Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

I have liked and defended every Jurassic Park sequel.

Until now.

Why would you make a Jurassic Park film where barely anyone gets eaten by dinosaurs? Most deaths happen off-screen, I think you only see one. The film introduces a preposterous James Bond villian and she doesn't even get eaten! Every dinosaur sequence feels flattened out with no feel for tension and excitement. No rise and falls in excitement in the sequences, just a consistent level of almost cinematic white noise. Barely any memorable dinosaurs, the Gigantosaurus has 0 personality and screen presence. Why bring back the legacy cast and then have them faff about doing nothing of consequence for an hour and a half? Why not attempt to give the World cast some form of conceivable character dynamic so we can get invested in their story? Dr. Wu had some miraculous character change off-screen, would have been interesting to see. I don't even mind the locusts idea, exploring the wider ramifications of genetic engineering is imo a good idea, except the film explores none of it despite somehow also spending all its time on the locusts.

It's a write off.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

They don't take over the world. They are established as being a dangerous nuisance at most and most dinosaurs running amok in human society scenes are annoyingly brief. In the second act it transpires they've mostly been rounded up in a facility therefore defaulting the film back to status quo except in a valley, not an island. The global threat is due to locusts which are engineered to eat only crops that haven't been provided by an evil genetics company. Thus risking a global famine. That's not a terrible idea for an inciting incident, but it stubbornly goes nowhere.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Dominion is worse. I don't like Emmerich's Godzilla but it does deliver a suitably moody rainswept New York and has some interesting imagery. It also more successfully copies Spielberg with a few bits of well delivered tension like the fishing rod bit, unlike Dominion's weird ability to present every single moment with a sense of point and shoot bored detachment. I'd much rather watch Godzilla 98 than Dominion again even if it's also bad.

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

For me it goes:

1. Jurassic Park (obv)
2. The Lost World
3. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom
4. Jurassic World
5. Jurassic Park III
6. Jurassic World Dominion.

I think Bayona is a way better director than Trevorrow, especially when it comes to the set-pieces and atmosphere. In truth I have a lot more time for this series than most. I used to say I liked them all, but Dominion genuinely alarmed me with how dull it was. Some of the other films have very weak scripts but at least had fun deaths and cool dinosaur sequences. Dominion insanely lacks both those and has an all-time series worst script as well. Can't believe they made a Jurassic sequel where barely anyone gets eaten by dinosaurs (and when they do it's off-screen), and where the main villainous dinosaur is presented with 0 presence or menace. Just an insane misreading of what people enjoy about these films.

Karloff fucked around with this message at 17:32 on Jan 14, 2023

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

man nurse posted:

I'm curious if when the first Jurassic World came out, did people see it as being superior to 2 or 3? Like was the mood "this is a good franchise revival" at any point? Because I have vague memories of that being the case. Sounds like they thoroughly poo poo the bed in terms of any goodwill that movie brought to the franchise with its sequels, though.

I think lots did see it as superior to 2 and 3 there but as plenty of robust criticisms as well. It was a legit crowd pleaser though with the fairly silly (and touch cynical) finale. I think people gave it credit because they were just glad to see a new Jurassic (and perhaps a big franchise that wasn't super-hero based). Retrospectively people view it far more negatively.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Karloff
Mar 21, 2013

Ha ha. Well, at least we know one person appreciated that death scene. Perhaps too much.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply