Do YOU think it is bad that the Jurassic World films are bombastic?

I do like Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom but mostly prefer the more realistic tone in Jurassic Park and The Lost World (Jurassic Park 3 doesn't get bombastic however I feel it was the beginning of the change of tone). The new trilogy has definitely taken a more bombastic approach but is that bad? Both Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom made over a billion dollars so the trilogy does for sure has an audience. They are different and I think they were mostly designed for getting new fans and than for us longtime fans.

So in my opinion it's a yes and no answer as I don't think it's bad as it's getting more fans to the franchise but yes as the days of the more realistic Jurassic Park are over and that's sad to say. But what is your opinion on this?

It all depends on whether it's done well imho. For example, I think it was done well in Jurassic World, but not as well in Fallen Kingdom. Jurassic World knew what it was and (imho) delivered on it. Fallen Kingdom on the other hand was a film that I feel sort of struggled with its own identity, not knowing whether it was a bombastic thrill ride like Jurassic World or a darker thriller type film, and in the end, it felt a bit confused to me.

At this point, I'd prefer a darker, more realistic film, but at the time of Jurassic World's release, I think a big, loud bombastic thrill ride with tons of fan service was exactly what the doctor ordered to rinse the bad taste of JP3 out of people's mouths.

I've been thinking about the difference between struggling to avoid going over a cliff (TLW) VS going over a cliff and emerging unscathed (FK). This seems to embody the different between the older JP films and new JW movies - I prefer the old, Spielbergian suspense as opposed to bombastic action, but it seems like that's the way these types of films are made these days.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

At this point, I'd prefer a darker, more realistic film, but at the time of Jurassic World's release, I think a big, loud bombastic thrill ride with tons of fan service was exactly what the doctor ordered to rinse the bad taste of JP3 out of people's mouths.

I actually agree with this...mostly. It needed to be a trill ride, but at the same time, I do wish that it had been slightly smarter.

Dr. Wu wrote:

I do like Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom but mostly prefer the more realistic tone in Jurassic Park and The Lost World (Jurassic Park 3 doesn't get bombastic however I feel it was the beginning of the change of tone). The new trilogy has definitely taken a more bombastic approach but is that bad? Both Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom made over a billion dollars so the trilogy does for sure has an audience. They are different and I think they were mostly designed for getting new fans and than for us longtime fans.

So in my opinion it's a yes and no answer as I don't think it's bad as it's getting more fans to the franchise but yes as the days of the more realistic Jurassic Park are over and that's sad to say. But what is your opinion on this?

Robotpo wrote:

I've been thinking about the difference between struggling to avoid going over a cliff (TLW) VS going over a cliff and emerging unscathed (FK). This seems to embody the different between the older JP films and new JW movies - I prefer the old, Spielbergian suspense as opposed to bombastic action, but it seems like that's the way these types of films are made these days.

But how much of this is due to the fact that the fanbase doesn't demand that this new trilogy is smarter and realistic as a collective whole/overwhelming majority? Not demanding better=getting the same style of...whatever it is. Sorry, but this franchise was NEVER meant to be F&F with dinosaurs.

I have to say this, saying that 'the new direction isn't for old fans' to me is code for "We're going to screw over the old fans for the sake of being hip and new." That hasn't worked for Star Trek, Star Wars, or the comic book branch of Marvel. It also hasn't worked for the DCEU version of Superman, either.

Ive been thinking about this too lately. To me, its like the original trilogy (including 3) were sci fi thrillers, yet the new trilogy are action blockbusters. Same as the terminator franchise from the 3rd film.

I know what you mean. Some scenes in JW and FK were a little too unrealistic for my tastes, but unfortunately, general audiences don't have patience for slow-burn movies like the original JP anymore. So I wouldn't hold my breath that it'll change.

TheRexMan22 wrote:

I know what you mean. Some scenes in JW and FK were a little too unrealistic for my tastes, but unfortunately, general audiences don't have patience for slow-burn movies like the original JP anymore. So I wouldn't hold my breath that it'll change.  

