General audiences reaction to the sequels

The Lost World
IMDB: 6,5
Rotten Tomatoes: 51/51%
Box office: $618.6 million

Jurassic Park III
IMDB: 5,9
Rotten Tomatoes: 50/36%
Box office: $368.8 million

Jurassic World
IMDB: 7,0
Rotten Tomatoes: 71/78%
Box office: $1.670 billion

You often get sense that TLW is universally regarded as disappointment among general public, because of the darker tone and unsatisfactory plot and other details. JP3 is often seen as the worst sequel, while JW the best. However, how do you see the mass reactions?

JW is the new one, fresh in everyone's memory, so that may or may not affect people's judgement, and obviously the side-merchandising and products and marketing blend it together in mind as well. But I think it's still pretty safe to say most prefer it over the other two. It has a plot and feel and themes and nostalgia closest to Jurassic Park, plus it uses modern blockbuster techniques, and whatever I or you or anyone in the fandom thinks of the quality of the film itself, it is what most people want right? Generally speaking?

In general discussion, I've also seen huge amount of people (critics as well) actually preferring JP3 over TLW, which is kinda fascinating when comparing the relationship between the films among the fans.

I think, while there is a broad consensus that Jurassic World is the "most-liked" sequel, it's no longer all the rage as it was during Summer 2015. It's certainly not referenced as much as Star Wars: Episode VII, Mad Max, or Creed. I remember Chris Stuckmann's review of The Force Awakens, praising it for handling itself as a bona fide sequel to a classic film better than Jurassic World, which he says went overboard with it's homage and just became a re-hash of Jurassic Park. And he had given the film a good 'B' rating earlier that year. Personally, I think TFA has more in common with the plot of A New Hope than JW has with the plot of Jurassic Park, but different strokes different folks.

One thing I've observed in my own real life encounters is that people who aren't as attached to the franchise as a whole tend to be more forgiving of JP3. Doug Walker is one such person, citing how comparatively short it is and how "it knows what it wants to be", which is a sentiment I rarely see eye to eye with. If that were the case, it would not have felt so rushed and half-baked. Being lighter in tone than The Lost World did not save it at the box office, compared to the second film.

What will be very interesting to me, however, is if the J.A. Bayona directed sequel not only does well financially but is considered a major step up from it's predecessor. I would expect public opinion on Jurassic World's quality to start slipping into the high to mid 6's on IMDB. Right now the only accepted great film to compare to is the first movie.

I believe Force Awakens is far, far, far more split-up than JW between the fans, you know in the arguments of it being complete rehash of the original, however among casual people I think they are/were both on solid grounds in terms of liking the film.

Jay Bauman of RLM and Brad Jones of Cinemasnob also prefer JP3 over TLW. Because they both pretty much see it as self aware B-movie whereas TLW has nothing in offer to them.

I basically agree with the general consensus regarding the ranking of the JP sequels, although I feel TLW gets shortchanged.

As far as I'm concerned, the franchise really only has one bad movie.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I basically agree with the general consensus regarding the ranking of the JP sequels, although I feel TLW gets shortchanged.

As far as I'm concerned, the franchise really only has one bad movie.

You and me both.

Tyrant Lizard wrote:

I basically agree with the general consensus regarding the ranking of the JP sequels, although I feel TLW gets shortchanged.

As far as I'm concerned, the franchise really only has one bad movie.

I've always felt that The Lost World was one of those movies that on the one hand is better then what a lot of people give it credit for. But on the other hand, it's really more of a movie for us fans then the GA.

It wasn't until my teens that I actually learned TLW was disliked by most people. Growing up I had always expected it to be about on the same level as JP in popularity, or perhaps couple of steps below but still relatively high. My sister and one of my friends had actually preferred TLW over JP as child, and I thought that only backed up my naive thinking.

I personally never had considered the second one to be anywhere near as good, not by million miles, despite seeing both of them within half a year for the first time. Yet I was still shocked to see the hate for the film later on, you know when I actually bothered looking up the situation. JP3, not so much

Maybe it's me, but TLW seems to be held in better regard nowadays then it did in the past.

I remember at one point seeing the IMDB rating for The Lost World at 6.3, and nowadays it's at a more solid 6.5. Who knows, it might even reach a 6.6 or higher. Meanwhile, Jurassic Park held a 8.0 spot for many years, and as recently as 2015 it got a boost to 8.1. Frankly I see it as an 8.5 upwards (for the purposes of IMDB, otherwise it's a 10/10 masterpiece to me), but better is better.

