General Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom News Thread V.5

Why Jurassic Park should not have been a franchise, according to Collider's Adam Chitwood

Why is that every now and again we're getting new articles strumming the same world's tiniest violin saying that there should not have been any sequels to Jurassic Park. First Forbes, then ScreenRant, and now Collider. We're three months away from the release of Fallen Kingdom, and this recurring negative narrative has been nothing short of aggravating.

I will admit that the tone of the article isn't as condescending as the other aforementioned sites. And I do understand where a lot of the doubters are coming from, since Jurassic Park was such a unique combination of thoughtful auteur science fiction and adventure thrills, and the subsequent films haven't really reached the same level of thoughtfulness or iconic presence.

But this recent wave of articles feels like a cross between a lecture and a guilt-trip for liking or even wanting something that apparently detracts from the same film we all enjoy.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Why Jurassic Park should not have been a franchise, according to Collider's Adam Chitwood

Why is that every now and again we're getting new articles strumming the same world's tiniest violin saying that there should not have been any sequels to Jurassic Park. First Forbes, then ScreenRant, and now Collider. We're three months away from the release of Fallen Kingdom, and this recurring negative narrative has been nothing short of aggravating.

I will admit that the tone of the article isn't as condescending as the other aforementioned sites. And I do understand where a lot of the doubters are coming from, since Jurassic Park was such a unique combination of thoughtful auteur science fiction and adventure thrills, and the subsequent films haven't really reached the same level of thoughtfulness or iconic presence.

But this recent wave of articles feels like a cross between a lecture and a guilt-trip for liking or even wanting something that apparently detracts from the same film we all enjoy.

I love The Lost World, but I get much of the critisims. I honestly think that if the deleted scenes that introduced Roland and Ajay, Ludlow basically replacing his uncle, and Ludlow had been in the movie and the one scene of Malcolms daughter using gymnastics to mortally wounded had been cut out, then it would be much more well received.

JP3 will never get the same amount of love over time like TLW did, even more so considering how it was made for sake of a JP trilogy. Not to mention all the backstage problems.



JW, I still like, but I'm not going to pretend that was a bit too much of a nostalgic fest that was made simply to get the monkey off Uni's back.

I think that most of the hate comes from the fact the Uni/Spielberg refuse to have fresh ideas, even simple, basic ones, get put into this franchise and still think that 'playing it safe' will work. Not to mention the fact that this franchise isn't well connected canon wise. And no, I don't consider those cheap sites as canon.

When can we expect the next trailer?

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Why Jurassic Park should not have been a franchise, according to Collider's Adam Chitwood

Why is that every now and again we're getting new articles strumming the same world's tiniest violin saying that there should not have been any sequels to Jurassic Park. First Forbes, then ScreenRant, and now Collider. We're three months away from the release of Fallen Kingdom, and this recurring negative narrative has been nothing short of aggravating.

I will admit that the tone of the article isn't as condescending as the other aforementioned sites. And I do understand where a lot of the doubters are coming from, since Jurassic Park was such a unique combination of thoughtful auteur science fiction and adventure thrills, and the subsequent films haven't really reached the same level of thoughtfulness or iconic presence.

But this recent wave of articles feels like a cross between a lecture and a guilt-trip for liking or even wanting something that apparently detracts from the same film we all enjoy.

I seriously don't understand how Jurassic Park "shouldn't have sequels" but Marvel can have like 5 films per year.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Why Jurassic Park should not have been a franchise, according to Collider's Adam Chitwood

Why is that every now and again we're getting new articles strumming the same world's tiniest violin saying that there should not have been any sequels to Jurassic Park. First Forbes, then ScreenRant, and now Collider. We're three months away from the release of Fallen Kingdom, and this recurring negative narrative has been nothing short of aggravating.

I will admit that the tone of the article isn't as condescending as the other aforementioned sites. And I do understand where a lot of the doubters are coming from, since Jurassic Park was such a unique combination of thoughtful auteur science fiction and adventure thrills, and the subsequent films haven't really reached the same level of thoughtfulness or iconic presence.

