Title by Comic-Con?

I believe Universal have a ticking clock when it comes to their use of the Jurassic film license; as in they can do a trilogy (and possible comics, and animated material if they smarten up in time) and complete it by the early 2020s, and then the rights return to the Crichton estate. If the next one does mediocre box office, that is not going to give them the incentive to allow creative freedom and the following film would be a very studio-controlled product.

And if 14 years was a long time to wait for an in-canon sequel to the first three Jurassic films to come to cinemas, I think its fair that people won't be too hungry for a rebooted Jurassic Park film or TV series from another studio five years after the last one ended, like the Amazing Spider-Man reboot.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Don't crucify me, but regardless of how good or bad the products ultimately end up being, I actually want both JP5 and JP6 to do very mediocre at the box office. Not embarassingly horribly, but not particularly well either - just somewhere in the middle. Because the last thing I want is this franchise going on forever, especially when it's already on overtime and the creativity is running low. It really should stop at the sixth film with definite end. And that's not going to happen it they strike gold financially again.

What makes you think a change in ownership won't change things? Surely you've seen my one anti-Universal post in the TV  thread and the other one in the General Movie thread Also, with Goldblum coming back, JW2/JP5 is ensured to make at least $1 billion so even if JW3/JP6 becomes JP3 2.0, at least you'll have one sequel that will make a lot of money. So that scenario won't happen.

Not only that, but considering how you still want the original 2 sequels to be canon, wouldn't it be for the best to have another studio ensure that rather then have Universal just half-heartedly accept them as so, which is what they are currently doing and what they may do so in the next two movies?

Isn't it possible that no-one gets the rights and they just keeps flowing with the Crichton estate?

Or Universal re-buys them but does nothing with it.

Anyway, it's Universal's own fault if they mess the fifth and/or sixth film, and it's canon to the previous films. Future sequels shouldn't exist solely (well "solely") to fix the problems of previous installments. As I've said before, do the best possible product now, concentrate only on the now, not the future. If these new films suck, well fine, that's it then.

To quote myself from here:
https://jurassicmainframe.forumotion.com/t984-was-jw-too-much-an-action-movie-for-your-taste#15294

I don't even get why (commercial reasons aside) it needs/needed to be a franchise. Why does one of the most iconic film of all time require franchise around it? This isn't like Star Trek with millions of layers of possibilities and pre-existing entities. Clearly the lack of imagination in the writing of the later sequels and products shows that just like in say Star Wars, it's "universe" isn't that wide and full of ideas as people would like to admit. It's narrower. This is shown when you need to rely on same things over and over again, and then when you try things that actually are somewhat different (TLW darker atmosphere, Spino shenanigans, weaponized dinos & SW prequels) most people hate it. And yes, those different ideas might be terrible ones, but there's a reason so few of them are even tried out. If you cannot come up with good new ideas... What's the point of continuing?

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Don't crucify me, but regardless of how good or bad the products ultimately end up being, I actually want both JP5 and JP6 to do very mediocre at the box office. Not embarassingly horribly, but not particularly well either - just somewhere in the middle. Because the last thing I want is this franchise going on forever, especially when it's already on overtime and the creativity is running low. It really should stop at the sixth film with definite end. And that's not going to happen it they strike gold financially again.

I never understand this kind of mindset. I mean, if you don't like long running franchises, fine. But some people want to see as much of their favorite franchises as possible. Isn't hoping that the films do badly so that future films are discouraged kinda selfish? Even if the franchise produces another 6 films that are all terrible, you don't have to watch them. Star Trek is still going, Star Wars is still going, Bond is still going and they all have unnecessary sequels and some poor ones, too, but I know plenty of people like them so they just don't bother me.

Not attacking you personally on this, I see lots of people saying the exact same thing everywhere from Facebook to YouTube. Just wanted to share my opinion on that.

If Trump doesn't get elected for second term, lots of people on the other side of the fence will be unhappy too, but that doesn't mean I have to care for them

This isn't about objectivity, but subjectivity.

Plus, there is such thing as sort of an obligation to watch these films. I've said it before, but I have almost absolute zero interest in watching these new Star Wars films, but I do so because of some sort of requirement that the society seems to force upon you. Not only will you not understand what the hell people in social media and wherever are talking about, but you will get asked about it. It's the curse of these big franchises.

