|
paradoxGentleman posted:The only way I am watching Ted 2 is if someone bodily drags me into a cinema showing it and ties me to a chair, but I think I get your meaning. It's nowhere near as good as Ted 1, true. quote:I didn't know there was such a subset of JP fans, though. Plenty of people in this thread, including the twits who're doing the tactical realism thing (safari canoe, so unsafe!!!!!).
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:It's nowhere near as good as Ted 1, true. It's not a question of quality, I just refuse to give Seth MacFarlarne my money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:I actually don't think it actively hates anyone. It definitely ribs the particular subset of fans that Just Wanted To See A Working Park at every opportunity, though. It's not a subversion of that. The film begins with the characters pointing out the product placement and poo poo. It begins with the parents' marriage obviously over, and it begins with the dinosaurs being mistreated. The one good joke is that everyone is reading Malcolm's book, yet they're still doing this stuff. The 'subversion' comes during/after the pteranodon scene, where the film moves into ironic product placement, ironic sexism, ironic family values and so-on. Nothing has actually changed, but it's 'self-aware'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I don't get the squeamishness about this, you went to a Jurassic Park film. You expect to be entertained see people being eaten by dinosaurs. hemale in pain posted:I thought it was really funny Yeah, I'll be clear here, I laughed too because I'm a weird sicko who likes horror and stuff like that, so I'm not squeamish or offended. It's just something I noticed because it was really tonally inconsistent. Like it comes after scenes where they've cut away from the I-Rex killing a bunch of military type security guys in self defense (in a total Predator homage, with the blood dripping from the trees above as the He-Men with guns are stalked by a camouflaged beast) - not that they necessarily have it coming, but they're shooting at it. They didn't build up the pterodactyls to be such dangerous predators before that, or even when they escaped the aviary, but then that scene with the assistant hits. It was so drawn out and had major focus for a good minute or so of screen time that I'm surprised it existed in a movie like that and wasn't cut for rating purposes, so I was wondering what people thought of it or whether there was something cut about her character. Although overall I thought it was kind of a lovely movie that didn't take any risks, so if there was no subplot cut for her and it was really trying to show the audience a more grim reality, then that was the sole scene that tried to push it into a darker direction. If that's the case, it's weird that they made it so comical. Honestly if not for the studio's thrill-ride presentation having to appeal to a wider audience, an R-rated Jurassic Park movie could delve into some really nasty territory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:I actually don't think it actively hates anyone. It definitely ribs the particular subset of fans that Just Wanted To See A Working Park at every opportunity, though. Also the use of the theme was intentional and effective - in the first movie, the sweeping theme music was meant to indicate something novel and incredible: real live dinosaurs. That's not novel anymore since this is the fourth movie in the series. But the music signifies something that IS novel and incredible: thousands of happy people enjoying a functional dinosaur theme park.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Nothing about the filmmaking actually makes the park look impressive. It's a huge set, shot badly. And then, as just a bare concept, it looks pretty lame. I'd say it looks like a shopping mall, but the mall in Dawn Of The Dead looks like a more interesting place to hang out. In Jurassic Park, they put you in a SUV with a robot autopilot, give you night-vision googles, and play expert narration. There's a level of showmanship. Note how slowly the car travels through the iconic gate. It would be fun to strap yourself in a chair and watch a goofy cartoon before being taken on a guided tour through a genetics lab. With Jurassic World, it's like "'aight you're in a ball. You can roll the ball around. Go gently caress yourself." The monorail? It's pointless. Why is it even in the movie? The Mosasaur? You spend a bunch of time getting into the grandstands just to watch it jump once. In terms of architecture and design, Jurassic World is straight ugly - and that's crucial. Jurassic Park was about the entire aesthetic of the park. The dinosaurs aren't onscreen much in JP, but nobody cares because it's a great environment. They spend a huge amount of time in the car, so it makes a difference when the car is 'killed' in a drawn-out fashion. It's not some Ghostbusters ghostmobile bullshit; the green Explorers are treated like the trucks in Sorceror. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
I felt like I was SMG, watching this film. It spoke to me..
