Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 'Weak characters' in popcorn movies is something I think is tossed around too much.For me, they just need to be in the plot for a reason, be believable and have a part to play in the story. Cut Grant, Malcolm, Satler, the kids, Hammond, or any of the park staff out of the cast, and you've lost part of the story.That said, the dinosaurs are clearly the focus, and any critic who complains about how shallow the characters is missing the point about why this was a landmark film.It's the internet. Years have passed. People need something to moan about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The List Ark'?Your inner kid wants to see the difference too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Furthermore,the JP ending is thrilling, one cannot feel the thrill-tension if they dont care about the characters.And Mailcom was used in TLW because i think it is spielberg fav. character.I thought the ending was very anti-climactic. And Malcolm being in TLW is like having only Chewbacca return for the sequel to Star Wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Skywalker 1,795 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Furthermore,the JP ending is thrilling, one cannot feel the thrill-tension if they dont care about the characters.And Mailcom was used in TLW because i think it is spielberg fav. character.I thought the ending was very anti-climactic. And Malcolm being in TLW is like having only Chewbacca return for the sequel to Star Wars.You forget the holiday special... Anti climatic??? Malcom is more important than that it the one who adds the morals and the thinking part of the film. And he makes jokes. Some people like him as tier fav character. He is the one with more charisma, i think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koray Savas 2,251 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Roald does have a point. But I'd say crap like The Rock, Michael Bay, Hans Zimmer and Jerry Bruckheimer were just as responsible, if not more.Hey The Rock is the epitome of 90s action! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Luke; please read my original post again. As a kid I really LOVED He-Man, at one point more than Star Wars. Now I realise that He-Man is vastly inferior to Star Wars on virtually all levels. But my love for He-Man and the 'child inside me' will always be there. I just admit that artistcally speaking He-Man equals crap. What a rubbish analogy. You're clutching at straws! Please don't ask me to explain my reaction to your silly statement - because if you do then I must rest my case.Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The List Ark'?The differences are purely subjective. Yes I agree that Raiders blows Jurassic away, but so what? What's your point? When you start using words like "sophisticated" when talking summer blockbusters, well you're only going to come to guess what... - more subjective opinion. It's all ultimately pointless.Debate it yes, absolutely. But do not peddle it as fact, because you'll just end up looking a twat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yes I agree that Raiders blows Jurassic away, but so what? What's your point? Uhm, that IS the point dino lover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yes I agree that Raiders blows Jurassic away, but so what? What's your point? Uhm, that IS the point dino lover And it's got nathing to do with your initial point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yes I agree that Raiders blows Jurassic away, but so what? What's your point? Uhm, that IS the point dino lover And it's got nathing to do with your initial point Uhm, actually it does dino lover #2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Roald does have a point. But I'd say crap like The Rock, Michael Bay, Hans Zimmer and Jerry Bruckheimer were just as responsible, if not more.Hey The Rock is the epitome of 90s action!Yes. Jurassic Park unwittingly marked the end of eighties action sensibilities. Which leaves a delicious aftertaste to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,687 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark'?Richard: your post is full of nonsense in my opinion. You just don't understand the basics of a good film.Your whole attitude in this thread has been that you suddenly came to the realisation that movie X, which you liked when younger, is vastly inferior to movie Y, and that anyone who still enjoys movie X and regards it as good filmmaking, is an ignorant dunce.Plus, it's entirely your opinion that JP sacrificed its characters in favour of VFX. I gave my reasoning why I think it didn't and you turned to insults instead of properly countering it. Yeah Roald, that's 'mature' of you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yes I agree that Raiders blows Jurassic away, but so what? What's your point? Uhm, that IS the point dino lover What, you created this thread as a way of pointing out how a film such as Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than Jurassic Park?It's a long-winded technique, but that doesn't mean you're not a deserving recipient of this weeks Captain Obvious Award! