The other movies never captured the awe and wonder of the first JP. The characters got more annoying and they kept doing the same plot and themes over and over. Jurassic Park did it perfectly
Shot on film, was made in the 90's so it still looked like a film and not a soulless corporate product that modern movies have, good composition, good colour grading, used innovative CGI, used animatronics
The list is endless.
Real answer is that their outfits looked like something you’d see in real life. No perfect crisp shirts sponsored by REI and 3 tone jackets and vests by Sponsor. It was just natural clothes and that’s what works
>first movie is telling a story which happen to have dinosaurs and most scene involving them were symbolic of character development >wrapped up all plotlines in the first movie >need to artificially inject new ones to keep the goose shitting up golden eggs
The truth is that you cannot make a good movie for the sake of showing dinosaurs because your script ends up about finding ways to have dinosaurs around instead of telling a story that happens to have dinosaurs. Might as well make/play video games.
Spielberg at the top of his game before the digital era.
The second one could have been great if they focused on that hunter guy. He was the best character by far. And you can make the plot nice and simple >After the events of JP1, hunter guy is contacted to kill off remaining dinosaurs on the island to ensure a successful cover up.
Forget that site b stuff. Forget the gay ass subplots about Jeff Goldblums black daughter (wtf). Just make it a 90 minute fun ride about Pete Postlethwaite being cool as frick.
I like Lost World. It's not perfect but had more good parts than bad. I'd say like 70/30. I do wish they would have kept the raptors on the boat to have the final act make sense why the boat crashes though.
The second one had some truly great cinematic moments, and the third one had highlights too like the pterodactyl nest, the shitpile ringtone, and the raptor communication scene at the end. It's a fairly solid trilogy. I don't see it as "the first one plus the other two" at all.
I thought about it and I think there is a misunderstanding of what JP was about. The issue of genetics and taking animals out of extinction was explored in the first movie. In my opinion a sequel would need to tackle a similar issue like Geo-engineering. I remember in university when I studied biology I always thought that if someone out there had enough money and power he could change the biosphere, at least locally, to almost whatever he wanted. Even something simple as increasing erosion by reducing soil quality in an area could have catastrophic effects. Of course to something like that you need an excellent understanding of the ecosystem and geography of an area but it would be in the spirit of JP to explore the danger of wielding God-like power.
This it was more like pom poko and watership down than tintin with dinos especially that latest terrible movie which actually brought up the genetic modded crops that get eaten by genetically modded locust only to handwave it at the end and focused on entirely the wrong thing. The girl being a clone of her mom went nowhere and everyone was fricking useless
The newest one, Dominion, is the best one. It expands on the first film, fixes the dodgy CGI and keeps a lot of practical effects, and finally asks the question “can dinosaurs and man coexist?” That’s been subtext in the whole series.
Jurassic Park is good but horribly aged. Dino’s look like shit when they go CGI, you can see a hand pushing the raptor puppet, the string on the dilophosaurus, and the characters are all half-baked.
JW3 > JW > JP > JW2 > JP2 > JP3
Except the 3d unix gui in the original JP is a real thing you can get.
those desks look cool and practical, I think I first saw them in michael bay's the island in 2005; the JW flicks suck but that desk is cooler and more believable than the 3d interface in the original JP
JP is the best but III is my favorite.
Felt like the proof of concept for what Dino Crisis could have been. Classic RE type story with rescue/survival set in the ruins of Jurassic Park's factory floor, where everything with teeth is out to eat you alive.
Jurassic Park 1 and Lost World were both good. Jurassic Park should have been a two-film series. The only good thing about Jurassic Park 3 was the short-haired woman because I have a thing for short-haired women.
There was only one good book. It was obvious Hollywood was going to milk its worth with shit scripts and soulless direction, what shocks me is how many fricking movies they made out of it. Truly and utterly soulless Hollywood has become.
The first film had strong themes, none of the others did. If they even bothered to explore any real themes at all it was just the same themes that the first one already explored.
