Future of the Franchise (Jurassic 7 and Beyond)

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I am not a fan of over extending things way too much. So no Marvelesque Cinematic Universes for me. Over extending things too much means either keeping the same formula and becoming repetitive or changing things too much to the point where you lose your fanbase. Look how that is working out for Star Wars.

Even if some fans hated 1 or 2 things from the prequels, most were at least ok with his 6 film saga. Then Disney comes in to milk the cow dry and all of the sudden they are making movies, comics, books, videogames, toys and origin stories about more of less any character ever even when fans were not asking for it. It is.no longer something special. It is just something you see everyday. Not to mention they have turned Star Wars into an agenda driven thing. Forget the classic characters, now it is all about men being stupid fools and women being wise and powerful.

Do you want that happening to Jurassic?

Jurassic Park has never been about political agendas. It's always been about bigger, more important questions. But more to the point, there's absolutely no reason to believe that widening the franchise would result in politically motivated agendas or oversaturation. But even if there's a chance of oversaturation, I'd take that over the franchise simply dying.

That is one of the good things of the new "World" films. They are not that into real life politics like Star Wars and Marvel recently.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

t is.no longer something special. It is just something you see everyday. Not to mention they have turned Star Wars into an agenda driven thing. Forget the classic characters, now it is all about men being stupid fools and women being wise and powerful.

Do you want that happening to Jurassic?

You're making it happen to this thread right now.

There is absolutely no political agenda in the Marvel movies; the only reason people say this is because somehow in a world that already has several well-made male superheroes, for some reason Captain Marvel was a bridge too far for some petty people. Even if the criticism of the individual film is true, Avengers: Endgame still unquestionably places Captain America, Iron Man and Thor front and center over everyone else, including female characters like Black Widow and Captain Marvel's brief role, and other male characters like Hulk.

As for Star Wars, you're giving them too much credit - there is a very strong feminist perspective against The Last Jedi as well that shares half of the same gripes as everyone else, but because the movie was turned into a feminist issue it became shielded from that kind of criticism. The awful world-building problems of the sequel trilogy have nothing to do with the us of male and female characters in narrative and would still be present if female and male characters were switched around, and it wouldn't make Rian Johnson's writing fumbles any better. Snoke would still die, Luke would still be a moron, etc. Those problems are bigger in the movie than feminism or politics.

TyrantLizard wrote:

Jurassic Park has never been about political agendas. It's always been about bigger, more important questions. But more to the point, there's absolutely no reason to believe that widening the franchise would result in politically motivated agendas or oversaturation. But even if there's a chance of oversaturation, I'd take that over the franchise simply dying.

This is a really interesting perspective to me, as it mirrors how I used to feel until a year or so ago. However, with so many of the conversations around the new films going into territory exactly like this, and the general treatment around new blockbuster films, my attitude has changed a bit. I don't mind the new films, but it becomes tiresome to listen to other fans complain about them endlessly; how often fans seeing new JP93 merch have to make sure to express and compare their feelings to the newer ones. I have increasingly found myself moving from a dedicated franchise fan (generally, not just for JP) to feeling that most film franchises should not exist and that expansion is a problematic and flawed by design enterprise.

So like, I'm genuinely curious why you may feel oversaturation is preferable to death and decline. I'd love to see if it mirrors how I used to feel or if it's somewhere completely different.

JVM wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

t is.no longer something special. It is just something you see everyday. Not to mention they have turned Star Wars into an agenda driven thing. Forget the classic characters, now it is all about men being stupid fools and women being wise and powerful.

Do you want that happening to Jurassic?

You're making it happen to this thread right now.

There is absolutely no political agenda in the Marvel movies; the only reason people say this is because somehow in a world that already has several well-made male superheroes, for some reason Captain Marvel was a bridge too far for some petty people. Even if the criticism of the individual film is true, Avengers: Endgame still unquestionably places Captain America, Iron Man and Thor front and center over everyone else, including female characters like Black Widow and Captain Marvel's brief role, and other male characters like Hulk.

As for Star Wars, you're giving them too much credit - there is a very strong feminist perspective against The Last Jedi as well that shares half of the same gripes as everyone else, but because the movie was turned into a feminist issue it became shielded from that kind of criticism. The awful world-building problems of the sequel trilogy have nothing to do with the us of male and female characters in narrative and would still be present if female and male characters were switched around, and it wouldn't make Rian Johnson's writing fumbles any better. Snoke would still die, Luke would still be a moron, etc. Those problems are bigger in the movie than feminism or politics.

