Jurassic World

[Mad Dog]

Most of the big summer blockbusters over the years have been popcorn movies. Don't see too many Oscar nominations from them. Sometimes people just want to be entertained and escape from the real world.

 

[Nick]

And there's nothing wrong with that. But let's not pretend it's near as good as the original, which was a classic and wasn't just the simple "popcorn movie".

 

[MillenniumDragons]

There's way too much nostalgia being put into the original Jurassic Park when reviewing Jurassic World. "It doesn't match the original" or "not as good as the original". If you pretend that Jurassic World was the only one in the franchise that existed, it would be getting higher reviews.

 

[Jymmymack]

There's way too much nostalgia being put into the original Jurassic Park when reviewing Jurassic World. "It doesn't match the original" or "not as good as the original". If you pretend that Jurassic World was the only one in the franchise that existed, it would be getting higher reviews.

It would be getting worse reviews. The things the characters do are absolutely idiotic. And the dinosaurs as military weapons is such an eye-roll inducing gimmick. The only thing that works is the nostalgia of seeing the actual park operating.

Jurassic World actively tries to tie itself to the original and not be a stand alone. It's telling it's audience to compare it to the original by referencing so many aspects. That's where it works, it fails at almost everything else. So it's hard to pretend that it's the only film in the franchise when it's so dependent on references to the original to begin with.

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

Oh god, lets not start this debate on if the movie was good or bad again. Film is subjective and we'll never agree. The truth of the matter is JW made a BUNCH of money and broke several box office records, bigger than Avengers (and better than Avengers, IMO, but I was never a Marvel fan). Of course they were making a sequel, they would be stupid to not make a sequel. JW made money because the majority of movie goers liked it and the majority of the reviews were positive. Discussing how bad the sequel is going to be now is a bit silly since we're 3 years away from the release.

 

[Jymmymack]

Oh god, lets not start this debate on if the movie was good or bad again. Film is subjective and we'll never agree. The truth of the matter is JW made a BUNCH of money and broke several box office records, bigger than Avengers (and better than Avengers but I was never a Marvel fan). Of course they were making a sequel, they would be stupid to not make a sequel. JW made money because the majority of movie goers liked it and the majority of the reviews were positive. Discussing how bad the sequel is going to be now is a bit silly since we're 3 years away from the release.

Just pointing out that it's ironic to say don't argue about whether it's good or bad and that film is subjective, then go on to say that it is good and better than the Avengers

Pot, meet kettle.

And if you want to talk about subjectivity, JW did in fact make more than Avengers. But Avengers was far better received than JW. In fact, Age of Ultron was better received than JW. And that film was ripped for being inferior to Avengers. Everyone has such short memories.

 

[Nick]

Just pointing out that it's ironic to say don't argue about whether it's good or bad and that film is subjective, then go on to say that it is good and better than the Avengers

Pot, meet kettle.

And if you want to talk about subjectivity, JW did in fact make more than Avengers. But Avengers was far better received than JW. In fact, Age of Ultron was better received than JW. And that film was ripped for being inferior to Avengers. Everyone has such short memories.

Exactly.

Everything is subjective, mostly in that people will believe what they want to believe. People will bend over backwards and make up reasons to like something if they are dead set on it.

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

Just pointing out that it's ironic to say don't argue about whether it's good or bad and that film is subjective, then go on to say that it is good and better than the Avengers

Pot, meet kettle.

I forgot to write "IMO". I never meant to state my opinion as fact, which others are doing here. "Lets not pretend it's as good as the original" and "The only thing that works is the nostalgia of seeing the actual park operating." Those are opinions being stated as facts. I'm stating that JW made a lot of money, which it did. It broke box office records and in terms of money made, it is BETTER THAN AVENGERS, which is what movie studios care about, money. As far as reviews being better for AoU or Avengers, I don't base my opinions on movies based on the opinions of others. I'm far from a Marvel fan and I don't pay any mind to the buzz of those movies.

Yes, I forgot to state that my opinions on JW was in fact an opinion, I'm editing my post now to reflect that. I just think us debating on if JW was good or bad almost 2 months after it came out is silly. You don't like the movie, fine. The majority of people do, fine. None of us are right or wrong here. If you don't like JW and the money it made, don't see the sequel, but continuing to tell everyone who liked the movie that they're wrong is not getting us anywhere.

People will bend over backwards and make up reasons to like something if they are dead set on it.

And you're not doing that? I also think it's childish to assume that people who like a movie are "making up reasons" to do so. People don't have to agree with you. It's hard to believe that people liked this movie generally or that they liked it more than the original?

 

[Disneyhead]

For all those debating on whether JW is a good film or not. Just remember that this is the same country that is seriously considering annointing The Donald "King ***hat".

I'll just say that the level of critical thinking skills in America has never been lower in my 51 years stranded on this planet of very few intelligent life forms

 

[Clive]

Rewatched the film and have a renewed opinion on it.

It's an objectively pretty bad script, structurally, logically, etc. Its characters are fairly weak, and socially it's pretty eye-rolling, too.

That said, the action set pieces are FUN and it's easy to see why audiences responded so well. It gives viewers pretty much everything they want, action-wise.

 

[Nick]

Rewatched the film and have a renewed opinion on it.

It's an objectively pretty bad script, structurally, logically, etc. Its characters are fairly weak, and socially it's pretty eye-rolling, too.

That said, the action set pieces are FUN and it's easy to see why audiences responded so well. It gives viewers pretty much everything they want, action-wise.