Honestly, and I know it's a bad movie, but I do think Lost World tried. It didn't do it well, mostly because the themes it tried to explore were hack and poorly executed, but I do still think a genuine effort was made.
They need to bring in the humanoid Troodont dinosaurs. I hope they lose money and start getting creative. A loosely connected cinematic universe of movies could work. They should all be linked with #realistic genetic engineering of the near furure #morallity in science #corporate greed #respect natural order
Technically, only TLW really did since Shekelberg cornered him into a writing another and then just ended up throwing out 90% of it anyway.
Crichton actually tried to write for III on set but left after he couldn't come up with anything.
>Crichton actually tried to write for III on set but left after he couldn't come up with anything.
This is the difference between writers and people just trying to make a buck. You can't squeeze inspiration out with money, and these israelites in hollywood never could get that.
You know, I can admire the argument intellectually but he is just straight up wrong from a objective viewpoint. Species wide homogeneity is a net benefit in every way, intellectual diversity is overrated and 99% of opinions are worth nothing.
The irony of your post is that you hate others for having different thoughts, proving more of what was being said in that passage in the book. And because you hate others like that, you basically stupidify society cause you and others force people to conform or be ousted.
>The irony of your post is that you hate others for having different thoughts
I don't hate others for having different thoughts, I just think their thoughts have no value.
The argument presented in that book is highly post modern. It states that there is value in different opinions, and that there is no such thing as a objectively correct opinion accordingly. I disagree, partly because it's inherently hypocritical and partly because I just think it's objectively wrong. Wrong opinions have no value, and thinking otherwise is inherently contractionary.
>Inevitably you end up segregating anyway.
Inevitably those that choose to segregate will be destroyed by those that do not. Because, again, history has shown there is no value in wrong opinions.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It states that there is value in different opinions
Yes.
>, and that there is no such thing as a objectively correct opinion accordingly
Yes.
> I disagree
who cares
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are kind of making my point there on the entire line of thinking being inherently contradictory.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thats cause you're stuck in your mold of mind and arent able to realize what Im intentionally trying to show you. You're not that smart nor aware as you thought.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Thats cause you're stuck in your mold of mind and arent able to realize what Im intentionally trying to show you.
Whatever point you are trying to make intentionally is overshadowed by the unintentional point you are also making.
Nah, reality has shown that most people do not have a opinion worth hearing. The issue with the internet is that it allows them to think otherwise.
No thats liberterian logic. I forgive you for being instantly wrong.
Libertarian's are right wing.
>Well, not socially.
Basically just depends on how hypocritical they are and how much the general norm has shifted. In every non civilized country Libertarian's are highly social conservative.
>he continues to go down his reductive list of guesses
Just stop already.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You could just tell me if you aren't just full of shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Or you can go learn about it and stop being a dumbass. Broaden your horizons
2 years ago
Anonymous
I have learned about it. From that I have learned that it's a economically right wing ideology. If you really want to claim it's somehow not that, do that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You learned that from a biased source. We don't call our economics or anything left or right wing. That's your first and only lesson.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You learned that from a biased source.
No, a good source.
>We don't call our economics or anything left or right wing.
Oh, so you are just pretentious.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Oh, so you are just pretentious.
This is why you'll never get it. Liberterianism is a mindset. And if you dont get it, you just dont have it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Liberterianism is a mindset.
Correct.
It's called pretentiousness.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There's nothing pretentious about independence and a sense of a tribe.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Arguably, though anybody talking about independence and tribes is generally moronic. Pretending you are above politics is pretentious though.
You are on the left or the right, deal with it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you MUST be in these groups
I rest my case.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now, you ARE in those groups. If you claim otherwise it's because you are being pretensions and above the system. You are not, you silly little right wing chuuni.
