Telltale Games

Alcoremortis · 06/24/2011, 11:47 am

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 · 06/24/2011, 12:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 06/24/2011, 01:10 pm

I would die inside if they ever remade Jurassic Park.

waroftheworlds01 · 06/24/2011, 05:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sadonicus

@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 · 06/24/2011, 06:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chariloe

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

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Remake...28708970475230

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 · 06/25/2011, 06:14 am

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 · 06/25/2011, 06:56 am

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 · 06/25/2011, 10:08 am

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

Worst idea I've heard this year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Intercouse

No it isn't!

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Intercouse

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...????

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 · 06/25/2011, 10:11 am

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 · 06/26/2011, 05:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blue Tights

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 · 06/26/2011, 06:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowknight1

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!!!!

Shadowknight1 · 06/26/2011, 07:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by FPug

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!!!!

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 · 06/26/2011, 07:51 am

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 · 06/26/2011, 09:24 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowknight1

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 · 06/26/2011, 01:10 pm

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 · 06/26/2011, 01:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · 06/26/2011, 08:03 pm

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 · 06/27/2011, 02:25 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

amen!

waroftheworlds01 · 06/28/2011, 03:49 pm

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

■Dr. Alan Grant ( Aaron Eckhart )

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

■Dr. Ellie Sattler ( Scarlett Johansson )

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

■Ian Malcolm (Johnny Depp )

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

■John Hammond (Michael Caine )

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

■Robert Muldoon (Daniel Craig )

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

■Dennis Nedry (Jorge Garcia )

Uploaded with 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 · 06/28/2011, 06:57 pm

Not bad at all. Depp as Malcolm is brilliant!

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!

06/24/2011, 11:47 am	#41
Alcoremortis Lonely Ruffian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Ankh-Morpork PD Status: Killjoy Extraordinaire Actual Posts: Lots! Posts: 4,371	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. __________________ ETERNAL QUEEN OF HALLOWEEN STATUS CONFERRED. ~ Comrade Pants How can we be sure that Alcoremortis isn't just Comrade Pants trollplaying as a girl? ~ GuruGuru214 You're a shiny bright star; floating amongst a million slimy slugs in a sea of sludge. You transcend the pre-conceived and supposed limits of the human race, to emerge from the pit of pitiful maggots as a beautiful, majestic butterfly. ~ Davies The suspence of what's gonna come after death is killing me! ~ Jon NA Are you a secret Plaster Princess or something? ~ Secret Fawful

06/28/2011, 03:49 pm	#59
waroftheworlds01 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 883	Been thinking about who could play the characters in a remake of Jurassic Park based off the NOVEL ■Dr. Alan Grant ( Aaron Eckhart ) Uploaded with ImageShack.us ■Dr. Ellie Sattler ( Scarlett Johansson ) Uploaded with ImageShack.us ■Ian Malcolm (Johnny Depp ) Uploaded with ImageShack.us ■John Hammond (Michael Caine ) Uploaded with ImageShack.us ■Robert Muldoon (Daniel Craig ) Uploaded with ImageShack.us ■Dennis Nedry (Jorge Garcia ) Uploaded with 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? Last edited by waroftheworlds01; 06/28/2011 at 03:52 pm.

06/28/2011, 06:57 pm	#60
Trenchfoot Watching you... Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Argentina Posts: 712	Not bad at all. Depp as Malcolm is brilliant! 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! __________________ Tales of Monkey Island: The Unofficial Soundtrack Professional Pirate - Max: The King of Broadway - The Plagues of Monkey Island

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06/24/2011, 01:10 pm	#43
guitarsareboring Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 1,274	I would die inside if they ever remade Jurassic Park.

06/25/2011, 06:14 am	#46
tope1983 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: BI, Austria Posts: 272	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.

06/25/2011, 06:56 am	#47
FPug Chaotician Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Mississippi Posts: 277	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.

06/25/2011, 10:11 am	#49
waroftheworlds01 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 883	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.

06/26/2011, 07:51 am	#53
Alstom1995 Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 32	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.

06/26/2011, 01:10 pm	#55
waroftheworlds01 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 883	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

06/26/2011, 08:03 pm	#57
waroftheworlds01 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 883	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.