Why The Jurassic Park Sequels Were Worse 

I'm hiring a graphic designer to make a new logo and banner for my channel! If this interests you, email me at thecloserlookcontact@gmail.com with your portfolio, your rates, and a few ideas that you think would work for my channel's art. You'll have until the 9th of December to apply, then I'll pick the application I like the most. Have a great day, - Henry

I used to mindlessly follow the series because I enjoyed only the cool dinosaurs. 7 years later, I still enjoy only the cool dinosaurs.

It’s not that it doomed the sequels, it doomed the entire dinosaur movie genre.

When it comes to making a sequel to jurrasic park, the studio execs were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should

I don't think Grant "learning to care more about kids" Is a minor arc. He's introduced scaring a kid. Ellie is introduced _wanting_ a kid. He's bad with technology and computers, by the end he is saved by a kid who is good with them. The sciency plotpoints turn around "the creation of life" and the animals now being able to reproduce. They are shown a cloning birds and the bees video and toured through a nursery basically, and it's wonderful but _scary_ . It's subtle, but it's not minor. The high concept is the most obvious "Can science go to far?" Man vs Nature and all that. The human/character arc is really all about family, like... literally having-kids family. Both concepts are adressed by the question: "Can we be responable for the life we create?" and that's why both themes work so well. Remove the human concept, the heart of the movie, the Spielberg touch and this would have been a serviceable sci-fi movie instead of a cultural milestone.

A rare example where the first film was such a smash hit and iconic that it became impossible for subsequent films to live up to it. Its own franchise notwithstanding, almost no one has bothered to make a serious live-action dinosaur movie that either live up to or surpasses original Jurassic park afterward; and all films and video games that have happened to feature dinosaurs have, almost without exception, contained conscious nods to the franchise

Malcolm’s arc in The Lost World was actually cut down in the film from the script. It was about him connecting with his daughter who also pushed him to commit to his relationship with Sarah. The T. Rexes’ role in the story mirrors Malcolm’s. He goes to the island to get Sarah back. The T. Rexes go to the trailers to get their kid back. The parental instincts that threaten Malcolm halfway through the film in the trailer scene later become a solution when Malcolm and Sarah use the baby Rex to get the parent back on the boat. Why doesn’t Malcolm just let animal control shoot and kill the Rex? Because Malcolm has new priorities: his goal isn’t just to get the Rex out of the city, it’s to reunite that family unit. And the movie ends with Malcolm’s family and the Rex family together in their homes. Grant also has an arc in JP3. It’s about him getting over his trauma. It’s pretty explicit in the “Billy was right” scene. An earlier ending actually had Grant staying on the island to drive that point home, although that really didn’t make sense so I’m glad they changed it.

I would say another large problem is the ADHD style of movies recently, there cant be a slow paced scene to give the characters a chance to interact and explore a scene, it has to be jump cut, jump cut, jump cut, action sequence, clever quip, jump cut, twist reveal, repeat in new setting. The problem is slow scenes requires talented actors, good writing, and a skilled director with a clear vision and the gravitas to be able to fight against the editing room / studio's attempts to give the film "broader appeal"

To me the most disappointing Jurassic movie was Dominion, it actually had a Novel concept of Dinosaurs being out in the wild and interacting with humans on a much larger scale, it even had the ideas of people exploiting the dinosaurs to sell them or use them for shows. It could have had the characters struggle to figure out what to do to contain the dinosaurs they have come to care for, and figure out a way to coexist. Instead, they gave us a angsty teen getting kidnapped, knife fights, a mission impossible type scene when the went to malta to arrest a dinosaur dealer, and a bunch of giant locusts. They then told us that while all these plots we didn't care about, the actually interesting and Novel idea we wanted to see explored had been magically resolved off-screen.

I don’t think the Lost World is given enough credit. The goal of the movie was not to recapture the wonder of dinosaurs, which you can see because there are near no scenes for that. It goes right to the action once they arrive on the island. In fact, it’s an ethical debate before it’s an action movie. The point of the Lost World was to be able to focus on character development and the man vs. nature issue because we have already seen dinosaurs, we know how they are made, how amazing they are, and what they can do. Malcolm and his team are going to Site B to do research on the dinosaurs and see them living in their “natural” environment without any man-made barriers. The action starts when Ludlow’s InGen mercenary team arrives to capture dinosaurs, which then raises more ethical debates. Ludlow says “Extinct animals have no rights. We made it, we patented it, we own it”, which is something to really think about now that the audience and characters already understand how the dinosaurs were created. You mentioned the themes of capitalism and greed, which I admit are loose, but that’s because there are many themes once you really look into it. Animal rights, as I mentioned, are a big one. Roland Tembo has the arc of wanting one last hunt, and wanting to hunt a T. Rex, but realizing that it’s not worth it after his friend and partner Ajay is killed. I think the most important theme though is parenting. Malcolm’s arc is that he becomes closer to his daughter. A father-daughter relationship is not common in movies, so it is refreshing to see that dynamic. The way this theme is shown is through the dinosaurs, which is how they are truly involved in the theme. Watching the stegosaurs and tyrannosaurs protect their children from threats, as Malcolm is doing the same with Kelly. The San Diego scene revolves around the buck T. Rex trying to find its infant. Malcolm’s goal is also to simply protect the people he loves, which are his girlfriend and daughter, who happen to be in one of the most danger places. I believe that this was such a prominent theme because Spielberg’s kids were growing up around the time the film was made. I say this because it is not a theme in Micheal Crichton’s Lost World novel. Kelly is not even Malcolm’s daughter, and there is no San Diego scene. The film was what made it into a story about parenting. I think it’s the only Jurassic movie that was confident enough to do something different.

