How David Attenborough inspired the 'awe and wonder' in Jurassic World Rebirth
Filmmaker Gareth Edwards is back at the helm once more of a major franchise (although he hates that word, he tells me) sequel with Jurassic World Rebirth, following his foray into Star Wars with 2016's Rogue One.
This time he's fulfilling a childhood dream by working on one of the most influential 'creature feature' series of all time, working with Steven Spielberg – 'I call him Steve,' he grins, acknowledging the surrealism of that scenario.
Coming onboard to direct the next instalment in such a popular run of films Edwards, 50, did have lots of little ways he wanted to put his stamp on it – but also one clear desire to ground the movie in reality, despite the fact it's set 'on an island in the middle of nowhere with dinosaurs on it'.
'One of the great things about Jurassic was that it wasn't that we'd gone back in time to see dinosaurs, it was that they'd come to our time, and so I wanted some iconography of some location that was now,' he explains.
'I wanted, at one point in the movie, there to be dinosaurs in something that was very familiar to us, like the kitchen scene in the original Jurassic Park. So I needed to somehow crowbar into this scenario some imagery that you would watch it and go, 'I know that, that's where I live' – even though it's not.'
Without giving too much away before people have seen the movie, Edwards plays clear homage to that terrifying scene from the 1993 film with the hunting Velociraptors as well as plenty of fun Easter eggs from that era.
'I think that's important for people to relate to and feel like these things have come to us,' he adds.
Edwards also reveals the way he was inspired by legendary broadcaster and biologist David Attenborough, 99, and wanted to bring his influence in Jurassic World Rebirth to another pivotal scene.
He admits 'the way it was written probably wasn't aspiring to this' – but for the filmmaker it was clear.
'Being from the UK, I grew up with David Attenborough documentaries, and on a Sunday night on the BBC or wherever, one of the great things is sitting and watching a natural history show, [where] there's beautiful majesty and awe-inspiring nature,' he recalls. 'And I was like, to get through a Jurassic and not have this awe and wonder moment somewhere…'
That was obviously not an option for Edwards, and the result is glimpsed in the movie's trailer when Scarlett Johansson's mission specialist Zora Bennett and Jonathan Bailey's palaeontologist Dr Henry Loomis are seen glimpsing the 50-foot Titanosauruses for the first time.
It nicely acts as a throwback to the original film too, when Sam Neill and Laura Dern's expert characters are thrilled to see their first live dinosaur (coincidentally accompanied by Sir David's late actor brother Sir Richard Attenborough as Dr John Hammond, the owner of the park and the company that cloned the dinosaurs).
'That's what you're trying to do, is just navigate it so that you feel like it's that journey that you would want as an audience member.'.
Alongside his previous Star Wars responsibility, Edwards is known for original projects as screenwriter and director like Monsters and 2023's The Creator. He appears comfortable switching between studio-led franchise blockbusters and more indie fare, ceding complete creative control for the prior.
'There are certain franchises where I feel like I don't know what I'd do with that, and also I think we'd all disagree about what that is. And there are other ones where you go, the best version of that, I think, is exactly what the studio would want as well.'
Jurassic World Rebirth fortunately fell in this latter category and Edwards was delighted to be surrounded by a team who 'challenged' him.
'You want people who go, really? And double check what you're saying and go, how about this? Or throw in new ideas. But you also want to agree on what's a good film. And if they list ones that are your favourites, then you're probably in a good place.'
That is something he fortunately found with screenwriter David Koepp too, who was returning to pen a Jurassic film for the first time since 1997's The Lost World, after it was suggested that meeting with producer Frank Marshall and Spielberg wasn't the conversation he should be most nervous about.
'They said, 'Oh, if you think this was tricky, wait 'til you meet David Koepp – if you can get your ideas past him'.'
But it ended up a 'blissful' partnership Edwards says, from 'the second we started talking' on Zoom and found that they loved 'exactly the same movies'.
Edwards also admits he was expecting the screenplay to be locked, with no way for him to suggest any of his own ideas and tweaks.