They did for Godzilla 2014 and the first 2 Avengers movies. If it's made well enough, has a good story, and stays faithful to whatever the movie is about, then the slow burn style does still work.

Yeah but with Avengers, even the slower scenes are interesting because... it's superheroes, and everyone loves superheroes. Whereas, with JP, it's just some scientists talking about DNA and whatnot. My point is, anyone outside of the JP loop isn't going to find that stuff very engaging.
Godzilla 2014... not sure how they got away with that. Maybe 'cause Brian Cranston was in it? ;p

I simply don't care much for movies that take a franchise in a different tonal direction than originally intended. World and Fallen Kingdom went full-on action and very little suspense and drama that the first two had; JP3 was an odd mix of trying to keep the "what did InGen do" from TLW and streamlining things for a fast-paced ride.

Bride of Chucky went for a meta take on the Child's Play franchise and while it's not a bad movie (better than CP3 in my opinion), it still feels like a different franchise almost. Critters 2, while popularly agreed to be the best in the Critters franchise, is way cornier and hits for comedy more than the dark humor and horror of the first, and it just puts me off.

Things like that.

I definitely wish JW:FK was darker. Noting how some swear words were edited out and at least one death scene removed, I feel like it might have been on track to be darker at one point but ended up being pretty actiony. I feel like we were in the end given a film that was split between dark horror and adventure-seeking. Here's hoping JW3 can make up its mind better.

ChaoticianDrac wrote:

I definitely wish JW:FK was darker. Noting how some swear words were edited out and at least one death scene removed, I feel like it might have been on track to be darker at one point but ended up being pretty actiony. I feel like we were in the end given a film that was split between dark horror and adventure-seeking. Here's hoping JW3 can make up its mind better.

Which death scene was removed?

Maisie's nanny was supposed to have been killed by the Indoraptor, but it was cut.

CT-1138 wrote:

Maisie's nanny was supposed to have been killed by the Indoraptor, but it was cut.

Not going to lie, I was glad Iris' death was cut. In the context of the film, it doesn't make sense for her to still be there.

Thanks guys, I forgot about Iris...

The thing about Iris being killed is it would have made the indoraptor and the dinosaurs in general seem like more a threat to the good guys, and create a bit of horror for the audience as in FK in particular the dinosaurs only seemed to eat the bad guys. The only "goodie" who died was Lockwood, who was obviously never near an actual dinosaur. The film was missing the Muldoon/Eddie/Udesky/Zara moment where the dinosaurs are indiscriminate in who they munch.

Robotpo wrote:

The thing about Iris being killed is it would have made the indoraptor and the dinosaurs in general seem like more a threat to the good guys, and create a bit of horror for the audience as in FK in particular the dinosaurs only seemed to eat the bad guys. The only "goodie" who died was Lockwood, who was obviously never near an actual dinosaur. The film was missing the Muldoon/Eddie/Udesky/Zara moment where the dinosaurs are indiscriminate in who they munch.

Agreed, I remember seeing an interview with Bayona when the film came out & he said something like none of the good guys deserved to die so they didn't, probably why Iris death scene was cut?

Yeah, now you have to "deserve" to die...so I guess Muldoon, Udesky, and Zara deserved it.

Megatronus Rex wrote:

Yeah, now you have to "deserve" to die...so I guess Muldoon, Udesky, and Zara deserved it.

Meh yeah really wish they would have kept it in. They had their chance for a darker film and just skipped over it..

I don't think a "realistic" tone would have lasted for the franchise, nor am I fond of the term being applied. The first two films rely on suspense and thriller elements as is often recognized, but these elements rely on a viewer's fear of the unknown, anticipation and sometimes misdirection. A creative director can find new ways to exploit these elements, but anyone less than that will almost inevitably fail. Those qualities can only work so many times before they grow stale, and no film is probably worse than something than the most cliche attempt at a scary movie.

