DeepEnigma
Gold Member
What a total piece of shit movie
Oh, Hollyturd.
Oh, Hollyturd.
Jurassic Park is the only good movie in the franchise to be honest.
Yes…..what were they thinking!?!?
I couldn't finish it. I bailed around halfway and never looked back.What a total piece of shit movie
Oh, Hollyturd.
Lost World was fun and hype to see when i was a kidJurassic Park is the only good movie in the franchise to be honest.
And they were literally Monsanto.lol the Tim Cook CEO was muah *chefs kiss*
It had Dino’s, chases, genetically engineered people and animals. Dino fights. No tension. Good effects. It was fun.
One of the greatest movies ever made, and everything else in the franchise is literal trash.Jurassic Park is the only good movie in the franchise to be honest.
We should watch it together on FaceTime.
We should watch it together on FaceTime.
I thought the book's sequel was good too (I read it as a kid though).Yeah. It was gash.
I'd like to see a new Jurassic Park film, but a more faithful adaptation of the original novel, but no more sequels.
I thought the book's sequel was good too (I read it as a kid though).
They aren't prehistoric, they were a complete genetically modified creationPrehistoric locusts could not exist in our modern atmosphere.
They were cloned locusts modified. But the idiots who wrote the script didn’t know that locusts back then were huge because of the atmosphere. You clone one now and it’s just a normal locust.They aren't prehistoric, they were a complete genetically modified creation
The book and the movie are completely different stories - I personally don't consider the film an adaptation of the book. If you research the making of the movie, you'll learn that Spielberg's script was inspired by the 1925 movie The Lost World and the 1962 film Hatari! more than Crichton's book. Spielberg had been developing the story for the film for over a year before Crichton even turned in the book. Spielberg then incorporated some of Crichton's work but it's not an adaptation. Here's one example that illustrates the disparity between Crichton vs Spielberg:I've never read the Lost World novel. I own it, but haven't got round to reading it yet. Is it better than the film adaptation?
The book and the movie are completely different stories - I personally don't consider the film an adaptation of the book. If you research the making of the movie, you'll learn that Spielberg's script was inspired by the 1925 movie The Lost World and the 1962 film Hatari! more than Crichton's book. Spielberg had been developing the story for the film for over a year before Crichton even turned in the book. Spielberg then incorporated some of Crichton's work but it's not an adaptation. Here's one example that illustrates the disparity between Crichton vs Spielberg:
The fucked up opening scene of the movie where the little girl get's eaten by the pack of tiny dinosaurs - 100% Crichton's and how the book opens
The San Diego T-Rex rampage - 100% Spielberg's idea and not in the book at all
Please read the book if you have it, it's a quick read and worth your time if only to see the differences.
I thought it was garbage lol. It has one great dinosaur gimmick that was half-assed in Jurassic World.It sounds like I've been sleeping on a banger!
Same, I wanted Sam Raimi to try his hand at it back in the day, not too sure anymore.Yeah. It was gash.
I'd like to see a new Jurassic Park film, but a more faithful adaptation of the original novel, but no more sequels.
Jurassic Park is the only good movie in the franchise to be honest.
I need some context for this gif.
I need some context for this gif.
So good, they remade it and called it Jurassic World.
See also: Star Wars.
The first is the best.Jurassic Park is the only good movie in the franchise to be honest.