'That's what I thought was going to happen. And instead, it was like, 'Okay, you know this scene where this happens – what if we did it in this location instead? And what if this happened during it?'' he shared of his discussions with Koepp. 'And he was like, 'Great!', and would write it and give it his own flourishes, and you'd go, 'Oh, that's better than what I would have written!''
But there were also sections where Edwards felt Koepp had things 'dead right' and he didn't want to touch it.
'We were really on the same page.'
This was also of great benefit considering the condensed timeline of making the movie, with Edwards only announced as director in February 2024, before any casting was done, and filming beginning that June.
Star and producer Johansson even revealed to me that sound mixing conversations were still happening just days before the London premiere.
Even with such a tight turnaround though, they managed to assemble a cast including Johansson, Bailey, two-time Oscar-winner Mahershala Ali and Rupert Friend, as well as Netflix's The Lincoln Lawyer star, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo.
'You worry when you've got not much time that you're going to get the bottom of the barrel, a lot of people that didn't get a job!' laughs Edwards of the situation. Luckily, the films are so definitive – and come with Spielberg attached ('I think when he calls, people pick up the phone') – that it wasn't an issue.
'I think if it had been another project, we might have been a bit stuck.'
Hilariously though, Edwards was not aware of Jurassic super-nerd Johansson and how she had already pitched herself to Spielberg.
'I remember being in one of those early conversations at Universal, and there's Steven Spielberg and Donna Langley and everybody, and all these actors [on pieces of paper] and all these names being said. And then Steven goes, 'Well, if I don't give it to Scarlett, she's going to kill me.' And I'm just like, 'What do you mean?' And he goes, 'Scarlett's a massive Jurassic fan and I went for a meal with her,' and he started saying how much she loved it and wanted to be in one. And I was like, 'Hang on, why are we doing this meeting? Scarlett Johansson wants to do this film? Like, what are we talking about? Can you call her?!'' More Trending
With Bailey, too, Edwards recalls an enjoyably unsuccessful first meeting when he had been prepped with questions from the producers for the actor but instead spent the entire three-hour chat over a meal in LA just 'joking around' and talking about 'random stuff' before the Wicked star realised he had to go.
'And so he left, and I hadn't said a word to him about Jurassic. And then the producers were like, 'Did he like the screenplay?' And I'm like, 'Yeah, no, it's all good, we're all good, no he didn't have any notes, he loves the character…' the director laughs of his bluffing.
'But it's the kind of movie. There's only a couple of things like this where you just get everyone's full attention. And it was a new chapter in it as well, so everyone felt they could come and put their stamp on it.'
Jurassic World Rebirth is in cinemas from July 2.
Got a story?
If you've got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we'd love to hear from you.
MORE: Jurassic World Rebirth leaves critics crying 'let the franchise go extinct' with rotten debut
MORE: Tom Cruise's 'breathtaking' 90s sci-fi hit quietly arrives on Netflix
MORE: 'Underrated' horror movie hailed by fans finally arrives on Amazon Prime
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Cardiff weather ahead of first Oasis gig as fans get set for band's epic reunion
Oasis fans can't wait to see Noel and Liam Gallagher perform at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff on Friday as their long-awaited reunion tour finally kicks off Oasis fans will be pleased to know there is no rain forecast for Cardiff when the band's reunion gig kicks off on Friday, July 4. For months, ticket-holders have been waiting to watch Liam and Noel Gallagher on the same stage after a 16-year hiatus – and it looks like the sun will be shining in Wales for their epic comeback gig. The forecast in Cardiff, according to the BBC, predicts sunny intervals and a moderate breeze, with temperatures reaching 21 degrees. It's a pleasant day in the Welsh capital today, with a refreshing breeze and sunny spells, which should hopefully continue into Friday when the Wonderwall stars reunite. READ MORE: Huge Oasis warning issued to thousands of fans attending Heaton Park reunion Cardiff has already been given a taste of what to expect when the Don't Look Back In Anger legends take to the stage for the first time in over a decade. Oasis were always bound to return with a bang and there is already chatter about what to expect on Friday from those living close to the Principality Stadium, which last week hosted American singer, Lana Del Rey. The band has