Does anybody else feel that in order for the Jurassic films to feel Jurassic they need heavy doses of...

the classic characters like Dr. Grant, Dr. Malcolm, Dr. Sattler or even a Sarah Harding.

I have nothing against Claire or Owen but I do not feel like I am watching Jurassic with them. These new "World" films made me realize that just having velociraptors and Rexy roaring is just not enough to get that Jurassic feel or to really aknowledge that this is an actual Jurassic sequel. Wich is another reason why I am just not that into them. I really feel that it is the classic characters (Grant, Malcolm and so on) who really made Jurassic feel like...Well Jurassic instead of just another dinosaur flick.

And yeah, I know about the JWFK Malcolm cameo, but that is just that, a cameo of 2 or 3 minutes right? That is just not enough. I need them in major roles like TLW and JP3 did with Malcolm and Grant. This is why I also feel that characters from TLW like Sarah and Nick should return but it seems unlikely since the internet keeps repeating the lie that TLW is as hated as JP3...

But yeah, to me Jurassic is just like Star Wars for me. If you move it away too far from Luke, Leia, Han, Vader, R2D2, C 3PO, Obi Wan, Yoda and Palpatine then it just does not feel like Star Wars to me. The characters are the flavor and who we care about. Anybody else feel this way?

Well we'll get them in JW3 so maybe it will feel more like the original trilogy? agree that Sarah should come back but doubt it, not interested in Nick though...

I really hope the gang from TLW comes back. Sarah, Kelly, Nick. To me they are as classic characters as Grant, Malcolm and Sattler.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I really hope the gang from TLW comes back. Sarah, Kelly, Nick. To me they are as classic characters as Grant, Malcolm and Sattler.

I certainly hope not because during the course of the events of The Lost World, the aforementioned characters either contributed very little or provided nothing beneficial whatsoever.

Gondrasia wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I really hope the gang from TLW comes back. Sarah, Kelly, Nick. To me they are as classic characters as Grant, Malcolm and Sattler.

I certainly hope not because during the course of the events of The Lost World, the aforementioned characters either contributed very little or provided nothing beneficial whatsoever.

Sarah was the co protagonist of TLW and she was instrumental in getting the T Rex out of San Diego.

I've got some good news for you then...

"Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern are returning in major roles in 'Jurassic World 3.' "  - Colin Trevorrow

Vince Vaughn can stay the hell away though. I never cared for his character, and having him injected back into the franchise would be incredibly jarring.

In all honesty, as much as I appreciate the fanservice, simply injecting old characters back into the fray likely won't make much difference to the overall tone of the film. It's window dressing. Finding a tone that's more reminiscent of the OG films falls on the writing and direction. While I certainly agree that the World films are generally different in tone from the original trilogy, there are certainly scenes sprinkled throughout both films that have that feeling. The Indominus breakout, the dialogue between Wu and Masrani, the opening scene of FK, etc....These scenes feel more like scenes that could have come from the OG trilogy not because they're doused in window dressing, but because the writing and direction make them feel like they could belong to one of the original films.

Regardless of how anyone feels about the matter, whether you're happy with the change in tone or would like to see something more reminiscent of the first 3 (well, 2) films, adding old characters back into the mix likely won't make any sort of difference.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I've got some good news for you then...

"Sam Neill, Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern are returning in major roles in 'Jurassic World 3.' "  - Colin Trevorrow

Vince Vaughn can stay the hell away though. I never cared for his character, and having him injected back into the franchise would be incredibly jarring.

I am aware of the news that they are returning, just saying that JW and JWFK did not feel the same without them.


You are right that Vince Vaughn is now more of a comedic actor but still, I just want to end the "nobody likes TLW" internet myth so badly...

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Gondrasia wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

I really hope the gang from TLW comes back. Sarah, Kelly, Nick. To me they are as classic characters as Grant, Malcolm and Sattler.

I certainly hope not because during the course of the events of The Lost World, the aforementioned characters either contributed very little or provided nothing beneficial whatsoever.

Sarah was the co protagonist of TLW and she was instrumental in getting the T Rex out of San Diego.

She was also a hypocritical moron!

