Jurassic Park Series

[Xenomrph]

I don't mind the idea about BioSyn taking control of InGen...but another park? It's been attempted twice. No way in hell are they ever going to try to rebuild Jurassic Park as a theme park. Perhaps something more natural preserve like, and much more heavily restricted. Possibly on open for scientists to study. The idea of rebuilding the park is too unrealistic, in my opinion.

The thing is, both times it was attempted it didn't work because of human error. The first time was because Nedry was an idiot, the second time was because Sarah Harding and co. sabotaged the crap out of the Ingen camp and set all the dinosaurs loose. There isn't actually anything inherently flawed with a dinosaur theme park, things get dangerous when people mess up.

It doesn't matter, really. The public won't want another park, no way in hell would any one invest into it, and the government might not even allow it. There just isn't a good enough reason to rebuild the park.

Sure they would, the public would pay crazy money to see real-life dinosaurs up close. There's an excellent reason to rebuild the park: $$$$$$$$$$$$

Did you ever play the "Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis" video game? The entire premise of the game is "prove the first movie wrong" and make a successful park.

Yes there is. There are plenty of things wrong with it. Ian Malcom spends a whole chapter outlining those problems in the book.

Yeah and none of them happened in the movie. Dinosaurs breeding? That's easy to control once you realize it's happening. It's an island, with the dinosaurs in pens.
If a dinosaur theme park was inherently flawed, those same flaws would make zoos impossible to maintain - and yet we have zoos all over the world, housing any number of different animals.

[DoomRulz]

Except dinosaurs existed in a physical environment that was far different to ours. You can't use modern zoos as an example. The three best pieces of proof I can provide are:

1. There was more CO2 in the air during the Mesozoic. Why do you think dinosaurs grew so large? The air allowed them to grow as big as they did. Unless a park owner plans on building structures that are 500 feet tall and several miles across and re-create that atmosphere, he's not going to be able to sustain large animals.

2. The type of plant life that existed during the Mesozoic wasn't the same as it is today. Dinosaurs' teeth evolved to eat specific types of plants that they could not only chew, according to their teeth shape, but also digest. It's not as simple as just eating any plant they see purely because they are herbivores.

3. Large dinosaurs require heavy amounts of food, and I do mean heavy. A large carnivore like T.Rex would need at the very minimum, 60 kg of meat everyday just to survive. Ok, read that again. We're not talking about actually satisfying its appetite in which case where the heck is someone going to find that much food to feed it? And let's not even talk about the sauropods like Brachiosaurus. In addition to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, they grew so large because they spent their entire lives eating and being very good at it.

[OmegaZilla]

Not to mention that if a lion runs loose in a city, it's one thing. If a Tyrannosaurus runs loose in said city -- it's a whole another thing.

[DoomRulz]

Yeah, you get property damage galore and even deaths like we saw in TLW. Try selling that to an investor.

[Remonster]

I don't mind the idea about BioSyn taking control of InGen...but another park? It's been attempted twice. No way in hell are they ever going to try to rebuild Jurassic Park as a theme park. Perhaps something more natural preserve like, and much more heavily restricted. Possibly on open for scientists to study. The idea of rebuilding the park is too unrealistic, in my opinion.

The thing is, both times it was attempted it didn't work because of human error. The first time was because Nedry was an idiot, the second time was because Sarah Harding and co. sabotaged the crap out of the Ingen camp and set all the dinosaurs loose. There isn't actually anything inherently flawed with a dinosaur theme park, things get dangerous when people mess up.

It doesn't matter, really. The public won't want another park, no way in hell would any one invest into it, and the government might not even allow it. There just isn't a good enough reason to rebuild the park.

Sure they would, the public would pay crazy money to see real-life dinosaurs up close. There's an excellent reason to rebuild the park: $$$$$$$$$$$$

Did you ever play the "Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis" video game? The entire premise of the game is "prove the first movie wrong" and make a successful park.

Yes there is. There are plenty of things wrong with it. Ian Malcom spends a whole chapter outlining those problems in the book.

Yeah and none of them happened in the movie. Dinosaurs breeding? That's easy to control once you realize it's happening. It's an island, with the dinosaurs in pens.
If a dinosaur theme park was inherently flawed, those same flaws would make zoos impossible to maintain - and yet we have zoos all over the world, housing any number of different animals.

Its a little funny, because the arguments you are making are pretty much the same ones made my Hammond and Co. in the book.

[Xenomrph]

Not to mention that if a lion runs loose in a city, it's one thing. If a Tyrannosaurus runs loose in said city -- it's a whole another thing.

That's okay, because it's happening on an island, where there's pens.

According to the movies, the only problem with the park was human error. With the books that's a different story, but my movie idea follows from the movies (which I don't feel explored the "chaos theory" angle as deeply as the book did).

[OmegaZilla]

That's okay, because it's happening on an island, where there's pens.

A lion cannot cause as much damage as a Tyrannosaurus -- not only to people but also to structures. A Tyrannosaurus getting free for mistake would not only likely injure -or kill- visitors, but would also destroy some park structures.

