Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Sam Neill Is Under The Impression That The New 'Jurassic Park' Will Be A Reboot

News
by Drew Taylor
May 22, 2013 5:15 PM
9 Comments
  • |

To paraphrase the great screenwriter and novelist William Goldman: nobody knows anything about "Jurassic Park 4." The core creative principles are known, of course, with "Safety Not Guaranteed" director Colin Trevorrow working from a script written by the husband-and-wife team of Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver ("Rise of the Planet of the Apes"), possibly based in part on a screenplay that Mark Protosevich ("I Am Legend") wrote for Steven Spielberg in 2011. But plot specifics and casting decisions have yet to see the light of day, despite (or perhaps because of) the announcement that production was being delayed slightly. But Sam Neill, who starred in the original film and the underwhelming "Jurassic Park III," thinks that he knows what's going on: it's going to be a reboot. And honestly, if you can't trust Sam Neill, who can you trust?

While talking with a New Zealand outfit about his upcoming projects as well as his, um, winery (good lord), the actor said that he hadn't seen the retrofitted 3D version of "Jurassic Park" and that he would not be taking part in the fourth installment. "I'm told it's a big reboot, a total rejig," Neill told Stuff New Zealand, we imagine in the most charming way possible.

Now there is some circumstantial evidence that supports this. Mainly this is based on a tweet that Trevorrow unleashed a few weeks ago that revealed the location of the movie to be Isla Nublar, which was the island that the first film was set on. In "Jurassic Park" mythology, Isla Nublar is where the park was located and Isla Sorna, where the subsequent two films were set, was where the dinosaurs were grown and raised… Even though there's that scene in the first one where B.D. Wong says hello to a little dinosaur coming out of an egg. Also, while everyone (including Universal) has been referring to the project as "Jurassic Park 4," there has yet to be an official announcement that this is the title of the project. So it could just as easily drop the "4" and become "Jurassic Park" anew.

Honestly this is a little disappointing. Given the harder nature of the Michael Crichton novel, it would have been nice, should someone choose to remake "Jurassic Park," to have embraced that and delivered a horrifying, hard-R version of the story. The novel opens with babies getting their faces ripped off by tiny dinosaurs, for crying out loud. Maybe sometime in the future, when studios aren't terrified by R-ratings and will actually put some money into something not explicitly geared towards 13-year-old-boys.

Whatever "Jurassic Park 4" ends up being, we can all agree that it would benefit from a sprinkling of Sam Neill in there, though.

News
  • |

More: Sam Neill, Jurassic Park IV

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

9 Comments

  • Wino | May 22, 2013 11:41 PMReply

    Why "good lord" about his winery? Not a big stretch to think a cashed up fifty something Kiwi owns a winery. I bet he makes a lovely Sav Blanc.

  • thefunion | May 23, 2013 10:23 AM

    I read the "good lord" as said kind of lovingly. Was i off?

  • j | May 23, 2013 10:22 AM

    Well said Wino.

  • Jay | May 23, 2013 9:36 AM

    Yeah, I agree. Seemed unnecessary and mean spirited. God forbid he mention anything other than films he's involved in.

  • RNL | May 22, 2013 9:39 PMReply

    He says it's a reboot, not a remake. What that probably means is that it's designed to kick off a new series of films, with new characters, but that it will probably honour the continuity of the previous trilogy. And didn't we all assume that anyway? Or did you actually think Sam Neill and Laura Dern would be back as the leads?

  • WHAT? | May 23, 2013 9:41 AM

    The only difference between a reboot and a remake is that the former implies an underlying goal of endless sequels to follow. If you wiki the definition of reboot as it applies to fiction, you will see "in serial fiction, to reboot means to discard all continuity in an established series in order to recreate a character, timeline, and/or backstory from the beginning." In other words, the complete opposite of what you said it probably means.

    The only recent reboot I can think of that does what you seem to think reboots do is Star Trek. Meanwhile I can think of a zillion reboots that don't do what you seem to think they do (Casino Royale, Batman Begins, Man of Steel, Amazing Spider-Man, endless horror franchise reboots, to name just the tip of the iceberg). Of course Neill may have as much as a grasp on what the term reboot means as you appear to, so who knows what he was saying.

  • bohmer | May 22, 2013 6:29 PMReply

    I saw JP in Imax 3D yesterday and my girlfriend who haven't seen the movie since 1993 jumped on her seat at least 5-6 times...It still old up really well and this supposed reboot would be sooo pointless. How can you expect made something better then a mothafuckin Spielberg movie that everybody saw?!

  • rebootstrapbill | May 22, 2013 5:43 PMReply

    Awesome. They should do a Lion King reboot next. And then a Matrix reboot.

  • Pewpewpew.de | May 22, 2013 5:42 PMReply

    Let's assume, for some weird reason, the attached director has read the script.
    Why then would he write "Director of [...] Jurassic Park IV" in his twitter bio if this is a reboot?

Email Updates