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

[Chariloe]

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.

[SeanJP]

exactly how many people have done this so far???

[Chariloe]

exactly how many people have done this so far???

We don't know for sure, because the people who liked the Facebook page probably did so w/o noticing the part about writing letters to Universal. BUT if they did notice, then that means at least 15 people have sent in letters to Universal in the last few days.

[SeanJP]

i hope you are right by doing this and i wouldnt rly mind seeing a remak of the first and second movies i especially want to see the raptor chase with ellie in the book that wasnt really a chase in the movie

[jpark_08]

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



Letters are boring and unprofessional; the studio just won't take it seriously. What you really need to do is submit your ideas on baked goods like cupcakes. Everybody likes cupcakes. Each day we will ship Universal one new cupcake topped with original ideas like plot points, character castings, and test dialogue written in icing sugar. We can call it the "Cupcakes for Remakes" campaign. It's brilliant and delicious.


Let's get started! Who knows how to bake?

[SeanJP]

me i know how to bake and who has nice penmanship???

[FPug]

If they remake it....they HAVE to keep the dinosaur designs the same. I'm just the littlest bit apprehensive about this.

[waroftheworlds01]

It's too early for a remake. I want a part 4!!!!!

[Orange Intercouse]

It's too early for a remake.No it isn't!

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).

Jurassic Park came out almost twice as long ago. So that amount of time can justify a remake.

I want a part 4!!!!!Why did you put this in your post? Are you saying Universal can't make a remake and a part 4?

[tope1983]

I'd also rather prefer a remake in terms of visualizing the novel.
As I already said in the "JP4 Thread" it would also be a sign to honor the work of Michael Crichton.
2013 would be the 20th birthday of Jurassic Park. In general this would be a good date for a remake but I doubt it can be done in only 2 years from now on.

The movie Jurassic Park became popular not only because of the general interest in dinosaurs in the early 1990s but mostly because of the breathtaking CGI-animations at that time. For a remake we are now at a similar point concerning technology. CGI has already been maxed out during the last decade. But we are now at the very beginning of 3D technology. Using this a new Jurassic Park has again the chance to impress visually.

I'd like the remake of Jurassic Park to be set like it is in the original novel: 1989.
Thus there should be used thereadays architecture, technical equipment, cars and fashion. The design of the dinosaurs should use the same bodyshape as in the original trilogy (mostly this doesn't contradict with the novel) but the rest (skin colors...) should be taken from the book.
Jurassic Park would be a rather long movie, if we take all the scenes from the novel, so it should be split into two movies. The first film starts right off in the hospital in Bahia Anasco and ends directly after the T-Rex attack on the Land Cruisers.
The second one takes off with Harding, Sattler and Gennaro meeting the Apatosaurs in the rain and ends in San José.

If this turns out to be liked by the audience they maybe could remake the novel "The Lost World" too.

All this I would rather prefer than a fourth movie.

[waroftheworlds01]

No it isn't!

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).

Jurassic Park came out almost twice as long ago. So that amount of time can justify a remake.

Why did you put this in your post? Are you saying Universal can't make a remake and a part 4?

YES IT IS!! Spider Man did indeed come out in 2002 and I think it's a crap idea for them to reboot the series just because they feel that the third film was not as good as the first two. I enjoyed spiderman 3 and I loved the casting but now we have all new people and now we have to sit through the whole orgin story all over again. One word: BORING!!!!!

And no, you can't release a remake and a Jurassic Park 4 at them same time if that's what you're asking. But if its not, I'm just saying that I loved all three Jurassic Park films and I think there's still a lot left to be explored in the series without having to reboot the damn thing.

[Icedhope]

I will say this. It usually does more harm than good when fans sign petitions and the such for remaking or getting things done. Because it puts more stress on the director, producer and the such to try and get things right.

[FPug]

I will say this. It usually does more harm than good when fans sign petitions and the such for remaking or getting things done. Because it puts more stress on the director, producer and the such to try and get things right.

Exactly, it takes time to get things perfect, rushing him and TELLING him what he should do will only be a detriment to the process, and he'll be less likely to consider it again.

[jpark_08]

I will say this. It usually does more harm than good when fans sign petitions and the such for remaking or getting things done. Because it puts more stress on the director, producer and the such to try and get things right.

Know what takes the edge off? Cupcakes. Lots and lots of cupcakes.

[Asian Inferno]

Hoenstly I'd rather see a continuation of the existing story, such as Johnson's new Trilogy. But if it does come down to a complete reboot is has to be really really good. Having established mainstays of the previous movies makes this really hard to do because no one can replace the wonderful original actors.

I'm glad that JP is seeing more interest now, but at the same time I don't want it to start from scratch all over again.

[tobar]

Jurassic Park does NOT need to be remade. If you want to see it in theaters again you need to push for a revival.

[Orange Intercouse]

...it takes time to get things perfect, rushing him and TELLING him what he should do will only be a detriment to the process, and he'll be less likely to consider it again.But that's not what the Facebook page is saying.

All they want is for Universal to START the project soon, not finish soon...It says they want the confirmation that the project is a go to come as soon as possible, but he can take all the time he needs to produce the remakes.

When Universal confirms that they're producing the remakes, a forum should be started (maybe at JPLegacy (http://www.jplegacy.org/board/)) specifically for the director/writers to seek input from the fans. That's what Michael Bay did for the 1st Transformers. He and the writers actually listened to some things. But that doesn't mean they have to rush the production.

[SmorepionKid]

Maybe a sequel to JPOG will come along with that remake!

[dillangandhi]

A reboot for Summer 2013 is the only thing I'm supporting.

Use the same science, even the same characters, but have it so the theme park is completely operational and then goes belly up. A terrorist attack done by eco-extremists. And on the mainland from the get-go.

[jpsandhu]

Bad idea. Leave the first one alone!

[RexMaster]

Bad idea. Leave the first one alone!

*like* I agree but same with the second one, fuck the remakes, this movie changed the world of movies and the world in general and u dont think its good enough even though it stood the test of time after 18 years already? Wow...

[Orange Intercouse]

Bad idea. Leave the first one alone!*Dislike* That's a pointless comment. Just because Universal can do a remake, doesn't mean they would be bothering the first one. Remakes have proven to be great countless times. And besides, no matter how good or bad a remake is, it has no effect on the first version whatsoever. The first version stays the way it is. If you don't like the remake---which would NOT mean that it's a bad movie---then you can just rewatch Spielberg's version and pretend the remake doesn't exist. They might tell different versions of the same story but they're not forcing you to like both....Our desire for a remake has nothing to do with disliking Spielberg's version. The facebook page explained it clearly. Just because some people like Spielberg's version, doesn't mean we shouldn't want to see a closer adaptation of the novels.

[sniperwar10]

i don't like this idea at all.

[ZerosTheWizard]

I dont know how id feel about a remake/reboot to be honest.

On one hand Id love to see all the scenes from the novels, especially the lost world since that one was so different from the novel.

On the other hand im not a big fan of remaking movies, especially when they were so good in the first place. Different actors being a big one, when you get attached to someone playing a certain character, its hard seeing that same character being played by someone else (For me at least anyway :P) sometimes it just cant be helped though.

I understand that this new reboot would be a different movie, going with the novel and whatnot, but there are things people fall in love with in the original that they dont really want changed.

I think if they could make the movie about the novel but also keep as much as they can the same from the original movie it would work best. Keep the dinosaur designs and sound effects the same from the first movie, definitely the music, the jeeps and explorers, the things like that, and try to keep as much of the original cast as possible.

Thats the way id like it anyway :P

Also, if they decide not do start Jurassic park over if telltale could get the rights to the novels I think that would be good for the next jp game.

[RexMaster]

*Dislike* That's a pointless comment. Just because Universal can do a remake, doesn't mean they would be bothering the first one. If you don't like the remake, you can just rewatch Spielberg's version and pretend the remake doesn't exist....Our desire for a remake has nothing to do with disliking Spielberg's version. The facebook page explained it clearly. Just because some people like Spielberg's version, doesn't mean we shouldn't want to see a closer adaptation of the novels.

*disklike* to the horrible post that i just quoted actually... When you have created the best movie and sequel of all time, why fuck with it? Bad stuff happens if you do... OH, u must not have seen Jurassic Park III! It also pisses me off that u said "some" people like Spielbergs version... Spielbergs version is the only version first of all and it remains one of the highest grossing movies of all time after 18 years so I think that more that "some" people like it. I personally think that the only thing that you can do to improve such an amazing franchise is exactly what Telltale is doing, tell more stories in game form because then, it costs way less and if you screw up, itll just fit in with the other 5,000 JP games that failed (Trespasser isnt one of em!!!)

[Icedhope]

Guys let's not start flaming and causing trouble about this...why don't we get back to discussing what a remake would be like or what characters would be in it.


Personaly I would like to see a remake that is actually closer to the novels...nothing will ever take the first movie off it's throne nothing.

[Sadonicus]

I'm not considering myself as a Spielberg-Fanboy, but I am a Jurassic Park-Fanboy and thus I think this is a bad idea, leave it for the memories, noone needs a Remake or Reboot or whatever you call it.

It would be basically the same thing with some alternate story-parts and characters/sets. Why? Totally pointless...

Also the makers of the film didnt changed the script compared to the books for no reason, a book cant be converted 1:1 to movie, it has to be adjusted to the medium, so the call for a remake closer to the books is just a stupid idea!

