[DISSONANT CHIME]
Uh-uh, you didn't say the magic word.
(DESPERATELY) Please.
God damn it, I hate this hacker crap.
Jurassic Park has defined, for decades,
what we call a blockbuster.
It's as near a perfect film as you can find.
And yet in the five attempted equals,
despite almost a billion dollars being spent, none of them
possess even a shred of the imagination and ingenuity
of the original film.
Released in 1993, directed by Steven Spielberg
with a screenplay by David Koepp and based on Michael Crichton's
1990 novel of the same name, Jurassic Park
became the quintessential summer movie.
And all the parts were there to make the engine run-- an expert
filmmaker at the top of their game, top-tier effects studios
ILM and the Stan Winston company,
John Williams writing the score, two lead actors who embodied
their characters in Laura Dern and Sam Neill,
and two future cultural phenomenons in Jeff
Goldblum and Samuel L. Jackson.
Life, uh, finds a way.
It was the amber-encased thrill ride
that movies would pull from for decades,
including its own franchise.
Everything about this movie just works.
And audiences responded.
It was the highest-grossing movie of the year,
beating out the number two Mrs. Doubtfire by over $100 million.
[MUSIC PLAYING]
People wanted to see this movie.
They wanted something only the original movie has delivered--
spectacle and wonder.
The wonder of Jurassic Park is really such a simple idea
that it's almost impressive none of its equals
have been able to replicate the formula.
Present the audience with a relatable idea or memory--
say, a theme park, maybe.
Then introduce your lovable and slightly naive
characters to the familiar setting.
Only in this world, their wildest dreams are true.
Let the audience revel in their awe and wonder.
Then let them see what happens when that wonder becomes
a horrific nightmare.
[SNORTING]
[SCREAMS]
And Jurassic Park definitely and precisely steers that question,
whereas the equals seem not to have as much
of an interest in asking you questions as much as cheering
along with the audience.
After the worldwide success of Jurassic Park,
Michael Crichton agreed to write a sequel in 1995 that
went directly to the studios and was loosely adapted
into The Lost World--
Jurassic Park.
The Lost World was the first hint at the franchise's future,
bending over backwards to accommodate us, not
inspire wonder.
Screenwriter Koepp has often told a story
about receiving a letter from a fan saying,
don't have a long, boring bit at the beginning that has nothing
to do with the island.
The writer has spoken often of keeping
that letter while he wrote the sequel, a sort of anchor
to remind him of the audience's wants.
So Koepp starts us on the island,
but then quickly bends to trends of the time.
With disaster movies running rampant in the box
office in the mid to late '90s, The Lost World
was borderline pushy to tack on a rampant dinosaur
loose in the city where the first film
showed something comfortable and then warped
the idea to engage us.
Lost World finds itself tethered to its own success
afraid to venture into the uncharted waters
of uncertainty.
Released in 2001, Jurassic Park III
was directed by friend of Spielberg Joe Johnston.
In another attempt to latch onto what
it thinks made the original important,
III focuses on familial connections.
It lays its thesis of "everyone needs family"
front and center by having Grant visit
Sadler and her nuclear family at the movie's opening.
Then there's the usual setup of Grant needs money for science,
which makes him agree to a flyover of the island that
turns into a rescue mission.
And that rescue?
It's for a separated couple to find their lost child.
Of course, through III's narrow vision of family,
the couple must get back together
to save their child and not just co-parent.
Only Jurassic Park was never about blood family.
It's power laid in found family.
We saw people work with one another
and survive for each other all out of a shared love,
a feeling that brought those people together and made
us cheer for them.
Whether you believe Sam Neill's Dr. Alan Grant and Laura Dern's
Dr. Ellie Sattler had been romantically involved
in the first film, this movie almost
demands that Grant pines over a memory that
was never stated as existing, only inferred by some fans.
Look at the extraordinary-- what'd you do?
He touched it.
Dr. Grant's not machine-compatible.
Hell, they've got it in for me.
For a while, it seemed like that might be it,
until Jurassic World in 2015.
Spielberg had said he originally had
an idea for a fourth installment in 2005 but was too busy.
The film was delayed and rewritten again
for almost a decade until Colin Trevorrow helmed the reboot
sequel.
Based on none of Spielberg's original ideas,
Jurassic World is a movie that goes out
of its way to shoehorn the idea that Jurassic Park happened
and therefore all its equals.
Whereas the first movie contemplates whether or not
that was a good idea, Jurassic World says,
we know it's a bad idea, but shut up-- dinosaurs.
