How important is Jurassic Park?

I've always wondered how this movie will be perceived/treated some 30, 40 ,50 years from now. How innovative it will be looked at in terms of bringing imagination to realization to a believable standard with the use of computer generated effects also know as CGI. bringing up an important point and discussion as to it being the first realistic textured effects driven story/plot against other films that made use of CGI before it. Examples such as Tron and The Last Starfighter are now considered Nostalgic or oddities if not only gaining cult status but that’s another aspect altogether. I’m not so interested in the direction those films have taken, but it does bring to question will Jurassic Park be just another film of Nostalgia, another Tron perhaps leading down that same path .As Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan had it’s CGI Genesis Effect and the digital 3D water effect in The Abyss now are only small water drops in an otherwise massive ocean. Also adding to the growing accountability and heavy use of bring to life something that was only imagined within the mind and on paper or with the charming yet crude Stop Motion Animation. While Terminator 2 may have it's supports as being First amongst the most important film to first heavy rely on CGI. My argument is quite simple Terminator 2 left a lot to be imagined, filling in the blanks so to speak it had ultimate flexibility meaning it would be hard to argue a mistake was a mistake and not the exact intentions of the director. That malleable form could do no wrong. Yet if a dinosaur was missing say an arm, leg or a jaw slightly unattached you name. That would not be left to the imagination only to be laughed upon. The textures of the dinosaurs had to be skin like not flat or liquid as the T-1000 and more important once the T-1000 was a human it was that actor the dinosaurs had no actors to step in for them just a blend of close up animatronics/puppets and CGI they were the actors.

And to ask such other questions as

Will this film have the same admiration for changing cinema as 2001 ?

Do you hate it like it love it ?

Was it simply good timing ?

Does it hold up even by today’s standards ?

Did it change the medium of Cinema ?

If so for better or worse ?

I wouldn't say Jurassic Park would or could ever be a "cult film." Isn't a cult film, by definition a film that fails upon it's first theatrical release, but then finds a great success and following upon further releases or home video?

You're right about special effects I'm guessin' People will view it from that perspective, but I don't much think of it as a great movie.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

Maybe I choose the wrong word to rein enforce my thoughts. How about gimmick or shock value better yet I’ll go with nostalgia. Although i'm not entirely certain your definition of a cult film is spot on it's somewhat gray does every cult film follow those guidelines I doubt it. Spielberg's 1941 made it's money back and then some. I'll agree most films that are looked at as cult films lost money or had no real release to speak of at the threatre level and then gained popularity threw tv, vhs, laserdisc and now dvd and blue-ray but i'm getting a little of track here, sorry. I'll change the word to Nostalgia it works a lot better.

Why don't you think it's a great movie ? Is it a generation thing, timing, not into fantasy/sci-fi genre, not your cup of tea, or generally thought it was okay for it's time and it's time is over. I hope i'm not coming over as pushy just interested. thanks for the comments.

Jurassic Park is a film I saw as a child, so I'm not sure whether or not that factors into my liking of it. I think it's a good example of what Spielberg does well: a solid, entertaining story, strong on conventional storytelling and film techniques, and it's also one of the best movies of its genre.

I don't think it has much longevity. Sure, everything you've said about the technology that went into making those dinosaurs come to life is true - and even today I can watch the film and don't find myself thinking that it looks fake - but I don't think this will really matter to future audiences. Film students and whoever else takes a deeper look into the history of filmmaking might certainly appreciate it.

I think what gives films long life is the story and the characters. Universal stories that have an appeal to any person from any era.

But ultimately, only time will tell.

I remember seeing JP back when it came out in theaters. I was a small child at the time and believed that somehow they managed to use real dinosaurs while filming (very gullible child I was), at the time, I loved the movie. Fell right into circulation with all my vhs tapes when it came out.

Some 15...17? years later, I find myself enjoying the film more. Mostly now that I understand the underlying plot, as well as having read the books.
Also my boyfriend just LOVES the movie and dinosaurs and watching the movie with him, having him run my own little personal commentary, its made me appreciate the story and the novel quality of the film.

