Name 3 good things in JP3.

1. Spinosaurus
2. Aviary
3. Embryonics

Mistral wrote:

In a way JP3 and JW are very alike. They are both incredibly "play safe" movies, aimed not to take any risks whatsoever and bring the money home. JP3 is basically like a higher end direct-to-dvd sequel with very predictable generic monster movie story line and characters, while JW is relying almost entirely on nostalgia by copypasting the first film as well as stuffing the screen with as many shiny objects as possible. Now, you can argue which of these succeeded better in "safeness" with their ways of approach (majority seemingly leaning on JW), however at the end of the day it's plain clear that both films did not want to introduce anything new (I mean really new), make major offences, or stray away from the core premise.

What about how they replaced the T. rex with the Spinosaurus? That was hardly a "safe move". Say what you want about the Indominus Rex, but at least they didn't shove her down throats of the fans with the JP3 Spinosaurus.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Mistral wrote:

In a way JP3 and JW are very alike. They are both incredibly "play safe" movies, aimed not to take any risks whatsoever and bring the money home. JP3 is basically like a higher end direct-to-dvd sequel with very predictable generic monster movie story line and characters, while JW is relying almost entirely on nostalgia by copypasting the first film as well as stuffing the screen with as many shiny objects as possible. Now, you can argue which of these succeeded better in "safeness" with their ways of approach (majority seemingly leaning on JW), however at the end of the day it's plain clear that both films did not want to introduce anything new (I mean really new), make major offences, or stray away from the core premise.

What about how they replaced the T. rex with the Spinosaurus? That was hardly a "safe move". Say what you want about the Indominus Rex, but at least they didn't shove her down throats of the fans with the JP3 Spinosaurus.

Yes it was safe. The studio wanted "bigger and meaner" monster in both of those cases. It's a common safe-playing sequel theme, "do the same thing but just bigger". TLW had two big T-Rexes in attempt of trying to top the first film. The only way to top that for JP3 would have been to have three big T-Rexes, which would've looked bit silly and convoluted. So they went with Spino, although the producers and writers hadn't done market research well enough to know that what most people actually wanted was more T-Rex, or at the very least not killing it off on screen by the new bully. In JW they again 'needed' bigger and meaner dinosaur to top it off, also acknowledging that most hated the Spino, so they went with something artificially bigger and meaner when they couldn't have larger real carnivore.

However, It was actually bolder of JP3 to kill the T-Rex, rather than of JW which did direct fanservice by recreating the original end scene of the first film, with the original T-Rex (+raptors) killing the bigger and meaner monster that had been transformed into villain. T-Rex destroying the Spino skeleton was icing on top of that agenda. That's artificially playing with audience emotions in both cases, but I take (slightly) less offense in Spino killing the T-Rex.

Taking risks is rarity nowadays, especially in big budget Hollywood. Risks alienate you, sadly.

It's one thing to take a risk, it's another thing entirely to execute it properly. In a parallel universe where the changes brought on by JP3 were well received, we probably might have accepted the Spinosaurus being the one to kill the T. rex if it had been executed better. Instead of taking place 30 minutes into the movie, and was depicted as a climactic battle, before which we had spent enough time with the Spinosaur to really get a feel of it as an animal rather than a souped up monster. Simply put, it was not a good fight because there was little build-up, the fight itself was rushed, and was predicated on the Spinosaurus (or rather Jack Horner) cheating in order to win, by withstanding the T. rex's bite and twisting it's neck in an implausible way. The fight in JW might have been born out of fanservice, but the Spino victory in JP3 was born out of shortsightedness.

Also, no Jurassic World did not recreate the ending of the first film, because by that logic it would have come down the to T. rex killing the Raptors that had gone rogue and no Indominus rex or Mosasaurus involved whatsoever. Yes the Rex was portrayed in a semi-heroic light, but it's not a one-to-one substitution as you imply. Disagree with me if you will, but the I. rex was implemented pretty much as the Spinosaurus should have been implemented; an anomalous creature seemingly created off-the-books, it's strengths and weaknesses discussed during the film, and it's ferocity tested and demonstrated enough times to want to see it defeated.

