Was JW too much an action movie for your taste?

JP and TLW were more suspense/adventure films than JP3 and JW which had a faster paced and more action scenes.

Now I still very much love JW but I do hope the next film is a little bit more slower paced and suspenseful.

I think it's more a problem with the pacing of JW than the abundance of action scenes. From the time the kids get to the ruins of the visitor center the movie just rolls from one action scene to the next. The audience is given very little time to breathe, and it contributes to the second half of the movie flying by; JP3 suffered from this pacing problem as well.

I think JW required a bit more substance and more intelligent dialogue. All of the human interactions seemed watered down, suspense was at a minimal the entire movie and it seems action was heavily favored over character development/ plot devices.

Megaspino2 wrote:

I think it's more a problem with the pacing of JW than the abundance of action scenes. From the time the kids get to the ruins of the visitor center the movie just rolls from one action scene to the next. The audience is given very little time to breathe, and it contributes to the second half of the movie flying by; JP3 suffered from this pacing problem as well.

There was a deleted scene between them I think, but all of the deleted scenes shown on the DVD were thankfully cut for a reason.

If it became the standard for future Jurassic movies (aka copious action and bizarre concepts that don't gel with the first movie) then I would certainly regard it with more frustration and disdain. If the J.A. Bayona sequel pans out well and revives the storytelling formula of JP and TLW, then we will probably see JW as the exception to the rule, sort of a better-made dino action flick with some science fiction ideas floating around than JP3 ultimately was.

As it stands, pacing is the issue, it really could have benefited from five to ten minutes of characters exploring the park, the island and allowing for some (hopefully) decent dialogue. The one deleted scene that I wish stayed in was Zach and Grey's dialogue about how humans could not evolve while the dinosaurs were still around. Add a few sonorous dinosaur cries and other jungle noises and you'd have a nice downtime scene with a good atmosphere. But that would just be a starter, in my opinion, a few more scenes that allow the characters to develop or simply to bask in the presence of dinosaurs at peace would have been welcomed.

If JW didn't look like cartoon video game and have dumb plot I might have been okay-ish with the more action oriented pacing.

For I don't think JP3 action pacing was bad at all in contrast, apart from the few obvious fall downs. The flow was pretty natural even if the 90min length reduced the possibilities.

Mistral wrote:

If JW didn't look like cartoon video game and have dumb plot I might have been okay-ish with the more action oriented pacing.

For I don't think JP3 action pacing was bad at all in contrast, apart from the few obvious fall downs. The flow was pretty natural even if the 90min length reduced the possibilities.

I disagree that JW had a dumb plot but it did have a video game feel to it due to the constant action and 99% CGI.

I just wish that all the time and money spent on self-referential JP easter egg stuff "Hey audience, remember this? Get it?? *wink wink*, I wish they had spent only some of that on developing suspense and intelligent dialogue that made the viewer actually feel something. As I rewatched the movie again recently, this was my biggest disappointment. That, the silly dialogue, the kids sub-plot taking me out of the excitement every 10 minutes and for heaven's sake, the friggin kiss while human beings are being terrorized all around you. What the hell is wrong with you, Hollywood?

Speaking of that wink-winking, it's now three times that I've tried to rewatch the film after only getting to the end just once in theater, but always I have to put final stop to it mid way through when they got to that stupid old visitor center and the kids are looking around for the references like idiots for no reason. It's so cringe worthy. Like cherry on top, big reference on top of other needless references.

Lost wrote:

That, the silly dialogue, the kids sub-plot taking me out of the excitement every 10 minutes and for heaven's sake, the friggin kiss while human beings are being terrorized all around you. What the hell is wrong with you, Hollywood?

While I am not exactly an apologist for that kiss scene in the film, its worth noting that was a bit of an improvised scene devised between Trevorrow and Pratt and was not in the original script, that's why Bryce reacted in a certain surprised way when Pratt leaned in for a snog. At any rate, Bryce didn't seem to mind it. With that said, they obviously must have had several takes where that kiss wasn't in it, and I would have preferred if they went with those ones because it doesn't factor into the rest of the movie and just comes off as a spur-of-the-moment thing. The fact that there was pterosaur pandemonium around them is actually the least of my complaints.

