Remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World (with Spielberg as Producer)

124

Comments

  • edited November 2011
    i don't like this idea at all.

    agreed,a good thing should never be messed with.
  • edited November 2011
    And now it's been 8 days since the above quote, and the page currently has 1,221 fans.

    303 new fans in 8 days. Amazing.

    Zip-a-dee-freakin-doo-dah. GIVE IT UP! The next Jurassic Park film will be a sequel. Jurassic Park IV! Not a freaking remake.
  • VainamoinenVainamoinen Moderator
    edited November 2011
    Zip-a-dee-freakin-doo-dah. GIVE IT UP! The next Jurassic Park film will be a sequel. Jurassic Park IV! Not a freaking remake.

    Methinks you are in the wrong thread and you don't have anything to contribute. Why don't you try one of those other threads?
  • edited November 2011
    See, Jurassic Park changed movies. Some might say for the worst. It really opened up CGI. Models, puppets, vehicles, cities.. everything could be done with CGI.

    Go watch the behind the scenes interviews that were on the blu ray. Ariana Richards and Laura Dern both comment on actual fear of the raptor puppets. (kitchen and maintence shed). That even though they knew it was fake.. part of their reactions wasn't acting.

    Now imagine those puppets aren't there, and they have to react to a green wall. Of course it wouldn't even be the same actors. I can see it now Kristen Stewart as Lex.. ugh.
  • edited November 2011
    interitus wrote: »
    See, Jurassic Park changed movies. Some might say for the worst. It really opened up CGI. Models, puppets, vehicles, cities.. everything could be done with CGI.

    Go watch the behind the scenes interviews that were on the blu ray. Ariana Richards and Laura Dern both comment on actual fear of the raptor puppets. (kitchen and maintence shed). That even though they knew it was fake.. part of their reactions wasn't acting.

    Now imagine those puppets aren't there, and they have to react to a green wall. Of course it wouldn't even be the same actors. I can see it now Kristen Stewart as Lex.. ugh.

    Jurassic Park didn't change anything, all it did was make more companies spend 4 million dollars to have CGI and explosions. And how can a vehicle change cinema forever? BTTF did a hell of a good job changing cinema with the delorean!
  • edited November 2011
    And you do know Crichton is dead right? Steven doesn't even have the heart to make JP 4 and you expect him to make a remake of JP? Making a remake will also lower Steve's reputation. Jurassic Park 4 is the finale, gone, vamoosh, finished. Never will it ever be touched again. So if you want your silly little remake, go ask Disney or Sony to buy Jurassic Park off of ol' steve and see how that works.
  • edited November 2011
    And you do know Crichton is dead right? Steven doesn't even have the heart to make JP 4 and you expect him to make a remake of JP?
    Ummm... he reportedly came up with the story for JP4 with Mark Protosevich.

    Anyhoo, remaking JP so soon is not a good idea, that's for sure... it would be compared with the original movie incessantly and it would be extremely hard for the remake to top it. The same is with King Kong BTW, I didn't like the remakes one bit... the one in '70s was abysmal, the Peter Jackson one was waaaay to long and boring.

    People are upset about Lucas 'updating' Star Wars, imagine the reactions if he remade it totally with new actors with a 'darker tone'.
  • edited November 2011
    just an fyi if u all want to see some good jp4 news check out jplegacy they have a link to an article with jack horner and they discuss jp
  • edited November 2011
    Jurassic Park didn't change anything, all it did was make more companies spend 4 million dollars to have CGI and explosions. And how can a vehicle change cinema forever? BTTF did a hell of a good job changing cinema with the delorean!

    It radically changed it. Prior to Jurassic Park most CGI was artifical like Terminator 2 .. the closest we go to a living thing was The Abyss. Jurassic Park showed that you could create believable living CGI animals.

    I think this image is a great picture of what movie basically feels like.
    lucasthenandnow.jpg

    We have actors having to react to tennis balls on a stick. I appreciate CGI and what it can do. But it should compliment real things, not replace them.
  • edited November 2011
    No, I want a 3D Remake of the first.
  • edited November 2011
    My reaction every time I see this thread:
    HUBQK.png

    I have the subject of remakes come up frequently on my youtube channel because I have some trailers for classic films like THEM! and The Valley of Gwangi on there. Not everything needs a remake. I don't think I could do a better job of explaining this than Ed Catmull the president of Pixar Animation. He lays it all down in this video from 24:44 to 25:59.

    Jurassic Park is a near perfect film that doesn't need to be touched. If you want to see more intense dinosaur on dinosaur action then go watch the latest remake of King Kong.
  • edited November 2011

    Why are you still feeling happy about this?
  • edited November 2011
    tobar wrote: »

    Jurassic Park is a near perfect film that doesn't need to be touched.

