Honestly, I really wouldn't like to see a remake. Why? Because the original films were great (well the first one...and sorta the second one), had decent special effects, acting, plot, etc... Technologically, there isn't a whole lot that could be added to the films to make them better, so why bother?
It just isn't worth it, to me to remake a film to add a few extra scenes from the books. Those scenes were cut for a reason, probably because they didn't have very good cinematic quality. Since the original movies were great even though they didn't follow the books, I'm forced to infer that the choices about what content to cut and what to include were relatively good ones.
So tl;dr: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Totally agreed!
I admit I didnt read the novel, I love the movie and only the movie, but that raptor-cavern-thing and T-Rex swimming after the kids on a boat just sound stupid. The logo and Land-Cruiser look boring too, actually glad they changed all that for the movie!
@waroftheworlds01
If its not possible to continue the story, why not consider a story between the timeline of the movies. Still I think Site B before or while the storm destroyed it has huge story potential, and it could feel like one of the first movies!
@waroftheworlds01
If its not possible to continue the story, why not consider a story between the timeline of the movies. Still I think Site B before or while the storm destroyed it has huge story potential, and it could feel like one of the first movies!
I wouldn't mind that either. They could use some stuff from the novel that hasn't been used yet and fuse it with a story that happens between or before the films.
We must send letters to Universal (or e-mail the studio) and explain this brilliant idea:
If Universal is afraid to remake the JP movies (because of the Spielberg-fanboys who are so biased towards the original movie) then we have to convince Universal to GET SPIELBERG TO BE THE PRODUCER OF THE REMAKES. It might be the only way to convince the public that this project will be taken seriously.
"In Steve We Trust"
The posters for the remakes could even say: "STEVEN SPIELBERG PRESENTS" above the title, just like other movies he was only the producer of.
P.S.
Why remake them? They are fine as they are and don't need to be remade. In fact, it would be nice if the Jurassic Park franchise is one of the few that escapes all this current remake shit that is going on.
Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park to tell about the reckless use of science to gain money & where scientists forced by companies think they can control everything. Based on a very detailed research he managed to make his novel very believeable and thus thrilling.
This is his common formula he used on his other novels too, depending on what sort of technology was cutting edge at the specific time.
In the 60s it was about travelling into space (andromeda),
in the 70s it was about robots and artificial intelligence (westworld),
in the 80s it was about species extinction and computer technology (congo) & about astro-physics and psychology (sphere) ,
1990 it was about genetic engineering and chaos theory (jurassic park),
in the early 90s about sexual harassment by women (disclosure) and the new economy power of japan (rising sun),
1995 about extinction and behaviour (the lost world),
1999 about quantum technology and history (timeline),
2002 about nano technology and multi agent systems (prey),
2004 about global warming and eco-terrorism (state of fear) and
2007 about bio-design (next).
of course this list isn't complete.
spielberg turned jurassic park into a quite well done cinematic adaption and contained most of the scientific background of crichton's novel (although he toned most of it down to few simple mentions).
the movie showed the wonder of living dinosaurs but most important to this wasn't any scientific background but the CGIs and animatronics.
plus it was a general public interest in dinosaurs at that time.
that was what made the movie so successfull (and merchandising as well).
crichton never wrote a sequel to his books, but because of the huge success of his novel and the movie he felt to continue somehow (and the novel's and movie's publisher saw the financial potential too).
even the novel version of the lost world felt in some way "forced". it had nice ideas (scientific and location-wise) but couldn't catch up to jurassic park.
well and spielberg just wanted a base for another film. he just took the raw background from crichton's novel and david koepp estabished a rather simple story with unimportant characters. unless the first movie it wasn't a movie about the magic of dinosaurs anymore it was an action-movie with dinosaurs in it.
they didn't really want to tell anything. just show a mercedes M-class pulling a fleetwood RV up a cliff on muddy ground... dozens of special hunting vehicles jumping reckless over hills and all being destroyed in a few seconds, dozens of "marlboro-men" hunted to death, a magically vanished crew on a boat that hits san diego's harbor to finally have a t-rex-lookalike king kong causing havoc in the city.
i mean...come on.
so it's a nice easter egg and points out a core message very well, when we see the script writer david koepp being eaten by the t-rex in the lost world.
the third movie just maxed out everything and continued the series very well: getting away from the key substance and presenting more action and thrill. one t-rex was thrilling in jurassic park, but boring for the lost world, where we needed at least two, but hey...two are boring for jurassic park III, were we need something bigger, better.... spinosaurus!
a car in jurassic park, a RV and a boat in the lost world... what's left? well... A PLANE! yeah!
pterosaurs with teeth? why not they look frightening, raptors chatting with each other? not only, just use a rapid prototyped resonance chamber and even humans can talk to dinosaurs...... and a lonely man in a suit on the beach... just before the navy and the marines arrive! that's what people want to see!
keeping the direction this trilogy has taken, a story about amoured dinosaurs wouldn't be that far fetched, would it?
so if there isn't ANY GOOD STORY to tell, I can't wait for a remake, which stays true to the intentions that Michael Crichton had, when he wrote Jurassic Park.
