Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

Discuss films of the 21st century including current cinema, current filmmakers, and film festivals.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Robespierre
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:31 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#126 Post by Robespierre » Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:22 pm

Ok good..that does bode well considering the original is one of my favourites. That being said, I remember they did apparently mess up the Bourne movies, so I'll err on the side of caution especially since some work would have to be done to colour correct the original. I'll keep my mind open and wait for caps.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#127 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:56 am

Luke M wrote:
Ribs wrote:Shame they're forcing you to buy the Johnston and the Trevorrow to get to the Spielberg(s), though
Having caught the Spielberg’s and Trevorrow on tv on a lazy Saturday, I’ve found Jurassic World to be a lot more rewatchable than The Lost World.
That said, you loved the film upon first watch, right?
Luke M wrote:I thought Jurassic World was fantastic.
I could certainly see how you found it rewatchable, if that's the case. On the other hand, I'd consider throwing my television into a ravine if I couldn't change the channel.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#128 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:09 pm

Ribs wrote:Shame they're forcing you to buy the Johnston and the Trevorrow to get to the Spielberg(s), though
There will be directly individual releases in Europe, so maybe they're just not announced yet in the US.
Ribs wrote:I don't believe there has been a single UHD release from any of the studios that's taking a 35mm source and not basing it on a 4K scan. Plenty of 2.8K upscales from digital, but don't really see why there's much concern for these - they'll be based on a 4K transfer.
I suspect the concerns are about Universal's usual hands-on approach. They've been doing 4K scans for some years but in many cases, they couldn't resist digitally tampering with the results. There are some infamous examples like the latest restoration for An American Werewolf in London, and IIRC, Jurassic Park and The Lost World existing BDs were from new 4K scans which were digitally tampered with. Jaws was also slightly degrained though I always found the filtering to be extremely light on this one.

So past the scanning resolution itself, people are probably eager to see if the studio has learnt from its mistakes and will choose a more hands-off approach. This being written, if E.T. and Apollo 13 are anything to go by, there shouldn't be cause for worries.
Robespierre wrote:That being said, I remember they did apparently mess up the Bourne movies.
Only the first one, which seems to have used an older master for the UHD, with a poorly handled contrast correction.
However, it looks like Universal UHD reputation is otherwise quite good so far regarding the few catalog movies they released so far (E.T., Apollo 13, The Mummy trilogy, 3 of the 4 Bourne movies, The Grinch, ...).
Last edited by tenia on Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
andyli
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 4:46 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#129 Post by andyli » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:22 pm

Men in Black is Sony. I think some people are fearing that the Jurassic Park UHD turns into a T2 case, i.e. grains scrubbed for the 3D conversion process.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#130 Post by tenia » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:28 pm

Indeed, they're Sony. I reported them without realising that when looking at the blu-ray.com database, which has some of their releases under Universal.
andyli wrote:I think some people are fearing that the Jurassic Park UHD turns into a T2 case, i.e. grains scrubbed for the 3D conversion process.
Exactly.

User avatar
Luke M
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#131 Post by Luke M » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:00 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:
Luke M wrote:
Ribs wrote:Shame they're forcing you to buy the Johnston and the Trevorrow to get to the Spielberg(s), though
Having caught the Spielberg’s and Trevorrow on tv on a lazy Saturday, I’ve found Jurassic World to be a lot more rewatchable than The Lost World.
That said, you loved the film upon first watch, right?
Luke M wrote:I thought Jurassic World was fantastic.
I could certainly see how you found it rewatchable, if that's the case. On the other hand, I'd consider throwing my television into a ravine if I couldn't change the channel.
Guilty. But I’m not nearly as high on it as I used to be but I still find it fairly enjoyable.


User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#133 Post by mfunk9786 » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:52 pm

A fate worse than blacklisting

User avatar
Big Ben
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 12:54 pm
Location: Great Falls, Montana

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#134 Post by Big Ben » Fri Mar 30, 2018 3:54 pm

I can't wait to see Book of Henry 2.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#135 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:37 am

Image

That is..... some tagline.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#136 Post by McCrutchy » Thu Jun 28, 2018 4:58 pm

Fallen Kingdom certainly fell hard. I don't remember the 2015 film all that much because I think I tried to forget it, but the sequel just feels so painfully bland and pointless. If you felt like I do, everything you feared watching the trailer has come true, except more, because I didn't pay attention to the marketing that well.