So we can not mention this franchise turning political on a thread about the future of the franchise?

Have you seen Brie Larson on interviews? She is all about identity politics and in a very blunt way.

As for Star Wars, while you are right that The Last Jedi has plenty of problems that go beyond just being overly feminist at the same time you have to remember that it is not just The Last Jedi. Ever since around 2015 Kathleen Kennedy has been very open about her feminist agenda. Since then almost every new Star Wars related thing is aimed at girls, not to mention she said in 2016 that she did not owe anything to male fans and was all about trying to hire more women.


And there is nothing wrong with feminism. But when it comes at the cost of altering (or ruining) classic characters and when feminism becomes the main goal instead of making a good movie, then yeah it becomes a problem.

I think we should keep something in mind: All of this is mute if JW3 gets ripped by fans and critics alike. Yes, it will make money regardless, but making a profit doesn't mean that it's good for the long term stability for a franchise. Just look at Batman Forever, Spider Man 3, Man Of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and The Last Jedi. All of the movies were profitable, yet they damaged the brand long term. And this isn't like the 1990's. Nowadays, it's far more important for a franchise to be profitable long term then it was back when we all kids.

In other words, if this makes a lot of money, yet gets ripped apart, then don't be surprised if the whole thing starts over.

JVM wrote:

This is a really interesting perspective to me, as it mirrors how I used to feel until a year or so ago. However, with so many of the conversations around the new films going into territory exactly like this, and the general treatment around new blockbuster films, my attitude has changed a bit. I don't mind the new films, but it becomes tiresome to listen to other fans complain about them endlessly; how often fans seeing new JP93 merch have to make sure to express and compare their feelings to the newer ones. I have increasingly found myself moving from a dedicated franchise fan (generally, not just for JP) to feeling that most film franchises should not exist and that expansion is a problematic and flawed by design enterprise.

So like, I'm genuinely curious why you may feel oversaturation is preferable to death and decline. I'd love to see if it mirrors how I used to feel or if it's somewhere completely different.

Basically, it comes down to this: Nothing will ever taint my view of the original film, or the sequels that I do enjoy (TLW, JW). They exist as they do, and no amount of expansion or oversaturation will change what those films are or what they mean to me. Jaws isn't any less of a classic because it has a bunch of crappy sequels. The first two Alien films are still two of my favorite films of all time, despite having a bunch of lame sequels and expanded universe stuff attached to them. Godzilla's continuity is all over the place, yet the OG will always hold a special place in my heart.

So, since no amount of expansion can taint the OG product to me, why would I be against the idea of the franchise branching out and seeing if it can become more? Even if there's just a 1% chance of something special coming out of it, it's a chance I'd still like to see taken. If the franchise doesn't take the leap, then nothing more can can ever come of it. Look at what happened with Transformers. Despite raking in the money, the Transformers films have been routinely crapped on by critics and fans time and time again. But they still took the chance and expanded, and Bumblebee was the result, and fans finally got a good live action Transformers film out of it.

But yeah, at the end of the day, the OG films will always stand on their own merit, and nothing will change that imo. If expanding the franchise works, then great, we have a whole bunch of quality new material to keep us entertained. If it doesn't? Oh well. Who cares? They gave it a shot and they failed. At the end of the day we'll still have the OG films regardless.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I think we should keep something in mind: All of this is mute if JW3 gets ripped by fans and critics alike. Yes, it will make money regardless, but making a profit doesn't mean that it's good for the long term stability for a franchise. Just look at Batman Forever, Spider Man 3, Man Of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and The Last Jedi. All of the movies were profitable, yet they damaged the brand long term. And this isn't like the 1990's. Nowadays, it's far more important for a franchise to be profitable long term then it was back when we all kids.

In other words, if this makes a lot of money, yet gets ripped apart, then don't be surprised if the whole thing starts over.

That is the main thing about these new "World" sequels. Some say "well they are making money so they do have an audience". But...Are they actually having an impact on pop culture ?