30 years later, and I can still hear the Tyrannosaurus roar and feel that chill I got the first time I saw/heard it as a child.

I have been a massive Jurassic Park fan ever since I was three years old, and I am sixteen now, and even with that being said, I largely agree with you about the loss of wonder being a bad thing... in all of the films save "The Lost World". LW was not about inspiring wonder in the audience, at least not as I see it. Lw is a film about a man who had the wonder, saw the majesty of the dinosaurs, and suffered for it, trying to protect others from that dream. It is a movie about the danger that is caused when wonder is put before reason. I also feel like The Lost World did inspire wonder, it was the first film where we got to see the dinosaurs in the wild, where we saw them as more than 'theme park monsters" and went to explore them as animals. I feel like seeing the herd of stegos move through the redwoods has stuck with me almost as much as watching the Brachi rear up to tree, and even now I still feel that as a teenager i can go back and be awed by the dinosaurs time and again,

I think "The Lost World" is actually really good from a story perspective, and deserves more credit than it gets. It was intentionally going for more darkness to showcase another level of the "Jurassic Park" lore and themes. It graduated from 'Holy shit! There are dinosaurs alive! And they're so beautiful and awesome!' to 'AHH! THEY'RE EATING THAT GUY'S FACE OFF!!!' -- both of which happened in the same movie --, and then stepping off into the sequel with this point: 'Alright. Dinosaurs are alive again, and sequestered on these remote islands. But now people are getting ideas to bring them to mainland continents. Is that a good idea?' And for the most part, I think "The Lost World" got it done well, showing us that when the same kinds of motives are acted on as occurred in "Jurassic Park", then the biggest losers are the innocent human beings who just wanted to see dinosaurs alive for the first time -- and also the human beings whose hubris led them into the jaws of hungry and pissed-off Tyrannosaurs.

Personally I think a good idea for at least a theme for a sequel is exploring two main concepts. The first is the idea of invasive species and what they do to local ecologies or maybe explore the moral question of possibly killing the dinosaurs and the fact that they are living creatures that you brought into the world and are now planning on murdering.

Honestly of all the sequels I thought Fallen Kingdom had the best premise of trying to rescue the dinosaurs from the island's exploding volcano but then they abandoned the premise half way through to go to dinosaur auction

I’d say the first two sequels are fun popcorn films, and the three World films suffer the same problems that plagued the Star Wars sequel trilogy. That being said, I think there’s a lot of fascinating lore to explore with Jurassic Park and I believe expanding back to when the Nublar park was being built, possibly showing more of Isla Sorna, or maybe even exploring the effects of having Dinosaurs on the mainland could be grounds for something rich. I don’t believe the goal should be to recapture the magic since that ship sailed in movie 1, but rather create a different standard the franchise could be known for whilst having audiences be both amazed and terrified by the dinosaurs. It has potential, we just need the right people and creatives for it in my opinion.

I have something I want to say. As a writer to a writer. In the last months, I've been trying to do something that I heard from a very good storyteller that simply stuck to my head. Specifically, a phrase. "If you want to make a story that will stand out, learn how to write a story from the very beginning. Because if you learn how to make something in the exact way others have learned, you'll inevitably make a similar product." I've seen my favorite movies, read my favorite books and watched my favorite shows again, trying to learn to learn everything that made them great from the start. Dissecting everything, as if I had never known anything about storytelling in my life. Pointing out the limitations and the flaws I see, rewriting them over and over and showing the edited versions to storylovers and asking them about what they think and the results I got were stunning. The sheer amount of times I heard "it hits different" just shows how successful I was in achieving my goal. Yes, I did get negative criticism, but I still got what I wanted: to make a new story that doesn't follow the rules and boundaries writers are taught to think necessary . I saw the things that ACTUALLY made stories better and learned from them and only them. I realized something that you mentioned in one of your videos, but this time, I actually got to feel what you meant: that there are simply some things we put to our stories without reason just because we learned to do so.

I’ve always loved The Lost World. So underrated. Obviously not as good as the original, but honestly not far off. The original and the lost world are the only two I like. Haven’t seen dominion but fallen kingdom was so bad it was almost funny.

This is why I really liked the pacing of Michael Chriton's original novels. The movies will ALWAYS have a super special place in my heart and should be talked about for their cinematic achievements, but the books tell the story of Jurrassic Park so much better IMO. I still remember reading the Raptor sequence for the first time under the blankets with my little clip-on reading light and being absolutely terrified.

The comparison between The Force Awakens and Jurassic World is surprisingly apt, I've been saying as much for a long time. When Jurassic World 3 came out, after seeing it I told my friends that the Jurassic World trilogy and the Disney Star Wars trilogy were basically the same trilogy of movies. An initial film that's well liked but completely rehashes the original a plot, a second movie that gets a bit crazy but at the same time is hard to remember details of, and a third movie with a completely meandering and poorly written plot that reintroduces a villain from the original movies.

I think Jurassic Park 3 is massively underrated. It genuinely made me care about the plot, and it was concluded very well.

I'd say the Lost World is the actually good. It's just people over look certain elements in it.

