StarDestroyer.Net BBS

innerbrat wrote:Sonnenburg, wow, you hate JP2 as much as me, but for totally different reasons. While you were gettign irriatated at the characters, I was knocked senselss by the crapness of the dinosaurs.

At least JP3 did not once attempt to be realistic

And that's why I'm far more forgiving towards the third film. It's like Eight Legged Freaks in that sense; scientifically it makes no sense, but if you don't worry about that it's actually kind of fun (as Sam Neill puts it, these aren't real dinosaurs, they're genetically engineered theme park monsters, which probably explains why a Spinosaurus can be so big in this case; there's still no explanation for why a spider would say "ptooey" though ). Add in the fact that there's no moral condescension and that the experts in the film actually know what they're doing, and I found 3 to be far superior to 2.

The Lost World was absolutely atrocious. JP1 is the best; it had intelligence and fun. The Lost World had no fun, and tried to hard to be intelligent.

JPIII, on the other hand, was all fun with little or no intelligence, and that made it an enjoyable movie.

innerbrat wrote:Oh come on! so they made a dinosaur bigger than it actuially was. Like that never happened in the first movie!

True, but it was a big insult to Tyrannosaurus fans such as myself, and it was even worse when people believed that Spinosaurus is a super predator like the tyrannosaurs (it is now believed to be a fish hunter).

Durran, I'm assuming you're not tlaking about the very good(ish) BBC miniseries?

Lets get one thing straight people - I will not hold with Jurassic Park II being referred to as anything other than Jurassic Park II. I don't know what Michael Crichton thought he was doing, but he had no right to steal titles willy nilly like that.
My Gods, if I'm ever a writer, I'm going to write a book about time travel and call it Timeline, just to piss him off.

innerbrat wrote:Durran, I'm assuming you're not tlaking about the very good(ish) BBC miniseries?

Lets get one thing straight people - I will not hold with Jurassic Park II being referred to as anything other than Jurassic Park II. I don't know what Michael Crichton thought he was doing, but he had no right to steal titles willy nilly like that.
My Gods, if I'm ever a writer, I'm going to write a book about time travel and call it Timeline, just to piss him off.

JP2: The Lost World.


Seriously. do you have any idea how many books have that title? The Lost World isn't exactly an uncommon title.

Stormbringer wrote:
Seriously. do you have any idea how many books have that title? The Lost World isn't exactly an uncommon title.

Books about dinosaurs?
Books about a hidden habitat populated by dinosaurs?
Books about a hidden habitat populated by dinosaurs in South America?
Books in which heroic adventurers go off to explore a hidden habitat in South America and are chased by dinosaurs?

Don't claim it's a coincidence, Stormy. Don't.

It's more justifiable in the book since a goodly portion of it is their observations of the dinosaurs in an evolutionary context and a discussion of such principles (hence, Lost World). Doesn't quite fit since it's not really a lost world, as that would imply that Stegosaurus and T Rexes co-existed at some point rather than being thrown together willy-nilly by geneticists.

How about calling it "The Island of Dr. Moreau"? Eh?

Sonnenburg wrote:It's more justifiable in the book since a goodly portion of it is their observations of the dinosaurs in an evolutionary context and a discussion of such principles (hence, Lost World). Doesn't quite fit since it's not really a lost world, as that would imply that Stegosaurus and T Rexes co-existed at some point rather than being thrown together willy-nilly by geneticists.

How about calling it "The Island of Dr. Moreau"? Eh?

I think you mean "The island of John Hammond"

Yes, you would think that John Hammond of all people would know that fences are no way to stop a great escape.

What I hate is that Crichton killed Ian Malcom in the first book, and made him the main character in the second. Jesus Christ they fire bombed his corpse, there is no way you come back from that.

anarchistbunny wrote:What I hate is that Crichton killed Ian Malcom in the first book, and made him the main character in the second. Jesus Christ they fire bombed his corpse, there is no way you come back from that.

Maybe that Ian Malcolm was from a parallel universe.

How about Hannibal as a follow up to Silence of the Lambs? There was no point to that movie, except for maybe watching Anthony Hopkins sleep-walk through a reprise of his hannibal character. Julianne Moore is a good actress, but Jodi Foster's portayal of Clarice Starling helped make Hannibal's character even more frightening. Moore just couldn't pull it off as well.