Mistral wrote:

Plus, there is such thing as sort of an obligation to watch these films. I've said it before, but I have almost absolute zero interest in watching these new Star Wars films, but I do so because of some sort of requirement that the society seems to force upon you. Not only will you not understand what the hell people in social media and wherever are talking about, but you will get asked about it. It's the curse of these big franchises.

To be fair, if someone feels an obligation to watch a film because of societal pressure, then I'd say that's more an issue with the viewer than anything.

I haven't seen TFA, nor do I intend to, and I've gotten along just fine.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Plus, there is such thing as sort of an obligation to watch these films. I've said it before, but I have almost absolute zero interest in watching these new Star Wars films, but I do so because of some sort of requirement that the society seems to force upon you. Not only will you not understand what the hell people in social media and wherever are talking about, but you will get asked about it. It's the curse of these big franchises.

To be fair, if someone feels an obligation to watch a film because of societal pressure, then I'd say that's more an issue with the viewer than anything.

I haven't seen TFA, nor do I intend to, and I've gotten along just fine.

I did say this was all subjective, didn't I? This kind of relates to what I've been saying since January, but I would argue that 99,999% of the people do not care about the "enjoyment of other people" or "norms" or "traditions" when it comes to such subjective, mundane thing as movies. And most certainly majority of people don't care if movie X makes enough cash. If some do, that's fine, but that's not majority. For most, watching movies and forming opinion of them isn't a democracy, but dictatorship And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Don't crucify me, but regardless of how good or bad the products ultimately end up being, I actually want both JP5 and JP6 to do very mediocre at the box office. Not embarassingly horribly, but not particularly well either - just somewhere in the middle. Because the last thing I want is this franchise going on forever, especially when it's already on overtime and the creativity is running low. It really should stop at the sixth film with definite end. And that's not going to happen it they strike gold financially again.

What makes you think a change in ownership won't change things? Surely you've seen my one anti-Universal post in the TV  thread and the other one in the General Movie thread Also, with Goldblum coming back, JW2/JP5 is ensured to make at least $1 billion so even if JW3/JP6 becomes JP3 2.0, at least you'll have one sequel that will make a lot of money. So that scenario won't happen.

Not only that, but considering how you still want the original 2 sequels to be canon, wouldn't it be for the best to have another studio ensure that rather then have Universal just half-heartedly accept them as so, which is what they are currently doing and what they may do so in the next two movies?

Isn't it possible that no-one gets the rights and they just keeps flowing with the Crichton estate?

Or Universal re-buys them but does nothing with it.

Anyway, it's Universal's own fault if they mess the fifth and/or sixth film, and it's canon to the previous films. Future sequels shouldn't exist solely (well "solely") to fix the problems of previous installments. As I've said before, do the best possible product now, concentrate only on the now, not the future. If these new films suck, well fine, that's it then.

To quote myself from here:
https://jurassicmainframe.forumotion.com/t984-was-jw-too-much-an-action-movie-for-your-taste#15294

I don't even get why (commercial reasons aside) it needs/needed to be a franchise. Why does one of the most iconic film of all time require franchise around it? This isn't like Star Trek with millions of layers of possibilities and pre-existing entities. Clearly the lack of imagination in the writing of the later sequels and products shows that just like in say Star Wars, it's "universe" isn't that wide and full of ideas as people would like to admit. It's narrower. This is shown when you need to rely on same things over and over again, and then when you try things that actually are somewhat different (TLW darker atmosphere, Spino shenanigans, weaponized dinos & SW prequels) most people hate it. And yes, those different ideas might be terrible ones, but there's a reason so few of them are even tried out. If you cannot come up with good new ideas... What's the point of continuing?

No. I remember asking the situation about the rights on Jurassic Park: The Group and David (CT-1138) said that the Crichton estate does plan to auction the rights off to the highest bidder. Considering how he was a big part of JPL and how he's a big fan, there's no way how he can be making this up.

Besides, you're under the mindset that Disney doesn't want to destroy the competition ever worse then it already is. Between them and Fox, both studios being known for being constantly profitable, even under less then ideal conditions, not to mention how Universal is on shakier ground, I really do not believe that Universal has the ability to use regain the rights as most people think. Not only that, but the truth is that the Jurassic Park franchise has been the most successful dinosaur movie franchise ever made. There is simply too much money involved.

Quote. wrote:

Future sequels shouldn't exist solely (well "solely") to fix the problems of previous installments. As I've said before, do the best possible product now, concentrate only on the now, not the future. If these new films suck, well fine, that's it then.