The internet keeps saying The Lost World was this huge letdown that nobody liked but the truth is that it was THE movie of 1997 before Titanic. Dino mania was at an all time high, every single store had something TLW related in it, all kids had TLW toys and adults were amazed by the special effects.

I do not see that same impact with JW or JWFK. It is more like many in the general public seem to watch them and then they just move on. Even those in the general public who hated them they hate this or that, or loved this or that but beyond that there is no clear consensus or indication that they are being considered impactful.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

JVM wrote:

This is a really interesting perspective to me, as it mirrors how I used to feel until a year or so ago. However, with so many of the conversations around the new films going into territory exactly like this, and the general treatment around new blockbuster films, my attitude has changed a bit. I don't mind the new films, but it becomes tiresome to listen to other fans complain about them endlessly; how often fans seeing new JP93 merch have to make sure to express and compare their feelings to the newer ones. I have increasingly found myself moving from a dedicated franchise fan (generally, not just for JP) to feeling that most film franchises should not exist and that expansion is a problematic and flawed by design enterprise.

So like, I'm genuinely curious why you may feel oversaturation is preferable to death and decline. I'd love to see if it mirrors how I used to feel or if it's somewhere completely different.

Basically, it comes down to this: Nothing will ever taint my view of the original film, or the sequels that I do enjoy (TLW, JW). They exist as they do, and no amount of expansion or oversaturation will change what those films are or what they mean to me. Jaws isn't any less of a classic because it has a bunch of crappy sequels. The first two Alien films are still two of my favorite films of all time, despite having a bunch of lame sequels and expanded universe stuff attached to them. Godzilla's continuity is all over the place, yet the OG will always hold a special place in my heart.

So, since no amount of expansion can taint the OG product to me, why would I be against the idea of the franchise branching out and seeing if it can become more? Even if there's just a 1% chance of something special coming out of it, it's a chance I'd still like to see taken. If the franchise doesn't take the leap, then nothing more can can ever come of it. Look at what happened with Transformers. Despite raking in the money, the Transformers films have been routinely crapped on by critics and fans time and time again. But they still took the chance and expanded, and Bumblebee was the result, and fans finally got a good live action Transformers film out of it.

Here's the problem with the Transformers example. Yes, most of them made money, but Michael Bay kept on progressively making the franchise dumber as time went on that by the time Bumblebee, a movie that the fan fans always wanted came out, he had rendered the franchise toxic which in turn led to the movie underperforming. Expanding the brand isn't always a good thing when the long term damage undermines it.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I think we should keep something in mind: All of this is mute if JW3 gets ripped by fans and critics alike. Yes, it will make money regardless, but making a profit doesn't mean that it's good for the long term stability for a franchise. Just look at Batman Forever, Spider Man 3, Man Of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and The Last Jedi. All of the movies were profitable, yet they damaged the brand long term. And this isn't like the 1990's. Nowadays, it's far more important for a franchise to be profitable long term then it was back when we all kids.

In other words, if this makes a lot of money, yet gets ripped apart, then don't be surprised if the whole thing starts over.

That is the main thing about these new "World" sequels. Some say "well they are making money so they do have an audience". But...Are they actually having an impact on pop culture ?

The internet keeps saying The Lost World was this huge letdown that nobody liked but the truth is that it was THE movie of 1997 before Titanic. Dino mania was at an all time high, every single store had something TLW related in it, all kids had TLW toys and adults were amazed by the special effects.

I do not see that same impact with JW or JWFK. It is more like many in the general public seem to watch them and then they just move on. Even those in the general public who hated them they hate this or that, or loved this or that but beyond that there is no clear consensus or indication that they are being considered impactful.

The first JW movie had somewhat of an impact, but not this one. Even if the MCU hadn't been dominating the box office from 2012-now, I still don't see this franchise in the current form making an impact on pop culture.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Here's the problem with the Transformers example. Yes, most of them made money, but Michael Bay kept on progressively making the franchise dumber as time went on that by the time Bumblebee, a movie that the fan fans always wanted came out, he had rendered the franchise toxic which in turn led to the movie underperforming. Expanding the brand isn't always a good thing when the long term damage undermines it.

So it either dies by choice or dies by accident. Either way, the franchise ends...at least temporarily. Personally, I'd rather see the chance taken than simply watch the franchise end prematurely. The legacy of the franchise will always remain, even if expansion of the franchise doesn't go as planned. Nothing will take away the billion dollars that the original film made. Nothing will take away the effect that it had all blockbusters from that point on.

