Jurassic World vs Independence Day: Resurgence

I thought it might be worthwhile to address a few things that I really admire about Jurassic World and yet often gets overlooked by many people. Scott Mendelson of Forbes gets into the nitty-gritty as to why one return to a nostalgic 90s franchise was a roaring success and the other.... much less so. The essential question of the article is "What did Jurassic World do that other failed franchise resurgences didn't? It justified itself."

For more info, follow the link here

Some of the key points raised in the article as to why Jurassic World garnered such a strong response across the board included:

- Jurassic World wasn't exclusively tailored for fans of the Jurassic Park books/movies; as popular as the first movie is the new film managed to be a cinema-going experience for everyone.

- Chris Pratt had made his name in popular, visually arresting and family friendly films such as Guardians fo the Galaxy and The LEGO Movie, and the new Jurassic film fit right into that spectrum, and famously hinted at his unique relationship with the Velociraptors.

- It had an interesting idea at its core, the notion of a fully functional amusement park featuring genetically-modified dinosaurs and hybrids (a giant metaphor for blockbuster escalation), effectively extending the Frankenstein's Monster metaphor to greater proportions.

- Somewhat less impressively in my opinion, it was a broadly appealing film. If you hadn't heard of the JP books or films (if such people even exist!), it had a little bit of everything: action, adventure, science fiction, romance, comedy, VFX spectacle, and most importantly - dinosaurs. Children, teenagers and adults could find something that appealed to them in it. I say "less impressively" because I know there are many fans, myself included, who would prefer it if the franchise were to strive for something darker, more atmospheric and potentially cerebral like in the first two films. With J.A. Bayona, there is hope yet.

- More interestingly: it was a sequel that sold itself as an original film; in that it contained a mix of familiar and new ideas, characters, call backs and other elements so that a child could go into the film having not watched the original Jurassic Park and still enjoy it. You could argue for or against that statement, but it does fascinate me.

Then we look at what Independence Day: Resurgence had to offer:

- It was basically the same movie as the first film all over again, with little deviation from the formula.

- The fact that it was more of the same was advertised in the Fox marketing campaign, despite all the talk about a world that was changed by the 1996 alien invasion. This time the aliens had bigger ships and bigger weapons for grander destruction, and that's about it.

- There was no real character driven nostalgia or promises of an interesting real-world post catastrophe metaphor. At least Jurassic World had a degree of subtext to it's premise.

- There was no Will Smith, and no sign of an equally charismatic leading man to take his place, just a slew of lesser "actors" like Liam Hemsworth. As much as we love Jeff Goldblum, he was not the only man shouldering the first film and wasn't able to elevate the material in the sequel. It was evidence from the first trailers that the new cast would not measure up to the old cast when it was their time in the spotlight.

- For anyone who didn't inherently care for the first film, there wasn't an adequate hook to attract newcomers apart from just the same disaster spectacle on a bigger scale. What would have made a fortune ten or twenty years ago just doesn't cut it anymore.

- Most importantly, it just didn't look fun. It looked more like a Transformers movie and lacked the bright, upbeat, humorous, optimistic spirit that most people who like ID4 remember it. Even the lack of David Arnold's uplifting, bombastic theme was sorely felt.

In conclusion, to use his own words, "Jurassic World sold itself as a must-see event for everyone. Independence Day: Resurgence disappointed because it relied entirely on the mere idea that there was another ID4 movie."

I would like to hear your guys thoughts on this; do you agree with Mendelson's assessments or do you beleive there was something he might have missed? Feel free to sound off down below

There is also something else that needs to be considered. The time between JP3 and JW compared to that of ID4 and ID4 2.

The time between JP3 and JW was 14 years. You could argue that we should have gotten JW sooner and the amount of time for them to finally realize that going back to basics was the best idea was absurd. That being said, when it finally came out, people loved it and it was a nice breath of fresh air from all these superhero movies.

ID4 2 is different. That is a movie that should have came out 10 years ago but didn't. Not only that, but Roland Emmerich had was not the draw he used to be. He only has himself to blame via his notorious 1998 Godzilla movie. That and no Will Smith either.

I could care less about Will Smith. That is not why I like Independence Day. I've always liked it because of the aliens (and Jeff Goldblum, which is what led me to the Jurassic Park franchise. Although I may not be that much into him anymore, it was because of Jeff Goldblum that I wanted to see Jurassic Park in the first place). Since I don't care for superhero movies, I really can't compare Resurgence to Transformers, but I would opt to see Resurgence than any superhero movie, and since I often accept a movie as it is, and don't tear it to bits (or else I wouldn't like it much either), there are very few sequels (and prequels, since I even enjoyed The Phantom Menace) that I actually dislike (the third installments of both Jurassic Park and The Mummy being the only ones).

As for Chris Pratt, the only movie I've seen him in is Jurassic World. Like I mentioned above, I don't care for superhero movies (or comedies or westerns, even though That Magnificent Seven looks interesting, but since I don't care for those types of movies, I'll probably wait for Jurassic World 2, even though I'm still not big on that dinosaurs on the mainland plot idea, though I'll still go see it, even if just out of curiousity. Even ideas I'm not that big on I'm willing to give a chance, if I like that kind of movie anyway). I don't go to sequels of popular movies because of the cast, I go because I'm a fan of the movie and/or franchise, since the cast is secondary to the characters, story and locations.

