Jurassic World

I think something like that might work, as long as they don't replace the "classic" raptors like they did in III.

He who fights bronies should see to itthat he himself does not become a brony. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, Pinkie Pie gazes Also

I got it. Make the raptors have feathers like they would in real life (as best as we can guess), but make the big badass raptors be featherless like they were in the first two films.

This is just my opinion, but I think making the raptors featherless would make them a more effective scare because our (well, most people's) natural antipathy toward reptiles. I personally don't think that snakes would be as abhorrent if they had feathers.

I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.

The best way to make it scary is to actually apply your creativity towards making it scary, rather than copping out to something people are already used to.

If you're as a director going to merely assume it's going to look a certain way before you actually try to work with it and don't even bother to make it look the way you actually want it to, you've already given up.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Remember when you read those comics and the characters go to the movies with the marquee saying the title of a movie with a really really big number after it?

Remember when people used to take it as a joke!?!?

Yeah, four movies is downright huge.

Seriously, though, I think we should have more movie series that have decent longevity, though I accept that the continued quality depends on the skill of the writing, which becomes shaky at best as sequels pile up.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

The problem I think is that the original Velicoraptors from JP are so iconic that changing it to full feathered would be so jarring. I'm wondering what the story would be, maybe Tim (who is probably in his late 20s) gets control of In Gen and plans to create a new park somewhere. (I'm thinking he pulls a Disney and just buys a whole helluva a lot of swamps in the Southern US) He then does everything right and everyone lives happily ever after. What?

Also I got to say, being a person pursuing a career in Paleontology and having attending a Society of V. Paleo con and meeting Jack Horner (aka the real life Dr. Grant) I never got upset with the mistakes with the movie. I just want Sam Neil and Jeff Goldblum back on the silver screen in their best roles.

Also known as Achillesforever6 of Lordkat.com fame

As long as T. Rex isn't subject to The Worf Effect again. I wanna see ol' Rex be badass, dammit.

Spooky.

Jeff Goldblum's best role, in my opinion anyway, was the geeky genius cable guy who saved the world with the worst Powerbook in creation.

I would happily kill a city of your choice to get another Independence Day movie.

I agree. As much as I liked JP's horribly inaccurate take on the Spinosaurus they didn't need to have him make T-Rex his bitch to prove he was badass. He was a 50' long theropod. It's sort of the default status with an animal like that.

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

So would Roland Emmerich. He's been trying to get a sequel made for years now.

I can't decide what Goldblum's best performance was but a good candidate is The Tall Guy. In that one, he plays the straight man to an against-type Rowan Atkinson at a West End show and decides to prove his boss wrong by playing The Elephant Man in a musical. And he falls in love with Emma Thompson. Not surprisingly, it was written by Richard Curtis.

edited 2nd Feb '12 10:57:03 AM by Buscemi

More Buscemi at http://forum.reelsociety.com/

The dream sequence wasn't that bad, it certainly felt in-character for the man. He knew the real raptors were smarter than people had thought, and he knew that Ingen hadn't been completely faithful to the original creatures to start with. The raptor talking was exaggerated, for sure, but not outrageously so for a man who had faced them down and hadn't liked the experience.

The other three movies had major advantages in having the books to work from. While there's still material that hasn't been entirely explored, the well isn't as full as it was. I'm expecting the Dinosaurs to be running around South America or something, like they were rumored to at the end of the first novel.

Although arming dinosaurs and letting them run rampant seems to match Chricton's anti-corporate stance rather well. I don't think he'd disapprove.

edited 3rd Feb '12 5:09:02 PM by Journeyman

The other movies liberally stole from the books. The first did it well, taking Crichton's set pieces and stringing them together in a new way. It was still Jurassic Park, but it was one that made sense for the movies. Lost World and 3 picked and chose from both books but never put together a coherent whole. The first is still the best followed by 3. I could never watch 2 again and not miss much.

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

Eh, can't be worse than the second movie.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

I'm sure it could, the second movie was pretty good.

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

No you're thinking of the first movie. Or the Third one.

Or the second one. :|

That being said, I wasn't fond of Crichton's novel The Lost World...and the film was worse. I think I still like it more than the third film.

Color me intrigued. Why do you say that? Personally I think it was the weakest of the three.

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

My main issue with the second film was the "heroes" causing practically every problem in the entire film. Bringing the injured baby T-Rex to their base? Disarming the hunters so they can't defend themselves and then releasing all the captured dinosaurs? And why the hell wasn't the T-Rex at the end subdued with lethal force?

It was a Green Aesop done terribly.

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.

Well yes but I'm far more interested in why someone else likes it. This is like the Star Wars prequels, it's interesting to see why someone might actually like them.

"Tyyr's a necessary evil. " Spirit

If they put feathers on the raptors, I'm sure people would make jokes about Attack of the Killer Turkeys! Actually, one moment from the first Jurassic Park that I think is Hilarious in Hindsight is how that kid said "That doesn't look like a dinosaur! That looks like a big turkey!" Considering what's been discovered about raptors in Real Life, the hilarious part about this is that that kid was right!

Oh, Equestria, we stand on guard for thee!

Weren't velociraptors already thought to be feathered when the first Jurassic Park was made anyway?

I mean, the idea that the T. Rex might have been feathered is fairly new, but I'm vaguely sure the whole feathers-on-dromaeosaurids thing was known at the time.

edited 7th Feb '12 5:12:52 PM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Well considering Spielberg knew at the time of making the first film that the actual Velociraptors were just really the size of turkeys with feathers, you know he just ran with Rule of Cool in order to give the T-Rex a credible opponent for the final showdown.

Thing is, though, there were raptors of the size he showed in the film that the bone kickers had found fossils of so if he had waited a bit he would have been able to get away with it.

Actualy they found those during production, and Bakker had told Spielberg's crew about it, if I recall the intro to Raptor Red correctly. They just kept the name Velociraptor because it sounded cooler than Utahraptor.

I must be one of the few people who actually prefer 2 to 3. I mean, I'm not saying JP 2 was great, but it was entertaining as all hell. JP 3 just lacked a certain...something. Or maybe I just can't stand that obnoxious family.

Spooky.