In our hearts we all know the real reason why the T-Rex was killed. They wanted to establish Spino as the new king of the jungle and supposedly bigger threat than anything we've seen before, as per the "sequel logic" I just talked about before. The way to do it, again as per this logic, is to show how the previous menace is apparently so much weaker in comparison, supposedly. It's all in producers head.

As to why it was done so early in the film, it was to strengthen the illusion of threat we were supposed to feel. If it was at the end it would not have served it's purpose, as flawed as that purpose may have been. Also as the film is a quick 90-minute popcorn run, what can you do in the end...

As a fight itself it was also very short, yes indeed, but that had probably more to do with smaller budget and time restrictions than anything artistic. Add in the studio interference and constant rewrites we know of. They didn't have opportunity for 10 minute CGI exploitation battle like in JW. 2001 to 2015 in this industry is like a lifetime.

Did it work? No, arguably not, it was doomed from the beginning.  Killing off something audiences love for the sake of making the new threat seemingly more menacing isn't gonna win anyone over, except in producer's estimations. And of course the execution was fairly poor too. But whether or not this thing was ever gonna work, it was a risk regardless, even if very cheap risk. One of the only that film took, and IMO bigger than anything in JW (except perhaps the tamed raptors) for what's it worth.

Disagree again on the JW ending. Just because it's not same frame-by-frame or happen in identical order doesn't make it any less intentional and safe. They knew what they were doing, it's the same basic finale as in the first film, only again "bigger" per the logic and with more stuff added into it. Considering that the whole film is basically Jurassic Park but just attempted in grander scale of rebooting, they knew most of the fans and general audience would like it. They know people want to see familiar themes, stuff they saw 20 years ago, they know this makes more money rather than doing something new. In any case, you have the new Grant (Owen) with new Sattler (Claire) protecting new Lex and Tim (new kids, whatever their names were) in familar formation and watching these monsters fight it out next to them. IMO the logic in Claire leading T-Rex to fight Indominus was illogical in the first place but whatever, that's besides the point. So you have the big fight going on, with the "Good T-Rex" once again saving them off from the evil villain, this time Indominus. The raptors are there to make the fight (of course) bigger as well as subconsciously trying to mirror the first film. Then it goes on for forever.

Safe is safe...

How did it go again?

Mistral wrote:

Disagree again on the JW ending. Just because it's not same frame-by-frame or happen in identical order doesn't make it any less intentional and safe. They knew what they were doing, it's the same basic finale as in the first film, only again "bigger" per the logic and with more stuff added into it. Considering that the whole film is basically Jurassic Park but just attempted in grander scale of rebooting, they knew most of the fans and general audience would like it. They know people want to see familiar themes, stuff they saw 20 years ago, they know this makes more money rather than doing something new. In any case, you have the new Grant (Owen) with new Sattler (Claire) protecting new Lex and Tim (new kids, whatever their names were) in familar formation and watching these monsters fight it out next to them. IMO the logic in Claire leading T-Rex to fight Indominus was illogical in the first place but whatever, that's besides the point. So you have the big fight going on, with the "Good T-Rex" once again saving them off from the evil villain, this time Indominus. The raptors are there to make the fight (of course) bigger as well as subconsciously trying to mirror the first film. Then it goes on for forever.

Safe is safe...

While I'll agree that it was a "safe" route to go, is there really an issue with that? JW was a film that was ultimately tasked with having to win back the audience after the JP3 fiasco.

Sometimes a certain level of safety and fan service is necessary to keep the goodwill alive.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Disagree again on the JW ending. Just because it's not same frame-by-frame or happen in identical order doesn't make it any less intentional and safe. They knew what they were doing, it's the same basic finale as in the first film, only again "bigger" per the logic and with more stuff added into it. Considering that the whole film is basically Jurassic Park but just attempted in grander scale of rebooting, they knew most of the fans and general audience would like it. They know people want to see familiar themes, stuff they saw 20 years ago, they know this makes more money rather than doing something new. In any case, you have the new Grant (Owen) with new Sattler (Claire) protecting new Lex and Tim (new kids, whatever their names were) in familar formation and watching these monsters fight it out next to them. IMO the logic in Claire leading T-Rex to fight Indominus was illogical in the first place but whatever, that's besides the point. So you have the big fight going on, with the "Good T-Rex" once again saving them off from the evil villain, this time Indominus. The raptors are there to make the fight (of course) bigger as well as subconsciously trying to mirror the first film. Then it goes on for forever.