But this recent wave of articles feels like a cross between a lecture and a guilt-trip for liking or even wanting something that apparently detracts from the same film we all enjoy.

I love The Lost World, but I get much of the critisims. I honestly think that if the deleted scenes that introduced Roland and Ajay, Ludlow basically replacing his uncle, and Ludlow had been in the movie and the one scene of Malcolms daughter using gymnastics to mortally wounded had been cut out, then it would be much more well received.

JP3 will never get the same amount of love over time like TLW did, even more so considering how it was made for sake of a JP trilogy. Not to mention all the backstage problems.



JW, I still like, but I'm not going to pretend that was a bit too much of a nostalgic fest that was made simply to get the monkey off Uni's back.

I think that most of the hate comes from the fact the Uni/Spielberg refuse to have fresh ideas, even simple, basic ones, get put into this franchise and still think that 'playing it safe' will work. Not to mention the fact that this franchise isn't well connected canon wise. And no, I don't consider those cheap sites as canon.

I consider the new aspects of Jurassic World to be way more fresh than anything The Force Awakens did. Or ANY superhero movie for that matter.

baryonyx7 wrote:

When can we expect the next trailer?

Probably April

I can think of about two and a half billion reasons why Jurassic Park became a franchise that trump any of the reasons that these articles are giving.

Just sayin'.

baryonyx7 wrote:

When can we expect the next trailer?

In my opinion April 15th seems like the perfect day for a new trailer or at least a TV spot. That day is the season finale of The Walking Dead and in 2015 a Jurassic World TV spot aired during the finale. Plus the toys come out the next day and then Infinity War comes out less than two weeks later. So something around that date makes the most sense I would think.

Also I would expect the new posters to come out around that time

Yea getting really tired of those types of articles. The sequels are the manifestation of what was discussed in the lunch scene in the first film. If we can get a million marvel and star wars films then we can get a couple of more jp films

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I can think of about two and a half billion reasons why Jurassic Park became a franchise that trump any of the reasons that these articles are giving.

Just sayin'.

I have one! It makes an insane amount of money and there are going to be 5 sequels by the time it’s over with.

Article is basically null and void in one sentence.


Not that I disagree that it could have gone smoother but these articles feel like hit pieces to me. I don’t get the grudge people have against the series.

So it appears as though certain stores are releasing the Fallen Kingdom toys early. Seeing all sorts of pics trickling in on Twitter.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

So it appears as though certain stores are releasing the  Fallen Kingdom toys early. Seeing all sorts of pics trickling in on Twitter.

At Wondercon there was a place that was selling the toys but they were scalping them pretty badly. gonna link to this shit.

https://twitter.com/Sickle_Claw/status/977606062999191553

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

I seriously don't understand how Jurassic Park "shouldn't have sequels" but Marvel can have like 5 films per year.

This drives me nuts. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing trailers for a billion super hero movies each time I go to the theater. Is that all we make nowadays? Is this what going to theater in the 1950s was like? Westerns here, westerns there, westerns everywhere! And for the record, I don't hate superhero movies. In fact, I like a few of them, and absolutely love several others.

I'm pretty sure the Jurassic Franchise can afford a couple more movies. Personally, I'm loving the direction they've been going in. It feels like what Michael Crichton would have of, in terms of theme and tone.

Among other things it just strikes me as hypocritical and narrow-minded that people can be so compliant to one or even two genres or franchises over-proliferating and sucking out all the air in the process, but the moment another one actually achieves success by its own means and merits the tone immediately shifts to one of condescension.

FayhdrianColonist wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

I seriously don't understand how Jurassic Park "shouldn't have sequels" but Marvel can have like 5 films per year.

This drives me nuts. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing trailers for a billion super hero movies each time I go to the theater. Is that all we make nowadays? Is this what going to theater in the 1950s was like? Westerns here, westerns there, westerns everywhere! And for the record, I don't hate superhero movies. In fact, I like a few of them, and absolutely love several others.

^This.