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Yes I agree that Raiders blows Jurassic away, but so what? What's your point? Uhm, that IS the point dino lover What, you created this thread as a way of pointing out how a film such as Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than Jurassic Park?It's a long-winded technique, but that doesn't mean you're not a deserving recipient of this weeks Captain Obvious Award!It's not about Raiders perse you geek Replace Raiders with Jaws, Empire, E.T., Back To The Future, or any other truly great and successful SFX (VFX whatever) film from before JP and you get the point. JP changed the game. It didn't create memorable characters like successful movies of the past nor was that the intention. Instead of promoting "Alan Grant", they chose to promote a "T-Rex". And a T-Rex is a pretty boring character in the end. Give me a Han Solo, a Indiana Jones or Marty McFly any time..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Instead of promoting "Alan Grant", they chose to promote a "T-Rex". And a T-Rex is a pretty boring character in the end.See here's the problem. This is why you don't "get it". Tastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Roald, did they not promote Star Wars in the same way? And to some extent, even 2001: A Space Odyssey? Go back further and you've got Cecil B. DeMille movies.Exchange "special effects" with "spectacle" and your argument's major flaw is revealed.This shit is way older than some twenty year old dinosaur movie. Which takes me back to my first post in the thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,687 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Instead of promoting "Alan Grant", they chose to promote a "T-Rex". And a T-Rex is a pretty boring character in the end.See here's the problem. This is why you don't "get it". Tastes.+1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crx_brett 0 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Has anybody mentioned Terminator 2 yet? That came out a full two years before Jurassic Park. I disagree with the statement that Jurassic Park started the trend. You could just as easily blame T2 for starting the whole CGI mess. I think the CGI in Jurassic Park was used in such a way that it didn't take away from the movie at all, unlike most movies today do. It also used a lot of models and full-sized dino props that blended seemlessly, too. And BTW, having Ian Malcolm come back in The Lost World would be more like having only Han Solo come back in a SW sequel (Chewbacca would probably be more like if one of the kids were the only characters to come back).I work in post and can tell you that in regards to visuals, it's either VFX or VE (Visual Effects). Audio is FX or SFX.BTW, this thread is based on an opinion and therefore is subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romão 2,274 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 This is as classic as it gets. Unforgettable movie moment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters.Get out of it! Stars Wars was heavily marketed as a sci-fi special effects extravaganza, a good vs. evil adventure epic. Who you trying to kid, fanboy Characters my arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Penna 3,687 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 (in reponse to the video) Abso-fucking-lutely.It's like the T-Rex has turned from the villain into a last minute hero. A great cinematic moment combined with one of JW's best finale cues ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Instead of promoting "Alan Grant", they chose to promote a "T-Rex". And a T-Rex is a pretty boring character in the end.See here's the problem. This is why you don't "get it". Tastes.+1Perhaps Jaws is the best comparison. It's the story about three very funny and great characters. The film is THEIR story; not the shark's. With JP it's vice versa and that's why - as a great film - it fails on levels where Jaws succeeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Nah, Jaws is just a very special movie, that's all.There's nothing wrong with the fact that the dinosaurs were the stars of their movie. You're just being racist towards extinct species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters.Get out of it! Stars Wars was heavily marketed as a sci-fi special effects extravaganza, a good vs. evil adventure epic. Who you trying to kid, fanboy Characters my arse!You don't know how Star Wars was really marketed do you? Nobody really knew how to market a film like that during those days because nobody ever made a movie like Star Wars before. But the posters featured Luke, Vader, Leia, etc. That's a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmo Lewis 6 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 this whole thread is bullshit. Jurassic Park had 90 or so CGI shots. It didn't destroy special effects movies, if anything it made them real.It's not a movie to be blamed. Certainly not for what followed. I think it is a movie to be blamed, Joe. In the same way we can blame Jaws and Star Wars for creating the summer blockbuster fare -- it unknowingly