An interesting discussion!
My ranking of the movies is actually the same as the order of which they came out lol.
Jurassic Park sits at the top. It's the reason we're all here today. Its CGI and practical effects were absolutely ground breaking. While they're obviously not up to par with the visual quality of movies such as Avatar, Jurassic Park still manages to hold its own. Jurassic Park's main theme was that nature is not something to be controlled or contained.
The Lost World is second on my list. While its not as good as the original, TLW continues the trend of ground breaking visuals, some of which are not too distant from today's (most notably, the Tyrannosaurs of TLW which, in my opinion, are the best examples of dinosaur CGI across media). Most importantly, it showed a more animalistic side to the dinosaurs, as seen through the parental instincts of the Tyrannosaurs and to a degree, the Velociraptors. The Lost World reinforces its predecessor's theme of controlling nature, while also stressing the importance of how we perceive something we create. A strong lesson that it put out to audiences is that though Ingen may have created and own the dinosaurs, they are animals just like any other.
Jurassic Park 3 is where things start to turn a bit more southward. It ranks as the 3rd on my list as it has a plot that I can only describe as very out there. Certain aspects to its plot seem to be pretty far-fetched. There is a greater reliance on CGI in this film than the previous, and because of this it is more clear that CGI is used, particularly in daytime scenes with bright lighting. That being said, it is still an acceptable addition to the franchise. Each actor played their part rather well, including the young Trevor Morgan. The best thing JP3 offered that really separated it from its predecessors was its depiction of the Velociraptors. In JP3 we really got a good view of their intelligence, something we hadn't truly seen since the first Jurassic Park. JP3 went a step further though, depicting them as being very communicative and calculative animals. Most notably, it touched on the social aspects of the pack, revealing that at least this raptor pack is a matriarchy with very strong parental bonds. I would also argue that the visuals of the Velociraptors, both CGI and practical effects, are the best in the franchise as a whole. JP3's themes were more tuned to TLW's than the original. JP3 didn't stress the folly in controlling nature, focusing on the nature of the dinosaurs themselves. At the very start of the film, Alan Grant described Ingen's dinosaurs as "theme park monsters", but through the course of his time on Isla Sorna, he finds an appreciation for them as animals through his new experiences with them, and Eric and Billy's marveling of them.
Jurassic World is the weakest of the films in my opinion. It has a slight return to the theme of the original, in that it focuses more about not trying to control nature with Owen's Pack of Velociraptors and the antagonists interest on militarizing them. Where it takes a major step back is the films depiction of the dinosaurs themselves. The management of Jurassic World, most notably Bryce Howard's character, views the dinosaurs more like "theme park monsters" to quote Grant from the previous film. The problem is in Jurassic World, that's accurate. The carnivores of Jurassic World feel more like monsters. In the case of Indominus rex, I would let this slide, because it was genetically engineered to be just that: a theme park monster. However the Mosasaurus , pterosaurs, the Velociraptors, and even our dear Rexy, all feel like theme park monsters. The final battle between Rexy and Indominus felt like a really bad Godzilla movie in which the two squared off for some godforsaken reason, and Blue also decided to chime in, with the Mosasaurus finishing Indominus off. Rexy and Blue have their little exchange, strangely humanizing the two of them, and that's the climactic battle.
Jurassic World also shares a big criticism JP3 had: too much CGI. Jurassic World had much more CGI, and from my perspective, it looked even worse. The Velociraptors CGI was not up to the bar JP3's had set. Though JP3's CGI was very clear, Jurassic World's managed to look more obvious somehow. The worst aspect, visually speaking, was the change in Rexy's design. Let's be frank, folks, she looks absolutely ugly in Jurassic World. Fallen Kingdom seems to be a step in the right direction, bulking up her design a bit, and the CGI also seems to have improved, thankfully.
Let's focus on the characters now. All of the characters of Jurassic World didn't grasp me. JP3 shared this problem with the characters it introduced, but in the end it managed to get my attention. The two brothers, Gray and Zach, were clearly an attempt to recreate Lex and Tim and reach out to the age group they fit into. Lex and Tim weren't particularly interesting characters, but what was interesting about them was their relationship with the other characters. This is also what eventually grasped me about the characters of JP3. You were concerned for Tim and Lex because everyone else who you cared about were concerned for them. Their presence invoked parental aspects that Grant didn't show previously. Their presence was very vital to the story and the characters. Paul and Amanda Kirby are a divorced couple made interesting by their development with each other as they attempt to search for their son, breaking the molds that made them uninteresting. Billy was very much an image of a young Grant before and during Jurassic Park, struck by the awe at the dinosaurs and the possibilities. His relationship with Grant and the contrast between the two interested me in Billy. Gray and Zach, they didn't have any of this. The only characters that had an on-screen attachment to them was Claire, who was difficult to care for, and their care-taker, who seemed to only care for them out of responsibility and had an unnecessarily long and brutal death sequence. Because the characters that associated with the brothers were uninteresting, so were they. The writer(s) clearly wanted the brothers to seem authentic in a manner, touching up on how their barely on screen parents were divorcing each other, except the instance where they brought this up felt rather forced and was never seemed to be referenced again. Owen seemed to be the only character that could really take hold of me. I also believe Jurassic World suffered because there were no returning protagonists that allowed us to have a character to attach to.
Jurassic World's biggest strong point was all of the throwbacks to the original Jurassic Park. They played the nostalgia card just right, and I felt all of the nods to the original JP were the best parts of the film. Another strong point was the film's main antagonist: Indominus rex. Indominus had the best CGI visuals out of any other creature in the movie. Her existence didn't feel forced because it revolved around the theme of consequences of creating a theme park monster, expecting to be in control of the situation. Indominus's biggest downside was the fact that it didn't really have an iconic, memorable roar like Tyrannosaurus and Spinosaurus had. Unfortunately, like much of the rest of the movie, there still isn't much to Indominus. She alone can't support the movie.
Despite all of this, Jurassic World still manages to be a decent film that at times is charming and very chuckle worthy, like many films these days, but even with a solidly performing cast and small laughter every now and then, it will not save Jurassic World from the bottom of my list. The crippling reason for this lies with a weakness in its links to the overarching theme of the entire franchise. The Jurassic Park franchise stresses that nature cannot be contained, and in the movies it shows us why it can't be (Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Jurassic World), and it shows us how dinosaurs are a part of that very nature (Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Jurassic Park 3). Jurassic World suffers because it lacks that second aspect more so than any of the films. One might say that Jurassic Park also mostly portrayed the dinosaurs like theme park monsters, and to an extent you are right. In Jurassic Park, however, we see other sides to the dinosaurs, particularly with the herbivores. Though the carnivores were more portrayed like monsters, it was stressed that they were a part of nature, and that bringing them into this world in attempt to control them violated that nature and showed disrespect to it. In Jurassic World, from start to finish, there was no sense of redemption for the portrayal of the dinosaurs on screen and in universe with their interactions with the characters. They didn't feel like incredible animals that were a part of nature, they felt like theme park monsters. It's because of that, Jurassic World doesn't have the same feel as the other movies. It doesn't really feel like a Jurassic Park movie, more so a movie in the Jurassic Park universe. While JP3 was certainly the weakest of the original trilogy, even it felt more like a Jurassic Park movie because it carried the message and spirit of the franchise, which Jurassic World really did not.
So to wrap things up, here is my ranking:
1. Jurassic Park
2. The Lost World
3. Jurassic Park 3
4. Jurassic World