That's not how the relationship between movie studios, movie franchises, and fans work. At least, not anymore. Look at how Fox let X-Men: Days Of Future Past and the 2016 Deadpool movie ret-con X3: The Last Stand and Wolverine: Origins (or most of it) out of existence. Not only that, but you also have Disney ret-conning the prequels while still keeping them canon. Not only that, but I guranetee you that if Ridley Scott manages to ret-con Aliens out of existence, then it's only a matter of time before Fox lets somebody-my guess being James Cameron himself-ret-con it back in.

Not only that, but with Marvel Studios having a long-term plan via the MCU, everything has changed.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

No. I remember asking the situation about the rights on Jurassic Park: The Group and David (CT-1138) said that the Crichton estate does plan to auction the rights off to the highest bidder. Considering how he was a big part of JPL and how he's a big fan, there's no way how he can be making this up.

Besides, you're under the mindset that Disney doesn't want to destroy the competition ever worse then it already is. Between them and Fox, both studios being known for being constantly profitable, even under less then ideal conditions, not to mention how Universal is on shakier ground, I really do not believe that Universal has the ability to use regain the rights as most people think. Not only that, but the truth is that the Jurassic Park franchise has been the most successful dinosaur movie franchise ever made. There is simply too much money involved.

Okay, so all things considered Universally is probably the laziest of the bunch when it comes to producing this stuff, would you agree? So if we go back to that poll thread you made a while ago... that's who I'd choose, them to get the rights again and do nothing about it  

Which I think is possible if JP5 and/or JP6 do mediocre or badly. I don't think we can make that strict of predictions yet, movies have bombed before out of nowhere, just as they have been surprisingly successful. I do not think that any of the JP sequels had predictable box office runs.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

That's not how the relationship between movie studios, movie franchises, and fans work. At least, not anymore. Look at how Fox let  X-Men: Days Of Future Past and the 2016 Deadpool movie ret-con X3: The Last Stand and Wolverine: Origins (or most of it) out of existence. Not only that, but you also have Disney ret-conning the prequels while still keeping them canon. Not only that, but I guranetee you that if Ridley Scott manages to ret-con Aliens out of existence, then it's only a matter of time before Fox lets somebody-my guess being James Cameron himself-ret-con it back in.

Not only that, but with Marvel Studios having a long-term plan via the MCU, everything has changed.

Hmm yes I think we are once again closing in the territory where we both repeat the same exact things over and over again, and then in months time have this same exact discussion as I can already recall this more or less same exact change of dialogue happening like 5 times already, at least.

It's fine, we don't agree, leave it at that. We'll discuss it again soon enough anyway

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I disagree. If JP was really as important to them as you claim, then why aren't we seeing stuff like an animated TV show that takes place between the old trilogy and this one via Star Wars: Rebels by now? There is just so much untapped potential that Universal has at it's disposal and it's just doing nothing about it. Say what you what about Disney and Star Wars, but at least they are taking advantage of a lot of potential via the time gaps between the prequel trilogy and the original one.

Do remember that Star Wars has been around since the 70s and only recently has Disney decided to milk the franchise which [url=miscrave.com/articles/annual-star-wars-spin-offs/]I think is detrimental[/url] in the long term.

Mistral wrote:

Don't crucify me, but regardless of how good or bad the products ultimately end up being, I actually want both JP5 and JP6 to do very mediocre at the box office. Not embarassingly horribly, but not particularly well either - just somewhere in the middle. Because the last thing I want is this franchise going on forever, especially when it's already on overtime and the creativity is running low. It really should stop at the sixth film with definite end. And that's not going to happen it they strike gold financially again.

I don't think JP is a franchise that would go on forever if it kept making huge bank at the B.O even with JW2 and JW3. We don't even know what the next movies will be about to even judge, it's way too early. And if you're talking about unnecessary then the franchise should've finished with the first film to be quite honest. We the fans asked for JP4 for over a decade.

In my opinion I don't see JW2 and 3 doing as much as JW1, I think they'll do very well but not be the gigantic hit that JW was. I think after the JW trilogy, they'll take a break. My hope? A reboot that has a JP film that is a faithful adaptation of the book.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

I believe Universal have a ticking clock when it comes to their use of the Jurassic film license; as in they can do a trilogy (and possible comics, and animated material if they smarten up in time) and complete it by the early 2020s, and then the rights return to the Crichton estate. If the next one does mediocre box office, that is not going to give them the incentive to allow creative freedom and the following film would be a very studio-controlled product.