But I dont have to worry, even if some thousand people sign that (well, 15 so far XD), it wouldnt be nearly enough to take the risk off of a big project like this!

PS:
Spielberg as a producer wouldnt calm "movie-fanboys" as they call it at all. Seeing what George Lucas did with Star Wars or the reactions to the latest Indiana Jones movie prove it.

[Sadonicus]

When someone wants an updated Jurassic Park-film, just continue the story as telltale does.

Why not tell the story of how Site B went down? Enough potential to show some big CGI Dino-Action in 3D and remind the feel of the first two movies. Enough character potenial and it would be something fans would be interested in without raping the established classic first movie...

[tope1983]

the guys over at jplegacy.org did already suggest actors who could portray the main characters from the novel.

these guys would make an appearance in a possible jurassic park remake:

Dr. Alan Grant >> Viggo Mortensen
http://beardcoach.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/viggo-mortensen-beard.jpg

Dr. Ian Malcolm >> John Cusack
http://www.accesshollywood.com/content/images/18/230x306/18486_john-cusack.jpg

Dr. Ellen Sattler >> Charlieze Theron
http://www.accesshollywood.com/content/images/71/originals/71262_video-269690-access-extended-charlize-theron-talks-hancock.jpg

John A. Hammond >> David McCallum
http://www.buddytv.com/articles/NCIS/Images/David-McCallum-5.jpg

Donald Gennaro >> Nicolas Cage
http://collider.com/wp-content/image-base/People/N/Nicolas_Cage/nicolas_cage_image__1_.jpg

Robert Muldoon >> Bruce Willis
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.asylum.co.uk/media/2010/04/willis.jpg

Dr. Gerry Harding >> Pierce Brosnan
http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/lifeline-live/2010/02/10/PierceBrosnanx-large.jpg

Dr. Henry Wu >> Chin Han
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/images/events/CSH-058250.jpg

Ed Regis >> Kevin McKidd
http://images.zap2it.com/images/celeb-68925/kevin-mckidd-0.jpg

Tim Murphy >>

Alexis Murphy >> Chloe Moretz
http://www.childstarlets.com/lobby/bios/portraits/chloe_moretz23.jpg

Dennis Nedry >> Jonah Hill
http://www.topnews.in/files/images/Jonah-Hill.jpg

[Sadonicus]

the guys over at jplegacy.org did already suggest actors who could portray the main characters from the novel.

these guys would make an appearance in a possible jurassic park remake:


Besides the fact that this will never ever happen: C'Mon. That sounds horrible! John Cusack as Ian Malcolm? How could you replace Jeff Goldblum with John Cusack. And Viggo Mortensen is not nearly as sympathic as Sam Neill. Yeah, waste millions of dollars with high class actors who would never be able to fill the footsteps of the original cast in the fans hearts and waste more millions to make the same movie with better effects and some story changes?

And why would you ever want to disgrace the memories of the first film with a remake wich would be more than pointless! Just for better CGI? JP was good because it never relied only on them, so why make it bigger and better looking? This movie is not so filled with 90es feeling and is pretty timeless even with its CGI, it doesnt need a remake!

If you desperetly want to, polish the visuals and sound, add some minor things like in Alien or Blade Runner which are timeless as well and maybe add 3D. That would be acceptable. Bullshit like the Psycho-Remake that noone needed cause it chose the way these guys are suggesting, only leads to epic failure...

[ZerosTheWizard]

Besides the fact that this will never ever happen: C'Mon. That sounds horrible! John Cusack as Ian Malcolm? How could you replace Jeff Goldblum with John Cusack. And Viggo Mortensen is not nearly as sympathic as Sam Neill. Yeah, waste millions of dollars with high class actors who would never be able to fill the footsteps of the original cast in the fans hearts and waste more millions to make the same movie with better effects and some story changes?

And why would you ever want to disgrace the memories of the first film with a remake wich would be more than pointless! Just for better CGI? JP was good because it never relied only on them, so why make it bigger and better looking? This movie is not so filled with 90es feeling and is pretty timeless even with its CGI, it doesnt need a remake!

If you desperetly want to, polish the visuals and sound, add some minor things like in Alien or Blade Runner which are timeless as well and maybe add 3D. That would be acceptable. Bullshit like the Psycho-Remake that noone needed cause it chose the way these guys are suggesting, only leads to epic failure...

Ick, I agree, that cast list it one of the reasons I wouldnt want to see a remake.

I wouldnt think a remake would be disgracing the original movie or anything though, i seriously doubt anyone here wants that. everyone here loves jurassic park. I think they want more like.. well.. i dont know if youve seen fullmetal alchemist or not, but basically it was a manga they made into an anime series though that series used most of all the same characters themes and ideas the story went in a different direction, then after that one was done they remade the series again, same characters same voice actors (mostly, a few changes needed to be made) everything, just now they stuck to the same story from the manga.

I think thats what they want from jurassic park, they dont want to disgrace the first, or replace the first or anything like that, they want the same setting characters and everything, just the story being mostly the same but going a different way with it closer to the novel.

But i think we can both agree on this part: I really doubt it will work without the original cast.

Maybe if they can get as many people as they could back.. but i dont know.

As for me, im still undecided on the whole issue of the remake, i can see good things and bad. But i think one thing we can all agree on is this: We all want more jurassic park, either jp4, a remake, or more games, right? :D

[FPug]

I could go for Pierce Brosnan and Chin Han, but NICHOLAS CAGE?! Why would you ruin a good movie like that? Nicholas Cage's actor type is NOT for this movie. Neither is Charlieze Theran who looks too old. And of all people Bruce Willis? C'mon guys you have to go deeper than JUST appearance...and John F***ing Cusack?! How bad do you want people to make fun of this movie?

[Giu3232]

The two first movies are awesome. The novels are far better. Look what peter Jackson did with king Kong, that was great. My wish, restart the two first movies, following the books, two 2 hours and a half movies and extended edition of more than 3 hours like the lord if the ring. Spielberg as director or at least producer. no need celebrities, just good actors. All the guys and girls who read the novel must have this felling: why they didn't show this scene? Or this one? That would have been awesome. Simple, movie length, technical limit of the 90th, budget. Let correct all this and make two movies Michael crichton and stan winston would be proud of. Of course all this is just my humble opinion ^,^

[waroftheworlds01]

I like the list of actor choices there. (Still against a remake though :P)

However, I would have the actor from Lost who played Hurly to be Nedry.

Oh, and Daniel Craig as Robert Muldoon.

[SeanJP]

in my opinion the chick who jplegacy had as ellie sattler is horrible and she could shove it no one and i mean no one replaces laura dern as Ellie no one portrays ellie better than laura dern

[SWGNATE]

Besides the fact that this will never ever happen: C'Mon. That sounds horrible! John Cusack as Ian Malcolm? How could you replace Jeff Goldblum with John Cusack. And Viggo Mortensen is not nearly as sympathic as Sam Neill. Yeah, waste millions of dollars with high class actors who would never be able to fill the footsteps of the original cast in the fans hearts and waste more millions to make the same movie with better effects and some story changes?

And why would you ever want to disgrace the memories of the first film with a remake wich would be more than pointless! Just for better CGI? JP was good because it never relied only on them, so why make it bigger and better looking? This movie is not so filled with 90es feeling and is pretty timeless even with its CGI, it doesnt need a remake!

If you desperetly want to, polish the visuals and sound, add some minor things like in Alien or Blade Runner which are timeless as well and maybe add 3D. That would be acceptable. Bullshit like the Psycho-Remake that noone needed cause it chose the way these guys are suggesting, only leads to epic failure...

i agree.. a novel based movie...its a bit too late for that the first one rocks too much already

[tope1983]

Henrique Tomassi made a draft of the Jurassic Park logo as it could have been looked in the novel:
https://sites.google.com/site/hztomassi/_/rsrc/1293385169009/jurassic_park_logo_novel_pequeno.jpg

In the book it has never been described very well, in fact it was only mentioned once and said that it was blue and showed a dinosaur.

[waroftheworlds01]

Yeah, the novel didn't really focus on the logo that much. But the logo was more important for the movie than the novel.

EDIT:
Okay, I gota know when to fold them. The first film was amazing. The second film was great. The third film was okay. However, the third film took the series into a direction that's hard to continue from.

First of all, InGen is praticly gone so any story there would be hard to do without making some type of crazy explination as to how they're no longer bankrupt anymore.

The rival company, Biosyn, is no longer relevant. After all, everyone knows there are dinosaurs on the island so the whole secreat mission of trying to get dino DNA goes out the window.

In other words, so much time has passed from the first film and the thrid film when so far into left field that its hard to bring it back. So.... okay.... I guess I'm ready for a reboot of the series.

But hey, Spielberg is all for it too. I was just watching the recent WeeklyWood on IGN and they say the Spielberg is talking with one of the writer from the Thor movie to start working on a reboot. No director is announced so far but we'll just have to see where this all goes from here.

However, I would like for them to stay as true to the novel as possible. I would like it to feel like the first one did. Nothing outrages, no crazy "King Kong" type action scenes. I want a down to earth, realistic and scary Jurassic park film. Anything else would be a great disapointment.