Tope1983, you have to realize, Crichton had to approve of the script before they released the movie. It was his book they were dealing with. I think that if Crichton was satisfied then we should be satisfied too. So....I could definitely see a remake. In 20 years, any time before that and it's too soon.
Spider-Man came out in 2002, and that's getting a remake in 2012, even though they're calling it a "reboot" (the Jurassic Park remake can be called the same thing).
And...????
Superman Returns came out in 2006, and they decided to reboot that franchise as well. New film is due out next year.
It doesn't matter if you call it a revamp/reboot/remake/reimagining it's 99.9% of the time a terrible idea and above all unnecessary waste of money.
Yeah, but I think Crichton never really had much intrest in the film adaptation of his novels. I know he said in an interview (I'll try to find it) that as long as the director and film crew were satisfied with there work then it was okay with him.
Superman Returns came out in 2006, and they decided to reboot that franchise as well. New film is due out next year.
It doesn't matter if you call it a revamp/reboot/remake/reimagining it's 99.9% of the time a terrible idea and above all unnecessary waste of money.
That's not necessarily true. There are some very well done "reboots" out there recently. Batman Begins. Casino Royale. Star Trek.
And I think Superman NEEDS a reboot. Why? Because of one simple reason. It's time to finally move past Christopher Reeve. Yes, he brought life to the character. But all Superman Returns was was an attempt to be another Christopher Reeve movie. And yes, it had its good points. Brandon Routh did a fine job playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman. Kevin Spacey did an excellent Lex Luthor. But the super-kid side-story dragged the movie down(it was done far better in the novel) and the chick playing Lois Lane just plain stank. And I believe we'll never have a good Superman movie again until we realize that Chris Reeve is gone and its time to move on.
Spider-man on the other hand...yes, Spider-man 3 was weak. But they could have fixed it with a 4th movie. But Sam Raimi and the studio had some "creative differences" and he left and Tobey Macguire went with him.
Jurassic Park...it's hard to say how well a reboot would do. It's still recent enough that they have to be careful with how they approach it. Though I think JP3 left enough of a bad taste in peoples' mouths that a reboot might be welcomed. But, as you did say, most remakes/reboots/etc. are a bad idea. So, we'll see.
That's not necessarily true. There are some very well done "reboots" out there recently. Batman Begins. Casino Royale.
ACTUALLY, it's kind of an invalid KIND OF. In Batman's case look at it like this, Joel Schumacher's movies were NOT a direct continuation of Tim Burton's stories, they just hired a new director to tell NEW Batman stories, of course we all know how that turned out LOL. So, it's more they got a new director to tell a new Batman story with Chris Nolan. It COULD be called a reboot.
As for James Bond, Casino Royale was NOT a Reboot, it was a prequel, and they needed it to help finish stories based off of Ian Flemmings books...so yeah. THE MORE YOU KNOW!!!!:D:p
ACTUALLY, it's kind of an invalid KIND OF. In Batman's case look at it like this, Joel Schumacher's movies were NOT a direct continuation of Tim Burton's stories, they just hired a new director to tell NEW Batman stories, of course we all know how that turned out LOL. So, it's more they got a new director to tell a new Batman story with Chris Nolan. It COULD be called a reboot.
As for James Bond, Casino Royale was NOT a Reboot, it was a prequel, and they needed it to help finish stories based off of Ian Flemmings books...so yeah. THE MORE YOU KNOW!!!!:D:p
Not a reboot? Maybe you should actually WATCH the films. I'd have accepted it as a prequel if they didn't have Dame Judi Dench still playing M(her M was the FIRST female head of MI6 and was appointed at the beginning of Goldeneye) and if they'd have had Q. They didn't have Q and still had the female M. It's a reboot.
Ugh I hate remakes. Especially since nowadays it's all about fucking franchises. Jurassic Park could easily be reshown in theaters and it still wouldn't look dated!
My idea for hollywood is to actually make some original films with something called acting and story telling. stop remaking films that are already good, and replacing it with annoying obvious computer graphics, lame duck actors and actresses, and constant stunts!
As for the 3d craze... THE SHARK STILL LOOKS FAKE.
Not a reboot? Maybe you should actually WATCH the films. I'd have accepted it as a prequel if they didn't have Dame Judi Dench still playing M(her M was the FIRST female head of MI6 and was appointed at the beginning of Goldeneye) and if they'd have had Q. They didn't have Q and still had the female M. It's a reboot.
I've seen EVERY SINGLE ONE dude, don't judge. I'm an Uber fan and even though I now see it's considered a reboot, I call it a prequel! That's where bond got his begginings and after 20 films, I would consider it crazy to call Casino Royale a reboot. So there. Just because it has Judi Dench as M and leaves out Q doesn't mean anything. Q wasn't even a main character in the Novels.
I consider Casino Royale a reboot myself. Because if you watch Casino Royale before Dr. No they don't exactly fit together.