The sequel provides
SpoilerShow
the requisite annoying child, the seems-too-nice-to-not-be-a-villain businessman, the "hardass" hunter/tracker, the annoying tag along 20-something characters who are there to relate to the teenage audience, and so many other tired tropes that the whole thing just becomes incredibly boring. Specifically in this film, there is a pathetically tenuous linkage to John Hammond in the form of a long lost business partner Benjamin Lockwood, who as far as I know, has never been mentioned before in any of the films, and was made up for the film. Lockwood is played by the usually excellent James Cromwell, who is nullified by one of the absolute poorest attempts at an English accent I have ever heard, not because the accent is that bad per se, but because it's hardly there. This would make some sense since Lockwood has a mansion in and apparently lives in California, but his live-in granddaughter (requisite annoying child) speaks with a perfectly natural English accent, which makes Cromwell's accent all the more puzzling.

Bryce and Chris are back to add nothing to the film, too. He has been building a cabin (!) and she has been advocating to move dinosaurs off of Jurassic World because a volcano is going to explode and kill them all. The film is ostensibly about a "rescue" of the dinosaurs that requires both Bryce and Chris as well as a small army of hapless supporting characters, including Ted Levine as the hardass tracker guy who you know will be eaten/mauled to death by dinosaurs. Midway through the film, the obvious twist that the snazzy young businessman who bankrolled the "rescue" is really out to exploit the dinosaurs to make dinosaur biological weapons happens, after which there is a dinosaur auction, and then the dinosaurs broken out are set free. That's right, the dinosaurs in this movie are basically a MacGuffin! And in case you thought the oh-so-tired plot would at least be executed in a novel, if not at least fun way, it isn't, thanks to the new 20-something characters (one of which is so annoying you want him to die almost immediately) and the child character, who all end up in the last act of the film with Bryce and Chris. Okay, that one raptor, Blue, is also here and is sort of a character, but she is not explored enough, just like the presence of B.D. Wong in both of these Jurassic World movies isn't explored enough, or how the ideas of dinosaurs as generically-altered beings being sold into slavery aren't considered. This is just a loud, dumb movie that unfortunately is also tired and old instead of exciting and innovative.

As a side note, Toby Jones is in this (doing an iffier American accent than Rafe Spall), and in his first scene, he is dressed so that he looks exactly like an overgrown schoolboy. It's really kind of creepy, especially as he's supposed to be playing this corrupt businessman, and you would think a big-budget Hollywood film would find suitable costumes for each actor with a significant part. He looks more appropriately-costumed in a different scene later in the film, but his first scene was giving me all kinds of flashbacks to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

Of course, Jeff Goldblum gets basically one scene, which is two scenes and bookends the film, so that the filmmakers can counter the "he's only in one scene!" complaint. It's a complete waste of the actor and character, but hopefully he got a fat paycheck for some really easy work sitting in a chair. It's also fun to see Ted Levine and Geraldine Chaplin, as well as a short cameo from Peter Jason as a Senator, but that's it, really.
The one good thing is I saw this in Dolby Cinema, which is new to my AMC, and it was my first movie on my new A-List membership, so the ticket was "free". I enjoyed the sound, and the sharp picture was also appreciated, although many of the effects looked a bit soft. Bryce looks good in her bust-flattering green top, but beyond that, I'm definitely looking forward to forgetting this film as soon as possible.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#137 Post by domino harvey » Sun Nov 25, 2018 11:47 pm

Well, I disagree with everything in the previous post with the exception of Bryce Dallas Howard looking hott. Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom is, to my utter shock, easily the best sequel of the entire franchise. Small praise, I know, but I thought this one did what Trevorrow falsely claimed he'd do in his previous installment: bring a sense of self-awareness removed from nostalgia, and address with intelligence the flaws of the previous installment(s). Trevorrow has a co-writing credit here, but I imagine that’s guild-mandated, because I would bet actual money the new director JA Bayona didn’t like Jurassic World any more than we did, because this film subtly shits all over its predecessor in its structural play and approach to apparent cliches. I should have known I was in good hands when the movie hilariously lampshades the idiotic “stowaway” plot device in the first act! And initially I was rolling my eyes at the do-goodery approach to Save R Dinos, but the movie smartly allows the main characters to realize the impossibility of this stance while still ensuring another sequel via a third party’s actions.

This movie wonderfully plays up its structural misdirection, and I don’t mean by this the obvious “twist” of some characters’ motivations— I don't think it's a spoiler that the quest that sends Howard and Pratt and crew onto the island is duplicitous, because every other venture back has been. But the actual twist is that this storyline, highlighted throughout the marketing, is only half the movie. And thank God for that. Instead of yet another endless island adventure with shaking leaves (though, I counted, and we do get that a mere three minutes and forty seconds into the film), the movie does what I suggested it do in my write-up for the previous installment: get out of the fucking jungle and go small into confined, modern spaces. Indeed, when they all ended up on a freighter halfway through the film, I thought perhaps the film was literally going to take its cue from my suggestion to set it on a boat!

