's facilities were abandoned, the door has been left unmaintained for 11 years)
It's mindblowing that one fight that could be a really fun part of the movie(and was for me) gets so many people bothered about the scientific aspects of how the fight went, or how it would really go down.
This is science fiction, who cares if t.rex would win in real life? Velociraptor is like half the size of the ones in the movie, but no one gets wrapped up how unrealistic that is, or says that ruins the movie for them.
The Raptors could be interpreted as a misclassified genus, remember at the time of the book was written deinonychus was labed as a type of Velociraptor.
By the time the movie was released it was known what was what. Of all the things the movie changes a simple name change would be the simplest to do. They stuck with Velociraptor because is sounds good pretty simple.
Point is you don't watch Jurassic Park/World because it's scientifically plausible you watch it for the story. If we sat fact checking all of the JP movies we could sit here and call out all of them. People just don't like to see the t rex lose so suddenly when it does all the sudden we need this movie to be correct and realistic.
It was an unfair fight. Spinosaurus shouldn't of been that powerfully even if it was genetically engineered
"Yes my main complaint is the spinosaurus"
Boo-hoo. If that were even a fraction of what was wrong with the movie I might give you some wiggle room to argue it. But it wasn't.
I prefer the T-Rex, but of all the problems Jurassic Park III has, the Spinosaurus is the absolute least of its worries.
And yes... The dialog in Jurassic World was laughably bad. Fun at times for it. But bad.
I didn't think it was that bad or bad at all, its my opinion. so lets agree to disagree.
And t.rex shouldn't have been able to sneak into the welcome center unnoticed in the first movie, but it happened and gave us a cool scene so we forgive it.
I hope you see where this is going. The fight was meant to be 2 big dinosaurs fighting for a fun scene not scientifically dissected in what is obviously a movie not trying to be realistic. 2 big dinosaurs fought, the bigger one won, it doesn't have to be deeper than that, and pretty clearly wasn't meant to be.
I've never seen more hatred directed at what accounts to like 1 minute of screentime.
Its not the fact that it won that upsets but how the director and Jack Horner were stating it as a scientific fact that Spinosaurus was superior in the special features. Also it lead to a whole generation of people thinking that spinosaurus was superior without checking in their scientific facts.
Not even a contest, Jurassic Park all the way. Let's run through each JP movie and why the first is the best:
Jurassic Park is near, if not absolute perfection. It's one of the greatest movies of all time, and my favourite. It had great characters and acting, and incredible special effects. But what stands out the most is the portrayal of the dinosaurs. They're not just big, dumb monsters that kill just for **** and giggles, they do it to survive. They're portrayed as actual animals and a good reason for mankind not to **** around with nature.
The Lost World is not as good, but better than what it gets credit for. It is easily superior to Jurassic Park III, having better characters and acting. It was darker, but the plot was flawed, having several plot holes. It was stupid at times, but overall the best JP sequel IMO.
Jurassic Park III, I feel will always be a mixed story. Amanda Kirby is a ****ing retarded *****, the movie had a **** storyline and **** acting. As if that wasn't bad enough, they got the dinosaurs all wrong, especially the Spinosaurus. They were mindless killing machines. They were so sloppy with the Spinosaurus that it could take down a plane, a T.Rex, and a large metal fence tipped with spikes, but couldn't break through a small wooden door. Logic 101 for you there. Not to mention there are all those damn Spino fanboys...
Jurassic World was an improvement, but severely flawed. The romance and dialogue was cringey, and there were pointless subplots. Militarised dinosaurs? I call bull**** on that. Like GMan said, it was pure, dumb fun. Not to mention it's the second most overrated movie of all time.
"Part of the journey is the end..."
^More or less agree with everything Lord Tyrant said, apart from Jurassic Park III. It's the most ***bersome and redundant of the films by far, but the acting was fine and the Spinosaurus was the least of its problems.
The main problems came from the characters, namely Grant, making the same stupid mistakes again. The ethical ramifications Grant came to peace with in the first movie are largely pitched so he can be lured to the island. The hired mercenaries should've been far more prepared as well. Jurassic Park and the San Diego incident were out of the bag at this point. There was plenty of material to go on in terms of better prep. Dozens of battleships were shown on national television escorting the T-Rex cargo carrier in the second film. You would think that would send up some red flags.
Jurassic Park, definitely. It set the bar and just had so much going for it, in terms of story, characters, tension, fun and the joy of seeing dinosaurs so incredibly realized. Spielberg had me hooked, as he did with Jaws, within the first five minutes of the movie, and without showing a damn thing! That's something.
At it's core, it is a B monster movie. Now, before anyone sets about to string me up, that is not a knock. Some of my favorite genre films are B monster movies; among them, King Kong (33), Godzilla (54), Them!, Jaws, Alien, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, and Tremors, to name but a few. What elevates all of these for this viewer are any number of factors - story, atmosphere, characters, emotion, originality, visual effects and a sense of pure wonder and fun.
Having said that, although JP is number one, I've enjoyed all four. I'm a bit more in JP III's court though than most, specifically because of the Spinosaurus. One of the things I loved about JP, besides seeing how great the dinos looked, etc., was being genuinely scared of the Raptors and T-Rex. I realize the filmmakers were merely looking for something new, since some of the luster had perhaps worn off of the Rex and the Raptors and the wow factor wasn't quite there as it had been in the first two. Regardless of how accurate the portrayal might have been, I found Spinosaurus intimidating; probably slightly moreso than the Indominus. That's a fight I'd love to see. But anyway, the first JP is definitely the best.
Sign in to add a reply to this topic!