Sarah Harding is the visible personification of “do as I say, not as I do”. She talks about how ‘they’re here to observe and document, not interact’ and making sure that the expedition should be ‘100% antiseptic’, right after she headed straight towards the middle of Stegosaurus herd and touching their infant; her actions nearly got herself killed and could have contaminated the stegosaur herd with germs they might not have the resistance to.

Another thing that she goes on and on about is how the dinosaurs can ‘pick up scents from miles away’ and that they ‘shouldn’t leave scents of any kind; no insect repellent, no hair tonic, no cologne and all food items need to be in sealable plastic bags’. After the trailer attack, Sarah said that the Tyrannosaurus rex in particular had ‘the largest proportional olfactory cavity of any creature in the fossil record, with the exception of one’.

So what does she do with her jacket, soaked with the blood of the infant tyrannosaur, does she take it off and throw it into the burning wreckage of the InGen campsite before setting off to the worker's village? No, she keeps the jacket on!

And it’s not as though Sarah forgot about it because when Roland Tembo checks to see if she was alright, she tells him it was tyrannosaur blood not her own. She only realises that keeping a jacket soaked with the infant tyrannosaur's blood would attract its parents, was when they were literally breathing down her neck!

As a result, not only are Sarah's hands soaked with the blood of the juvenile tyrannosaur, they’re also soaked with the blood of the InGen Harvesters because thanks to her she lured the two highly dangerous, man-eating predators to the campsite.

Well they were not going to interact but the hunters changed those plans when they put many dinosaurs in cages and hurt the baby T Rex.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Well they were not going to interact but the hunters changed those plans when they put many dinosaurs in cages and hurt the baby T Rex.

1. How does that justify Sarah Harding's actions?

2. Nick van Owen releasing the dinosaurs from the hunters' cages was both doing what John Hammond ordered him to do if InGen were on Isla Sorna and for personal reasons due to him being a member of Earth First.

Gondrasia wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Well they were not going to interact but the hunters changed those plans when they put many dinosaurs in cages and hurt the baby T Rex.

1. How does that justify Sarah Harding's actions?

2. Nick van Owen releasing the dinosaurs from the hunters' cages was both doing what John Hammond ordered him to do if InGen were on Isla Sorna and for personal reasons due to him being a member of Earth First.

Well what Sarah said was that dinosaurs could pick up scents from miles away but once she had blood on her jacket and t shirt what was she supposed to do? Take everything off?


This is what I am talking about when I say the internet is overly hard on TLW. People Will go on and on about Sarah and Nick´s "poor choices" yet many ignore or overlook Hoskins much worse idea of letting velociraptors run lose or actually using them in a war.

Almost nobody mentions or cares about how cartoony Hoskins feels, in fact many still call Jurassic World a "Fun summer flick" ignoring that like nothing.

But Kelly does a gymnastics move in TLW and oh boy...The internet goes…"Worst sequel ever!!!"


Im sorry but I just hate how overly critical the internet is on TLW while they shamelessly give a free pass to JW much worse choices.

Seems to me that the internet are far harder on the raptor subplot of JW then they are with the decisions of Sarah and Nick in TLW.

People in general are much easier on TLW then they are on either JW film.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems to me that the internet are far harder on the raptor subplot of JW then they are with the decisions of Sarah and Nick in TLW.

People in general are much easier on TLW then they are on either JW film.

That raptor subplot of Jurassic World does get hate on the internet, I give you that. But then right after hating on that raptor subplot many brush it off by saying "Oh it´s just dumb summer fun" or "Whatever, it is just a popcorn flick, it becomes fun if you leave your brain out of the door".


TLW usually gets the opposite treatment on the internet. People just straight up repeat that it is considered one of the biggest letdowns in film history and that nobody likes this film (even though those are both flat out huge lies) and then when you ask them what exactly makes it so horrible they nitpick the hell out of it without any mercy. "Oh, it does not have the awe and wonder of the first!", "Oh, The Gymnastics scene!" and "Oh, it was not like the book!", "Oh this or that character was so stupid!", "Oh, the end was similar to King Kong" and so on.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Well what Sarah said was that dinosaurs could pick up scents from miles away but once she had blood on her jacket and t shirt what was she supposed to do? Take everything off?

This is what I am talking about when I say the internet is overly hard on TLW. People Will go on and on about Sarah and Nick´s "poor choices" yet many ignore or overlook Hoskins much worse idea of letting velociraptors run lose or actually using them in a war.

