Jurassic Park IV

[Tom Sawyer]

I mean The Lost World paid for itself the first weekend of release (and then some, III didn't do as well, it tokk a week, but doubled the investment in the USA and did over $350 million world-wide. The original was huge - but still took 4 day to pay for itself.

 

So, why have they not gone back to the well yet! (or watering hole) I mean if they spend a $100 million and make back a modest $200 million, isn't that worth it?

 

Am I missing something here? It just seems like a winning concept, has it run it's course? I love 'em!!

 

 

Any thoughts?

 

[kazzman]

Jurassic Park IV has been in "development hell" since 2001 when III was released. They had a script that they were going to use, but once the plot and basic synopsis of the film came out, there was a huge backlash among fans.

[sfuentes]

The only good one, in my opinion, was the first. I didn't care much for numbers Two or Three.

[Tom Sawyer]

I did not know this, I do think Spielberg/Kennedy/Marshall could get something doing if they really wanted to though. Hell I'll write a script..

 

Dinos get loose, killing scaring and chasing humans for 90 minutes, then for 30 minutes a few selected humans some how seem to escape the certain death and emerge victories yet by slim margin. -- credit role

 

Summary: Spectacular special effect and visual scenery.

 

I really think Spielberg has to direct this one though!

[Tom Sawyer]

QUOTE (sfuentes @ Mar 25 2005, 03:03 PM)

The only good one, in my opinion, was the first. I didn't care much for numbers Two or Three.

I thought the second was good because it reminded me of the King/Godzilla films I watch on Saturday morns, Steven even had the group of running Japanese business men during the San Diego T-Rex roaming. To blend the Dino with the city was great!

[invisibleairwaves]

My brother (a Jurassic Park freak) mentioned something about Dr. Allan Grant dying in #4. I'm not sure if that's true, but I can see how that would cause a backlash...

[kazzman]

QUOTE (invisibleairwaves @ Mar 25 2005, 06:25 PM)

My brother (a Jurassic Park freak) mentioned something about Dr. Allan Grant dying in #4. I'm not sure if that's true, but I can see how that would cause a backlash...

Actually the story they were going to use was basicly a bunch of dead dinosaurs were washing up on the mainland coast and it was revealed they had some sort of disease that was also what caused the extinction of dinosaurs in the first place. It was then discovered that the disease was transferrable to humans as well so they send a team of scientists (big surprise there) to see if they could find a cure for it. As everything goes on they discover that InGen is still doing experiments on the island and the whole team but one guy is killed. He is then sent to some castle in the mountains where he finds out that they're breeding dinosaurs to be used as weapons...

 

 

If they would have stuck with the disease thing it would have been ok at best.

[yyz]

I thought JPII blew. That's just me though. Edited March 28, 2005 by yyz

[progrush2112]

I always thought it would be cool to see what would happen if they went back to the original island.

[Moonraker]

I have to admit, the only one I really enjoyed (oh man and let me tell you how much I enjoyed this movie) was the first one. When it came out in 1993, I was 9 years old and totally obsessed. At that point, I already had 4 or 5 thick paleontology books and decided my life goal was to become one. This movie was perfection for me then. So I read the book before I even saw the movie, then watched the movie to see the differences in the two.

 

Then the second one came out. I saw it in the theatre, was extremely excited about it, but it wasnt anything new to me. It seemed like the exact same situations that had gone on in the first movie. IE, The raptors in the kitchen scene akin to the girl gymnast in the worn down building scene. The T-Rex chasing the car through the woods scene akin to the T-Rex chasing the car down the street scene. It just wasnt anything new. I was so disappointed with how similar this movie turned out that I havent even seen the 3rd one.

 

It is my feeling they already screwed up the franchise by making a 2nd movie, so if they make a 4th, it is meaningless. Hollywood has no creative spark anymore.

[Pags]

QUOTE (Moonraker @ Mar 29 2005, 12:37 PM)

I have to admit, the only one I really enjoyed (oh man and let me tell you how much I enjoyed this movie) was the first one. When it came out in 1993, I was 9 years old and totally obsessed. At that point, I already had 4 or 5 thick paleontology books and decided my life goal was to become one. This movie was perfection for me then. So I read the book before I even saw the movie, then watched the movie to see the differences in the two. Then the second one came out. I saw it in the theatre, was extremely excited about it, but it wasnt anything new to me. It seemed like the exact same situations that had gone on in the first movie. IE, The raptors in the kitchen scene akin to the girl gymnast in the worn down building scene. The T-Rex chasing the car through the woods scene akin to the T-Rex chasing the car down the street scene. It just wasnt anything new. I was so disappointed with how similar this movie turned out that I havent even seen the 3rd one. It is my feeling they already screwed up the franchise by making a 2nd movie, so if they make a 4th, it is meaningless. Hollywood has no creative spark anymore.

I agree with you regarding II. They couldn't base the movie very closely on the book, or it would have been 60 minutes of sitting in a tree. II, imo, has very few memorable moments. I guess worth that single viewing, but that's about it.

 

However, I thought III was awesome. Don't really know why - but I really enjoyed it. They introduced new dinos, and even incorporated some of the dinos in the original book that were not created for the 1st movie.