However, I never considered everthing before Casino Royale sequals to each other. They were mostly stand alone films (with the exception of things like the guy with the cat) Where as Casion Royale and QOS directly followed one another. I think that is what seperates the new films from the old ones and what makes them reboots. IMO anyway
I consider Casino Royale a reboot myself. Because if you watch Casino Royale before Dr. No they don't exactly fit together.
However, I never considered everthing before Casino Royale sequals to each other. They were mostly stand alone films (with the exception of things like the guy with the cat) Where as Casion Royale and QOS directly followed one another. I think that is what seperates the new films from the old ones and what makes them reboots. IMO anyway
Thats true, but Quantum of Solace could also be a prequel, it's like Star Wars, and with #23 coming out in 2013 I'm sure we could see how everything ties in to Dr.No. I could still be wrong, but I always considered Casino Royale the beginning of Bond and therefore a prequel, but that is solely my opinion and clearly not that of the masses.
If they're able to tie it all into Dr. No then that would be great. But if they end up remaking Dr. NO (heaven forbid) then it'll definitly mean that its a reboot. But lets hope they don't go as far as to start remaking previous Bond films. That's just silly.
if they're able to tie it all into dr. No then that would be great. But if they end up remaking dr. No (heaven forbid) then it'll definitly mean that its a reboot. But lets hope they don't go as far as to start remaking previous bond films. That's just silly.
I think Aaron would be a great Grant. He is great as a leader figure and will really shine in scenes where he is trying to get the kids to safety. Johanson is a great actress and I think she could play a young Ellie Sattler who has just graduated like in the novels. No one could ever replace Goldblum as Malcolm but Johny Depp is a great character actor and I think the he will be able to connect with auidence much the same way Goldblum did in the first film. WIth wit and charm. Michale Caine as Hammond is the best I could think of at the moment. I think Caine would play a great "Evil walt Disney" Hammond as well as a softer Hammond like in the film. But I'm hoping for the Novel version myself. Craig as Muldoon is just golden in my opinion. I think he would be great in that role. Nedry choise is a bit of a laugh but I think he would be an entertaining Nedry.
I think that all the choices are good, EXCEPT Depp...he's an awesome actor, but this is not his kind of film. Besides, his classics were better than his current work. Gilbert Grape was where he was a TRUE actor.
Yeah, Daniel Craig as Robert Muldoon is the only one on that list that I'm 100% sure about. He would be great. The rest I'm only 50 to 75 % sure about.
Aaron Eckhart is a good actor in my opinion. Again, he always seems to play leadership type roles. Someone who can, or at least does his best, to take charge of a situation and try to handle it. Which is why I think he would play a Good Dr. Grant. Especially later on when the park starts to fall into chaos.
Scarlet Johanson I chose because she's young and yet a great actress. I think that if we were going with the Novels version of Ellie and made her releationship with Grant purely professional she would do well as the newly graduate who looks up to Grant as more of a teacher and a role model. But if we're going with the films version then someone older would be a better choice.
I still stand by my choice of Depp as Ian Malcolm. I think many would agree that he's an awesome actor. And even though this role is a far cry from his more recent roles I still think the he could pull it off with no problem at all. If I had to choose a second choice.... hmmmm...... Jeff Goldblum? lol Let's see... A bit of a left field choice. But I would be interested to see if Sam Rockwell could tackle the role.
Michael Caine, was really the first that came to mind. I can't really think of many actors that could replace Richard Attenborough. He was just awesome. But I think Michael Caine would be able to play the Darker John Hammond well. Another actor I thought about but shot down was Anthony Hopkins.
And I just think that Hurly from Lost as Nedry would just be awesome. I'm sure there are others who could do the role as well but Having Jorge Garcia as Nedry would be a lot of fun expecially if he brought his humor to the character.
I was also thinking of some kid actors for the roles of Lex and Tim. I keep coming back to the two main characters of Super 8 but that may just be because it was the last movie I watched with kids that actually had good acting skills.
But I'm glad yall are digging the list I made. I think it's better than the last line up that was posted IMO
Dr. Alan Grant from the novel is about 40-years old and has a full beard.
Actually he is a fictious character but based on real life Jack Horner.
Dr. Ellen Sattler is much younger than Grant in her mid 20s.
Scarlett Johansson would fit her.
Ian Malcolm is about 35, very thin, tall and balding.
John Hammond is about 78, rather small and not at all this nice grandpa-like figure as in the movies. He's a tough businessman, quick-tempered and only created the park to gain money. It's a park for children, "at least the rich ones."
Robert Muldon is quite strong, has steel-blue eyes and a mustache. He tends to drink. Daniel Craig is not a bad joice at all!
John Arnold isn't described as being black.
Donald Gennaro (obviously with Italian roots) is rather strong.
For the cast I think it is NOT necessary to have just the most famous actors of Hollywood. They just should be fitting the description of the novel best.
Ugh I hate remakes. Especially since nowadays it's all about fucking franchises. Jurassic Park could easily be reshown in theaters and it still wouldn't look dated!
