Just watched Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom the day before yesterday. Also re-watched all the four previous Jurassic movies before that. (I like dinosaurs since childhood). My verdict is that both new Jurassic World movies are actually much better then the three old Jurassic Park movies. Here are my arguments why:
The "original is always the best sentiment" is wrong for this franchese because dinosaurs are not fruit of human imagination.
For most famous franchises, be it Star Wars, Terminator, Aliens, Predator or whatever - a true fan will always say that the first movie or at least the first two movies are the best and the rest is a progressively degrading imitation. For most franchises it is true, because they are products of human imagination and are created with a certain idea of atmosphere and presentation in mind. Later sequels mostly just ruin that feeling by trying to put the same characters in more different situations that ruin that atmosphere and ruin the plausibility and continuity. Dinosaurs however, while extinct, are still part of the reality because they once lived. The first Jurassic Park movie didn't invent dinosaurs and if it were not this movie, we would certainly get a different dinosaur movie. Somebody else would make a dinosaur movie, because there is just a demand for that and nature abhors a vacuum. No movie can claim it has the definitive monopoly or rights to be the "cannon" of dinosaur movies.
The new movies have actually much less feminism and anti-white diversity
In the very first Jurassic Park the main female lead spouts feminist lines like "Women will inherit the earth"(after men have been eaten by dinosaurs, suggesting lunacy that women can somehow survive, defeat dinos and procreate without men) and calling a man sexist for suggesting he should risk in her place to go outside their safe room in her place to restore power to dino cages. This movie also has a cringeworthy unrealistic portrayal of a small girl hacker, hacking into the Parks systems and saving everyone. Sorry but I find 10 year old girl hackers to be more implausible then cloning of dinosaurs.
The second Jurassic Park movie gives us some diversity and girl-power by giving a black daughter to white Jewish character of Jeff Goldrum. She is not even light brown, like a plausible mulatto but really black, suggesting her mother must have been the blackest woman on the earth - or that our main hero of the movie is a cuck. Also this black wunderchild can kill a velociraptor with gymnastic movies. Something no adult can do in these movies. Lame.
The new movies do not have little girls saving the day. Some have criticized the main lead of the first Jurassic World movie as being to an annoying careerist woman. That is true, but that is also the whole point, that these critics misunderstand. The main male lead - Chris Patt is a benevolent sexist who games and changes the main female lead from an annoying careerist bitch into a somewhat sensible and caring woman throughout the film by taking charge and giving her some sense of reality. In the new Jurassic World:Fallen Kingdom movie, she is actually a very nice and pretty supporting female lead with no feminist tendencies. This is actually a good example for men how to game and treat feminist career women, to not get intimidated by their facade and to understand they are just little girls inside.
Both new movies have some annoying hipster SJW characters. A male and a female (different in both movies). But they are actually treated as comic relief and are there more to provide a clearly negative example of how to be in extreme situations, especially for the men. Yes the latest movie has one place where a villain labels the SJW hipster chick as a "nasty woman" ( a former Hillary monicer). Coming from a villain it sounds like a compliment. But that is about the only feminist thing that these new movies have. For most part they are fairly traditional when it comes to gender roles, acknowledging the unsuitability of modern hipsterism when it comes to facing prehistoric threats.
New movies have more dinosaur screen time and better CGI
Many people hate overuse of CGI, and for most movies they would be right to do so. But when it comes to a dinosaur movie you cannot have too much. If I go to a dinosaur movie I want to see a lot of dinos not just actors talking about them. The old movies relied on human acting too much to make movies with scarce dino moments often only showing half body dinos. Some scenes like the sick Triceratops screamed of cheap animatronics and not being able to show a full body dinosaur. New movies have a lot of dinos, doing various things like fighting and even swimming. The CGI are very good and believable.
New movies have an actual Jurassic Park
In the original Jurassic Park, we actually never got to see a functional Jurassic Park. In the first movie of the new Jurassic World series we do see many actual attractions of this park and how it would look like. I found the baby dino petting zoo to be adorable and the Mososaurus attraction to be awesome.
New movies are more adult, more scary and have higher kill counts and slightly more blood and dismemberments.
The original Jurassic Park movies were children movies and it spoils the fun for adult viewers. There were tense moments but the dinos were often made harmless by giving them low kill counts. many deaths were off screen. In some cases you even didn't know which dino killed the guy.
All this in the name of family friendliness. As if children of all ages would not be secretly watching movies above their age grade anyway.
New dino movies while still having some children friendly rating are more bloodier acknowledging the fact that children are used to depiction of violance much sooner then overprotective ratings like to think. We see people bitten in half or their extremities chopped off much often. The dinos are much scarier because they actually kill people in dozens and not just some 3 or five people per movie.
More herbivore action.
The old movies, with small exception in the 2nd movie, make bad use of the varying interesting herbivore forms of dinosaurs and make them just to eat grass in background 95% of time. Most of action comes from predators (which all look the same just in different sizes) actively chasing the human pray. That is missing so much potential about what the various looking herbivores could do.
Real life animals don't act that way. if you try to approach a herd of wild buffalo or elephants, you are likely to get attacked by these herbivores. The same could be true for dinosaurs. While still not enough to satisfy me, the new movies have more instances of herbivores acting realistically and posing a danger to humans, the latest movie has even some quite few satisfying kills by a Pachycephalosaur/Stygnomoloch.