I saw this a lot in my experience in Horror fandom, where huge swaths of people saw successive sequels as skippable and inferior, with complains the villain becomes less scary in successive outings, with fan controversy often switching between the more familiar sort of sequels that followed a bored formula, or radical sequels that lost franchise spirit trying too hard to reinvent. Notice how the two most successful Halloween sequels build a lot of their suspense on the passage of time, or how few of the later Friday the 13th films did not need or attempt some kind of gimmick beyond the realistic tone of the first five films. The ones that didn't were derided as formulaic and less interesting.

I think part of the problem is the rules that are best lent to crafting a 'good movie' do eventually come into conflict with the rules of managing a franchise. It's hard to keep things completely self-contained and thematically cohesive without potentially running into continuity issues. A very good sequel can accomplish all of that, but the more you're trying to do, the less likely you are to hit all of those points ideally. A fitting thematic conclusion to a Jurassic film should be the dinosaurs being either destroyed or left alone; but any sequel will need to undo that, and return to that point, in order for the franchise to exist and survive... which will affect how the subsequent film approaches itself.

People evoke 'realism' but in all seriousness, how many people are actually going to go to the trouble to illegally reach a remote and uninhabited island full of dinosaurs, and make it out alive? How many stories can follow that formula before suspension of disbelief is broken?

I actually do think it would be completely valid to argue we could've been owed another more grounded sequel, that's completely true; but I think the move towards bombast was something inevitable that, if it hadn't happened in Jurassic World might've happened a movie or two later, the inevitable path to keeping the franchise 'fresh' for a new audience, especially keeping in mind Universal was talking for years about doing a new trilogy... and considering the kind of stuff that was discussed around the days of Sayles' script, I remain mostly relieved with the films we've received.

Dr. Wu wrote:

I do like Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom but mostly prefer the more realistic tone in Jurassic Park and The Lost World (Jurassic Park 3 doesn't get bombastic however I feel it was the beginning of the change of tone). The new trilogy has definitely taken a more bombastic approach but is that bad? Both Jurassic World and Fallen Kingdom made over a billion dollars so the trilogy does for sure has an audience. They are different and I think they were mostly designed for getting new fans and than for us longtime fans.

So in my opinion it's a yes and no answer as I don't think it's bad as it's getting more fans to the franchise but yes as the days of the more realistic Jurassic Park are over and that's sad to say. But what is your opinion on this?

JW and JWFK do have an audience but that is more due to brand name recognition than because of how bombastic they are.

The Jurassic Park name is still arguably the third most iconic name in film history behind Star Wars and Marvel. Anything that says Jurassic will sell.

But do I like that they are bombastic? Not that much I prefer the old style of JP, TLW and JP3 wich took time to build suspense up and their tense thrills were because of how scenes were made not because of how loud the explosions were.

JVM wrote:

I don't think a "realistic" tone would have lasted for the franchise, nor am I fond of the term being applied. The first two films rely on suspense and thriller elements as is often recognized, but these elements rely on a viewer's fear of the unknown, anticipation and sometimes misdirection. A creative director can find new ways to exploit these elements, but anyone less than that will almost inevitably fail. Those qualities can only work so many times before they grow stale, and no film is probably worse than something than the most cliche attempt at a scary movie.

I saw this a lot in my experience in Horror fandom, where huge swaths of people saw successive sequels as skippable and inferior, with complains the villain becomes less scary in successive outings, with fan controversy often switching between the more familiar sort of sequels that followed a bored formula, or radical sequels that lost franchise spirit trying too hard to reinvent. Notice how the two most successful Halloween sequels build a lot of their suspense on the passage of time, or how few of the later Friday the 13th films did not need or attempt some kind of gimmick beyond the realistic tone of the first five films. The ones that didn't were derided as formulaic and less interesting.

