Jurassic World (SPOILERS!)

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
...they should have had a huge zoom in ....


1084369_o1.gif
 
I would have liked to have seen an animatronic T-Rex used but no scene of her in the movie required it to be as it was fast paced fight scenes. The I-Rex and raptors would have been the only dinos that could have gone the animatronic route however I was impressed with the I-Rex CGI, especially during the close up scenes, which in the past would have used an animatronic. The raptors would have benefitted from more practical use, during the day scenes anyway.
The Apatosaurus scene was well done using the animatronic, it felt like a living (well dying) animal.

:goodpost::lecture

I was also going to point out that for the amount and type of screen time the Rex had, there was no way it would have been needed to be animatronic. All that money and resources for what? 2 insert shots? No thanks. I think they took the right path. They easily could have used ALL cgi for ALL dino's. I think it comes down to movement as well. Even the best animatronics are a bit..clunky when trying to mimic fast movements.

I do like that they mo-capped the Raptors though so they'd all move a little differently.
 
I can tell the difference between the two. With ease. For my money, practical effects just look better than digital 9 times out of 10. Look at the legendary practical effects used in John Carpenter's The Thing from 1982 compared to the hideous CG-laden "effects" of The Thing remake from just 2011. One aspect of the problem is that the motion picture studios are conscious and envious of the big money that video games are making these days. They are increasingly pushing for visual effects in their films to more closely resemble video game animation, in an effort to draw in the younger gamer crowds. Why do you think all the remaining great makeup men are struggling or retiring?

I don't hate CGI. I think it has a place and a practical application that can be very effective when used appropriately. My problem with CGI is it has become the go-to tool of lazy filmmaking. The artistry and majesty of creating effects and creatures practically is time consuming, so most modern filmmakers can't be bothered with it and instead outsource the job to pixel pushers months after the cameras have rolled to fix it for them. I'm sorry, but this doesn't impress me.

I watch plenty of films, and judge them based upon their own merits. Pacific Rim was an excellent example of a film that blended practical and digital effects as needed. The cockpits, sets, and smaller creatures were all real, while all the massive stuff was digital. Mad Max: Fury Road, while primarily awesome practical stunts, utilizes some digital to enhance what the cameras had first captured. Practical is real, it has weight and heft and it informs actor performances and catches the cinematographer's lights and shadows, right there on the set. It should always be considered before turning to cartoons. Guillermo del Toro once said that CGI should be the punctuation, not the sentence. I agree with his sentiments exactly.

Jurassic World took the lazy route. No effort was made to blend practical with the digital, unlike it's predecessors, and given that the story also sounded mediocre, I concluded that it's not worth my time or money.
:goodpost: I love watching all the behind the scenes fx stuff from older movies. An amazing craft is slowly dying.
 
:goodpost: I love watching all the behind the scenes fx stuff from older movies. An amazing craft is slowly dying.

God, I love the behind the scenes stuff. I hate the glossed over 5min long (if you're lucky) 'featurettes' now - part of why I've switched to digital. I love Jackson's in depth documentation of his flicks though. Hell, I even bought the King Kong Production Diaries.

And touching on Del Toro, the Blade II DVD actually sticks out in my mind with having killer/in depth stuff on the practical fx.
 
I saw this in 3D so everything including the humans looked surreal... but that's the best way to view this movie: in a heightened state of exaggeration

James Cameron said a year or two ago that all films with CG creatures/characters should be watched in 3D because of the equalizing effect of the format. While I don't necessarily agree on that straight across the board I see where he's coming from. You get accustomed to the not-quite-totally-realistic three dimensions that both human and CGI appear in and can buy in to them interacting with each other easier.

I used to scoff at post converted 3D but like you I'll never choose the 2D JP1 again if given the choice.
 
I saw the ending on youtube. King Kong 2005 redux. If that's the highlight, I think I'll live without.

