I'm not, I'm letting these guys know Jurassic Park cannot be remade without Michael and Stan alive. They are dead, Jurassic Park is dead.
That's laughable. There are other speical effects teams out there you know? A remake of Jurassic Park is still a possibility. It just probably won't be with any of the original team involved. I just can't see Steven Spielberg being a part of a remake of one of his own films.
But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.
But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.
Yeah, thats nothing I would consider being a good thing. Actually I really HATE that in Hollywood!
That's laughable. There are other speical effects teams out there you know? A remake of Jurassic Park is still a possibility. It just probably won't be with any of the original team involved. I just can't see Steven Spielberg being a part of a remake of one of his own films.
But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.
Jurassic Park can't be remade. Why do you want a remake? Hollywood is more worried about SOPA then they care about Jurassic Park. The only special effects team to make Jurassic Park famous was Stan and ILM. Steven is way too busy with other films, JP4 is the last stop on the train. Either you remake Jurassic Park yourself or continue boycotting. Steven will never touch Jurassic Park again.
ILM is still around. And it is a job after all. I find it hard pressed that they would say no to working on a Jurassic park film, remake or not. And there are other directors who would more than likely love the idea of working on a Jurassic Park movie.
I wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park remake because, unlike yourself I assume, you think that remakes ruin the original when that actually couldn't be further from the truth. Believe it or not, there are people who haven't seen Jurassic Park. Remakes put the originals in the spot light again. Most people when they hear a movie is a remake they check out the original either before or after seeing the remake. And it's not like a bad remake causes the original to become a bad film itself as well.
Also, there's no harm in a remake when there's so much from the first novel that can still be adapted. I still think that a Jurassic Park two part, or three part mini-series should be made for the first and second novels. They would closely resemble the novels and it would be fun to watch.
You keep saying that becasue Winston is gone, because Crichton is gone, and because Spielberg is busy there's no way that Jurassic park can get back on its feet but in the end it's Universal's call. If they want Jurassic Park back, remake or otherwise, it's coming back with out Steven or not.
I don't think it should be remade but the idea that a Jurassic Park remake couldn't be done because Stan Winston (or anybody else) is dead is ridiculous. You could have said the same thing about Willis O'Brien after King Kong, but they remade that. Twice.
I don't think the movie needs to be redone at all. But a big-budget miniseries that stays faithful to the books? There's a thought...
ILM is still around. And it is a job after all. I find it hard pressed that they would say no to working on a Jurassic park film, remake or not. And there are other directors who would more than likely love the idea of working on a Jurassic Park movie.
I wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park remake because, unlike yourself I assume, you think that remakes ruin the original when that actually couldn't be further from the truth. Believe it or not, there are people who haven't seen Jurassic Park. Remakes put the originals in the spot light again. Most people when they hear a movie is a remake they check out the original either before or after seeing the remake. And it's not like a bad remake causes the original to become a bad film itself as well.
Also, there's no harm in a remake when there's so much from the first novel that can still be adapted. I still think that a Jurassic Park two part, or three part mini-series should be made for the first and second novels. They would closely resemble the novels and it would be fun to watch.
You keep saying that becasue Winston is gone, because Crichton is gone, and because Spielberg is busy there's no way that Jurassic park can get back on its feet but in the end it's Universal's call. If they want Jurassic Park back, remake or otherwise, it's coming back with out Steven or not.
Please tell me which remake actually was better then the original?
Lets remake BTTF by having Marty played by Eminem and Doc played by Snoop Dogg
I don't think it should be remade but the idea that a Jurassic Park remake couldn't be done because Stan Winston (or anybody else) is dead is ridiculous. You could have said the same thing about Willis O'Brien after King Kong, but they remade that. Twice.
I don't think the movie needs to be redone at all. But a big-budget miniseries that stays faithful to the books? There's a thought...
Stan made the puppets, stan directed the puppets. Stan is dead, steven is never EVER gonna touch Jurassic Park, google it. He said he is done with JP. Find another producer, I'll ring up Tommy Wiseau. He's an excellent director/producer.
Please tell me which remake actually was better then the original?
True Grit (2010)
Cape Fear (80's)
Dawn of the Dead (2000's)
The Thing (80's)
The Fly (80's)
3:10 to Yoma (2000's)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70's)
Piranha 3D
Those are movies that I loved a lot more than the original. There's more but these were some of the better remakes. And then there's the much longer list of movies that I felt , although not as good, lived up to the original. Movies like Peter Jackson's King Kong or the most recent reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street. This all opinion based anyway. There's no real way to say if a movie is better or not. But remakes aren't bad. If fact, most of the time they're good movies. It's just that people have this weird understanding that they should but a remake down for no other reason than it's a remake. Which isn't really fair.
Nightmare on elm street is a good example of how uncreative and unnecessary a remake can be, its nothing near the quality of the original. And remakes are only good when they are very different from the original and stand for their own right, like The thing and Dawn of the dead, and only use the name and core idea for publicity or the director simply loves the original. And also it makes sense to remake a film when there actually is a reason, either by far better technological possibilities or when the material can be interpreted in other new ways, like after 20 or 30 years, not 10. Remaking just for the sake of it and slightly adapting it to the younger generation is just uncreative. When they are too lazy to think of something new or taking risks, they deserve to be inevitably compared to the original and loose miserably.