I think part of the problem is the rules that are best lent to crafting a 'good movie' do eventually come into conflict with the rules of managing a franchise. It's hard to keep things completely self-contained and thematically cohesive without potentially running into continuity issues. A very good sequel can accomplish all of that, but the more you're trying to do, the less likely you are to hit all of those points ideally. A fitting thematic conclusion to a Jurassic film should be the dinosaurs being either destroyed or left alone; but any sequel will need to undo that, and return to that point, in order for the franchise to exist and survive... which will affect how the subsequent film approaches itself.

People evoke 'realism' but in all seriousness, how many people are actually going to go to the trouble to illegally reach a remote and uninhabited island full of dinosaurs, and make it out alive? How many stories can follow that formula before suspension of disbelief is broken?

I actually do think it would be completely valid to argue we could've been owed another more grounded sequel, that's completely true; but I think the move towards bombast was something inevitable that, if it hadn't happened in Jurassic World might've happened a movie or two later, the inevitable path to keeping the franchise 'fresh' for a new audience, especially keeping in mind Universal was talking for years about doing a new trilogy... and considering the kind of stuff that was discussed around the days of Sayles' script, I remain mostly relieved with the films we've received.

But history proves that a total tonal shift for franchises from their roots rarely work.

Look at the Batman movie quadaliogy or whatever it's called. It's really a pair of separate duelogies, the Keaton/Burton pair and the Schumacher pair. The moment WB shifted away from Burton's view on Batman was the moment they inevitably doomed the movies, even if it took a while for it to implode. Also, look at the tonal shift Snyder tried with Superman via Man Of Steel. That take on Superman was so divisive that WB are STILL trying to distance themselves from the Snyderverse.

Not only that, but how long can Jurassic Park get away with this bombastic tone that it currently has? Look at the bombastic tone the Bayformers movies have and how it made the brand toxic moviewise. The proof that the F&F spinoff, Hobbs & Shaw, bombed is proof enough that you can't pander to the lowest common denominator forever.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

But history proves that a total tonal shift for franchises from their roots rarely work.

Look at the Batman movie quadaliogy or whatever it's called. It's really a pair of separate duelogies, the Keaton/Burton pair and the Schumacher pair. The moment WB shifted away from Burton's view on Batman was the moment they inevitably doomed the movies, even if it took a while for it to implode. Also, look at the tonal shift Snyder tried with Superman via Man Of Steel. That take on Superman was so divisive that WB are STILL trying to distance themselves from the Snyderverse.

Not only that, but how long can Jurassic Park get away with this bombastic tone that it currently has? Look at the bombastic tone the Bayformers movies have and how it made the brand toxic moviewise. The proof that the F&F spinoff, Hobbs & Shaw, bombed is proof enough that you can't pander to the lowest common denominator forever.

I don't think this is entirely true. I think if history has shown us anything, it's that if a series sticks to one formula for too long, it starts to get redundant and the law of diminishing returns starts to take effect. There's a reason that many of the longest running series are littered with tonal jumps.

Take Godzilla for example. The first film is a classic, and easily the best film of the entire franchise, but imagine if the next several films had gone with the same tonal direction? I imagine 5 bleak, depressing films in a row may have started to grate on viewers quite a bit, and I don't think the franchise would have survived much past the 70's, let alone into 2019 and beyond. The franchise gradually became more and more campy, fun, and dare I say "bombastic", until that finally started to wear thin on people in the 70's. The franchise then took a hiatus and returned in 1984 to better numbers than Terror of Mechagodzilla had. But soon after that Godzilla vs Biollante, another "serious" film, was released and it bombed at the box office, resulting in the franchise again reshaping itself into a somewhat more "bombastic" and fanservicey entity with Godzilla vs King Ghidorah, which proved successful and carried the Heisei series until it ended in 1995. Ever since then the films have shifted between bombastic and serious to varying degrees of success.