One idea I can think of is to make the theme of the sequel the opposite of the first; showcase how exactly dinos, humans, and modern nature could coexist with each other. Ian could have his character ark one of coexistence changing his beliefs.

I still hate the wasted potential of dominion. It could've been unique with a story revolving around dinosaurs living in the modern world and its consequences but instead it focused on some random non-dinosaur animals and we travel to another isolated island that houses dinosaurs.

Me watching The Lost World for the first time: "That was absolutely mid." My thoughts on The Lost World after watching the other 4 sequels: "Perhaps I treated you too harshly."

I was a kid in 1997 and The Lost World was definitely enjoyable, iconic, and captured my imagination as well. It was more straight forward than the first but kept a similar tone of tension, something all the rest after it lacked. And it definitely didn't do "the same thing". Don't know why people say we didn't like it. I can't think of a kid not liking that movie. I still do. It's pretty good.

I appreciate JP3 for the amount of depth it gave Asset 87. He actually has a dark history in canon that none of the other "antagonist" dinosaurs have: most of his life was genuine abuse, and because of that, he has an insatiable hatred for humans. The raptors are either comedic relief, or only exist to drive the plot forward. Rexy is just hungry all the time (can't blame her either). The Indominus was killing things because the plot said it had to, while the Indoraptor didn't really have the screentime to develop into much past "ooh scary". The Giganotosaurus was just caught between a rock and a hard place for no reason because Dominion apparently needed a big dinosaur fight with the Therizinosaurus. Asset 87, though, was already a lethal animal by design, then spent most of his formative years in a claustrophobic lab, being abused by scientists he eventually learned did not care at all what happened to him, and because of that, he actually has an innate reason, not driven by plot, to go after any humans he comes across. I feel like that gets lost in the semi-blind dislike for the 3rd movie I see online.

If you're talking about sequels, it's a crime not to mention the How To Train Your Dragon movies. I'm curious to know what you think about them.

Honestly I think the element with the most potential was the relationship between Owen Grady and Blue, but when we think about stories that do this concept justice e.i. How to Train Your Dragon or The Water Horse, it is usually a child in conflict with their parents and society who has this dangerous connection to a beast. It would be difficult to do this with Jurassic Park because the capitalist overseers seem the types to encourage this for profitable opportunities. Plus, if we make the dinosaurs into amicable misunderstood creatures, then we ruin the horror of the film.

I think the allure of the FIRST Jurassic World for me was we finally got to see the park functioning and open to the people….albeit not for very long. The other two not so much ^ but it was a cool additional to the franchise to see Hammond’s dream briefly come true

Fallen Kingdom sets up the incrediblely interesting story of dinosaurs living among us. Domination is about stopping freaking locusts, then it PRETENDS it was exploring coexistence in the last scene!

Always a great day when your video drops. Loved the poll you did on this. Great video dude.

Honestly, as much I enjoy the sequels (most of them anyway), this is a good point. Even Colin Trevorrow himself admits that JP1 did not need sequels. Yes, THAT Colin.

There is an idea that comes from little shop of horrors that i think could work, the plot would be about modifying dinosaurs to make them house pets. And the species of dinosaur you own reflects your status, as a commentary on luxury products and the social prestige that they represent. So the first part would be cute scenarios of dinosaurs acting like puppies but then growin too big because of overfeeding or something. I don't know how intresting of a story that would be tho.

The hardest part is that you can't possibly give a different answer to the questions of the first movie. You can't have a jurassic park movie if everything goes well at the park and the guests have a fun and safe time looking at harmless dinosaurs.

congrats on one million subs, this is THE movie channel for thoughtful and deep understanding of movies. been here since pretty much day one and i have not missed one since. you deserve this milestone and i cant wait to see this channel grow to 5 mil 10 mil

Oddly enough, the only sequel that works well, and works differently, perhaps to its detriment, is The Lost World. A film with equally strong writing (mostly) and a tremendous amount of terror, awe and Leitmotif’s from Johnny Williams

I'd argue that Lost World actually did have a theme, since you can see it in Hammond's soliloquy at the end where he proclaims that the dinosaurs need our absence, not our presence to thrive. The two sides of the thematic argument are, "Should we do what's best for the dinosaurs?" vs. "Should be exploit the dinosaurs?" And as you'd expect, almost all the characters fall on one side of this argument or the other. Except for Malcolm. It's truly boggling that Malcolm as the main character never engages with the theme at all. He never really seems to care what happens to the dinosaurs one way or the other...they're just an obstacle to him. Which I think is one of the reasons the movie feels kind of flat. Not only does he not have any meaningful character arc, he never even weighs in on the theme.

I'm normally a person who can remember plot details incredibly well. Even in films that I despise, I can remember what leads to what. However, Jurassic World Dominion is the one and only exception to this for me. I can't remember what happens at all. It has grasshoppers and some Utopia of sorts. That's literally all I remember.