I think the storyline still manages to capture the imagination, and still brings up the social and moral arguments behind animal conservation and cloning.
Also the acting still holds, the kids aren't annoying, its actually pretty well directed (and I'm not a fan of Spielberg...) and in all honesty, after all these years the special effects are better than most of the movies that are out today.

The giant animatronics still look like real dinosaurs to me

I think the first one will stand the test of time, much like the classic stop motion dino films of the 30s and 40s.
As long as people's interests are still piqued by dinosaurs this movie will possibly be the best cinematic example of them.


And seriously, I really am and was convinced they were real

I seen Jurasic Park in the theater when I was pretty young and I think the story,The effects, and the characters were amazing. I loved that movie I think I must have seen it twice in the theater. I'm going to re-watch it soon here. I have not seen it in about ten years and I want to see what I think about it now. Then ill give another opinion.

2001 changed cinema???? I must have missed that memo. Great music, however. Wish I had bought the soundtrack rather than a ticket to the movie.

Guess you can put me and my wife in the "hate it" category since we walked out of the showing. She was ready to go when the dinosaur blew snot all over the kids in the tree. I finally bailed when I saw the park geniuses put the habitat for the park's most dangerous creature outside the door of the main control center but built the vital power station all the way down at the other end of the compound. I can't work up any worry about the survival of idiots of that caliber.

The thing I remember most about the earlier The Last Starfighter was the fine performance by the great veteran actor Robert Preston, not flash in the pan special effects. Unfortunately, Jurassic Park didn't have anyone of his caliber to watch.

I already knew from the pre-release hype and the televised trailers that the galloping dinosaur herd's movements were modeled on the coordinated dart-and-weave patterns of swallows in flight and schools of small fish in the ocean, so that was no big deal. I much prefered the actors in the gorilla suits at the start of 2001 to the computerized critters of Jurassic Park.

Not one whit. At least not the kind of films I like, those with tightly structured scripts, good human actors on screen, and with plots propelled by dialog rather than special effects. I wanna see special effects, I'll go to a Disney cartoon.

Just my opinion.

I've never thought that the film was important. I didn't understand all the fuss when it came out and nothing's changed. I think I viewed it as the Harry Potter of its time, y'know, it was for kids but adults seemed to be going for it too. TBH, I thought it was a disapointment.

I agree with you. though, I believe that to some degree it has changed cinema but not necessarily for the better. At least in some people's opinions. your imagination is left at the door and rather than trying to make the story stronger or the actors more intelligent or relying on great dialogue you've got special effects over taking those important factors.

Thanks the imput so far.

Well, for me with 2001. You could call it innovative or the changing of a genre to more realistic and more serious approuch. I really feel that the film was ahead of its time and that nothing had quite looked like it that came before it (distinctive). It was a film that brought together well/detailed crafted special effects that tried to be as realistic as possible and had a more logical approach to what the future would or could possible look like and have in story. again to each his own. Out of curiosity is there any films that you believe have had a changing impact on cinema ? for better or worse

I enjoyed Jurassic Park when it first came out and I still do. It's an excellent popcorn flick, and for the generation after mine, it's apparently their Jaws. My love for the flick may be partly due to my fascination as a kid with dinosaurs. I read everything I could about dinosaurs up until I was about ten years old, I'd make my own books about them, with write-ups and my own drawings. In fact, probably the only things I liked to draw more than dinosaurs were space aliens and their spaceships, But this was back in the 1960s, and it's amazing how many dinosaurs have different names now and how different they're looked upon now compared to 45 years ago.

Now, as far as Jurassic Park goes, I couldn't relate to any of the lead characters as much as I did with those in Jaws. Jeff Goldblum's Malcolm was the closest to a memorable character along the lines of Richard Dreyfuss's smartass Hooper. Anyway, I don't really think that Jurassic Park is all that important in the scheme of film history except for the fact that it just got more people to totally buy into CGI characters (even if they aren't humans) more than any movie previously. Then again, my fave scene in Jurassic Park doesn't have any (or very little) CGI. It's the scene where the T. rex takes apart the car the kids are in. That's as close as JP ever gets to reaching the heights of Jaws in my book.

