this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2025
30 points (100.0% liked)

movies

1070 readers
210 users here now

A community about movies and cinema.

Related communities:

Rules

  1. Be civil
  2. No discrimination or prejudice of any kind
  3. Do not spam
  4. Stay on topic
  5. These rules will evolve as this community grows

No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] brem@sh.itjust.works 11 points 16 hours ago (7 children)

The first Jurassic Park movie is brilliant & important.

The 2nd one is fun, but not as good as the first.

The 3rd one isn't very good, but is still better than any of the Jurassic World movies.

The 'Jurassic World' "movies" aren't part of the 'Jurassic Park' franchise in my house.

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 14 hours ago (6 children)

The 2nd movie was also based on a book (Lost World by Crichton), so it had solid source material to work with. It also helped that Spielberg was still involved.

I actually really liked the Lost World book, it was really engaging.

The movie was OK, it could have been a lot better, they failed to fully capitalize on the source material.

[–] brem@sh.itjust.works 4 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Both screen & written versions of 'The Lost World' are inferior to 'Jurassic Park'.

We both know this is true. So does everyone else, including Crichton himself.

Another thought, wouldn't it be super cool to see a really good screenplay for 'Timeline'!?

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

I never said Lost World was better than Jurassic Park. :) I did think the book was closer to the quality of the original (but never reaching it) while the movie version was mediocre.

I am surprised they haven't released a Timeline movie yet, it seems like a good fit for a mass market movie (plus you'll have all the Crichton fans).

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

They did.

Over 20 years ago. Didn't do great, probably why they haven't taken another crack at it...

[–] jbone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

How did I miss this? Although it sounds like they completely butchered the concept.

I will have to check it out, thanks for sharing!

[–] brem@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago

Timeline!?

Yeah, if you love the book you'll probably be disappointed.

Just pretend you haven't read it. It's actually a pretty fun flick, it just doesn't live up to the book; in any proportion.

[–] brem@sh.itjust.works 2 points 10 hours ago

That's no excuse. How many Marvel films (starting with 'Howard The Duck') did it take for MCU to begin to be successful.

They just need to reboot it a billion times. I forget the latin addige, but it is basically 'Some Will Hit, Some Will Miss'

'Nec Omiss nec nulla' or some shit. Not gonna 'duck duck go' it... got meat cookin'.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)