Point is that any one direction can only go on for so long before the law of diminishing returns takes effect. You cite The F&F franchise as an example of this, but yet the previous films in that franchise absolutely raked in billions. Fast 5, 6 and 7, even adjusted for inflation, are the most successful films in the franchise, and those films had already strayed pretty far from the "street racing" routes of the original film and gone for a more "bombastic" approach. Hobbs and Shaw failed (although I wouldn't exactly call $758.3 million a "failure") due to franchise fatigue and the law of diminishing returns.

Let's look at Batman on a more general level. There are several iterations of the character, and of the franchise as a whole. Some are incredibly serious, some are campy the the Nth degree. Would Batman be what it is today without these tonal shifts? My guess would be no.

Finally, let's take a look at the JP franchise itself. The law of diminishing returns was already starting to take affect by the time TLW came out. While the numbers were still very good, they weren't close to the numbers that JP had pulled. JP3 continued this trend, with the numbers sinking even further. It took a long hiatus and a tonal shift from the first trilogy to get the franchise back on track with JW and FK pulling in nearly 3 billion dollars between them. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the quality of the films, I don't think anybody could look at the numbers those films pulled in and say that this shift in the franchise has been a failure. By any financial standard, the rebooted franchise has been a massive success. Any franchise that can compete with the MCU and Star Wars on a finalcial level is doing something right. That said, the law of diminishing returns is likely already rearing it's head, as FK didn't rake in the numbers that JW did. A less significant drop than the drop in numbers between the original JP and TLW, but a drop nonetheless. It's within reason to assume that JW3 will take in less than FK did, thus a tonal shift back to something a bit less bombastic may be in order. Still, with all of the evidence, I don't think it's reasonable to say that a tonal shift in and of itself is a recipe for disaster. If anything, it's necessary to ensure the longevity of a franchise.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

But history proves that a total tonal shift for franchises from their roots rarely work.

Look at the Batman movie quadaliogy or whatever it's called. It's really a pair of separate duelogies, the Keaton/Burton pair and the Schumacher pair. The moment WB shifted away from Burton's view on Batman was the moment they inevitably doomed the movies, even if it took a while for it to implode. Also, look at the tonal shift Snyder tried with Superman via Man Of Steel. That take on Superman was so divisive that WB are STILL trying to distance themselves from the Snyderverse.

Not only that, but how long can Jurassic Park get away with this bombastic tone that it currently has? Look at the bombastic tone the Bayformers movies have and how it made the brand toxic moviewise. The proof that the F&F spinoff, Hobbs & Shaw, bombed is proof enough that you can't pander to the lowest common denominator forever.

I don't think this is entirely true. I think if history has shown us anything, it's that if a series sticks to one formula for too long, it starts to get redundant and the law of diminishing returns starts to take effect. There's a reason that many of the longest running series are littered with tonal jumps.

But even then, those that do don't complete get rid of or override what made the product good in the first place.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Take Godzilla for example. The first film is a classic, and easily the best film of the entire franchise, but imagine if the next several films had gone with the same tonal direction? I imagine 5 bleak, depressing films in a row may have started to grate on viewers quite a bit, and I don't think the franchise would have survived much past the 70's, let alone into 2019 and beyond. The franchise gradually became more and more campy, fun, and dare I say "bombastic", until that finally started to wear thin on people in the 70's. The franchise then took a hiatus and returned in 1984 to better numbers than Terror of Mechagodzilla had. But soon after that Godzilla vs Biollante, another "serious" film, was released and it bombed at the box office, resulting in the franchise again reshaping itself into a somewhat more "bombastic" and fanservicey entity with Godzilla vs King Ghidorah, which proved successful and carried the Heisei series until it ended in 1995. Ever since then the films have shifted between bombastic and serious to varying degrees of success.

Except that Godzilla was a fairly new product in the 1950's and 1960's, so Toho could get away with that. And by the time of the Heisei era started, Godzilla being established as a force of nature, a superhero, and a nationalistic icon to Japan had already been established. Also, take note that the Heisei era not only ended on a serious note via Godzilla vs. Destoryah, but that the Heisei Godzilla movies were for the most part, still more serious and grounded then the Showa series was.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Let's look at Batman on a more general level. There are several iterations of the character, and of the franchise as a whole. Some are incredibly serious, some are campy the the Nth degree. Would Batman be what it is today without these tonal shifts? My guess would be no.