Safe is safe...

While I'll agree that it was a "safe" route to go, is there really an issue with that? JW was a film that was ultimately tasked with having to win back the audience after the JP3 fiasco.

Sometimes a certain level of safety and fan service is necessary to keep the goodwill alive.

Even if they had done just another generic mediocre sequel like JP3 in 2015 (which honestly I would still have preferred over reboot we got, but that's just me) it probably would have still got hell of a lot more money than JP3 and TLW. With right marketing maybe even close to what JW got. The market is ready 15 years later, enough time has passed with nothing between, the core audiences are at that nostalgic age for JP. It's like Star Wars. Solid box office quarantees future, that's all what matters to producers.

I don't know, I'm one of those people that rather have no further sequels at all if there's not even an attempt at anything outside the familiar formula we've seen thousand times already. There are many franchises that would have only benefited if they had stopped at some point early, rather than dragged into obscurity with sequels that only harmed the name of the original/originals in long run. I mean, none of the JP sequels is really bad-bad, no garbage like in Jaws 4 or Alien vs Predator or Die Hard 5 or whatever, but none are really that spectacular or acclaimed either. They just go the middle road playing safe, same old same old with tidy variations. It's hard to believe TLW actually has taken most risks so far... and even that to very mildest of degrees.

It's like what mr Plinkett said in his Crystall Skull review in regards to new Indy films, I kinda love these words: "We all love Indiana Jones, yes. But everybody needs that part of their brain that says: We better not. You know it's the part of the brain that turns on when you crave something that you know you can't or shouldn't have. And then you stop yourself."

Mistral wrote:

In our hearts we all know the real reason why the T-Rex was killed. They wanted to establish Spino as the new king of the jungle and supposedly bigger threat than anything we've seen before, as per the "sequel logic" I just talked about before. The way to do it, again as per this logic, is to show how the previous menace is apparently so much weaker in comparison, supposedly. It's all in producers head.

As to why it was done so early in the film, it was to strengthen the illusion of threat we were supposed to feel. If it was at the end it would not have served it's purpose, as flawed as that purpose may have been. Also as the film is a quick 90-minute popcorn run, what can you do in the end...


Did it work? No, arguably not, it was doomed from the beginning.  Killing off something audiences love for the sake of making the new threat seemingly more menacing isn't gonna win anyone over, except in producer's estimations. And of course the execution was fairly poor too. But whether or not this thing was ever gonna work, it was a risk regardless, even if very cheap risk.

Actually, it was Jack Horner via his notorious anti-T.rex bias that was the real reason.

"I know for certain T. rex was 100% scavenger" via his 'Valley of the T. Rex' documentary and he himself said that reason why he wanted Spinosaurus to replace Rex was because "he was sick of it". To be fair, he was apathtic towards the raptor design saying "Your guess is as good as mine."

To this day, while he says that T. rex could have killed some prey, he still doesn't believe that it could have hunted and killed healthy prey despite all the evidence (partially healed bite wounds on hadrosaur and Triceratops bones) to the contrary.

If somebody else had been the dino advisor, then it might have worked. But with Horner being so overwhelming, he was basically the co-director. Also, even though Steven Spielberg was the executive producer, he didn't do much but let things take their course. He's like that with the Transformers movies too.

I still don't get why Horner still has a job with the Jurassic Park movies considering how discredited he has been for his multiple theories getting disproved.

The others still had to approve his ideas. And I guess they were all like "I guess he knows what he's talking about" and "this is what we wanted anyway so let's go with it" and "he's been with us for so long in this franchise so who are we to oppose" and "whatever let's go with it we're on tight deadline here and I want to beat the afternoon traffic".

I don't think Spielberg has cared of Jurassic Park for 20 years, not past the first film. Even TLW seemed to have been like a contractual obligation and his interviews about aren't all particularly energetic. I'm sure he was just the yes-man in JP3 and JW, slapping his name to poster and giving some interviews to the media for marketing purposes.