The one thing that would perhaps tarnish the franchise for me would be if Trevorrow or whoever was in charge decided to adhere to gatekeeping fans of the OG and prematurely nix the franchise when, for the first time in history, the gates are open for significant expansion. To me that would be FAR more unforgivable than a bad film, a retcon, problems with the viral marketing, etc etc etc....

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

JVM wrote:

This is a really interesting perspective to me, as it mirrors how I used to feel until a year or so ago. However, with so many of the conversations around the new films going into territory exactly like this, and the general treatment around new blockbuster films, my attitude has changed a bit. I don't mind the new films, but it becomes tiresome to listen to other fans complain about them endlessly; how often fans seeing new JP93 merch have to make sure to express and compare their feelings to the newer ones. I have increasingly found myself moving from a dedicated franchise fan (generally, not just for JP) to feeling that most film franchises should not exist and that expansion is a problematic and flawed by design enterprise.

So like, I'm genuinely curious why you may feel oversaturation is preferable to death and decline. I'd love to see if it mirrors how I used to feel or if it's somewhere completely different.

Basically, it comes down to this: Nothing will ever taint my view of the original film, or the sequels that I do enjoy (TLW, JW). They exist as they do, and no amount of expansion or oversaturation will change what those films are or what they mean to me. Jaws isn't any less of a classic because it has a bunch of crappy sequels. The first two Alien films are still two of my favorite films of all time, despite having a bunch of lame sequels and expanded universe stuff attached to them. Godzilla's continuity is all over the place, yet the OG will always hold a special place in my heart.

So, since no amount of expansion can taint the OG product to me, why would I be against the idea of the franchise branching out and seeing if it can become more? Even if there's just a 1% chance of something special coming out of it, it's a chance I'd still like to see taken. If the franchise doesn't take the leap, then nothing more can can ever come of it. Look at what happened with Transformers. Despite raking in the money, the Transformers films have been routinely crapped on by critics and fans time and time again. But they still took the chance and expanded, and Bumblebee was the result, and fans finally got a good live action Transformers film out of it.

Here's the problem with the Transformers example. Yes, most of them made money, but Michael Bay kept on progressively making the franchise dumber as time went on that by the time Bumblebee, a movie that the fan fans always wanted came out, he had rendered the franchise toxic which in turn led to the movie underperforming. Expanding the brand isn't always a good thing when the long term damage undermines it.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

I think we should keep something in mind: All of this is mute if JW3 gets ripped by fans and critics alike. Yes, it will make money regardless, but making a profit doesn't mean that it's good for the long term stability for a franchise. Just look at Batman Forever, Spider Man 3, Man Of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and The Last Jedi. All of the movies were profitable, yet they damaged the brand long term. And this isn't like the 1990's. Nowadays, it's far more important for a franchise to be profitable long term then it was back when we all kids.

In other words, if this makes a lot of money, yet gets ripped apart, then don't be surprised if the whole thing starts over.

That is the main thing about these new "World" sequels. Some say "well they are making money so they do have an audience". But...Are they actually having an impact on pop culture ?

The internet keeps saying The Lost World was this huge letdown that nobody liked but the truth is that it was THE movie of 1997 before Titanic. Dino mania was at an all time high, every single store had something TLW related in it, all kids had TLW toys and adults were amazed by the special effects.  

I do not see that same impact with JW or JWFK. It is more like many in the general public seem to watch them and then they just move on. Even those in the general public who hated them they hate this or that, or loved this or that but beyond that there is no clear consensus or indication that they are being considered impactful.

The first JW movie had somewhat of an impact, but not this one. Even if the MCU hadn't been dominating the box office from 2012-now, I still don't see this franchise in the current form making an impact on pop culture.

I think the exact word is hype. There was plenty of hype right before Jurassic World was released but it was more due to the fact that it was the first major Jurassic related thing in 14 years than anything the actual movie did.