But even then, the tonal shift did swing back to it's roots in the 1980's and for the most part (B&R was the exception that failed miserably), it's pretty much stayed there.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Finally, let's take a look at the JP franchise itself. The law of diminishing returns was already starting to take affect by the time TLW came out. While the numbers were still very good, they weren't close to the numbers that JP had pulled. JP3 continued this trend, with the numbers sinking even further. It took a long hiatus and a tonal shift from the first trilogy to get the franchise back on track with JW and FK pulling in nearly 3 billion dollars between them. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the quality of the films, I don't think anybody could look at the numbers those films pulled in and say that this shift in the franchise has been a failure. By any financial standard, the rebooted franchise has been a massive success. Any franchise that can compete with the MCU and Star Wars on a finalcial level is doing something right. That said, the law of diminishing returns is likely already rearing it's head, as FK didn't rake in the numbers that JW did. A less significant drop than the drop in numbers between the original JP and TLW, but a drop nonetheless. It's within reason to assume that JW3 will take in less than FK did, thus a tonal shift back to something a bit less bombastic may be in order. Still, with all of the evidence, I don't think it's reasonable to say that a tonal shift in and of itself is a recipe for disaster. If anything, it's necessary to ensure the longevity of a franchise.

But what's the reason for said diminishing returns? If JW:FK wasn't absurdly bombastic, then wouldn't it have had performed sightly better. Also, as Dr. Wu pointed out, JP3 was the beginning of the franchise going in the more bombastic tone.

Overall, I guess it's just me wishing that the bombasticnesss of the franchise hadn't completely overridden what made this franchise so good in the 1990's.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

But even then, those that do don't complete get rid of or override what made the product good in the first place.

Well, that's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? A franchise is made up of multiple facets, and some people may gravitate towards different facets of said franchise. What "made a product good in the first place" might be something completely different to two different people.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Except that Godzilla was a fairly new product in the 1950's and 1960's, so Toho could get away with that. And by the time of the Heisei era started, Godzilla being established as a force of nature, a superhero, and a nationalistic icon to Japan had already been established. Also, take note that the Heisei era not only ended on a serious note via Godzilla vs. Destoryah, but that the Heisei Godzilla movies were for the most part, still more serious and grounded then the Showa series was.

While the Heisei era films were obviously more grounded than the majority of the Showa era films (incidentally, it's not all that difficult to be more grounded than the Showa era films), that doesn't change the fact that the Heisei era films did need to morph into something more closely resembling the Showa era films in order to be financially successful. Destroyah is largely an anomaly because it was sold to the public on the back of the death of Godzilla. Hell, the tagline was "Godzilla dies!"

Rhedosaurus wrote:

But even then, the tonal shift did swing back to it's roots in the 1980's and for the most part (B&R was the exception that failed miserably), it's pretty much stayed there.

Firstly, I wouldn't exactly call the Burton films "grounded". Sure, they were dark, but they had a gothic, whimsical (and yes, even campy) feel to them, so I don't think they quite fit the narrative. Also, the last several films to feature Batman in them, all of which were relatively dark and at least semi-grounded in tone, have either underperformed or outright failed, while big, bombastic Marvel films have dominated the box office.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

But what's the reason for said diminishing returns? If JW:FK wasn't absurdly bombastic, then wouldn't it have had performed sightly better. Also, as Dr. Wu pointed out, JP3 was the beginning of the franchise going in the more bombastic tone.

Franchise fatigue. Too much of the same thing over and over again. JP3 wasn't a financial disappointment because it was too different in tone. It failed because it was perceived by audiences as a retread of ground that had already been covered. Regardless of how we may look back on it, back when it was released, it was seen as just more of the same, only worse. There was nothing to excite viewers. Only superficial changes like throwing crests on the raptors or replacing the Rex with another giant apex predator that basically filled the exact same role.

