• WanderWisley@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    17 hours ago

    The Jurassic Park movie franchise is the best representation of movies that diminish with each movie since the first one.

  • pachrist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I was ok with the first Chris Pratt one. Not great, not awful.

    What I really wish they had done was set the next one a couple years down the line. Maybe a couple of those military helicopters that are stealing the dinosaurs at the end crashes in mainland South/Central America. Imagine a Jurassic Park movie that’s a cross between Alien/Predator/Planet of the Apes. Really lean into the highly intelligent apex predator and horror angle.

    The problem with these movies, is they keep letting the cat out of the bag, over and over and over. Cat’s out. What’s next?

    • IngeniousRocks (They/She) @lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      I think they tried to do that with the new one. The D Rex (are we still adding rex where it doesn’t belong?) was clearly modelled after the xenomorph.

      I wanna be clear they failed. I haven’t been this disappointed in a movie since I saw TLJ for the first time

  • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    78
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    There is a shifting of themes that basically tracks with the corporate takeover of the US government.

    1. (1993) Companies fucking around with systems they don’t understand is the problem. Rich guy underestimates nature.
    2. (1997) Rich guy learned lesson. Corporate greed did not.
    3. (2001) post-dotcom crash: A rich fucker and his stupid family learn the lesson about the company that fucked with nature. Governments are bad for not interveneing.
    4. (2015) post-Birther: Company and its rich founder are naive and innocent. US Government and US education are the bad guys.
    5. (2018) Corporate suits are the good guys. Science is the bad guys.
    6. (2022) A (suddenly) European company is the bad guys. Science is again the bad guy. Americans are the good guys.
    7. (2025) The US company and Military are the good guys.
    • VeryFrugal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Did you actually see the 2025 movie? No way the theme you got from that is US Corpo good. If anything g it’s literally the opposite.

      I didn’t see anything else than 2025. Pretty bad.

      But...(spoiler)

      But the main character literally decides to open-source the data instead of selling it to a pharma corp.

    • OldManBOMBIN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I do agree with the main point of your post; however, I feel that your reasoning is backwards.

      Big blockbusters give the masses a dose of placebo. You see a movie where people who hold your values win, so you feel like it happened in real life, so you’re less likely to make it happen in real life.

      So I’m not spoiling this movie, look at the MCU instead: They defeated Thanos and stopped half the world’s population from disappearing, and then we failed to properly fight COVID and Donald Trump gained power.

      Now, I know correlation doesn’t equal causation, and that there were other factors at play, but I also know that when you perceive the image of something, it activates the same neurons as actually seeing that thing - when you watch The Notebook or Armageddon, you feel the emotions of the characters in the film, and you cry.

      That, combined with the other psychological tactics that we are constantly being bombarded with, make it difficult for us to navigate the world with a clear head. When you feel like you’re winning, why would you fight?

      And also, a TON of people are straight apathetic, and a lot more are just plain-old stupid. And there are dozens or hundreds of other factors such as personality of the audience, socioeconomics, religious beliefs, etc… that come into play here as well. It’s not quite as cut-and-dry as “monkey see, monkey feels as though it has done,” but that does play a large factor in it.

      I typed all this but didn’t proofread any of it, so I hope it makes sense. I’m sleepy.

  • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    23 hours ago

    First one was grand, didn’t need to be followed up or remade. Now we have a franchise… The only remake I wouldn’t mind seeing is a more brutal first one, closer to what the book was depicting. All I’d be interested in really.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Both this and Five Nights at Freddy’s have an interesting problem, where they’re based around an entertainment franchise that goes wrong - but the franchise itself necessitates repeated attempts and failure.

    • lukaro@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I was just saying the other day if the first one had been faithful to the ending of the book we wouldn’t have all this mess.

  • llii@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I saw the movie on the weekend and I liked it. Much better than the last two, but obviously not as good as the first one.

  • Guy Ingonito@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 day ago

    The premise of dinosaurs in the modern world is as close to evergreen as you can get. The problem isn’t that the cow has gone dry, so much as the farmers keep jerking off the bull instead.

  • IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    if yeah want an amazing dinosaur park media, check out Dinosaur Sanctuary.

    they treat the dinosaurs as animals, and the whole plot revolves around the upkeep of the zoo.

    it was cowritten by a paleontologist and a manga artist.

    that manga speaks to my soul as I worked in a zoo when I was 18 to 21. it really hits my nostalgia,

  • Signtist@bookwyr.me
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 day ago

    I saw the new one with my father in law today, after not having seen one since the original trilogy. It was just not good. I’m usually able to turn off my brain and enjoy a movie regardless of the quality, but there were so many things that didn’t make sense, or were glossed over without explanation, that I just couldn’t suspend my disbelief.

  • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Eh, if Michael Chrichton were still alive today he’d probably condone it all so long as he got his royalty check. Jurassic Park canon was never holy.

  • Vespair@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 day ago

    I saw the first Jurassic Park. I enjoyed it. But I feel sated with that single entry. If you love these movies, more power to you, but I don’t really understand it myself.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 day ago

      The books, Jurassic Park and its sequel The Lost World, are very good and very different from the movies. I also recommend Disclosure by the same author.

      • Vespair@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        In general I feel like I’m more likely to want to revisit and spend more time in the world of a good book than the world of most films, even films I enjoy, so it makes sense to me that there’s enough to easily fill two books worth.

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      Lost World had some fun stuff (Despite diverging from it’s book even worse than the first movie) but you’re really not missing much, none of the sequels come within a mile the original.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I saw the first one, enjoyed it…not sure I could explain the plot or what happened in it. At the time having the dinosaurs brought to life was spectacle enough; they could have made a movie about the park working correctly and it would have sold tickets.

      I watched the second and third one back to back with a girl. They were alright. I don’t care to see them again. I’m not watching any more of them.