[tope1983]

^^absolutely agree.

catching the tone from the novel and staying really true to it!

according the actors: even famous roles were often changed.
just take james bond as an example.

and a remake with the SAME actors doesn't make that much sense to me.
a remake is another adaption of either the source or the original film.
as other works got adapted very often too (classics like romeo & juliet, hamlet or the fly, funny games, gone in 60 seconds, last man standing) it can be done with jurassic park too.

but in that case i don't want to see one of the same actors or stuff.
if staying as close as possible to the novel there has to be toyota land cruisers
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110324171942/jurassicpark/images/b/b9/Jplandcruiser.jpg
a different looking visitors center and no jurassic park gate.

but there are raptor nests in caverns
http://th06.deviantart.net/fs70/150/i/2010/128/9/1/Jurassic_Park_Illustration2_by_Stomac.jpg (http://th00.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2010/128/9/1/Jurassic_Park_Illustration2_by_Stomac.jpg)

the t-rex chasing the raft with Grant and the kids in the lagoon
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DAAcHJHDRPU/R3rYWbdu8pI/AAAAAAAAAFo/O-VJXbPHoo8/s1600/t-rex%2Be%2Bbote.bmp

isla nublars fog
http://www.justdesktopwallpapers.com/images/1024/scenery/rainforest.jpg

the helicopter landing path
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/alan64/alan641104/alan64110400084/9278994-pathway-in-the-misty-pine-forest.jpg

the bamboo path to the raptor pen
http://www.aloha-hawaii.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/bamboo-forest-hana.jpg

the sunrise in the morning
http://jillebc.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/sunrise-jungle-retreat-sepilok-img_1881.jpg

the jungle river
http://images2.layoutsparks.com/1/185328/jungle-greenery-waterfalls-fog.jpg

& some spots of the tour road
http://blogs.bootsnall.com/llew/files/2008/07/imgp1764.JPG
http://favim.com/orig/201104/05/Favim.com-13216.jpg

[Sinaz20]

Here's my issue with this idea...

What would you rather have?

A.) A talented, proven director finds a passionate resolve to adapt Jurassic Park novels into "truer" films...

-or-

B.) Pressured by crazed fans, Universal Studios rushes a project and throws the reigns to the lowest bidder?

I mean, just think what would have happened if LotR was put together by a director who couldn't care less for the smallest budget possible to cash in a hypothetical trend in fantasy films.

[Alcoremortis]

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.

[Sadonicus]

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!

[guitarsareboring]

I would die inside if they ever remade Jurassic Park.

[waroftheworlds01]

@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.

[Eff One]

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.

[tope1983]

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.

[FPug]

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.

[Blue Tights]

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

Worst idea I've heard this year.

No it isn't!

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


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.

[waroftheworlds01]

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.

[Shadowknight1]

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.

[FPug]

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

[Shadowknight1]

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

Not a reboot? Maybe you should actually WATCH the films. I'd have accepted it as a prequel if they didn't have Dame Judi Dench still playing M(her M was the FIRST female head of MI6 and was appointed at the beginning of Goldeneye) and if they'd have had Q. They didn't have Q and still had the female M. It's a reboot.

[Alstom1995]

Ugh I hate remakes. Especially since nowadays it's all about fucking franchises. Jurassic Park could easily be reshown in theaters and it still wouldn't look dated!

My idea for hollywood is to actually make some original films with something called acting and story telling. stop remaking films that are already good, and replacing it with annoying obvious computer graphics, lame duck actors and actresses, and constant stunts!
As for the 3d craze... THE SHARK STILL LOOKS FAKE.

[FPug]

Not a reboot? Maybe you should actually WATCH the films. I'd have accepted it as a prequel if they didn't have Dame Judi Dench still playing M(her M was the FIRST female head of MI6 and was appointed at the beginning of Goldeneye) and if they'd have had Q. They didn't have Q and still had the female M. It's a reboot.

I've seen EVERY SINGLE ONE dude, don't judge. I'm an Uber fan and even though I now see it's considered a reboot, I call it a prequel! That's where bond got his begginings and after 20 films, I would consider it crazy to call Casino Royale a reboot. So there. Just because it has Judi Dench as M and leaves out Q doesn't mean anything. Q wasn't even a main character in the Novels.

[waroftheworlds01]

I consider Casino Royale a reboot myself. Because if you watch Casino Royale before Dr. No they don't exactly fit together.

However, I never considered everthing before Casino Royale sequals to each other. They were mostly stand alone films (with the exception of things like the guy with the cat) Where as Casion Royale and QOS directly followed one another. I think that is what seperates the new films from the old ones and what makes them reboots. IMO anyway

[FPug]

I consider Casino Royale a reboot myself. Because if you watch Casino Royale before Dr. No they don't exactly fit together.

However, I never considered everthing before Casino Royale sequals to each other. They were mostly stand alone films (with the exception of things like the guy with the cat) Where as Casion Royale and QOS directly followed one another. I think that is what seperates the new films from the old ones and what makes them reboots. IMO anyway

Thats true, but Quantum of Solace could also be a prequel, it's like Star Wars, and with #23 coming out in 2013 I'm sure we could see how everything ties in to Dr.No. I could still be wrong, but I always considered Casino Royale the beginning of Bond and therefore a prequel, but that is solely my opinion and clearly not that of the masses.

[waroftheworlds01]

If they're able to tie it all into Dr. No then that would be great. But if they end up remaking Dr. NO (heaven forbid) then it'll definitly mean that its a reboot. But lets hope they don't go as far as to start remaking previous Bond films. That's just silly.

[FPug]

if they're able to tie it all into dr. No then that would be great. But if they end up remaking dr. No (heaven forbid) then it'll definitly mean that its a reboot. But lets hope they don't go as far as to start remaking previous bond films. That's just silly.

amen!

[waroftheworlds01]

Been thinking about who could play the characters in a remake of Jurassic Park based off the NOVEL

■Dr. Alan Grant ( Aaron Eckhart )
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/2446/aaroneckhart.jpg (http://img5.imageshack.us/i/aaroneckhart.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)



■Dr. Ellie Sattler ( Scarlett Johansson )
http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3150/scarettjohansson1a30040.jpg (http://img35.imageshack.us/i/scarettjohansson1a30040.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)



■Ian Malcolm (Johnny Depp )
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/4724/johnnydepppicture.jpg (http://img854.imageshack.us/i/johnnydepppicture.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)



■John Hammond (Michael Caine )
http://img856.imageshack.us/img856/3857/michaelcaine.jpg (http://img856.imageshack.us/i/michaelcaine.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)



■Robert Muldoon (Daniel Craig )
http://img825.imageshack.us/img825/1401/daniel20craig20has20hol.jpg (http://img825.imageshack.us/i/daniel20craig20has20hol.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)



■Dennis Nedry (Jorge Garcia )
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/8866/jorgegarcia.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/jorgegarcia.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Thoughts?

I think Aaron would be a great Grant. He is great as a leader figure and will really shine in scenes where he is trying to get the kids to safety. Johanson is a great actress and I think she could play a young Ellie Sattler who has just graduated like in the novels. No one could ever replace Goldblum as Malcolm but Johny Depp is a great character actor and I think the he will be able to connect with auidence much the same way Goldblum did in the first film. WIth wit and charm. Michale Caine as Hammond is the best I could think of at the moment. I think Caine would play a great "Evil walt Disney" Hammond as well as a softer Hammond like in the film. But I'm hoping for the Novel version myself. Craig as Muldoon is just golden in my opinion. I think he would be great in that role. Nedry choise is a bit of a laugh but I think he would be an entertaining Nedry.

What do you guys think?

[Trenchfoot]

Not bad at all. Depp as Malcolm is brilliant! :D

Not too keen about Grant and Ellie, but the rest is actually quite good! Hammond should be Jeremy Irons perhaps and go...

"The Park will be MINE! Aaaht-t-t-t-t-t!"

It would be awesome! :p

[FPug]

I think that all the choices are good, EXCEPT Depp...he's an awesome actor, but this is not his kind of film. Besides, his classics were better than his current work. Gilbert Grape was where he was a TRUE actor.

[waroftheworlds01]

Yeah, Daniel Craig as Robert Muldoon is the only one on that list that I'm 100% sure about. He would be great. The rest I'm only 50 to 75 % sure about.

Aaron Eckhart is a good actor in my opinion. Again, he always seems to play leadership type roles. Someone who can, or at least does his best, to take charge of a situation and try to handle it. Which is why I think he would play a Good Dr. Grant. Especially later on when the park starts to fall into chaos.

Scarlet Johanson I chose because she's young and yet a great actress. I think that if we were going with the Novels version of Ellie and made her releationship with Grant purely professional she would do well as the newly graduate who looks up to Grant as more of a teacher and a role model. But if we're going with the films version then someone older would be a better choice.

I still stand by my choice of Depp as Ian Malcolm. I think many would agree that he's an awesome actor. And even though this role is a far cry from his more recent roles I still think the he could pull it off with no problem at all. If I had to choose a second choice.... hmmmm...... Jeff Goldblum? lol Let's see... A bit of a left field choice. But I would be interested to see if Sam Rockwell could tackle the role.

Michael Caine, was really the first that came to mind. I can't really think of many actors that could replace Richard Attenborough. He was just awesome. But I think Michael Caine would be able to play the Darker John Hammond well. Another actor I thought about but shot down was Anthony Hopkins.

And I just think that Hurly from Lost as Nedry would just be awesome. I'm sure there are others who could do the role as well but Having Jorge Garcia as Nedry would be a lot of fun expecially if he brought his humor to the character.

I was also thinking of some kid actors for the roles of Lex and Tim. I keep coming back to the two main characters of Super 8 but that may just be because it was the last movie I watched with kids that actually had good acting skills.