Almost nobody mentions or cares about how cartoony Hoskins feels, in fact many still call Jurassic World a "Fun summer flick" ignoring that like nothing.

But Kelly does a gymnastics move in TLW and oh boy...The internet goes…"Worst sequel ever!!!"

No, just her bloody jacket!

The t-shirt was fine because there weren't any blood stains on it and I know this because Nick van Owen held the baby tyrannosaur in exactly the same position before handing it over to Sarah. Nick's jacket was also covered in the tyrannosaur's blood, but unlike Sarah, he actually took it off!

Even if the t-shirt also had blood on it, then Yes, she should still have taken it off! The InGen hunters had spare rain jackets, they gave one to Kelly when it was pouring with rain during their trek to the village so they could have easily given Sarah a jacket for her to cover up.

Either way, there is no reason why Sarah should have kept wearing the blood soaked jacket and it's the result of poor writing.

Hoskins may have been slightly over the top in Jurassic World as a result of his rather bullish attitude, but at least his idea for using the Velociraptors had some merit. InGen is a dangerously ambitious company and I find it very plausible that after a decade of successfully operating a zoological theme park they would explore other, more practical revenue generating opportunities with the dinosaurs such as military applications. Considering the extensive use of modern animals within the military sector such as dolphins that can fire poisonous darts, researching applications for the use of trained Velociraptors is a relatively plausible idea.

However even if it worked, I don't believe that they would outright replace foot soldiers, I believe Hoskins was exaggerating in order to sell the idea to Owen. And I certainly don't think that Hoskins expected that as a result of the inclusion of Velociraptor DNA in the Indominus rex's genetic makeup, that it would give the hybrid the ability to communicate with the trained raptor pack.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Im sorry but I just hate how overly critical the internet is on TLW while they shamelessly give a free pass to JW much worse choices.

And how is what you're doing any better?

Because I would go so far as to say that you are just as bad as those internet critics. You are at the other end of the extreme, you are a fanboy through and through in all of the worst possible ways. You fail to see why people may not like The Lost World as much as you do. You yourself are ignoring or overlooking those criticisms in the same way that you say that people are doing for Jurassic World.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

TLW usually gets the opposite treatment on the internet. People just straight up repeat that it is considered one of the biggest letdowns in film history and that nobody likes this film

I have literally never seen anyone say this about TLW.

Gondrasia wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Well what Sarah said was that dinosaurs could pick up scents from miles away but once she had blood on her jacket and t shirt what was she supposed to do? Take everything off?

This is what I am talking about when I say the internet is overly hard on TLW. People Will go on and on about Sarah and Nick´s "poor choices" yet many ignore or overlook Hoskins much worse idea of letting velociraptors run lose or actually using them in a war.

Almost nobody mentions or cares about how cartoony Hoskins feels, in fact many still call Jurassic World a "Fun summer flick" ignoring that like nothing.

But Kelly does a gymnastics move in TLW and oh boy...The internet goes…"Worst sequel ever!!!"

No, just her bloody jacket!

The t-shirt was fine because there weren't any blood stains on it and I know this because Nick van Owen held the baby tyrannosaur in exactly the same position before handing it over to Sarah. Nick's jacket was also covered in the tyrannosaur's blood, but unlike Sarah, he actually took it off!

Even if the t-shirt also had blood on it, then Yes, she should still have taken it off! The InGen hunters had spare rain jackets, they gave one to Kelly when it was pouring with rain during their trek to the village so they could have easily given Sarah a jacket for her to cover up.

Either way, there is no reason why Sarah should have kept wearing the blood soaked jacket and it's the result of poor writing.

Hoskins may have been slightly over the top in Jurassic World as a result of his rather bullish attitude, but at least his idea for using the Velociraptors had some merit. InGen is a dangerously ambitious company and I find it very plausible that after a decade of successfully operating a zoological theme park they would explore other, more practical revenue generating opportunities with the dinosaurs such as military applications. Considering the extensive use of modern animals within the military sector such as dolphins that can fire poisonous darts, researching applications for the use of trained Velociraptors is a relatively plausible idea.