I make no bones about the fact that I am a massive MCU fan, but at the same time, I don't want it to crush and devour everything in its path like those super-anacondas that are supposed to live in the Amazon do.

The problem is with so many movie studios in trouble (WB and Lionsgate), others seemingly on their way out-Sony and Paramount-and Universal and Spielberg not allowing this franchise to get larger in order to compete/hold it's own (a cartoon that connects the OT with this new one), it's possible that the MCU might be the only thing by default. And as somebody who's also a Godzilla fan who likes the Godzillaverse so far, I don't want this.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

FayhdrianColonist wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

I seriously don't understand how Jurassic Park "shouldn't have sequels" but Marvel can have like 5 films per year.

This drives me nuts. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing trailers for a billion super hero movies each time I go to the theater. Is that all we make nowadays? Is this what going to theater in the 1950s was like? Westerns here, westerns there, westerns everywhere! And for the record, I don't hate superhero movies. In fact, I like a few of them, and absolutely love several others.

^This.

I make no bones about the fact that I am a massive MCU fan, but at the same time, I don't want it to crush and devour everything in its path like those super-anacondas that are supposed to live in the Amazon do.

The problem is with so many movie studios in trouble (WB and Lionsgate), others seemingly on their way out-Sony and Paramount-and Universal and Spielberg not allowing this franchise to get larger in order to compete/hold it's own (a cartoon that connects the OT with this new one), it's possible that the MCU might be the only thing by default. And as somebody who's also a Godzilla fan who likes the Godzillaverse so far, I don't want this.

You have no idea how bad I want the Godzilla universe to be as big as the MCU lol.

It has the material, just not the popularity.

Troyal1 wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

FayhdrianColonist wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

I seriously don't understand how Jurassic Park "shouldn't have sequels" but Marvel can have like 5 films per year.

This drives me nuts. I can't tell you how sick I am of seeing trailers for a billion super hero movies each time I go to the theater. Is that all we make nowadays? Is this what going to theater in the 1950s was like? Westerns here, westerns there, westerns everywhere! And for the record, I don't hate superhero movies. In fact, I like a few of them, and absolutely love several others.

^This.

I make no bones about the fact that I am a massive MCU fan, but at the same time, I don't want it to crush and devour everything in its path like those super-anacondas that are supposed to live in the Amazon do.

The problem is with so many movie studios in trouble (WB and Lionsgate), others seemingly on their way out-Sony and Paramount-and Universal and Spielberg not allowing this franchise to get larger in order to compete/hold it's own (a cartoon that connects the OT with this new one), it's possible that the MCU might be the only thing by default. And as somebody who's also a Godzilla fan who likes the Godzillaverse so far, I don't want this.

You have no idea how bad I want the Godzilla universe to be as big as the MCU lol.

It has the material, just not the popularity.

Me too. Personally, I'd like to see a standalone animated cartoon Godzilla/DC series.

To be honest, with the DCEU being crippled, the Godzillaverse is one of the few things that WB has franchise wise left.

A lot of new information about Sorna's fate in the latest update on DPG's site: http://www.dinosaurprotectiongroup.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-masrani-global.html

Iv been seeing a lot of concern about this new writer attached to Jw3, because of pacrim uprising. I don't think its fair to judge her work based on this alone, considering 3 other writers were attached as well and the film had an unproven director helming the whole thing. Lots of things could have contributed to the quality of the film so I say the concern about Emily is unwarranted (for now)

Herrerasaurus wrote:

Iv been seeing a lot of concern about this new writer attached to Jw3, because of pacrim uprising. I don't think its fair to judge her work based on this alone, considering 3 other writers were attached as well and the film had an unproven director helming the whole thing. Lots of things could have contributed to the quality of the film so I say the concern about Emily is unwarranted (for now)

I understand the concern like I understand why people were wary of Trevorrow for Jurassic World. This franchise is pretty massive, it would benefit if the film got some extra experience to seal the trilogy up.