But I'm glad yall are digging the list I made. I think it's better than the last line up that was posted IMO

[tope1983]

What we have to keep in mind is:

Dr. Alan Grant from the novel is about 40-years old and has a full beard.
Actually he is a fictious character but based on real life Jack Horner.

Dr. Ellen Sattler is much younger than Grant in her mid 20s.
Scarlett Johansson would fit her.

Ian Malcolm is about 35, very thin, tall and balding.

John Hammond is about 78, rather small and not at all this nice grandpa-like figure as in the movies. He's a tough businessman, quick-tempered and only created the park to gain money. It's a park for children, "at least the rich ones."

Robert Muldon is quite strong, has steel-blue eyes and a mustache. He tends to drink. Daniel Craig is not a bad joice at all!

John Arnold isn't described as being black.

Donald Gennaro (obviously with Italian roots) is rather strong.

For the cast I think it is NOT necessary to have just the most famous actors of Hollywood. They just should be fitting the description of the novel best.

[Alcoremortis]

Ugh I hate remakes. Especially since nowadays it's all about fucking franchises. Jurassic Park could easily be reshown in theaters and it still wouldn't look dated!

My idea for hollywood is to actually make some original films with something called acting and story telling. stop remaking films that are already good, and replacing it with annoying obvious computer graphics, lame duck actors and actresses, and constant stunts!
As for the 3d craze... THE SHARK STILL LOOKS FAKE.

Yes. I agree to this most definitely. Jurassic Park is already a very fine film that still stands on par, visually, with some of the best movies that are offered today. Hollywood should work on new, interesting projects, rather than reboot a series that doesn't need to be rebooted.

And about CGI, with very rare exceptions (like Gollum from Lord of the Rings) generally looks much...faker than what was previously done with puppets and limited touch-up CGI as was done in Jurassic Park and my favorite dinosaur documentary, Walking with Dinosaurs. Which is apparently getting a remake as a movie. Probably with CGI. I'll probably see it anyway, but I doubt it will look as realistic as the original. Same would go for Jurassic Park.

Having said that, I would be open to the prospect of an extension to the existing universe, such as a well thought out sequel or possibly a prequel. Or a spinoff, centered around an untold story, similar to the type of story that Telltale is doing right now, a story parallel to the first movie.

[Masta23]

Nah I would rather see a JP 4.

[Cyberscribe]

Actually.. I could see the Jurassic Park Novel being adapted into a TV miniseries, Albeit like in 40 or 50 years from now.

[Orange Intercouse]

The FB-page has 70 fans now. That seems pretty good considering it's been here for less than a month.

[mirroman478]

Hope this happens. Not expecting for it to but we can still dream can't we?

[Binhex]

Please, please, please do not remake the movies. There is nothing wrong with the original films. Make NEW stories if you have to that are completely unrelated to the original films.

The absolute last thing we need in film right now is yet more remakes/reboots from films that are not even that old.

[Shadowknight1]

Please, please, please do not remake the movies. There is nothing wrong with the original films. Make NEW stories if you have to that are completely unrelated to the original films.

The absolute last thing we need in film right now is yet more remakes/reboots from films that are not even that old.

Here's the problem. It's been proven twice that the best way to handle a floundering, dying franchise is to reboot it. Batman Begins and JJ Abrams' Star Trek. And in those cases, yes a reboot was necessary. Batman had to overcome the horror that was Batman and Robin. Star Trek was pretty much dead after Star Trek Nemesis' extraordinarily poor performance and the early cancellation of Enterprise.

Spider-Man? Okay, so Raimi couldn't meet the deadline, so he and the studio disagreed and he left. So now we have a reboot Spider-Man that won't be out until next year I think when the studio could have just pushed it back to let Sam Raimi do the movie he wanted to do that would've made plenty of money. So, did Spidey need a reboot? No.

Jurassic Park? Yes, the first film didn't hold completely true to the novel. That's fine. Frankly, some of the characters, I didn't like their novel versions, but did like the movie version, ie. John Hammond. The movie still holds up well today. The Lost World and JPIII may not have done as well, but people still watch them. Plus we're getting a new game based around the events of the first movie. So. Does JP need a reboot? IMO, not for a good, long time. Let's see if we can get a good JP4 out the door if we need another JP movie. If it sucks, then we can talk about a reboot.

Also, I don't think we need a remake of either Short Circuit or Robo Cop.

[Lokken]

It baffles me that anyone thinks

1) remaking these films is a good idea or at ALL needed
2) that any studio would be stupid enough to attempt it

the first film (and second to an extent) hit somewhat of a perfect storm with public interest, casting, and technology.

What do you think when someone mentions Star Wars? You think of how much Lucas fucked up the franchise with the garbage prequels. In other words, leave it alone, you're not going to make it better.

Again, its baffling this is even discussed. Its an asinine idea.

[Orange Intercouse]

11 days ago, the Facebook page had 151 fans.

Now it has 236 fans (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230). Awesome.


:D

[Tetsu Aero]

I really don't see a reason for a remake. Unless it would be a two parter that includes everything in the book.

[Strayth]

I'm sick of all those adaptations, sequels, and remakes. I'm hating Holywood now :/ ...

[Cyberscribe]

It baffles me that anyone thinks

1) remaking these films is a good idea or at ALL needed
2) that any studio would be stupid enough to attempt it

the first film (and second to an extent) hit somewhat of a perfect storm with public interest, casting, and technology.

What do you think when someone mentions Star Wars? You think of how much Lucas fucked up the franchise with the garbage prequels. In other words, leave it alone, you're not going to make it better.

Again, its baffling this is even discussed. Its an asinine idea.

It's not that it's needed. Why would this franchise need to be remade? It's a classic. It's just that for the sake of the memory of Michael Crichton, his books AND his genius, some of the JP community feels that there should be a seperate adaptation of this series that is more true to the novel.

The two concepts cannot be compared and they shouldn't be. Spielberg's expertise arose when he had freedom to make stories his own. Crichton's was in bringing about stories of scientific wonder. We have spielberg's masterpiece, but Crichton's is still in the dark and should be brought out into the light.

Most people don't even know Jurassic Park started out as a novel and even some of you admit to never reading the story. I assure you, it is much more terrifying than the movies, go read it, but don't think that this adaptation shouldn't happen because we already have a great movie. It's not replacing anything. It's simply adding content to one of the greatest film's of all time.

Also, the prequels of Star Wars were needed to complete the story. Yes they were trash but they were needed. It didn't make the series better, true. But it also didn't make it worse. At least it didn't to a true fan.

And while remaking the series for the sake of getting a better "novel" adaptation would be amazing, It simply will never happen. No studio will ever find it necessary. We would sooner get a dinosaur than get a remake of jurassic park.

[Oviraptor]

No remakes, the new films should be prequels.

The new game is a prequel to all three films so why not the new films be as well?

I have a great idea with a younger Hammond (in his 30s or 40s) searching the world for living non-avian dinosaurs to populate a Park (In this case JP San Diego until he decides on an island location instead.) as his scientists continue to try and genetically engineer them. (It took them 10 years of research according to the first film.)
So Hammond decides to take some (probably only eggs) from the wilds until they have occomplished to genetically engineer a dinosaur.

Crichton's novels even mention living non-avian dinosaurs on the Earth in their prologues.

[jurassiraptor]

I want nothing to do with a remake.

The original, current movie (and trilogy) follows the novel just fine. Sure, you can go through and nit-pick out important things that were left out, but that's always the way it is. The novel is 400 pages long. The screenplay for a 2-hour movie is 120 pages long. No adaptation is going to follow the novel exactly. Ever.

A reboot is not going to magically include every character, every important line of dialogue, and every key scene from the novel. It would, at best, represent the novel equally as much as the original film.

At worst, it would be an unnecessary and unoriginal moneygrab, forgettable in the shadow of the original (if it doesn't stain it).

Instead of rebooting the franchise, those parts of the novel that have not yet been adapted to the screen can be incorporated into sequels. Remember the little girl on the beach at the beginning of The Lost World movie? Or the T-rex using its tongue to find people hiding behind a waterfall? Or the river sequence in JP3? Or the whole bit with the aviary? These are all scenes that appeared in the first novel, and the first movie didn't have to be remade to bring these scenes to life; they were incorporated into the sequels.

Give me sequels. Give me all the sequels that you can find producers for. But there's no point in restarting from scratch when there is already a rich lineage to build upon in the current trilogy.

[SWGNATE]

I want nothing to do with a remake.

The original, current movie (and trilogy) follows the novel just fine. Sure, you can go through and nit-pick out important things that were left out, but that's always the way it is. The novel is 400 pages long. The screenplay for a 2-hour movie is 120 pages long. No adaptation is going to follow the novel exactly. Ever.

A reboot is not going to magically include every character, every important line of dialogue, and every key scene from the novel. It would, at best, represent the novel equally as much as the original film.

At worst, it would be an unnecessary and unoriginal moneygrab, forgettable in the shadow of the original (if it doesn't stain it).

Instead of rebooting the franchise, those parts of the novel that have not yet been adapted to the screen can be incorporated into sequels. Remember the little girl on the beach at the beginning of The Lost World movie? Or the T-rex using its tongue to find people hiding behind a waterfall? Or the river sequence in JP3? Or the whole bit with the aviary? These are all scenes that appeared in the first novel, and the first movie didn't have to be remade to bring these scenes to life; they were incorporated into the sequels.

Give me sequels. Give me all the sequels that you can find producers for. But there's no point in restarting from scratch when there is already a rich lineage to build upon in the current trilogy.