Not only did the sequels fail because they tried to find contrived ways to return us to the island, but they tried to find contrived ways to return us to Dinosaurs. The technology that created the Dinosaurs is the heart of the ethical debate/theme of the film, not the Dinosaurs themselves. A more believable, creative sequel to Jurassic Park is one wherein the ripple effects of the genetic pandora's box that was opened by Wu and Hammond play out in other disturbing ways in society, and how they're abused by greedy corporations, governments, and the military-industrial complex to achieve goals based in greed, narcissism, power, or hate. The scrapped idea for the 4th sequel is what I feel came closest to doing this. Apparently the script was focused around the story of a military lab that was trying to create hybrid human-dinosaur super-soldiers. This would no doubt have been executed terribly and flopped due to not featuring the familiar raptors and T-rexes the first movie made iconic, but it was at least attempting to extrapolate the consequences of Wu's technology and Hammond's greedy disregard of bioethics in a different setting. This is all to say that yes, Jurassic Park sequels are doomed to fail, because to do something new, interesting, and coherent, they'd have to pivot away from Dinosaurs, which would obviously disappoint anyone attending a movie titled "Jurassic Park #" or "Jurassic World [Insert Subtitle]"

Been waiting for the new video! Good to have you back ❤❤🎉

I actually think the premisse of the setting for dominion had great potencial: what would the world be like if we had to live alongside dinosaurs? Unfortunately, they barely even try to make the movie about that, and go to yet another park/research facility thing instead

They should have "mad max-ed" dominion, they had a perfect set up with dinosaurs escaping into the wild at the end of the previous movie, setting dominion post dinosaur armageddon would have been an amazing choice

Great video as usual, that also made me consider my plans for my own sequels and if they can stand as sequels, even a few tweaks to them.

Every upload from this channel feels like a gift. This was another good one even though I enjoy JP2 & 3 a lot.

You talking about Ian Malcolm's lack of an arc gave me this idea: Lost World should've been about changing Ian's perspective and showing that there was valuable knowledge to be gained by studying the dinosaurs with proper respect. He goes there to save Sarah expecting the horror of the first island but then discovers they...act like animals and will mostly ignore or avoid humans and he's shown her perspective on how wonderful and fascinating these creatures are and all the things we can learn from them. Perhaps he has some long-term health issues from the first island, but surprise surprise we've found the cure thanks to studying them (though that may be too on the nose). If you still want action, maybe instead of Ingen there to exploit them, it's a military operation to wipe them out. Maybe Ian even spoke in favor of this approach in the past, wanting to right the wrongs Hammond made, but now he sees things differently. Instead of just respecting life with his detached snarky view, he comes to care and want to protect it.

Theme of the lost world is about parenting and family. Not only is Ian Malcom's arc about that, but its even mirrored by the T rexes and their motivations of taking care of their child - breaking through the initial idea of them as mindless uncaring brutes (also akin to how Malcom's attitude with his kid evolves). It challenges one of the biggest impressions the first movie left us with - that dinosaurs are just deadly monsters. That's a brave thing for a sequel to do. I don't think its fair to say TLW has no deeper theme.

Such a well written essay!

The start of the franchise was so good because it actually somewhat portrayed the original authors vision. Also the Cinematography in the OG trilogy just can not be beaten by the uninspired new movies

The Closer look never disappoints✨

The most underrated out of the whole series is either JW 2015 or Lost World imo. Both films still managed to capture that original feeling while doing something new. Too bad 2015 couldn’t keep that aura going for its sequels.

Lostworld did introduce a lot of iconic things for the franchise. It expanded the lore, expanded the theme of whether or not man should have to take care of nature or leave nature to take care of itself and added a new message showing why scientific research causes a destructive effect on untouched land, added fan favorite creatures that are staples of the franchise like the Stegosaurs, Compsagnathus, Pteranodons, and introduced the main setting for the rest of the trilogy (just like what Shrek 2 did lol) making Isla Sorna’s aura feel much more wild and dangerous than the first film. The Dinosaurs are wild now, it’s no longer just park. I honestly wish they just removed the Jurassic Park title from The LostWorld because it isn’t really about a theme park at all. They should have just made the franchise about Dinosaur stories that happen to take place in the same universe with different names for each film. Also you gotta love the theme song for the LostWorld, it captures the feeling perfectly of being on a jungle island inhabited with hundreds of wild Dinosaurs. The film is probably not one of the great sequels out there like Shrek 2 or Empire Strikes Back but it is definitely not a bad sequel and as a movie it’s great! I’d say every movie after LostWorld is a popcorn movie.

Another day, another banger, Mr. Closer look!

I watched Fallen Kingdom when I was like 13, I only watched Jurassic Park and World prior and I liked those films, and this movie was when I realized a movie can be well directed, acted, edited, and technically not boring, but still be very bad due to a lousy script

Why is everyone so hooked up on the dream sequence Raptor saying Alan😂😂😂

Recently rewatched Jurassic Park and it still holds up so damn well, like the build up to the raptors, they are always talked with danger and even when the dude hacks the system, even he does not mess with the raptor cage until our main characters have a "Good job breaking it hero" moment

11:34 ayeee Lagoon in Farmington Utah I love that amusement park, amazing video too love these in depth film videos🙏🏼

I will say, as a massive Jurassic Park fan, the original Jurassic World movie did, in a way, re-capture that wonder and magic of the original movie. The reason why is that it asked the question which all of us kids and enormous dinosaur fans always dreamed about; what if the park succeeded? Why did we all dream about that? Simple; I can only speak for myself, but I still say that if Jurassic Park ever did come into existence, no amount of money would stand in the way of me getting to see my childhood come to life. And given the massive gulf in time between JP3 and Jurassic World, I think that most of the people from my generation who indeed went to Jurassic World wanted to experience that awe for ourselves, and I believe that it delivered. I think that generational difference might reveal a bit of a difference in opinion on Jurassic World. Oh, and unlike that first new Star Wars movie (which indeed was a direct copy), that idea of seeing Jurassic World actually succeed, no matter how brief, makes it a jewel to me personally. Now Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Dominion? You can have them back haha

Just like the movie “Predator” (1987), every sequel will just highlight how perfect the first movie is!!!!

