andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Sept 14, 2012 21:35:16 GMT -5
|
|
StuntGranny®
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Not Actually a Granny
Posts: 16,099
|
Post by StuntGranny® on Sept 14, 2012 21:58:59 GMT -5
Personally, from what I just read, I'm glad Spielberg ended up with it. I'm all for blood and gore, but I can't imagine Jurassic Park with it. It was perfect the way it was, in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Sept 14, 2012 22:36:53 GMT -5
Well to be fair, the book does have a lot of blood and gore. There's a point where raptors are disembowling people left and right.
|
|
|
Post by Lazy peon on Sept 14, 2012 22:49:56 GMT -5
Even when I was a kid I would have preferred bloody gorey dino killing to the kid friendly version we got.
|
|
|
Post by BRAINFADE on Sept 15, 2012 3:54:34 GMT -5
It sounds interesting, but I'm glad Spielberg did it. Mainly because I got to see it as a 7 year old when it was first released.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Woodrow on Sept 15, 2012 4:08:59 GMT -5
I'm glad Spielberg got it, I was 13 though so a gory Dino movie from the director of T2 and Aliens would have blown my mind
|
|
|
Post by G✇JI☈A on Sept 15, 2012 7:46:14 GMT -5
I remember the book being real violent, so I would imagine with just coming off 'Terminator 2' Cameron would of stayed close to the source material.
|
|
|
Post by Mattification on Sept 15, 2012 7:48:45 GMT -5
By the time he would have been making Jurassic Park, Cameron was well into his shift from gritty, violent movies to more box office orientated stuff.
The change in tone from Terminator and Aliens to T2 and True Lies is pretty obvious so I don't really buy that his version would have been massively different from the Speilberg version.
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,856
|
Post by Legion on Sept 15, 2012 8:08:14 GMT -5
He might have wanted blood and gore, but I guarantee some studio exec somewhere would have stopped him.
They made huge amounts of money off the back of toys and all sorts with that movie. All that goes away if kids cant actually go and see it.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 15, 2012 8:11:01 GMT -5
Only on the surface.
Below the initial wonder of seeing CGI dinosaurs, Jurassic Park has deeper issues of genetic engineering ethics, naturalism vs capitalism, and corporate espionage.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Sept 15, 2012 8:15:57 GMT -5
^ The book does go into that stuff, the film doesn't
|
|
Dean-o
Grimlock
Haha we're having fun Maggle!
Posts: 13,865
|
Post by Dean-o on Sept 15, 2012 9:44:51 GMT -5
I will echo Roger Ebert.
You have an idea to bring Dinosaurs back to modern life, and the only plot these guys can think of is to turn it into just another monster movie?
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 15, 2012 9:53:42 GMT -5
^ The book does go into that stuff, the film doesn't The film doesn't go into as much detail as the book, but all three issues are covered
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2012 10:20:36 GMT -5
Says the guy who made Avatar. Pft. Cameron - just take your money and go home buddy.
|
|
|
Post by Ryback on a Pole! on Sept 15, 2012 10:51:20 GMT -5
I'm glad Spielberg made it. I loved Jurassic Park, was the first movie I went to see as a kid. Although, after reading the book I am disappointed that Genero was turned from a badass if douchey lawyer (The guy volunteered to accompany Muldoon to go tranq the T-Rex and later, go out to battle the raptors) into a coward who hides in the toilet.
|
|
BHB
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,778
|
Post by BHB on Sept 15, 2012 15:09:49 GMT -5
I absolutely love Jurassic Park, it's pretty much perfect the way it is.
But I also love Aliens, Terminator, Terminator 2, Titanic and True Lies - I'd love to see what Cameron could have done with it.
|
|
|
Post by Hit Girl on Sept 15, 2012 15:17:15 GMT -5
In Cameron's "Jurassic Park", Muldoon would have been better armed and Nedry would have been Michael Biehn
|
|
BorneAgain
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,297
Member is Online
|
Post by BorneAgain on Sept 15, 2012 15:21:39 GMT -5
Spielberg was the better choice, if just because he was the ideal guy to utilize special effects and direction to capture the wonder of seeing actual dinosaurs.
|
|
mizerable
Fry's dog Seymour
You're the lowest on the totem pole here, Alva. The lowest.
Posts: 23,475
|
Post by mizerable on Sept 15, 2012 15:27:27 GMT -5
In Cameron's "Jurassic Park", Muldoon would have been better armed and Nedry would have been Michael Biehn That's the only thing I hated about the first movie. I have no problem with Muldoon getting killed in the end, but I thought he was at least going to have a chance to look like a badass. Instead, he looks like a chump in the one scene where he gets a chance to prove himself by getting tricked by the raptors. What I don't get is how Grant could understand how raptors hunted? I mean it can be observed in similar animals, but even sub-species of the same animal have been known to have completely different behavioral patterns. Also...is this movie coming out in only 3D? I never got a chance to see it in the theater as a kid and I wanted to see it on the big screen, but rather not sit through the 3D.
|
|
|
Post by Mr PONYMANIA Mr Jenzie on Sept 15, 2012 18:58:03 GMT -5
i'd actually like to see a PROPER adaption of both JP books ..... but i also like to see a whole new trilogy ..... JURASSIC WORLD!!!!! basically the dinos have taken over south america, and liam neeson finds them and kills them builds a massive "barrier" to stop them crossing over into north america, while CATHY from the second movie is trying to stop them! we see the return of JOHN HAMMOND, JOHN GRANT and LEXI MURPHY who strikes up a relashionship with CATHERINE. heading into a dino-infested city to rescue several top people of neeson's, the inevitable trouble strikes, as not only humans get in their way but those damned dinosaurs ..... but neeson has a trick up his sleeve ..... {Spoiler}being able to partly control some raptors using a implant to make them more controllable ..... possibly with machine guns
|
|