Not to mention the fences could be easily disabled by a completely unintentional accident, or even a storm. There's a lot of variants.

In JPOG they partially solved this problem by introducing these bunker things, which I think are actually a good idea.

[Bat Chain Puller]

Not to mention that if a lion runs loose in a city, it's one thing. If a Tyrannosaurus runs loose in said city -- it's a whole another thing.

That's okay, because it's happening on an island, where there's pens.

According to the movies, the only problem with the park was human error. With the books that's a different story, but my movie idea follows from the movies (which I don't feel explored the "chaos theory" angle as deeply as the book did).

According the the movies it wasn't only human error but human sabotage.

Nedry's greed and his turning off the power to the fences in order to get the embryos to the boat.

But aside from that ... the Raptors were already out ... and for God knows how long and laying eggs in the wild (long enough to have them hatching). Which never made sense to me since there were no incidents or evidence of unaccounted for, or extra raptors running about within the pens of the other animals. So that's a pretty big problem without factoring in Nedry, and would fall squarely into Malcom's chaos theory.

And nothing is explored as deeply in the film. As classic and wonderful as the film is, they didn't spend the time to mold it into a meticulously believable science fiction film. It's a great A pop-corn flick that renders the science and accompanying theories to quick scenes of exposition so we can hurry up and get to the mayhem.

[evolution_rex]

Sure they would, the public would pay crazy money to see real-life dinosaurs up close. There's an excellent reason to rebuild the park: $$$$$$$$$$$$

Did you ever play the "Jurassic Park: Operation Genesis" video game? The entire premise of the game is "prove the first movie wrong" and make a successful park.

But, no one would dare try to rebuild the park. No one would be so daring. MANY lives here taken becuase of the first park and the attempt to build one in San Diego. Investors would never go for it, and unless BioSyn is as richer than Disney, it's impossible to build a park without any investors at all.

The main thing is that they'd be worried about safety, and due to the track record it already has, investors would be questioning if it was actually worth it all.

Plus, if that was the actual plot for the fourth film, it would terrible. It would have the same plot as the first film. Not very original.

[DoomRulz]

Not to mention that if a lion runs loose in a city, it's one thing. If a Tyrannosaurus runs loose in said city -- it's a whole another thing.

That's okay, because it's happening on an island, where there's pens.

According to the movies, the only problem with the park was human error. With the books that's a different story, but my movie idea follows from the movies (which I don't feel explored the "chaos theory" angle as deeply as the book did).

Even according to the movies, the issues I raised in my earlier post can't be rectified.

That's okay, because it's happening on an island, where there's pens.

A lion cannot cause as much damage as a Tyrannosaurus -- not only to people but also to structures. A Tyrannosaurus getting free for mistake would not only likely injure -or kill- visitors, but would also destroy some park structures.

Not to mention the fences could be easily disabled by a completely unintentional accident, or even a storm. There's a lot of variants.

In JPOG they partially solved this problem by introducing these bunker things, which I think are actually a good idea.

You can easily solve those problems with a backup generator which any installation has.

[Xenomrph]

But aside from that ... the Raptors were already out ... and for God knows how long and laying eggs in the wild (long enough to have them hatching). Which never made sense to me since there were no incidents or evidence of unaccounted for, or extra raptors running about within the pens of the other animals.

The movie doesn't indicate that or Grant would have called attention to it. The only thing he picks up on is that they're breeding, not that they were getting out. There were only 3 raptors in an incredibly secure paddock - when the power goes out they have to rip their way out and the movie shows the destroyed fences to make it clear that they're free. If they had free reign of the park because they could come and go as they pleased, they wouldn't have bothered ripping their way through the fences when the power went down.
Not to mention Harding and the others would have found carcasses of the animals the Raptors would have been killing.

The hatched eggs is a bit of a plot-hole, just like the cliff next to the T-rex fence that isn't present when the T-rex breaks out.

But, no one would dare try to rebuild the park. No one would be so daring. MANY lives here taken becuase of the first park and the attempt to build one in San Diego.

Yes but as stated, that was entirely due to human error/sabotage. The only reason a T-rex got loose on the mainland was because Nick and Sarah swapped out Roland's bullets with a tranquilizer so he couldn't kill it, and then the Ingen team decided to take the T-rex along without knowing what they were doing - had they not gotten involved, the T-rex would have been killed by Roland and that would have been that. They didn't originally intend on bringing the T-rex with them.
The only reason the trailer went over the cliff was because Sarah (stupidly) brought the baby T-rex back to the trailer, and the only reason the Ingen team members got killed was because Sarah and Nick set all the dinosaurs loose and then they were forced to trek through Raptor territory to get to the alternate radio. Up to that point, the Ingen team had everything under control. All the dinosaurs were penned up and their base camp was secure.

The first two movies consistently show that the dinosaurs could be controlled and contained, and things only went crazy when people started sabotaging stuff.

Plus, if that was the actual plot for the fourth film, it would terrible. It would have the same plot as the first film. Not very original.