I dont need to see ten times more dinosaurs, younger actors and a darker theme for Jurassic Park like in the remakes they poop out these days.
About a closer adaptation of the book, guys, just cut it off. Books cannot be adapted one to one, its a different medium goddammit. There were similar scenes in the sequels like the river scene in JP 3, it dont have to be a page by page copy of the scenarios of the book, wheres the point in that? Spend millions of dollars because some fans are too lazy to imagine the things that they read???
True Grit (2010)
Cape Fear (80's)
Dawn of the Dead (2000's)
The Thing (80's)
The Fly (80's)
3:10 to Yoma (2000's)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70's) Piranha 3D
Those are movies that I loved a lot more than the original. There's more but these were some of the better remakes. And then there's the much longer list of movies that I felt , although not as good, lived up to the original. Movies like Peter Jackson's King Kong or the most recent reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street. This all opinion based anyway. There's no real way to say if a movie is better or not. But remakes aren't bad. If fact, most of the time they're good movies. It's just that people have this weird understanding that they should but a remake down for no other reason than it's a remake. Which isn't really fair.
I liked the first one better. Jurassic Park is a film that cannot be remade, especially since Steven said so himself that he will never touch JP after JP IV again.
LOL Okay, I know your mind will never be changed and I respect that. In the long run, a remake really isn't necessary. The first film is one of my favorite films of all times and I honestly watch it at least once a week.
However, if they ever did decide to remake it or make a Jurassic Park 4 (which I've heard they are but who can really know for sure?) I will be in line waiting to see it because I love the series on all fronts (Movies, Novels, Comics, Action Figures, and Video Games.) I love the series so if they have plans to expand it in any way them I'm all for it.
LOL Okay, I know your mind will never be changed and I respect that. In the long run, a remake really isn't necessary. The first film is one of my favorite films of all times and I honestly watch it at least once a week.
However, if they ever did decide to remake it or make a Jurassic Park 4 (which I've heard they are but who can really know for sure?) I will be in line waiting to see it because I love the series on all fronts (Movies, Novels, Comics, Action Figures, and Video Games.) I love the series so if they have plans to expand it in any way them I'm all for it.
Also, Steven said he won't be directing JP IV, just like JP3.
Yeah, but i know Joe Johnson wanted to return though. I remember they had an interview with him saying that he might return after he finished Captin American but that movies had been made and released already with no real news on Jurassic Park so......
It shows a lack of imagination in Hollywood. Actually the most imaginative thing to come of this phenomenon is how with every remake, Hollywood manages to use a new re- word. remade, reimagined, redefined, restarted, rebooted. Here's a re- word for you Hollywood; Retarded.
I'm waiting for the day when they announce a remake to a movie that's not even out yet. It WILL happen.
The problem with remakes is that all too often they are simply a cash grab. The best example of this is the new Spiderman movie. This movie wasn't made with a deep appreciation and understanding of the story and history of the character. It was made because if they DIDN'T make it then the rights to the franchise would revert back to Marvel and Sony would lose a "cash cow". They pushed out whatever they could for the sake of keeping the film rights, not for the sake of making a quality movie.
IMO Jurassic Park II and III are a similar thing. Just making a Jurassic Park movie to cash in on the franchise. There was no quality story in there, just dinosaurs chasing people. Boring. Who cares. I don't have high hopes for a Jurassic Park IV either.
IF anyone was to go back to the source material to try and make a different Jurassic Park movie (please no "remake". Speilberg's movie was a great movie and doesn't need to be improved upon) the ONLY way it would be any good was if it was about the characters and the themes of the original. The whole dinosaur chasing people stuff needs to be of secondary importance. A new Jurassic Park would need to be a serious, deep character driven movie, not an action packed hollow movie like so much of what Hollywood pumps out these days. Can anyone say "Transformers"? No thanks. I like my movies with substance.
While I liked Transformers(yes, all of them), I do prefer my movies to have some substance to their style. At least, when the material calls for it. When your film is based on a cartoon about two factions of giant robots having a war on Earth, you really don't NEED much substance. However, Jurassic Park would because it can have several different messages: a message that nature should not be tampered with, that nature cannot be contained and controlled, or that genetic engineering brings nothing but danger. The only directors I know that can still find that balance between style and substance are Steven Spielberg(leave Indy 5 alone people, it was just as silly as, if not more so than, Temple of Doom) and J.J. Abrams.
I agree. They should remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World, but not get it all close to the novels. I know the perfect way to remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World because I am working on a script for it and I have a different and better idea.
The first Jurassic Park is a classic and the 2nd one is Okay, but there's a lot of stuff they left out from the books, I would like to see how that extra stuff would look on screen....
Comments
Puppeteering and animatronics have pretty well died since Stan Winston and Jim Henson died.