Mistral wrote:

The others still had to approve his ideas. And I guess they were all like "I guess he knows what he's talking about" and "this is what we wanted anyway so let's go with it" and "he's been with us for so long in this franchise so who are we to oppose" and "whatever let's go with it we're on tight deadline here and I want to beat the afternoon traffic".

I don't think Spielberg has cared of Jurassic Park for 20 years, not past the first film. Even TLW seemed to have been like a contractual obligation and his interviews about aren't all particularly energetic. I'm sure he was just the yes-man in JP3 and JW, slapping his name to poster and giving some interviews to the media for marketing purposes.

To be fair, I remember reading that he was more hands on with JW then he was with JP3 by guiding Colin Trevorrow. He didn't do that with Joe Johnston. Though, that's because of how Johnston already made a few movies while Trevorrow only made one. I might be in the minority when I say this, but I really think that Spielberg should go. His seeming apathy was part of the reason why JW suffered the musical chairs of actors/actresses, scripts, directors, and setbacks.

Spielberg's sure not the automatic quality magnet/assurance he used to be in his youth and middle age. Part of me wishes he had retired 15 years ago, at the turn of the century. Then his resume would have been almost entirely pure gold both in directing and producing side. Though obviously he hasn't lost his name completely like Lucas has...

Mistral wrote:

Spielberg's sure not the automatic quality magnet/assurance he used to be in his youth and middle age. Part of me wishes he had retired 15 years ago, at the turn of the century. Then his resume would have been almost entirely pure gold both in directing and producing side. Though obviously he hasn't lost his name completely like Lucas has...

I've been thinking about that for sometime now. I know that he can still make good movies via Lincoln, but it's hard to see if that was a flash of the old Spielberg or if Lincoln was the anomaly. The past 17 years, it feels like he's in an odd form semi-retirement. He doesn't want to totally go, but wants to lie back and get his name remembered. It's kind of like Tony Stark in AOU and Civil War.

Also, one more thing...

Mistral wrote:

So they went with Spino, although the producers and writers hadn't done market research well enough to know that what most people actually wanted was more T-Rex, or at the very least not killing it off on screen by the new bully. In JW they again 'needed' bigger and meaner dinosaur to top it off, also acknowledging that most hated the Spino, so they went with something artificially bigger and meaner when they couldn't have larger real carnivore.

Picking a dinosaur that very few people have ever heard of before and having an appearance based on dubious remains was a big risk. Even more so considering how we now have a far better idea of what it looked like If they had picked Giganotosaurus, then it would have been a 'safer' choice since it had a surprisingly large amount of publicity in a short amount of time, and the holotype being 70% complete also helped.

They were probably always going to integrate the river scene into the movie (because it wasn't the only bit they borrowed from the first novel) and Spinosaurus makes more sense for that than some random other theropod.

Plus Spinosaurus is very easily recognizable and memorable from physical shape alone whereas dumb audiences might have seen Giganotosaurus or whatever as basically the same thing as before, but not as cool as T-Rex.

I don't really want to defend the Spino as in JP3 it was portrayed as some sort of bizarre horror movie stalker killer, however I don't understand why it's labeled as lame while Indominus or whatever it was called gets a free pass in turn for different kind of dumbness. Is it just the T-Rex killing? They're both unsatisfying answers to the same question of safeness IMO. Not that I really liked "we have two Rexes now and they want revenge, plus one of them is going to roam San Diego just like King Kong or Godzilla" story line either but that was the first sequel, there wasn't a strict formula pattern yet. Plus with the baby stuff the Rex was still acting sort of like animal would. It is sort of acceptable, sort of.

They really need to freshen it up for JP5, you know get rid of the bigger badder monster formula of the last three films, and instead try something new, but I don't have high hopes of it happenig.

Mistral wrote:

They were probably always going to integrate the river scene into the movie (because it wasn't the only bit they borrowed from the first novel) and Spinosaurus makes more sense for that than some random other theropod.

Plus Spinosaurus is very easily recognizable and memorable from physical shape alone whereas dumb audiences might have seen Giganotosaurus or whatever as basically the same thing as before but not as cool as T-Rex.