created a formula that would fall in the wrong hands from there on in.Roald is just choosing to interpret history that way. It could also be argued that Spielberg didn't make Jurassic Park to tell a story about dinosaurs or failed theme parks or evolution; or to make a character study of a workaholic paleontologist who hates kids. He wanted to show dinosaurs and made the rest of movie around that desire. What lazy, insecure, sequel-loving Hollywood (Jaws had its third sequel in 1987) did with the technology is more likely just a natural reaction.Seriously, we can trace similarly character/story-less movies revolving around one spectacular setting to the disaster films of the 1970s, plenty of musicals from the 1940 and, by the standards of the era, 1933's King Kong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters.Get out of it! Stars Wars was heavily marketed as a sci-fi special effects extravaganza, a good vs. evil adventure epic. Who you trying to kid, fanboy Characters my arse!You don't know how Star Wars was really marketed do you?... ... The posters featured Luke, Vader, Leia, etc. That's a fact.The characters only became a part of the marketing campaign after the film gathered momentum. Before that, it was the other stuff I mentioned.Nobody really knew how to market a film like that during those days because nobody ever made a movie like Star Wars beforeDo I detect Star Wars fanboy hyperbole creeping into this discussion? Your grandiose tone here suggests it.Nobody knew how to market Star Wars? Riiiiiight. The film's GARGANTUAN success must have just been the result of positive word of mouth then, hey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters.Get out of it! Stars Wars was heavily marketed as a sci-fi special effects extravaganza, a good vs. evil adventure epic. Who you trying to kid, fanboy Characters my arse!You don't know how Star Wars was really marketed do you?... ... The posters featured Luke, Vader, Leia, etc. That's a fact.The characters only became a part of the marketing campaign after the film gathered momentum. Before that, it was the other stuff I mentioned.Of course, 'cause you were there right?Nobody really knew how to market a film like that during those days because nobody ever made a movie like Star Wars beforeDo I detect Star Wars fanboy hyperbole creeping into this discussion? Your grandiose tone here suggests it.Nobody knew how to market Star Wars? Riiiiiight. The film's GARGANTUAN success must have just been the result of positive word of mouth then, hey!It's closer to the truth than you will ever know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,503 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark'?If what you're implying here is that anyone who loves this film does so only because of a nostalgic connection to some "inner child", I'm sorry I have to say that's some piece of condescending crap you've got right there. If I have misunderstood your argument, however, I'm sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters.Get out of it! Stars Wars was heavily marketed as a sci-fi special effects extravaganza, a good vs. evil adventure epic. Who you trying to kid, fanboy Characters my arse!You don't know how Star Wars was really marketed do you?... ... The posters featured Luke, Vader, Leia, etc. That's a fact.The characters only became a part of the marketing campaign after the film gathered momentum. Before that, it was the other stuff I mentioned.Of course, 'cause you were there right?Nobody really knew how to market a film like that during those days because nobody ever made a movie like Star Wars beforeDo I detect Star Wars fanboy hyperbole creeping into this discussion? Your grandiose tone here suggests it.Nobody knew how to market Star Wars? Riiiiiight. The film's GARGANTUAN success must have just been the result of positive word of mouth then, hey!It's closer to the truth than you will ever know...Don't be naive.And I'm sorry Roald, but coming back with, "'cause you were there right" just makes you look cretinous. I guess we better not ever discuss the Wizard of Oz phenomenon either, or Hitchcock movies... because it's all just speculation init... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark'?If what you're implying here is that anyone who loves this film does so only because of a nostalgic connection to some "inner child", I'm sorry I have to say that's some piece of condescending crap you've got right there. If I have misunderstood your argument, however, I'm sorry.Nah, you got it right I think. They say that the truth can bring out some nasty emotions in people. I'm guessing they're pretty right about that. Oh, and sometimes I'm full of crap too Did they not promote Star Wars in the same way?Did they use a Star Destroyer or even the Millennium Falcon to promote Star Wars..? No; they always used the characters.Get out of it! Stars Wars was heavily marketed as a sci-fi special effects extravaganza, a good vs. evil adventure epic. Who you trying to kid, fanboy Characters my arse!You don't know how Star Wars was really marketed do you?... ... The posters featured Luke, Vader, Leia, etc. That's a fact.The characters only