i know very little about michael crichton past the fact that he’s a med school dropout who did extensive amounts of research on his books to base them, even partially, in science. his implementation of science was unique and the extent to which he took research for his novels gives him a well-earned spot in the world of influential sf authors. when it came to books he himself didn’t finish (like micro) you can tell exactly when he stopped writing it and when someone else did. it was distinct. it was because of crichton’s extensive research that jurassic park connected “avian” and “dinosaur” – and it’s the first massively popular piece of media to do just that.
crichton, however, didn’t ever intend for jurassic park to be about the dinosaurs. the only JP novels he published (jurassic park and the lost world, everything else extends past crichton’s canon) had a heavy focus on the people in that situation. they were all so very very real, and they reacted like real people would in a situation that’s largely not-real.the human aspect of the first movie especially was the appeal. that’s why almost all the iconic jurassic park scenes have nothing to do with the dinosaurs.
the other two movies in the og trilogy were weak in comparison but they didn’t utterly flop, and in the end it formed a pretty strong trilogy that imo still stands the test of time exceptionally well considering the fact that each was made in 1993, 1997, and 2001 respectively. the jp hype certainly died with the times but it still stuck around as a strong piece of culture that deserves its fame.
there had been rumours of a new trilogy being planned for a while. and i do mean a long while. maybe since 2007. ever since those rumours came about they were also paired with it having a theme of “connecting the world of dinosaurs with that of humans” and that was. concerning, to say in the least.
jurassic world of course met every single fear most people had. it was a brand name hell that tried to be everything it wasn’t. a commentary on animals in captivity? nonexistent. a halfassed nod to disneyland’s disastrous opening weekend? not at all. a criticism of the world of brand names in the age of technology? this movie had a budget of 150 million. old vs new? that’s a fun way to claim your gratuitous dinosaur fight is nuanced. gmos? i swear to god they claimed this at some point and it’s still a major ???? for me. it had absolutely nothing to it but it tried so hard to be everything. it tried to be more than the basic, boring thing it ultimately was.
it failed horribly at being anything other than an action movie with a popular title tacked onto it. every single one of its characters were cardboard cutouts with cardboard cutout relationships and a shoehorned romantic subplot that had no basis whatsoever, because that’s the hollywood way. the actor choice was bad. the supporting cast (which made the original trilogy so strong) might as well have not existed because they had no substance to them like every other aspect of that movie. the established canon was broken. even the cgi is saturated and already dated.
despite being considered an overall mediocre movie, though, it made a good bit of money, because jurassic park has a gimmick. it’s the big name dinosaur series, which wasn’t ever about dinosaurs, but since it carries that title that’s what it’s going to be milked for. thoughtful quotes and some of the most human characters out there are being replaced by velociraptors with uzis and chris pratt’s jacked, oiled body because that’s what sells, and hollywood is soulless, and michael crichton is dead so he can’t complain anymore
Site Title 