Best Jurassic Park/World Movie?

The Raptors could be interpreted as a misclassified genus, remember at the time of the book was written deinonychus was labed as a type of Velociraptor.

By the time the movie was released it was known what was what. Of all the things the movie changes a simple name change would be the simplest to do. They stuck with Velociraptor because is sounds good pretty simple.

Point is you don't watch Jurassic Park/World because it's scientifically plausible you watch it for the story. If we sat fact checking all of the JP movies we could sit here and call out all of them. People just don't like to see the t rex lose so suddenly when it does all the sudden we need this movie to be correct and realistic.

It was an unfair fight. Spinosaurus shouldn't of been that powerfully even if it was genetically engineered

"Yes my main complaint is the spinosaurus"

Boo-hoo. If that were even a fraction of what was wrong with the movie I might give you some wiggle room to argue it. But it wasn't.

I prefer the T-Rex, but of all the problems Jurassic Park III has, the Spinosaurus is the absolute least of its worries.

And yes... The dialog in Jurassic World was laughably bad. Fun at times for it. But bad.

I didn't think it was that bad or bad at all, its my opinion. so lets agree to disagree.

@ Xenotaris

And t.rex shouldn't have been able to sneak into the welcome center unnoticed in the first movie, but it happened and gave us a cool scene so we forgive it.

I hope you see where this is going. The fight was meant to be 2 big dinosaurs fighting for a fun scene not scientifically dissected in what is obviously a movie not trying to be realistic. 2 big dinosaurs fought, the bigger one won, it doesn't have to be deeper than that, and pretty clearly wasn't meant to be.

I've never seen more hatred directed at what accounts to like 1 minute of screentime. 

Its not the fact that it won that upsets but how the director and Jack Horner were stating it as a scientific fact that Spinosaurus was superior in the special features. Also it lead to a whole generation of people thinking that spinosaurus was superior without checking in their scientific facts.

Not even a contest, Jurassic Park all the way.  Let's run through each JP movie and why the first is the best:

Jurassic Park is near, if not absolute perfection.  It's one of the greatest movies of all time, and my favourite.  It had great characters and acting, and incredible special effects.  But what stands out the most is the portrayal of the dinosaurs.  They're not just big, dumb monsters that kill just for shit and giggles, they do it to survive.  They're portrayed as actual animals and a good reason for mankind not to fuck around with nature.

The Lost World is not as good, but better than what it gets credit for.  It is easily superior to Jurassic Park III, having better characters and acting.  It was darker, but the plot was flawed, having several plot holes.  It was stupid at times, but overall the best JP sequel IMO.

Jurassic Park III, I feel will always be a mixed story.  Amanda Kirby is a fucking retarded bitch, the movie had a shit storyline and shit acting.  As if that wasn't bad enough, they got the dinosaurs all wrong, especially the Spinosaurus.  They were mindless killing machines.  They were so sloppy with the Spinosaurus that it could take down a plane, a T.Rex, and a large metal fence tipped with spikes, but couldn't break through a small wooden door.  Logic 101 for you there.  Not to mention there are all those damn Spino fanboys...

Jurassic World was an improvement, but severely flawed.  The romance and dialogue was cringey, and there were pointless subplots.  Militarised dinosaurs?  I call bullshit on that.  Like GMan said, it was pure, dumb fun.  Not to mention it's the second most overrated movie of all time.

^More or less agree with everything Lord Tyrant said, apart from Jurassic Park III. It's the most cumbersome and redundant of the films by far, but the acting was fine and the Spinosaurus was the least of its problems.

The main problems came from the characters, namely Grant, making the same stupid mistakes again. The ethical ramifications Grant came to peace with in the first movie are largely pitched so he can be lured to the island. The hired mercenaries should've been far more prepared as well. Jurassic Park and the San Diego incident were out of the bag at this point. There was plenty of material to go on in terms of better prep. Dozens of battleships were shown on national television escorting the T-Rex cargo carrier in the second film. You would think that would send up some red flags.

Jurassic Park, definitely. It set the bar and just had so much going for it, in terms of story, characters, tension, fun and the joy of seeing dinosaurs so incredibly realized. Spielberg had me hooked, as he did with Jaws, within the first five minutes of the movie, and without showing a damn thing! That's something.