My idea for hollywood is to actually make some original films with something called acting and story telling. stop remaking films that are already good, and replacing it with annoying obvious computer graphics, lame duck actors and actresses, and constant stunts!
As for the 3d craze... THE SHARK STILL LOOKS FAKE.
Yes. I agree to this most definitely. Jurassic Park is already a very fine film that still stands on par, visually, with some of the best movies that are offered today. Hollywood should work on new, interesting projects, rather than reboot a series that doesn't need to be rebooted.
And about CGI, with very rare exceptions (like Gollum from Lord of the Rings) generally looks much...faker than what was previously done with puppets and limited touch-up CGI as was done in Jurassic Park and my favorite dinosaur documentary, Walking with Dinosaurs. Which is apparently getting a remake as a movie. Probably with CGI. I'll probably see it anyway, but I doubt it will look as realistic as the original. Same would go for Jurassic Park.
Having said that, I would be open to the prospect of an extension to the existing universe, such as a well thought out sequel or possibly a prequel. Or a spinoff, centered around an untold story, similar to the type of story that Telltale is doing right now, a story parallel to the first movie.
Please, please, please do not remake the movies. There is nothing wrong with the original films. Make NEW stories if you have to that are completely unrelated to the original films.
The absolute last thing we need in film right now is yet more remakes/reboots from films that are not even that old.
Please, please, please do not remake the movies. There is nothing wrong with the original films. Make NEW stories if you have to that are completely unrelated to the original films.
The absolute last thing we need in film right now is yet more remakes/reboots from films that are not even that old.
Here's the problem. It's been proven twice that the best way to handle a floundering, dying franchise is to reboot it. Batman Begins and JJ Abrams' Star Trek. And in those cases, yes a reboot was necessary. Batman had to overcome the horror that was Batman and Robin. Star Trek was pretty much dead after Star Trek Nemesis' extraordinarily poor performance and the early cancellation of Enterprise.
Spider-Man? Okay, so Raimi couldn't meet the deadline, so he and the studio disagreed and he left. So now we have a reboot Spider-Man that won't be out until next year I think when the studio could have just pushed it back to let Sam Raimi do the movie he wanted to do that would've made plenty of money. So, did Spidey need a reboot? No.
Jurassic Park? Yes, the first film didn't hold completely true to the novel. That's fine. Frankly, some of the characters, I didn't like their novel versions, but did like the movie version, ie. John Hammond. The movie still holds up well today. The Lost World and JPIII may not have done as well, but people still watch them. Plus we're getting a new game based around the events of the first movie. So. Does JP need a reboot? IMO, not for a good, long time. Let's see if we can get a good JP4 out the door if we need another JP movie. If it sucks, then we can talk about a reboot.
Also, I don't think we need a remake of either Short Circuit or Robo Cop.
1) remaking these films is a good idea or at ALL needed
2) that any studio would be stupid enough to attempt it
the first film (and second to an extent) hit somewhat of a perfect storm with public interest, casting, and technology.
What do you think when someone mentions Star Wars? You think of how much Lucas fucked up the franchise with the garbage prequels. In other words, leave it alone, you're not going to make it better.
Again, its baffling this is even discussed. Its an asinine idea.
1) remaking these films is a good idea or at ALL needed
2) that any studio would be stupid enough to attempt it
the first film (and second to an extent) hit somewhat of a perfect storm with public interest, casting, and technology.
What do you think when someone mentions Star Wars? You think of how much Lucas fucked up the franchise with the garbage prequels. In other words, leave it alone, you're not going to make it better.
Again, its baffling this is even discussed. Its an asinine idea.
It's not that it's needed. Why would this franchise need to be remade? It's a classic. It's just that for the sake of the memory of Michael Crichton, his books AND his genius, some of the JP community feels that there should be a seperate adaptation of this series that is more true to the novel.
The two concepts cannot be compared and they shouldn't be. Spielberg's expertise arose when he had freedom to make stories his own. Crichton's was in bringing about stories of scientific wonder. We have spielberg's masterpiece, but Crichton's is still in the dark and should be brought out into the light.
Most people don't even know Jurassic Park started out as a novel and even some of you admit to never reading the story. I assure you, it is much more terrifying than the movies, go read it, but don't think that this adaptation shouldn't happen because we already have a great movie. It's not replacing anything. It's simply adding content to one of the greatest film's of all time.
Also, the prequels of Star Wars were needed to complete the story. Yes they were trash but they were needed. It didn't make the series better, true. But it also didn't make it worse. At least it didn't to a true fan.
And while remaking the series for the sake of getting a better "novel" adaptation would be amazing, It simply will never happen. No studio will ever find it necessary. We would sooner get a dinosaur than get a remake of jurassic park.
The new game is a prequel to all three films so why not the new films be as well?
I have a great idea with a younger Hammond (in his 30s or 40s) searching the world for living non-avian dinosaurs to populate a Park (In this case JP San Diego until he decides on an island location instead.) as his scientists continue to try and genetically engineer them. (It took them 10 years of research according to the first film.)