became a part of the marketing campaign after the film gathered momentum. Before that, it was the other stuff I mentioned.Of course, 'cause you were there right?Nobody really knew how to market a film like that during those days because nobody ever made a movie like Star Wars beforeDo I detect Star Wars fanboy hyperbole creeping into this discussion? Your grandiose tone here suggests it.Nobody knew how to market Star Wars? Riiiiiight. The film's GARGANTUAN success must have just been the result of positive word of mouth then, hey!It's closer to the truth than you will ever know...Don't be naive.You too then. In all fairness: the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Ah, the inevitable back-peddle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Ah, the inevitable back-peddle... Only when it comes to Star Wars' success being solely attributed to 'word-of-mouth'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 By none other than yourself no less! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 By none other than yourself no less!Que? Mesa don't understand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You appeared to attribute the film's success mainly to people telling other people it was a good movie and nothing at all to do with a massive (at the time) promotional campaign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 You appeared to attribute the film's success mainly to people telling other people it was a good movie and nothing at all to do with a massive promotion campaign.Yeah, but I do stand by my opinion that the strong word-of-mouth DID play a HUGE part in the initial success of Star Wars. Fox didn't promote SW in 1977 the same way a film like Transformers 3 is promoted nowadays (yeah, and I know there wasn't internet and all then, but that's not what I mean). SW played in just a few theaters and Fox didn't think it was going to be the hit it eventually became. They started to heavily promote the film when they realised SW changed the lives of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightscape94 965 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 It is pretty amazing. There are movies like Raiders, E.T., Close Encounters, Jaws, etc, that he's done and have stayed with me since I was a child. They're good even as an adult viewer, if not better. Jurassic Park was awesome when I was a young teen, but I don't think I can even watch it anymore. The score was the greatest thing that I took away from that experience. The movie itself has diminished exponentially over the years. Now it's simply a good XF movie, instead of being just a good movie.If you're looking for a good monster movie with some good characters that has come out in the last few years, check out "The Host", which is a Korean film.Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 You appeared to attribute the film's success mainly to people telling other people it was a good movie and nothing at all to do with a massive promotion campaign.Yeah, but I do stand by my opinion that the strong word-of-mouth DID play a HUGE part in the initial success of Star Wars. Fox didn't promote SW in 1977 the same way a film like Transformers 3 is promoted nowadays (yeah, and I know there wasn't internet and all then, but that's not what I mean). SW played in just a few theaters and Fox didn't think it was going to be the hit it eventually became.Of course good word-of-mouth played a big part in the success of the film, I've never suggested otherwise.They started to heavily promote the film when they realised SW changed the lives of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 It is pretty amazing. There are movies like Raiders, E.T., Close Encounters, Jaws, etc, that he's done and have stayed with me since I was a child. They're good even as an adult viewer, if not better. Jurassic Park was awesome when I was a young teen, but I don't think I can even watch it anymore. The score was the greatest thing that I took away from that experience. The movie itself has diminished exponentially over the years. Now it's simply a good XF movie, instead of being just a good movie.+ 1You appeared to attribute the film's success mainly to people telling other people it was a good movie and nothing at all to do with a massive promotion campaign.Yeah, but I do stand by my opinion that the strong word-of-mouth DID play a HUGE part in the initial success of Star Wars. Fox didn't promote SW in 1977 the same way a film like Transformers 3 is promoted nowadays (yeah, and I know there wasn't internet and all then, but that's not what I mean). SW played in just a few theaters and Fox didn't think it was going to be the hit it eventually became.Of course good word-of-mouth played a big part in the success of the film, I've never suggested otherwise.They started to heavily promote the film when they realised SW changed the lives of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 If you're looking for a good monster movie with some good characters that has come out in the last few years, check out "The Host", which is a Korean film.Awesome film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor 7,503 