Topic: Jurassic World

[brownie 09]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ofgXv7JYOM

[Gifted Right Foot]

Meh i'm looking forward to it.  Chris Pratt, so hot right now.

[PhilV]

Meh i'm looking forward to it.  Chris Pratt, so hot right now.

[eddymunster]

I don't like it either. It's as if they are trying to tell me that existing dinosaurs just weren't scary enough which is a damn lie. Those velociraptors traumatised me as a kid. They still would now. It also feels like an admission that they just couldn't come up with a decent storyline using real dinosaurs either, which probably means they shouldn't be making another one in the first place.

You know the actual Velociraptors were massively exaggerated don't you. They are a shaved, blown up version of feathered chicken sized dinosaur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velociraptor

[Beav]

Looks like I'm one of a small few who's still excited. It won't be anywhere near the level of the first film, but it's a new take on the franchise. I've not got any issue with the create a new dinosaur idea, its exactly what people who can bring back ancient creatures would do eventually.

I like the way they're still teasing the new Dino mashuposaurus, bit of an alien feel to it, but obviously nowhere near as dark. Trailer CGI is trailer CGI, that won't be the final look of it so I'm not worried. Dialogue is cheesy, but didn't bother me too much.

End of the day, its fucking dinosaurs, I'm probably going to love the shit out of it.

[Mr Mingebag Squid]

Looks like I'm one of a small few who's still excited. It won't be anywhere near the level of the first film, but it's a new take on the franchise. I've not got any issue with the create a new dinosaur idea, its exactly what people who can bring back ancient creatures would do eventually.

I like the way they're still teasing the new Dino mashuposaurus, bit of an alien feel to it, but obviously nowhere near as dark. Trailer CGI is trailer CGI, that won't be the final look of it so I'm not worried. Dialogue is cheesy, but didn't bother me too much.

End of the day, its fucking dinosaurs, I'm probably going to love the shit out of it.

I'm still pumped for it. But then again, I seem alone in liking the Hobbit films, Planet of the Apes, Marvel Films, Superman, Batman....in fact most films!

[eddymunster]

I'm still pumped for it. But then again, I seem alone in liking the Hobbit films, Planet of the Apes, Marvel Films, Superman, Batman....in fact most films!

Na, I'm with you on that one. I like films that entertain me whether that's as brilliant plot/acting/cinematography or weather it's just good fun.

I fully expect this to be the latter.

[Haemoglobin]

Looks like I'm one of a small few who's still excited. It won't be anywhere near the level of the first film, but it's a new take on the franchise. I've not got any issue with the create a new dinosaur idea, its exactly what people who can bring back ancient creatures would do eventually.

It is indeed a shame if this instalment doesn't live up to its heritage and becomes yet another 'alright I suppose' popcorn movie, but people need to accept that the original Jurassic Park was an amazing technical feat. Still looks better to my eyes than the majority of CGI fx in the modern era, which looks all so samey and insta-detectably unreal... how the fuck you manage that with 1993's technology, I don't know. Helps of course if you have a cinematic genius at the helm (before he hit his relative fallow period) and the incredible wealth of talent he could assemble for his crew - they took a pretty daft speculative-fiction idea, and made a truly unforgettable spectacle from it, even if certain bits are a tad too Spielbergy for some tastes.

[Paul JH]

The T-Rex CGI in the original is still head and shoulders above everything in this trailer.

[Wool]

The T-Rex CGI in the original is still head and shoulders above everything in this trailer.

They built it, to be fair. I'm still optimistic anyway for the exact reason Beav is. DINOSAURS.

[WillG.LFC]

The only explanation is the original film used real dinosaurs

[Snail]

The only explanation is the original film used real dinosaurs

I'm gonna go with this.

[carl123uk]

Can't wait for this. It's one of the first films i remember when i was growing up

[Haemoglobin]

The only explanation is the original film used real dinosaurs

Don't be stupid, they didn't use 'real' dinosaurs. Sheesh.


The real dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago. The filmmakers made new dinosaurs out of dna extracted from mosquitos trapped in amber, and then trained and filmed them. What you see on screen is the fake dinosaurs Spielberg and the scientists created in the lab.

[Beav]

They built it, to be fair. I'm still optimistic anyway for the exact reason Beav is. DINOSAURS.

I've never seen that picture before, fuck me look at that thing. Such a huge part of why it looks so good, because it wasn't all CGI, their use of models and animatronics was phenomenal.

[Haemoglobin]

See, you can tell from this on-set photo that they used a fake T-Rex, because it's just happily milling around the set with the crew, minding it's own business. They probably fed it loads of catfood or something, because it isn't acting aggressive, it seems quite docile actually.

A real T-Rex would have ate loads of people and wrecked shit and stuff.