So Hammond decides to take some (probably only eggs) from the wilds until they have occomplished to genetically engineer a dinosaur.
Crichton's novels even mention living non-avian dinosaurs on the Earth in their prologues.
The original, current movie (and trilogy) follows the novel just fine. Sure, you can go through and nit-pick out important things that were left out, but that's always the way it is. The novel is 400 pages long. The screenplay for a 2-hour movie is 120 pages long. No adaptation is going to follow the novel exactly. Ever.
A reboot is not going to magically include every character, every important line of dialogue, and every key scene from the novel. It would, at best, represent the novel equally as much as the original film.
At worst, it would be an unnecessary and unoriginal moneygrab, forgettable in the shadow of the original (if it doesn't stain it).
Instead of rebooting the franchise, those parts of the novel that have not yet been adapted to the screen can be incorporated into sequels. Remember the little girl on the beach at the beginning of The Lost World movie? Or the T-rex using its tongue to find people hiding behind a waterfall? Or the river sequence in JP3? Or the whole bit with the aviary? These are all scenes that appeared in the first novel, and the first movie didn't have to be remade to bring these scenes to life; they were incorporated into the sequels.
Give me sequels. Give me all the sequels that you can find producers for. But there's no point in restarting from scratch when there is already a rich lineage to build upon in the current trilogy.
The original, current movie (and trilogy) follows the novel just fine. Sure, you can go through and nit-pick out important things that were left out, but that's always the way it is. The novel is 400 pages long. The screenplay for a 2-hour movie is 120 pages long. No adaptation is going to follow the novel exactly. Ever.
A reboot is not going to magically include every character, every important line of dialogue, and every key scene from the novel. It would, at best, represent the novel equally as much as the original film.
At worst, it would be an unnecessary and unoriginal moneygrab, forgettable in the shadow of the original (if it doesn't stain it).
Instead of rebooting the franchise, those parts of the novel that have not yet been adapted to the screen can be incorporated into sequels. Remember the little girl on the beach at the beginning of The Lost World movie? Or the T-rex using its tongue to find people hiding behind a waterfall? Or the river sequence in JP3? Or the whole bit with the aviary? These are all scenes that appeared in the first novel, and the first movie didn't have to be remade to bring these scenes to life; they were incorporated into the sequels.
Give me sequels. Give me all the sequels that you can find producers for. But there's no point in restarting from scratch when there is already a rich lineage to build upon in the current trilogy.
Yea id have to agree, even the part in Jp3 when the velociraptor claws the mercenaries back with the toe, it was a scene from the first book and i believe the only point in which troodon is mentioned in the novel
Yea id have to agree, even the part in Jp3 when the velociraptor claws the mercenaries back with the toe, it was a scene from the first book and i believe the only point in which troodon is mentioned in the novel
Thank you sooo much for noticing this!! I haven't heard anyone else mention this ever! Also I think Nash's Death was supposed to reference the death of George Baselton by a T-rex in the novel too. The t-rex steps on him and then bites his head off. Just like the spino did to Nash.
I good sequel that makes up for the horrors of JP3. Or even a prequel concerning with the contruction of Jurassic park. Or a story that tell us about the troubles of site B and how it became abandoned etc.
Comments
Totally agreed!
I admit I didnt read the novel, I love the movie and only the movie, but that raptor-cavern-thing and T-Rex swimming after the kids on a boat just sound stupid. The logo and Land-Cruiser look boring too, actually glad they changed all that for the movie!
@waroftheworlds01
If its not possible to continue the story, why not consider a story between the timeline of the movies. Still I think Site B before or while the storm destroyed it has huge story potential, and it could feel like one of the first movies!
I wouldn't mind that either. They could use some stuff from the novel that hasn't been used yet and fuse it with a story that happens between or before the films.
Why remake them? They are fine as they are and don't need to be remade. In fact, it would be nice if the Jurassic Park franchise is one of the few that escapes all this current remake shit that is going on.
Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park to tell about the reckless use of science to gain money & where scientists forced by companies think they can control everything. Based on a very detailed research he managed to make his novel very believeable and thus thrilling.
This is his common formula he used on his other novels too, depending on what sort of technology was cutting edge at the specific time.
