HOW MUCH OF THE WHEEL DOES COLIN TREVORROW NEED TO REINVENT?

JURASSIC WORLD director Colin Trevorrow has given a new interview to Slashfilm.com in an attempt to address recently leaked plot details for the upcoming film. Some of what he says is very reassuring, such as his conviction that "there’s no such thing as good or bad dinosaurs. There are predators and prey. The T-Rex in Jurassic Park took human lives, and saved them. No one interpreted her as good or bad." Yet there is a surprising amount of his comments that are quite disappointing and potentially very worrying for fans.

 "Jurassic World takes place in a fully functional park on Isla Nublar. It sees more than 20,000 visitors every day. You arrive by ferry from Costa Rica. It has elements of a biological preserve, a safari, a zoo, and a theme park. There is a luxury resort with hotels, restaurants, nightlife and a golf course. And there are dinosaurs."  - Colin Trevorrow

 Setting aside the fact that putting "nightlife" and a golf course on Isla Nublar feels like a tacky cheapening of novelist Michael Crichton's original concept, the very notion that the island has millions of visitors every year ruins a lot of the magic. Part of Jurassic Park's mystery and intrigue resulted from it being a secret. We, as audience members, felt thrilled and awed that we were fortunate enough to be privy to a hidden oasis of wonders that the wider world had little, if any, knowledge of. This also made things much more credible. It's very easy to suspend disbelief for the run-time of the movie, and accept that dinosaurs could very well be living on some private island, but all of that is lost if the general public worldwide is supposed to know about it. Because in real life there is no island of dinosaurs that thrives as a mainstream tourist attraction, so the only way to really buy into the idea is if we rationalize that it is all kept from public knowledge.
The creation of another park on Isla Nublar is in itself a very good idea, but having Jurassic World be an established and heavily-patronized destination effectively kills much of what made the original film seem so authentic and captivating in the first place. The mystique is gone.

Plus, having hoards of anonymous extras playing terrified holidaymakers threatens to turn things much too "Godzilla" for our liking (a lesson Steven Spielberg himself learned the hard way with The Lost World's cheesy and poorly received "T-rex in San Diego" sequence.)

"What if, despite previous disasters, they built a new biological preserve where you could see dinosaurs walk the earth…and what if people were already kind of over it? We imagined a teenager texting his girlfriend with his back to a T-Rex behind protective glass. For us, that image captured the way much of the audience feels about the movies themselves. “We’ve seen CG dinosaurs. What else you got?” Next year, you’ll see our answer." - Colin Trevorrow

This is a particularly alarming quote. Is there anybody out there who genuinely wants to see a Jurassic Park movie where people are presented as being "already kind of over it"?  Again, having living dinosaurs be treated as a normal and unremarkable fixture of an alternative modern reality cripples a key component of what makes Jurassic Park so fascinating. If the story's characters don't feel it's absolutely extraordinary for these giant beasts to be walking in front of our eyes, then likewise why should we care? That is the fundamental flaw in having the film's world already be used to the dinosaurs.
Trevorrow's suggestion that he needs to somewhat reinvent the wheel because he thinks many moviegoers are "over" the Jurassic Park movies is also miscalculated. Absence has definitely made the heart grow fonder. If anything, the series has grown even more in stature and iconic reputation in the the thirteen years since we last saw a JP sequel grace our screens. Jurassic Park was always a beloved classic, but time has even been kind to the critically-maligned The Lost World and Jurassic Park III, with both films sharing a bit more of their legendary predecessor's positive glow than upon first release. The lengthy gap has also allowed countless families to discover and fall in love with these films with a whole new generation of kids. Public demand for a new installment is at such a widespread and passionate level today not seen since the original Jurassic Park finished it's maiden theatrical run in 1994. We are not "already kind of over" John Hammond's dinosaurs. Not even close.
Oh, and seeing a teen texting his girlfriend because he's so nonchalant about the T-rex behind him is not an image that belongs in any Jurassic film. Period.