    It's not actually the film he wants remade though. He wants a more closer adaptation of the novel. Personally, I would like one too. I still think a mini-series based off the novels would be cool. It's be like the made for tv Steven King movies but better.

    So the it's not the film he want's changed. He basicly wants a very close adaptation of the novels. Although, I wouldn't want it to be in theaters. I would rather either a mini- series on tv or maybe an animated dvd release.
  • edited November 2011
    interesting concept. I wouldn't mind a re-telling of the first Jurassic Park and The Lost World. Possibly make it more to the novels, the lost world novel is very different comparing it to the film, and the novel's story was amazing.. mine only thing is that the dinosaurs would have to be the same designs. It would also have to be in the same time frame (1989 or 1991, can't recall the actual date in the novel) i don't see this happening, but i would watch it. I love the original films, so if they did remake it and ruin them, i could always go back to the originals.
  • edited November 2011
    interitus wrote: »
    It radically changed it. Prior to Jurassic Park most CGI was artifical like Terminator 2 .. the closest we go to a living thing was The Abyss. Jurassic Park showed that you could create believable living CGI animals.

    I think this image is a great picture of what movie basically feels like.
    lucasthenandnow.jpg

    We have actors having to react to tennis balls on a stick. I appreciate CGI and what it can do. But it should compliment real things, not replace them.

    i agree with everything you just said.
  • edited November 2011
    I really think they should re-make Jurassic park 3 instead.
    The other two are classics, YOU don't remake classics.
  • edited November 2011
    We have every right to want a remake. Other posters here have already made it clear that you can just get back to enjoying the 1st movie if you're too biased and blinded by nostalgia to enjoy the remakes.
    Pitalla wrote: »
    The other two are classics, YOU don't remake classics.
    First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Classics get remade all the time and most of them end up being just as good (if not BETTER) than the previous versions...The only people who disagree with that are the people who are so blinded by nostalgia that they can't see how flawed and easily-bashable the original film was (even if those negative qualities are capable of being overlooked, the same thing can be said about the remakes), and those people are hopelessly wired into insulting remakes when they deserve just as much praise as the original films.

    You should learn the difference between "you don't remake classics" and "I personally don't like it when classics are remade."

    Second of all, you're calling The Lost World movie was a classic?
    AS IF!
    The Lost World movie was crap. It was the WORST of the trilogy. It had a hypocritical/moronic plot that did NOT resemble the novel in any shape or form, it had stupid characters, no sympathy for anybody EXCEPT the so-called "villains" who are actually nice to the protagonists, EVERY SINGLE SCENE was full of plotholes/contrivances, Goldblum is a HORRIBLE actor(mumbling and stammering in every sentence of BOTH movies) and the movie gives you NO IMMERSION into the fact that the dinosaurs are adapting into the island's modern ecosystem (which the novel did such a brilliant job at conveying).
    And you have the nerve to call that piece of shit a classic? :mad:

    Okay, now I'm getting back on topic:

    The only "classic" thing about the 1st movie is the dinosaur effects, which only covered about 5% of the movie's quality. It's two hours just to say "stuff goes wrong in a theme park" (or nothing new to anyone who saw Westworld). Most of it is just people running away from animals. That's really not a story, that's a Roadrunner episode. The movie is just filled with pointless drama over nothing, and Hollywood conventions. Like typical Spielberg movies, it's meant to please people who sit through movies, but don't really watch them. There's very little to no story, but it's just twisted back and forward for two whole hours. It just has people running away from animal and getting sentimental at times. The first half is nothing really, all we learn in a full hour, is that some one cloned dinosaurs. It shouldn't take that long to say.
    That's just piss-awful for fans of the novels. A true adaptation of JP would get the audience invested in MORE qualities than just cheap dino-effects every now and then. A proper adaptation of the book should be a setting-immersive experience (where the audience is immersed the world of Isla Nublar EVEN WITHOUT the dinosaurs on it. The island itself is supposed to be a world that not only looks out-of-this world even without the dinos, but it's also supposed to be a character that directs the protagonists throughout the storyline)...but the movie failed to provide that experience because it was a cheap-budget project with low production values, because Spielberg was only interested in showing off the dino-effects. A remake done as a proper adaptation would get the audience immersed in more qualities than just that.
  • edited November 2011
    jpark_08 wrote: »
    Letters are boring and unprofessional; the studio just won't take it seriously. What you really need to do is submit your ideas on baked goods like cupcakes. Everybody likes cupcakes. Each day we will ship Universal one new cupcake topped with original ideas like plot points, character castings, and test dialogue written in icing sugar. We can call it the "Cupcakes for Remakes" campaign. It's brilliant and delicious.