Yea id have to agree, even the part in Jp3 when the velociraptor claws the mercenaries back with the toe, it was a scene from the first book and i believe the only point in which troodon is mentioned in the novel

[Cyberscribe]

Yea id have to agree, even the part in Jp3 when the velociraptor claws the mercenaries back with the toe, it was a scene from the first book and i believe the only point in which troodon is mentioned in the novel
Thank you sooo much for noticing this!! I haven't heard anyone else mention this ever! Also I think Nash's Death was supposed to reference the death of George Baselton by a T-rex in the novel too. The t-rex steps on him and then bites his head off. Just like the spino did to Nash.

[mannyguy1]

I good sequel that makes up for the horrors of JP3. Or even a prequel concerning with the contruction of Jurassic park. Or a story that tell us about the troubles of site B and how it became abandoned etc.

[Magic Emperor]

Thanks, but no, thanks. I'd rather not see a remake.

[Comrade Pants]

Thanks, but no, thanks. I'd rather not see a remake.

This.

[Spadge]

Remakes are a dumb idea most of the time. This is one of those times.

[Orange Intercouse]

11 days ago, the Facebook page had 151 fans.

Now it has 236 fans. Awesome.14 days since the above quote: The Facebook page has 400 fans now (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)

[Faceslasher]

Please DONT REMAKE THIS. Leave Jurassic Park alone, how many bloody times has Hollywood made remakes of movies and failed? I don't think its best if we give Jurassic Park the Hollywood Remake treatment.

I swear to god if Universal actually REMAKES Jurassic Park, I'll go on a rampage.

[waroftheworlds01]

TO put in another opinon. There have been several remakes that I think weren't bad. It's just that people really like the original and just can't seem to enjoy the remakes no mater what they do.

I personally thought that the Nightmare on Elm Street remake was very enjoyable. I really liked it. I think it followed the original while making enougth changes to the story and updating the special effects to make it a worth while remake. Its a good movie. People just hate it because it's not the original.

But anyway. I still wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park reboot. I just want to see a closer adaptaion of the Novel, that's all.

[Tyrantking001]

A Jurassic Park remake... I'll pass on that but to each their own, if Universal thinks they can make money on remaking the JP movies then there isnt much thats going to stop them (short of going out of business)

[SeanJP]

if they were to indeed make a reboot they should have the visitor center like this.....http://www.davidjnegron.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/movie-art-illustration-jurassic-park-visitors-center.jpg

[MasCot]

if they were to indeed make a reboot they should have the visitor center like this.....http://www.davidjnegron.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/movie-art-illustration-jurassic-park-visitors-center.jpgAwesome artwork, it looked good on the DVD too.

However, I don't want a remake, maybe 15-20 years from now, otherwise I don't see much of a point, for me it'd be like remaking Star Wars or Alien with new actors and everything. I'd still watch it, but I completely agree with jurassicraptor.

[Cyberscribe]

Awesome artwork, it looked good on the DVD too.

However, I don't want a remake, maybe 15-20 years from now, otherwise I don't see much of a point, for me it'd be like remaking Star Wars or Alien with new actors and everything. I'd still watch it, but I completely agree with jurassicraptor.

Exactly. I would like a remake, but not now, I mean maybe 20 or 30 years from now and one that is more closely adapted to the novel. But I don't get why people want to remake something just so we can get better picture and graphics.... respect the story and have a decent reason why the jurassic series should be remade.

[Romeosierra616]

I would like a remake, maybe , BUT, I would want remake to be NOVEL accurate, not some crappy remake of the first movie.

Like the feeling you get from watching the Peter Jackson version of King Kong. I want something that clearly defines itself, and sets itself apart from being just a simple "Remake" of a classic, and being it's own incredible cinematic journey to Isla Nublar.

If they were to be Novel accurate, even if it is a 3 1/2 hour movie, I think it would be a proper "remake".

[Elogotar]

I sincerely think that any reboot or remake is a terrible idea. All I really want is a theatrical re-release. Although, I don't think a little tampering would be too bad, maybe give it the Lucas treatment. Don't completely remake it just touch up the graphics and sound effects, hopefully convert it to 3D format and let us all enjoy it again in theaters. This time, in IMAX 3D. Win.

[T002Tyrant]

The first one was perfect, ok the dinosaur designs are now out-dated, but everything else was perfect. If I wanted a Jurassic Park that was closer to the novel I'd prefer it in graphic novel form so we could have an 'adult' version with plenty of blood and gore.

I do wish that 'The Lost World' was closer to the novel, as a kid I was really disappointed having read the novel first that the film was nothing to to do with the events of the novel!

So I'd hate a reboot, unless you kept the first one and remade the second to fit more with the novel. But still, it'd be pointless.

[Romeosierra616]

The first one was perfect, ok the dinosaur designs are now out-dated, but everything else was perfect. If I wanted a Jurassic Park that was closer to the novel I'd prefer it in graphic novel form so we could have an 'adult' version with plenty of blood and gore.

I do wish that 'The Lost World' was closer to the novel, as a kid I was really disappointed having read the novel first that the film was nothing to to do with the events of the novel!

So I'd hate a reboot, unless you kept the first one and remade the second to fit more with the novel. But still, it'd be pointless.

agreed.

[Kelloggs86]

No...no no no no no no NO!
No remake on this!!...EVER!!! The movies are good enough as they are, so leave them alone!

[Shadowknight1]

I honestly wouldn't want it to happen with Spielberg having anything to do with it. Spielberg used to be a great film-maker, but nowadays, he's almost as bad as Lucas.

[Sergman100]

The best actor in my mind for Ian Malcolm is Jeremy Davies (Daniel Faraday from LOST). Could be that breakout role.

[tope1983]

The best actor in my mind for Ian Malcolm is Jeremy Davies (Daniel Faraday from LOST). Could be that breakout role.

no, I absolutely don't agree.
but I think Michael Crichton himselft could've taken over Ian Malcolm's role!
especially in his 40s (when he wrote Jurassic Park)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XsVALQtGIZM/SRLNVtPbMKI/AAAAAAAAJXc/beVNg4z328o/s320/Crichton+(photo).jpg

[Sadonicus]

The best actor in my mind for Ian Malcolm is Jeremy Davies (Daniel Faraday from LOST). Could be that breakout role.

LOL? :rolleyes:

[anashastar]

I don't know if this ever got posted but they are re-releasing the movie in theaters for a limited time... So I doubt a remake will be made when they just retouched the original film.

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/jurassic-park-headed-back-to-cinemas---video/232595

[T002Tyrant]

I don't know if this ever got posted but they are re-releasing the movie in theaters for a limited time... So I doubt a remake will be made when they just retouched the original film.

http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/jurassic-park-headed-back-to-cinemas---video/232595

Didn't Spielberg recently announce his plans/interest for a 3D conversion of both a Jaws and Jurassic Park re-release?

[Orange Intercouse]

The facebook page has 758 fans now. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230/) :D

[Faceslasher]

The facebook page has 758 fans now. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230/) :D

Those people can't be true fans, why should we remake it? All the original actors won't be the same, leave JP alone. Look at what George Lucas did to Star Wars, all the remakes screwed up. Steven is too old to remake JP.

[Shadowknight1]

Those people can't be true fans, why should we remake it? All the original actors won't be the same, leave JP alone. Look at what George Lucas did to Star Wars, all the remakes screwed up. Steven is too old to remake JP.

Because some people care more about super-flashy CGI effects than they do story-telling and proper special effects. That's why Lucas has gotten away with destroying the original movies as long as he has.

[Woodsyblue]

Because some people care more about super-flashy CGI effects than they do story-telling and proper special effects. That's why Lucas has gotten away with destroying the original movies as long as he has.

It's not exactly like people have cherished the changes Lucas made/makes to Star Wars. He's gotten away with it because he owns it and he can do what he likes with it, as unfortunate and unjust as that is.

[MasCot]

Because some people care more about super-flashy CGI effects than they do story-telling and proper special effects. That's why Lucas has gotten away with destroying the original movies as long as he has.Well, luckily he didn't burn the original reels.:)

[Faceslasher]

Because some people care more about super-flashy CGI effects than they do story-telling and proper special effects. That's why Lucas has gotten away with destroying the original movies as long as he has.

You do know, a JP remake will have super flashy CGI effects?

[Shadowknight1]

It's not exactly like people have cherished the changes Lucas made/makes to Star Wars. He's gotten away with it because he owns it and he can do what he likes with it, as unfortunate and unjust as that is.

You'd be surprised. On one forum, there was someone who refused to buy the Blu-ray Star Wars set, but not because of the changes he made. He refused because he wanted the space battle scenes, specifically the Battle of Endor, completely replaced with CGI.

And yes Faceslasher, I know that. I said that in response to why anyone would want JP remade.

[Woodsyblue]

You'd be surprised. On one forum, there was someone who refused to buy the Blu-ray Star Wars set, but not because of the changes he made. He refused because he wanted the space battle scenes, specifically the Battle of Endor, completely replaced with CGI.

:eek:

[Orange Intercouse]

The facebook page has 758 fans now. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230/) :D

It's been 28 days since this quote, and the facebook page now has 918 fans (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230). That makes 160 new fans in one month.

Nice.

[Faceslasher]

Oh man this thread again, remaking JP would just kill Hollywood for me. Steven wont do it, good luck convincing him!