Like most people were more hyped due to the fact that the name brand was back after so long and their fond nostalgia for it rather than hyped about anything the actual movie was presenting. But you are right with Fallen Kingdom, I honestly felt it is the Jurassic movie that has caused the least amount of hype. It is like it came and went without being much of an event. Even when they had the super popular Jeff Goldblum on the marketing. Heck, I remember Jurassic Park 3 being more of a thing than JWFK and that was way before social media.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Here's the problem with the Transformers example. Yes, most of them made money, but Michael Bay kept on progressively making the franchise dumber as time went on that by the time Bumblebee, a movie that the fan fans always wanted came out, he had rendered the franchise toxic which in turn led to the movie underperforming. Expanding the brand isn't always a good thing when the long term damage undermines it.

So it either dies by choice or dies by accident. Either way, the franchise ends...at least temporarily. Personally, I'd rather see the chance taken than simply watch the franchise end prematurely. The legacy of the franchise will always remain, even if expansion of the franchise doesn't go as planned. Nothing will take away the billion dollars that the original film made. Nothing will take away the effect that it had all blockbusters from that point on.

The one thing that would perhaps tarnish the franchise for me would be if Trevorrow or whoever was in charge decided to adhere to gatekeeping fans of the OG and prematurely nix the franchise when, for the first time in history, the gates are open for significant expansion. To me that would be FAR more unforgivable than a bad film, a retcon, problems with the viral marketing, etc etc etc....

Again, if that does happened, it won't be because of how you think it would, but because of how the GA and movie buffs get sick of the current tone/direction of the franchise. There are many examples of franchises changing direction as a result of how people didn't like the current direction. Look at how the DCEU and how it's moving away from the Snyder Era. Or how Sony changed the direction of the Spiderman franchise twice.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Again, if that does happened, it won't be because of how you think it would, but because of how the GA and movie buffs get sick of the current tone/direction of the franchise. There are many examples of franchises changing direction as a result of how people didn't like the current direction. Look at how the DCEU and how it's moving away from the Snyder Era. Or how Sony changed the direction of the Spiderman franchise twice.

Kind of harkens back to a previous discussion we were having, where I was making the argument that tonal shifts in a long running franchise were important for the longevity of said franchise, rather than staying rigidly "true" to what a particular franchise started out as.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

JVM wrote:

This is a really interesting perspective to me, as it mirrors how I used to feel until a year or so ago. However, with so many of the conversations around the new films going into territory exactly like this, and the general treatment around new blockbuster films, my attitude has changed a bit. I don't mind the new films, but it becomes tiresome to listen to other fans complain about them endlessly; how often fans seeing new JP93 merch have to make sure to express and compare their feelings to the newer ones. I have increasingly found myself moving from a dedicated franchise fan (generally, not just for JP) to feeling that most film franchises should not exist and that expansion is a problematic and flawed by design enterprise.

So like, I'm genuinely curious why you may feel oversaturation is preferable to death and decline. I'd love to see if it mirrors how I used to feel or if it's somewhere completely different.

Basically, it comes down to this: Nothing will ever taint my view of the original film, or the sequels that I do enjoy (TLW, JW). They exist as they do, and no amount of expansion or oversaturation will change what those films are or what they mean to me. Jaws isn't any less of a classic because it has a bunch of crappy sequels. The first two Alien films are still two of my favorite films of all time, despite having a bunch of lame sequels and expanded universe stuff attached to them. Godzilla's continuity is all over the place, yet the OG will always hold a special place in my heart.

So, since no amount of expansion can taint the OG product to me, why would I be against the idea of the franchise branching out and seeing if it can become more? Even if there's just a 1% chance of something special coming out of it, it's a chance I'd still like to see taken. If the franchise doesn't take the leap, then nothing more can can ever come of it. Look at what happened with Transformers. Despite raking in the money, the Transformers films have been routinely crapped on by critics and fans time and time again. But they still took the chance and expanded, and Bumblebee was the result, and fans finally got a good live action Transformers film out of it.

But yeah, at the end of the day, the OG films will always stand on their own merit, and nothing will change that imo. If expanding the franchise works, then great, we have a whole bunch of quality new material to keep us entertained. If it doesn't? Oh well. Who cares? They gave it a shot and they failed. At the end of the day we'll still have the OG films regardless.