    Let's get started! Who knows how to bake?

    well i've had experience with cakes, but not cupcakes lol
  • edited November 2011
    Pitalla wrote: »
    I really think they should re-make Jurassic park 3 instead.
    The other two are classics, YOU don't remake classics.
    Apparently someone hasn't been seeing the attempts by Hollywood to remake classics.

    It's comes down to money and reinvigorating a franchise/property in order to make that money, that and to appeal to the next generation.

    While I don't agree that Jurassic Park should be remade, I can see why it would be. I just don't see why it has to be so soon...if it gets remade at all.
  • edited December 2011
    I still fail to see anything wrong with the first Jurassic Park movie. I've heard it's different than the book but it got pretty good reviews.I'm sure they will remake it (cause Hollywood is lazy) but if they remade it in the next five year that would bother me see how the old one is around 20 years old. (ex:Footloose)
  • edited December 2011
    I heard you can't remake a movie until 30 years after it's made. And why remake it? JP is good and still looks great! Plus JP4 is being worked on.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8847499/The-Jurassic-Park-scientist-who-plans-to-turn-a-chicken-into-T-Rex.html
  • edited December 2011
    JPPR_002 wrote: »
    I heard you can't remake a movie until 30 years after it's made. And why remake it? JP is good and still looks great! Plus JP4 is being worked on.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8847499/The-Jurassic-Park-scientist-who-plans-to-turn-a-chicken-into-T-Rex.html

    well they can make remakes, look at Spider-man, Sony is rebooting that series, and its barely 5 years since spidey 3 came out. I agree the JP is an amazing film! i'm not against a remake, but i'm not for it. I want to see how JP IV turns out, hopefully it isn't just a movie about people running away from Dino's like the third one was (it had its moments but the story was minimal)
  • edited December 2011
    well they can make remakes, look at Spider-man, Sony is rebooting that series, and its barely 5 years since spidey 3 came out. I agree the JP is an amazing film! i'm not against a remake, but i'm not for it. I want to see how JP IV turns out, hopefully it isn't just a movie about people running away from Dino's like the third one was (it had its moments but the story was minimal)

    Reboots are different than remakes. While we will be seeing Spidey's origin story(AGAIN!!), it's still a different version than the original Spider-Man. Hence why we're getting The Lizard as the villain, not the Green Goblin.
  • edited December 2011
    Reboots are different than remakes. While we will be seeing Spidey's origin story(AGAIN!!), it's still a different version than the original Spider-Man. Hence why we're getting The Lizard as the villain, not the Green Goblin.

    very true. didn't think of it like that hahaha. but in sense we would be rebooting the JP franchise with a remake, it could involve more from the novel, change characters, add character who were absent from the first film, and all that jazz.
  • edited December 2011
    very true. didn't think of it like that hahaha. but in sense we would be rebooting the JP franchise with a remake, it could involve more from the novel, change characters, add character who were absent from the first film, and all that jazz.

    Yes, but unlike Jurassic Park, stuff like Spider-Man, Batman, and Star Trek NEEDED the reboot.
  • edited December 2011
    Yes, but unlike Jurassic Park, stuff like Spider-Man, Batman, and Star Trek NEEDED the reboot.

    indeed. I didn't want the spidey reboot because i was content with the original trilogy (even the third, it was bad, but i still enjoyed it. like how the third JP was terrible hahaha)
  • edited December 2011
    His stance is hypocritical. He gave a speech against altering films, and then he goes and does what he said was wrong.

    And guess what, he has that right as well. People change their minds on things all the time. My parents used to be Republicans and now they are both Democrats. Are they hypocritical because they now stand for something they used to be against? I dont think so and again even if that were the case, its still their right. What George says is really irrelevant. The bottom line is that the Star Wars films are his property period and he is in his right to do whatever he want to them. When you cut through all the BS that is the only fact that matters. You can like em or you can hate em, that is perfectly within your right. Changing them, that is his right.
  • edited December 2011
    I herd there going to remake jurassic park 1 and 2. Why?
  • edited December 2011
    I herd there going to remake jurassic park 1 and 2. Why?

    its just a fan petitioning to have a remake, Spielberg hasn't discussed it, they are working on JP IV though.
  • edited December 2011
    well they can make a reamke and a part 4, just the remakes first, and then part 4 after
  • edited December 2011
    OK, it's Opinion Time.

    I'm against this. Not just as a JP fan, but as a movie goer.

    I'd rather see Hollywood come up with new ideas (which apparently is too hard for them to do anymore). Seriously, has every idea been done?!