already arrived in Cardiff to rehearse on stage and fans close to Westgate Street say they have heard the setlist in full. Earlier in the week, those near the town centre heard Cigarettes and Alcohol blasting out of the stadium. They were also treated to hits Some Might Say and F****n' In The Bushes. According to one fan on Reddit, Oasis is set to play an epic 24-song setlist. The fan revealed the rehearsal setlist, which teases what may be included in the live shows. They claimed it kicks off with an intro of F****n' in the Bushes then Hello, Acquiesce, Morning Glory followed by Some Might Say. Cigarettes & Alcohol is next, followed by Fade Away, Supersonic, Roll With It, Bring It On Down. It is believed Noel will take on Talk Tonight, Half the World Away, Little By Little. Oasis has already revealed the stage times for their shows in Cardiff as doors will open at 5pm before first support act Cast warm up the crowd at 6pm. Verve frontman and friend of the Gallaghers, Richard Ashcroft will then take to the stage at 7pm. Then, at 8.15pm this Friday, Oasis will play for just over two hours before they will end the set for a 22.30pm curfew. Speaking about the first reunion gig, a source told us: "With a new lineup and it being such a huge first show, the boys will do some songs inside the venue too. Some tours would start with a smaller show or take a week or two to get into the groove again. "But there is no time for that, and also Liam and Noel want every night to be massive. This is such a huge comeback show, and they are taking it very seriously. It all points to it being an incredible comeback tour."
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
The BBC claims impartiality over Gaza but there is a conflict of interest at its heart
The BBC struggles to get anything right about Gaza. Last week, it decided not to broadcast a searing documentary about Palestinian doctors under attack, citing vague concerns about ' a perception of partiality '. This week, it's the coverage of Glastonbury and why no one was alert enough to press the mute button on a rap-punk duo called Bob Vylan. Though it has garnered less outrage the former smacks of either editorial naivety or institutional cowardice.. But, fortunately, the top brass at Channel 4 appear to have more backbone and the film, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, will be shown tonight. People can judge for themselves. It seems to me to be exactly the sort of documentary which the BBC should broadcast. The film graphically shows the horrors of working in Gaza hospitals these past 21 months in an unflinching and quietly devastating light. It documents a litany of death, violence, cruelty, suffering and inhumanity. There are allegations of the targeting, abduction, torture and effective murder of doctors and nurses, along with denials by the Israeli army [the IDF] that they have been involved in any such things. No Western media organisation has been allowed free access to Gaza, which makes it doubly complicated to tell the whole truth about what has been happening in a war in which 1.9 million Palestinians have been displaced, at least 56,156 Palestinians have been killed and 132,239 have been injured. And, yes, these are Gaza Ministry of Health figures, and the Ministry of Health is controlled by Hamas. But that's all we have. There is quite a collective of organisations and individuals who monitor the media round the clock for any whisper of anti-Israeli 'bias'. And we can confidently expect the Gaza medics film to be attacked within hours of broadcast. I would expect there to be criticism of the social media feed of the highly-experienced freelance reporter, Ramita Navai, who has described Israel as a 'rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass-murdering Palestinians'. I would not be surprised if a diligent researcher finds that one or more of the medics who appear in the programme has a second cousin once removed in Hamas. Or personnel who even belonged to Hamas. My own judgement is that, if they do emerge, such claims should not discredit or undermine the overall impact or importance of the documentary. This film was, I'm told, cleared by the compliance squad at the BBC. The corporation has not advanced any credible reason why it was subsequently suppressed beyond its statement around 'a perception of partiality'. If the documentary leads to heated debate about the issues, and whether they have been fairly represented, that's well and good. That is partly the role of public service broadcasting. But these are not the only mistakes the BBC has made over Gaza. A previous, unrelated, BBC documentary was withdrawn when it was revealed that a boy narrator was related to a middle-ranking Hamas official. BBC chair Samir Shah told MPs it was a 'dagger to the heart' of the BBC's claims to trust. The BBC Board promptly announced an inquiry. That was on 27 February, and