For all its ups and downs, 2004 was a year that saw remarkably few dinosaurs. But dinosaur fans, like Cubs fans, have a new rally cry: wait 'til next year.
The people have spoken. After a heart-wrenching two years without a new \Jurassic Park"" sequel to quench our dino-lust, 2005 will tentatively see the release of ""Jurassic Park IV."" They already have a script, co-written by noted independent filmmaker John Sayles, who has mostly worked in relatively low budget fare, like ""Lone Star"" and ""Eight Men Out.""
Sayles' current release is ""Silver City,"" a satire mystery story that is a thinly veiled attack on George W. Bush. This brings to mind a possible political ""Jurassic Park"" movie, where raptors are Republicans and the gentle but strong triceratops would represent Democrats. Or given John Kerry's disproportionately long neck, perhaps a brontosaurus would be more appropriate. Fortunately, Sayles has said he won't be directing the reptilian blockbuster.
But no one else has signed up to direct it either. Producer Steven Spielberg, who directed the first two installments of the franchise, is lined up for too many other projects. So who will direct? Well, to match their daring choice of an indie screenwriter, Spielberg and the other producers have a rare opportunity here to take some bold risks.
How about a Spike Lee Dino-Joint? Dinosaurs roam the earth, but not in harmony with each other. They merely tolerate each other. The green dinosaurs stay in one side and the brown in another until one hot summer day the relations break down and a brown dinosaur throws a trash can through the window of a pizzeria in downtown Brooklyn.
Or maybe a Quentin Tarantino ""Jurassic Park"" would work. Tarantino has expressed interest in directing a James Bond movie; why not leave his stamp on the world of giant lizards? The movie could start with five dinosaurs and Michael Madsen, all wearing black suits and sunglasses, sitting in a diner. Tarantino would play one of the dinosaurs, who does most of the talking at first.
""You know that song 'Please Please Me'?"" he would say. ""That song's about oral sex.""
""Get out of here,"" a CGI pterodactyl would say.
""No, no, I'm serious. Lennon is telling his girlfriend that he's tired of always pleasing her and her never pleasing him. 'Cause the song goes, 'Please please me, like I please you.' The man's saying he does his duty for his girlfriend and expects her to reciprocate.""
Or forget that. Spike and Tarantino are too expensive. If there's anything we learned from ""Jurassic Park 3,"" it's that anything involving huge, realistic- looking dinosaurs on screen will earn boatloads of money, regardless of who the director is. Even story arcs and character development don't matter at all. And we have known since ""The Lost World: Jurassic Park"" that quality isn't a consideration. This is one case where Hollywood can experiment with anything and there's no risk at all.
There's a growing market in undersea adventures proving there is no greater strength than family. ""Shark Tale"" opened big, ""Finding Nemo"" opened bigger. How about a dinosaur undersea adventure, where a family of triceratops go in search of the secret treasures of Atlantis? Dinosaurs are always typecast as villains. Why can't there be an ""A-Team""-style group of vigilante justice-enforcing dinosaurs? They can save mom and pop business owners from the '80s-style thugs, with their stone-washed jeans and jerry curls.
As long as they're looking to provide audiences with the visceral thrill of watching dinosaurs kill people, why not make them kill people that audiences already know and hate? The producers are raising buckets of money just to provide audiences with warm, comforting familiarity. So they might as well just buy characters from other movies. Over the course of two hours, the new dinosaur island can be visited by all the baddies-the principal from ""Ferris Bueller's Day Off,"" the reporter from ""Die Hard"" and even Angelica from ""Rugrats."" And instead of watching dumb people miraculously escape from dinosaurs, the movie can just show all these most hated characters dying in brutal, but entertaining ways. With huge dinosaurs, of course.
The movie's producers might as well come to grips with what a cynical exercise in empty money-making ""Jurassic Park IV"" is going to be. And there's nothing wrong with that-if they have a sense of humor about it. So why not try to set a new record for most numerous and obvious product placements in Hollywood history? Two raptors could approach a freshly killed brontosaurus at the same time, presumably setting up a confrontation. But instead:
""Oh, I'm sorry, sir. This is your fresh kill. You go ahead,"" one would say.
""Don't be silly, you were here first,"" the other would reply cordially.
Then they would just look at each other for a moment.
""Hey man, are you gellin'?""
And let's not forget that the movie still doesn't have a cast either. Whoever ends up directing could take this as an opportunity to give some lagging careers a shot in the arm. America's ready for an Erik Estrada comeback-if there are huge dinosaurs involved. Or perhaps Mr. T? He needs the money these days. And as long as Rocky's opponents are getting work, what's Carl Weathers up to these days? He's still alive, right?
Or maybe some serious actors would like a chance to do some big-time lowbrow science fiction. Judi Dench seems like she would enjoy looking in her rear-view mirror to see a raptor.
It sounds ridiculous, but is any of this more ridiculous than making a fourth ""Jurassic Park"" movie? Spielberg is gone. Michael Crichton's original classic popcorn novel is long gone. Jeff Goldblum is gone. This franchise has no reason to live-unless it grows a sense of humor about itself. The people at Universal Studios should take this to heart. ""Jurassic Park IV"" will make money no matter what. Lets see some dinosaur versus hired martial arts assassins action. Lets see a musical. Lets see the dinosaurs have some fun.
Please. Michael Madsen needs the work.