Also, if this is just me who feels this way, then fine, but for me them exploring the old visitors center was basically them uncovering the long buried secret of Jurassic Park as it almost was. Hammond's original vision was something more sincere, comparativley down to earth, and less of a corporate show than the park that it ultimately became with Masrani Global. I thought it was a rather poignant way of showing how much that original iteration of the park had been overtaken by the jungle and covered up by the new management. What had been described as a "temple" dedicated to the dinosaurs in the Making-Of book was now a literal lost temple, like something out of Indiana Jones. It wasn't until they got to the garage and then the visual references became a bit much for me, but again hardly enough to break the film in my eyes.

Preference A) No visitor center at all as it serves no purpose whatsoever
Preference B) If you have to show it, have the destroyed ruins of it there. As in, only pieces and fractions here and there among the flora and ground, showing that InGen/Masrani got rid of it long ago, as would have happened if logic actually existed here. Zack wouldn't know what the hell he was looking at, but the other kid, you know the one with awkward smile all the time, would. But he wouldn't tell him and they'd just continue on after walking over it.

It wasn't just the visitor center, it was everywhere, from the t-rex feeding with the goat and the flare (what, a t-rex just eats goats and can't find its food without a flare? WTF?) to the t-shirt Lowery was wearing while saying "the old park was legit". My god the whole movie was one big nostalgia fest.

Yeah I know it wasn't just that, probably half of my posts on this forum complain about the references/fanservice in that film, but it's the one defined moment in the film where I visibly want to barf and cannot continue on.

In a way it might be a positive thing that I can't ever seem to finish it again, since more than anything walking out of the theater I hated the big dumb over exploitation T-Rex/I-Rex/Raptor finale with the references glued to the screen all over. And Owen & Claire silhouetting themselves and the kids just like Grant, Sattler and the kids. So terrible. I mean I know it's soft reboot, not "real" sequel if you think about it, but c'mon not everything needs to be referenced.

Mistral wrote:

Yeah I know it wasn't just that, probably half of my posts on this forum complain about the references/fanservice in that film, but it's the one defined moment in the film where I visibly want to barf and cannot continue on.

In a way it might be a positive thing that I can't ever seem to finish it again, since more than anything walking out of the theater I hated the big dumb over exploitation T-Rex/I-Rex/Raptor finale with the references glued to the screen all over. And Owen & Claire silhouetting themselves and the kids just like Grant, Sattler and the kids. So terrible. I mean I know it's soft reboot, not "real" sequel if you think about it, but c'mon not everything needs to be referenced.

Yeah my post wasn't directly addressed at you, apologies if you thought so. And I agree with you totally. The countless references to JP is the number one reason why I enjoy this film less and less. That gives me no pleasure to say, because I waited 14 years for it. But I just hate that the movie can't exist as a true sequel or reboot, it exists as this "hey, remember all this stuff? Well now we're showing it to you again 22 years later, only much dumber!".

I look forward to JW2 because probably it will be different. I needed a JP sequel, not a JP nostalgia party.

Absolutely. It needed way more quiet moments.

I still really feel like after all that time we needed a good portion of the film that was actually celebrating the fact that a Jurassic park had been opened. There a few scenes here and there but not much joy regarding that.

And I realize the director wanted people to feel jaded to a Dino park, but as we the audience.... I can't speak for everyone but I was not at all about to be jaded by seeing Nublar up and running.

"People are bored with dinosaurs" didn't exactly help.

I would say that the wink wink references/fanservice are item number #3 on my top 5 reasons why I despise this film.

1) It's a lazy rehash-remake-reboot premise plot
2) Awful plastic effects and decor
3) Fanservice references
4) Canon continuity errors
5) Logic of the park

There is no chance really that JP5 could be worse than it, because to achieve that it'd have to not only be direct remake of TLW, but also generally gargantuan piece of crap of epic proportions. I think the reliance on even slightly more animatronics alone will quarantee it getting past, even if the rest doesn't work. But of course I hope it does.