Maybe FK would have performed slightly better had it been a more grounded film, maybe it wouldn't have. While I certainly would have prefered something more grounded, 1.3 billion dollars is nothing to scoff at. Almost the same numbers as Black Panther drew in, and that film was a cultural phenomenon.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Overall, I guess it's just me wishing that the bombasticnesss of the franchise hadn't completely overridden what made this franchise so good in the 1990's.

Eye of the beholder.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I don't think this is entirely true. I think if history has shown us anything, it's that if a series sticks to one formula for too long, it starts to get redundant and the law of diminishing returns starts to take effect. There's a reason that many of the longest running series are littered with tonal jumps.

Take Godzilla for example. The first film is a classic, and easily the best film of the entire franchise, but imagine if the next several films had gone with the same tonal direction? I imagine 5 bleak, depressing films in a row may have started to grate on viewers quite a bit, and I don't think the franchise would have survived much past the 70's, let alone into 2019 and beyond. The franchise gradually became more and more campy, fun, and dare I say "bombastic", until that finally started to wear thin on people in the 70's. The franchise then took a hiatus and returned in 1984 to better numbers than Terror of Mechagodzilla had. But soon after that Godzilla vs Biollante, another "serious" film, was released and it bombed at the box office, resulting in the franchise again reshaping itself into a somewhat more "bombastic" and fanservicey entity with Godzilla vs King Ghidorah, which proved successful and carried the Heisei series until it ended in 1995. Ever since then the films have shifted between bombastic and serious to varying degrees of success.

Point is that any one direction can only go on for so long before the law of diminishing returns takes effect. You cite The F&F franchise as an example of this, but yet the previous films in that franchise absolutely raked in billions. Fast 5, 6 and 7, even adjusted for inflation, are the most successful films in the franchise, and those films had already strayed pretty far from the "street racing" routes of the original film and gone for a more "bombastic" approach. Hobbs and Shaw failed (although I wouldn't exactly call $758.3 million a "failure") due to franchise fatigue and the law of diminishing returns.

Let's look at Batman on a more general level. There are several iterations of the character, and of the franchise as a whole. Some are incredibly serious, some are campy the the Nth degree. Would Batman be what it is today without these tonal shifts? My guess would be no.

Finally, let's take a look at the JP franchise itself. The law of diminishing returns was already starting to take affect by the time TLW came out. While the numbers were still very good, they weren't close to the numbers that JP had pulled. JP3 continued this trend, with the numbers sinking even further. It took a long hiatus and a tonal shift from the first trilogy to get the franchise back on track with JW and FK pulling in nearly 3 billion dollars between them. Regardless of how anyone may feel about the quality of the films, I don't think anybody could look at the numbers those films pulled in and say that this shift in the franchise has been a failure. By any financial standard, the rebooted franchise has been a massive success. Any franchise that can compete with the MCU and Star Wars on a finalcial level is doing something right. That said, the law of diminishing returns is likely already rearing it's head, as FK didn't rake in the numbers that JW did. A less significant drop than the drop in numbers between the original JP and TLW, but a drop nonetheless. It's within reason to assume that JW3 will take in less than FK did, thus a tonal shift back to something a bit less bombastic may be in order. Still, with all of the evidence, I don't think it's reasonable to say that a tonal shift in and of itself is a recipe for disaster. If anything, it's necessary to ensure the longevity of a franchise.

Godzilla was easily the strongest example on my mind, so thank you for bringing it up. The breadth of the franchise has become part of its appeal as a larger brand, as everyone can find a part of it that will suit them, even if it somewhat fuels disagreement among fans over what's the truest representation of the franchise and how it should move forward. I also find it a good example because it's a franchise that has elements redeemed by history - again, such as how the latter bombastic Showa entries remain appreciated but there is rarely debate that the reboot of the Heisei series was a bad franchise move, and perhaps even more importantly, the Heisei series isn't judged solely on the merits of the first or second film.

