Posts: 130787 Topics: 9284 LOGIN

Poll: Which of the jurassic park sequels is better?

Which of the jurassic park sequels is better?
The Lost World
11%
 11%  [ 1 ]
Jurassic park 3
44%
 44%  [ 4 ]
I like neither!
44%
 44%  [ 4 ]
I like both equally!
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 9
 

Home >> Films & Movies >> Jurassic park

04.06.2006, 15:37 quote

Anonymous

The fourth one's in development, and I was having a discussion with a feisty female about which of the trilogy so far is the best.

Obviously the first one is the best, even though it was the worst book-to-film adaptation ever.

I'm of the mind the second one is the best, with better cast, action and the most hi-larious ending ever.

She's obviously into mindless blah, and thinks the third is somehow better than the third?

I don't know how, because it was simply appalling. But obviously i'm sure others think the same!

Anyway, your opinion?

 

04.06.2006, 16:02 quote

Anonymous

Ryts8 wrote:
swissrebel wrote:
Obviously the first one is the best, even though it was the worst book-to-film adaptation ever.


Really? Worse than say, the Postman (not that I dislike the film, but as an adaptation it was pretty poor!) ? Or countless other bad book to movie adaptations? Like a lot of the Bond films that bear no resemblence to the books,

They were both pretty bad but I can at least vaguely remember the third one so I guess I must have preferred it.


The JP film really did have very little in common with the book besides the dinosaurs and the character names. Even the character's personalities were fairly remotely linked with their original ones.

Several Bond films were really quite good adaptations - but obviously only early on. As a series, it's more hollywood now than Ian Flemming.

Saying that, I never read The Postman.

 

04.06.2006, 16:07 quote

Anonymous

OH my god.
It's clearly the third, i cant believe you brought this argument to the forums. i won before and i will win here.
COME ON YOU KNOW THE THIRD WAS MILES BETTER!!!!
A t-rex comes to america, come on! terrible stuff!

 

04.06.2006, 16:07 quote

Anonymous

Ryts8 wrote:
The only thing the same between the book and the film is the lead character dressing as a postman.

I agree the early Bond films were fairly spot on. But then look at Moonraker to see the flip side.


Yes, but saying that - Moonraker wasn't just a bad adaptation, it was a fairly painful film to watch too Very Happy

Ok, so I admit it's hardly the worst adaptation. Almost every Stephen King film is a bad adaptation.

 

04.06.2006, 16:08 quote

Anonymous

Kimberley88 wrote:
OH my god.
It's clearly the third, i cant believe you brought this argument to the forums. i won before and i will win here.
COME ON YOU KNOW THE THIRD WAS MILES BETTER!!!!
A t-rex comes to america, come on! terrible stuff!


It's an homage to King Kong, obviously!

(i'm not defending the awful ending. I thought it was funny, is all! Very Happy)

 

04.06.2006, 16:13 quote

Anonymous

yes, and i hated king kong too Razz

 

04.06.2006, 16:14 quote

Anonymous

Perhaps they should have worked more on making thier own film better than copying another film and making it even worse!

 

04.06.2006, 16:16 quote

Anonymous

Ryts8 wrote:
Except Shawshank and Maximum Overdrive


Green Mile was a good one. I did say almost Smile

 

04.06.2006, 16:27 quote

Anonymous

YES
SCORE!!!!
mwahahaha in your face Rebel!

 

04.06.2006, 16:29 quote

Anonymous

Ryts8 wrote:
Fair enough you did say almost Razz

I seem to be having flash backs of hte second one now though and I remember it being awful! The ending is just rubbish.


The ending is awful, but I never disputed that Very Happy

The whole thing is executed so much better than the third. Even the premise is better. Still not on par with the book, but I mean come on, they didn't need one sequel - so pushing for a second was really stretching the material.

The third one also had the worst casting for the series. I mean, I even actually cared less about Grant this time around... and he was a fantastic character in the first one...

 

04.06.2006, 16:31 quote

Anonymous

Kimberley88 wrote:
Perhaps they should have worked more on making thier own film better than copying another film and making it even worse!


Like how the third one copied pretty much the first two films?

You lose Wink

 

04.06.2006, 16:32 quote

Anonymous

i have to admit i didnt care for the parents at alllll
but i did care when i thought that guy who took the eggs died...
i dunno. i just think the story is better and more gripping

 

04.06.2006, 16:34 quote

Anonymous

Kimberley88 wrote:
i have to admit i didnt care for the parents at alllll
but i did care when i thought that guy who took the eggs died...
i dunno. i just think the story is better and more gripping


It didn't have a story! They were just stupid enough to lose their kid on the island, took a bunch of people out there who pretty much all died found the kid, learned to talk to raptors.

Then the army turned up!

I should have walked out Smile

 

04.06.2006, 16:35 quote

Anonymous

Can't believe you would say that Razz
i cared nothing about ANY of the characters in the second films. i was HOPING Malcolm would die, his kid too!

 

04.06.2006, 16:38 quote

Anonymous

Kimberley88 wrote:
Can't believe you would say that Razz
i cared nothing about ANY of the characters in the second films. i was HOPING Malcolm would die, his kid too!


His kid was awful. Vince Vaughn was superb and Richard Schiff (Eddie, who gets bit in half saving his mates) was fantastic Very Happy

 
 
Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum