Jurassic World? Yay or nay?

I'll give it a cautious "Yay".

No movie can hope to recapture the pre-release excitement that surrounded the original "Jurassic Park", simply because the then-revolutionary CGI effects that were the main draw of the original movie have since become so commonplace.

That said, this movie looks like a pretty diligent attempt at relaunching the series.

It would be mean-spirited to hope for it to fail.

It looks terrible

@MlauTheDaft: "I half expect it to be underwhelming, but it's once of those movies where I can't not see it, like Star Wars. I liked the original cast better, seing as they looked much more like regular people and actual scientists (except Goldblum, but he was'nt a real scientist anyway, lol).

Edit: Even if it turns out rather stupid, I expect it to at least be a feast for the eyes and imagination. And the story does look to be stupid :)"

He/She pretty much elaborated what was I getting at in the Fantastic 4 thread. Casting in modern movies are awful. Or maybe its just bad acting.

Yay...sort of, i mean i know it will be kind of lackluster, but there is been a while since a JP movie came out...and while 3 was horrendous, still had some fun moments, there is something about watching dinosaurs in a movie that i like, and while some ideas from Jurassic World already looks dumb...i really want to watch some of the new creatures and of course the new big baddie...so yay.

I'm pretty sure Jurassic Park is a movie for kids. And I'm an adult so I don't watch those things.

Call me inexperienced but what's so bad about Chris Pratt? :P

Anyway I'd say Yay, if I can't say anything that is in between yay and nay. Looks like a good movie, but just seeing the previews, something about it just can't compare to the very first Jurassic Park movie.

LOOKS way better than jpark 2-3

im in im sold, i love everything about it, from the huge park and all the people, to the new enhanced dinosaur

only thing i didn't like is the guy tamed the raptors that was lame

Guess we just like this guy a lot better:

Also, being called a pratt is an insult. Or did I just make that up as a nicer version of twat?

Edit: That poor triceratops looked a lot more real back than....

@Stesilaus: One thing that the original had going to it was the extensive use of animatronics instead of CGI...for most part, as long as you don't see the whole dino running it's an animatronic...the other ones focused a bit too much on CGI and this one seems to be the same, which is pissing off a lot of "purists". I don't really care all that much as long as the CGI is not so obvious that it takes me out of the scene.

Also, I agree that it won't capture your imagination like the original JP but we don't really need it to, do we? I have extremely good memories of the original; now I just need something to entertain me and remind me of the magic I felt then.

@Toph_Girl250: I just dislike the way he acts...to me he seems more fit for HBO than to a blockbuster....maybe True Blood? I also hated Guardians of the Galaxy, so that didn't help.

@PSP107: Yep, "pretty" casting has been a reality for a while now but they used to try to assure that there was at least some acting talent underneath the pretty face...seems like that's not needed anymore. Even worse is when the actors DO have some acting talent and keep getting typecast into the "horny, idiot, goofy, sleezeball, bad boy/girl" parts that are as shallow as can be.

Wrong, and even if is true the movie really is for kids, I'd say the adults going to see them means they still have their inner kid inside of them and don't mind being kids at heart, at least every now and then.

@korvus: "Yep, "pretty" casting has been a reality for a while now but they used to try to assure that there was at least some acting talent underneath the pretty face...seems like that's not needed anymore. Even worse is when the actors DO have some acting talent and keep getting typecast into the "horny, idiot, goofy, sleezeball, bad boy/girl" parts that are as shallow as can be."

I also blame the writers for awful dialogue.

@PSP107: Agreed. If the writing is bad it's almost impossible for anyone to make any decent acting with it.

Nay.

I stopped caring after The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997).

Yeah that and if you ask me it seems like incompetent crappy directors get assigned to their positions way more often than they should be, these days. Likely a good number of movies out there that should have been great, but weren't, thanks to that.

I didn't like the trailer and I'm expecting it to be awful. Btw, Jurassic Park is my all time favorite movie.

@harry_james_pot: That just makes it all the more difficult, doesn't it?

Yeah. When it was announced I knew that I need to keep my expectations low, and that it won't be even remotely as good as the first movie. But the trailers still managed to disappoint me.
I'm still gonna watch it, though.

@harry_james_pot: All of that and your inner 5yo is still screaming "DINOSAURS!!!" at the top of his lungs, huh? You're not the only one ;-)

is this about hot raptor sex? if so, then sign me up !

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this movie is about people yet again going to a prehistoric island thinking something won't go wrong, and it does, where killer dinosaurs go on a rampage terrorizing the island.

Those are all valid points. Of course, another major strength of the original is that it was directed by Steven Spielberg! He does lend his name to Jurassic World, but only in the capacity of one of five producers.

@Toph_Girl250: "Yeah that and if you ask me it seems like incompetent crappy directors get assigned to their positions way more often than they should be, these days. Likely a good number of movies out there that should have been great, but weren't, thanks to that."

I wonder do some directors have less control.

@korvus: "Agreed. If the writing is bad it's almost impossible for anyone to make any decent acting with it."

I thought it was the other way around.