[Snail]

See, you can tell from this on-set photo that they used a fake T-Rex, because it's just happily milling around the set with the crew, minding it's own business. They probably fed it loads of catfood or something, because it isn't acting aggressive, it seems quite docile actually.

A real T-Rex would have ate loads of people and wrecked shit and stuff.

I heard they called it Terry.

[ncred]

long post about trailer CGI, and about the original JP CGI:
https://np.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jurassic_world_trailer/cmcs22y

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

long post about trailer CGI, and about the original JP CGI:
https://np.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jurassic_world_trailer/cmcs22y

Interesting stuff, makes some fair points.

I like the fact that on the original they actually used to have to build these things for real, and combine them with CGI shots, I think it's the best way to do it.

[Brian Blessed]

Interesting stuff, makes some fair points.

I like the fact that on the original they actually used to have to build these things for real, and combine them with CGI shots, I think it's the best way to do it.

I think you're right. That way they can proper light and colour references.

[Mouth]

The only explanation is the original film used real dinosaurs

Yup

[Kashinoda]

Interesting stuff, makes some fair points.

I like the fact that on the original they actually used to have to build these things for real, and combine them with CGI shots, I think it's the best way to do it.

Wasn't that what they were meant to do with this one? Maybe they are I dunno.

The guy makes some good points, but it is still studios being lazy whichever way you cut it. We notice 'bad' CG because when movies are so CG orientated it's more jarring and takes you out of it. They didn't need to make the gate CG, but they did because it's significantly cheaper than building a gate. It doesn't matter how good the CG is on it it'll still never touch the original. There's so much less of a blend now, we need more District 9 and less The Hobbit.

Cheap and lazy.

[Red_Irishman]

See, you can tell from this on-set photo that they used a fake T-Rex, because it's just happily milling around the set with the crew, minding it's own business. They probably fed it loads of catfood or something, because it isn't acting aggressive, it seems quite docile actually.

A real T-Rex would have ate loads of people and wrecked shit and stuff.

Maybe they trained it?

[Snail]

Wasn't that what they were meant to do with this one? Maybe they are I dunno.

The guy makes some good points, but it is still studios being lazy whichever way you cut it. We notice 'bad' CG because when movies are so CG orientated it's more jarring and takes you out of it. They didn't need to make the gate CG, but they did because it's significantly cheaper than building a gate. It doesn't matter how good the CG is on it it'll still never touch the original. There's so much less of a blend now, we need more District 9 and less The Hobbit.

Cheap and lazy.

Everything should be more like District 9. Cracking film.

[ncred]

I believe the new Star Wars film is going to rely a lot more on models (obviously combined with some CGI)

[Carllfc]

Really looking forward to this movie. The original was one of my childhood favourites.

[Mouth]

The original was one of my childhood favourites.

People who keep saying stuff like that can fuck off

[Macphisto80]

The T-Rex CGI in the original is still head and shoulders above everything in this trailer.

On a technical level, it's nowhere near. There were a lot of smoke and mirror elements involved in the original film concerning the CGI. It's really not as good as people are making out in contrast to this new film (or any modern film). What is good, or arguably better, about the original is the clever use of it. Also, resolutions of films these days are much higher than what they were 20 odd years back, and ironically that masked a lot of how bad the actual effects were (or how good they appear to be) and exposes a lot of CG these days for what it is, but not in all cases, and it really depends on what's being rendered. You'll notice the best looking shots in the original were at night, and for good reason. The lighting is less complex, and any irregularities in animation and compositing aren't as noticeable. The same thing will apply to any modern film.  Those during the day, including the most famous shot of the revealing Brachiosaurus, now look a bit ropey, although still pretty decent, but you can see how it isn't quiet seated correctly compared to the rest of the image, and the animation is a bit jarring in retrospect.

The complaints of this being a CGI shitfest are a little unfair to be honest. It's not exactly as if the makers of films like these have stock footage of an actual T-Rex to study, now is there? If it weren't for CG in the first place, certain films wouldn't exist, including this one and it's forebear's.

[Macphisto80]

I believe the new Star Wars film is going to rely a lot more on models (obviously combined with some CGI)

Some? Believe me, the majority of that film was be CG based visuals.

People shouldn't be under the conception that CGI is both lazy and cheap, either. It's neither. CGI is just another art form, like practical VFX are just a different art form, and has it uses in certain contexts also, but it's also extremely limited, and it's biggest bugbear and negative for studios? It's time consuming and costly. Time is money. For example, if a studio wanted a shot in a certain time period within a budget, then building a practical model, then have something go wrong with that model, be it's design or something else,  would set the film back or put it on hold until the problem could be fixed. Inside a computer, you don't have that issue. You can break something down in seconds, and start again, although the cost is in man hours spent paying people with the skills to do it, and then having other teams in other areas to get it looking acceptable in the final product. It's like a factory conveyor belt. The issues in CGI arise when someone from one department fucks something up or does it shoddy, and further down the line it only gets noticed when it's actually on the screen. There's too many separate elements that all have to be gotten right by different teams working on different aspects, in a set amount of time. It's just safe, and formulaic, and that's why you see less and less of the practical stuff in favour of the quick and dirty CGI solution. The money men pull the strings on that, not the artists.