Originally, I was going to share this video on a new forum topic, but I thought it would be worth sharing here. Basically, this guy Justin, a.k.a. TimidJester on Channel Awesome, gives us his thoughts on how he would improve the story and plot of Jurassic World.

The basic plot is much the same, a functioning and popular theme park, with one fundamental difference: this is Lex Murphy's story. After years of education (and psychiatry) she is in a reluctant position of being Hammond's heir to the park and is faced with the dilemma of dealing with a jerkass buyer who wants to promote the hybridization of the dinosaurs.

Also of note; gone are the parents, Hoskins, Lowery and Vivian, Wu is not vilified, but the brothers' exploration of the park is retained but pared down to its essential minimum. Also instead of taking a gyrosphere "off-road", the brothers take a boat deeper into the park. We have Lex and Owen having more of a rivalry and tension between them while agreeing that the I. rex is a bad idea, as well as Lex's anxiety and memories of the original park. Her arc is overcoming these anxieties and becoming a straight-up badass in the process. Credit where it's due, I think these changes would have improved the film's reception.

One problem is that sadly Ariana Richards isn't in the acting business (or at least very seldom is), so she would probably be recast (I'd go with Melissa Benoist if not for her role in Supergirl). Another more significant problem I have with this draft is that the I. rex is introduced as one of Hammond's ideas before he died, and I do not see eye to eye with that being in line with Hammond's character. Also, he says in his version there were no "bro-nods between the Raptor and the T. rex" - only... there were no such moments in the film, I don't think they even so much as nodded. (And yes, I know what people say about that scene!)



Anyway, what do you guys (and especially Mistral) think?

As I stated in the other thread, I hate that the whole final act seemed to be taken out of the cookie cutter super hero movies we have 4+ every year, I hated the Indominus/Rex fight. These are dinosaurs not super powered humans that fight for 30 minutes, it should've been a quick set piece not this whole drama "is the T-Rex going to make it" but even before that as the main characters try to use the raptors and run against the Indominus and then go to free the T-Rex to save thed ay, it just doesn't work in a movie like JP. But I don't think it was too much like an action movie and i don't think JP/// as an action movie either, generic monster movie? sure but not action.

\

Mistral wrote:

4) Canon continuity errors
5) Logic of the park
.

What do you mean by these?

I do think it lacked suspense, which disappointed me a lot. Things just suddenly happened, including the indominus breakout. We didn't even get a chance to get excited beforehand about what was about to happen. This is something I'm very pleased that they've said they will change for JW2, and them hiring J.A. Bayona proves it. I want suspense from a JP movie, it's what made the first movie so great. That, the sense of adventure, intelligent dialogue and likeable characters. Which is also why I'm happy that Malcolm is returning, along with Wu being back. Claire and Owen on their own simply isn't likeable enough for me. I'm also excited that they are bringing in a lot of dinosaurs we've not seen before. All this makes me very hopeful that JW2 will be the best JP sequel we've seen yet.

Truth be told, Jurassic Park, as a franchise, was never meant to be a fun action packed blockbuster flick. It was meant to be a serious science fiction film that discusses both the wonders and flaws of genetic technology, and an insight into the consequences of when humans try to play God. Kids were an afterthought, a demographic you could sell toys and happy meals to, but not necessarily consider to see the movie. Spielberg wanted the movie rated PG-13 so that it specifically wasn't for kids. He even financed a movie along side the one he was making called "We're Back! A Dinosaur Story" that he wanted to be the kid-friendly alternative to "Jurassic Park". Kids were not his intended target demographic for the movie. The fact that kids could enjoy the movie was a separate matter, however the movie was not made with children in mind. Sure, there were a few yucks thrown in, but pretty much every joke in the original two movies were the result of writer David Koepp's inclusion in the writing team. Ian Malcolm's sarcastic wit? All Koepp. Take that away, read the drafts done before Koepp, and you have a film whose tone is much closer to the serious science thriller that was Crichton's work. "Jurassic Park" had plenty of intellectually thought provoking dialogue of which Jurassic World had little. I don't doubt the director Colin Trevorrow's ability to direct a film, however his and writer Derek Connolly's writing skills (especially Connolly's) leave something to desired. The one liners aren't as memorable, and the dialogue is not as thought provoking nor as intellectual. I found that Trevorrow and Connolly were unable to conform to the writing style of the previous films chief writing staff members (in "Jurassic Park's" case: David Koepp and Michael Crichton).

