Because their dominant raison d'etre (as with nearly all sequels) is to generate cash. Everything else, including artistic merit & integrity, comes secondary.
shareYeah, I suppose that’s as good an explanation as any.
shareIs there a lack of "creative" writing in Hollywood? Because I got a lot of great ideas.
I really disliked The Lost World when it came out but I've softened on that one over the years and for the most part enjoy it now. I don't think I've ever even seen 3 in its entirety but what I did see looked bad. The Jurassic Worlds were both pretty disappointing.
shareThe 3rd one is actually not bad at all.
It's not as good as the first one, that's sure, but it's the most entertaining from them all (from all the sequels, I mean, modern ones included).
Because it's a gimmick movie. The gimmick was seeing dinosaurs almost realistically alive. It's basically a dino theme park (you know, where there are dinosaur simple robots rocking back and forth) in movie form.
Like a dino theme park, once you go one time it's enough. It's amusing sure, but once is enough.
Jurassic Park really doesn't need a sequel let alone five.
Sums it up nicely, and can unfortunately be applied to so many franchises (or simple sequels for that matter).
shareIts probably like a decent halfmade book but overall I am not really fond of it
share