Congratulations to 1 million subscribers!

Great video!

Interesting video. I would say that the main issue of JP sequels is not only the struggle to follow in the steps of the original movie in thematic field or in the spirit (wonder/horror), but also because it is tied to the nature of the story. While any story can potentially be explored further afterwards on paper, the narrative structure, the content or both can bring hurdles that restrict this development. For example, a huis clos can't exactly be explored further because the context would have to be different to avoid repetition and dullness in the concept. A sequel has both to explore either in further ways or in alternate manners the elements of the first while considering what has been done at the end of the original story while recapturing the themes and feelings. Jurassic Park couldn't exactly have that. TLWJP attempted something different (even though it was also based on the book) and managed to some extent because a) it was on a different island with a different setting and environment, b) dinosaurs were free and in "their element" and tries to explore some of the aftermath of the first (tied to Ingen). But those elements could cover only a part of the other elements. JP3 in a way fails in that manner because it kind of repeats the formula of the second movie, even though the rescuing party to find Eric gives something silghtly different, especially as there was the potential for mystery to know if Eric was still alive after two months (I wrote potential because considering JP and Hollywood classical formulas, a child being dead is not something that is generally achieved and the mystery could have been far more developped). And that leads to the decade-long conundrum around the project for a fourth movie: what to do? The issue is that the second and third movie caged the potential lores into a set of islands and while scenaristic facilities could have been taken to allow dinosaurs to escape their islands to go in the open world, the fact that the first movies try to be consistent in realism concerning the dinosaurs while also displaying classical narrative vibes create a complication as I suspect that the producers were not only unsatisfied with the different propositions, but were also wary to shoot themselves into the foot if they make bold moves that would be seen as "jumping the shark" or "nuking the fridge". And there comes Jurassic World. When you can't exactly explore further a story without breaking the frame in which it has been built in a consistent way, either you stop or you try to come back to the roots of the original movie. I say try, because whatever it is a story, an ideology or anything else, no one can really come back to the roots of something as the context, the representations and other elements are different. Who would really want to come back to the roots of Athenian democracy for example when the setting is so different in cultural and political mindset ? Same thing for stories. Jurassic World tries to come back to the roots but to explore it further. That's why I disagree with the comparison often made with SW7 because contrary to Star Wars whose storyverse is so huge that there were potentials to explore in so many ways, Jurassic Park lore do not have this privilge due to the island setting. And since JP only depicts a failed park that didn't even open, it was obvious that exploring a park that has opened and is successful was the next stage. I know a part of the audience felt outraged by the claim that people didn't care for dinosaurs anymore in the movie, but consider the next question: the attraction for dinosaurs is partly due to the mystery that shrouds them as they are ancient beings? What happened once this mystery is dispelled? To make a bold comparison, it is like the "mystery"/"shadow" villain: people are generally fascinated by them because not much is said about them outside of the threat they embody. But when they appear, this mystery and the fascination it arouses disappear and it is difficult to replace it by something else. That's why those villains generally fail quickly after their real apparition (Ozai, Shere Khan in 1967 Disney movie, Darth Maul in TPM, the White Walkers...) because generally, the creators either didn't consider how to develop them as flesh out villains or are restricted by their features (seeing the White Walkers destroying everything is so zombie-cliche that only the fantasy setting could have assuaged it, BUT would the end be satisfactory, even in regards of the themes of Game of Thrones where different codes are challenged? A bitter ending where the White Walkers are defeated, but for a heavy price that crippled Westeros as a whole to the point that the Seven Kingdoms would be a memory of past while the surviving characters try to find a new meaning to their lives and to cope with their past traumas could have been an interesting concept for example). To come back to dinosaurs, there is the meta aspect on why people didn't care anymore for them but considering it is said ten years have gone by since the creation of Jurassic World, it can be argued that the fascination would have been affected, considering that million people would have visited the part as this point (if 20,000 visitors a day is an average, that gives you an idea of how many people in one year could have gone on Isla Nublar in the recent period in the universe of the movie). So, creating a true hybrid (and by that, I mean a creature that has no preexisting presence) is a good idea that both explore themes that Michael Crichton wouldn't have dismissed and play on a narrative element, not to mention how representative of Hollywood the Indominus rex is now (look how many franchises of old have been reused and yet modified to try to appeal to "modern audiences" without regards for the original stories or the audience needs/expectations as a whole and before someone commented on the success of those new installments, there is something called inertia tied to the impact those stories have on us and on the reputation many studios used to have for a part of the audience). In short, Jurassic World was a sequel that was considered necessary because of the conundrum the first movies created, perhaps not necessary but that adds something different to the original movie. Concerning JWFK (this is my favorite after JP), the issue is partly due to the stupidity of the trailers that kind of informed us about the nature of the story, preventing a part of the audience to be invested in the story (that doesn't mean they wouldn't have commented on its flaws, but the level of anger wouldn't necessarily be the same). And the reason why I love this installment is that it tries to build the path to something the audience wanted, i.e dinosaurs in the wild. The volcano might be a dubious excuse, but at least, it allows to raise different stakes (one mentioned at the start concerning the fact to save or noth the dinosaurs) and I love that we didn't stay long on Isla Nublar as it avoids to make a complete repetition of the first and second movies in structure. The main issues are tied to the timeline of the events that seem rushed where changing some little details (for example, showing how long the Arcadia journey is and showing Owen, Claire and Franklin hiding like stowaways while checking on Blue) would have mitigated some of those issues. JWD is meh, but it is partly because the context in which the movie was shot may have brought Trevorrow and Universal to amend the story with the restraints the pandemia brought. It is not impossible that initially the movie would have explored more the way people cope and handle the presence of dinosaurs in the wild. But the COVID is not the only reason of the nature of this last movie. Bringing back the original trio also brought challenges as their age and the fact they have no ties with Claire, Owen (and Maisie) would have either made them unecessary or putting them in a complicated role to balance with the new cast. And finally, unless the movie explore a fallout of the DNA recreation in the previous movies like an ancient virus or a new one that resulted of the recreation of the dinosaurs, I would not have considered believable the dinosaur apocalypse some comment and expected because of the huge discrepancy between the JP/JW dinosaur population compared to at least the US population. At least, in the reboot of the Planet of the Apes, the virus ALZ-113 was a good tool to justify how the apes would slowly rise as otherwise, their story would end as shortly as Spartacus's rising. And because of this detail, JWD couldn't exactly go in that path that wouldn't be exactly original because it would just play on our fantasies on a bigger scale, not to mention how it would contradict a bit with the desire to see more realistic dinosaurs. The movie has to handle all those elements and choose a way that was very different, creating a far more discrepancy than JWFK for example with the audience's expectations. Of course, there are other reasons why the sequels of JP, notably the JW trilogy, fail in some aspects and one of them is tied to how Hollywood produced their movies, creating a contrast and a discrepancy with the audience, not to mention the inertia tied to what has been created in the first place: by convience, because it is far easier, we tend to rely on what preexist and are not necesarily eager to make changes, unless it can offer us something that would bring us satisfaction, use and answers to our needs. Once again, a very good video (even if I am nuanced on some elements and kind of disagree with some others). Have a good continuation.