In the 60s it was about travelling into space (andromeda),
in the 70s it was about robots and artificial intelligence (westworld),
in the 80s it was about species extinction and computer technology (congo) & about astro-physics and psychology (sphere) ,
1990 it was about genetic engineering and chaos theory (jurassic park),
in the early 90s about sexual harassment by women (disclosure) and the new economy power of japan (rising sun),
1995 about extinction and behaviour (the lost world),
1999 about quantum technology and history (timeline),
2002 about nano technology and multi agent systems (prey),
2004 about global warming and eco-terrorism (state of fear) and
2007 about bio-design (next).
of course this list isn't complete.
spielberg turned jurassic park into a quite well done cinematic adaption and contained most of the scientific background of crichton's novel (although he toned most of it down to few simple mentions).
the movie showed the wonder of living dinosaurs but most important to this wasn't any scientific background but the CGIs and animatronics.
plus it was a general public interest in dinosaurs at that time.
that was what made the movie so successfull (and merchandising as well).
crichton never wrote a sequel to his books, but because of the huge success of his novel and the movie he felt to continue somehow (and the novel's and movie's publisher saw the financial potential too).
even the novel version of the lost world felt in some way "forced". it had nice ideas (scientific and location-wise) but couldn't catch up to jurassic park.
well and spielberg just wanted a base for another film. he just took the raw background from crichton's novel and david koepp estabished a rather simple story with unimportant characters. unless the first movie it wasn't a movie about the magic of dinosaurs anymore it was an action-movie with dinosaurs in it.
they didn't really want to tell anything. just show a mercedes M-class pulling a fleetwood RV up a cliff on muddy ground... dozens of special hunting vehicles jumping reckless over hills and all being destroyed in a few seconds, dozens of "marlboro-men" hunted to death, a magically vanished crew on a boat that hits san diego's harbor to finally have a t-rex-lookalike king kong causing havoc in the city.
i mean...come on.
so it's a nice easter egg and points out a core message very well, when we see the script writer david koepp being eaten by the t-rex in the lost world.
the third movie just maxed out everything and continued the series very well: getting away from the key substance and presenting more action and thrill. one t-rex was thrilling in jurassic park, but boring for the lost world, where we needed at least two, but hey...two are boring for jurassic park III, were we need something bigger, better.... spinosaurus!
a car in jurassic park, a RV and a boat in the lost world... what's left? well... A PLANE! yeah!
pterosaurs with teeth? why not they look frightening, raptors chatting with each other? not only, just use a rapid prototyped resonance chamber and even humans can talk to dinosaurs...... and a lonely man in a suit on the beach... just before the navy and the marines arrive! that's what people want to see!
keeping the direction this trilogy has taken, a story about amoured dinosaurs wouldn't be that far fetched, would it?
so if there isn't ANY GOOD STORY to tell, I can't wait for a remake, which stays true to the intentions that Michael Crichton had, when he wrote Jurassic Park.
Worst idea I've heard this year.
Actually it is. Even 482 years from now would be too soon.
And...????
Superman Returns came out in 2006, and they decided to reboot that franchise as well. New film is due out next year.
It doesn't matter if you call it a revamp/reboot/remake/reimagining it's 99.9% of the time a terrible idea and above all unnecessary waste of money.
That's not necessarily true. There are some very well done "reboots" out there recently. Batman Begins. Casino Royale. Star Trek.
And I think Superman NEEDS a reboot. Why? Because of one simple reason. It's time to finally move past Christopher Reeve. Yes, he brought life to the character. But all Superman Returns was was an attempt to be another Christopher Reeve movie. And yes, it had its good points. Brandon Routh did a fine job playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman. Kevin Spacey did an excellent Lex Luthor. But the super-kid side-story dragged the movie down(it was done far better in the novel) and the chick playing Lois Lane just plain stank. And I believe we'll never have a good Superman movie again until we realize that Chris Reeve is gone and its time to move on.
Spider-man on the other hand...yes, Spider-man 3 was weak. But they could have fixed it with a 4th movie. But Sam Raimi and the studio had some "creative differences" and he left and Tobey Macguire went with him.
Jurassic Park...it's hard to say how well a reboot would do. It's still recent enough that they have to be careful with how they approach it. Though I think JP3 left enough of a bad taste in peoples' mouths that a reboot might be welcomed. But, as you did say, most remakes/reboots/etc. are a bad idea. So, we'll see.
ACTUALLY, it's kind of an invalid KIND OF. In Batman's case look at it like this, Joel Schumacher's movies were NOT a direct continuation of Tim Burton's stories, they just hired a new director to tell NEW Batman stories, of course we all know how that turned out LOL. So, it's more they got a new director to tell a new Batman story with Chris Nolan. It COULD be called a reboot.
As for James Bond, Casino Royale was NOT a Reboot, it was a prequel, and they needed it to help finish stories based off of Ian Flemmings books...so yeah. THE MORE YOU KNOW!!!!:D:p
Not a reboot? Maybe you should actually WATCH the films. I'd have accepted it as a prequel if they didn't have Dame Judi Dench still playing M(her M was the FIRST female head of MI6 and was appointed at the beginning of Goldeneye) and if they'd have had Q. They didn't have Q and still had the female M. It's a reboot.
My idea for hollywood is to actually make some original films with something called acting and story telling. stop remaking films that are already good, and replacing it with annoying obvious computer graphics, lame duck actors and actresses, and constant stunts!
As for the 3d craze... THE SHARK STILL LOOKS FAKE.
I've seen EVERY SINGLE ONE dude, don't judge. I'm an Uber fan and even though I now see it's considered a reboot, I call it a prequel! That's where bond got his begginings and after 20 films, I would consider it crazy to call Casino Royale a reboot. So there. Just because it has Judi Dench as M and leaves out Q doesn't mean anything. Q wasn't even a main character in the Novels.