Libertarians are an offshoot of liberals. They're better than core liberals but, like most left-wing ideas, their ideology is untenable. The primary difference between a liberal and conservative is the definition on what the smallest unit of civilization is. For the liberal (and libertarian), the smallest unit of the individual. For the conservative, the smallest unit that represents civilization as a microcosm is the family. Indeed, the most stable and demonstrable form of civilization begins with the family, NOT with the individual. Conservatives believe this, libertarians and liberals don't and it is this central dogma that differentiates the two and is the difference between functional, happy societies and atomized, hyper-individualist consumerist greedy drones.
because there is only one jurassic park novel
the same reason why harry potter movies based on the books are good but the ones based on thin air are shit
There's something so perfect about the aesthetic of brand new raw concrete & steel against the lush wild jungle. Not to mention how utterly kino the vehicles are.
First movie is literally perfect. TLW and JP3 are great and full of soul, but have their issues. JW is passable as a low effort sequel. The other two shouldn't even be considered canon
For now JP3 is fourth or fifth on my list but TLW is a great, solid movie about dinosaurs. OP is a massive gay who just repeats conventional wisdom from people who don't even watch movies.
I will have to watch them all back to back and that extended cut of Dominion but right now JPIII is either just ahead of FK or ahead of FK and Dominion. It has merits but it's not that good. OP is still a homosexual.
Yeah was it 14 more minutes? Besides the prologue there will be more of that Bartertown-looking dino black market in Malta. Maybe something else we'll see if it adds at least one more death it will honestly improve the final score for me. This is my biggest problem with this movie. Some scenes were good but why they couldn't even kill off Dr. Wu?
Jurassic Park >>> POWER GAP >>>>> The Lost World > JP3 > Jurassic World >>>>>> 2nd POWER GAP >>>>>>> Dominion >>>>>>>>>> 3rd POWER GAP >>>>>>>>>>>> One big pile of Triceratops shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fallen Kingdom
Spared no expense!
The other movies never captured the awe and wonder of the first JP. The characters got more annoying and they kept doing the same plot and themes over and over. Jurassic Park did it perfectly
I completely agree with you.
the studios spared no expense.
ALAN!
Well, there's only been one Jurassic Park movie
When I saw that the sequel had an armored Winnebago in it I knew it wasn't worth watching
Lost World wasn't that bad.
It was worse.
Why does this movie look so perfect?
Witnessed
Good God damn look at those digits
Because it is a perfect movie.
Shot on film, was made in the 90's so it still looked like a film and not a soulless corporate product that modern movies have, good composition, good colour grading, used innovative CGI, used animatronics
The list is endless.
Blessed digits
It was made with soul.
Real answer is that their outfits looked like something you’d see in real life. No perfect crisp shirts sponsored by REI and 3 tone jackets and vests by Sponsor. It was just natural clothes and that’s what works
witnessed and screencapped
this post will reign for 1000 years
Because it had heart, unlike most movies today. Also, based digits.
Witnessed.
It is soul incarnate. It literally can't be topped
Also WITNESSED quints of truth
>>Only ONE good Jurassic Park movie.
>What went wrong?
it's the only film to feature a Westinghouse SPB-100
>first movie is telling a story which happen to have dinosaurs and most scene involving them were symbolic of character development
>wrapped up all plotlines in the first movie
>need to artificially inject new ones to keep the goose shitting up golden eggs
The truth is that you cannot make a good movie for the sake of showing dinosaurs because your script ends up about finding ways to have dinosaurs around instead of telling a story that happens to have dinosaurs. Might as well make/play video games.
Spielberg at the top of his game before the digital era.
Dino Crisis would make a great horror film.
Dino Crisis didn't even make a good game until it go full Aliens.
Dino Crisis in space was kino and I dont know why they havent done that with modern tech.
Because it is perfect, Anon. Nice get.
As much of a schmaltzy israelite Spielberg is, I can forgive him for most things due to Jaws and Jurassic Park.
>that middle aged woman was only 26 during filming
The second one could have been great if they focused on that hunter guy. He was the best character by far. And you can make the plot nice and simple
>After the events of JP1, hunter guy is contacted to kill off remaining dinosaurs on the island to ensure a successful cover up.