we're now in July. It's evidently what Sherlock Holmes would call a three-pipe problem. Holmes would have quickly divined why it was such a ticklish matter: because it could end up calling into question the judgment of the ultimate editor-in-chief of the BBC, the director general, Tim Davie. The Telegraph has reported that Deborah Turness, the BBC's chief executive of news and current affairs, watched the documentary before it was broadcast, but failed to question it. Heads must roll? But this is where the curious governance arrangements of the BBC kick in. And where we are forced to confront other 'perceptions of partiality.' The BBC has a board of directors, but most of them have no experience in journalism or broadcasting. The crucial BBC committee is the five-strong editorial guidelines and standards committee. Shah leads it and it includes both Davie and Turness. So if these particular heads are to roll, some turkeys are going to have to vote for Christmas. The only other person with editorial experience on this committee has, until recently, been Sir Robbie Gibb [the fifth member was former Tate boss Nicholas Serota and, since 3 April, Dame Caroline Thompson]. Forgive the recap, but you may remember Sir Robbie as the former No 10 spin doctor imposed on the BBC by Boris Johnson's government and then re-appointed last year by Rishi Sunak. He has described himself as a 'proper Thatcherite Conservative'. His career has zigzagged between right-wing politics and journalism. There is not even a perception of impartiality about his political beliefs. But when it comes to his judgments on the Middle East it is even more complicated. You may recall the curious episode which resulted in Sir Robbie becoming the apparent sole owner of The Jewish Chronicle (The JC). In April 2020 he led a consortium to rescue the title from bankruptcy – while refusing to reveal who actually put the money up. He appointed Jake Wallis Simons as editor. And it was Wallis Simons who ran a vigorous campaign for a parliamentary inquiry into the BBC's coverage of Jews and Israel. He was not a fan. The Gibbs/JWS era at the JC was not a happy one, with the press regulator twice forced to consider an investigation into standards; with five leading columnists quitting and with a fellow member of his own original consortium saying that the editor was 'behaving like a political activist, not a journalist…. it does a disservice to the Jewish community because it consolidates this idea that the Jewish community abroad is in some way sort of complicit by their silence with the excesses of the IDF.' Gibb resigned as a director just before the editorial calamity which saw The JC publish a fabricated story. Israel newspapers suggested they had been placed in the European media to support Benjamin's Netanyahu's negotiating position over Gaza. There is an ongoing inquiry into the matter: the Israeli security service, Shin Bet arrested Eli Feldstein, a spokesperson for Netanyahu, who had previously worked for the far-right security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The long-standing JC columnist, Jonathan Freedland, said, 'The latest scandal brings great disgrace on the paper – publishing fabricated stories and showing only the thinnest form of contrition – but it is only the latest. Too often, The JC reads like a partisan, ideological instrument, its judgments political rather than journalistic.' Wallis Simons parted company with The JC soon afterwards. So, yes, Sir Robbie Gibb – who presided over much of this – has been, until recently, the only external figure with journalistic experience to sit on the crucial BBC editorial committee. The minutes for two meetings this year show the committee has discussed BBC coverage of the Middle East. In January the committee discussed the timing, scope and methodology for a review of the BBC's coverage. In March they discussed it as an 'emerging editorial risk.' For an organisation obsessed with 'perceptions of partiality', it seems odd, on the face of it, to have had the very partial Sir Robbie Gibb in such a role. That perception has certainly alarmed more than 400 media figures who have urged the BBC board to remove Gibb. They include no fewer than 111 BBC journalists. So I contacted the BBC to ask if he had, in fact, recused himself from any discussions about the BBC's coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict. The answer came back: No, he hadn't. I asked a further question: did Sir Robbie have any conversations about the Doctors Under Attack documentary, including with the director general or chair? The response was somewhat cryptic: 'I can confirm that [Sir Robbie] had no formal role in any of the discussions or decisions about whether the BBC should run the film – I'm afraid I have no way of knowing whether BBC board members have had discussions about various live issues affecting the BBC but as I've said