I don't even get why (commercial reasons aside) it needs/needed to be a franchise. Why does one of the most iconic film of all time require franchise around it? This isn't like Star Trek with millions of layers of possibilities and pre-existing entities. Clearly the lack of imagination in the writing of the later sequels and products shows that just like in say Star Wars, it's "universe" isn't that wide and full of ideas as people would like to admit. It's narrower. This is shown when you need to rely on same things over and over again, and then when you try things that actually are somewhat different (TLW darker atmosphere, Spino shenanigans, weaponized dinos & SW prequels) most people hate it. And yes, those different ideas might be terrible ones, but there's a reason so few of them are even tried out. If you cannot come up with good new ideas... What's the point of continuing?

Mistral wrote:

I don't even get why (commercial reasons aside) it needs/needed to be a franchise. Why does one of the most iconic film of all time require franchise around it? This isn't like Star Trek with millions of layers of possibilities and pre-existing entities. Clearly the lack of imagination in the writing of the later sequels and products shows that just like in say Star Wars, it's "universe" isn't that wide and full of ideas as people would like to admit. It's narrower. This is shown when you need to rely on same things over and over again, and then when you try things that actually are somewhat different (TLW darker atmosphere, Spino shenanigans, weaponized dinos & SW prequels) most people hate it. And yes, those different ideas might be terrible ones, but there's a reason so few of them are even tried out. If you cannot come up with good new ideas... What's the point of continuing?

Well, there is a lot that can be explored, but I do agree that just the name "Jurassic Park III" sounds a bit strange. I mean, the Third Movie about Jurassic Park? And I'm sure people wondered how the hell Spielberg would make a sequel to the first movie. How do you follow up that movie? Thankfully, he went in the right direction with it (thanks to Crichton).

BarrytheOnyx wrote:

Originally, I was going to share this video on a new forum topic, but I thought it would be worth sharing here. Basically, this guy Justin, a.k.a. TimidJester on Channel Awesome, gives us his thoughts on how he would improve the story and plot of Jurassic World.

The basic plot is much the same, a functioning and popular theme park, with one fundamental difference: this is Lex Murphy's story. After years of education (and psychiatry) she is in a reluctant position of being Hammond's heir to the park and is faced with the dilemma of dealing with a jerkass buyer who wants to promote the hybridization of the dinosaurs.

Also of note; gone are the parents, Hoskins, Lowery and Vivian, Wu is not vilified, but the brothers' exploration of the park is retained but pared down to its essential minimum. Also instead of taking a gyrosphere "off-road", the brothers take a boat deeper into the park. We have Lex and Owen having more of a rivalry and tension between them while agreeing that the I. rex is a bad idea, as well as Lex's anxiety and memories of the original park. Her arc is overcoming these anxieties and becoming a straight-up badass in the process. Credit where it's due, I think these changes would have improved the film's reception.

One problem is that sadly Ariana Richards isn't in the acting business (or at least very seldom is), so she would probably be recast (I'd go with Melissa Benoist if not for her role in Supergirl). Another more significant problem I have with this draft is that the I. rex is introduced as one of Hammond's ideas before he died, and I do not see eye to eye with that being in line with Hammond's character. Also, he says in his version there were no "bro-nods between the Raptor and the T. rex" - only... there were no such moments in the film, I don't think they even so much as nodded. (And yes, I know what people say about that scene!)



Anyway, what do you guys (and especially Mistral) think?