Forget that site b stuff. Forget the gay ass subplots about Jeff Goldblums black daughter (wtf). Just make it a 90 minute fun ride about Pete Postlethwaite being cool as frick.
The movie watcher doesn't want to be fed. He wants to hunt. Can't just suppress 65 million years of gut instinct.
Who the frick is making these schizo images
I don't know and I don't get them. I'm too lazy to read whatever the frick word they want me to see, if that's even what they're doing.
Brevity is the soul of wit. And keep it simple, stupid.
I like Lost World. It's not perfect but had more good parts than bad. I'd say like 70/30. I do wish they would have kept the raptors on the boat to have the final act make sense why the boat crashes though.
The second one had some truly great cinematic moments, and the third one had highlights too like the pterodactyl nest, the shitpile ringtone, and the raptor communication scene at the end. It's a fairly solid trilogy. I don't see it as "the first one plus the other two" at all.
I thought about it and I think there is a misunderstanding of what JP was about. The issue of genetics and taking animals out of extinction was explored in the first movie. In my opinion a sequel would need to tackle a similar issue like Geo-engineering. I remember in university when I studied biology I always thought that if someone out there had enough money and power he could change the biosphere, at least locally, to almost whatever he wanted. Even something simple as increasing erosion by reducing soil quality in an area could have catastrophic effects. Of course to something like that you need an excellent understanding of the ecosystem and geography of an area but it would be in the spirit of JP to explore the danger of wielding God-like power.
This it was more like pom poko and watership down than tintin with dinos especially that latest terrible movie which actually brought up the genetic modded crops that get eaten by genetically modded locust only to handwave it at the end and focused on entirely the wrong thing. The girl being a clone of her mom went nowhere and everyone was fricking useless
The newest one, Dominion, is the best one. It expands on the first film, fixes the dodgy CGI and keeps a lot of practical effects, and finally asks the question “can dinosaurs and man coexist?” That’s been subtext in the whole series.
Jurassic Park is good but horribly aged. Dino’s look like shit when they go CGI, you can see a hand pushing the raptor puppet, the string on the dilophosaurus, and the characters are all half-baked.
JW3 > JW > JP > JW2 > JP2 > JP3
The JW movies aren't canon.
lost world is fine
jurassic world was good and might be one of the most anti feminist movies
Was this scene supposed to be some stupid throwback to the Unix 3D GUI in JP1 or what the frick was the purpose of this shit
Except the 3d unix gui in the original JP is a real thing you can get.
cringe; LW and JP3 were both kino
those desks look cool and practical, I think I first saw them in michael bay's the island in 2005; the JW flicks suck but that desk is cooler and more believable than the 3d interface in the original JP
"No."
Don't quote nobody.
Dinosaur tinder
I thought the third film was good, better than the second one anyway
Lost World is awful, 3 is bad but yeah I also liked it.
JP is the best but III is my favorite.
Felt like the proof of concept for what Dino Crisis could have been. Classic RE type story with rescue/survival set in the ruins of Jurassic Park's factory floor, where everything with teeth is out to eat you alive.
Jurassic Park 1 and Lost World were both good. Jurassic Park should have been a two-film series. The only good thing about Jurassic Park 3 was the short-haired woman because I have a thing for short-haired women.
The Lost World book was good. Spielberg blew it
They are all terrible cartoony waste of great special effects.
Same reason there’s only one REALLY good terminator. It’s a simple concept that works once.
There was only one good book. It was obvious Hollywood was going to milk its worth with shit scripts and soulless direction, what shocks me is how many fricking movies they made out of it. Truly and utterly soulless Hollywood has become.
Shit-tier opinion. TLW is second-best movie about dinosaurs but plebs are told to be mad about it because it's not as good as the original.
[Now it's only a matter of time before this Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World is found and pillaged.
I clapped
Why should there be more than one Jurassic park movie? There was one story to be told with Jurassic Park, and it was told well.
The first film had strong themes, none of the others did. If they even bothered to explore any real themes at all it was just the same themes that the first one already explored.