I don't really want to defend the Spino as in the film it was portrayed as some sort of weird stalker killer, however I don't understand why it's labeled as lame while Indominus or whatever it was called gets a free pass in turn for different kind of dumbness.They're both unsatisfying answers to the same question of safeness IMO. Not that I really liked "we have two Rexes now and they want revenge, plus one of them is going to roam San Diego just like King Kong or Godzilla" story line either but that was the first sequel, there wasn't a strict formula pattern yet. Plus with the baby stuff the Rex was still acting sort of like animal would.

Well as I said before, JP3 basically shoved Spinosaurus down the throats of the audiences. Nobody like something new shoved down their throats, even more so if it's something they have never heard of before and without a reason. The more you do it, the more push back you get. That and we never got an origin story or what happened to it after it was cased off by fire. Given it's durability, it's safe to say that it didn't get any serious burns. We don't even know how many Spinosaurs there were/are? Was it the only one are are there more? The Masrani Backdoor thing heavily implies it was a one-off, but unless a movie gets made, people at large will never totally buy into that. At least with Indy we knew what we were getting to a certain degree and we got her origins. Was it perfect? No. But as I said, at least we knew what we were getting.

That and one would have thought that if Giganotosaurus was chosen that the creative team would have been able to make it stand out for T. rex somehow.

It's a made-up dinosaur, of course they had to explain it in JW or otherwise it would have made even less sense in the context of a story. But that's the route they chose with artificial creature so they had to follow it.

IMO there was no great lore to be learn about Spino, other than perhaps finding a memo or something in the village and few throwaway lines in there quickly recapping how it's came to being or how it rampaged. Maybe some shots of it catching fish or something in the river too. But you know it's not like much info was given to the audiences of T-Rex either in the first film. Only that it can run fast and it apparently doesn't want to show up / hunt in daylight. Once it did show up we learned it had eyesight based on movement but the rest was done in visuals.

Of course, we spent long time establishing the T-Rex enclosure in the first film (which was great) whereas in JP3 Spino was just stuffed into the screen, immediately killing people and rampaging. But it's not like it took long off I-Rex to go that route too, despite film's longer length. Both it and Spino were shown way too early on screen, and in full, not taking time like JP (or Jaws) did in establish. Even in trailers they showed it too much.

Again, not every film needs to do things the same way, because every film doesn't need to rehash what was done earlier, but if you are committed to going that route again, at least attempt doing it right to best of your abilities. Neither JP3 or JW really succeeds in that, and to lesser extent TLW didn't either.

But that's just me. I acknowledge I'm in minority here in not ranking any of the sequels particularly high in execution.

- Sam Neil as Alan Grant
- The Spinosaurus water scene
- The Aviary scene

First of all, the Pteranodons. Definitely the best part in the entire movie.

Second would be the Raptors. It was easier to tell the difference between the males and the females because the males had feathery quills on their heads while the females didn't.

Lastly was the inclusion of a dinosaur that was only ever seen once and for a few short seconds. Remember the scene the main characters having to dig through piles of stinky Spinosaurus poop to retrieve a ringing phone only to be disrupted by a big predatory dinosaur with a small horn on its nose? For anyone who's forgotten that scene, the dinosaur is obviously a Ceratosaurus.

By the way, does anyone else love this one line Ben Hildebrand says? Or, rather, how the actor playing him portrays it? It's just so corny and weirdly punctuated I laugh even thinking about it, and have ever since I saw it in theaters. And it's twice in the film (when they watch the tape) which makes it even better. So bad it's good?

- The CGI on the raptors. Best raptor CGI in a JP film to date.

- The river scene with the Spinosaurus was great.

- And lastly, the most underrated scene in the entire franchise....

Spoiler:

Well I think the idea of dream sequence was good, and it showed Grant's perspective well, however the execution was poor in my eyes as was portraying it in comical tone. Plus it made no sense for him to see the quills/protofeathers

Mistral wrote:

Well I think the idea of dream sequence was good, and it showed Grant's perspective well, however the execution was poor in my eyes as was portraying it in comical tone. Plus it made no sense for him to see the quills/protofeathers

All good points, yes.