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark'?If what you're implying here is that anyone who loves this film does so only because of a nostalgic connection to some "inner child", I'm sorry I have to say that's some piece of condescending crap you've got right there. If I have misunderstood your argument, however, I'm sorry.Nah, you got it right I think. They say that the truth can bring out some nasty emotions in people. I'm guessing they're pretty right about that. Oh, and sometimes I'm full of crap too Well, if you really meant that, you're basically not worth my time. That kind of arrogant, condescending "argument" is about as low you can get.Please get back to me once you can discuss the merits or demerits of the film proper, and we might have a fruitful, adult debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melange 446 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 it unknowingly created a formula that would fall in the wrong hands from there on in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 On a level, Jurassic Park works bringing out the inner child of people. If the film is for people that like dinosaurs, when do these people start getting interested in that? Spielberg knew this. There's a moment, when Grant first sees the Brachiosaurus, where he points at it and just says something like "Look. It's a dinosaur" like he was telling that to his mum. Anyone who's been into science in some way could understand this emotion.This "kids & dinosaur" theme comes up quite a few times. Even, you could say, in the amusement park idea. Substitute "dinosaur" for anything in the natural world you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Datameister 2,042 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 There's no denying that Jurassic Park is more about the threat of the dinosaurs than about the specific characters that are involved, sure, but that's not to say that the characters aren't important or meaningful. I find all the (adult) characters to be pretty interesting and enjoyable to watch. And besides, it was nothing new. I was watching Alien the other night, and that film gives you very, very little reason to care about any of the characters, even Ripley. The film is about...the alien. As little screen time as it gets, that's the reason you watch the film, not because of some fantastically deep drama with the characters. Even Jaws, which handles the character stuff very well, is a film that primarily gets watched so you can get scared about being eaten by sharks. That's how it was marketed, and that's the impact it had. What do the majority of people remember now about the film? A fin in the water and Williams' rhythmic thumping.For me, Jurassic Park has stood the test of time, and I find it to be fundamentally different from the embarrassing VFX spectacles that the studios churn out these days.EDIT: Also, TLW is a bit of a turd, and it feels weird only keeping one major character involved in most of the film. Not sure how that has any relevance, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 Your inner kid is still in love with JP and that's good. Cherish that. But now that you're mature and are able to make a more sophisticated judgement about movies and art you must be able to see the essential difference between 'Jurassic Park' and 'The Empire Strikes Back' or 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark'?If what you're implying here is that anyone who loves this film does so only because of a nostalgic connection to some "inner child", I'm sorry I have to say that's some piece of condescending crap you've got right there. If I have misunderstood your argument, however, I'm sorry.Nah, you got it right I think. They say that the truth can bring out some nasty emotions in people. I'm guessing they're pretty right about that. Oh, and sometimes I'm full of crap too Well, if you really meant that, you're basically not worth my time. That kind of arrogant, condescending "argument" is about as low you can get.Really? Is that 'about as low as one can get'? In that case I offer my apologies.But in all honesty: don't we all have things we felt were truly exceptional when we were kids, but as we grew up we came to realise that it's not really that great..? I've had that with He-Man as I already said. And with Bruce Lee/Kung-Fu movies. And so on.I've observed that a lot of people who saw JP for the first time when they were kids hold on the idea that it is "a great movie" and that it is "vastly superior to the crap that's being released nowadays".I think nobody said it better than nightscape94 (my new friend ):It is pretty amazing. There are movies like Raiders, E.T., Close Encounters, Jaws, etc, that he's done and have stayed with me since I was a child. They're good even as an adult viewer, if not better. Jurassic Park was awesome when I was a young teen, but I don't think I can even watch it anymore. The score was the greatest thing that I took away from that experience. The movie itself has diminished exponentially over the years. Now it's simply a good XF movie, instead of being just a good movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I bet you're