For me I would rate the film's like this :

JP - 9.5/10
TLW - 7.5/10
JP3 - 5.5/10
JW - 7/10

Hopefully the next is somewhere around an 8/10 so hoping for the best sequel to JP yet...

Jurassic Park, Deer Hunter, Platoon, Stand by Me, The Thing, Big Lebowski, Life of Brian, Gone with the Wind, Sixth Sense, Ben-Hur and Nausicaa and so on, all considered either cult or general flm history classics, sharing 8.1 with... Force Awakens... in the IMDB top 250 says all you need to know about the laughability of that chart.

I think more people will begin to show more appreciation of TLW. It's certainly my favourite sequel.

I don't understand why TLW got panned.

The Lost World's biggest fault in my eye is that the action takes a while to get going, and until then it's kind of a boring movie.

But it isn't worse than JP3. No way!

TheRexMan22 wrote:

I don't understand why TLW got panned.

The Lost World's biggest fault in my eye is that the action takes a while to get going, and until then it's kind of a boring movie.

But it isn't worse than JP3. No way!

Agreed. At least TLW was faithful to the first Jurassic Park movie. JP3 was just a lazy halfassed attempt so that Universal could have a JP trilogy, and it clearly shows. Say what you want about JW, but at least it had some of the magic of the first movie.

Truth be told, I often go back and forth on whether I prefer The Lost World over Jurassic World in terms of overall quality and enjoyability as a part of the JP series. It is the most faithful to the first film, and benefits from Spielberg's craftsmanship behind the camera. Just like the first film, I often cite it as an example of fantastic blending of practical animatronics and CGI to create the best effects possible.

IF Spielberg had mustered the interest and enthusiasm to direct a third Jurassic film and give the series an ending worth remembering, Jurassic World would have been perceived as a second coming of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, rather than it's current and rather tenuous position as "best sequel to JP". We may still debate it's quality, but it certainly didn't have the backlash of Crystal Skull or was considered a disappointment of a similar degree by the general public.

And even then, most of the criticism of Crystal Skull was focused at Lucas since people were beginning to realize how the Star Wars prequels should have been better then what they were. Personally, I say TLW is the better sequel, mainly because it was the first JP movie I saw in the theaters.

With its darker tone and greater emphasis on suspense over pure noisy spectacle, I don't think this sequel is going to do nearly as well at the box office as Jurassic World. Titanic, Avatar, and to a lesser extent Jurassic World all had cliched characters that didn't really challenge the audience to think, and TFA had this but with its story rather than characters. People like big, loud movies, and from what they're saying and implying, JW2 is going to be more reserved and intelligent, somewhere along the line of Jurassic Park.

As for how well it will be received, it's hard to say. Critical reception to JW on Rotten Tomatoes probably would've been closer to 90% if it weren't for the screenplay's frenzied pace and handling of Claire and Vic Hoskins, but then like I said it probably wouldn't have been such a huge box office hit.

Glad to see one of the youtubers I follow is in the same wave length in this as I
https://twitter.com/HarshlyCritical/status/833146971200352257

I think JW was actually the weakest JP movie. But I still like it and don't think it's bad.

I think JP3 does have some of those magical JP moments and I'm a rare fan who actually loves TLW and JP3, and I can't decide between them. I've got major issues and praise for both films in different areas. I know that's unpopular but that's where I stand.

I've noticed that the love for the first movie is the same if not sightly higher. With TLW, I've noticed that it's got more respect as time has gone by. I really think that's because it has far more 'magic' then the other 2 sequels have. With JP3, it's bad reputation is pretty much the same. It may be slightly more liked by some people, but it's just a marginal upgrade. People realize that it's just a cash grab for a JP trilogy. I see that some others have seen more good in it, it only makes watching it more painful. With JW, people still like it and it has some of the magic/nostalgia value, but think that it's a $1 billion-$1.2 billion movie that should have been a bit better.

This is from what I've seen/read/heard.

My guess is that if Jurassic Park 5/JW2 ends up being really good, benefiting from Bayona's direction, inspiration from the Crichton books and a healthy mix of animatronics and more impressive CGI, Jurassic World will probably end up being regarded as fairly incidental and unimportant in the wider franchise. Even with certain characters transitioning into it and the set-up provided from the ending of John Hammond's dream, it is still considered too flawed in it's own way, whether it's the lack of suspense or thinly written characters, to be in the ball-park of the first film. It could even be the subject of obscurity in comparison to it's successor if Bayona really delivers.

