Board Thread:Movie discussion/@comment-166.137.248.31-20170831135037/@comment-166.137.248.31-20170901142821

CrashBash wrote: You keep saying you're not being defensive, but you clearly are. Both TTF and I have clearly explained why the only way your idea would work is with a spin-off, and you're clearly not listening.

Let me ask you this again....would a Batman movie without even a mention of Batman still be a Batman movie? Or would you make an Alien movie without anything related to the Xenomorphs? The answer to both of these is no, and the same is true for Jurassic Park. A Jurassic Park without dinosaurs is not a Jurassic Park movie. The only way it would work is if it were a spin-off series, connected but separate to the Jurassic Park name.

End of discussion. What? I haven't even shown this to other people. Besides, why would a spinoff series even work, anyways? That's like saying that Jurassic World NEEDS a spinoff, which would suck. You know what would make a good spinoff? Eric Kirby running away from dinosaurs while surviving 8 weeks on Isla Sorna. That would work, but not as a Cenozoic Park. Of course, a movie without Batman or Xenomorphs would suck, but not my Cenozoic Park idea. The idea of a spinoff would suck in the first place, by my idea. It's because I felt like the Cenozoic creatures don't get the same movie fame as the dinosaurs do, and guess what: Some of them WERE freaky (Doedicurus for example). That doesn't mean that a T-Rex cannot and will not return; I do want the T-Rex to return, but while maintaining the Cenozoic roles at the same time. I even mentioned a possible plush version of the T-Rex, and action figurines that Lowery owns, like Velociraptor, Apatosaurus, Triceratops, Dilophosaurus, and a couple more dinos. I did admit this as a fan idea. Something that half wouldn't work, and half something that could work.

One more thing: how do you NOT be defensive?