User Avatar Image

Remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World (with Spielberg as Producer)

posted by Chariloe on - last edited - Viewed by 6.3K users

Somebody started a campaign that could actually be successful, but we need more people to participate.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230


We must send letters to Universal (or e-mail the studio) and explain this brilliant idea:

If Universal is afraid to remake the JP movies (because of the Spielberg-fanboys who are so biased towards the original movie) then we have to convince Universal to GET SPIELBERG TO BE THE PRODUCER OF THE REMAKES. It might be the only way to convince the public that this project will be taken seriously.

"In Steve We Trust"

The posters for the remakes could even say: "STEVEN SPIELBERG PRESENTS" above the title, just like other movies he was only the producer of.

P.S.
If you don't like the term "remake," then just think of it as a "reboot" instead...because our motivation is more about the books than it is about Spielberg's films.

180 Comments - Linear Discussion: Classic Style
  • @Alcoremortis said: Honestly, I really wouldn't like to see a remake. Why? Because the original films were great (well the first one...and sorta the second one), had decent special effects, acting, plot, etc... Technologically, there isn't a whole lot that could be added to the films to make them better, so why bother?

    It just isn't worth it, to me to remake a film to add a few extra scenes from the books. Those scenes were cut for a reason, probably because they didn't have very good cinematic quality. Since the original movies were great even though they didn't follow the books, I'm forced to infer that the choices about what content to cut and what to include were relatively good ones.

    So tl;dr: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Totally agreed!

    I admit I didnt read the novel, I love the movie and only the movie, but that raptor-cavern-thing and T-Rex swimming after the kids on a boat just sound stupid. The logo and Land-Cruiser look boring too, actually glad they changed all that for the movie!

    @waroftheworlds01
    If its not possible to continue the story, why not consider a story between the timeline of the movies. Still I think Site B before or while the storm destroyed it has huge story potential, and it could feel like one of the first movies!

  • I would die inside if they ever remade Jurassic Park.

  • @Sadonicus said: @waroftheworlds01
    If its not possible to continue the story, why not consider a story between the timeline of the movies. Still I think Site B before or while the storm destroyed it has huge story potential, and it could feel like one of the first movies!

    I wouldn't mind that either. They could use some stuff from the novel that hasn't been used yet and fuse it with a story that happens between or before the films.

  • @Chariloe said: Somebody started a campaign that could actually be successful, but we need more people to participate.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230


    We must send letters to Universal (or e-mail the studio) and explain this brilliant idea:

    If Universal is afraid to remake the JP movies (because of the Spielberg-fanboys who are so biased towards the original movie) then we have to convince Universal to GET SPIELBERG TO BE THE PRODUCER OF THE REMAKES. It might be the only way to convince the public that this project will be taken seriously.

    "In Steve We Trust"

    The posters for the remakes could even say: "STEVEN SPIELBERG PRESENTS" above the title, just like other movies he was only the producer of.

    P.S.

    Why remake them? They are fine as they are and don't need to be remade. In fact, it would be nice if the Jurassic Park franchise is one of the few that escapes all this current remake shit that is going on.

  • actually I don't think "they are fine."

    Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park to tell about the reckless use of science to gain money & where scientists forced by companies think they can control everything. Based on a very detailed research he managed to make his novel very believeable and thus thrilling.

    This is his common formula he used on his other novels too, depending on what sort of technology was cutting edge at the specific time.

    In the 60s it was about travelling into space (andromeda),
    in the 70s it was about robots and artificial intelligence (westworld),
    in the 80s it was about species extinction and computer technology (congo) & about astro-physics and psychology (sphere) ,
    1990 it was about genetic engineering and chaos theory (jurassic park),
    in the early 90s about sexual harassment by women (disclosure) and the new economy power of japan (rising sun),
    1995 about extinction and behaviour (the lost world),
    1999 about quantum technology and history (timeline),
    2002 about nano technology and multi agent systems (prey),
    2004 about global warming and eco-terrorism (state of fear) and
    2007 about bio-design (next).

    of course this list isn't complete.

    spielberg turned jurassic park into a quite well done cinematic adaption and contained most of the scientific background of crichton's novel (although he toned most of it down to few simple mentions).
    the movie showed the wonder of living dinosaurs but most important to this wasn't any scientific background but the CGIs and animatronics.
    plus it was a general public interest in dinosaurs at that time.
    that was what made the movie so successfull (and merchandising as well).

    crichton never wrote a sequel to his books, but because of the huge success of his novel and the movie he felt to continue somehow (and the novel's and movie's publisher saw the financial potential too).