And if 14 years was a long time to wait for an in-canon sequel to the first three Jurassic films to come to cinemas, I think its fair that people won't be too hungry for a rebooted Jurassic Park film or TV series from another studio five years after the last one ended, like the Amazing Spider-Man reboot.

No way in hell that Universal is letting go of the Jurassic Park license, they will pay big money for it and the Crichton state will be more than happy to accept it. It's one of Universal's top franchises, it's too big for them to let go off it, even if JW2 and 3 bombed.

Now I would love to see Universal lose the license and another studio have a go at it but I just find that extremely unlikely.

Mistral wrote:

To quote myself from here:
https://jurassicmainframe.forumotion.com/t984-was-jw-too-much-an-action-movie-for-your-taste#15294

I don't even get why (commercial reasons aside) it needs/needed to be a franchise. Why does one of the most iconic film of all time require franchise around it? This isn't like Star Trek with millions of layers of possibilities and pre-existing entities. Clearly the lack of imagination in the writing of the later sequels and products shows that just like in say Star Wars, it's "universe" isn't that wide and full of ideas as people would like to admit. It's narrower. This is shown when you need to rely on same things over and over again, and then when you try things that actually are somewhat different (TLW darker atmosphere, Spino shenanigans, weaponized dinos & SW prequels) most people hate it. And yes, those different ideas might be terrible ones, but there's a reason so few of them are even tried out. If you cannot come up with good new ideas... What's the point of continuing?

Frankly, we all wanted JP to be a franchise, did it need to be? no the original story told a self contained story with a start and a finish, nothing else was needed, but we loved it and we asked for more. That's why we got The Lost World, the only book sequel Crichton wrote, because of demand. We want it, yes the original story doesn't need to continue but we as fans know that in this fictional verse there is an island with dinosaurs! we want more stories out of that even if they are unnecessary.

sdp wrote:

Frankly, we all wanted JP to be a franchise, did it need to be? no the original story told a self contained story with a start and a finish, nothing else was needed, but we loved it and we asked for more. That's why we got The Lost World, the only book sequel Crichton wrote, because of demand. We want it, yes the original story doesn't need to continue but we as fans know that in this fictional verse there is an island with dinosaurs! we want more stories out of that even if they are unnecessary.

"-- We all love Indiana Jones, yes. But everybody needs that part of their brain that says: We better not. You know it's the part of the brain that turns on when you crave something that you know you can't or shouldn't have. And then you stop yourself."

Switch Indiana with JP

How does one even define "necessary" to begin with? Was a book/film about a dinosaur theme park necessary to begin with?

At the end of the day it's entertainment. None of it is "necessary".

And who's to say that narratives shouldn't be expanded upon after they've reached their initial conclusion? If something retroactively lessens someones enjoyment of a previous installment for whatever reason, that's an issue with viewer more than anything else. Personally, I feel that Universal or whichever other studio lands the rights to the JP franchise can do whatever the hell the want with it. Doesn't mean I'll like it, or that I won't bitch about it, but at the end of the day, it's entertainment and nothing more.

Mistral wrote:

"-- We all love Indiana Jones, yes. But everybody needs that part of their brain that says: We better not. You know it's the part of the brain that turns on when you crave something that you know you can't or shouldn't have. And then you stop yourself."

Switch Indiana with JP

I disagree with Indiana Jones, now that's a franchise that should've had many sequels...so many stories that could've been told and the mantle passed, it would've been the 007 of archaeology.

JP sequels are not necessary but I can separate the sequels from the original, as a kid all I wanted as a JP2 which we eventually got and after ///, I was posting in the fandom about JPIV along everyone else, we all know it wouldn't be better but we still wanted to see a bit more of that universe. Plus no matter how bad any sequel really is it means we get new merchandise and new stuff of the original instead of it being this forgotten movie, so it's not all bad. I mean we're all here posting on a nerdy forum for a reason right? Our love for the franchise.

sdp wrote:

Mistral wrote:

"-- We all love Indiana Jones, yes. But everybody needs that part of their brain that says: We better not. You know it's the part of the brain that turns on when you crave something that you know you can't or shouldn't have. And then you stop yourself."

Switch Indiana with JP

I disagree with Indiana Jones, now that's a franchise that should've had many sequels...so many stories that could've been told and the mantle passed, it would've been the 007 of archaeology.