before, the decisions about the film were taken by BBC News.' It is reasonable to assume, I think, that Sir Robbie may have had informal discussions. All this makes one wonder about the judgement of the newish chair, Samir Shah. He came into the job knowing about Gibb's journalistic track record, along with his obsessive desire to keep secret who is bankrolling The JC. A strong chair, interested in trust and impartiality, would surely have asked him to step out of the room when the BBC's coverage of the Middle East came up. But, no. So this is where we seem to be. The BBC junked a film because of 'perceptions of partiality'. But the key decisions – including the futures of Davie and Turness – are strongly influenced by Sir Robbie Gibb, who has shown no evidence of impartiality when it comes to the Middle East. It sounds like a two-tier system to me. Meanwhile, our attention is absorbed by the far less salient question of whether some hapless producer failed to press the mute button for Bob Vylan. I think it's called deadcatting.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
The BBC's ‘ultimate humiliation' on Gaza
Tonight, Channel 4 will broadcast a hard-hitting documentary about Gaza. The hour-long film, Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, examines allegations that the Israeli military has breached international law by deliberately targeting hospitals during the conflict that started on October 7, 2023. It features interviews with medics working in the besieged territory and is billed as a 'forensic investigation'. None of which sounds particularly unusual: Channel 4 has always aired long-form factual programming about difficult subjects and has won a clutch of awards for its coverage of the Israel-Hamas war. This documentary is almost unique, however, as it was originally commissioned by and made for the BBC, whose bosses then dropped it amid the fallout of another Gaza film that was narrated by the 13-year-old son of a Hamas official. Months of delays and recrimination ensued, with the independent producers behind Doctors Under Attack sparking a public war of words with the BBC. The situation is practically unheard of, and threatens to heap further embarrassment on BBC bosses after their botched handling of events at Glastonbury last weekend, as well as further dividing an already-fractured newsroom about how to cover the Middle East. Doctors Under Attack was meant to be broadcast at the start of the year, according to insiders, but was superseded by Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone. The latter was broadcast in February but was pulled from the BBC iPlayer shortly afterwards, after it emerged that its 13-year-old narrator, Abdullah al-Yazouri, was the son of the deputy minister of agriculture. The Telegraph has previously reported that Deborah Turness, the chief executive of BBC News, saw the film before it aired but did not raise concerns about it. BBC chairman Samir Shah said the film's failings were a 'dagger to the heart' of the Corporation's claims to be trustworthy and impartial. Peter Johnston, the BBC's director of editorial complaints, was tasked with establishing what went wrong and making recommendations for future programmes. Despite the promise that Johnston, who is paid £200,000 each year, would 'rapidly address the complaints that have been made', his report has yet to see the light of day more than four months on. The feet-dragging caused frustration for those working at Basement Films, the independent production company behind the Doctors Under Attack documentary. Sources say that BBC bosses maintained for weeks that they had not delayed broadcast of the film because of the scandal sparked by its predecessor, which was made by a different production company, then changed tack and said it could not be aired while Johnston's report was outstanding. They feel that Corporation executives 'lied repeatedly' about the delays in releasing Doctors Under Attack and that the atmosphere had become 'absolutely toxic'. The delays led to the doctors who had been interviewed threatening to withdraw their consent for their footage to be used, as they could not understand why it had not been shown. During this period of limbo, more medics were killed in strikes on Gaza hospitals. Those involved with the film also say that the BBC found no editorial issues with Doctors Under Attack and were confident that it would comply with broadcasting regulations, but that bosses were now paranoid about any coverage of Gaza. BBC insiders counter this and say that the film had not been subject to its pre-broadcast sign-off processes. 'Any film broadcast will not be a BBC film.' Basement Films founder Ben de Pear, who is a former editor of Channel 4 News, lashed out publicly during a panel discussion at an industry conference on June 19. 'All the decisions about our film were not taken by journalists, they were taken by Tim Davie. He is just a PR person,' he said on stage. 