User Avatar Image

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

posted by Chariloe on - last edited - Viewed by 6.8K 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
  • @Faceslasher said: Please tell me which remake actually was better then the original?

    True Grit (2010)
    Cape Fear (80's)
    Dawn of the Dead (2000's)
    The Thing (80's)
    The Fly (80's)
    3:10 to Yoma (2000's)
    Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70's)
    Piranha 3D

    Those are movies that I loved a lot more than the original. There's more but these were some of the better remakes. And then there's the much longer list of movies that I felt , although not as good, lived up to the original. Movies like Peter Jackson's King Kong or the most recent reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street. This all opinion based anyway. There's no real way to say if a movie is better or not. But remakes aren't bad. If fact, most of the time they're good movies. It's just that people have this weird understanding that they should but a remake down for no other reason than it's a remake. Which isn't really fair.

  • Nightmare on elm street is a good example of how uncreative and unnecessary a remake can be, its nothing near the quality of the original. And remakes are only good when they are very different from the original and stand for their own right, like The thing and Dawn of the dead, and only use the name and core idea for publicity or the director simply loves the original. And also it makes sense to remake a film when there actually is a reason, either by far better technological possibilities or when the material can be interpreted in other new ways, like after 20 or 30 years, not 10. Remaking just for the sake of it and slightly adapting it to the younger generation is just uncreative. When they are too lazy to think of something new or taking risks, they deserve to be inevitably compared to the original and loose miserably.

    I dont need to see ten times more dinosaurs, younger actors and a darker theme for Jurassic Park like in the remakes they poop out these days.

    About a closer adaptation of the book, guys, just cut it off. Books cannot be adapted one to one, its a different medium goddammit. There were similar scenes in the sequels like the river scene in JP 3, it dont have to be a page by page copy of the scenarios of the book, wheres the point in that? Spend millions of dollars because some fans are too lazy to imagine the things that they read???

  • @waroftheworlds01 said: True Grit (2010)
    Cape Fear (80's)
    Dawn of the Dead (2000's)
    The Thing (80's)
    The Fly (80's)
    3:10 to Yoma (2000's)
    Invasion of the Body Snatchers (70's)
    Piranha 3D

    Those are movies that I loved a lot more than the original. There's more but these were some of the better remakes. And then there's the much longer list of movies that I felt , although not as good, lived up to the original. Movies like Peter Jackson's King Kong or the most recent reboot of Nightmare on Elm Street. This all opinion based anyway. There's no real way to say if a movie is better or not. But remakes aren't bad. If fact, most of the time they're good movies. It's just that people have this weird understanding that they should but a remake down for no other reason than it's a remake. Which isn't really fair.

    I liked the first one better. Jurassic Park is a film that cannot be remade, especially since Steven said so himself that he will never touch JP after JP IV again.

  • LOL Okay, I know your mind will never be changed and I respect that. In the long run, a remake really isn't necessary. The first film is one of my favorite films of all times and I honestly watch it at least once a week.

    However, if they ever did decide to remake it or make a Jurassic Park 4 (which I've heard they are but who can really know for sure?) I will be in line waiting to see it because I love the series on all fronts (Movies, Novels, Comics, Action Figures, and Video Games.) I love the series so if they have plans to expand it in any way them I'm all for it.

  • @waroftheworlds01 said: LOL Okay, I know your mind will never be changed and I respect that. In the long run, a remake really isn't necessary. The first film is one of my favorite films of all times and I honestly watch it at least once a week.

    However, if they ever did decide to remake it or make a Jurassic Park 4 (which I've heard they are but who can really know for sure?) I will be in line waiting to see it because I love the series on all fronts (Movies, Novels, Comics, Action Figures, and Video Games.) I love the series so if they have plans to expand it in any way them I'm all for it.

    Also, Steven said he won't be directing JP IV, just like JP3.

  • Yeah, but i know Joe Johnson wanted to return though. I remember they had an interview with him saying that he might return after he finished Captin American but that movies had been made and released already with no real news on Jurassic Park so......

  • I hate remakes.

    It shows a lack of imagination in Hollywood. Actually the most imaginative thing to come of this phenomenon is how with every remake, Hollywood manages to use a new re- word. remade, reimagined, redefined, restarted, rebooted. Here's a re- word for you Hollywood; Retarded.

    I'm waiting for the day when they announce a remake to a movie that's not even out yet. It WILL happen.

  • The problem with remakes is that all too often they are simply a cash grab. The best example of this is the new Spiderman movie. This movie wasn't made with a deep appreciation and understanding of the story and history of the character. It was made because if they DIDN'T make it then the rights to the franchise would revert back to Marvel and Sony would lose a "cash cow". They pushed out whatever they could for the sake of keeping the film rights, not for the sake of making a quality movie.

    IMO Jurassic Park II and III are a similar thing. Just making a Jurassic Park movie to cash in on the franchise. There was no quality story in there, just dinosaurs chasing people. Boring. Who cares. I don't have high hopes for a Jurassic Park IV either.

    IF anyone was to go back to the source material to try and make a different Jurassic Park movie (please no "remake". Speilberg's movie was a great movie and doesn't need to be improved upon) the ONLY way it would be any good was if it was about the characters and the themes of the original. The whole dinosaur chasing people stuff needs to be of secondary importance. A new Jurassic Park would need to be a serious, deep character driven movie, not an action packed hollow movie like so much of what Hollywood pumps out these days. Can anyone say "Transformers"? No thanks. I like my movies with substance.

  • While I liked Transformers(yes, all of them), I do prefer my movies to have some substance to their style. At least, when the material calls for it. When your film is based on a cartoon about two factions of giant robots having a war on Earth, you really don't NEED much substance. However, Jurassic Park would because it can have several different messages: a message that nature should not be tampered with, that nature cannot be contained and controlled, or that genetic engineering brings nothing but danger. The only directors I know that can still find that balance between style and substance are Steven Spielberg(leave Indy 5 alone people, it was just as silly as, if not more so than, Temple of Doom) and J.J. Abrams.

Add Comment