  "There will be one new dinosaur created by the park’s geneticists. The gaps in her sequence were filled with DNA from other species, much like the genome in the first film was completed with frog DNA. I know the idea of a modified dinosaur put a lot of fans on red alert, and I understand it. But we aren’t doing anything here that Crichton didn’t suggest in his novels. This animal is not a mutant freak. It doesn’t have a snake’s head or octopus tentacles. It’s a dinosaur, created in the same way the others were, but now the genetics have gone to the next level. For me, it’s a natural evolution of the technology introduced in the first film." - Colin Trevorrow

 It is not exactly clear what Trevorrow means when he says "new" dinosaur. If it turns out to be an actual T-rex, or some other genuine species, that has been made with the aid of other dinosaur's DNA to give it a different mood or characteristics, then that is perfectly fine, and keeping in the spirit of Crichton. But if the "new" dinosaur is in fact a completely fictional creature, then that is one step too far. Yes, in the original Jurassic Park the dinosaurs were created with the addition of frog DNA to fill unavoidable gaps caused by the age of the strand, but it still resulted in the birth of legitimate dinosaur species. A degree of creative license is perfectly acceptable and quite frankly necessary in this genre, but it does have very definite limits. It's unlikely that too many moviegoers flock to Jurassic Park films because they want to see an animal that is a total invention by the filmmakers, and doesn't represent a creature that actually existed. These movies hold such appeal because we feel like we are learning something about natural history while we go on the adventure. Introducing a fictional cross-breed, if that is indeed what they do, then it is just a mere movie monster, not a representative of something that may have lived, and it sacrifices the scientific credibility that Jurassic Park is famous for.

 "With all this talk of filmmakers “ruining our childhood”, we forget that right now is someone else’s childhood. This is their time. And I have to build something that can take them to the same place those earlier films took us." - Colin Trevorrow

We could understand and totally support Trevorrow's argument here if the original Jurassic Park was considered a relic of the 90's, and was only held in high esteem by older fans. But this is of course ridiculous. As we have said previously, twenty years worth of televison reruns, home video releases, and even last year's triumphant theatrical re-release in 3D have ensured that the Jurassic fanbase spans all ages around the world. The notion that it's only older fans who care about fidelity to the content and essence of the original is completely misguided. Trevorrow talks about wanting to make a movie for today's kids, but "today's kids" adore the first Jurassic Park as much as fans born decades earlier.
The kids of today want the same thing out of Jurassic World that kids of yesterday do: a truly great Jurassic Park sequel that excites us with different characters, dinosaurs, and situations, but also honors the original with some familiar faces (Sam Neill!) and places. It is welcomed for JW to push boundaries and be fresh, but not to go so far that it stops feeling like a true Jurassic Park movie.




While we have voiced some strong opinions here, we sincerely wish the Jurassic World cast and crew all the very best, and look forward to seeing what they come up with. We hope they can prove our concerns wrong. Our passion is only because we care so much. Colin Trevorrow pleaded in the interview to "give the movie a chance." And we will.

- @JP4NEEDSNEILL

 

WHY JURASSIC WORLD NEEDS SAM NEILL

On May 9, 2013, director Colin Trevorrow tweeted, "Keep telling me what you want to see. We're all directing Jurassic World."
Well, the verdict has been emphatic, to say the least, ever since the fourth Jurassic Park film was officially announced by Universal Pictures way back in January last year.
No matter whether it's twitter, facebook, message boards, or other various online comments, most fans want to see at least Sam Neill's Dr Alan Grant return, but preferably with appearances from Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern too.
Numerous "What We Want in Jurassic World" articles sprang up on movie-news websites, including one on IGN.com which listed a potential Alan Grant and Ian Malcolm reunion as a top priority, and TotalFilm.com asserted that "Sam Neill NEEDS to be in Jurassic World."

Despite this enormous expression of demand, fans were left perplexed, dismayed, and even outraged when Sam Neill told Examiner.com earlier this year that he would "never say no" to reprising the role of Dr Grant, but that the film's producers "didn't need" him, and had not asked him back.
When queried months later by the AAP whether Jeff Goldblum or Laura Dern might be returning instead, Neill replied bluntly, "None of us are in it, it's a total reboot. There wasn't a choice to be made (about whether we wanted to be in it or not), it was all out of everyone's hands.''
Unsurprisingly, word that neither Neill, Goldblum, or Dern would feature in Jurassic World in any capacity did not go over well. The majority of online feedback on the issue was profoundly negative, some even suggested they no longer had any interest in seeing the film when it is released.
And it wasn't just those who grew up with the original Jurassic Park who were upset, young fans who had discovered the series more recently had hoped to see Grant don the fedora again.