&feature=related

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

First, I’d just like to clear up one thing. I enjoyed Jurassic Park still do but by no means is it a favourite film of mine. For some reason I really felt as if I needed a starting point so I used this film. I really wanted to start a discussion about the use of CGI in films, then and now. What if any repercussions/implications has it had on the impact of cinema good or bad weather this is the most important CGI film of it's early creation (first 15 years) or weather CGI is just simple put, another tool in the hands/arsenal of Directors.

I'm uncertain about this. Do you guys think there's a better example of CGI used in a film that was made in the early premature area stages of computer generated effects. Was it more of a natural progression that got more and more better and using a singular film simply won't suffice.


I think your completely on target the "buy in" is what made this film so appealing to so many for its time.

maybe I should get one of the mods to change the title to "CGI in movies"

There probably are better examples out there, specially if they use the same Renderman program JP used, but that's really opening a whole can of worms that I really don't know anything about other than what I've read from this

Which isn't much to begin with.

If anything I think the CGI for the Raptors was...ok, it only bothered me when they had them next to the puppets, but as for the rest, I feel it was used more as a tool to tell the story rather than as the movie itself in a whole (the only thing comes to mind with that is Star Wars 1-3, which was much later).

It's a 'cult film' ! I had no idea. But i loved the film so much i can't explain. I saw the film when i was a teenager. This type of film is made once in a decade.

"Welcome ..... to Jurassic Paaaaak"

__________________

I think the CGI use is kinda seminal in that Spielberg doesn't just whack it on the screen but still applies a kind of thoughtful 'show it in stages' sensibility - in terms of the 'Jaws attacks' aspects at any rate. He plays both to its strengths and weakness. I thought the chase scene with the T-rex exemplified that - patchy moon-lit low-light (making use of both the incomplete exposure of the threat and the CGIs use of light to aid the appearance of texture and depth etc etc), camera swings as we wonder where the next blow will strike etc, all working together to make it a very kinetic and flowing scene.

Having said that, it perhaps also reinforced the idea that your plot can be made of cardboard as long as you get the set pieces right

(I don't think it's quite that bad, but there were plenty of undeveloped kernels amongst the popcorn).

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

I think the primary dividing line on Jurassic Park is that those who saw it in their youth think it was great. The movie was released the year I turned 50, so I had seen Richard Attenborough play much better roles in much better films. Dinosaurs were not popular when I was a kid or even when my kids were kids, although I spent a fortune buying them every Star Wars toy that hit the market after that movie.

I liked the original Star Wars and the original Indiana Jones because of the Saturday serial feel they involked. Never cared much for the sequels.

I've never seen any of the Jaws series all the way through and never will, because I have a phobia against films that show clouds of blood in the water, or pools of blood on land or blood spouting from severed jugulars as Johnny Depp's Sweeney Todd. To most people that's just special effects, no more upsetting than catchup. But as a former medic in the Army and years covering the police beat, I've seen more death in more forms than you can even imagine. Blood and raw death (not grandma lying peacefully in her casket) have distinctive smells--once exposed, you'll never forget. And when I see those scenes those memories come flooding back. So I try to make sure I don't see them. I also avoid the rotting bodies in zombie movies. I'm not much into the supernatural anyway.

I think the animation is far better than, say, Jumanji (1995). Jumanji looks like a full blown cartoon (the animals).

But, I have never seen a real living dinosaur. I am not sure what they really look like, how they move, and so on. So - its hard to judge realism, you know.

I like the film. I think Michael Crichton always wrote his little novels to be films. It was an okay sci-fi and did a lot for Sam Neil (who I like).

I still think the raptors look good. I love the honking sound they make.

__________________
R.I.P.

It's good, but not great. When I saw it in the movie theaters I must've been around 11 or 12, and I had outgrown the dinosaur phase of childhood, and was more into my sports phase. Point is, it didn't really wow me or capture my imagination. Decent film sure, but nothing about it strikes me as great.

The scariest, if I can say that term... but the scene that stood out most to me as a kid was when the fat guy is running around at night in the rain and the cute little chirpy dinosaur chirps... follows... chirps... wants petted and nuzzled and then screams spreads its hood and spits on him.

I wanted to pet it and then it showed me what was up.

I think it will be seen as a classic and a movie that did change the medium for better