    I mean, half the movies that have been released in the past few years have been remakes. It's just seems like a way to spark new interest in an old franchise that they know they will make big bucks off of, and use little to no imagaination/creativity/originality.

    The Pink Panther remakes - blemished the reputation of the classic Peter Sellers films with just plan garbage. Yet they made a second one. It's a shame that the kids will grow up knowing these and not the classics.

    My Bloody Valentine - no where near as good as the original. Just a way to capitalize on 3D technology.

    Karate Kid - Laughable

    Arthur - Pathetic

    I guess I'm alright with the new Spiderman, but still a little rage burns inside me. The movie was originally planned to be Spiderman 4, but the director dropped out. The new movie might be based on one of the other Spidey series anyway (like Ultimate Spiderman, etc.)

    I don't consider the Batman movies as remakes, since these stories really haven't been done on film (there are a couple different origin stories in the comics).

    And TV shows, too! Now that they are starting to run out of ideas for those stupid, non-creative reality shows (Storage Wars, really?), they're starting to remake old shows. Hawaii Five-O, 90210, V, Charlies Angels. What's next, a remake of Gomer Pyle?

    I know I'm powerless to voice my opinion to filmmakers, they will continue to remake classics. And if people want a Jurassic Park remake, so be it. No one is forcing me to see it, so what do I care? I'll stick to the films I grew up with, thank you very much.

    Again, just my opinion.
  • edited December 2011
    Hollywood has no hope in Original Ideas ether at this Point if this keeps up. see Battleship the Movie and Asteroids(based on the arcade game)the Movie

    Both in progress right now
  • edited December 2011
    OK, it's Opinion Time.

    I'm against this. Not just as a JP fan, but as a movie goer.

    I'd rather see Hollywood come up with new ideas (which apparently is too hard for them to do anymore). Seriously, has every idea been done?!

    I mean, half the movies that have been released in the past few years have been remakes. It's just seems like a way to spark new interest in an old franchise that they know they will make big bucks off of, and use little to no imagaination/creativity/originality.

    The Pink Panther remakes - blemished the reputation of the classic Peter Sellers films with just plan garbage. Yet they made a second one. It's a shame that the kids will grow up knowing these and not the classics.

    My Bloody Valentine - no where near as good as the original. Just a way to capitalize on 3D technology.

    Karate Kid - Laughable

    Arthur - Pathetic

    I guess I'm alright with the new Spiderman, but still a little rage burns inside me. The movie was originally planned to be Spiderman 4, but the director dropped out. The new movie might be based on one of the other Spidey series anyway (like Ultimate Spiderman, etc.)

    I don't consider the Batman movies as remakes, since these stories really haven't been done on film (there are a couple different origin stories in the comics).

    And TV shows, too! Now that they are starting to run out of ideas for those stupid, non-creative reality shows (Storage Wars, really?), they're starting to remake old shows. Hawaii Five-O, 90210, V, Charlies Angels. What's next, a remake of Gomer Pyle?

    I know I'm powerless to voice my opinion to filmmakers, they will continue to remake classics. And if people want a Jurassic Park remake, so be it. No one is forcing me to see it, so what do I care? I'll stick to the films I grew up with, thank you very much.

    Again, just my opinion.


    Valid argument. as a movie goer i agree with you 100 percent. I am sick of remakes.

    but as a Jurassic Park fan, i would love to see a film more focused on the themes of the novel. The novel is a bit darker and has great material to use. I've said before that i think the film version is more of the family friendly version while the novel was more for adults. Don't get me wrong, the first JP film was great. sadly the sequel was not. A remake of the first film could have the opportunity to fix the travesty that the second movie was, and actually follow the plot of the novel. and if they do end up remaking the first one and it fails epicly, then i will have the classics to cherish and pretend the new one never existed. But i'll always be a little curious to see a remake. I'm not saying i'm for a reboot, but i'm not against it.
  • edited December 2011
    Heresy! the only movie that should be re-made is Jurassic park 3, to with the original idea which was more like the 1st and 2nd. Loads of elements of science and exploration with it's touch of thrill.
  • edited January 2012
    Give it up already!
  • edited January 2012
    Sadonicus wrote: »
    Give it up already!

    I know, fine let him have his shit sequel. Just dont cry and moan that Universal laughs at you all for this. I do enjoy CGI dinosaurs with CGI cars and teenage actors and naked ladies flying all over and all that CGI gore flying, lets make Jurassic Park all CGI now!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You guys do know Stan Winston is dead right? And Michael is dead, and some of the crew are dead, the dinosaurs are gone. Nothing can be changed now.
Sign in to comment in this discussion.