-
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeruvianSkies
I get what you are saying, but I still don't agree that they are comparable films, despite both being Spielberg-esque. The only analogy that comes to mind for me though is saying that JAWS and JURASSIC PARK are like Hockey and Basketball.... both have many of the same elements as they are both team sports, both have nets, both require defense and offense positions, both are played on hard surfaces, both are indoor sports, both require the players to shoot the object to score, passing is necessary, etc etc. Just because they are similar in many ways does not mean that they are the same caliber of a film, regardless of their similarities in storytelling.
Michael Crighton and Peter Benchley are very different authors as well, although of course many believe that there are only 7 or so story-lines out there to begin with, of course there will be similarities.
I agree that there are other films more comparable than these two but more comparable - and not comparable at all is what I am going by.
My main point was that JP could have been better as a "thriller" which is what it is designed to be if it had relied on what Spielberg had done with Jaws. Which is reduce the special effects - made it more of a character driven story and had a dinosaur eye view of the events. Of course they should show dinosaurs but they could have ramped up some of the scares. Roger Ebert made the same point.
There is a lot to be contrasted but in general to contrast something you chose something that was comparable in the first place.
Ultimately they're man versus beast have to outsmart out battle the beast(s) in order to stay alive.
Your 7 story aspect is correct in the sense that plots generally follow one of those - the contrast is how the movie/novel tackles it. So I would say there are more differences to JP and Jaws than similarities - probably many more - but they still have enough similarity not to say "they are not comparable at all" - they are.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
I agree that there are other films more comparable than these two but more comparable - and not comparable at all is what I am going by.
My main point was that JP could have been better as a "thriller" which is what it is designed to be if it had relied on what Spielberg had done with Jaws. Which is reduce the special effects - made it more of a character driven story and had a dinosaur eye view of the events. Of course they should show dinosaurs but they could have ramped up some of the scares. Roger Ebert made the same point.
There is a lot to be contrasted but in general to contrast something you chose something that was comparable in the first place.
Ultimately they're man versus beast have to outsmart out battle the beast(s) in order to stay alive.
Your 7 story aspect is correct in the sense that plots generally follow one of those - the contrast is how the movie/novel tackles it. So I would say there are more differences to JP and Jaws than similarities - probably many more - but they still have enough similarity not to say "they are not comparable at all" - they are.
Fair enough.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
My main point was that JP could have been better as a "thriller" which is what it is designed to be if it had relied on what Spielberg had done with Jaws. Which is reduce the special effects - made it more of a character driven story and had a dinosaur eye view of the events. Of course they should show dinosaurs but they could have ramped up some of the scares. Roger Ebert made the same poin.
Well...sorta. I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment from the perspective of an adult. My girlfriends kids, OTOH, demand more replays of Jurassic Park than anything else. I suspect this was the audience for which it was intended.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobsticks
Well...sorta. I agree wholeheartedly with your assesment from the perspective of an adult. My girlfriends kids, OTOH, demand more replays of Jurassic Park than anything else. I suspect this was the audience for which it was intended.
This is because JURASSIC PARK evokes the fantasy and imagination that really became the flavor of almost all of Spielberg's films after JAWS and DUEL.
While JURASSIC PARK has elements of horror and the fear factor components, it's more about the possibility of fusing together man and dinosaur in such a realistic fashion that we are moved by the very thought of it, I can recall seeing the film in 1993 for the first time in the theater and being blown away as we observe for the first time (along with much of the cast) as they fly into the Dino-world from a plane and we see the Brontosaurs roaming the island....it's jaw dropping.
-
...and here all this time I just thought that the kids were retarded...
-
Julianne Moore
2 films of hers have caused me to put her on 'perma-ban'. I refuse to see any picture that has her in it. She could even be a bit part, and I wouldn't go to see it, or rent it.
Freedomland, and Children of Men. Both movies sucked, and both sucked 2X more because of her wishy-washy crybaby acting.
That's just my opinion of course.:o
|