'Tim Davie is taking editorial decisions which, frankly, he is not capable of making.' Davie has not got a background in journalism or programme-making and is nicknamed by some in Broadcasting House 'Lord Pepsi' for his background in cola adverts. De Pear went on to say that the BBC is 'failing as an institution' and 'needs new management'. 'The BBC has utterly failed,' he added. 'The best journalists in the world are working inside the BBC and they are being stymied and silenced.' A BBC spokesperson said in response that it 'totally reject[ed] this characterisation of our coverage'. On the same day that de Pear let his frustration spill into the open, Ramita Navai, the film's presenter, appeared as a guest on Radio 4's Today programme on the previous day and discussed the ongoing conflict in Gaza. 'The world has been watching as Israel has become a rogue state that is committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass-murdering Palestinians,' she told presenter Amol Rajan. The following day, June 20, the BBC formally dropped the film, saying that 'broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality' and, despite negotiations with Basement about using some footage in its news bulletins, they had 'reached the end of the road'. BBC insiders claimed that it was no coincidence that the final decision to drop Doctors Under Attack came after the outbursts from Navai and De Pear. Channel 4 saw the opportunity to swoop. 'Having the chance to pick up an important bit of accountability journalism seemed worth a look,' as one insider puts it. It has been subjected to 'rigorous' fact-checking and it is understood that the broadcaster has not asked for any 'substantive edits' to be made. Those at Channel 4 find the BBC's unwillingness to air Doctors Under Attack puzzling, especially as news executives did not appear to have any issues with its content. 'We've got to keep making decisions on journalistic grounds,' says a source. 'The moment you start making decisions that are not purely journalistic, it's problematic.' Another source says: 'We cannot not report on what is happening in Gaza at such a pivotal time.' Channel 4 bosses are braced for questions about Navai's personal statements about Israel after the film has been broadcast, but are confident that it complies with the impartiality requirements that regulators enforce. 'I'm sure there will be questions raised about Ramita, and my response to any of those is, 'Watch the film',' says a source. 'If you can find anything in that film is partial or inaccurate, that's a fair criticism. But trying to discredit the people associated with it is a diversionary approach.' It is understood that the BBC has paid Basement Films for its work on the commissioned documentary, while Channel 4 has paid to air it; nobody involved in making or broadcasting Doctors Under Fire would confirm how much it cost, however. 'No-one is making any money out of it,' according to one Channel 4 source. Meanwhile, morale in the BBC newsroom is reportedly at a low ebb. More than 100 BBC staffers have (anonymously) signed a letter to Corporation bosses in which they claim that it has become a mouthpiece for the Israeli government and express 'concerns over opaque editorial decisions and censorship… on the reporting of Israel/Palestine'. The fact that the BBC dropped a film that will now be broadcast on Channel 4 was the spark for the letter being publicly released. 'This appears to be a political decision and is not reflective of the journalism in the film,' it reads. 'This illustrates precisely what many of us have experienced first hand: an organisation that is crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.' The letter continues: 'All too often it has felt that the BBC has been performing PR for the Israeli government and military. This should be a cause of great shame and concern for everyone at the BBC.' Dorothy Byrne, a former head of news and current affairs at Channel 4, says that the broadcast of Doctors Under Attack on the commercial station would be 'the ultimate humiliation' for the BBC. 'I assume that the first film has made them lose their bottle and confidence,' she says. 'The BBC is now in the ridiculous situation over Gaza that it has broadcast a film that it shouldn't have broadcast in that form... and not broadcasting a film that it should have because another public service broadcaster, bound by the same regulations, has made the decision to broadcast it,' Byrne tells me. 'How do they always get themselves in a mess? They are like the Laurel and Hardy of broadcasting: something always seems to go wrong,' Byrne says of the BBC. 'And yet you've got brilliant people like Jeremy Bowen and Lyse Doucet. I really feel for the brilliant journalists who work for the BBC, who must feel embarrassed and humiliated when these things happen.'