[Haemoglobin]

^ I wouldn't deny the talent and technical chops involved in creating a CG spectacular, but I do have issues with its lazy (over-)use in modern film.

Aside from lacking that sometimes-vital sense of something being there that a smart mix of practical fx and CGI can provide (such as the original's absolute showstopper of a T-Rex introductory scene), I have massive problems accepting the motion of most CG creations - it's just too smooth. They really need to work on that, because detailed lighting effects and textures have come a hell of a long way in recent years, but that's still a bugbear for me. Not only that, but I hate seeing the same CG schtick done over and over in films, like how a monster always roars straight into the screen directly at the audience for instance. It's just done so similarly in so many flicks, not just using that gimmick itself but the way it always moves, like they're just copying something they think works almost exactly, doing what they believe people think looks cool almost by default, but it annoys me when I see it.

The most impressive CGI for me always has a lovely subtlety about it, and also tries to do things a little differently, and just that adventurous artistic effort alone seems to impart more character into it all, for me. And then of course there's the use of it that's so seamless I'm not even aware it's CG - I've always got to doff my cap to that. But that's too few and far between in mainstream filmmaking, I'd argue. The 2011 remake of The Thing for example welshed on most of its promises, and its visual fx ended up being a mess but for a few nicely-done bits.

[Flaccid Bobby Fowler]

On a technical level, it's nowhere near. There were a lot of smoke and mirror elements involved in the original film concerning the CGI. It's really not as good as people are making out in contrast to this new film (or any modern film). What is good, or arguably better, about the original is the clever use of it. Also, resolutions of films these days are much higher than what they were 20 odd years back, and ironically that masked a lot of how bad the actual effects were (or how good they appear to be) and exposes a lot of CG these days for what it is, but not in all cases, and it really depends on what's being rendered. You'll notice the best looking shots in the original were at night, and for good reason. The lighting is less complex, and any irregularities in animation and compositing aren't as noticeable. The same thing will apply to any modern film.  Those during the day, including the most famous shot of the revealing Brachiosaurus, now look a bit ropey, although still pretty decent, but you can see how it isn't quiet seated correctly compared to the rest of the image, and the animation is a bit jarring in retrospect.

The complaints of this being a CGI shitfest are a little unfair to be honest. It's not exactly as if the makers of films like these have stock footage of an actual T-Rex to study, now is there? If it weren't for CG in the first place, certain films wouldn't exist, including this one and it's forebear's.

The Triceratops in the field was day time, the brachiosaurus on the hill & the sneezing scene was day time, the look down on to the plains with all the different types of dinosaurs was day time, the Gallimimus run and subsequent T-Rex hunt was day time and probably one of the best shots of the film, all the raptor scenes including the baby Raptor hatching were day time or in good light (not night time) if i recall and the final raptor T-Rex was day time too.
The only night time shots were the introduction of T-Rex and the following chaos when the cars broke down and then the spitting Dilophosaurus.
I think your doing a massive disservice to say the best shots were at night time.

[eddymunster]

The Triceratops in the field was day time, the brachiosaurus on the hill & the sneezing scene was day time, the look down on to the plains with all the different types of dinosaurs was day time, the Gallimimus run and subsequent T-Rex hunt was day time and probably one of the best shots of the film, all the raptor scenes including the baby Raptor hatching were day time or in good light (not night time) if i recall and the final raptor T-Rex was day time too.
The only night time shots were the introduction of T-Rex and the following chaos when the cars broke down and then the spitting Dilophosaurus.
I think your doing a massive disservice to say the best shots were at night time.

You can add to that the raptor kitchen scene, and I think his point spot on. Those three scene you list are in my opinion the best visuals of the dinosaurs in the film, and the ones that have held up the best over time.

I absolutely agree that the day time shots are starting to look more obviously CGI now than they did, which is much less evident in the shots in more limited light.

Also, were the triceratops & sneeze not done with models for the close-ups? And the latter was at night I think (or at least fading light).

The beginning of the scene where you see the brachiosaurus rising above the trees before the sneeze is starting to look a little dated now.