However even if it worked, I don't believe that they would outright replace foot soldiers, I believe Hoskins was exaggerating in order to sell the idea to Owen. And I certainly don't think that Hoskins expected that as a result of the inclusion of Velociraptor DNA in the Indominus rex's genetic makeup, that it would give the hybrid the ability to communicate with the trained raptor pack.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Im sorry but I just hate how overly critical the internet is on TLW while they shamelessly give a free pass to JW much worse choices.

And how is what you're doing any better?

Because I would go so far as to say that you are just as bad as those internet critics. You are at the other end of the extreme, you are a fanboy through and through in all of the worst possible ways. You fail to see why people may not like The Lost World as much as you do. You yourself are ignoring or overlooking those criticisms in the same way that you say that people are doing for Jurassic World.

Uh...I have never ever said that people can not dislike TLW.

What I am simply saying is that the movie is not as disliked as the internet makes it out to be. (Wich is true). I have been a Jurassic Park fan for over 22 years now and I have never ever met anyone in real life who dislikes (much less hate) The Lost World. Yet you often see articles on the internet implying that it was this huge letdown.

The other thing that I am saying is that the internet is often harder on TLW than on JW (Wich is also true). Just Google it. You will see plenty of people who brush off any fault JW has by saying "But relax, it is just dumb fun" or "Even if it has faults it is still fun". That raerly happens with TLW wich is often portrayed as if it is as bad as JP3.

Besides that all I did was to answer your question about the choices Sarah made.

How exactly does that make me "As bad as those critics" or "The other end of the extreme" or "A fanboy in the worst possible ways" ?

I am not even talking about how much I like the film, I am talking about the general consensus of the films.

Im not sure if you see the irony here about who is going to the extremes. I tried to counter what you said and you are making me out to be this super horrible fan.

Putting the old characters into the hands of new writers with a new tone isn't going to suddenly make the new films better. This is why I was never super interested in seeing the old cast come back as major characters. Their arcs were closed and it's the same team who made Claire and Owen 'too boring' so whatever new ideas they have for the old cast will probably bore the same people.

JVM wrote:

Putting the old characters into the hands of new writers with a new tone isn't going to suddenly make the new films better. This is why I was never super interested in seeing the old cast come back as major characters. Their arcs were closed and it's the same team who made Claire and Owen 'too boring' so whatever new ideas they have for the old cast will probably bore the same people.

Exactly this. Simply throwing old characters into the mix isn't going to change the overall feel of the film or franchise. It's simply window dressing. The only way a true tonal shift can take place is via the writing and direction.

JVM wrote:

Putting the old characters into the hands of new writers with a new tone isn't going to suddenly make the new films better. This is why I was never super interested in seeing the old cast come back as major characters. Their arcs were closed and it's the same team who made Claire and Owen 'too boring' so whatever new ideas they have for the old cast will probably bore the same people.

This is why I wanted these new "World" films to be written by really hardcore fans. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly might be genuinely good people with the best intentions but the fact remains that they are only casual fans of the original. Same thing with J.A. Bayona.

And while it is true that just bringing Grant, Sattler and Malcolm back is no guarantee that a film will be great, they for sure make the experience feel much more Jurassic than with Owen and Claire. While most audiences are ok with those characters, many do still call Owen "Star Lord". That is his signature rol.

But with Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum, their signature roles are without a doubt the Jurassic ones.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Seems to me that the internet are far harder on the raptor subplot of JW then they are with the decisions of Sarah and Nick in TLW.

People in general are much easier on TLW then they are on either JW film.

I would say people are currently easier on TLW, now that it's attained cult classic status, but prior to JW and FK, I quite recall the many spirited discussions, if you'd like to call them such, on how terrible Sarah and Nick were in TLW, how many people they got killed, and why TLW was a terrible movie for it.

TLW has always been considered the best sequel among hardcore fans and people in real life seem to be ok with it at the very least. It is on the internet (youtubers and news articles) where it is portrayed as being a terrible thing.

It is similar to that time around 2006 to 2015 when the internet kept saying "everybody hated the Star Wars prequels" yet when you actually ask fans and people in real life you can clearly see there is an entire generation that grew up loving them.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

JVM wrote:

Putting the old characters into the hands of new writers with a new tone isn't going to suddenly make the new films better. This is why I was never super interested in seeing the old cast come back as major characters. Their arcs were closed and it's the same team who made Claire and Owen 'too boring' so whatever new ideas they have for the old cast will probably bore the same people.