However, I never considered everthing before Casino Royale sequals to each other. They were mostly stand alone films (with the exception of things like the guy with the cat) Where as Casion Royale and QOS directly followed one another. I think that is what seperates the new films from the old ones and what makes them reboots. IMO anyway
Thats true, but Quantum of Solace could also be a prequel, it's like Star Wars, and with #23 coming out in 2013 I'm sure we could see how everything ties in to Dr.No. I could still be wrong, but I always considered Casino Royale the beginning of Bond and therefore a prequel, but that is solely my opinion and clearly not that of the masses.
amen!
■Dr. Alan Grant ( Aaron Eckhart )
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
■Dr. Ellie Sattler ( Scarlett Johansson )
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
■Ian Malcolm (Johnny Depp )
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
■John Hammond (Michael Caine )
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
■Robert Muldoon (Daniel Craig )
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
■Dennis Nedry (Jorge Garcia )
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
Thoughts?
I think Aaron would be a great Grant. He is great as a leader figure and will really shine in scenes where he is trying to get the kids to safety. Johanson is a great actress and I think she could play a young Ellie Sattler who has just graduated like in the novels. No one could ever replace Goldblum as Malcolm but Johny Depp is a great character actor and I think the he will be able to connect with auidence much the same way Goldblum did in the first film. WIth wit and charm. Michale Caine as Hammond is the best I could think of at the moment. I think Caine would play a great "Evil walt Disney" Hammond as well as a softer Hammond like in the film. But I'm hoping for the Novel version myself. Craig as Muldoon is just golden in my opinion. I think he would be great in that role. Nedry choise is a bit of a laugh but I think he would be an entertaining Nedry.
What do you guys think?
Not too keen about Grant and Ellie, but the rest is actually quite good! Hammond should be Jeremy Irons perhaps and go...
"The Park will be MINE! Aaaht-t-t-t-t-t!"
It would be awesome!
Aaron Eckhart is a good actor in my opinion. Again, he always seems to play leadership type roles. Someone who can, or at least does his best, to take charge of a situation and try to handle it. Which is why I think he would play a Good Dr. Grant. Especially later on when the park starts to fall into chaos.
Scarlet Johanson I chose because she's young and yet a great actress. I think that if we were going with the Novels version of Ellie and made her releationship with Grant purely professional she would do well as the newly graduate who looks up to Grant as more of a teacher and a role model. But if we're going with the films version then someone older would be a better choice.
I still stand by my choice of Depp as Ian Malcolm. I think many would agree that he's an awesome actor. And even though this role is a far cry from his more recent roles I still think the he could pull it off with no problem at all. If I had to choose a second choice.... hmmmm...... Jeff Goldblum? lol Let's see... A bit of a left field choice. But I would be interested to see if Sam Rockwell could tackle the role.
Michael Caine, was really the first that came to mind. I can't really think of many actors that could replace Richard Attenborough. He was just awesome. But I think Michael Caine would be able to play the Darker John Hammond well. Another actor I thought about but shot down was Anthony Hopkins.
And I just think that Hurly from Lost as Nedry would just be awesome. I'm sure there are others who could do the role as well but Having Jorge Garcia as Nedry would be a lot of fun expecially if he brought his humor to the character.
I was also thinking of some kid actors for the roles of Lex and Tim. I keep coming back to the two main characters of Super 8 but that may just be because it was the last movie I watched with kids that actually had good acting skills.
But I'm glad yall are digging the list I made. I think it's better than the last line up that was posted IMO
Dr. Alan Grant from the novel is about 40-years old and has a full beard.
Actually he is a fictious character but based on real life Jack Horner.
Dr. Ellen Sattler is much younger than Grant in her mid 20s.
Scarlett Johansson would fit her.
Ian Malcolm is about 35, very thin, tall and balding.
John Hammond is about 78, rather small and not at all this nice grandpa-like figure as in the movies. He's a tough businessman, quick-tempered and only created the park to gain money. It's a park for children, "at least the rich ones."
Robert Muldon is quite strong, has steel-blue eyes and a mustache. He tends to drink. Daniel Craig is not a bad joice at all!
John Arnold isn't described as being black.
Donald Gennaro (obviously with Italian roots) is rather strong.
For the cast I think it is NOT necessary to have just the most famous actors of Hollywood. They just should be fitting the description of the novel best.
Yes. I agree to this most definitely. Jurassic Park is already a very fine film that still stands on par, visually, with some of the best movies that are offered today. Hollywood should work on new, interesting projects, rather than reboot a series that doesn't need to be rebooted.
And about CGI, with very rare exceptions (like Gollum from Lord of the Rings) generally looks much...faker than what was previously done with puppets and limited touch-up CGI as was done in Jurassic Park and my favorite dinosaur documentary, Walking with Dinosaurs. Which is apparently getting a remake as a movie. Probably with CGI. I'll probably see it anyway, but I doubt it will look as realistic as the original. Same would go for Jurassic Park.
