Let's seattle this once and for all.Which movie was worse?
>>204686167Probably Lost World. Book was a thousand times better, but at least the first book/movie can coexist. JP3 was a nice little supplement to to the series.
>>2046861671st movie is the best3rd movie is the second best2nd movie is okEverything after that is slop.
>>2046861673, but it's still better than the whole World trilogy
>>2046861672 was actually good, so 3 is worse because it's bad
>>204686378>but at least the first book/movie can coexist.What do you mean by this?
>>204686534First Movie - GoodFirst Book - GoodSecond Movie - BadSecond Book - GoodOne of the few exceptions where a book and movie can coexist.
>>204686167Jurassic Park III was bad precisely because The Lost World was bad so the latter is worse.Few understand.
TLW had better dinosaur scenes so it's a better movie than JP3
>>204686167Lost World mentioned based Dian Fossey
>>204686167Lost World has better individual sequences but 3 is more enjoyable due to the pacing and more likable characters. I'll say LW is worse overall.
>>204686167The Lost World doesn't even feel like it was directed by Spielberg. The scenes don't flow together at all. It's like you're just watching a chopped up compilation of Jurassic Park inspired action scenes. Some of the scenes are good, like the San Diego sequence, but there's no real attempt to make a cohesive movie. It feels phoned in. Jurassic Park 3 is mediocre and has some stupid shit of its own, but it feels like a more honest attempt at making a Jurassic Park sequel.
>>204686415This.
>>204687451This, well said.
>>204686167JP3 and it's not really close.
TLW is ambitious and fails. You can see Spielberg stopped caring halfway through making it and just phoned it in to release it.JP3 started shooting even without a finished script. Any inconsistencies are because of that, it was a simple story and it succeeds at telling it.Neither is great but it's better to have something better and smaller scale than a big failure.