What he says here is very true... Lions and Tigers have been around for thousands of years and humans have been fascinated by them for centuries and continue to be 2 of the most popular animals ever. That´s why I never bought the idea that people lost interest in dinosaurs in 10 or 20 years...

I don't see why Lex would ever take over after Hammond's death. I doubt she'd ever want to go back to the place ever again. I hate the idea of forcing the kids back into the franchise as adults as if they were destined to be future Dinosaur experts.

One of the problems of Jurassic World (among many others) was not simply that it had too much action but that it was action without any suspense or tension whatsoever.

It was bombastic like crazy. It was BOOM EXPLOSION!!!! BOOM MORE EXPLOSIONS!!!

One of the problems of Jurassic World (among many others) was not simply that it had too much action but that it was action without any suspense or tension whatsoever.

It was bombastic like crazy. It was BOOM EXPLOSION!!!! BOOM MORE EXPLOSIONS!!!

There was a couple of suspenseful moments in Jurassic World but the problem was you knew the main characters wouldn't be killed.

I wouldn't call it bombastic at least compared to The Fast and the Furious latter films.

Jurassic Fan 1994 wrote:

There was a couple of suspenseful moments in Jurassic World but the problem was you knew the main characters wouldn't be killed.

I wouldn't call it bombastic at least compared to The Fast and the Furious latter films.

I agree, that was one of the main reasons why Jurassic World had no suspense or tension. You just knew none of the main character would be harmed.

Even watching it for the first time without much knowledge of what was going to happen I just felt no tension or suspense whatsoever.

Heck as much as I hate Jurassic Park 3, I do have to admit that when it comes to suspense, tension and thrils, it does blow Jurassic World right out of the water.

CT-1138 wrote:

Truth be told, Jurassic Park, as a franchise, was never meant to be a fun action packed blockbuster flick. It was meant to be a serious science fiction film that discusses both the wonders and flaws of genetic technology, and an insight into the consequences of when humans try to play God. Kids were an afterthought, a demographic you could sell toys and happy meals to, but not necessarily consider to see the movie. Spielberg wanted the movie rated PG-13 so that it specifically wasn't for kids. He even financed a movie along side the one he was making called "We're Back! A Dinosaur Story" that he wanted to be the kid-friendly alternative to "Jurassic Park". Kids were not his intended target demographic for the movie. The fact that kids could enjoy the movie was a separate matter, however the movie was not made with children in mind. Sure, there were a few yucks thrown in, but pretty much every joke in the original two movies were the result of writer David Koepp's inclusion in the writing team. Ian Malcolm's sarcastic wit? All Koepp. Take that away, read the drafts done before Koepp, and you have a film whose tone is much closer to the serious science thriller that was Crichton's work. "Jurassic Park" had plenty of intellectually thought provoking dialogue of which Jurassic World had little. I don't doubt the director Colin Trevorrow's ability to direct a film, however his and writer Derek Connolly's writing skills (especially Connolly's) leave something to desired. The one liners aren't as memorable, and the dialogue is not as thought provoking nor as intellectual. I found that Trevorrow and Connolly were unable to conform to the writing style of the previous films chief writing staff members (in "Jurassic Park's" case: David Koepp and Michael Crichton).

All of this. The main problem I have with the JW movies are that they are basically 'here and now' movies that pander to the lowest common denominator to make as much money as possible. The problem with that is by doing that, you are cheapening the franchise and damaging the long term viability. Look at how Michael Bay crippled both Transformers and TNMT when it comes to being viable movie franchise. We can throw in the Joel Schumacher Batman movies as well.