[Macphisto80]

The Triceratops in the field was day time, the brachiosaurus on the hill & the sneezing scene was day time, the look down on to the plains with all the different types of dinosaurs was day time, the Gallimimus run and subsequent T-Rex hunt was day time and probably one of the best shots of the film, all the raptor scenes including the baby Raptor hatching were day time or in good light (not night time) if i recall and the final raptor T-Rex was day time too.
The only night time shots were the introduction of T-Rex and the following chaos when the cars broke down and then the spitting Dilophosaurus.
I think your doing a massive disservice to say the best shots were at night time.

I think you didn't read what I was saying properly. Those that were shot during the day stood out the most as obvious CG with all it's flaws. The ones at night looked much, much better, and I explained why. Also, that Triceratops was a scale model, not CG.

[Macphisto80]

^ I wouldn't deny the talent and technical chops involved in creating a CG spectacular, but I do have issues with its lazy (over-)use in modern film.

Aside from lacking that sometimes-vital sense of something being there that a smart mix of practical fx and CGI can provide (such as the original's absolute showstopper of a T-Rex introductory scene), I have massive problems accepting the motion of most CG creations - it's just too smooth. They really need to work on that, because detailed lighting effects and textures have come a hell of a long way in recent years, but that's still a bugbear for me. Not only that, but I hate seeing the same CG schtick done over and over in films, like how a monster always roars straight into the screen directly at the audience for instance. It's just done so similarly in so many flicks, not just using that gimmick itself but the way it always moves, like they're just copying something they think works almost exactly, doing what they believe people think looks cool almost by default, but it annoys me when I see it.

The most impressive CGI for me always has a lovely subtlety about it, and also tries to do things a little differently, and just that adventurous artistic effort alone seems to impart more character into it all, for me. And then of course there's the use of it that's so seamless I'm not even aware it's CG - I've always got to doff my cap to that. But that's too few and far between in mainstream filmmaking, I'd argue. The 2011 remake of The Thing for example welshed on most of its promises, and its visual fx ended up being a mess but for a few nicely-done bits.

I wouldn't say that the animation is "too smooth". It's actually the opposite, or slightly more complex than that, but you are right in saying that it has to do with movement, and that's the biggest hurdle currently in CGI, and one that won't get better any time soon. It might improve a little, but Moore's Law isn't progressing at a rate that's high enough for CPU power to be enough calculate the minutiae in animation of organics that's required to trick your brain into believing it's real. A ray trace engine can render a single image and you'll be absolutely convinced it's real, but it's when it moves, and it's in the tiny little details of that movement. I think the best I've seen so far is Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. It's really, really close, but not quiet there yet.

[macca888]

I do appreciate some of the thought some of you are putting into your posts about the effects, production values, expert critiques etc.

But for fucks sake eggheads, lighten up. It's a fucking dinosaur movie and it's going to be fucking stupendous. Life doesn't get much better than a big bag of Butterkist, a bottle of Friji strawberry milkshake, a bag of Galaxy Counters (Revels at a push) and 90 - 120 minutes of pure escapism with a Dinosaur film. Certain films are there and need to be critiqued, but a Dinosaur adventure/thriller/horror? Nah, not for me. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is. If you've got kids, nieces or nephews, take them with you and try to watch it through their eyes or just pretend that you're 14 again. Suspend criticism, reality and belief, and watch on in amazement. I can't wait. Fuck it, if they remade Star Wars with Spinosaurus as the Emperor and a Diplodocus as Hans Solo, I'd be waving my cash at the FACT tills.

[Mouth]

The effects will be awesome

[[new username under construction]]

The effects will be awesome

HEY! IF YOU'RE GOING TO POST SCARY THINGS, POST A GOD DAMN WARNING!!!!!

[macca888]

The effects will be awesome

You know what though mate, that still looks better than Sharknado on the Syfi channel.

[Macphisto80]

You know what though mate, that still looks better than Sharknado on the Syfi channel.

Sharknado is a masterpiece of cinema.

[eddymunster]

I do appreciate some of the thought some of you are putting into your posts about the effects, production values, expert critiques etc.

But for fucks sake eggheads, lighten up. It's a fucking dinosaur movie and it's going to be fucking stupendous. Life doesn't get much better than a big bag of Butterkist, a bottle of Friji strawberry milkshake, a bag of Galaxy Counters (Revels at a push) and 90 - 120 minutes of pure escapism with a Dinosaur film. Certain films are there and need to be critiqued, but a Dinosaur adventure/thriller/horror? Nah, not for me. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is. If you've got kids, nieces or nephews, take them with you and try to watch it through their eyes or just pretend that you're 14 again. Suspend criticism, reality and belief, and watch on in amazement. I can't wait. Fuck it, if they remade Star Wars with Spinosaurus as the Emperor and a Diplodocus as Hans Solo, I'd be waving my cash at the FACT tills.

I feel the same to be honest, but it's called Frijj.