Jurassic World: Worthwhile Addition or Soulless Continuation?

Many have issues with the way that "Jurassic World" attached itself to the original "Jurassic Park" trilogy. They argue that the new movies lack the soul and life that made the original movies so enjoyable. So are they right? Are the new films really THAT bad? Let's find out...

Universal Pictures/Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)

I think I may be in the minority of people that actually enjoyed "Jurassic World" a decent amount. I think that, at least in my opinion, the first "Jurassic World" movie, was very enjoyable and attached itself to the original films in a meaningful-but also deliberately different-way.

The first film in the series of reboots was the most well-received, earning it a respectable 71% critic score and 78% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. The first film introduced some new ideas and built on the wrongdoings of those that helped build the original Jurassic Park. The genetic modification of the dinosaurs and the attempts to utilize them as military assets was the expected downfall of the park in the end. I feel as if this exhibits what "Jurassic Park" was truly all about: man meddling in things that shouldn't be meddled with.

The second and third "Jurassic World" films, however, are where the reboot loses its focus and ultimately the watchability. The second film, while still for the most part enjoyable, starts to be different than its predecessors. Essentially, after the collapse of the park an active volcano threatens to wipe out all of the dinosaurs remaining on the island. Some dinosaur activists contact someone who is interested in rehoming the dinosaurs to a nearby island and letting them live out their lives in peace. Except...that isn't what said person is actually doing. They are going to sell the dinosaurs on the mainland and make a huge profit off of them. Their are several strange subplots, but to its merit the film introduces a big yet simple change for the franchise: the dinosaurs needing to leave the island because the island is going to cease to exist. The second installation also has more notes of horror, with Carlos Morales of IGN stating that "the second half becomes twisted into a location straight out of dark fairy tales and 19th-century gothic novels".

While the first and second reboot films being successful and overall pretty enjoyable, the third movie will surely live up to one of the most substantial cliffhangers and plot points in the series, right? Right? "Jurassic World: Dominion" was given what many believe to be one of the most common concerns through the franchise: what happens if the dinosaurs truly get out? But unfortunately, it seems as if they did not really know what to do with such an important concern. The film pulls in some of the original cast members, including Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern), and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum). But it seems to do nothing of substance with these beloved characters. As Richard Trenholm of CNET says, "The film also doesn't really know how to unite the two generations of Jurassic stars, shoving them into a room together and letting them awkwardly stare at each other".

Even with a cult following, the "Jurassic World" films try their best to live up to the standards and expectations of fans-even trying at times to exceed those expectations. While these films may have started in a good place, and had good intentions for the franchise (with promising results), the conclusion of the films seem to have left more questions at the forefront of peoples minds than answers.

They are, in my opinion, still worth the watch. Although, if you really only have to watch one, the first "Jurassic World" film would be the one I would pick. If you choose to watch them, just don't expect a grand or fulfilling ending to the franchise.

As always, take care and safe travels!

Check out The Final Frontier Twitter to keep up to date with posts and science fiction film news!

-Ethan Fletcher, signing off