But it was still bleepin' hilarious, which, for a film that didn't have as serious a tone as the first two films anyways, is a win in my eyes.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Well I think the idea of dream sequence was good, and it showed Grant's perspective well, however the execution was poor in my eyes as was portraying it in comical tone. Plus it made no sense for him to see the quills/protofeathers

All good points, yes.

But it was still bleepin' hilarious, which, for a film that didn't have as serious a tone as the first two films anyways, is a win in my eyes.

If the dreaming had been placed to happen in mainland, before Grant went to make the auditorium speech, then it could have been really good. Because then you would have not only understood his "theme park monsters" lines better, but also shown that he is having nightmares about the place even though he is sure he is never going back to the place again. Continuing haunting in his normal life.

But now, when they show if afterwards he's already made the deal with Kirbys, it's somewhat less effective because he's dreaming of something he's forced to see again soon (even if supposedly only from plane). I still appreciate the idea, but being where it is and with clunky execution it's not what I call successful portrayal. But if you like it as it is, that's great

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Well I think the idea of dream sequence was good, and it showed Grant's perspective well, however the execution was poor in my eyes as was portraying it in comical tone. Plus it made no sense for him to see the quills/protofeathers

All good points, yes.

But it was still bleepin' hilarious, which, for a film that didn't have as serious a tone as the first two films anyways, is a win in my eyes.

If the dreaming had been placed to happen in mainland, before Grant went to make the auditorium speech, then it could have been really good. Because then you would have not only understood his "theme park monsters" lines better, but also shown that he is having nightmares about the place even though he is sure he is never going back to the place again. Continuing haunting in his normal life.

But now, when they show if afterwards he's already made the deal with Kirbys, it's somewhat less effective because he's dreaming of something he's forced to see again soon (even if supposedly only from plane). I still appreciate the idea, but being where it is and with clunky execution it's not what I call successful portrayal. But if you like it as it is, that's great

I absolutely understand your criticisms.

But.....It's a talking raptor.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Well I think the idea of dream sequence was good, and it showed Grant's perspective well, however the execution was poor in my eyes as was portraying it in comical tone. Plus it made no sense for him to see the quills/protofeathers

All good points, yes.

But it was still bleepin' hilarious, which, for a film that didn't have as serious a tone as the first two films anyways, is a win in my eyes.

If the dreaming had been placed to happen in mainland, before Grant went to make the auditorium speech, then it could have been really good. Because then you would have not only understood his "theme park monsters" lines better, but also shown that he is having nightmares about the place even though he is sure he is never going back to the place again. Continuing haunting in his normal life.

But now, when they show if afterwards he's already made the deal with Kirbys, it's somewhat less effective because he's dreaming of something he's forced to see again soon (even if supposedly only from plane). I still appreciate the idea, but being where it is and with clunky execution it's not what I call successful portrayal. But if you like it as it is, that's great

I absolutely understand your criticisms.

But.....It's a talking raptor.

Lol yeah, that it is

Mistral wrote:

Spinosaur4.4 wrote:

Mistral wrote:

1) The giant animatronic Spinosaur (when lighted and shown properly)
2) The auditorium scene when everyone was raising hands
3) It wasn't as bad as JW turned out to be

May I curiously ask why you didn't like JW? 

Certainly

Soft reboot ideology
Rehash/recycled themes
Obvious fanservice references
Another park, another Nublar
"People got bored of dinosaurs" 10 years later?????
TLW/JP3 canon ignorance
Indominus whatever
Trained raptors
Characterization of "Blue"
Weird Vincent D'Onofrio subplot
Dr Wu motives made no sense
Annoying kids, even worse than Eric Kirby
Clunky dialogue at places
WAY TOO OVERUSED CGI that didn't even look great, plastic dinosaurs
Lack of animatronics (one isn't enough)
Embarrassing "wink wink" end fight that made my head hurt
Bland score

Some of the characters were okay and there were alright bits here and there (especially the 70's style chat between CP/BDH at the 'shack') but not enough to warrant it even above JP3. At least JP3 didn't feel like billion dollar ADHD fan film but just generic mediocre sequel. I take crappy jokes of Kirby Adventure & slasher-Spino over rehashed park & fake-looking uber-brain Indominus any day.