 Trevorrow admitted to IGN.com that he was very aware "a lot of fans want to see the original characters back," but tried to justify his decision to exclude them by arguing that he didn't want to "shoehorn them into this story for my own sentimental reasons. The only reason they’d go back to that island is if the screenwriters contrived a reason for them to go."
But that presupposes Grant and friends would have to be literally dragged kicking and screaming back to the dinosaurs. Not necessarily. Sam Neill mused in 2001 that "Alan Grant has a problem with Jurassic Park in that he both detests and is compelled by it at the same time, and he's never going to be able to shake that completely. Because if you live and breathe dinosaurs, as he does, he's actually seen them in the flesh, it's a pretty amazing thing."
There is unquestionably a strong case to be made that if the right scenario were to present itself, then Grant would not need to have his arm twisted too much to be convinced.
His unyielding scientific curiosity and thirst to study these animals could believably lead him back.
Plus, it seems that Jurassic World's story centers on Isla Nublar being reopened as a functioning dinosaur park. Logic says the island's owners would want to get someone of Grant's unique experience involved somehow, especially as he was an inspector on the original failed park. His knowledge would be extremely valuable.
Also, there is the mere fact that Grant, Malcolm, and Sattler are played by tremendous actors who would be more than capable of introducing new layers and developments in their characters.

One could understand wiping the slate clean and "rebooting" from a casting perpective if these characters no longer had any significant cache with the mainstream moviegoing public. Instead the opposite is true, as Doctors Grant, Malcolm, and Sattler are very much still at the forefront of pop-culture. Their adventures continue to inspire countless dreams, careers, and interest in scientific fields like paleontology, and creative endeavors such as film-making. They remain costume-party favorites, and even Goldblum's Ian Malcolm laugh was recently turned into a viral song! 
Their fanbase transcends all countries and age-groups, thanks to over twenty years of television reruns, home video releases, and even last year's huge theatrical 3D rerelease of Jurassic Park.
It's not just about the dinosaurs. Neill, Goldblum, and Dern's crusading boffins have found as big a place in our collective hearts as the Tyrannosaurus and Velociraptors. They are defining heroes for multiple generations.
Dr Grant and company are entrenched in that rarefied level of public consciousness alongside the likes of Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, and Marty McFly.
As Trevorrow put it, "They're iconic."
There is undeniably a global all-ages audience out there that believe there is still mileage and storyline value to be gotten out of Grant, Malcolm, and Sattler. It defies logic that Universal would not want to take advantage of this built-in fanbase and fulfill the demand to see more from those characters, which if anything seems to have just gotten stronger as time goes by. Bringing back Neill, Goldblum, and Dern to their beloved roles would be a significant box-office draw-card in itself.

Colin Trevorrow said that "Jurassic Park isn’t about the bad luck of three people who keep getting thrown into the same situation." With sincere respect, this is somewhat evading the issue, as nobody actually expects or wants him to rehash the same movie with the same three actors all as the principal focus. We completely support a fresh perspective for Jurassic World and a mostly new cast (Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard are excellent choices), but it would not at all detract from any of those aspects to have at least, say, Sam Neill be part of the story in a central role, and smaller appearances for Goldblum and Dern.
The Lost World and Jurassic Park III refreshed the character palette by having largely new casts, with only one classic character returning as a lead in each sequel, yet also featured several well-placed cameos that advanced the narrative. 
This is a very good formula.
As TotalFilm.com reasoned in their argument of why Neill should be brought back, "If Trevorrow wants World to sit comfortably in the Jurassic pantheon while taking us off in exciting new directions, a passing of the torch is just what he needs to tie the film to the rest of the franchise."
Grant, Malcolm, and Sattler would not have to all be the main focal point, but we simply cannot accept that there isn't any suitable place for them in the film.

 Nothing that we have said here means any disrespect to Colin Trevorrow, who we are sure will do a wonderful job with Jurassic World, we are just doing what he suggested a year ago, "Keep telling me what you want to see." 
Popcorn blockbusters that are part of an established property, like Jurassic Park, are supposed to be very fan-driven, as they carry a massive, passionate built-in audience with them. And when the majority overwhelmingly sends a message of something, or someone, they would like to see, then the filmmakers owe it to their audience to keep the integrity of their own vision, while also finding a way to give them what they want.

- @JP4NEEDSNEILL