Jurassic Park

[KawaiiKoneko]

They need to remake the films. I've finished the 2 books Micheal Crichton wrote and they are amazingly better than the film that Stephen Spielberg did. D: It's almost depressing in a way, because they took out/changed a lot of the parts that made it so awesome. :[

The first film had some entirely different scenes (and by 'entirely' I mean: not in the book)
The boy was younger than the girl
They took out Ian Malcom's Morphine rants (which were are highly amusing)
John Hammond didn't die
They took out the baby T-Rex
Gennarro was ugly and more of a coward
It would have been awesome if Dr. Sattler jumped off the roof into a pool stories below to escape Velociraptors :]

The second film just ripped out the worst parts of the book and threw together for the sake of doing so
There was a young black girl (Ian's daughter) instead of a black, boy genius and a white, girl math wiz
They took out a completely lovable and overly confident character (Levine)
InGen had NOT been taken over by John Hammond's Nephew.
Dodgeson was cooler, even though he is a total ass (and not in the second movie)
Scenes were made up (most of it) and a lot were cut back (in other words, an almost entirely different story line)

I have more to add. But I don't have the time right now. Lemme know if you guys/gals think the books should be made into movies that are more accurate to the book. I mean, Harry Potter was the most accurate in accordance with sticking to storyline and details than any other movie I've seen that was based off a book. :/


So...

Jurassic Park 1&2... remake?
Yes or No?

PS, there was no third book. Which is why the third movie was so horrible. It was entirely made up.

[Minimalist]

Pessimist that I am I think that if they did remake it they would make it worse.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Jurassic Park 1&2... remake?
Yes or No?

PS, there was no third book. Which is why the third movie was so horrible. It was entirely made up.

Eh. The JP movies are classics and film is rarely ever compariable with the novels. This is particularly true for the first movie precisely because it really is a classic to the same leagues as Star Wars, Indy Jones, and Planet of the Apes. Crichton is a fantastic writer and has had virtually every book he's ever written made into a movie.

That said, I would be against a remake for a few reasons:

With rare exception, I am loathe to feed hollywood's ravenous appetites for remaking older films. This is especially true for Spielburg and George Lucas.

Remakes of classic science fiction films seem to do worse than remakes of other types, but my only proof of that is the horrible face rape that is the Planet of the Apes remake and all the AVP movies. I'd be really hard pressed to find anyone who could honestly do better than the first film out of the vast majority of directors, particularly considering that JP 1 & 2 were done by Spielberg during his heyday.

The only reason I could get behind a revamp of the old movies is to alter the dinosaurs to be up to modern knowledge of them, notably now that our concept of velociraptors should have been deinonychus (V-raptors were much smaller than those depicted in the film) and they should have pretty much been covered head-to-toe with feathers. Triceratops apparently also weren't.
We just recently discovered that the Tri-tops may have been a juvenile of another dinosaur whose name escapes me. I just know it's larger with a frillier horned crown on its face.

Plus, I'm not sure if archeologists are still quibbling over whether the T-rex was purely a scavenger or not. (Many top predators won't skimp on a free meal here and there, but I'm also certain that the Rex was still a predator, but until there's a real Jurassic park, we'll never know.

Even then, though, we're still talking about doing a George Lucas-style revamp of the classics, which I don't think is necessary.

So... I'm perfectly content with all three of the movies (I did like the third one) as they are and I really don't want Hollywood to remake something else into a horrible mutated monster of a remake.

[downbeatplumb]

I read the lost world book and was dissapointed they didnt include the chameleon like camoflaging dinosaurs that blended perfectly with their surroundings, they could have been the new veloceraptors but were ommited completely.

Saying that thought though the first JP is a classic but screw with the others at will they were nowhere near as good.

[binny]

I love Jurassic Park just the way it is. I love the actors that were in the original. I don't think Hollywood could recapture that with a remake today. I did read the book a few years after seeing the movie and I agree there is a big difference, but that's the way it always goes in Hollywood. I guess you call it artistic license. I do remember something I read in the book about a forked tongue. I don't think dinosaurs had forked tongues, but I'm not an expert. My memory could be wrong. That's been know to happen before

[leo-rcc]

I'm missing the Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

option in the poll.

[Shell B]

I enjoyed the books as an entirely separate entity than the movies. The movie(s) were good in their own right and so weren't the books. I wouldn't change a thing about either. I have to admit that I hated the last Jurassic Park film and the second was eh, but I loved the first one. It didn't have to have everything that was in the book to be good.

[KawaiiKoneko]

All very good points. But I don't see why "that's just the way it is" should be acceptable. The books are what we love about the movies (at least with me). When I pop in Jurassic Park, I want to feel like I'm watching the book. Not a spinoff. And There are so many cheap parts of that film that just scream 'hidden agenda,' which did not pronounce itself to loudly in the book. The book was subtle and poetic in it's sense of opinion. AND I WANT IAN'S MORPHINE RANTS, DAMMIT! >o<

But I understand what you guys are saying. I just wish they could remake it. And that if they did, it didn't suck and stuck to the book like HP movies were able to.

[Welsh cake]

Depends what the target audience is. If the remake features the T-rex with a pouch and it hops around after them then you're making one of the greatest comedies ever in movie history. ^^

Oh! Oh! And every time one of those silly foolish humans gets a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun a featherless Velociraptor attacks them with just bare claws before they even get a chance to use it!

...Oh wait... that one actually happened in the movie. >.>

[Minimalist]

I enjoyed the books as an entirely separate entity than the movies. The movie(s) were good in their own right and so weren't the books. I wouldn't change a thing about either. I have to admit that I hated the last Jurassic Park film and the second was eh, but I loved the first one. It didn't have to have everything that was in the book to be good.

I always thought that in Michael Crichton's earlier books he would come up with great ideas ( Sphere, Andromeda Strain) and then never know how to end them. A great start would just sort of peter out. He did learn but that, of course, has nothing to do with what Hollywood screenwriters will do with a book once they get their hands on it.

The only thing I didn't like about Jurassic Park was the kids. I hate movies with kids in them.


Little annoying bastards!