Honestly, and I know it's a bad movie, but I do think Lost World tried. It didn't do it well, mostly because the themes it tried to explore were hack and poorly executed, but I do still think a genuine effort was made.
It's called Concept Potential.
JPark's was low.
They need to bring in the humanoid Troodont dinosaurs. I hope they lose money and start getting creative. A loosely connected cinematic universe of movies could work. They should all be linked with #realistic genetic engineering of the near furure #morallity in science #corporate greed #respect natural order
They moved further and further away from Crichton.
damn what a based paragraph
Technically, only TLW really did since Shekelberg cornered him into a writing another and then just ended up throwing out 90% of it anyway.
Crichton actually tried to write for III on set but left after he couldn't come up with anything.
>Crichton actually tried to write for III on set but left after he couldn't come up with anything.
This is the difference between writers and people just trying to make a buck. You can't squeeze inspiration out with money, and these israelites in hollywood never could get that.
I don’t think he could get away with this anymore…
Diversity is our strength
Diversity is peace
Diversity is the future
I unironically wish segregation was a thing atm. Remove worker right laws and other "prejudice" laws and let society sort itself out.
Yeah because I'm sure you, an incel posting from his mother's basement, would be part of the master race ruling class
Ha, I love how you instantly assumed that whites will become the ruling class.
>Workers rights
>Just a prejudice law
Lol, right wing logic at work.
No thats liberterian logic. I forgive you for being instantly wrong.
Jurassic Park was always redpilled at its core. No wonder they ruined it.
You know, I can admire the argument intellectually but he is just straight up wrong from a objective viewpoint. Species wide homogeneity is a net benefit in every way, intellectual diversity is overrated and 99% of opinions are worth nothing.
>Species wide homogeneity is a net benefit in every way
What is disease?
>What is disease?
Going by recent experiences the biggest issue when it comes to diseases is stupid people thinking they know better than others.
The irony of your post is that you hate others for having different thoughts, proving more of what was being said in that passage in the book. And because you hate others like that, you basically stupidify society cause you and others force people to conform or be ousted.
Inevitably you end up segregating anyway.
>The irony of your post is that you hate others for having different thoughts
I don't hate others for having different thoughts, I just think their thoughts have no value.
The argument presented in that book is highly post modern. It states that there is value in different opinions, and that there is no such thing as a objectively correct opinion accordingly. I disagree, partly because it's inherently hypocritical and partly because I just think it's objectively wrong. Wrong opinions have no value, and thinking otherwise is inherently contractionary.
>Inevitably you end up segregating anyway.
Inevitably those that choose to segregate will be destroyed by those that do not. Because, again, history has shown there is no value in wrong opinions.
>It states that there is value in different opinions
Yes.
>, and that there is no such thing as a objectively correct opinion accordingly
Yes.
> I disagree
who cares
You are kind of making my point there on the entire line of thinking being inherently contradictory.
Thats cause you're stuck in your mold of mind and arent able to realize what Im intentionally trying to show you. You're not that smart nor aware as you thought.
>Thats cause you're stuck in your mold of mind and arent able to realize what Im intentionally trying to show you.
Whatever point you are trying to make intentionally is overshadowed by the unintentional point you are also making.
Look at you proving Crichton right again.
No, not at all. There is no value to most opinions. Even if I am wrong, and I'm not, that point is still made regardless.
holy shit that's from the 90's and you can tell how real this is today.
Nah, reality has shown that most people do not have a opinion worth hearing. The issue with the internet is that it allows them to think otherwise.
Libertarian's are right wing.
>Well, not socially.
Basically just depends on how hypocritical they are and how much the general norm has shifted. In every non civilized country Libertarian's are highly social conservative.
>Libertarian's are right wing.
No we're not dumbass. If you knew what it was you wouldnt say that.
You are economically right wing, which is the only thing that is relevant to me.
>You are economically right wing
You're still an uninformed dumbass
Are you a straight up anarcho anarchist?
>he continues to go down his reductive list of guesses
Just stop already.
You could just tell me if you aren't just full of shit.