unable to analyse the film in depth and explain its shortcomings, instead of keep saying that it's not great because it's not great and because nightscape94 says it's not great.Again, don't confuse tastes with objectiveness. Like I said earlier, trying to enjoy JP without seeing the wonder of the dinosaurs is like trying to enjoy Star Wars without wanting to live in that amazing world or tryng to enjoy Indiana Jones without liking the kind of adrenalinic adventures he gets into.Edit: I find all the (adult) characters to be pretty interesting and enjoyable to watch. And besides, it was nothing new. I was watching Alien the other night, and that film gives you very, very little reason to care about any of the characters, even Ripley. The film is about...the alien. As little screen time as it gets, that's the reason you watch the film, not because of some fantastically deep drama with the characters. Even Jaws, which handles the character stuff very well, is a film that primarily gets watched so you can get scared about being eaten by sharks. That's how it was marketed, and that's the impact it had. What do the majority of people remember now about the film? A fin in the water and Williams' rhythmic thumping.For me, Jurassic Park has stood the test of time, and I find it to be fundamentally different from the embarrassing VFX spectacles that the studios churn out these days.EDIT: Also, TLW is a bit of a turd, and it feels weird only keeping one major character involved in most of the film. Not sure how that has any relevance, though.Agreed. I alwsys thoght that about Alien. And it's great! It works! I love Alien. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 It's Dean Devlin, Roland Emmerich, Jerry Bruckheimer, Michael Bay, Stephen Sommers, Rob Cohen, etc. that destroyed the FX movie genre and are continuing to do so. Jurassic Park had a similar effect as Star Wars and Jaws. Those are credited as the catalysts for the summer blockbusters, which have been consistently crapped out of Hollywood since. Yet, those are great films. Jurassic Park is, in its own way. I still don't have a problem with the characters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandor 797 Posted June 25, 2011 Author Share Posted June 25, 2011 There's no denying that Jurassic Park is more about the threat of the dinosaurs than about the specific characters that are involved, sure, but that's not to say that the characters aren't important or meaningful. I find all the (adult) characters to be pretty interesting and enjoyable to watch. And besides, it was nothing new. I was watching Alien the other night, and that film gives you very, very little reason to care about any of the characters, even Ripley. The film is about...the alien. As little screen time as it gets, that's the reason you watch the film, not because of some fantastically deep drama with the characters. Even Jaws, which handles the character stuff very well, is a film that primarily gets watched so you can get scared about being eaten by sharks. That's how it was marketed, and that's the impact it had. What do the majority of people remember now about the film? A fin in the water and Williams' rhythmic thumping.I see you understand very little about what makes Jaws such a great movie. The triumph of the film is the chemistry between the three main characters, NOT the shark. Take the actors out of the film and it doesn't work. Take the actors out of JP and it doesn't really matter. You still have that convincing T-Rex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brónach 1,302 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 There's no denying that Jurassic Park is more about the threat of the dinosaurs than about the specific characters that are involved, sure, but that's not to say that the characters aren't important or meaningful. I find all the (adult) characters to be pretty interesting and enjoyable to watch. And besides, it was nothing new. I was watching Alien the other night, and that film gives you very, very little reason to care about any of the characters, even Ripley. The film is about...the alien. As little screen time as it gets, that's the reason you watch the film, not because of some fantastically deep drama with the characters. Even Jaws, which handles the character stuff very well, is a film that primarily gets watched so you can get scared about being eaten by sharks. That's how it was marketed, and that's the impact it had. What do the majority of people remember now about the film? A fin in the water and Williams' rhythmic thumping.I see you understand very little about what makes Jaws such a great movie. The triumph of the film is the chemistry between the three main characters, NOT the shark. Take the actors out of the film and it doesn't work. Take the actors out of JP and it doesn't really matter. You still have that convincing T-Rex.Take the shark out (this is, the creative direction, the music)... oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quintus 5,399 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I still don't have a problem with the characters.Me neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now