When Steven Spielberg's adaptation to Michael Creekton's best -selling novel is the best -selling science/horror scientific, Hit Theaters on June 11, 1993, the entire image of the image movement was changed forever. Ams Cameron gave us an amazing taste of how flawlessly computer -generated images could be integrated into the moving image via "Esticine" and "Terminator 2: The Day of the verdict", but no one was ready for Spielberg and his visual FX team (which included Cameron Denis Denis Denis Camero photo-ruanists. That moment when Sam Eliot, Laura Dern and Effef Goldblum got their first glance, breathing Brahiosaurus caused a new kind of fear in film films, and it remains a blessing and curse that Spielberg was the man at the helm.

The blessing is that the bar was raised so highly high for the photoreal CGI that, in the immediate vicinity of the success of the film's blockbuster, many directors were too intimidated to use it. Obviously, the studio wanted more than the magic, but the best directors in the studio at the time understood the limitations of technology and realized how perfectly adapted to the movie like "Jura Park". In addition, they find it a powerful new tool that can enhance the effectiveness of the practical FX (as stunningly tactile Stan Winston's dinos) and vice versa. The techniques worked in tandem with each other, but they were supposed to be used by directors who knew how to set up a piece with a little or no coverage, otherwise you would end up with something funny rubbish like crocodile attack In 1996, Arnold Schwarzenegger shareholder Erasser. CGI was for closures.

Not left this way. By the time Spielberg returned to the 1997 "Lost World: Park Jura", awe was disappearing. Thus, the man who hurried the future, quite wisely, decided to make a big big movie for a monster, which ended up with a T-rex that was rampaging through the streets of San Diego. The result was a mixed bag. Spielberg reminded us that he is second to nothing when it comes to placing a frightening piece (through the attack on the trailer and the buns that hunt the hunters in the tall grass), but it was better than the stunning one. When Spielberg handed over to the FX-Savvy Oeo Johnonton for "Jurassic Park III" in 2001, the movie films received a fast, 92-minute B-movie that delivered purely exciting Harichausen monsters. I sincerely think it's the best movie "Jurassic Park" for all of them (just because he inadvertently used the concept of the pulp of the series), but going out of the theater 24 years ago, I remember I felt like the overall itching was thoroughly scratched. I didn't need another movie "Jura Park".

Universal did, but Thee takes 14 years studio to discover how to refresh the formula. They succeeded commercially, but they fell far creatively. And now, With the disappointing "Renaissance of the Jurassic Park", " They ran smell in a deadlock.

Most blockbusters do not, at artistic level, sequels to merit. The study was supposed to learn this in the 1970s Bizarro of Johnon Baorman "Exorcist II: Eretic" Johnon Corty's filthy "Oliver Story" (followed by Arthur Hiller's "Lovebow Story", but these unfortunately became the exceptions commercially. Sexes were generally safe bets for studio directors concerned about job safety and boon to marketing departments, which can sell audiences to an unnecessary film by reminding them of how much they loved the previous movie.

When Colin Trevor's "Jurassic World" stumbled into multiplex, he was far more secure than needed. But the weather was perfect: after the older film movements heard that Willion Williams scored a goal, they were both desperate to rethink the magic of Spielberg's film and stepped up to share that ecstatic feeling with their children. A decade later, it's the 10th highest film in world history history.

If you treat movies as something in the background as you move your favorite apps, send your friends and play whatever the hot game at the moment, "Jurassic World" is a pretty good option like a third or fourth spectacle load screen. However, if, it's the only thing you look out for two hours and change, it's a lack of almost every grade except for CG.

Most Moviegoers do not share my overall contempt for the Jurassic World series. Since rebranding, each of these films has made more than $ 1 billion worldwide. Seems to be possible "The Renaissance of the Jurassic World" will fall short From that magical global number, but this can be attributed more to franchise fatigue than quality (since this deep lack of film still offers a far more satisfying experience than Jura World: Dominion of Trevor). Then, again, Edwards's film earned a disturbing Hum Hum B cinema, while the last three installments received or a grades.

If the "re -birth of the Jura Park" wind as a commercial disappointment, Spielberg and Universal are likely to try to behave accurate because, given the huge threats to the theater exhibition (something Spielberg strongly believes in), you can not only allow more than a billion dollar. How to save dinosaurs? I'm not sure we can.

My favorite scene in Jura World Return is an easy titanosaur mating sequence, where Edwards comes shockingly close to evoking the awe we all felt during the introduction of Brahiosaurus into "Jura Park". These magnificent creatures, out of 1 and 0, can still touch the six -year -old in all of us.

It would be wonderful and more than a little calming in our era of frightening cruelty to think that blockbuster can prioritize joy because of fear, but I think the film pages are hard -working to expect pieces of support for support from the franchise "Park Jurassic". Fair enough. But you are still chasing high that cannot be pulled. Nothing will reach the first T-Rex attack, partly because no one can overcome Slebberg in this department of exciting, but also because the mixture of practical and CG that made that sequence singing is almost impossible to replicate today. This kind of physical scale and art is anathema in today's Hollywood. (Indeed, There are no practical dinosaurs in Rebirth Park Jurassic Park.)

Cinely, the solution may be to bring Chris Pratt, Brice Dallas Howard and the Blue Raptor back for another adventure. This would not move the needle for me, but it can calm the younger movie. The series has already returned the stars from the original trilogy, so there is nothing to get there.

Universal's smartest move is the one they probably don't want to do, which would be to beg the franchise for a decade and allow the generation aging on the Jurassic World films to build its own nostalgia for this series. I would like to see them thinking outside the box and doing something like wild, as Johnon Siles suggested with his Jurassic Park IV scenario, which shows hybrids of a dinosaur. This will take the series back to the Jura Park III B-Film Association, but bring it with a crazy horror to something like the "island of the lost souls" of HG Wales. Since this is unlikely to happen, I think Universal is currently on the same path to reducing the return that, 77 years ago, found them trying to use a little more profit than their franchises for classic monsters with association with the comedy duo of Abbott and Kostello.

In other words, the only logical way forward for the "Jurassic Park" is to introduce the dynamite pair of Keke Palmer and the SHA, which have just achieved Surprisingly treasurer hit "Only one of them". Give these gales in the Gals in Ingen and taste the chaos. Otherwise, close the damn laboratory and give the dinosaurs a lot of rest.