    even the novel version of the lost world felt in some way "forced". it had nice ideas (scientific and location-wise) but couldn't catch up to jurassic park.
    well and spielberg just wanted a base for another film. he just took the raw background from crichton's novel and david koepp estabished a rather simple story with unimportant characters. unless the first movie it wasn't a movie about the magic of dinosaurs anymore it was an action-movie with dinosaurs in it.
    they didn't really want to tell anything. just show a mercedes M-class pulling a fleetwood RV up a cliff on muddy ground... dozens of special hunting vehicles jumping reckless over hills and all being destroyed in a few seconds, dozens of "marlboro-men" hunted to death, a magically vanished crew on a boat that hits san diego's harbor to finally have a t-rex-lookalike king kong causing havoc in the city.
    i mean...come on.

    so it's a nice easter egg and points out a core message very well, when we see the script writer david koepp being eaten by the t-rex in the lost world.

    the third movie just maxed out everything and continued the series very well: getting away from the key substance and presenting more action and thrill. one t-rex was thrilling in jurassic park, but boring for the lost world, where we needed at least two, but hey...two are boring for jurassic park III, were we need something bigger, better.... spinosaurus!
    a car in jurassic park, a RV and a boat in the lost world... what's left? well... A PLANE! yeah!
    pterosaurs with teeth? why not they look frightening, raptors chatting with each other? not only, just use a rapid prototyped resonance chamber and even humans can talk to dinosaurs...... and a lonely man in a suit on the beach... just before the navy and the marines arrive! that's what people want to see!

    keeping the direction this trilogy has taken, a story about amoured dinosaurs wouldn't be that far fetched, would it?


    so if there isn't ANY GOOD STORY to tell, I can't wait for a remake, which stays true to the intentions that Michael Crichton had, when he wrote Jurassic Park.

  • Tope1983, you have to realize, Crichton had to approve of the script before they released the movie. It was his book they were dealing with. I think that if Crichton was satisfied then we should be satisfied too. So....I could definitely see a remake. In 20 years, any time before that and it's too soon.

  • "Remake Jurassic Park and The Lost World (with Spielberg as Producer)"

    Worst idea I've heard this year.

    @Orange Intercouse said: No it isn't!

    Actually it is. Even 482 years from now would be too soon.

    @Orange Intercouse said: Spider-Man came out in 2002, and that's getting a remake in 2012, even though they're calling it a "reboot" (the Jurassic Park remake can be called the same thing).

    And...???? :confused:

    Superman Returns came out in 2006, and they decided to reboot that franchise as well. New film is due out next year.

    It doesn't matter if you call it a revamp/reboot/remake/reimagining it's 99.9% of the time a terrible idea and above all unnecessary waste of money.

  • Yeah, but I think Crichton never really had much intrest in the film adaptation of his novels. I know he said in an interview (I'll try to find it) that as long as the director and film crew were satisfied with there work then it was okay with him.

  • @Blue Tights said:
    Superman Returns came out in 2006, and they decided to reboot that franchise as well. New film is due out next year.

    It doesn't matter if you call it a revamp/reboot/remake/reimagining it's 99.9% of the time a terrible idea and above all unnecessary waste of money.

    That's not necessarily true. There are some very well done "reboots" out there recently. Batman Begins. Casino Royale. Star Trek.

    And I think Superman NEEDS a reboot. Why? Because of one simple reason. It's time to finally move past Christopher Reeve. Yes, he brought life to the character. But all Superman Returns was was an attempt to be another Christopher Reeve movie. And yes, it had its good points. Brandon Routh did a fine job playing Christopher Reeve playing Superman. Kevin Spacey did an excellent Lex Luthor. But the super-kid side-story dragged the movie down(it was done far better in the novel) and the chick playing Lois Lane just plain stank. And I believe we'll never have a good Superman movie again until we realize that Chris Reeve is gone and its time to move on.

    Spider-man on the other hand...yes, Spider-man 3 was weak. But they could have fixed it with a 4th movie. But Sam Raimi and the studio had some "creative differences" and he left and Tobey Macguire went with him.

    Jurassic Park...it's hard to say how well a reboot would do. It's still recent enough that they have to be careful with how they approach it. Though I think JP3 left enough of a bad taste in peoples' mouths that a reboot might be welcomed. But, as you did say, most remakes/reboots/etc. are a bad idea. So, we'll see.

  • @Shadowknight1 said: That's not necessarily true. There are some very well done "reboots" out there recently. Batman Begins. Casino Royale.

    ACTUALLY, it's kind of an invalid KIND OF. In Batman's case look at it like this, Joel Schumacher's movies were NOT a direct continuation of Tim Burton's stories, they just hired a new director to tell NEW Batman stories, of course we all know how that turned out LOL. So, it's more they got a new director to tell a new Batman story with Chris Nolan. It COULD be called a reboot.

    As for James Bond, Casino Royale was NOT a Reboot, it was a prequel, and they needed it to help finish stories based off of Ian Flemmings books...so yeah. THE MORE YOU KNOW!!!!:D:p

Add Comment