But that's just my opinion. I only saw it once in a theater and thought "ehhhh whatever", then halfway through in Bluray until I had to stop it out of anger.

Mainly it's the extreme in-your-face reboot feel and awful CGI over exploitation that ruins it for me, the rest are details.

Love this post.

Well, JP3. Always had a love/hate relationship wth this mvie, but I can't stop watching it. As someone who watched both JP and TLW in the theather as a kid and grew up with those movies, JP3 felt disappointing when it came out and it's still not very impressive. However, a few things are positive, such as:

1. They brought in a new "main dino" and discarded the fan favorite in a very in-your-face way, very brave move.
2. They brought back Alan Grant. Can't stress enough how much this helped save the movie.
3. The river scene is among the best Jurassic Park franchise scenes ever in my opinion.

Lost wrote:

Love this post.

Well, JP3. Always had a love/hate relationship wth this mvie, but I can't stop watching it. As someone who watched both JP and TLW in the theather as a kid and grew up with those movies, JP3 felt disappointing when it came out and it's still not very impressive. However, a few things are positive, such as:

1. They brought in a new "main dino" and discarded the fan favorite in a very in-your-face way, very brave move.

Hard to call something brave when what you're doing is something in which you/your movie studio has very little to gain and so much to lose, and do so easily. Not to mention the execution. Besides, the in-your-face style fails more often then not.

I used to really intensely hate the outcome of the T. rex vs Spino battle, and to this day I don't like it but not for the same reasons as I did as a kid. Rather than just the fact that the T. rex got killed off, I find its placement and pacing really off; what could have made for a great climactic battle instead came off as an afterthought and was frankly too rushed to be satisfying, ignoring the outcome itself. In context, it was basically a throwaway action scene that tried to further establish the Spinosaurus as the superior predator (as if tearing up an airplane is not enough).

Killing off just one T. rex is one thing, but not to bring it back for a single scene later on was yet another missed opportunity, for example what if the Spinosaurus was defeated by a fully grown Rex, or a pair of them? As it stands, it comes across as a tad cheap to be honest. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the I. rex was basically a better explained and better executed version of the Spinosaurus.

I think I'm in the extreme minority here but I actually liked how there was no explanation for the spinosaurus, it gave you this feeling of inGen being up to much more than even the characters from JP had any clue about. And when they cleared out from Sorna they left all their secret creations behind.

The vague explanation of Spinosaurus is perfectly fine. As is it's outlook, I mean it's quite iconic, and the scientific accuracy for year 2000 is alright. The roar it puts out is very memorable, not boring and flat like I-Rex. Hell I don't even really mind it killing the T-Rex, even if it was bit convoluted and rushed.

The main problem is the animal acting like serial killer monster and stalking the people all over the island (that's some impressive territory ain't it?) for no reason, not acting like real animal. Which is a recurring theme these sequels are pretty proud of, it seems.

The satellite phone sub plot inside it is also terrible. I still take it rather than I-Rex though.

Mistral wrote:

The vague explanation of Spinosaurus is perfectly fine. As is it's outlook, I mean it's quite iconic, and the scientific accuracy for year 2000 is alright. The roar it puts out is very memorable, not boring and flat like I-Rex. Hell I don't even really mind it killing the T-Rex, even if it was bit convoluted and rushed.

The main problem is the animal acting like serial killer monster and stalking the people all over the island (that's some impressive territory ain't it?) for no reason, not acting like real animal. Which is a recurring theme these sequels are pretty proud of, it seems.

I definitely agree with all this. I hope JW2 will bring back the feeling of the dinosaurs being actual animals, that makes them more terrifying, actually. Another thing you said which I agree with is how both JW and JP3 take no chances and don't really try anything new. We've been talking about how JW is full of fan service but JP3 tried (and failed) that, too. Grant digging up another raptor skeleton in Montana, flying to the island with that iconic music (albeit not the same island) etc. It just gets boring. We've all seen the first movie, we don't need repeats. I really hope JW2 will try something new, and from the looks of it, it will. And can we please go back to the raptors being terrifying, not good-guys. It was nice of them to spare Grant and the Kirbys and to help Claire and Owen out of a bind, but enough already.