|
|
#23
08-17-2007, 01:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Jurrasic Park 4 AKA Dino Riders
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why did they ever come out with another one, the first one was a stone cold classic and they should really stop [censored] with it dinosaurs with guns....give me a break [/ QUOTE ] Jurassic Park is not a stone cold classic. It's "good", and it can be argued that III is better because III is just dinosaur greatness and isn't trying to be some diatribe on Chaos Theory and having children and the ethical problems of science. Sequels don't "[censored]" with a movie. Also you missed the point of the OP, which made it fairly clear that this was just an old script tossed around and this will not be what they're filming for the upcoming Jurassic Park IV. [/ QUOTE ] WTF? I'm not sure about "stone cold classic" but Jurassic Park is an excellent, excellent film. If you think 3 was better, you're almost retarded. I really have no idea how someone could think that 3 was even an above average movie, let alone better than the first. [/ QUOTE ] Worm, I stand corrected on the plot, I thought that was done away with long ago. III does exactly what it sets out to do, which is give us a bunch of pretty dinosaurs to look at in intense scenarios, including water and air scenes which hadn't been in the previous movies. The first is pretending to be an actual excellent movie like Jaws, using children and some nonsense moral arguments to trick you into thinking it actually has something to say and isn't just a fun summer movie, and it has a lot of people fooled. I made a post some time ago about people who hate III. It doesn't make any logical sense for somebody who voluntarily saw III to hate it. Why'd you go see the [censored] movie in the first place? What were you expecting? Lost World sucked, so why on earth would you go see III with any expectations other than being entertained by a bunch of CGI and animatronic dinosaurs, which the movie 100% delivers on? In any event, I said a legitimate argument could be made for it, not that I thought it was better. Ebert supports this viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ] 3 isnt terrible but it certainly isn't a great or even good film. the first one was fantastic in terms of direction by SS, set design, and special effects for the time, the acting was top notch too. All the set pieces were great. You can't compare the dino scenes in 3 because half the ones they chose to do in 3 were not POSSIBLE to do in 1 given the technology. Script for one is also way way better than the "lets steal a raptor egg and have them chase us around but then they'll let us go cuz we talk to them with a raptor whistle" in 3. JP can't hold a candle to Jaws but it still one of the best cgi summer tent pole pictures out there. 
|
|
#24
08-17-2007, 09:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jurrasic Park 4 AKA Dino Riders
4-high that is incredible.
|
|
#25
08-17-2007, 03:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jurrasic Park 4 AKA Dino Riders
[ QUOTE ]
4-high that is incredible. [/ QUOTE ] The Godfather one is one of the best animated pic I've seen in a long while. ty
|
|
#28
08-17-2007, 11:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jurrasic Park 4 AKA Dino Riders
Whatever anyone thinks of the movies doesn't matter.
Nicely done, 4 High. Some really fine work in this thread.
|
|
#29
08-17-2007, 11:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Jurrasic Park 4 AKA Dino Riders
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Why did they ever come out with another one, the first one was a stone cold classic and they should really stop [censored] with it dinosaurs with guns....give me a break [/ QUOTE ] Jurassic Park is not a stone cold classic. It's "good", and it can be argued that III is better because III is just dinosaur greatness and isn't trying to be some diatribe on Chaos Theory and having children and the ethical problems of science. Sequels don't "[censored]" with a movie. Also you missed the point of the OP, which made it fairly clear that this was just an old script tossed around and this will not be what they're filming for the upcoming Jurassic Park IV. [/ QUOTE ] WTF? I'm not sure about "stone cold classic" but Jurassic Park is an excellent, excellent film. If you think 3 was better, you're almost retarded. I really have no idea how someone could think that 3 was even an above average movie, let alone better than the first. [/ QUOTE ] Worm, I stand corrected on the plot, I thought that was done away with long ago. III does exactly what it sets out to do, which is give us a bunch of pretty dinosaurs to look at in intense scenarios, including water and air scenes which hadn't been in the previous movies. The first is pretending to be an actual excellent movie like Jaws, using children and some nonsense moral arguments to trick you into thinking it actually has something to say and isn't just a fun summer movie, and it has a lot of people fooled. I made a post some time ago about people who hate III. It doesn't make any logical sense for somebody who voluntarily saw III to hate it. Why'd you go see the [censored] movie in the first place? What were you expecting? Lost World sucked, so why on earth would you go see III with any expectations other than being entertained by a bunch of CGI and animatronic dinosaurs, which the movie 100% delivers on? In any event, I said a legitimate argument could be made for it, not that I thought it was better. Ebert supports this viewpoint. [/ QUOTE ] 3 doesn't try to get across a stupid point? Are you kidding? First of all, the sappy family plot was horrible. Secondly, what about the whole disturbing nature [censored]? They steal the raptor egg, they get chased the whole movie, the raptors don't eat them when they give it back. Respek nature, yo. Also, having the trex die was [censored] horrible.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