At it's core, it is a B monster movie. Now, before anyone sets about to string me up, that is not a knock. Some of my favorite genre films are B monster movies; among them, King Kong (33), Godzilla (54), Them!, Jaws, Alien, The 7th Voyage of Sinbad, and Tremors, to name but a few. What elevates all of these for this viewer are any number of factors - story, atmosphere, characters, emotion, originality, visual effects and a sense of pure wonder and fun.

Having said that, although JP is number one, I've enjoyed all four. I'm a bit more in JP III's court though than most, specifically because of the Spinosaurus. One of the things I loved about JP, besides seeing how great the dinos looked, etc., was being genuinely scared of the Raptors and T-Rex. I realize the filmmakers were merely looking for something new, since some of the luster had perhaps worn off of the Rex and the Raptors and the wow factor wasn't quite there as it had been in the first two. Regardless of how accurate the portrayal might have been, I found Spinosaurus intimidating; probably slightly moreso than the Indominus. That's a fight I'd love to see. But anyway, the first JP is definitely the best.

"There was nothing like it beforehand and there's been nothing like it since then."

I may agree with the latter part of that statement, but in what way(s) are you referring to nothing like it beforehand?

Well XenoRaptor,

Jurassic Park,

HAS NO FLAWS

KoldWarKid,
Largely in terms of the special effects and how they were introduced in tandem with the drama. CG had been used before, but never to this extent and never so successfully.

For example, the introduction of the Brachiosaurus is one of cinema's finest moments. The movie had built up to that point, playing with audience anticipation, and the reveal was something of a reflexive operation by the film makers. I think a lot of the kids on this forum are too young to recall, but the look on the characters' faces were mirrored by the looks of the audiences in theaters. (Me among them.)

A new boundary of visual effects had been breached in that moment, but the magic was in Spielberg's trademark build-up, the characters' reactions and Williams' iconic music. The scene changed everything for blockbusters, certainly, but out-of-the-blocks it showed how CG should be used--As a tool and not an answer. There are similar moments with various tones throughout the film.

It was only as effective as the dramatic weight it was given and that was absolutely a first in ways that Cameron's The Abyss and Terminator 2: Judgment Day didn't quite capture a few years prior. (And I'd argue he still doesn't understand the concept after Avatar.)

GMan,
I would agree with your assessment of how the effects were used and I think they are incredibly iconic because of that and also impactful because of the subject matter. Who doesn't love dinosaurs?

I'd disagree with you on T2 though. I sat, as did others in the theater, at awe at what Cameron did regarding the T-1000. I never looked at it as a way to show off CG, but really as a means to do something that quite honestly hadn't been done before, albeit in a very different way than JP did. It was no less mind-blowing and impressive to this viewer, and believe me, as a dinosaur lover from way back, I was just as taken by JP as the next person.

So, I think both utilized it incredibly well but again in different ways. I'm not going to compare the two and say they're on equal footing; that would be disingenuous. JP is right where it belongs among films but I have to give T2 it's props as being a pioneer in the use of CG to really push the limits of effects and adding a sense of wonder to a film as a storytelling device. JP did take it up several notches in using it to create living breathing believable dinosaurs, from which we're still trying to pick up our jaws.

KoldWarKid,
As much as I truly love Terminator 2: Judgment Day, much of its CG was little more than an extension of what Cameron did in The Abyss--Which I would argue was closer to the dramatic unison I mentioned than T2.

No doubt people, including myself, were in certain awe with the T-1000, but immediately after the movie everyone from audiences to critics were drawing comparisons to The Abyss. Before Jurassic Park, CG seemed to be the most believable when it was creating inspiration for The Secret World of Alex Mack. After Jurassic Park the sky was the limit.

this thread seems to have gone from what you think is the best JP movie to an argument about CGI

CarnoFTW, JW was severely hindered by its flaws

and CGI has really gotten bad since Jurassic Park

^It's not exactly an argument about CG or how good it was, but a look at the advent of CG and the proper way to use it.

In any case, CG has become less believable since Jurassic Park, I agree, but I think we could dive further than to simply call it bad. CG has become something of a fast-food factory and overused. It's not really an art form anymore, but rather a answer to every executive's problem. As a result its over-saturated Western cinema to the point where its lost its, 'wow' factor.