Having said that, I would be open to the prospect of an extension to the existing universe, such as a well thought out sequel or possibly a prequel. Or a spinoff, centered around an untold story, similar to the type of story that Telltale is doing right now, a story parallel to the first movie.
The absolute last thing we need in film right now is yet more remakes/reboots from films that are not even that old.
Here's the problem. It's been proven twice that the best way to handle a floundering, dying franchise is to reboot it. Batman Begins and JJ Abrams' Star Trek. And in those cases, yes a reboot was necessary. Batman had to overcome the horror that was Batman and Robin. Star Trek was pretty much dead after Star Trek Nemesis' extraordinarily poor performance and the early cancellation of Enterprise.
Spider-Man? Okay, so Raimi couldn't meet the deadline, so he and the studio disagreed and he left. So now we have a reboot Spider-Man that won't be out until next year I think when the studio could have just pushed it back to let Sam Raimi do the movie he wanted to do that would've made plenty of money. So, did Spidey need a reboot? No.
Jurassic Park? Yes, the first film didn't hold completely true to the novel. That's fine. Frankly, some of the characters, I didn't like their novel versions, but did like the movie version, ie. John Hammond. The movie still holds up well today. The Lost World and JPIII may not have done as well, but people still watch them. Plus we're getting a new game based around the events of the first movie. So. Does JP need a reboot? IMO, not for a good, long time. Let's see if we can get a good JP4 out the door if we need another JP movie. If it sucks, then we can talk about a reboot.
Also, I don't think we need a remake of either Short Circuit or Robo Cop.
1) remaking these films is a good idea or at ALL needed
2) that any studio would be stupid enough to attempt it
the first film (and second to an extent) hit somewhat of a perfect storm with public interest, casting, and technology.
What do you think when someone mentions Star Wars? You think of how much Lucas fucked up the franchise with the garbage prequels. In other words, leave it alone, you're not going to make it better.
Again, its baffling this is even discussed. Its an asinine idea.
Now it has 236 fans. Awesome.
It's not that it's needed. Why would this franchise need to be remade? It's a classic. It's just that for the sake of the memory of Michael Crichton, his books AND his genius, some of the JP community feels that there should be a seperate adaptation of this series that is more true to the novel.
The two concepts cannot be compared and they shouldn't be. Spielberg's expertise arose when he had freedom to make stories his own. Crichton's was in bringing about stories of scientific wonder. We have spielberg's masterpiece, but Crichton's is still in the dark and should be brought out into the light.
Most people don't even know Jurassic Park started out as a novel and even some of you admit to never reading the story. I assure you, it is much more terrifying than the movies, go read it, but don't think that this adaptation shouldn't happen because we already have a great movie. It's not replacing anything. It's simply adding content to one of the greatest film's of all time.
Also, the prequels of Star Wars were needed to complete the story. Yes they were trash but they were needed. It didn't make the series better, true. But it also didn't make it worse. At least it didn't to a true fan.
And while remaking the series for the sake of getting a better "novel" adaptation would be amazing, It simply will never happen. No studio will ever find it necessary. We would sooner get a dinosaur than get a remake of jurassic park.
The new game is a prequel to all three films so why not the new films be as well?
I have a great idea with a younger Hammond (in his 30s or 40s) searching the world for living non-avian dinosaurs to populate a Park (In this case JP San Diego until he decides on an island location instead.) as his scientists continue to try and genetically engineer them. (It took them 10 years of research according to the first film.)
So Hammond decides to take some (probably only eggs) from the wilds until they have occomplished to genetically engineer a dinosaur.
Crichton's novels even mention living non-avian dinosaurs on the Earth in their prologues.
The original, current movie (and trilogy) follows the novel just fine. Sure, you can go through and nit-pick out important things that were left out, but that's always the way it is. The novel is 400 pages long. The screenplay for a 2-hour movie is 120 pages long. No adaptation is going to follow the novel exactly. Ever.
A reboot is not going to magically include every character, every important line of dialogue, and every key scene from the novel. It would, at best, represent the novel equally as much as the original film.
At worst, it would be an unnecessary and unoriginal moneygrab, forgettable in the shadow of the original (if it doesn't stain it).
Instead of rebooting the franchise, those parts of the novel that have not yet been adapted to the screen can be incorporated into sequels. Remember the little girl on the beach at the beginning of The Lost World movie? Or the T-rex using its tongue to find people hiding behind a waterfall? Or the river sequence in JP3? Or the whole bit with the aviary? These are all scenes that appeared in the first novel, and the first movie didn't have to be remade to bring these scenes to life; they were incorporated into the sequels.
Give me sequels. Give me all the sequels that you can find producers for. But there's no point in restarting from scratch when there is already a rich lineage to build upon in the current trilogy.
Yea id have to agree, even the part in Jp3 when the velociraptor claws the mercenaries back with the toe, it was a scene from the first book and i believe the only point in which troodon is mentioned in the novel