Island Queen wrote:

I could care less about Will Smith. That is not why I like Independence Day. I've always liked it because of the aliens (and Jeff Goldblum, which is what led me to the Jurassic Park franchise. Although I may not be that much into him anymore, it was because of Jeff Goldblum that I wanted to see Jurassic Park in the first place). Since I don't care for superhero movies, I really can't compare Resurgence to Transformers, but I would opt to see Resurgence than any superhero movie, and since I often accept a movie as it is, and don't tear it to bits (or else I wouldn't like it much either), there are very few sequels (and prequels, since I even enjoyed The Phantom Menace) that I actually dislike (the third installments of both Jurassic Park and The Mummy being the only ones).

As for Chris Pratt, the only movie I've seen him in is Jurassic World. Like I mentioned above, I don't care for superhero movies (or comedies or westerns, even though That Magnificent Seven looks interesting, but since I don't care for those types of movies, I'll probably wait for Jurassic World 2, even though I'm still not big on that dinosaurs on the mainland plot idea, though I'll still go see it, even if just out of curiousity. Even ideas I'm not that big on I'm willing to give a chance, if I like that kind of movie anyway). I don't go to sequels of popular movies because of the cast, I go because I'm a fan of the movie and/or franchise, since the cast is secondary to the characters, story and locations.

Those are all fair and valid reasons why an individual fan of the Jurassic Park series might see Jurassic World rather than Independence Day: Resurgence, but the terms I was specifying above were more applied to the general movie going public. Not everyone who goes to the cinema is a fan of aliens or science fiction, some might be gong because the film in question has good looking actors and actresses that they happen to be a fan of. And while it's true that Will Smith isn't as big a draw today as he used to be in the 90s, he is still considered an A-list actor.

I just watched Independence Day: Resurgence.

I think the film itself explains why it didn't make money.

Jurassic World honored the original film in many ways, but it had something new and fresh to offer. Its new characters, while not always having much depth, have charisma and charm (compare Chris Pratt and Liam Hemsworth for example. Both Bryce Dallas Howard and Maika Monroe are talented actresses, but Claire is a much better written/memorable character. Talking about supporting characters, Jake Johnson or Irrfan Khan, especially. Two side characters with not much characterization but still somehow memorable, because they have charm and are great actors).

Resurgence's characters are not only without depth, but they lack charisma.
The script does not even try to be original. The dialogues are often lame and the humor is like everywhere but 90% of the time it falls flat and forced.
Jurassic World humor is less but almost always funny, and often in appropriate context.

Jurassic World has ICONIC scenes also, that try to be different from JP ones. Mosasaurus eating the shark, Owen riding with the Raptors, Claire releasing the T-Rex.
Resurgence tries to be iconic just by re-making scenes from the original, failing miserably.

Oh, also... Michael Giacchino honored John Williams but also invented some great NEW stuff. Harald Kloser just mentioned a few times David Arnold's original themes, and then nothing. No other memorable music.

owenpratt wrote:

Resurgence's characters are not only without depth, but they lack charisma.
The script does not even try to be original. The dialogues are often lame and the humor is like everywhere but 90% of the time it falls flat and forced.
Jurassic World humor is less but almost always funny, and often in appropriate context.

Haven't seen Independance Day Resurgence, but to be honest I don't think Jurassic Worlds characters had any depth at all.

Physalisfresser wrote:

owenpratt wrote:

Resurgence's characters are not only without depth, but they lack charisma.
The script does not even try to be original. The dialogues are often lame and the humor is like everywhere but 90% of the time it falls flat and forced.
Jurassic World humor is less but almost always funny, and often in appropriate context.

Haven't seen Independance Day Resurgence, but to be honest I don't think Jurassic Worlds characters had any depth at all.

Granted, I don't think the new characters in Jurassic World are especially deep myself (at least not compared to other franchises or indeed the first film) but what mattered was that they were likeable enough thanks to good performances and good direction. I've been browsing clips of Independence Day: Resurgence on YouTube and it was very evident in my eyes that any spark of creativity Roland Emmerich had in his ability to direct has long since been snuffed out since the acting and directing was pretty messy throughout.

Physalisfresser wrote:

owenpratt wrote:

Resurgence's characters are not only without depth, but they lack charisma.
The script does not even try to be original. The dialogues are often lame and the humor is like everywhere but 90% of the time it falls flat and forced.
Jurassic World humor is less but almost always funny, and often in appropriate context.

Haven't seen Independance Day Resurgence, but to be honest I don't think Jurassic Worlds characters had any depth at all.

No, they're deep relatively to the fact that Jurassic World is (supposed to be) a pop-corn movie.
And trust me, if you see Resurgence, you will think Jurassic World is the masterpiece of characters depth XD

owenpratt wrote:

No, they're deep relatively to the fact that Jurassic World is (supposed to be) a pop-corn movie.
And trust me, if you see Resurgence, you will think Jurassic World is the masterpiece of characters depth XD

Ok I'll trust you

And don't get me wrong I liked Jurassic World a lot. I personally think if it had better written characters it would have been a very good movie.