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Nothing about the filmmaking actually makes the park look impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
The park definitely looked unimpressive as poo poo in all the aerials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:11
|
|
|
It looks like a place where the only way to enjoy it would be to double fist 10 dollar margs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
a cop posted:The park definitely looked unimpressive as poo poo in all the aerials.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't mean to offend, but by any chance- Were you high?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
I was drunk. Not that you asked. But it helped!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
They can project a fully immersive and near-photorealistic 360 degree hologram the size of a brontosaurus, and they use it to show you what a dinosaur looks like. Bitch I know what a dinosaur looks like. I'm in jurassic park.  Basic concepts communicated in the second shot: concrete gate around the fossil-patterned mural. The doorway leads down, beyond the fossil, into an egg. Stylized beams of light emerge from the circle at the center of the egg. You touch the circle to enter. The thatched roof is faux-'primitive', like the instantly-recognizable font. Pushed to the side, almost offscreen: the workers and, on the bottom left, a little bird. In the first it, uh, sort-of looks like a volcano? SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 08:21 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:They can project a fully immersive and near-photorealistic 360 degree hologram the size of a brontosaurus, and they use it to show you what a dinosaur looks like. Ugh, I hate it when they just throw random impossible technology into movies supposedly set in-present-day to show how advanced :thing: is even though their advancement has nothing to do with that field. Why would Jurassic World have holo-tech? Then again, movies have been assuming that that kind of freefloating holo-tech is two years away for the past 30 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
I liked how the park looked, mostly because it looked exactly what a lot of modern day zoos and theme parks look like. Here's the obligatory row of restaurants and shops you have to get through before you reach any actual attraction. Here's the 'educational' attraction which is some kind of museum-like thing that mostly serves as air-conditioned filler until you're ready to hit the rides again. Here's the one big amphitheater attraction and the part for little kids.There's even a monorail to take you other sections because the whole thing is so big. The whole thing looks like the love child of Epcot and the Animal Kingdom, and that kind of makes sense. As poorly as it was handled, the movie was trying to be some kind of commentary on commercialism and entertainment, and so modeling the park after existing theme parks just adds into it. If you want to say that Jurassic Park is overly commercial and exploitative then you can't get that across any better than making the audience feel like they just walked into Disney.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
What SMG fails to consider is that rolling in a ball in a field full of dinosaurs is awesome, and watching the Mososaurs jump out of the water to eat a cow corpse is also awesome. I wasn't drunk nor high and I liked the park well enough. paradoxGentleman fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Ugh, I hate it when they just throw random impossible technology into movies supposedly set in-present-day to show how advanced :thing: is even though their advancement has nothing to do with that field. Why would Jurassic World have holo-tech? To set up the holo Dilophosaurus vs Raptor gag.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
a cop posted:I don't mean to offend, but by any chance- Were you high?  just living out a dream of had since I was 9, and loving every second of it. paradoxGentleman posted:What SMG falls to consider is that rolling in a ball in a field full of dinosaurs is awesome, and watching the Mososaurs jump out of the water to eat a cow corpse is also awesome. I went to Sea World for the first time last October, and Jurassic World felt like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Ugh, I hate it when they just throw random impossible technology into movies supposedly set in-present-day to show how advanced :thing: is even though their advancement has nothing to do with that field. Why would Jurassic World have holo-tech? I think it was there to show people were far more impressed with the technology and didn't really care that much about the real live dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 08:59
|
|
|
Confession time: I probably would have spent some time in the dinosaur petting zoo, feeding the baby dinosaurs 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:Confession time: I probably would have spent some time in the dinosaur petting zoo, feeding the baby dinosaurs 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:I think it was there to show people were far more impressed with the technology and didn't really care that much about the real live dinosaurs. Also for the scene where Claire walks through the hologram and totally ignores it. The dinos are just data to her. SuperMechagodzilla posted:They can project a fully immersive and near-photorealistic 360 degree hologram the size of a brontosaurus, and they use it to show you what a dinosaur looks like. The first is a homage to the original (conical "thatched" roof, blocky entrance with similar wings) but bigger, faker, shinier and missing the point of the original. It fits on perfectly with the rest of the film. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 11:28
|
|
|
If you weren't in awe of the park as the camera swooped over and the classic theme played then I honestly, without hyperbole, believe you are dead inside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:50
|
|
|
Vintersorg posted:If you weren't in awe of the park as the camera swooped over and the classic theme played then I honestly, without hyperbole, believe you are dead inside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 14:59
|
|
|