Or you can go learn about it and stop being a dumbass. Broaden your horizons
I have learned about it. From that I have learned that it's a economically right wing ideology. If you really want to claim it's somehow not that, do that.
You learned that from a biased source. We don't call our economics or anything left or right wing. That's your first and only lesson.
>You learned that from a biased source.
No, a good source.
>We don't call our economics or anything left or right wing.
Oh, so you are just pretentious.
>Oh, so you are just pretentious.
This is why you'll never get it. Liberterianism is a mindset. And if you dont get it, you just dont have it.
>Liberterianism is a mindset.
Correct.
It's called pretentiousness.
There's nothing pretentious about independence and a sense of a tribe.
Arguably, though anybody talking about independence and tribes is generally moronic. Pretending you are above politics is pretentious though.
You are on the left or the right, deal with it.
>you MUST be in these groups
I rest my case.
Now, you ARE in those groups. If you claim otherwise it's because you are being pretensions and above the system. You are not, you silly little right wing chuuni.
Libertarians are an offshoot of liberals. They're better than core liberals but, like most left-wing ideas, their ideology is untenable. The primary difference between a liberal and conservative is the definition on what the smallest unit of civilization is. For the liberal (and libertarian), the smallest unit of the individual. For the conservative, the smallest unit that represents civilization as a microcosm is the family. Indeed, the most stable and demonstrable form of civilization begins with the family, NOT with the individual. Conservatives believe this, libertarians and liberals don't and it is this central dogma that differentiates the two and is the difference between functional, happy societies and atomized, hyper-individualist consumerist greedy drones.
Damn, that's redpilled on a whole other level. Based Crichton, no wonder israeliteywood had to co-opt his book.
I like 2 and 3 too
I liked two because I watched it when I was a dumb kid and some of the action scenes were actually really fun in that movie.
Spino is the gigachad.
And your mom had only one good kid.
...And you ain't it.
>Jurassic Park - 8.5
>Lost World - 6
>Jurassic Park III - 5
>Jurassic World - 5.5
>Fallen Kingdom - 2
>Dominion - Haven't seen
III > Lost World
because there is only one jurassic park novel
the same reason why harry potter movies based on the books are good but the ones based on thin air are shit
I really don't know. Spielberg fricked up on the second movie, I think this wasn't expected.
Go woke, go broke.
>nothing is bad as long as you regret it afterwards
FRICKING KEK
No one likes seeing spooks and left wing drivel on tv. End of it.
There's something so perfect about the aesthetic of brand new raw concrete & steel against the lush wild jungle. Not to mention how utterly kino the vehicles are.
those jeeps look like straight out of a zoo, which is why they worked so well
underrated aesthetic
TLW is two-thirds of a good movie, and even then, the San Diego sequence is still very entertaining.
First movie is literally perfect. TLW and JP3 are great and full of soul, but have their issues. JW is passable as a low effort sequel. The other two shouldn't even be considered canon
For now JP3 is fourth or fifth on my list but TLW is a great, solid movie about dinosaurs. OP is a massive gay who just repeats conventional wisdom from people who don't even watch movies.
I will have to watch them all back to back and that extended cut of Dominion but right now JPIII is either just ahead of FK or ahead of FK and Dominion. It has merits but it's not that good. OP is still a homosexual.
>extended cut of Dominion
There's more?
Yeah was it 14 more minutes? Besides the prologue there will be more of that Bartertown-looking dino black market in Malta. Maybe something else we'll see if it adds at least one more death it will honestly improve the final score for me. This is my biggest problem with this movie. Some scenes were good but why they couldn't even kill off Dr. Wu?
Jurassic Park >>> POWER GAP >>>>> The Lost World > JP3 > Jurassic World >>>>>> 2nd POWER GAP >>>>>>> Dominion >>>>>>>>>> 3rd POWER GAP >>>>>>>>>>>> One big pile of Triceratops shit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fallen Kingdom
In less obnoxious framing, yes.
I like the lost world, but the rest is trash.