Troyal1 wrote:

I think JW was actually the weakest JP movie. But I still like it and don't think it's bad.

I think JP3 does have some of those magical JP moments and I'm a rare fan who actually loves TLW and JP3, and I can't decide between them. I've got major issues and praise for both films in different areas. I know that's unpopular but that's where I stand.

I can relate. JP3 is far from a perfect movie, but I always keep going back to it because of how we see Alan Grant encounter dinosaurs again, which is interesting, and some spectacular dinosaur action scenes, which didn't need any "Hey, remember this from the first movie?" references. It stood on its own.

Lost wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

I think JW was actually the weakest JP movie. But I still like it and don't think it's bad.

I think JP3 does have some of those magical JP moments and I'm a rare fan who actually loves TLW and JP3, and I can't decide between them. I've got major issues and praise for both films in different areas. I know that's unpopular but that's where I stand.

I can relate. JP3 is far from a perfect movie, but I always keep going back to it because of how we see Alan Grant encounter dinosaurs again, which is interesting, and some spectacular dinosaur action scenes, which didn't need any "Hey, remember this from the first movie?" references. It stood on its own.

Unfortunately, for me, the caveat of that movie is that even though Grant is a better character than Owen, and Sam Neill a better actor than Chris Pratt, his arc in that film is pretty much the same as is in the first film. Right down to involving a financial incentive from (allegedly) rich benefactors to help with his digs, and even the "getting used to kids" arc is re-used in a more toned down fashion with him forming a somewhat paternal friendship with Eric just as he did with Lex and Tim. Overall, it was like watching him learn the same things over again. And him not being with Ellie sure did not help matters.

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Lost wrote:

Troyal1 wrote:

I think JW was actually the weakest JP movie. But I still like it and don't think it's bad.

I think JP3 does have some of those magical JP moments and I'm a rare fan who actually loves TLW and JP3, and I can't decide between them. I've got major issues and praise for both films in different areas. I know that's unpopular but that's where I stand.

I can relate. JP3 is far from a perfect movie, but I always keep going back to it because of how we see Alan Grant encounter dinosaurs again, which is interesting, and some spectacular dinosaur action scenes, which didn't need any "Hey, remember this from the first movie?" references. It stood on its own.

Unfortunately, for me, the caveat of that movie is that even though Grant is a better character than Owen, and Sam Neill a better actor than Chris Pratt, his arc in that film is pretty much the same as is in the first film. Right down to involving a financial incentive from (allegedly) rich benefactors to help with his digs, and even the "getting used to kids" arc is re-used in a more toned down fashion with him forming a somewhat paternal friendship with Eric just as he did with Lex and Tim. Overall, it was like watching him learn the same things over again. And him not being with Ellie sure did not help matters.

Not only that, but he also came across as kind of a cranky old man for much of the movie. I had a hard time recognizing him from what he was in JP. Malcolm was not changed that much for TLW. I still consider that proof of how he never liked JP3, since he was pretty disappointed behind the scenes from what I remember.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Malcolm was not changed that much for TLW.

Yes he was

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Malcolm was not changed that much for TLW.

Yes he was

Really? It never came across that way to me at all. He just seemed like the same person a different environment, this time around people he loved.

Where in the first movie he came to the park to basically be a know it all asshole critic. And act "cool".

Troyal1 wrote:

Mistral wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

Malcolm was not changed that much for TLW.

Yes he was

Really? It never came across that way to me at all. He just seemed like the same person a different environment, this time around people he loved.

Where in the first movie he came to the park to basically be a know it all asshole critic. And act "cool".

Well my viewpoints are here
https://jurassicmainframe.forumotion.com/t904-changed-characteristics-of-malcolm-grant

I like Malcolm in TLW. Serious, but still Malcolm.

It would've benefitted from even brief exposition why he's changed so much. As kid I couldn't believe it was supposed to be the same character.

Malcolm was much more serious and gloomy in TLW, perhaps shaped by his experience in Jurassic Park, but it's not a change for the better in terms of enjoying him as a character. His witty sarcasm had turned into a gloomy sarcasm. But it will be extremely interesting to see what he's like in JW2, 20 years later. I can't wait,