Honestly, my best idea for a sequel is one where Hammond searches for a new scientific discovery. I don't know which specific discovery it would be, but if he found one that was dangerous, but also had the potential to help humanity, it would be an interesting expansion on the original, where the general consensus seems to be, "Dinosaurs shouldn't have ever come back." Having a discovery where the answer isn't so cut and dry would expand on the themes and challenge the characters in a different direction. The very obvious problem with this story idea is that if this direction was taken, it would effectively be an entirely different story with the same characters, and be utterly unrecognizable compared to the first movie. And now that there's five sequels all featuring dinosaurs, switching to a movie without dinosaurs would be an absolute commercial failure.

Needed to hear this; I just started putting out music this year, mostly rock/emo stuff and it’s been tricky to market it on platforms like TikTok and Instagram who definitely have fanbases and the algorithm can sometimes block my reach. This helped me to keep pushing; definitely going past the first two years!!

I think the reason Jurassic World worked when other Jurassic sequels didn't is because it still resulted in something somewhat new. It was genuinely cool seeing a fully functional park. It was something I always wanted to see. What would have happened if John Hammond's dream actually worked?

Real minority here, but JP3 is probably my favorite of all of these. A big part of this is because kid me just felt it sooo beautiful. Even looking at it now, the colour pallete really sticks out. Even the river scene as they pass by the field of dinosaurs felt just as emotional and iconic as the brachiosaur in the first one. It was such a big deviation from both of its predecessors, with it literally changing the iconic JP logo. In terms of fresh experiences, JP3 really hit it out of the park. JW and forward, like the video says just didn't have that freshness of new ideas. Readers of the books will notice how JP3 is basically an amalgam of book scenes that were deleted for the movies. The "dinosaur factory" from the lost world, the aviary from the first but because it was the first time these ideas got out of the pages and onto the silver screen, they are still fresh and well executed sequences. Too late to change the entire structure of the comment so im putting it at the end, among the hottest of takes, this is gonna be a hot take. The raptor redesign for JP3 is probably the best look theyve ever gotten. Again, the colour pallete looks way more beautiful for the Raptors. I also like how they built on the pack hunting idea. The previous movies focused on the 'hunting' part, but this one really focuses on the 'pack'

Based on Ian Malcolm's static character, does this mean primary protagonists MUST change, and arguably must be wrong about something in the start? Elaborating, can external change suffice for a movie's progress rather than internal change? Assuming change needs to happen at all.

(off topic of jurasstic oak/world) i recently found your channel and thank you so much for making videos like this! It massivly helped in my own writing and changed my perspective in some aspects in rel world even. I have a question tough: you pay a lot attention to how characters grow trought the story, such as crybaby to brave, ugly to pretty and so on, but ićan it be done the other way around in some ,anti-arc'? like a character starting off pretty okay but growing worse as the story progresses via their expiriences? is that also considered an arc, let alone a good one? (sorry if you answered this question already, i have not seen all your videos) thank you!

Wow. The main character's arc is representative of the theme. How they change is how we interpret what the theme is saying. 9:47 I think we have an intuitive sense for that, but this is the clearest I've heard that expressed. So helpful for storywriting!