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Truth be told, Jurassic Park, as a franchise, was never meant to be a fun action packed blockbuster flick. It was meant to be a serious science fiction film that discusses both the wonders and flaws of genetic technology, and an insight into the consequences of when humans try to play God. Kids were an afterthought, a demographic you could sell toys and happy meals to, but not necessarily consider to see the movie. Spielberg wanted the movie rated PG-13 so that it specifically wasn't for kids. He even financed a movie along side the one he was making called "We're Back! A Dinosaur Story" that he wanted to be the kid-friendly alternative to "Jurassic Park". Kids were not his intended target demographic for the movie. The fact that kids could enjoy the movie was a separate matter, however the movie was not made with children in mind. Sure, there were a few yucks thrown in, but pretty much every joke in the original two movies were the result of writer David Koepp's inclusion in the writing team. Ian Malcolm's sarcastic wit? All Koepp. Take that away, read the drafts done before Koepp, and you have a film whose tone is much closer to the serious science thriller that was Crichton's work. "Jurassic Park" had plenty of intellectually thought provoking dialogue of which Jurassic World had little. I don't doubt the director Colin Trevorrow's ability to direct a film, however his and writer Derek Connolly's writing skills (especially Connolly's) leave something to desired. The one liners aren't as memorable, and the dialogue is not as thought provoking nor as intellectual. I found that Trevorrow and Connolly were unable to conform to the writing style of the previous films chief writing staff members (in "Jurassic Park's" case: David Koepp and Michael Crichton).

All of this. The main problem I have with the JW movies are that they are basically 'here and now' movies that pander to the lowest common denominator to make as much money as possible. The problem with that is by doing that, you are cheapening the franchise and damaging the long term viability. Look at how Michael Bay crippled both Transformers and TNMT when it comes to being viable movie franchise. We can throw in the Joel Schumacher Batman movies as well.

Wich is why although there was hype for Jurassic World before it was released, all of the hype vanished within the first weeks. The hype was all due to brand name recogntion.

Now both Jurassic World and Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom have had plenty of hate and are overall not fondly remembered.

If anything they made quite a number of people go back to The Lost World and say "Huh...This sequel was a lot smarter than the rest".

#TRexSpinorematch wrote:

Rhedosaurus wrote:

CT-1138 wrote:

Truth be told, Jurassic Park, as a franchise, was never meant to be a fun action packed blockbuster flick. It was meant to be a serious science fiction film that discusses both the wonders and flaws of genetic technology, and an insight into the consequences of when humans try to play God. Kids were an afterthought, a demographic you could sell toys and happy meals to, but not necessarily consider to see the movie. Spielberg wanted the movie rated PG-13 so that it specifically wasn't for kids. He even financed a movie along side the one he was making called "We're Back! A Dinosaur Story" that he wanted to be the kid-friendly alternative to "Jurassic Park". Kids were not his intended target demographic for the movie. The fact that kids could enjoy the movie was a separate matter, however the movie was not made with children in mind. Sure, there were a few yucks thrown in, but pretty much every joke in the original two movies were the result of writer David Koepp's inclusion in the writing team. Ian Malcolm's sarcastic wit? All Koepp. Take that away, read the drafts done before Koepp, and you have a film whose tone is much closer to the serious science thriller that was Crichton's work. "Jurassic Park" had plenty of intellectually thought provoking dialogue of which Jurassic World had little. I don't doubt the director Colin Trevorrow's ability to direct a film, however his and writer Derek Connolly's writing skills (especially Connolly's) leave something to desired. The one liners aren't as memorable, and the dialogue is not as thought provoking nor as intellectual. I found that Trevorrow and Connolly were unable to conform to the writing style of the previous films chief writing staff members (in "Jurassic Park's" case: David Koepp and Michael Crichton).

All of this. The main problem I have with the JW movies are that they are basically 'here and now' movies that pander to the lowest common denominator to make as much money as possible. The problem with that is by doing that, you are cheapening the franchise and damaging the long term viability. Look at how Michael Bay crippled both Transformers and TNMT when it comes to being viable movie franchise. We can throw in the Joel Schumacher Batman movies as well.

Wich is why although there was hype for Jurassic World before it was released, all of the hype vanished within the first weeks. The hype was all due to brand name recogntion.

Now both Jurassic World and Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom have had plenty of hate and are overall not fondly remembered.

If anything they made quite a number of people go back to The Lost World and say "Huh...This sequel was a lot smarter than the rest".

In fairness, I do remember that there was still much hype for the first JW after it came out. But yes, I have noticed more lover for TLW and less for the last 2 JW movies.