JP sequels are not necessary but I can separate the sequels from the original, as a kid all I wanted as a JP2 which we eventually got and after ///, I was posting in the fandom about JPIV along everyone else, we all know it wouldn't be better but we still wanted to see a bit more of that universe. Plus no matter how bad any sequel really is it means we get new merchandise and new stuff of the original instead of it being this forgotten movie, so it's not all bad. I mean we're all here posting on a nerdy forum for a reason right? Our love for the franchise.

According to the latest plot rumor I heard, they are going to try to stealthily put a young indy in flashbacks in the next one...so thats the only way the franchise is going to continue and thats why indy got bumped back a year so they could finish casting the replacement

sdp wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I disagree. If JP was really as important to them as you claim, then why aren't we seeing stuff like an animated TV show that takes place between the old trilogy and this one via Star Wars: Rebels by now? There is just so much untapped potential that Universal has at it's disposal and it's just doing nothing about it. Say what you what about Disney and Star Wars, but at least they are taking advantage of a lot of potential via the time gaps between the prequel trilogy and the original one.

Do remember that Star Wars has been around since the 70s and only recently has Disney decided to milk the franchise which [url=miscrave.com/articles/annual-star-wars-spin-offs/]I think is detrimental[/url] in the long term.

That's not true at all. Even before Disney, you had the Dark Horse comics, the 20th anniversary releases, the re-releases in the 2000's were Lucas tinkered with the originals, and The Clone Wars tv show. And I'm not even counting all those books and video games that were canon, many of them re-established in some form.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

That's not true at all. Even before Disney, you had the Dark Horse comics, the 20th anniversary releases, the re-releases in the 2000's were Lucas tinkered with the originals, and The Clone Wars tv show. And I'm not even counting all those books and video games that were canon, many of them re-established in some form.

I can't really agree, for the most part SW was dormant after ROTJ and the rest was only niche stuff, things didn't really kick back in until the special editions in terms of merchandise in general and yeah we got plenty of stuff in the prequels but it's only now Disney that is truly milking it to all its worth.

The point that Star Wars is way too different from Jurassic Park as others have pointed out is true, you have a whole universe full to explore, A New Hope already shows us more stuff that can be expanded on than all JP films.

Sickle_Claw wrote:

According to the latest plot rumor I heard, they are going to try to stealthily put a young indy in flashbacks in the next one...so thats the only way the franchise is going to continue and thats why indy got bumped back a year so they could finish casting the replacement

I don't normally follow plot rumors but I guess that's fine, I actually liked Shia being Indy's son in the last movie, I didn't love the movie but I don't think it's any wrose than Temple of Doom. I guess this will do though, if they had cast a good enough actor for young Han Solo, they wouldn't even have had to cast a new Indiana Jones and just use him instead.

sdp wrote:

The point that Star Wars is way too different from Jurassic Park as others have pointed out is true, you have a whole universe full to explore, A New Hope already shows us more stuff that can be expanded on than all JP films.

Too bad they're busy remaking that New Hope every year now

IMO Rich Evans is spot on here:

"-- See, the Star Wars universe: Here's the dirty little secret. It's very small and limited. Whenever Star Wars tries to expand outside of TIE-Fighters, X-Wings, Stormtroopers and Lightsabers, it's bad. You get space -- well you get the prequels, you get the space bugs. Or you get 'oh it's a gritty war movie? Where's the fun and adventure? Where's the exact same thing that we did before?' It's - Star Wars, I'm saying it, it's limited. It's a small little universe they can't do much with"

Maybe they will reveal the title when it's year left until release? I have to admit that this ridicilous secrecy is once again driving me a little crazy, but I'm trying to be patient. Could they be worried that the title could give away plot points? What could the reason be for keeping a movie title under wraps for this long? It's not normal.

Lost wrote:

Maybe they will reveal the title when it's year left until release? I have to admit that this ridicilous secrecy is once again driving me a little crazy, but I'm trying to be patient. Could they be worried that the title could give away plot points? What could the reason be for keeping a movie title under wraps for this long? It's not normal.

Remember, even Daniella Pineda said that she doesnt know the title, which means that the lead actors are clueless about title. So its something thats being held for Bayona, Trevorrow, etc. And yeah the 22nd would be a good time, and yeah title equals plot, and that is something that I think it won't be 'epoch'. And it will be 'Jurassic World: -Something- that hints about the plot.