You know... What you were saying about the settings of Star Wars and Jurassic Park got me thinking... I felt the same way about BioShock and BioShock Infinite. One game takes place in an underwater city and the other takes place in a city high above the clouds. Both are incredible settings and a big part of what made those games stand out is the fact that their worlds are so interesting and creative that you get immersed in them even when the stories tread familiar territory.😊

I believe I have a good idea for a theme for a possible sequel of Jurassic Park. In my opinion it would be great if the theme was: "How much are you willing to sacrifice for success?"

I think you don't always have to be bigger or better in a sequel. People are satisfied if you just go on with a good story. For me, they made a good job in Lost World. In my opinion the whole idea is good enough for three movies: Dinosaurs running wild in a park, dinosaurs running wild on the island, dinosaurs running wild in the whole world. I was so disappointed that they really did nothing creative with the last point. Instead, the went back to a park.

The roller coaster at 11:25 is Colossus at Lagoon! It’s cool you put it in your video

For grabbing the sense of "wonder," my initial idea would be to go further than the first film by doing something where humans try to train flying dinos to hold riders (marketed as "not your mama's pony ride" or something). There could be scenes of the trainers soaring over the majestic landscape and testing the safety gear to keep paying customers from falling off. Then there might also be herbivore land dinosaurs who are being "domesticated" to interact with park guests - "Surely, THIS won't go wrong!" Later on, when the main predator is attacking humans, the trainers get onto their flyers and herbivore mounts, and they try to rescue the innocent people. In the midst of the scuffle, some of the trainers and dinos are injured or eaten in a heroic sacrifice. Regarding a protagonist being "static," while I agree that JP2 could have done better with Malcolm, the term "flat arc" applies, as described by KM Weiland's series on character arcs. Not every story needs to have the protagonist learn a lesson and change dramatically by the end; sometimes, it's the protagonist who changes the world around them while their beliefs and convictions remain the same (hence "flat arc"). Malcolm remaining firm in his belief that it's a bad idea to get anywhere near dangerous animals, even for profit or science, is not automatically a problem if he was changing the world around him instead.

I think movies should lean into a dinosaur horror, it could be real cool to get a suspense horror of a man trapped alone being hunted by a dinosaur

Always wanted to see a tv show of them clearing out the island and building the park

i wish i'd watched this channel when i was doing my english lit exams

In fairness, they were doomed to be worse than the original, since the original is so gosh dang perfect and is very hard to beat

I have a few things to say. Firstly i completely agree with you saying that most of the sequels were bad because the didn't try to tell a different story well. I do however disagree in a few other matters. My personal favourite JP movie is in fact The Lost World. I always found it captivating how they managed to take the first film and build up on it. Now its no Star Wars E. V but i think it does have a theme. In the first movie one of the big matters adressed was "can science go too far" and as the movie showed us, it can. Well you say "remember when we told ye science can go too far, well when arrogantly exploited it can go even further". TLW showed that yes making dinosaurs was a mistake, but it also showed that people driven by greed often dont learn from their mistakes. Hammond managed to learn because he was nearly killed by his own creation, but Ludlow decided "Oh yeah a park on a remote island where if something goes wrong it cant disturb the civilians on the mainland was a bad idea. Lets make a park on the mainland where if something goes wrong more people can die". I dont know if i managed to explain my thought process, but im just trying to say that you can improve on a story thats perfect. However, everyone reacted differently watching JP the first time, so naturally people had different expectations for the second movie. You happen to be in the camp that wanted to explore the themes of the first movie further, while also creating a new story and bringing in new themes. You analyse it in a very filmmaker approach. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but i for example watched the movie years after it came out. I was a kid and just wanted to have some fun. It was scary but also awe inspiring (like you said) and watching the second movie i just dumped that in the bin and watched TLW with an open mind. As such i just enjoyed more awe and fear, yet i didnt copmare it to the first movie. I was more mature watching the other movies and payed more attention to the story, the characters, the visuals. If i had watched any of the sequels without watching the first movie and just expecting absolutely nothing significant, i would have probably enjoyed them much more. I hope it wasnt too boring, and id love to hear other peoples comments on this.

I don't think that it would've been impossible to make a better received sequel to the Jurassic Park film. To me, this film falls into the middle of the road for what we might have expected, which in truth is near the lower end of what we might have expected from Spielberg and Koepp. In the novel, Malcolm has refused to talk about the theme park. And when his team does go to this new island, he isn't sure that dinosaurs exist there too, and he certainly won't tell others that dinosaurs exist there. You also have an interesting cast of characters who all sort of act as avatars for ideas that come into conflict with one another. Hammond thinks this can work. Wu, Arnold, and Nedry all have confidence in what they have each put together. Grant and Sattler love the idea and want it to work, but have the wisdom to know it won't. Gennaro suspects it can't work, but convinces himself otherwise due to greed. Malcolm refuses to entertain the idea that it can work. What conflict of ideas do we have in the Lost World that even approaches this level? The conflict between the 'hunters' and the 'gatherers', maybe, but we really don't spend too much time on that conflict to begin with. I think that is where the film fails. I also think it's a major failure of the film to tack on the San Diego incident. That should have been saved for JP3. But Spielberg was burnt out on dinosaur movies. He knew he wasn't going to make JP3. So he tacked on what should have been the core concept for JP3 into a "4th Act" on Lost World. It's scary, yes, but it feels weird. I think a better Lost World could exist. And I think that allows for an entirely different JP3 that can focus and expand on the idea for the San Diego incident. I do think the Jurassic World movies were a bit trapped from the get go. But that's what happens when you try to make Alan Grant and Ian Malcolm into one person, which is what it felt like they were doing with whatever Chris Pratt's character's name is. You can't be the dino-lover raptor trainer and also be the weary skeptic with foresight. It's a house divided against itself. Which of course comes into clearer view when, in Fallen Kingdom, Malcolm provides testimony to Congress at odds with what our protagonists want. But I digress...