This is why I wanted these new "World" films to be written by really hardcore fans. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly might be genuinely good people with the best intentions but the fact remains that they are only casual fans of the original. Same thing with J.A. Bayona.

And while it is true that just bringing Grant, Sattler and Malcolm back is no guarantee that a film will be great, they for sure make the experience feel much more Jurassic than with Owen and Claire. While most audiences are ok with those characters, many do still call Owen "Star Lord". That is his signature rol.

But with Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum, their signature roles are without a doubt the Jurassic ones.

The "experience will feel much more Jurassic" because people will be playing their signature roles, as opposed to... associating Chris Pratt with a role in a more popular, profitable and new-to-audiences character?

That logic doesn't follow to me. That same logic to me says The Dark Knight would be a better film with Jack Nicholson, or that Sean Connery should've stuck around for twenty more Bond films, or that the new Star Trek films should've been built around Bill Shatner. You're suggesting the mere fact of reprising a well-known actor in a well-known role will alone make a film better.

Maybe you're under the impression that the last two films would be better with more iconic actors than Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, but if those characters failed to connect with audiences, that would be more of a writing problem than an acting problem, and I say that finding both characters more creative than what I expected. The reality is a creative team comes up with how the characters fit into the plot, what they say, and how they evolve, and if they can't succeed at creating new characters, they don't deserve the keys to the kingdom for it.

Jeff Goldblum did not save Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom despite Universal milking 'reprising his signature role' in hundreds of commercials, and most people I've spoken with felt more let down by the reprisal than less. True that it was only a cameo, but would replacing it with a generic character make it worse? Did bringing back Rexy, the franchise's undisputed star, redeem the last two films? Nope. Did Malcolm's unecessary commentary enhance Jurassic World Evolution? Not exactly.

I've also maintained up to this point there has been zero in-story reason for any of these characters to return. Much of the plot of the second and third films was structured around Malcolm and Grant having zero interest in returning to the islands under any circumstances. Whatever fans may say about Trevorrow's direction, he made the correct and logical choice for Goldblum's role in the story of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. That was more true to his character than any forced participation would have been.

The moment of nostalgia at seeing your favorite character come back will fade away when they are forced to become what they must to fit a different story.

JVM wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

JVM wrote:

Putting the old characters into the hands of new writers with a new tone isn't going to suddenly make the new films better. This is why I was never super interested in seeing the old cast come back as major characters. Their arcs were closed and it's the same team who made Claire and Owen 'too boring' so whatever new ideas they have for the old cast will probably bore the same people.

This is why I wanted these new "World" films to be written by really hardcore fans. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connolly might be genuinely good people with the best intentions but the fact remains that they are only casual fans of the original. Same thing with J.A. Bayona.

And while it is true that just bringing Grant, Sattler and Malcolm back is no guarantee that a film will be great, they for sure make the experience feel much more Jurassic than with Owen and Claire. While most audiences are ok with those characters, many do still call Owen "Star Lord". That is his signature rol.

But with Sam Neil, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum, their signature roles are without a doubt the Jurassic ones.

The "experience will feel much more Jurassic" because people will be playing their signature roles, as opposed to... associating Chris Pratt with a role in a more popular, profitable and new-to-audiences character?

That logic doesn't follow to me. That same logic to me says The Dark Knight would be a better film with Jack Nicholson, or that Sean Connery should've stuck around for twenty more Bond films, or that the new Star Trek films should've been built around Bill Shatner. You're suggesting the mere fact of reprising a well-known actor in a well-known role will alone make a film better.

Maybe you're under the impression that the last two films would be better with more iconic actors than Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard, but if those characters failed to connect with audiences, that would be more of a writing problem than an acting problem, and I say that finding both characters more creative than what I expected. The reality is a creative team comes up with how the characters fit into the plot, what they say, and how they evolve, and if they can't succeed at creating new characters, they don't deserve the keys to the kingdom for it.

Jeff Goldblum did not save Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom despite Universal milking 'reprising his signature role' in hundreds of commercials, and most people I've spoken with felt more let down by the reprisal than less. True that it was only a cameo, but would replacing it with a generic character make it worse? Did bringing back Rexy, the franchise's undisputed star, redeem the last two films? Nope. Did Malcolm's unecessary commentary enhance Jurassic World Evolution? Not exactly.