[Cyberscribe]

Those people can't be true fans, why should we remake it? All the original actors won't be the same, leave JP alone. Look at what George Lucas did to Star Wars, all the remakes screwed up. Steven is too old to remake JP.
Wait... Why are we comparing Star Wars to Jurassic Park. If you want to compare it to anything compare it to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Was it based on a book? yes. Did it resemble the book? Somewhat, but ultimately not at all. Was there a remake? yes. Did it resemble the book? yes, extremely so. It's not that we want to remake the movie. We just want a movie based on the books. Completely different concept. There are lots of movies that need to be remade (Eragon), but Jurassic Park will be a classic and it doesn't necessarily need to be, but it would be interesting if it was with the right direction in mind.

[Shadowknight1]

Guys, this whole thing is a moot point. The next Jurassic Park is going to be Jurassic Park IV, not a remake.

Plus, I honestly don't want the Hammond from the books portrayed on-screen. He was a jerk. Even started cussing out his grandkids near the end.

[OrangeCrush]

In all honesty this is one of the worst ideas I have heard in a very long time. More remakes is the last thing that Hollywood needs. All we get now are sequels and remakes, especially during the summer months. This is one of the classic series in Hollywood. Asking for a remake for Jurassic park is like asking for a remake on Star Wars or Back to the Future. Some film series deserve to be left alone.

I for one am not worried about it as I know this is never going to happen, at least not for the next 20-30 years.

Just a terrible idea. Jurassic Park IV would be a possibility and a far better one at that.

[OrangeCrush]

It's not exactly like people have cherished the changes Lucas made/makes to Star Wars. He's gotten away with it because he owns it and he can do what he likes with it, as unfortunate and unjust as that is.

Unfortunate is one thing as that all comes down to subjective opinion but unjust? Its his work. If he wants to make changes to his films than that is his right. Some people act like they have a right to say what takes place with those films and no offense but that is nothing short of absurd. I am a photographer and I own the rights to every picture I take and if i want to make changes to my pictures than that is my right. Its no different for George's Star Wars films. If he wants to make changes than that is his right, regardless of what opinion people may have for such changes.

I actually prefer the original versions but I respect George even more for the stance he has taken in regards to his films. They are his films and he has the right to do whatever he wants to them, period.

[Shadowknight1]

I actually prefer the original versions but I respect George even more for the stance he has taken in regards to his films. They are his films and he has the right to do whatever he wants to them, period.

His stance is hypocritical. He gave a speech against altering films, and then he goes and does what he said was wrong.

[Faceslasher]

Wait... Why are we comparing Star Wars to Jurassic Park. If you want to compare it to anything compare it to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Was it based on a book? yes. Did it resemble the book? Somewhat, but ultimately not at all. Was there a remake? yes. Did it resemble the book? yes, extremely so. It's not that we want to remake the movie. We just want a movie based on the books. Completely different concept. There are lots of movies that need to be remade (Eragon), but Jurassic Park will be a classic and it doesn't necessarily need to be, but it would be interesting if it was with the right direction in mind.

You can't base a movie on a book, not even Harry Potter was accurate to the book. Should we just remake every movie based on their books?

Please, I know I wanna see CGI shots every minute, cheap dinosaur models, and mediocre acting like you, but JP isn't the best film to remake.

[Cyberscribe]

You can't base a movie on a book, not even Harry Potter was accurate to the book. Should we just remake every movie based on their books?
Actually, in all seriousness, I don't understand why film's aren't more closely adapted to their respective books. I don't see anything wrong with a film that's based on it's book, I actually support the idea. If it's done right it can turn out just as good as something that was an original idea.

Harry Potter may not have been accurate, but it certainly set out to accomplish that task and you have to admit the first 2 movies were almost identical to the books. No, Jurassic Park just sticks out in my mind because there was almost no attempt to use the material from the book. They could have at least used the same dinosaurs that were featured in the novel for the park. The novel dinos were much better choices than a wad of random therapods.

[interitus]

Why would Jurassic Park need to be remade? It's only 20 years old. We need to kick this remake addiction. Ask me in another 30 years .. maybe 50. Even then, nothing promises it will be as good.

I was open to a remake of the Day the Earth Stood Still, but it ended up being terrible.

Even then, I think we should respect the story. add to the universe but it doesn't need a flashy new version. Heck JP4 is in the works and some people are already planning on rebooting. What a joke.

[Shadowknight1]

You can't base a movie on a book, not even Harry Potter was accurate to the book. Should we just remake every movie based on their books?


Harry Potter's a decent adaptation. Eragon, on the other hand, was terrible.

[Orange Intercouse]

It's been 28 days since this quote, and the facebook page now has 918 fans (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230). That makes 160 new fans in one month.

And now it's been 8 days since the above quote, and the page currently has 1,221 fans (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230).

303 new fans in 8 days. Amazing.

[RaventheBlack]

i don't like this idea at all.

agreed,a good thing should never be messed with.

[Shadowknight1]

And now it's been 8 days since the above quote, and the page currently has 1,221 fans (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230).

303 new fans in 8 days. Amazing.

Zip-a-dee-freakin-doo-dah. GIVE IT UP! The next Jurassic Park film will be a sequel. Jurassic Park IV! Not a freaking remake.

[Vainamoinen]

Zip-a-dee-freakin-doo-dah. GIVE IT UP! The next Jurassic Park film will be a sequel. Jurassic Park IV! Not a freaking remake.

Methinks you are in the wrong thread and you don't have anything to contribute. Why don't you try one of those other threads?

[interitus]

See, Jurassic Park changed movies. Some might say for the worst. It really opened up CGI. Models, puppets, vehicles, cities.. everything could be done with CGI.

Go watch the behind the scenes interviews that were on the blu ray. Ariana Richards and Laura Dern both comment on actual fear of the raptor puppets. (kitchen and maintence shed). That even though they knew it was fake.. part of their reactions wasn't acting.

Now imagine those puppets aren't there, and they have to react to a green wall. Of course it wouldn't even be the same actors. I can see it now Kristen Stewart as Lex.. ugh.

[Faceslasher]

See, Jurassic Park changed movies. Some might say for the worst. It really opened up CGI. Models, puppets, vehicles, cities.. everything could be done with CGI.

Go watch the behind the scenes interviews that were on the blu ray. Ariana Richards and Laura Dern both comment on actual fear of the raptor puppets. (kitchen and maintence shed). That even though they knew it was fake.. part of their reactions wasn't acting.

Now imagine those puppets aren't there, and they have to react to a green wall. Of course it wouldn't even be the same actors. I can see it now Kristen Stewart as Lex.. ugh.

Jurassic Park didn't change anything, all it did was make more companies spend 4 million dollars to have CGI and explosions. And how can a vehicle change cinema forever? BTTF did a hell of a good job changing cinema with the delorean!

[Faceslasher]

And you do know Crichton is dead right? Steven doesn't even have the heart to make JP 4 and you expect him to make a remake of JP? Making a remake will also lower Steve's reputation. Jurassic Park 4 is the finale, gone, vamoosh, finished. Never will it ever be touched again. So if you want your silly little remake, go ask Disney or Sony to buy Jurassic Park off of ol' steve and see how that works.

[MasCot]

And you do know Crichton is dead right? Steven doesn't even have the heart to make JP 4 and you expect him to make a remake of JP?Ummm... he reportedly came up with the story for JP4 with Mark Protosevich.

Anyhoo, remaking JP so soon is not a good idea, that's for sure... it would be compared with the original movie incessantly and it would be extremely hard for the remake to top it. The same is with King Kong BTW, I didn't like the remakes one bit... the one in '70s was abysmal, the Peter Jackson one was waaaay to long and boring.

People are upset about Lucas 'updating' Star Wars, imagine the reactions if he remade it totally with new actors with a 'darker tone'.

[SeanJP]

just an fyi if u all want to see some good jp4 news check out jplegacy they have a link to an article with jack horner and they discuss jp

[interitus]

Jurassic Park didn't change anything, all it did was make more companies spend 4 million dollars to have CGI and explosions. And how can a vehicle change cinema forever? BTTF did a hell of a good job changing cinema with the delorean!

It radically changed it. Prior to Jurassic Park most CGI was artifical like Terminator 2 .. the closest we go to a living thing was The Abyss. Jurassic Park showed that you could create believable living CGI animals.

I think this image is a great picture of what movie basically feels like.
http://www.geekstir.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lucasthenandnow.jpg

We have actors having to react to tennis balls on a stick. I appreciate CGI and what it can do. But it should compliment real things, not replace them.

[Orange Intercouse]

And now the facebook page has 1,434 fans. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)

[Hermes7282]

No, I want a 3D Remake of the first.

[tobar]

My reaction every time I see this thread:
http://i.imgur.com/HUBQK.png

I have the subject of remakes come up frequently on my youtube channel because I have some trailers for classic films like THEM! and The Valley of Gwangi on there. Not everything needs a remake. I don't think I could do a better job of explaining this than Ed Catmull the president of Pixar Animation. He lays it all down in this video from 24:44 to 25:59 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=k2h2lvhzMDc#t=1484s).

Jurassic Park is a near perfect film that doesn't need to be touched. If you want to see more intense dinosaur on dinosaur action then go watch the latest remake of King Kong.

[Faceslasher]

And now the facebook page has 1,434 fans. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)

Why are you still feeling happy about this?

[waroftheworlds01]

Jurassic Park is a near perfect film that doesn't need to be touched.

It's not actually the film he wants remade though. He wants a more closer adaptation of the novel. Personally, I would like one too. I still think a mini-series based off the novels would be cool. It's be like the made for tv Steven King movies but better.