If you really can’t tell the difference in how this film was made versus the other non-Spielberg entries, I have no idea what to say to you. This film has visual intelligence, with action easy to follow and cleverly relayed. It also scales down from the massive action set pieces one expects from earlier sequels to more claustrophobic sequences— if these films are all about riffing on the original, why get mad when one of these entries finally starts ripping off the lowkey chills of the kitchen scene and extends it to the entire third act? And even the earlier big scenes are done well, with the implausible trapped in a bubble sequence smoothly filmed to resemble one uninterrupted shot (which it is obviously not, but still). I could register some healthy disbelief at the proximity and properties of lava in this movie, sure, but I think the Big Dinosaurs Go Roar movie can be afforded a little rope here.

This is a classic Black Friday success story: I never would have paid full price for this, but my $8 gamble paid off and I think it’ll be interesting to see how they handle the inevitable next film in the franchise after how this one ends.

User avatar
cdnchris
Site Admin
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 2:45 pm
Location: Washington
Contact:

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#138 Post by cdnchris » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:09 am

Honestly, I liked it more than any of the other sequels as well, especially the last one. I was entertained from beginning to end and it had Buffalo Bill as a dino hunter. Awesome.

User avatar
McCrutchy
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 4:57 am
Location: East Coast, USA

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#139 Post by McCrutchy » Mon Nov 26, 2018 1:33 am

Wow, 2=4 of this series must be really bad if people on here actually liked this tired excuse for an action/dinosaur/disaster film. I saw all of them at some point (and for some reason, I bought Jurassic World when it came out on Blu-ray in that lunchbox), but I'll be damned if I remember much of anything after the first film, beyond the fact that the sequel added Julianne Moore and moved the dinosaurs into the city, and that Neil returned for the third film, which also featured a Dern cameo, and an (I want to say yellow) satellite phone. Until this film, Universal managed to time it just right so that I was willing to give each one a shot, but with only a three-year gap between it and Jurassic World, I had to convince myself to see Fallen Kingdom with A-List, though I'm sure curiosity about my then relatively-new Dolby Cinema was largely responsible.

But yeah, at this point, there would have to be serious changes for me to see another film in this series.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#140 Post by tenia » Mon Nov 26, 2018 10:31 am

Fallen Kingdom certainly is better than Jurassic World, but that doesn't much considering how awfully written and poorly shot this was.
Here, the same dumb main characters return, and oh god are they still as dumb as in JW, but fortunately, the movie leaves them a bit less space to show it. The main story is still framed in some BS we already saw humpteen times, with The Farmer From Babe coming back to play yet another nice but weird old guy, and military guys being, what a twist, bad guys, Ted Levine seemingly stuck in a lethargic Pete Postlethwaite's parody.

Still, the first part on the island is new and fun despite having to believe Bryce Dallas Howard did a full 180° on her professional priorities and personal morals, but at least, there is entertainment, and even some nicely framed shots.
This is much more in any case that pretty everything that follows (after 30 boring minutes), the only good thing being the young girl character that isn't too annoying (as kids can usually get in these movies like, say, The Lost World), but still manages to be shoehorned with completely pointless ideas that might have looked interesting on the paper but are mostly cumbersome and useless once in the movie.
The rest alternates between paperthin secondary characters that probably cumulates 5 minutes of screentime all together, Toby Jones who came grab a quick big paycheck, and dinosaurs sold at a price so low I guess even subdevelopped countries could buy a dozen of each. Bad guys are pretty much inexistant, as are thrills, while dinosaurs aren't even able to generate a scare.
I love that this manor is so well equipped though, almost as if it was conceived by Bruce Wayne somehow, but has a huge RED BUTTON somewhere to do what HUGE RED BUTTONS are usually doing in movies.

I guess the best summary of the franchise is inside the movie, when Pratt wakes up after having been tranquilized and tried to move away and stand up but can't really and ends up moving on the floor like a rag doll.

So yeah, it's better than the previous one because this one isn't shot by a one-handed blind moron, but I'm not sure it's an achievement in any way.

If JW 3 is indeed directed by Trevorrow, I guess this will just put us back to step one. Yay.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Jurassic Park Franchise (1993-?)

#141 Post by domino harvey » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:46 pm

You have to imagine my surprise that the forum's two loudest anti-Last Jedi voices disagree with me on this franchise entry also!

I can't believe they rehired Trevorrow for the next one, though-- good God! My optimism for the next installment didn't even get to last 12 hours

Post Reply