I've also maintained up to this point there has been zero in-story reason for any of these characters to return. Much of the plot of the second and third films was structured around Malcolm and Grant having zero interest in returning to the islands under any circumstances. Whatever fans may say about Trevorrow's direction, he made the correct and logical choice for Goldblum's role in the story of Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. That was more true to his character than any forced participation would have been.

The moment of nostalgia at seeing your favorite character come back will fade away when they are forced to become what they must to fit a different story.

You are mixing things up.

I never said the classic characters in major roles will always result in a much better film. I said they make the experience actually feel more like Jurassic for me.


Like for example, most of us agree that Jurassic Park 3 does have some issues. It is far from a great film in the eyes of most, but at the same time, many of us agree that it having Dr. Grant featured heavily and add to that 2 or 3 scenes of Ellie and that alone made it feel much more Jurassic than both JW and JWFK.

The Malcolm cameo in JWFK was so short (like 2 minutes right?) that it just was not enough.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Like for example, most of us agree that Jurassic Park 3 does have some issues. It is far from a great film in the eyes of most, but at the same time, many of us agree that it having Dr. Grant featured heavily and add to that 2 or 3 scenes of Ellie and that alone made it feel much more Jurassic than both JW and JWFK.

The Malcolm cameo in JWFK was so short (like 2 minutes right?) that it just was not enough.

But JP3 was the start of the tonal shift from the feel that the first two films had to a more bombastic sort of feel. Throwing Sam Neill back into the mix didn't stop the franchise from shifting directions.

If one wants to make the argument that JP3 still felt more like the first two films than JW or FK did, fine, but one must also take into account the 14 year gap in time between the two films as well. The general shape and feel of blockbuster films changed a lot during that time frame. It also needs to be noted that JP3 still retained a lot of the same people that the first two films did, and even those that climbed back on board for JW were far further removed from the first two films than they were at the time JP3 was made. Furthermore, one must also take into account the fact that JW and FK are not only films that have been unconsciously shaped by the timeframe that they reside in, but that JW was itself consciously trying to be something different than it's predecessors.

I'll put this to you in another way. If you were to take the characters of Owen and Claire, still played by Chris Pratt and BDH, and throw them back in time to when the OG film was released, have them replace Alan and Ellie as the main protagonists, and have them be written and directed by the exact people that wrote for and directed Sam Neill and Laura Dern in the first film, do you think that film would be more more or less reminiscent of Jurassic Park than a Jurassic World that replaced Owen and Claire with the 1993 versions of Alan and Ellie, still played by Sam Neill and Laura Dern, but subject to the writing and direction of the people that wrote and directed JW?

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Like for example, most of us agree that Jurassic Park 3 does have some issues. It is far from a great film in the eyes of most, but at the same time, many of us agree that it having Dr. Grant featured heavily and add to that 2 or 3 scenes of Ellie and that alone made it feel much more Jurassic than both JW and JWFK.

The Malcolm cameo in JWFK was so short (like 2 minutes right?) that it just was not enough.

But JP3 was the start of the tonal shift from the feel that the first two films had to a more bombastic sort of feel. Throwing Sam Neill back into the mix didn't stop the franchise from shifting directions.

If one wants to make the argument that JP3 still felt more like the first two films than JW or FK did, fine, but one must also take into account the 14 year gap in time between the two films as well. The general shape and feel of blockbuster films changed a lot during that time frame. It also needs to be noted that JP3 still retained a lot of the same people that the first two films did, and even those that climbed back on board for JW were far further removed from the first two films than they were at the time JP3 was made. Furthermore, one must also take into account the fact that JW and FK are not only films that have been unconsciously shaped by the timeframe that they reside in, but that JW was itself consciously trying to be something different than it's predecessors.

I'll put this to you in another way. If you were to take the characters of Owen and Claire, still played by Chris Pratt and BDH, and throw them back in time to when the OG film was released, have them replace Alan and Ellie as the main protagonists, and have them be written and directed by the exact people that wrote for and directed Sam Neill and Laura Dern in the first film, do you think that film would be more more or less reminiscent of Jurassic Park than a Jurassic World that replaced Owen and Claire with the 1993 versions of Alan and Ellie, still played by Sam Neill and Laura Dern, but subject to the writing and direction of the people that wrote and directed JW?