Kintaro wrote:As far as the Jurassic Park movies, The Lost World was okay, only because of the increased usage of the tyrannosaurs. 3 was crap: a very annoying kid, changing the characteristics of the dinosaurs (color changes and so forth), and worst and most laughable of all, a Spinosaurus kills a Tyrannosaurus rex!

I actually enjoyed JPIII more than the first two, mainly since there wasn't a book to read ahead of time. I also disagree about the kid in JPIII. Out of all the kids they've had to have in that series I thought his character was the least whiney or lame. He didn't have any special "powers" that helped save the day like the hacker and the gymnast .

I agree with you about the tyrannosaurs in both films. I thought the spinosauraus was kind of cool so I let that go (for the most part) although he did get chomped at least twice in that fight and those wounds should have been a problem.

While JPII had more Rex action it really wasted the raptors. They were much cooler in III, if a little too intelligent. I also could have done without the Rex loose in San Diego, especially the cheesy Godzilla joke.


As for the changing characteristics of the dinos. I did think it was a little odd that the Rex's color was so different in JPIII. As for the raptors the females were the same color as the previous films while the males were colored and had feathers.

I've seen complaints about the size of the spinosaurus but no one has said anything about the movie's velociraptors. From the first movie on they really weren't velociraptors. They started out looking more like Deinonychus than velociraptor, plus they were made larger as well.

While I liked Jurrasic Park more than JPIII, I did like JPIII and thought it was hella better than II.

I disagree with the kid not having super powers, for a boy that age to know and be willing to use T-Rex piss to scare off other creatures seems unlikely to me.

Thought: Maybe Jurrasic Park follows the opposite curse of ST, the odd movies are the good ones, which makes me feel bad about JP4.

Back to the Future Part II was nowhere near as good as the first one. The first third of the movie was just stupid (Bob Zemeckis was trapped by the throwaway joke at the end of Part I--he had to do a story with Jennifer, and about Marty's kids). The later part of the movie was better, but between two totally fucked any chance to come up with coherent time travel rules for the series.

blade II was pure shit whereas the first onw was quite entertaining.

it wasnt so much because of the scientific flaws such as light "flowing around the corner" but the logic errors of the plot itself.

e.g.: we just found out that these new school mutant vampires are not affected by silver bullets but can be killed by daylight or these flashy daylight simulators which we have in rather large amounts. but we still dont take these sunlight deathrays with us into the sewers wich would be a perfect place to use them since they are fairily narrow and there would be no way for the mutants to escape. no we take worthles guns and daylight grenades which wouldnt be halfbad if we hadnt put in the ten seconds delay. oh, by the way these grenades are likely to kill my vampire girlfriend as well because the flashes are in no way controllable as the beams from the normal sunlight flashlights would be. *grmbl*
</rant>

salm wrote:blade II was pure shit whereas the first onw was quite entertaining.

it wasnt so much because of the scientific flaws such as light "flowing around the corner" but the logic errors of the plot itself.

e.g.: we just found out that these new school mutant vampires are not affected by silver bullets but can be killed by daylight or these flashy daylight simulators which we have in rather large amounts. but we still dont take these sunlight deathrays with us into the sewers wich would be a perfect place to use them since they are fairily narrow and there would be no way for the mutants to escape. no we take worthles guns and daylight grenades which wouldnt be halfbad if we hadnt put in the ten seconds delay. oh, by the way these grenades are likely to kill my vampire girlfriend as well because the flashes are in no way controllable as the beams from the normal sunlight flashlights would be. *grmbl*
</rant>

It's called drama.

neoolong wrote: It's called drama.

no, that´s called bullshit!
i know that it would be boring if they went down there with bfg s which the flashlights would be. the vampires wouldnt stand a chance.
but if that´s what would happen the plot writers should come up with something else than the sewers (which is sooooo old anyways) or say that the mutants cant be killed by daylight either but by some other more interesting way.
if an idea dosnt work and ends up in the movie being bullshit you need to come up with a new, better idea.

or they could have turned it into a total splatter movie with a plot as deep as an amateur gay porn.
then the story would be completely irrelevant and they could completely focus on slaying.
either have a good or at least a logical plot, or minimize the plot so much that it doesnt matter and is merely a short filler in between the action sequences.