One of the things I loved about Jurassic world, was that it paid homage to the bits of the book the movie left out.

Irl version of suffering from success

I feel like Claire had an arc in JW, which was “learning to see the dinosaurs as living things instead of moneymaking assets”, although we didn’t really see the payoff until the second movie… It’s a real shame this wasn’t explored more because it would tie so well into a potential theme of the sequels, something like “creating dinosaurs was a mistake, but now they’re here, and they deserve to be treated as living things and we have to take responsibility for them”. It could even have worked as an allusion to something like Frankenstein. I’ve always read that story from the point of view that Victor Frankenstein’s greater sin isn’t creating the monster, but rather not taking responsibility for his actions and his creation…

It's almost like movies can just be their own thing and don't need sequels...

I've heard people say that a bad reboot takes away from (or even ruins) the original, and while I'd probably disagree when it comes to a lot of media, I think that very much applies to Jurassic Park. If someone watches Jurassic World as their entry into the franchise, they will not experience the wonder of the dinosaurs. The movie quickly devolves into the horror and action aspect and so the chance at creating a breath taking moment for those members of the audience is wasted, and even if they go back to watch the original they likely won't feel it there either as they've already been accustomed to the "ooh ahh this is a bad idea run and scream". I feel as though this is why a lot of people who watched the World films before seeing the original don't like it as much or even call it boring. For those people, the magic of Jurassic Park was already snuffed out by Jurassic World's hurried rush into death and destruction despite the fact that they had a whole new generation of people to introduce these beautiful creatures to. I personally like The Lost World and even JP3 to some extent, but I believe that Jurassic Park should've never received a sequel of any kind

Jurassic Park is one of those movies that just didn't need any sequels.. it holds up better than any of the Jurassic world movies..

As every artist knows, knowing when to stop is more important than knowing how to start.

My boy is back, baby!

Jurassic World was a great attempt.

I think it’s complicated. The book certainly does and even ends on a cliffhanger, but the movie does away with that entire subplot I think peoples mileage will very depending on their interest in the subject in general. If they aren’t really interested in Sci-Fi and Dinos I doubt the sequels will do much for them

I'm not sure if this would work, but I wonder if there could've been a sequel that explored the theme of responsibility for the creatures that they brought back to life and what to do with that life (kind of similar to the theme of fatherhood in Frankenstein). Like, coming from the last scene of the first movie where the pterodactyls are flying over the sea, the sequel plot could take place years, maybe even decades later as some of the dinosaurs are appearing on the mainland and causing chaos. As it becomes a bigger problem, the Jurassic Park project is discovered and main characters start to debate on what to do about it - some scientists want to study the island and ecosystem that has developed, pushing to find a way to prevent the dinos from leaving and permanently isolate them on the island, some political or military character wants to bomb and destroy the entire island, and there is a continuing question of the morality of killing these creatures who did not choose to be brought to life. As for the awe-inspiring aspect, I bet it would be really cool to take the part about the dinos being able to switch sexes to reproduce up a notch and actually have dinosaurs who have changed at an incredibly rapid pace and evolved into unique dinosaurs that have never existed before because they are in a completely different time-period and environment than they actually were in the Jurassic period. Obviously this isn't ever gonna happen, but it was an idea. :3

A bit of a depart from video feedback, but I always love how you can hear you smile when you say certain lines.

The second Jurassic World and the third do ask a very interesting question. The posed concept is if a “cloned” or man-made living being has the same right to exist as a natural creature.

Good analysis. I never thought about Grant's arc like that.

Imagine being so iconic any movie made with the same genre as you is automatically met with, “oh, so like Jurassic Park?”

Spot on! Writers, directors and producers, ler me know if there's another. I migjt be able to help.

The original 1994 movie was appreciated for having several major up-to-date scientific arguments incorporated into its plot. Until the early 90's dinosaurs were perceived in mass culture as slow and dumb, a notion the movie helped to debunk. Dr. Grant brilliantly hypotheses that certain dinosaurs were warm-blooded, and are closely related to modern-day birds. That flock of Gallimimus chased by T-rex scene is still amazing by modern standards, resembling a nature documentary. Even though the plot heavily relies on pure fantasy (like extracting DNA from cretaceous fossils), these few other major realistic depictions were mind-blowing back then. If only the sequels managed to maintain that level of scientific accuracy, by adding relevant insights from present-day paleontological research (the FEATHERS! it took them 20 years and 5 movies to feature a feathered theropod), it would make such a big difference for the many dinosaur enthusiasts all over the world. There are many ways making real science cool, the job of movie creators is to make it happen!

I am more fascinated by the 1980s novel it was adapted from. The late Michael Crichton was the Brandon Sanderson of science fiction genre writing in my opinion I loved the themes of both the book and the film, which is all about man playing god and the ethical implications of biotechnology.

you sound like arthur from arthur christmas (compliment) besides that, good video

I bet The Lost World movie came about for the same reason as the book came about, the first one made so much money that the creators of both (Michael and Steven) were greatly pressured by the publishers/studio that they got tons of money to do it.