To me the main difference between JP3 and the fist two films (besides the obvious you know what) is the shallow plot and lack of human antagonist.

JP and TLW had big overall plots with 2 or 3 subplots of different characters including human antagonists. JP had the theme of humans playing with nature, the subplot of Nedry and the subplot of Grant not wanting kids. Same goes for TLW, there is once again the subplot of humans playing with nature by taking dinosaurs into the mainland, the subplot of Ian getting Sarah back and him being a bad father, and the subplot of what is going to be the fate of these dinosaurs roaming free now.

JP3 it is mostly, get the kid and and get out of the island. That is why I hate when people say TLW is much inferior to JP and on the same level of JP3. But back to the point, even with that significant difference, JP3 still had plenty of things that made it feel and look very Jurassic. Not only Grant was back in the lead and Ellie had a cameo but it also went back to Isla Sorna, we learned a bit more about it, directly mentioned events of TLW, and had a great amount of moments where the characters talk about events and characters from both JP and TLW, and on top of that the main focus was still on discovering how amazing the actual dinosaurs were.

You are right that the 14 year gap is a factor, let alone the very different cast and crew but still, there was a 16 yeat gap between the Star Wars Original Trilogy and the Prequel Trilogy and (while there are some who disagree) most feel those movies very much feel like Star Wars.

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

You are mixing things up.

I never said the classic characters in major roles will always result in a much better film. I said they make the experience actually feel more like Jurassic for me.

Like for example, most of us agree that Jurassic Park 3 does have some issues. It is far from a great film in the eyes of most, but at the same time, many of us agree that it having Dr. Grant featured heavily and add to that 2 or 3 scenes of Ellie and that alone made it feel much more Jurassic than both JW and JWFK.

The Malcolm cameo in JWFK was so short (like 2 minutes right?) that it just was not enough.

You think Colin Trevorrow is a bad writer and that these films have shallow stories and bad characters; but you're saying a shallow story will be improved if a familiar face is plastered on it. But like, if Colin Trevorrow has Sam Neill as Dr. Alan Grant back, but he's like, eating raptor eggs and shooting people, acting completely out-of-character because Trevorrow is so incompetent that he can't write good characters, it's more of a Jurassic film that way, too? And it won't be widely criticized as overly nostalgic like the fact Trevorrow did bring back Rexy from the first movie, whom most fans complain is mischaracterized?

Or are you just trying to say the experience will feel more authentic even if the film is trash, in which case, why bother?

JVM wrote:

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

You are mixing things up.

I never said the classic characters in major roles will always result in a much better film. I said they make the experience actually feel more like Jurassic for me.

Like for example, most of us agree that Jurassic Park 3 does have some issues. It is far from a great film in the eyes of most, but at the same time, many of us agree that it having Dr. Grant featured heavily and add to that 2 or 3 scenes of Ellie and that alone made it feel much more Jurassic than both JW and JWFK.

The Malcolm cameo in JWFK was so short (like 2 minutes right?) that it just was not enough.

You think Colin Trevorrow is a bad writer and that these films have shallow stories and bad characters; but you're saying a shallow story will be improved if a familiar face is plastered on it. But like, if Colin Trevorrow has Sam Neill as Dr. Alan Grant back, but he's like, eating raptor eggs and shooting people, acting completely out-of-character because Trevorrow is so incompetent that he can't write good characters, it's more of a Jurassic film that way, too? And it won't be widely criticized as overly nostalgic like the fact Trevorrow did bring back Rexy from the first movie, whom most fans complain is mischaracterized?

Or are you just trying to say the experience will feel more authentic even if the film is trash, in which case, why bother?

Again you are mixing up what I am saying.

I never said that familiar faces make scripts much better. Of course I understand the actor is one thing and the writing is another. I have never said otherwise. All I said is that familiar faces add to the Jurassic feel for me. Not that them being there makes the script 10 times better. I even gave you the JP3 example, most recognize that it does have quite a few issues but also most agree that despite those issues it still felt very much Jurassic. So if I clearly explained the difference between the two, why are you still misrepresenting what I said as me insisting that old characters make a script better?

Also, I never said that JW and JWFK had shallow stories. I said JP3 did.