I would also cite James Bond having shifted tone multiple times in different ways and even with success and failure has shifted further. There's not even full agreement over which films are most realistic and grounded in that franchise, which is a key component to the argument here. Every single Bond actor and era has distinct fans, and even among the longer tenure of Roger Moore there is ample discussion over which of his films used him best and how. On top of that, while each actor is usually seen as carrying a distinctive flavor, the tone gradually shifts over each of the longer actors' work, with Connery, Moore, Brosnan and Craig all entering increasingly more bombastic situations.

When you look at a lot of iconic Horror franchises, they also fall into a similar problem. Friday the 13th, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Child's Play and more all fell into places where their characters were no longer seen as scary. F13 managed to do five serious entries before a touch of humor acted as a spark towards a lighter and more bombastic tone. Child's Play only did two serious sequels before it jumped into blatant self-parody. Nightmare and Chainsaw zigzag these tropes. Thriller and suspense elements can't be used forever for the same character.

Anyone who has closely studied the Marvel Cinematic Universe can also, despite rampant media criticism, notice that the tone and structure have evolved in a variety of ways. The early films followed much more typical action movie tropes in a relatively 'realistic' setting, limiting science fiction elements to only the most necessary to key plot points, and with the world-building restrained until the first Avengers film, while the third phase borrows more and more extensively from science fiction. Thor: Ragnarok is probably the greatest contemporary example of a tone shift being successful - a bombastic, comedic sequel that single-handedly saved a franchise and character largely overlooked up to that point.

As I said in my previous post, perhaps there was another good thriller left in the tank that maybe we missed out on, but a tonal shift was inevitable to create an actual franchise and move past the common frame of reference that Jurassic Park was a good film with two overlooked sequels. People act as if more T-rex and more Jeff Goldblum is all the franchise needs to stay relevant, but you can't make three or six sequels out of 'boy, Jeff Goldblum is going to be really scared when he sees this T-rex'. It'd become formulaic and that exact feeling is part of why it's mostly only fans who often appreciate the best elements and finer points of The Lost World. You need new characters, new elements, new tones, and new themes to keep a franchise going.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Well, that's all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? A franchise is made up of multiple facets, and some people may gravitate towards different facets of said franchise. What "made a product good in the first place" might be something completely different to two different people.

This is something that's so lost these days and a huge reason I've come to hate film fandom. People act as if there's a cheat sheet that every film needs to be evaluated against to pass or fail, and franchises are treated even worse with that brush - but what draws some people into a franchise can be different from other people. A great Jurassic example is how there's a huge portion of the fandom that can be blown away by simply seeing new dinosaur species, but there's also a lot of people who watch these movies for whom any theropod is a 'rex' or a 'baby rex'. I've also seen people for whom the dinosaurs are merely an obstacle within what to them is a purely human story - while many would also argue the dinosaurs are the true star of the film. Films, especially franchise films, are incredibly complex with so many moving parts.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

at the time of Jurassic World's release, I think a big, loud bombastic thrill ride with tons of fan service was exactly what the doctor ordered to rinse the bad taste of JP3 out of people's mouths.

Really really disagree on this.

Jurassic Park 3 did have a backlash to it.

But the lack of bombastic was not the reason. Neither the fans nor the general public were asking for a more bombastic JP4 as a cure for JP3.

Also I wouldn't call JW loaded with fan service....It only had superficial nods to the fist one but overall ignored the second and third films.

But back on topic...JW and JWFK are bombastic indeed. How good has that been? Well, I just don't see either of those films being that significant in pop culture. Everyone knows they exist, and yeah some people in the general public like them (but others really hate them for many reasons)...But overall neither had the memorable place in pop culture that other movies have like the original Star Wars trilogy, the Avengers, heck even the Star Wars prequels are loved because of their memorable lines that have turned into popular memes (in a good way).