I would love to see a movie set between original and world. How they went back to
Isla and re set the original park and got it up and running! Could be a great premise. Things go wrong, maybe more than 1 try, in the end they secure the park, it ends and we go into the new Jurassic world. You could call it Jurassic park 4….
Nothing could go wrong. If something has gone wrong, why would they risk bringing people to the island which would ultimately be part 1?
shareWell they would cover it up if anything did go wrong like ingen did with the original park. They(as in the corporation)would just have money as usual as the goal. Get the park up and running
shareBut Hammond would have to been unaware of it. At the end of Jurassic Park, he helps them get away pretty much admitting that the park wasn't safe.
shareYes, regardless. We know because of the sequel Jurassic world that the park in that movie was built over the original Jurassic park so they did it. They went back in and rebuilt it with park being left dormant for how many years. Maybe they waited for John Hammond to die and the new Indian owner in world took over.
shareYes, but because this was a prequel to part one they didn't wait for Hammond to die. Maybe they could do a prequel to part 2 that has everyone trying to fix the disaster before opening up again.
shareMy ideas is a prequel to world and a sequel to the original. How they made Jurassic world from the original Jurassic park
share"But Hammond would have to been unaware of it. At the end of Jurassic Park, he helps them get away pretty much admitting that the park wasn't safe."
They could easily write around that. Maybe it was Hammond's "partner" that knew and covered it up. Didn't they retcon to make Hammond have a silent (and invisible) "partner" in the 1st movie?
It's possible.
share[deleted]
Yeah you could use the premise to go in a new direction. You can lend itself to 1993 park surroundings and do another take. Like Aliens and Alien
share[deleted]
Not even the first movie felt to me like it had a whole lot to do with Chrichton's novel beyond the basic concept. I remember reading the book and being pretty surprised by how different it was. It felt almost like a whole other story on the island.
share[deleted]
I know that Crichton commented that he thought that, for cinema, Spielberg made the right choice in taking the story where he took it. And frankly while I enjoyed the book, I much more enjoy the movie. I appreciate the more family-friendly vibe of the film--though it still has some intense moments--and the fact that it leaned more into WONDER than HORROR.
I do agree that, if someone were to try to adapt the book directly with few changes then another director would be more appropriate.
As for the JW films, I enjoyed the first one. I didn't think it was perfect but I at least thought that it was good enough that it showed promise for a revitalization of the franchise. The second JW film is garbage though and the third, while interesting on certain levels, is not great and in some respects doesn't even feel like it's part of the same franchise.
In regard to Chrichton as a director, you know, it's funny. For most of my life I just knew him as "the guy who wrote Jurassic Park and some other popular books." It was not until I watched The Great Train Robbery and saw his name in the credits that I had any idea he ever was a film director. Blew my mind.
I'm about sick of dinosaurs though. The thing about the Jurassic Park movies are the characters. The same ones that have always been in these movies.
I really don't want to see a bunch of new actors battling dinosaurs.
How can you be sick of dinosaurs? There are hardly any dino movies. The JP/JW films are just about ALL there is!
shareHow can you be sick of dinosaurs?
So in reality you don't want to see ANY dinosaur movies. It's not because there have just been so much dino movies that have come down the pipe that you can't take it anymore. So you're not really "sick of dinosaurs," they were never interesting to you in the first place.
share