| NAVIGATION |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote of the day:
"There is a large element of me in every role I do. Actors who say they can dive inside a character are either schizophrenic or lying." -- Bruce Campbell |
 |
|
 |
 Jurassic III is a Darker Film
By Azad on February 4, 2001 11:57 AM
Ed Verreaux, production designer on the upcoming Jurassic Park III, told the Horror Online Web site in a brief interview that the third film will be darker than its first two predecessors. "I think it's going to be a little bit darker, a little bit more moody," Verreaux said. "Shelly Johnson, the [director of photography], has just really done a great job at photographing [the film]."
The film features Sam Neill, reprising his Jurassic Park role of Dr. Alan Grant, and Téa Leoni, William H. Macy, Michael Jeter and Trevor Morgan. In one scene, "our band of survivors [has] been traipsing across the island, and they come across another InGen compound," Verreaux said. "And what they find is that the InGen people have been breeding dinosaurs in a big laboratory."
Verreaux is bringing to bear his experience from the first Jurassic Park film. "That's been a real help for me," he said. "I haven't had to find guys who have to reinvent the wheel. ... It's like, 'We've already done this, we know what this set looks like.' The thing is, we did try and make this look different from I and II. Hopefully, we were able to succeed."
Jurassic Park III opens July 14.
|
Reader Discussions:
|
|
RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
 reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 4, 2001 9:33 PM
Why would they open the movie on a Saturday???
|
|
|
RE: RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 4, 2001 10:12 PM
Interesting to note, that the previous day would obviously be Friday the 13th! Maybe the producers are superstitious and don't want this movie to bomb... remember how horrible Lost World was?
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 5, 2001 10:34 AM
Michael Chrichton is such a whore! If his books weren't so good, I'd be upset. The lost world was so cheesy that everyone who read the book (not sure if half the people in the theatre were literate) was cringing throughout the whole movie. Hopefully this one will be better.
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 5, 2001 1:40 PM
chrichton didn't even know they were making this movie
|
|
|
Posted by andyman1357 (blowme@home.com) on February 7, 2001 3:40 PM
yeah right! As if, you meatball. Crichton would HAVE to know, otherwise, it would never have got off the ground.
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 5, 2001 2:15 PM
I hear ya, dear GOD! The movie did NOT in any way follow the book at ALL! By default... the book is soo much better...
|
|
|
Posted by AgentLars (agentlars@hotmail.com) on February 6, 2001 8:25 PM
If its true that Chrichton didn’t know about JP III, though I doubt that very much, maybe it’s a good thing. I thought the only redeeming portion of The Lost World movie was it had very little to do with the book. I felt that the novel itself was atrocious. Then again I think MOST of Chrichton’s novels are pretty bad. I enjoyed The Andromeda Strain and thought the first Jurassic Park were excellent. Some of the other’s I’ve read such as Congo, Sphere, Lost World, and Airframe were fairly contrite or at least poorly edited. A couple would have made great short stories, but it’s as if he made the story too long, gave up at the end, and just threw some crap together to wrap things up. It reminded me as a kid when I would have a writing assignment for a class. I would come up with this grand epic and then about ten pages into it (okay, three pages, heh) I’d get bored/tired/run out of time and tie up everything in one paragraph.
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 9, 2001 6:45 PM
Let's get ONE thing straight, at any rate--the man's name is spelled CRICHTON. Thank you. NOW you can go on with the debate about his stories.
|
|
|
Posted by AgentLars (agentlars@hotmail.com) on February 10, 2001 9:56 AM
I usually verify names before sending, but it was late and I just got lazy. Point well taken!
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 13, 2001 3:48 PM
Oh, I see how it works, in the name of snobby, artsy-fartsy aloofness, if a person is a success, they are immediately labled a whore by people like you. I suppose if he never got anything published, he would be an author who could alter the course of mankind. Get real and stop being such a prissy snooty snob. Yes, I read Crichton's books, I also read Stephen King and Tom Clancy. Oh yes, how about the Travis McGee series? People like you make me want to puke. Go back to watching PBS and attending your "performance artist" shows where idiots pay 30 dollars to watch some ugly woman sit on a cake of ice naked for 6 hours.....sheesh
|
|
RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by carpediem (carpediem@bs.com) on February 5, 2001 6:09 PM
Do we really need another 'Bad scientists make scary beasts that chase hapless victims' movie?
Oh well.
|
|
|
RE: RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 6, 2001 12:18 AM
I know at first its hard to get over the fact that a HOLLYWOOD movie wouldn't follow a book to the T. Come on, get over it, who cares if it wasn't like the book, I thought Jurassic Park was a wicked movie, the sequel was not that good, most sequels aren't, much less a triology. Star Wars not included. So take the book out of your A$$!
|
|
|
RE: RE: RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 7, 2001 11:27 AM
I dont see how they could have slipped JP3 under MC's nose, isn't the Jurrasic Park namesake copyrighted to him? I would imagine so, which means they'd need permission to use it. Either way, I'll probably skip it.
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on February 7, 2001 7:55 PM
I AM A JURASSIC PARK FAN, JURASSIC PARK WAS GREAT, LOST WORLD WAS GOOD BUT LACKED SOME OF THE CREATIVITY THAT JP HAD. THEY HAVE GONE A LITTLE DIFFERENT WITH JP3, FIRST THE T REX ISNT THE BAD BOY ANYMORE. THE SPINASOUR IS SAID TO KILL THE TREX AND IS BY FAR LARGER. MAYBE IN THE THIRD INSTALLMENT THEY WILL GAIN SOME CREATIVITY BACK.
|
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on May 5, 2001 11:04 AM
The interesting thing in this movie is how far they have strayed from the knowledge and facts of the scientific community. If the velociraptors have grown this smart, troodons would be operating computers. And also Meat Eating Pteradons? weird and stupid.
|
|
|
RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on November 10, 2002 9:31 AM
i totally agree i think the movie was acctually pretty good even though i didn't read the book
|
|
RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by stephnicci (Uhmno@youwish.com) on February 10, 2001 6:33 PM
Frankly the way I see it is that there has never been a more worthless film made to date, then JP2 so if JP3 is worse then that well then MC should be shot for allowing the numbnuts in Hollywood to ruin His good name by taking the damn good work he does and making it into less then good films.
|
|
RE: Jurassic III is a Darker Film
|
reply
|
|
Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 22, 2001 9:15 PM
I think they should made it more bloody and horrofing and longer instead only 11/2 hrs.
|
Discuss this story
|
|
|
 | Win a copy of Striptease!
|
|
![Digital Theatre [DTheatre.com]](images/logo.gif){kind=logo}