I'm not, I'm letting these guys know Jurassic Park cannot be remade without Michael and Stan alive. They are dead, Jurassic Park is dead.
That's laughable. There are other speical effects teams out there you know? A remake of Jurassic Park is still a possibility. It just probably won't be with any of the original team involved. I just can't see Steven Spielberg being a part of a remake of one of his own films.
But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.
Yeah, thats nothing I would consider being a good thing. Actually I really HATE that in Hollywood!
Jurassic Park can't be remade. Why do you want a remake? Hollywood is more worried about SOPA then they care about Jurassic Park. The only special effects team to make Jurassic Park famous was Stan and ILM. Steven is way too busy with other films, JP4 is the last stop on the train. Either you remake Jurassic Park yourself or continue boycotting. Steven will never touch Jurassic Park again.
I wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park remake because, unlike yourself I assume, you think that remakes ruin the original when that actually couldn't be further from the truth. Believe it or not, there are people who haven't seen Jurassic Park. Remakes put the originals in the spot light again. Most people when they hear a movie is a remake they check out the original either before or after seeing the remake. And it's not like a bad remake causes the original to become a bad film itself as well.
Also, there's no harm in a remake when there's so much from the first novel that can still be adapted. I still think that a Jurassic Park two part, or three part mini-series should be made for the first and second novels. They would closely resemble the novels and it would be fun to watch.
You keep saying that becasue Winston is gone, because Crichton is gone, and because Spielberg is busy there's no way that Jurassic park can get back on its feet but in the end it's Universal's call. If they want Jurassic Park back, remake or otherwise, it's coming back with out Steven or not.
I don't think the movie needs to be redone at all. But a big-budget miniseries that stays faithful to the books? There's a thought...
Please tell me which remake actually was better then the original?
Lets remake BTTF by having Marty played by Eminem and Doc played by Snoop Dogg
Stan made the puppets, stan directed the puppets. Stan is dead, steven is never EVER gonna touch Jurassic Park, google it. He said he is done with JP. Find another producer, I'll ring up Tommy Wiseau. He's an excellent director/producer.
True Grit (2010)
Cape Fear (80's)
Dawn of the Dead (2000's)
The Thing (80's)
The Fly (80's)
3:10 to Yoma (2000's)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70's)
Piranha 3D
Those are movies that I loved a lot more than the original. There's more but these were some of the better remakes. And then there's the much longer list of movies that I felt , although not as good, lived up to the original. Movies like Peter Jackson's King Kong or the most recent reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street. This all opinion based anyway. There's no real way to say if a movie is better or not. But remakes aren't bad. If fact, most of the time they're good movies. It's just that people have this weird understanding that they should but a remake down for no other reason than it's a remake. Which isn't really fair.
I dont need to see ten times more dinosaurs, younger actors and a darker theme for Jurassic Park like in the remakes they poop out these days.
About a closer adaptation of the book, guys, just cut it off. Books cannot be adapted one to one, its a different medium goddammit. There were similar scenes in the sequels like the river scene in JP 3, it dont have to be a page by page copy of the scenarios of the book, wheres the point in that? Spend millions of dollars because some fans are too lazy to imagine the things that they read???
I liked the first one better. Jurassic Park is a film that cannot be remade, especially since Steven said so himself that he will never touch JP after JP IV again.
However, if they ever did decide to remake it or make a Jurassic Park 4 (which I've heard they are but who can really know for sure?) I will be in line waiting to see it because I love the series on all fronts (Movies, Novels, Comics, Action Figures, and Video Games.) I love the series so if they have plans to expand it in any way them I'm all for it.
Also, Steven said he won't be directing JP IV, just like JP3.
It shows a lack of imagination in Hollywood. Actually the most imaginative thing to come of this phenomenon is how with every remake, Hollywood manages to use a new re- word. remade, reimagined, redefined, restarted, rebooted. Here's a re- word for you Hollywood; Retarded.
I'm waiting for the day when they announce a remake to a movie that's not even out yet. It WILL happen.
IMO Jurassic Park II and III are a similar thing. Just making a Jurassic Park movie to cash in on the franchise. There was no quality story in there, just dinosaurs chasing people. Boring. Who cares. I don't have high hopes for a Jurassic Park IV either.
IF anyone was to go back to the source material to try and make a different Jurassic Park movie (please no "remake". Speilberg's movie was a great movie and doesn't need to be improved upon) the ONLY way it would be any good was if it was about the characters and the themes of the original. The whole dinosaur chasing people stuff needs to be of secondary importance. A new Jurassic Park would need to be a serious, deep character driven movie, not an action packed hollow movie like so much of what Hollywood pumps out these days. Can anyone say "Transformers"? No thanks. I like my movies with substance.
I agree. They should remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World, but not get it all close to the novels. I know the perfect way to remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World because I am working on a script for it and I have a different and better idea.
The first Jurassic Park is a classic and the 2nd one is Okay, but there's a lot of stuff they left out from the books, I would like to see how that extra stuff would look on screen....