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Herrerasaurus wrote:

Iv been seeing a lot of concern about this new writer attached to Jw3, because of pacrim uprising. I don't think its fair to judge her work based on this alone, considering 3 other writers were attached as well and the film had an unproven director helming the whole thing. Lots of things could have contributed to the quality of the film so I say the concern about Emily is unwarranted (for now)

I understand the concern like I understand why people were wary of Trevorrow for Jurassic World. This franchise is pretty massive, it would benefit if the film got some extra experience to seal the trilogy up.

yea i get the concern to a point, but some people straight up lost all hope.

Herrerasaurus wrote:

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

Herrerasaurus wrote:

Iv been seeing a lot of concern about this new writer attached to Jw3, because of pacrim uprising. I don't think its fair to judge her work based on this alone, considering 3 other writers were attached as well and the film had an unproven director helming the whole thing. Lots of things could have contributed to the quality of the film so I say the concern about Emily is unwarranted (for now)

I understand the concern like I understand why people were wary of Trevorrow for Jurassic World. This franchise is pretty massive, it would benefit if the film got some extra experience to seal the trilogy up.

yea i get the concern to a point, but some people straight up lost all hope.

The only thing that bugs me about it is the only feature film that Carmichael has written had her script rewritten. So I can't go look at her work to actually get excited about it. I wasn't really into the short film that got shared around. Trevorrow at least had an acclaimed feature film under his belt before he got the role.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Why Jurassic Park should not have been a franchise, according to Collider's Adam Chitwood

You could extend this logic to argue that nothing should be a franchise, though. I can't think of a single movie franchise except possibly Marvel (and that's debateable) that wasn't terrible by the time it was three or four movies in. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Aliens, Tremors, Ghostbusters, Predator, the list goes on and on. In almost every case an excellent starting movie spawns sequels that provide progressively diminishing returns and serve mostly to cheapen the original. I don't think it's a problem unique to Jurassic Park; it's an issue inherent in the movie studio system and the artistic difficulties in having anything meaningful to say when you get hired to write movie #4 in the series.

https://twitter.com/slashfilm/status/979779882166116352

This caught my eye. He says he's heard the studio is very happy with Fallen Kingdom. Anyone have any idea if he would know this?

Six-Foot Turkey wrote:

https://twitter.com/slashfilm/status/979779882166116352

This caught my eye. He says he's heard the studio is very happy with Fallen Kingdom. Anyone have any idea if he would know this?

He is the owner/editor for online movie website "SlashFilm" so I think so he would have inside sources!

Okay I’ve cooled down from the news about Sorna.

I want to discuss the Utahraptor-sized tyrannosaurid we see running out of the building in the Super Bowl spot. What do you think that is? Part of me wonders if it’s a juvenile T. Rex.

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Okay I’ve cooled down from the news about Sorna.

I want to discuss the Utahraptor-sized tyrannosaurid we see running out of the building in the Super Bowl spot. What do you think that is? Part of me wonders if it’s a juvenile T. Rex.

seemed like an Allosaurus to me.

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Okay I’ve cooled down from the news about Sorna.

I want to discuss the Utahraptor-sized tyrannosaurid we see running out of the building in the Super Bowl spot. What do you think that is? Part of me wonders if it’s a juvenile T. Rex.

I'm thinking it's an Allosaurus, but I am kinda hoping it's a juvenile Rex. It'd be a good way to introduce a new Rex for the next film in the event that Rexy is killed off.

Do u guys mean the one that grabs the guy in front of Owen, Claire & Maisie? course if u mean that one it's the Indoraptor!

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

BoulderFaceplant wrote:

Okay I’ve cooled down from the news about Sorna.

I want to discuss the Utahraptor-sized tyrannosaurid we see running out of the building in the Super Bowl spot. What do you think that is? Part of me wonders if it’s a juvenile T. Rex.

I'm thinking it's an Allosaurus, but I am kinda hoping it's a juvenile Rex. It'd be a good way to introduce a new Rex for the next film in the event that Rexy is killed off.

Wasn't Guanlong, the one crested tyrannosaur that was found in China the last decade, supposed to be in the movie? Because that might explain the one 'Dilophosaurus' photo that looked more like a T. rex head with the Dilo crests on it.