So the it's not the film he want's changed. He basicly wants a very close adaptation of the novels. Although, I wouldn't want it to be in theaters. I would rather either a mini- series on tv or maybe an animated dvd release.

[julesimanerd]

interesting concept. I wouldn't mind a re-telling of the first Jurassic Park and The Lost World. Possibly make it more to the novels, the lost world novel is very different comparing it to the film, and the novel's story was amazing.. mine only thing is that the dinosaurs would have to be the same designs. It would also have to be in the same time frame (1989 or 1991, can't recall the actual date in the novel) i don't see this happening, but i would watch it. I love the original films, so if they did remake it and ruin them, i could always go back to the originals.

[julesimanerd]

It radically changed it. Prior to Jurassic Park most CGI was artifical like Terminator 2 .. the closest we go to a living thing was The Abyss. Jurassic Park showed that you could create believable living CGI animals.

I think this image is a great picture of what movie basically feels like.
http://www.geekstir.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/lucasthenandnow.jpg

We have actors having to react to tennis balls on a stick. I appreciate CGI and what it can do. But it should compliment real things, not replace them.

i agree with everything you just said.

[Pitalla]

I really think they should re-make Jurassic park 3 instead.
The other two are classics, YOU don't remake classics.

[Amy RockLegs]

We have every right to want a remake. Other posters here have already made it clear that you can just get back to enjoying the 1st movie if you're too biased and blinded by nostalgia to enjoy the remakes.

The other two are classics, YOU don't remake classics.First of all, what the hell are you talking about? Classics get remade all the time and most of them end up being just as good (if not BETTER) than the previous versions...The only people who disagree with that are the people who are so blinded by nostalgia that they can't see how flawed and easily-bashable the original film was (even if those negative qualities are capable of being overlooked, the same thing can be said about the remakes), and those people are hopelessly wired into insulting remakes when they deserve just as much praise as the original films.

You should learn the difference between "you don't remake classics" and "I personally don't like it when classics are remade."

Second of all, you're calling The Lost World movie was a classic?
AS IF!
The Lost World movie was crap. It was the WORST of the trilogy. It had a hypocritical/moronic plot that did NOT resemble the novel in any shape or form, it had stupid characters, no sympathy for anybody EXCEPT the so-called "villains" who are actually nice to the protagonists, EVERY SINGLE SCENE was full of plotholes/contrivances, Goldblum is a HORRIBLE actor(mumbling and stammering in every sentence of BOTH movies) and the movie gives you NO IMMERSION into the fact that the dinosaurs are adapting into the island's modern ecosystem (which the novel did such a brilliant job at conveying).
And you have the nerve to call that piece of shit a classic? :mad:

Okay, now I'm getting back on topic:

The only "classic" thing about the 1st movie is the dinosaur effects, which only covered about 5% of the movie's quality. It's two hours just to say "stuff goes wrong in a theme park" (or nothing new to anyone who saw Westworld). Most of it is just people running away from animals. That's really not a story, that's a Roadrunner episode. The movie is just filled with pointless drama over nothing, and Hollywood conventions. Like typical Spielberg movies, it's meant to please people who sit through movies, but don't really watch them. There's very little to no story, but it's just twisted back and forward for two whole hours. It just has people running away from animal and getting sentimental at times. The first half is nothing really, all we learn in a full hour, is that some one cloned dinosaurs. It shouldn't take that long to say.
That's just piss-awful for fans of the novels. A true adaptation of JP would get the audience invested in MORE qualities than just cheap dino-effects every now and then. A proper adaptation of the book should be a setting-immersive experience (where the audience is immersed the world of Isla Nublar EVEN WITHOUT the dinosaurs on it. The island itself is supposed to be a world that not only looks out-of-this world even without the dinos, but it's also supposed to be a character that directs the protagonists throughout the storyline)...but the movie failed to provide that experience because it was a cheap-budget project with low production values, because Spielberg was only interested in showing off the dino-effects. A remake done as a proper adaptation would get the audience immersed in more qualities than just that.

[bloodkiller630]

Letters are boring and unprofessional; the studio just won't take it seriously. What you really need to do is submit your ideas on baked goods like cupcakes. Everybody likes cupcakes. Each day we will ship Universal one new cupcake topped with original ideas like plot points, character castings, and test dialogue written in icing sugar. We can call it the "Cupcakes for Remakes" campaign. It's brilliant and delicious.


Let's get started! Who knows how to bake?

well i've had experience with cakes, but not cupcakes lol

[Asian Inferno]

I really think they should re-make Jurassic park 3 instead.
The other two are classics, YOU don't remake classics.
Apparently someone hasn't been seeing the attempts by Hollywood to remake classics.

It's comes down to money and reinvigorating a franchise/property in order to make that money, that and to appeal to the next generation.

While I don't agree that Jurassic Park should be remade, I can see why it would be. I just don't see why it has to be so soon...if it gets remade at all.

[techie775]

I still fail to see anything wrong with the first Jurassic Park movie. I've heard it's different than the book but it got pretty good reviews.I'm sure they will remake it (cause Hollywood is lazy) but if they remade it in the next five year that would bother me see how the old one is around 20 years old. (ex:Footloose)

[JPPR_002]

I heard you can't remake a movie until 30 years after it's made. And why remake it? JP is good and still looks great! Plus JP4 is being worked on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8847499/The-Jurassic-Park-scientist-who-plans-to-turn-a-chicken-into-T-Rex.html

[julesimanerd]

I heard you can't remake a movie until 30 years after it's made. And why remake it? JP is good and still looks great! Plus JP4 is being worked on.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/8847499/The-Jurassic-Park-scientist-who-plans-to-turn-a-chicken-into-T-Rex.html

well they can make remakes, look at Spider-man, Sony is rebooting that series, and its barely 5 years since spidey 3 came out. I agree the JP is an amazing film! i'm not against a remake, but i'm not for it. I want to see how JP IV turns out, hopefully it isn't just a movie about people running away from Dino's like the third one was (it had its moments but the story was minimal)

[Shadowknight1]

well they can make remakes, look at Spider-man, Sony is rebooting that series, and its barely 5 years since spidey 3 came out. I agree the JP is an amazing film! i'm not against a remake, but i'm not for it. I want to see how JP IV turns out, hopefully it isn't just a movie about people running away from Dino's like the third one was (it had its moments but the story was minimal)

Reboots are different than remakes. While we will be seeing Spidey's origin story(AGAIN!!), it's still a different version than the original Spider-Man. Hence why we're getting The Lizard as the villain, not the Green Goblin.

[Orange Intercouse]

And now the facebook page has 1,434 fans. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)

7 days since the above quote, and the page has 1,572 fans now (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)...Not bad.

:)

[julesimanerd]

Reboots are different than remakes. While we will be seeing Spidey's origin story(AGAIN!!), it's still a different version than the original Spider-Man. Hence why we're getting The Lizard as the villain, not the Green Goblin.

very true. didn't think of it like that hahaha. but in sense we would be rebooting the JP franchise with a remake, it could involve more from the novel, change characters, add character who were absent from the first film, and all that jazz.

[Shadowknight1]

very true. didn't think of it like that hahaha. but in sense we would be rebooting the JP franchise with a remake, it could involve more from the novel, change characters, add character who were absent from the first film, and all that jazz.

Yes, but unlike Jurassic Park, stuff like Spider-Man, Batman, and Star Trek NEEDED the reboot.

[julesimanerd]

Yes, but unlike Jurassic Park, stuff like Spider-Man, Batman, and Star Trek NEEDED the reboot.

indeed. I didn't want the spidey reboot because i was content with the original trilogy (even the third, it was bad, but i still enjoyed it. like how the third JP was terrible hahaha)

[OrangeCrush]

His stance is hypocritical. He gave a speech against altering films, and then he goes and does what he said was wrong.

And guess what, he has that right as well. People change their minds on things all the time. My parents used to be Republicans and now they are both Democrats. Are they hypocritical because they now stand for something they used to be against? I dont think so and again even if that were the case, its still their right. What George says is really irrelevant. The bottom line is that the Star Wars films are his property period and he is in his right to do whatever he want to them. When you cut through all the BS that is the only fact that matters. You can like em or you can hate em, that is perfectly within your right. Changing them, that is his right.

[dirtywhitesniperjr.]

I herd there going to remake jurassic park 1 and 2. Why?

[julesimanerd]

I herd there going to remake jurassic park 1 and 2. Why?

its just a fan petitioning to have a remake, Spielberg hasn't discussed it, they are working on JP IV though.

[bloodkiller630]

well they can make a reamke and a part 4, just the remakes first, and then part 4 after

[Orange Intercouse]

The Facebook page's number of fans has officially reached 1,600. Congratulations. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)

[brivette007]

OK, it's Opinion Time.

I'm against this. Not just as a JP fan, but as a movie goer.

I'd rather see Hollywood come up with new ideas (which apparently is too hard for them to do anymore). Seriously, has every idea been done?!

I mean, half the movies that have been released in the past few years have been remakes. It's just seems like a way to spark new interest in an old franchise that they know they will make big bucks off of, and use little to no imagaination/creativity/originality.

The Pink Panther remakes - blemished the reputation of the classic Peter Sellers films with just plan garbage. Yet they made a second one. It's a shame that the kids will grow up knowing these and not the classics.

My Bloody Valentine - no where near as good as the original. Just a way to capitalize on 3D technology.

