New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Kim Hollis: Jurassic Park returned to theaters with the 3D treatement, earning $18.6 million in the process. What do you think about this result?

Brett Ballard-Beach: It's all gravy. $10 million to convert. "Free advertising" for JPIV in 2014. Gets Jeff Goldblum and Laura Dern out doing the media rounds. I even thought about paying to see it. (Also, it gets me all nostalgic for my 20th high school reunion this summer. Well, almost.)

Jay Barney: I am not a fan of studios going the 3D release route, but apparently it makes money for them. I don’t even spend my money on new films released in 3D, so it is safe to say I am not a fan of these efforts. They put their money into projects that bring home the bacon, and the re-release of Jurassic Park as a 3D venture will make Universal money. At the same time it will keep the fourth film in the franchise in the back of everyone’s mind. I like the franchise in general, except for the awfulness of the second movie. However, from this point on Jurassic Park 3D will be a declining stat on the top ten list.

Matthew Huntley: If Hollywood is going to continue treat its modern classics with 3D, then I think titles like Jurassic Park (and Titanic from a year ago) are the ones to go with. They are, essentially, popcorn movies - purely cinematic and the kinds of movies we love to see on the big screen because they're so grand in scope. As far as JP's $18.6 million haul this weekend, I think it's impressive, mostly because I thought the idea of converting to 3D and re-releasing older movies was starting to fade in popularity, but I guess we can't make a blanket statement like that; it all comes down to the individual title, and clearly people wanted to revisit Spielberg's dino-epic.

Edwin Davies: It's perfectly fine, but it confirms that something like the Lion King 3D re-release was very much an exception to the rule when it comes to these things. What I mean by that is that none of these films make a huge amount of money relative to their first go around, but they can earn a decent bit of extra money for the studios and work as additional marketing, either for the Blu-ray release of the film, which is obviously a very lucrative revenue stream to exploit, or, in the case of Jurassic Park, a sequel. Setting aside whether or not it's right to convert 2D films to 3D (though, for what it's worth: it's wrong and on a par with colorization) it has commercial advantages that are hard to ignore.

David Mumpower: I agree that Jurassic Park is a film that begs for the 3D treatment. I have actually done a pre-order of the Blu-Ray, which is released in two weeks. I agree that the market is ordinarily exploited by this type of re-release in vaguely new packaging. I do not, however, mind such a decision when I love the movie in question. I have watched Jurassic Park multiple times on the pay channels recently and while it's an imperfect movie, it's such a fun concept. And I say that as someone who didn't even like dinosaurs as a kid. Jurassic Park is an ultimate popcorn flick. I'm glad it's getting some renewed attention.

Continued:       1       2