Bonk posted:Yeah, I'll be clear here, I laughed too because I'm a weird sicko who likes horror and stuff like that, so I'm not squeamish or offended. It's just something I noticed because it was really tonally inconsistent. Like it comes after scenes where they've cut away from the I-Rex killing a bunch of military type security guys in self defense (in a total Predator homage, with the blood dripping from the trees above as the He-Men with guns are stalked by a camouflaged beast) - not that they necessarily have it coming, but they're shooting at it. They didn't build up the pterodactyls to be such dangerous predators before that, or even when they escaped the aviary, but then that scene with the assistant hits. It was so drawn out and had major focus for a good minute or so of screen time that I'm surprised it existed in a movie like that and wasn't cut for rating purposes, so I was wondering what people thought of it or whether there was something cut about her character. Although overall I thought it was kind of a lovely movie that didn't take any risks, so if there was no subplot cut for her and it was really trying to show the audience a more grim reality, then that was the sole scene that tried to push it into a darker direction. If that's the case, it's weird that they made it so comical. Honestly if not for the studio's thrill-ride presentation having to appeal to a wider audience, an R-rated Jurassic Park movie could delve into some really nasty territory. It ignoring the kind of karmic rules of the rest series was what made it seem a bit weird. That was a death for a character you really want to see die, the kind of horrified catharsis you get from watching the fucker on the toilet get eaten after he abandons the kids and is a big idiot in the first JP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
It's also assuming the same contempt for personal assistants that you're meant to have by default for lawyers. Or, as has been pointed out, lots of characterization is missing. She's characterized as being distracted by her phone - well then, why doesn't that little teenaged fucker bite it, too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
It just struck me as out of place compared to all the other deaths. The closest you get to that is the Frankensaurus Rex chowing down on the fat guy next to Chris Pratt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:What SMG fails to consider is that rolling in a ball in a field full of dinosaurs is awesome, and watching the Mososaurs jump out of the water to eat a cow corpse is also awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
The building in the second shot is also given ziggurat-like architecture - all these images are part of telling what the park is about, and what Hammond's vision is like. In the first shot, it's just a stock 'big cool building'. It's like the creators don't know anything about telling a story beyond 'okay it's a big park and lots of people are there and it's cool'. With the original there was this ever-present sense of character to it - you were inside what is essentially one of Hammon's flea circuses, but with bigger strings. I don't like the lack of character. The first film was about the creative process, the desire to entertain, the inability to control nature, the simultaneous threat and power of new technology - this film appears to be about a big park.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
MikeJF posted:Ugh, I hate it when they just throw random impossible technology into movies supposedly set in-present-day to show how advanced :thing: is even though their advancement has nothing to do with that field. Why would Jurassic World have holo-tech? Because otherwise you wouldn't have the holo-dilophosaurus scene to escape the raptor. It pretty much exists only to stop the protagonists from dying. (Which is dumb considering they're cornered like 5 seconds after so the whole hologram could be skipped)
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
No one remembers Eddie Carr, it seems. The guy who went out of his way to save Ian Malcom and crew from falling off a cliff, and then was ripped in half by two T-Rexes. He didn't deserve that. That was just as bad, and loving gorier than eaten by 2 things lady.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Sure, but in cinematic terms he was an active participant in his death, putting himself directly at risk to do something heroic and go out heroically. Like, he was a big dork and Malcolm switches from kind of antagonistic to him to demanding the dismissive guy respects him post mortem. It's also around 10 seconds of screen time from him getting grabbed to swallowed, it's shot in dark lighting, and he probably dies when the dino flips him. Thats very different in terms of feel and tone to being suddenly grabbed and fought over for a minute with the camera right in her face showing her reaction to the whole thing, like, the kids don't even give a poo poo. How you frame a scene like this makes a huge difference to how it's perceived, and the two scenes are very different. Don't get me wrong, I'm not THIS MOVIE IS REVOLTING DON'T WATCH IT, I just found that scene quite out of place. ShineDog fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jul 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:No one remembers Eddie Carr, it seems. The guy who went out of his way to save Ian Malcom and crew from falling off a cliff, and then was ripped in half by two T-Rexes. He didn't deserve that. That was just as bad, and loving gorier than eaten by 2 things lady. That makes sense from a theme perspective since it shows nature just doesn't give a poo poo about the plight of people. Problem is that this isn't a man v nature movie. It's a man v. monster movie like Godzilla. Imagine a Japanese Godzilla movie where someone gets tossed overboard by Godzilla attacking Tokyo and then the movie spends a minute focusing on them as they get devoured by sharks. It'd be as out of place as this movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
I'm curious if some of the people complaining about how the park looks and all the corporate logos have actually been to a major theme park or zoological park in the past ten years. Hell, Disneyland has had corporate sponsorships of its attractions since the day it opened! Just about all parks have a major shopping and dining district now a days, Also, lol @ the guy who says cars on a track is cooler than a monorail.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
It's an easy mistake to make, sharks and cows look quite similar.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
It doesn't matter if the park is 'real' if it's shot like Megacroc vs. Sharkasaurus or something.Alucard Nacirema posted:I'm curious if some of the people complaining about how the park looks and all the corporate logos have actually been to a major theme park or zoological park in the past ten years. Hell, Disneyland has had corporate sponsorships of its attractions since the day it opened! Just about all parks have a major shopping and dining district now a days, Like this guy: "monorails are fuckin badass, right!" Except there isn't a single cool shot - let alone a cool scene - involving the monorail in the entire movie. Making a monster movie in a setting with a big train, and then not including a fuckin train-attack sequence, is unconscionable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Like this guy: "monorails are fuckin badass, right!" Except there isn't a single cool shot - let alone a cool scene - involving the monorail in the entire movie. Making a monster movie in a setting with a big train, and then not including a fuckin train-attack sequence, is unconscionable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr0R8CI6fTA
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 07:07 |
|
|
Fuckin right!
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2015 18:14
|
|