That's kind of the point. It's more of a sequel-remake than anything -- the original will be 20 years old next year, my idea would allow for a lot of the same ideas as the original, but handled in a different way - an entirely new generation would get to see a fully-functional Jurassic Park with smiling, happy people interacting with dinosaurs, something you never get to see in the first movie. That was one of the things that really sparked my imagination when I was 9 and the original movie came out, "what would it be like to go to a dinosaur theme park?". My idea would explore that. You'd get to see completely new attractions and dinosaurs, and you'd also have a new cast of characters for people to get attached to.

I wouldn't want to bring back any returning characters from the prior movies, because why would they come back? Hell, I'd outright have a cameo during the opening titles or something of Grant and/or Malcolm getting interviewed and asked if they're going to visit the new Jurassic Park, and have them saying "hell no".

And once everything starts to go wrong, the scope is much, much bigger - if you've got hundreds of people trapped on the island, especially if it's a bunch of civilian tourists, that creates a completely different dynamic than when you've got 8 people trapped on the island. You'd have mob mentality at work.

Even according to the movies, the issues I raised in my earlier post can't be rectified.

Evidently they can - the movies had dinosaurs living just fine on two separate islands without having to cope with food supply or CO2 issues.
Sure they'd be a problem if you were being 100% realistic and trying to build a Jurassic Park in real life, but according to the movies' logic they're evidently not a problem.

[evolution_rex]

I don't think you're getting the point I'm trying to make: I'm not saying it's impossible to contain a park full of dinosaurs, but what I'm saying is that a dinosaur park has gotten a really bad reputation, and no one would ever want to build the park again. It worked in TLW becuase the public didn't know about Isla Nublar and investors were giving InGen a second chance. But that second chance is gone and the public is now completely aware of everything that went on.

And you wanted it to be a remake, then you might as well as make it an actual remake. As for a sequel, it just isn't the best idea. If you're thinking of a reboot, it's still not the best idea. At least, in my opinion.

[Xenomrph]

what I'm saying is that a dinosaur park has gotten a really bad reputation, and no one would ever want to build the park again.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. I think the public would be aware and just wouldn't care - people would want to go see a dinosaur theme park (the third movie is evidence of that, where you've got unsanctioned, wildly unsafe boat tours near Isla Sorna).

[evolution_rex]

what I'm saying is that a dinosaur park has gotten a really bad reputation, and no one would ever want to build the park again.

I get what you're saying, I just don't agree. I think the public would be aware and just wouldn't care - people would want to go see a dinosaur theme park (the third movie is evidence of that, where you've got unsanctioned, wildly unsafe boat tours near Isla Sorna).

Wanting to see a dinosaur is different than wanting to go to a theme park. Why does it need to be a theme park specifically? Turning Isla Sorna into a natural preserve where scientists could study the animals makes more sense. I mean, a dinosaur theme park seems like an original idea created by Hammond to me. People may want to see the dinosaurs, but that doesn't mean they want a theme park with a restaurant, tours, a hotel, and rides. It's an odd idea when you think about it, becuase it's a lot different than a zoo (although, there are similar places like Sea World.)

So, if any company were able to own the animals, I don't think the first money maker idea will be 'Build another park!" I think it would be something more like researching them in hopes to find something productive. Like in TLW novel, they discuss how they can use the animals as test animals becuase they can't get in trouble becuase the animals are their products. There are lots of different ways to make money off of the dinosaurs, and some of those ways are more investor friendly. I think if that's the route they'll take in the fourth film, they should be trying to make money off of them in a different way rather than the way they've already tried and failed epically.

[Xenomrph]

That's something my idea addresses, though - it'd have them making money off them as a theme park, and also doing animal testing and other things of questionable ethics on the side, all in the name of profits.

A nature preserve is different from a zoo or a theme park because the public doesn't get to visit the nature preserve and see the dinosaurs up-close, especially if the nature preserve is meant "for scientists only".

One of the reasons the first movie was so successful was because the general public did want a dinosaur theme park, and the marketing reflected that. The movie was marketed as if Jurassic Park was a real place you could visit, with lunch boxes and T-shirts and stuffed animals and postcards and stuff. All the merchandise you see scattered throughout the movie is real stuff you could actually buy at the time the movie came out. It was really quite clever. The Jurassic Park ride at Universal Studios is the same way - it's done as if you're visiting the "real" Jurassic Park, and it's one of the most popular attractions Universal Studios has ever had. Every time real-life scientists mention potentially cloning extinct animals or dinosaurs, the media inevitably says "so how long until we get a real Jurassic Park?".

To say people wouldn't want a dinosaur theme park and wouldn't pay money to visit it is objectively false. It's true in real life and it's one of the reasons the first movie captured the imaginations of so many people and made it such a success. Having it be "true" from a storytelling perspective is extra-easy if your real-life audience already wants it to be true anyway.
Not to mention my story idea would have it actually work (for a while at least), so "could it work?" would be a moot point since from a story perspective it does work.