Karate Kid - Laughable

Arthur - Pathetic

I guess I'm alright with the new Spiderman, but still a little rage burns inside me. The movie was originally planned to be Spiderman 4, but the director dropped out. The new movie might be based on one of the other Spidey series anyway (like Ultimate Spiderman, etc.)

I don't consider the Batman movies as remakes, since these stories really haven't been done on film (there are a couple different origin stories in the comics).

And TV shows, too! Now that they are starting to run out of ideas for those stupid, non-creative reality shows (Storage Wars, really?), they're starting to remake old shows. Hawaii Five-O, 90210, V, Charlies Angels. What's next, a remake of Gomer Pyle?

I know I'm powerless to voice my opinion to filmmakers, they will continue to remake classics. And if people want a Jurassic Park remake, so be it. No one is forcing me to see it, so what do I care? I'll stick to the films I grew up with, thank you very much.

Again, just my opinion.

[KingHorror]

Hollywood has no hope in Original Ideas ether at this Point if this keeps up. see Battleship (http://movies.ign.com/articles/121/1214201p1.html) the Movie and Asteroids(based on the arcade game)the Movie

Both in progress right now

[julesimanerd]

OK, it's Opinion Time.

I'm against this. Not just as a JP fan, but as a movie goer.

I'd rather see Hollywood come up with new ideas (which apparently is too hard for them to do anymore). Seriously, has every idea been done?!

I mean, half the movies that have been released in the past few years have been remakes. It's just seems like a way to spark new interest in an old franchise that they know they will make big bucks off of, and use little to no imagaination/creativity/originality.

The Pink Panther remakes - blemished the reputation of the classic Peter Sellers films with just plan garbage. Yet they made a second one. It's a shame that the kids will grow up knowing these and not the classics.

My Bloody Valentine - no where near as good as the original. Just a way to capitalize on 3D technology.

Karate Kid - Laughable

Arthur - Pathetic

I guess I'm alright with the new Spiderman, but still a little rage burns inside me. The movie was originally planned to be Spiderman 4, but the director dropped out. The new movie might be based on one of the other Spidey series anyway (like Ultimate Spiderman, etc.)

I don't consider the Batman movies as remakes, since these stories really haven't been done on film (there are a couple different origin stories in the comics).

And TV shows, too! Now that they are starting to run out of ideas for those stupid, non-creative reality shows (Storage Wars, really?), they're starting to remake old shows. Hawaii Five-O, 90210, V, Charlies Angels. What's next, a remake of Gomer Pyle?

I know I'm powerless to voice my opinion to filmmakers, they will continue to remake classics. And if people want a Jurassic Park remake, so be it. No one is forcing me to see it, so what do I care? I'll stick to the films I grew up with, thank you very much.

Again, just my opinion.


Valid argument. as a movie goer i agree with you 100 percent. I am sick of remakes.

but as a Jurassic Park fan, i would love to see a film more focused on the themes of the novel. The novel is a bit darker and has great material to use. I've said before that i think the film version is more of the family friendly version while the novel was more for adults. Don't get me wrong, the first JP film was great. sadly the sequel was not. A remake of the first film could have the opportunity to fix the travesty that the second movie was, and actually follow the plot of the novel. and if they do end up remaking the first one and it fails epicly, then i will have the classics to cherish and pretend the new one never existed. But i'll always be a little curious to see a remake. I'm not saying i'm for a reboot, but i'm not against it.

[Pitalla]

Heresy! the only movie that should be re-made is Jurassic park 3, to with the original idea which was more like the 1st and 2nd. Loads of elements of science and exploration with it's touch of thrill.

[Orange Intercouse]

The Facebook page has 1,700 fans now. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230)

[Sadonicus]

Give it up already!

[Faceslasher]

Give it up already!

I know, fine let him have his shit sequel. Just dont cry and moan that Universal laughs at you all for this. I do enjoy CGI dinosaurs with CGI cars and teenage actors and naked ladies flying all over and all that CGI gore flying, lets make Jurassic Park all CGI now!!!!!!!!!!!!

You guys do know Stan Winston is dead right? And Michael is dead, and some of the crew are dead, the dinosaurs are gone. Nothing can be changed now.

[Shadowknight1]

You guys do know Stan Winston is dead right? And Michael is dead, and some of the crew are dead, the dinosaurs are gone. Nothing can be changed now.

Puppeteering and animatronics have pretty well died since Stan Winston and Jim Henson died.

[Silverwolfpet]

Hey guys, keep it nice here, okay? Opinions are awesome for being diverse, but don't jump at each other's throats, please.

[Faceslasher]

Hey guys, keep it nice here, okay? Opinions are awesome for being diverse, but don't jump at each other's throats, please.

I'm not, I'm letting these guys know Jurassic Park cannot be remade without Michael and Stan alive. They are dead, Jurassic Park is dead.

[waroftheworlds01]

I'm not, I'm letting these guys know Jurassic Park cannot be remade without Michael and Stan alive. They are dead, Jurassic Park is dead.


That's laughable. There are other speical effects teams out there you know? A remake of Jurassic Park is still a possibility. It just probably won't be with any of the original team involved. I just can't see Steven Spielberg being a part of a remake of one of his own films.

But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.

[Sadonicus]

But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.

Yeah, thats nothing I would consider being a good thing. Actually I really HATE that in Hollywood!

[Faceslasher]

That's laughable. There are other speical effects teams out there you know? A remake of Jurassic Park is still a possibility. It just probably won't be with any of the original team involved. I just can't see Steven Spielberg being a part of a remake of one of his own films.

But to say that someone else at some time won't remake Jurassic Park is just silly. Have you seen all the remakes coming out recently? I have no doubt that Jurassic Park is standing in line as well.

Jurassic Park can't be remade. Why do you want a remake? Hollywood is more worried about SOPA then they care about Jurassic Park. The only special effects team to make Jurassic Park famous was Stan and ILM. Steven is way too busy with other films, JP4 is the last stop on the train. Either you remake Jurassic Park yourself or continue boycotting. Steven will never touch Jurassic Park again.

[waroftheworlds01]

ILM is still around. And it is a job after all. I find it hard pressed that they would say no to working on a Jurassic park film, remake or not. And there are other directors who would more than likely love the idea of working on a Jurassic Park movie.

I wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park remake because, unlike yourself I assume, you think that remakes ruin the original when that actually couldn't be further from the truth. Believe it or not, there are people who haven't seen Jurassic Park. Remakes put the originals in the spot light again. Most people when they hear a movie is a remake they check out the original either before or after seeing the remake. And it's not like a bad remake causes the original to become a bad film itself as well.

Also, there's no harm in a remake when there's so much from the first novel that can still be adapted. I still think that a Jurassic Park two part, or three part mini-series should be made for the first and second novels. They would closely resemble the novels and it would be fun to watch.

You keep saying that becasue Winston is gone, because Crichton is gone, and because Spielberg is busy there's no way that Jurassic park can get back on its feet but in the end it's Universal's call. If they want Jurassic Park back, remake or otherwise, it's coming back with out Steven or not.

[BlankCanvasDJ]

I don't think it should be remade but the idea that a Jurassic Park remake couldn't be done because Stan Winston (or anybody else) is dead is ridiculous. You could have said the same thing about Willis O'Brien after King Kong, but they remade that. Twice.

I don't think the movie needs to be redone at all. But a big-budget miniseries that stays faithful to the books? There's a thought...

[Faceslasher]

ILM is still around. And it is a job after all. I find it hard pressed that they would say no to working on a Jurassic park film, remake or not. And there are other directors who would more than likely love the idea of working on a Jurassic Park movie.

I wouldn't mind a Jurassic Park remake because, unlike yourself I assume, you think that remakes ruin the original when that actually couldn't be further from the truth. Believe it or not, there are people who haven't seen Jurassic Park. Remakes put the originals in the spot light again. Most people when they hear a movie is a remake they check out the original either before or after seeing the remake. And it's not like a bad remake causes the original to become a bad film itself as well.

Also, there's no harm in a remake when there's so much from the first novel that can still be adapted. I still think that a Jurassic Park two part, or three part mini-series should be made for the first and second novels. They would closely resemble the novels and it would be fun to watch.

You keep saying that becasue Winston is gone, because Crichton is gone, and because Spielberg is busy there's no way that Jurassic park can get back on its feet but in the end it's Universal's call. If they want Jurassic Park back, remake or otherwise, it's coming back with out Steven or not.

Please tell me which remake actually was better then the original?

Lets remake BTTF by having Marty played by Eminem and Doc played by Snoop Dogg

[Faceslasher]

I don't think it should be remade but the idea that a Jurassic Park remake couldn't be done because Stan Winston (or anybody else) is dead is ridiculous. You could have said the same thing about Willis O'Brien after King Kong, but they remade that. Twice.

I don't think the movie needs to be redone at all. But a big-budget miniseries that stays faithful to the books? There's a thought...

Stan made the puppets, stan directed the puppets. Stan is dead, steven is never EVER gonna touch Jurassic Park, google it. He said he is done with JP. Find another producer, I'll ring up Tommy Wiseau. He's an excellent director/producer.

[waroftheworlds01]

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.

[Sadonicus]

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???

[Faceslasher]

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.

[waroftheworlds01]

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.

[Faceslasher]

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.

[waroftheworlds01]

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......

[Orange Intercouse]

The facebook page has 1,859 fans now. (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake-Jurassic-Park-and-The-Lost-World-with-Spielberg-as-Producer/228708970475230) :D

[cormoran]

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.

[Numinous]

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.

[Shadowknight1]

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.