[ROARING]
When Jurassic Park showed the dinosaurs,
there was a reverence in Dean Cundey's cinematography.
Both Spielberg and Cundey are on record
having said they wanted the camera to be a character,
so Cundey put the camera low.
Dinosaurs walked past almost godly in their indifference
to man and we felt small around these creatures, not scared.
But Jurassic World wants you scared,
not because it wants you to question your own place
in orbit of these dinosaurs, it wants you to feel powerful
when you inevitably learn they can be tamed, which brings us
to our main character, Owen, an animal trainer whose
sole characteristic seems to be making dinosaurs submit.
Where the first movie gives us endearing scientists,
mathematicians, and eccentric millionaires
with childlike joy, Jurassic World
gives us a shockingly ripped member of Parks and Rec
racing dinosaurs on a motorcycle.
So cool, I guess.
It is, again, hammering home the idea that joy and wonder are
gone from the franchise.
In their wake, wish fulfillment.
Our introduction to Owen is witnessing
a weak, scared employee being eaten by a raptor.
We're shown the danger of these creatures,
but the movie insists we are in safe, reliable hands
when Owen subdues the creature.
Jurassic Park raised questions about humankind's
responsibility and power.
Jurassic World seems to think the power rests in dominance.
It is genuinely offensive to be told, by the movie,
this is you.
This is what you want, right?
There's definitely no wonder or blanks to be filled.
Where we once had characters in awe of what they see,
here we have characters who insist on control--
you know, when the plot demands it.
They will absolutely be helpless when another action scene
is needed despite any previous information or character
traits.
The movie wants us to empathize with these people
not because it has put in the work,
but because the movie says so.
Then we have Jurassic World--
Fallen Kingdom.
In an attempt to course correct again,
Fallen Kingdom revisits horror.
They hire JA Bayona, director of The Orphanage
and A monster Calls.
On paper, it sounds like a good idea.
Only in the original, Spielberg definitely
managed the horror with awe, where Fallen Kingdom doesn't
have anything to say about the majesty of these creatures,
just the terror.
Jurassic Park genuinely pondered the delicate balance
between humankind and nature.
It wondered how those ideas coexist
in a delicate symbiotic relationship.
But there's no balance in Fallen Kingdom.
We're left with the idea of power,
and that power rests solely on humankind,
represented by animal trainers and business managers.
Trevorrow has stated that he believes the main character is
Claire Dearing, played by Bryce Dallas Howard,
as the park's operation manager.
Dearing is given the familiar trope
of a workaholic who has no time for a family
without exploring the ideas of whether she wants a family
or what family means to her other
than the rigid traditionalism the movie thrusts
on her more often than the high heels she's
forced to wear the entire time.
But why then did the writing, directing, and audience
itself push Owen to the forefront?
Honestly, it seems to be the new movie's fear of questions.
It can be complicated to talk about family, parenthood,
and relationships.
There's subtext and nuance around these ideas.
And by the movie's own marketing,
it's a lot easier to focus on the hot guy riding a dirt bike.
Jurassic Park did become the cautionary tale
Crichton set out to write, even if it wasn't the caution he
necessarily intended.
That movie is more than the sum of its parts.
It exists as a creature feature, a thriller,
a scientific morality play, an unapologetic story of found
family, and most importantly, it's
the story of characters in wonder of the world they
have found themselves.
The original Jurassic Park was released in 1993,
and as we approach 2023, the world is a different place.
We genuinely hope the new Jurassic World--
Dominion will use the wonder and all of Jurassic Park.
Quite honestly, it's something we need right now.
The world can feel big and scary with leathery skin
and large teeth, but the answer isn't Lost World's cynicism.
It isn't III's insistence on genetic family,
and it sure isn't something you can bend to your will.
And Dominion seems, at least on the surface, to agree.
With Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum returning
to revive their characters, maybe we
will get the deft sleight of hand
of the original blockbuster, but while this
is the first time all three have been together
since the original, it's not the first they've appeared.
There was an optimism for the world
through Spielberg's lens, a question posited and answered
very simply.
When you see something so beautiful, so fantastical,
even if it seems big and scary, how
can you look upon it with anything other than wonder?
Hopefully the new movie believes that as well.
So what do you think?
Will Jurassic World-- Dominion retain the original's magic?
Does it matter if there's still the original for you
to hold near and dear to your heart?
Or is the magic wrapped up in our own nostalgia?