quote:In September 2004, screenwriter John Sayles said that he was re-writing the Jurassic Park IV script initially turned in by William Monahan, with the film re-slated for a winter 2005 release.[7] His second draft focused on the new character Nick Harris, who returns to Isla Nublar, the location of the first film, and retrieves Dennis Nedry's can of DNA. He is captured by the Grendel corporation, which now owns InGen, and he is hired to take care of five genetically modified Deinonychus. They have dog and human DNA, and are trained to act as mercenaries.[8]
o_O You have got to be kidding me. Please be kidding me. This is going out of the realm of speculative sci-fi (which Jurassic Park mostly managed to maintain, surprisingly) and straight into comic book! What are they thinking?
This is where wikipedia got it from. I think I fall into the "What in the bloody..." category. This is taking something I love rather dearly (the Jurassic Park series) and turning it into an over the top absolutely absurd comic book. Sure the 8 year old still living in some part of my brain is sitting there going "COOL!" but the rest of me is going "You've got. To. Be. Kidding. Me." I'm split on whether or not I actually hope this gets made... o_O
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The eight year old in my brain thinks it is about as ridiculous as the rest of my brain.
They can't come up with something better than that? I think the whole "dinosaurs on the island" thing is overplayed and done, and the dinosaurs as mercenary angle, well, should never be tackled to begin with.
I say set them loose on a city or something and give us a combination of Jurassic Park and Godzilla. Though really I think they should have stopped after Jurassic Park II.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
As bad as Jurassic Park III was, I think this has got to be a untrue.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
AICN and Wikipedia as the sources?
I wouldn't worry. Posted by Chord (Member # 10122) on :
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/ It doesn't go into the plot as far as I could see, but the movie definately exists.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Die... franchise... DIE!
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
In the Jurassic Park novel by Michael Crichton, it was stated near the end that reports were beginning to emerge from the jungles of the mainland hinting that some dinosaurs may have made it across the water and were proliferating in Central America. This is the most logical and exciting next step to explore in the movie sequels--since it has the potential for dinosaurs to spread all throughout the American continent (sort of like the killer bees actually did spread from Argentina to the southern U.S.). I have complained before, and I will say it again, it is a major disapointment to me that this has so far been ignored.
One thing that would help matters would be for the idiots who screwed up Jurassic Park III (winging it and writing the script as they filmed it) to be forbidden from ever having anything to do with the Jurassic Park franchise in the future.
If a competent producer-director team were to produce the real sequel that should have been done after the first Jurassic Park movie (set on the mainland), then the franchise might yet be saved.
Then we need a sort of alternate reality remake of Aliens III, where that franchise went off the track, so the little girl and Ripley's soldier friend are not killed. Then the Aliens franchise can be rescued from the incompetents who screwed it up, and set back on a logical, sane, and good story-telling course, that does not betray all that was good in the previous story lines (Alien and Aliens). I believe something like this has been done in fanfic.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Ron, I am with you. At the end of the first book, I expected there would be a sequel that talked about the dinosaurs on the mainland. And, at the end you got the impression that the scientists were being held and couldn't get away. I expected the government to come to the captive scientists, admit they needed help, and then set out to try and contain the escaped dinosaurs.
Instead, he brought Malcolm back to life (stupid), went to ANOTHER island (stupid), engineered a completely improbable chain of events to include more children on the new island (stupid) and just in general tried to recreate the first book instead of running with the story as is. Very frustrating.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I'm sure the inner author of Michael Chichton is rolling over in it's grave. ;D
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I thought the second book was still good though.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
That is so stupid. That has to be a rumour, because no one would be stupid enough to think they could successfully market such an inane movie.
Posted by pastallpatience (Member # 10432) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I thought the second book was still good though.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Yes?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I thought the second movie was tolerable, Steve--if derrivative and formulaic and it covered no new ground. It was the third movie, with all its dangling loose plot threads, that trashed the franchise.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
They should just wait another 10 years and do a remake of the first.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think any film called Jurassic Park actually requires a park.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I thought the second movie was tolerable, Steve--if derrivative and formulaic and it covered no new ground. It was the third movie, with all its dangling loose plot threads, that trashed the franchise.
I agree with you on the third movie. However, I tend to disagree a tad on the second movie. Sure, it was just a re-hash of the plot. But it was a pretty decent re-hash. I enjoyed it.
I thought the second book was in the same category. Similar but still good.
Movies and books are based on the same formula. Trying to make something entertaining. I don't think movies or books should always be judged on their innovativeness. They're made to entertain. If they succeed, who cares how cliche it is?
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by romanylass: That has to be a rumour, because no one would be stupid enough to think they could successfully market such an inane movie.
Do you see what new movies come out every week? Nothing is off-limits. The few that come to mind are Pulse and Little Man. I couldn't then believe that movies like these could get farther than the back of a greasy napkin, but now I am not suprized by anything.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Ah, no. I go to 3-5 movies a year because they all seem so boring and/or stupid. I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Unfortunately, the plot sounds suspiciously similar in some ways to Crichton's last novel, Next. The rampant genetic tinkering, for instance...
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: I don't think movies or books should always be judged on their innovativeness. They're made to entertain. If they succeed, who cares how cliche it is?
It's not entertaining if it has nothing new to offer. If I take your favorite book and change the title and the names of the characters and publish it as my own, would I be a great author? It would still entertain you because you liked the original, so who cares if it's been done before?
Every story has to have something new to offer. Cliches do matter.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
Having just seen the original movie once more, I feel obliged to state that the cooling mechanism in Nedry's can of stolen embryo's was said to be good for 36 hours only. If any sequel does come, this should be taken into account if this can proves to be one of the major plot devices.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
My mother recently acquired the book "Jurassic Park 2" and fell in love with its deep philosophical undercurrents.
She gave it to me to read and, well, I discovered that my mother needs to read more. It was predictable plot wrapped in an attempt to teach some genetics and chaos theory.
However, it was 100 times better than the movie.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Eduardo St. Elmo: Having just seen the original movie once more, I feel obliged to state that the cooling mechanism in Nedry's can of stolen embryo's was said to be good for 36 hours only. If any sequel does come, this should be taken into account if this can proves to be one of the major plot devices.
Not only was it significantly buried, but I think more time has gone by than that. Unless they make it occur immediately after the first movie and pretent #2 and #3 didn't exist.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
quote: I don't think movies or books should always be judged on their innovativeness. They're made to entertain. If they succeed, who cares how cliche it is?
It's not entertaining if it has nothing new to offer. If I take your favorite book and change the title and the names of the characters and publish it as my own, would I be a great author? It would still entertain you because you liked the original, so who cares if it's been done before?
Every story has to have something new to offer. Cliches do matter.
I think it defeats the purpose of writing anything if you aspire only to be great. That's so self-absorbed. Something doesn't have to be fresh and new to sell well. Look at Eragon. People on here complain about it all the time. And it's done fairly well.
Fresh and new is fine and dandy. Sometimes tried and true is better.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)