Agreed overall

 

[Jymmymack]

I forgot to write "IMO". I never meant to state my opinion as fact, which others are doing here. "Lets not pretend it's as good as the original" and "The only thing that works is the nostalgia of seeing the actual park operating." Those are opinions being stated as facts. I'm stating that JW made a lot of money, which it did. It broke box office records and in terms of money made, it is BETTER THAN AVENGERS, which is what movie studios care about, money. As far as reviews being better for AoU or Avengers, I don't base my opinions on movies based on the opinions of others. I'm far from a Marvel fan and I don't pay any mind to the buzz of those movies.

Yes, I forgot to state that my opinions on JW was in fact an opinion, I'm editing my post now to reflect that. I just think us debating on if JW was good or bad almost 2 months after it came out is silly. You don't like the movie, fine. The majority of people do, fine. None of us are right or wrong here. If you don't like JW and the money it made, don't see the sequel, but continuing to tell everyone who liked the movie that they're wrong is not getting us anywhere.



And you're not doing that? I also think it's childish to assume that people who like a movie are "making up reasons" to do so. People don't have to agree with you. It's hard to believe that people liked this movie generally or that they liked it more than the original?

I wasn't saying you were stating fact. And I wasn't stating "fact." You said it's pointless to argue about whether or not it's a good movie and to drop it... then proceeded to say it's a good movie and better than the Avengers. So basically you were saying that let's not continue to voice opinions... if they don't match yours.

"...majority of film reviews were positive." And then after I counter that the film you brought up as an example as being a worse film than JW, The Avengers, had much better reviews: "As far as reviews being better for AoU or Avengers, I don't base my opinions on movies based on the opinions of others." So which is it?

I think Fallow's write up is spot on. It's what I've said from the beginning. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I merely was saying that for those who didn't, the idea of hiring the same people to write the script was cringeworthy and not exciting and that box office success doesn't always equal quality. That's all. Continue as you were.

 

[RonaldsModernLife]

I wasn't saying you were stating fact. And I wasn't stating "fact." You said it's pointless to argue about whether or not it's a good movie and to drop it... then proceeded to say it's a good movie and better than the Avengers. So basically you were saying that let's not continue to voice opinions... if they don't match yours.

My Avengers comment was just saying that it made more money than Avengers and that personally, I like it better. Me liking it better was not supposed to be the take away from my post, but it seems that it is. It was just something I wanted to say. I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, you should know since we had a private conversation about JW and the fact that we respected each others opinions. All I was saying was that a debate on if it's a good movie at this time is an odd conversation to have. It's a good enough movie to be getting a sequel and breaking box office records. Case closed.

"...majority of film reviews were positive." And then after I counter that the film you brought up as an example as being a worse film than JW, The Avengers, had much better reviews: "As far as reviews being better for AoU or Avengers, I don't base my opinions on movies based on the opinions of others." So which is it?

I was simply stating that the reviews were positive for JW. I did not say "I heard the JW reviews were great, that's why I saw it and that's why I liked it!". I was pointing out the fact that the majority of people liked the movie, both film critics and general audiences, but personally, reviews are not something I pay attention to. I can't state a fact by saying "X movie got great reviews" and also be a moviegoer who doesn't consider reviews? I can name plenty of movies that got great reviews that I didn't like, but while I didn't like them, I understand that other people obviously did. When it comes to JW, the fact that people liked the movie seems to boggle the mind of those who don't.

Either way, I have nothing else to say about this. :horse:

 

[Nick]

It's a good enough movie to be getting a sequel and breaking box office records. Case closed.

No one is saying it shouldn't get a sequel. @Jymmymack is just saying bringing back the same team to write a dumbed down script is the problem.

 

[Jymmymack]

No one is saying it shouldn't get a sequel. @Jymmymack is just saying bringing back the same team to write a dumbed down script is the problem.

Exactly. I wasn't restarting the debate. I simply made the argument that box office doesn't mean quality and that hiring the same writing team who wrote the problematic screenplay to do the sequel was disappointing.

 

[Jymmymack]

For all those debating on whether JW is a good film or not. Just remember that this is the same country that is seriously considering annointing The Donald "King ***hat".

I'll just say that the level of critical thinking skills in America has never been lower in my 51 years stranded on this planet of very few intelligent life forms

I can just see the Donald now: "I don't care what critics say. Jurassic World kicks ass. Go watch your sissy liberal Mad Max. I'll take my women running through the jungle in heels while being chased by dinos."

 

[Clive]

I can just see the Donald now: "I don't care what critics say. Jurassic World kicks ass. Go watch your sissy liberal Mad Max. I'll take my women running through the jungle in heels while being chased by dinos."

There are actual stupid people who think like this. They make me not want to make movies for a living.

But yeah, egos/box office success prevail over quality scripts I'm afraid. Maybe they'll actually respond and adapt to some of the criticisms levied at them.

Maybe.

 

[ThemeParks4Life]

I can just see the Donald now: "I don't care what critics say. Jurassic World kicks ass. Go watch your sissy liberal Mad Max. I'll take my women running through the jungle in heels while being chased by dinos."

The T-Rex will be the main dino in Jurassic Wold 2. To clarify, I mean the Trumposaurus Rex, not the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

 

[Jymmymack]

The T-Rex will be the main dino in Jurassic Wold 2. To clarify, I mean the Trumposaurus Rex, not the Tyrannosaurus Rex.

Pretty sure the big game hunters in The Lost World mention this dino:

"The one with the big red horn! The pompadour!"

 

[Mad Dog]

Pretty sure the big game hunters in The Lost World mention this dino:

"The one with the big red horn! The pompadour!"

And a tiny pea sized brain like the T Rex. The Donald would have done well as a Nazi in the 30's & 40's. Heil Donald!:thumbsdown: