Jurassic World: Dominion is in theaters now, and over-performed at the domestic box office in its opening weekend. This film marks the third in the trilogy of Jurassic World outings, which in itself is a successor to the first three Jurassic Park movies. What was once an adaption of a book has since become one of the most recognizable and marketable franchises in film history, particularly as the first movie in particular tapped into society’s natural curiosity in the almost alien like creatures. Humans have long been fascinated with dinosaurs, as they are so visually distant from any animal today, that it is hard to believe they once walked the Earth.
The franchise has long relied on the popularity and sheer quality of the first film, the original Jurassic Park. Not all the sequels have been critical successes, though, as many of struggled to get anywhere near the first. Despite a general interest from audiences, who keep returning despite the middling quality of some of the sequels, it’s clear that the drop-off in quality has in some ways affected the way public view the franchise. What’s abundantly clear, though, is that some of the worst Jurassic Park sequels lack a key member of the original team that made the first film such a hit in the first place: the author of the original novel, Michael Crichton.
Michael Crichton Laid The Groundwork
Crichton was an American author who usually focused on the science fiction genre. As is often the case with sci-fi stories, Crichton had a tendency to incorporate real world messages, or warnings, into his work. This was the case with Jurassic Park, a novel he wrote in 1990, just three years prior to Steven Spielberg’s film adaption. Crichton’s novel warns of the dangers of scientific advancement and, in particular, genetic engineering, which was a hot topic especially in the late 20th century. The 1993 film echoed these themes and sentiments. It was abundantly clear that the scientists meddling with nature in order to revive extinct species was a disaster for everyone, from the humans to the dinosaurs.
.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=1500&dpr=1.5)
The Lost World: Jurassic Park was made four years later, again directed by Steven Spielberg. And again, The Lost World was an adaption of a novel of the same name by Michael Crichton. The theme of the dangers of genetic engineering was here once again, although this sequel furthered this by humanizing the dinosaurs more than the first, in a unique and interesting twist. This is something that the newer films in the franchise have explored further, with characters such as Blue serving as a prime example of this. The Lost World didn’t receive the same intense and positive reaction as the first, and has since gone on to be labeled by some as the worst film of Steven Spielberg’s entire career. However, it still stands far above most of the Jurassic Park sequels. The reason why the first two Jurassic Park movies, even The Lost World, succeed in ways that their sequels do not is because they incorporated the creative input and guidelines put forth by author Crichton.
The settings, for example, are a key aspect of the first two films that contributed massively to their successes, and were pulled directly from the novels.. The 1993 outing was set almost entirely at the park, with the rain and thunder and lightning used in a way that seemed like an Amblin horror film, or a scary story aimed at kids. This creates a contained, tense feeling that only adds to the stakes and the realism of it all. More than that, the location feels real in such a way that it helps to make the dinosaurs also seem real, a big feat given how seemingly out there the premise is.
The Lost World also featured a unique premise (or two). First was the island that the dinosaurs are bred on, a clever way to bring the characters back to an isolated, remote setting while also avoiding a remake of the first (a trap that Jurassic World fell right into in 2015). The second flipped the script with an urban setting that was completely different from anything seen before, and both provided the films with the necessary locations and setups to succeed.
Later Sequels Don't Involve The Mind Behind The Story
.jpg?q=50&fit=crop&w=1500&dpr=1.5)
The later sequels lacked a real hook or reason to exist, something that Crichton’s work directly gifted to the first two films. Jurassic World III was a somewhat interesting end to the first trilogy, albeit one that once again took some of the magic out of the first film. However, its superior quality to some of the more recent outings mean many look at it more fondly now. Then there’s Jurassic World, which is arguably the best of the new trilogy simply because it’s essentially a remake of Jurassic Park and, therefore, a retelling of Crichton’s first novel.
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom once again falls into the trap of being too similar to its equivalent in the first trilogy, but not as well done. It all feels way too familiar at this point. The uniqueness, artistry, and meaningful and important themes of the films based on Crichton’s work, and his novels themselves, are all gone. In their place is a shell of a movie. In Fallen Kingdom’s case, nothing is original and any social message is replaced by a shallow attempt to earn money at the box office.
The most obvious example of a franchise clearly lacking the voice of Michael Crichton, or Steven Spielberg for that matter, is Jurassic World: Dominion. The trilogy capper might as well be called Locust World: Dominion, as it strangely sidelines of the prehistoric creatures in exchange for a swarm of large bugs. The unbelievable nature of this plot is a prime look into a franchise that, quite frankly, now lacks ambition, original ideas, and what made it so beloved in the first place.
Michael Crichton sadly passed away in 2008, but the core ideas and themes in his work are all there for the newer Jurassic films to take inspiration from. Instead, the franchise that his work inspired has drifted into shallow territory, as the films become increasingly more empty.