If you love a movie enough, you can rationalize its mediocre successors.

As has been mentioned several times in The Press over the years, “Jurassic Park” from 1993 remains my favorite movie of all time, in large part because of my original experience with the film as a kid. It’s a perfect movie in my eyes, and I’ve remained a devotee of the franchise through highs and lows.

As someone who’s lived through the last few decades of endless sequelizing and brand extensions, I’ve learned to not take creative misses too personally. Many fans, particularly some of the “Star Wars” variety, tend to work themselves into a frothy rage whenever a franchise goes in a disagreeable direction. I love the original “Jurassic Park,” and no ill-conceived cash-grab will harm my opinion of it. If I disagree about how a particular character changes (or perhaps exits a franchise, "cough" Han Solo "cough"), I have no problem dropping it from my memory.

OK, there’s one exception: I’m still mad about how “The West Wing” did Toby Ziegler dirty in its final season.

That being said, because of my love of “Jurassic Park,” I do find myself more forgiving of its brand extensions. I’m probably the biggest fan of Netflix’s animated “Camp Cretaceous” series over the age of 12, and I’ll gleefully waste money on the latest DLC offered for the “Jurassic World Evolution” video game series.

And, to some extent, I’m a fan of each and every sequel of the “Jurassic” franchise, even though I don’t think any of them come even close to the technical and storytelling achievements of the original.

“The Lost World,” from 1997, has the benefit of Steven Spielberg back in the director’s chair. There are more dinosaurs (including a terrific Stegosaurus sequence), and Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm returns for multiple eccentric line-readings.

The story of the movie, however, disappoints on nearly every level. It famously ditched the majority of Michael Crichton’s sequel novel and injected busier retreads of the best bits from the original. It’s a mean-spirited movie in spots too, an especially rare quality from a Spielberg film. And that “Godzilla”-esque finale with the T-Rex in San Diego? Well, at least that “dinosaur-in-civilization” idea is refreshingly subtle in comparison to the mayhem in the new “Jurassic World: Dominion.”

“Jurassic Park III,” from 2001, seems to be widely hated, likely because of the absence of Spielberg and the pulpy, B-movie tone of the brisk, 90-minute runtime. This one, to me, is actually the most successful of all the sequels, in part because it executes exactly what it sets out to do. Directed by Joe Johnston (an underrated purveyor of old-fashioned fun — see “Captain America: The First Avenger” and “The Rocketeer”), “Jurassic Park III” delivers a series of effective dino chases, including a series highlight in the form of the aviary sequence. Yes, the dialogue is goofy and the movie ends way too abruptly, but at least it never overstays its welcome.

The legacy sequel, “Jurassic World” from 2015 is more a success story of hype and marketing than an effective movie. It ingeniously delivers what many “Jurassic” fans have wanted to see for years — a fully functional theme park filled with dinosaurs. For the first hour, Colin Trevorrow shows us the fun and spectacle of such a place while also reestablishing classic “Jurassic” themes on hubris, greed and the dangers of manipulating nature.

The second half of “Jurassic World” contains a few fun sequences but mostly consists of silly exaggerations (Raptor Motorcycle Gang!) or blatant fan-servicy retreads. It also begins a misguided run of “dinosaur team-ups” that continues through the “World” run.

On first viewing, I responded poorly to 2018’s “Fallen Kingdom,” from director J.A. Bayona. It begins well enough — a volcano threatens to destroy all the animals in the now-abandoned island park (probably a bad idea to build the place on the site of an active volcano in the first place but OK). Then, in the second half, “Fallen Kingdom” gets real weird and real stupid, including a subplot about human clones and an underground dinosaur auction (albiet with surprisingly discounted prices).

The running joke of this second half is that it’s essentially a haunted house movie with a hybrid raptor subbing in for a ghost. On subsequent viewings, I still can’t defend the plot, but Bayona does make some stylish choices leaning into his horror movie vision.

Perhaps the biggest issue with all the sequels is the lack of memorable, nuanced new characters. Malcolm and Alan Grant provide some depth to the first two sequels, but almost none of the characters created after 1993 come even close to matching the compelling mix of even JP-1’s most insignificant characters. It’s especially disappointing to see Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard stuck with such stiff characters across the three newer movies.

“Dominion,” however, is clearly trying to reinvigorate our collective nostalgia by emphasizing the return of legacy characters Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Malcolm (though he appeared for about 30 seconds of “Fallen Kingdom”). It follows the model of “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” “Top Gun: Maverick” and any number of legacy sequels by promising more retreads of the best bits of the original.

That sort of thing can be especially annoying if done poorly or if you just don’t care about the franchise in the first place. For me, I know that I’m being manipulated into seeing another substandard sequel, but I can’t deny my interest in it. I do love Grant, Sattler and Malcolm, and I’ll be cheering if they can still find a way to force a one-armed Samuel L. Jackson back into the fold somehow.

It may not be good, but, in some sense, it’s comforting. That’s at least enough to justify the ticket price.

• • •

Tyler Wilson is a member of the International Press Academy and has been writing about movies and pop culture for Inland Northwest publications since 2000, including a regular column in The Press since 2006. He can be reached at twilson@cdapress.com.