So there you have it. The new movies are better then the old ones and if you disagree i think you probably are just more critical now then when you were a child.
The "original is always the best sentiment" is wrong for this franchese because dinosaurs are not fruit of human imagination.
For most famous franchises, be it Star Wars, Terminator, Aliens, Predator or whatever - a true fan will always say that the first movie or at least the first two movies are the best and the rest is a progressively degrading imitation. For most franchises it is true, because they are products of human imagination and are created with a certain idea of atmosphere and presentation in mind. Later sequels mostly just ruin that feeling by trying to put the same characters in more different situations that ruin that atmosphere and ruin the plausibility and continuity. Dinosaurs however, while extinct, are still part of the reality because they once lived. The first Jurassic Park movie didn't invent dinosaurs and if it were not this movie, we would certainly get a different dinosaur movie. Somebody else would make a dinosaur movie, because there is just a demand for that and nature abhors a vacuum. No movie can claim it has the definitive monopoly or rights to be the "cannon" of dinosaur movies.
The new movies have actually much less feminism and anti-white diversity
In the very first Jurassic Park the main female lead spouts feminist lines like "Women will inherit the earth"(after men have been eaten by dinosaurs, suggesting lunacy that women can somehow survive, defeat dinos and procreate without men) and calling a man sexist for suggesting he should risk in her place to go outside their safe room in her place to restore power to dino cages. This movie also has a cringeworthy unrealistic portrayal of a small girl hacker, hacking into the Parks systems and saving everyone. Sorry but I find 10 year old girl hackers to be more implausible then cloning of dinosaurs.
The second Jurassic Park movie gives us some diversity and girl-power by giving a black daughter to white Jewish character of Jeff Goldrum. She is not even light brown, like a plausible mulatto but really black, suggesting her mother must have been the blackest woman on the earth - or that our main hero of the movie is a cuck. Also this black wunderchild can kill a velociraptor with gymnastic movies. Something no adult can do in these movies. Lame.
The new movies do not have little girls saving the day. Some have criticized the main lead of the first Jurassic World movie as being to an annoying careerist woman. That is true, but that is also the whole point, that these critics misunderstand. The main male lead - Chris Patt is a benevolent sexist who games and changes the main female lead from an annoying careerist bitch into a somewhat sensible and caring woman throughout the film by taking charge and giving her some sense of reality. In the new Jurassic World:Fallen Kingdom movie, she is actually a very nice and pretty supporting female lead with no feminist tendencies. This is actually a good example for men how to game and treat feminist career women, to not get intimidated by their facade and to understand they are just little girls inside.
Both new movies have some annoying hipster SJW characters. A male and a female (different in both movies). But they are actually treated as comic relief and are there more to provide a clearly negative example of how to be in extreme situations, especially for the men. Yes the latest movie has one place where a villain labels the SJW hipster chick as a "nasty woman" ( a former Hillary monicer). Coming from a villain it sounds like a compliment. But that is about the only feminist thing that these new movies have. For most part they are fairly traditional when it comes to gender roles, acknowledging the unsuitability of modern hipsterism when it comes to facing prehistoric threats.
New movies have more dinosaur screen time and better CGI
Many people hate overuse of CGI, and for most movies they would be right to do so. But when it comes to a dinosaur movie you cannot have too much. If I go to a dinosaur movie I want to see a lot of dinos not just actors talking about them. The old movies relied on human acting too much to make movies with scarce dino moments often only showing half body dinos. Some scenes like the sick Triceratops screamed of cheap animatronics and not being able to show a full body dinosaur. New movies have a lot of dinos, doing various things like fighting and even swimming. The CGI are very good and believable.
New movies have an actual Jurassic Park
In the original Jurassic Park, we actually never got to see a functional Jurassic Park. In the first movie of the new Jurassic World series we do see many actual attractions of this park and how it would look like. I found the baby dino petting zoo to be adorable and the Mososaurus attraction to be awesome.
New movies are more adult, more scary and have higher kill counts and slightly more blood and dismemberments.
The original Jurassic Park movies were children movies and it spoils the fun for adult viewers. There were tense moments but the dinos were often made harmless by giving them low kill counts. many deaths were off screen. In some cases you even didn't know which dino killed the guy.
All this in the name of family friendliness. As if children of all ages would not be secretly watching movies above their age grade anyway.
New dino movies while still having some children friendly rating are more bloodier acknowledging the fact that children are used to depiction of violance much sooner then overprotective ratings like to think. We see people bitten in half or their extremities chopped off much often. The dinos are much scarier because they actually kill people in dozens and not just some 3 or five people per movie.
More herbivore action.
The old movies, with small exception in the 2nd movie, make bad use of the varying interesting herbivore forms of dinosaurs and make them just to eat grass in background 95% of time. Most of action comes from predators (which all look the same just in different sizes) actively chasing the human pray. That is missing so much potential about what the various looking herbivores could do.
Real life animals don't act that way. if you try to approach a herd of wild buffalo or elephants, you are likely to get attacked by these herbivores. The same could be true for dinosaurs. While still not enough to satisfy me, the new movies have more instances of herbivores acting realistically and posing a danger to humans, the latest movie has even some quite few satisfying kills by a Pachycephalosaur/Stygnomoloch.
So there you have it. The new movies are better then the old ones and if you disagree i think you probably are just more critical now then when you were a child.