I can't help but find it amusing that of the six people who didn't like this movie, five of them have Batman related avatars. Yes, Star-Lord is kicking ass, get over it. You ARE allowed to enjoy actors from the MCU in other films, you know. :lol
 
Here's my take on CGI (which of course is the correct one, so get out your pens and papers.)

If you have the choice of doing something real or CG, meaning you have a design that 100% can be created and operated practically, then I want practical. Lurtz, as designed, never needed a single second of CGI. However, if you have a creature or character that has movement or features that require CGI, then I pretty much want that thing to be full CG always, in every scene. I don't want Gollum CG 80% of the time while they try and get cute with a real guy in a loin cloth the other 20%. And I always notice the one shot of the stuntman wrapped in tin foil when Arnold is fighting the T-1000 and gets his arm stuck in the gears.

I can just pretty much always tell when they're shifting from animated to real and it always takes me out of the moment a little bit. If used VERY sparingly (like the Raptor breathing on the kitchen window or the T-Rex foot coming down in the mud) then it isn't so bad. But even in JP1 I get distracted by the back and forth. When the T-Rex is stomping on the overturned Explorer and biting the tires I'm always thinking, "holy crap! That T-Rex is going to town!" but then when Grant and Lex are sitting motionless in front of the full size animatronic, I can't help but KNOW that suddenly we're looking at a big robot that can't really chase them if they ran. At the end when Grant kicks the ladder away from the ceiling and that full size animatronic Raptor looks at it it's so obvious that its swooshing tail has barely any range of motion and that his claws don't seem to be positioned just right. With CGI, I just go with it.

That's why Peter Jackson never made a big fake Kong hand for Naomi Watts to sit in. He didn't want people watching the movie going ("CGI, puppet, CGI, puppet, CGI...") he wanted them to see a CG creature and then accept it and look at him as just another character from that point on.
 
I can't help but find it amusing that of the six people who didn't like this movie, five of them have Batman related avatars. Yes, Star-Lord is kicking ass, get over it. You ARE allowed to enjoy actors from the MCU in other films, you know. :lol

I'm not even sure what point you're attempting to pursue here.

I think Chris Pratt is great. I'm all for him as Indy and I loved Guardians, a film which incidentally had a wonderful blend of practical and CG effects. So I grew up reading Batman comics, this has absolutely nothing to do with my preference of practical over digital effects. Nice stretch, though.
 
CGI, animatronics, Pratt, Batman and so on...but JW is still a good movie! :D

If people are watching crappy videos on YouTube I highly recommend seeing it on the biggest screen possible. I know some think the final fight is over the top but it really is a great and heroic scene. :rock
 
I was at Best Buy picking up Spirited Away on blu-ray and I saw that Avatar 3D was on sale so I decided "what the hell" and picked it up.

Watched it last night. Wow, I felt like it was my first time really seeing it since the theater in 2009 (and it was also the first time I'd watched it at all since around 2011.)

It's too bad that this movie has the stigma that it does, because it really is a solid movie experience. Pandora really does come alive in 3D too. I admit that some of the "tree hugger" stuff was still a chore to sit through but it's too bad that the #1 all time box office and Best Picture nomination have put so many people off the film. If it just got some technical nominations and was maybe #2 in box office behind Transformers Revenge of the Fallen that year I think people would look at it as a respectable comeback for Cameron that would be fun to revisit from time to time.

I must admit that the whole sequence where Jake is taking out the shuttle and Dragon gunship is still pretty damn spectacular.

I also couldn't help but be reminded of some moments that seemingly influenced Jurassic World. I had forgotten that Jake jumps off the waterfall right as the Thanator snaps its jaws behind him. Hmm, I feel like I've seen that recently. :lol Also the winged creatures taking out the helicopters and door gunners was also something that we saw in JW.

So JW definitely tapped into that well. Next time I watch the finale of JW where Blue and the Rex are charging Indominous together I might even be tempted to think "Ewya has heard you Owen, Ewya has heard you...!!!" :D
 
Back
Top