Your perspective is valid but this doesn't really answer my question. I thought you were implying oversaturation is preferable to decline, but to me, it sounds as if you're saying you don't mind either way. I can understand indifference; it's the preference I found curious.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

JVM wrote:

This is a really interesting perspective to me, as it mirrors how I used to feel until a year or so ago. However, with so many of the conversations around the new films going into territory exactly like this, and the general treatment around new blockbuster films, my attitude has changed a bit. I don't mind the new films, but it becomes tiresome to listen to other fans complain about them endlessly; how often fans seeing new JP93 merch have to make sure to express and compare their feelings to the newer ones. I have increasingly found myself moving from a dedicated franchise fan (generally, not just for JP) to feeling that most film franchises should not exist and that expansion is a problematic and flawed by design enterprise.

So like, I'm genuinely curious why you may feel oversaturation is preferable to death and decline. I'd love to see if it mirrors how I used to feel or if it's somewhere completely different.

Basically, it comes down to this: Nothing will ever taint my view of the original film, or the sequels that I do enjoy (TLW, JW). They exist as they do, and no amount of expansion or oversaturation will change what those films are or what they mean to me. Jaws isn't any less of a classic because it has a bunch of crappy sequels. The first two Alien films are still two of my favorite films of all time, despite having a bunch of lame sequels and expanded universe stuff attached to them. Godzilla's continuity is all over the place, yet the OG will always hold a special place in my heart.

So, since no amount of expansion can taint the OG product to me, why would I be against the idea of the franchise branching out and seeing if it can become more? Even if there's just a 1% chance of something special coming out of it, it's a chance I'd still like to see taken. If the franchise doesn't take the leap, then nothing more can can ever come of it. Look at what happened with Transformers. Despite raking in the money, the Transformers films have been routinely crapped on by critics and fans time and time again. But they still took the chance and expanded, and Bumblebee was the result, and fans finally got a good live action Transformers film out of it.

But yeah, at the end of the day, the OG films will always stand on their own merit, and nothing will change that imo. If expanding the franchise works, then great, we have a whole bunch of quality new material to keep us entertained. If it doesn't? Oh well. Who cares? They gave it a shot and they failed. At the end of the day we'll still have the OG films regardless.

But the thing is...An expansion can indeed alter and taint the OG product.

Just look at what happened with Disney and the backlash to The Last Jedi. You have to understand that for many fans Luke Skywalker is not just their favorite character and favorite hero, but also the character created by George Lucas to be the symbol of hope, the one who could do what his father could not and he is not just a character but the fondest memory of millons of fans childhood. Who not only loved him for how noble and brave he was, but also loved the fact that he was able to be the one to restore the Jedi order.

Rian Johnson and The Last Jedi more or less said...F all of that, Luke is now afraid of everything, hates everything, failed at everything and then just dies.

Not only does that clearly taint the original trilogy but it also ruins the fondest memory of millions of fans. Now when they remember their fondest memories of brave Luke they also have to remember that he turned into the opposite of that.

It is ok if you are indifferent to the whole thing, but for many many many other fans things just do not work out that way.

I'm a Star Wars fan and the ST didn't taint the OT to me. That's not saying the ST was great but nothing can ruin a character that I love no matter if they drastically change the character. I would just ignore the change.

Jurassic Fan 1994 wrote:

I'm a Star Wars fan and the ST didn't taint the OT to me. That's not saying the ST was great but nothing can ruin a character that I love no matter if they drastically change the character. I would just ignore the change.

But my point is that many fans do not feel that way. Many do, yes, many fans are genuinely ok with whatever a franchise does but for the many others that do like it for a particular reason (or resons) if those reasons are changed or altered in some significant way you get the backlash to The Last Jedi.

Change does not always equal good. Heck something so simple as Alan and Ellie not being together in Jurassic Park 3 is something that did taint the original film wich was all about how Alan hated kids, yet and the end of the film gave the nod to Ellie that he was ready to have kids with her. All of the sudden they are not together, she had kids with someone else so the end of the first film is without a doubt tainted or at the very least moot.

So yeah, earlier films can (and have) indeed been tainted and altered by sequels. But some fans are indifferent to the films being tainted and altered while others hate the fact that it ruins what came before and what they loved just the way it was.

I know that change doesn't automatically make it good. I would just ignore the ST.


I personally didn't find Allen not being with Ellie tainting the first film as that stuff can happen in real life.


Not that I wanted that to happen but it didn't ruin Jurassic Park to me. I think some fans just get too passionate about the films and characters they love and that blinds them to changes to characters though sometimes the changes are drastic.