|
uh they're discussing a director's reaction to a clip of the film, seems relevant enough e: oh haha you're the guy from the Star Wars thread who wanted a seperate thread for cinematography and subtext discussion because it was getting in the way of how cool the x-wing was. friend, if you want to talk about your battle damage triceratops, go ahead
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 10:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:As much as I dislike Whedon's other work, Firefly is entirely about people who know the world they live in is fundamentally hosed up but who are tempted to give up on ever trying to change it for the better. Neither it nor Dollhouse are presenting their settings as ideals, or good ideas ruined by a few bad eggs. Not at all. Even if I'm wrong about this, it still doesn't really contradict my point about Inara. I don't see the Companions being presented as anything other than a good idea. The questions it raises about 'poor' prostitution go unanswered and unaddressed, rendered completely invisible, and I view this as a failure - especially for a show that has pretenses of not shying away from dark stuff. We're told that there's this horrible quite seedy Universe - but we fixed prostitution and that's all fine now! Check out this strong female character who is a prostitute and it's a really good job! A feminist version of Firefly would address this, or ask deeper questions of the profession and its place in society than having Mal occasionally semi-jokingly call her a whore.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Take your sticky ruffled feather crap away from my childhood perception of scaled badass monsters. No this isn't a alien uprising stop thinking poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
I like both dinos with feathers and dinos without. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
I want to see a feathered raptor use stability flapping while kicking the poo poo out of a dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Yeah but one doesn't have anything to do with the other so I can't fathom why you'd bring it up??? I think the poster is saying that you like stupid poo poo and that your opinion is subject to scrutiny because you like stupid poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I want to see a feathered raptor use stability flapping while kicking the poo poo out of a dude. I want a callback to JP1: Try to imagine yourself in the Cretaceous Period. You get your first look at this "six foot turkey" as you enter a clearing. He moves like a bird, lightly, bobbing his head. And you keep still because you think that maybe his visual acuity is based on movement like T-Rex, he'll lose you if you don't move. But no, not Velociraptor. You stare at him, and he just stares right back. And that's when the attack comes. Not from the front, but from the side-mounted M60E3 7.62mm machine guns you didn't even know were there. Because Velociraptor's a hunter, you see, he uses coordinated attack patterns and he is out in force today. And he shoots at you with this...A four-ball (M80) and one-tracer (M62) mix, allowing him to use the TOT method of adjusting fire to achieve target kill. He doesn't bother to bite your jugular like a lion, say... no no. He shoots at you here... or here... or maybe across the belly, spilling your intestines. The point is... you are alive when they start to eat you. So you know... try to show a little respect.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:As opposed to Alien: Resurrection, which also significantly references Jurassic Park, but squanders the possibility of telling the story of an intrepid young woman who finds out that a feminist icon has been genetically re-engineered by a faceless corporation to be part rape-monster. Yeop. Alien Resurrection reminds me of nothing so much as Steve Shaviro's analysis of Splice, where he notes that the film is grimly anti-apocalyptic because: "rather than moralistically warning against the dangers of experimentation beyond socially acceptable limits, Splice suggests that such experimentation itself works to return to and reinforce those limits, so that it is inherently disappointing. Indeed, we are never imaginative enough." -Shaviro, "Splice" The question is, with the cloning technology that's apparently available in Alien 4, why build a Ripley? And once she exists, imbued with superpowers, why does she use them to do nothing but restage the last two films in a way that seems increasingly strained and desperate? I'm talking about leading a crew of wisecracking mercs, nuking all the bad aliens, and so-on. All this familiar stuff serves to distract from the simple fact that the 'good' mercenaries have helped kidnap and enslave a group of random people, who are turned into aliens. In a very straightforward way, the aliens in the film represent these rebellious poors who - like Whedon's "Zomneys" - have been pushed past that certain threshold, and have become too intolerable to exist. So: while Ripley 'forgives' the mercenaries, she ensures that the aliens are cleansed from the Earth. The radical Elysium-style solution - Ripley allying with the drones against all the bad humans - is completely foreclosed. Her threat to the proto-Firefly idiots amounts to violent snark. And that brings us back to Jurassic World, because - as with Splice - Pratt's character is a "science-superstar ... with boho-hipster sensibilities and a rebellious streak", a "living, walking embodiment of a sort of nerd chic, that has become one of the myths of contemporary society [...] always arguing with their corporate overlords, who want to see something profitable now; whereas they demand creative freedom in their research, which they unconvincingly claim will pay off for the company in the long run. We are given a familiar opposition — Creatives vs. The Man, or entrepreneurial initiative vs. corporate/bureaucratic fossilization — which will be thoroughly deconstructed in the course of the film." Of course, we actually get this imagery of Pratt allying with the velociraptors. But we should be very careful in interpreting that fact: does the alliance with the raptors represent a sort of radically new egalitarian community, or is it the spectacle of pseudo-revolution?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Have you written about Splice? Because I want to see your thoughts on Splice (man, that movie is super hosed up)
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 02:03
|
|
|
Art Alexakis posted:I think the poster is saying that you like stupid poo poo and that your opinion is subject to scrutiny because you like stupid poo poo. Except it's not because one has no bearing on the other, and it's a logical fallacy if you think it does. Nah, given the poster's sweet red custom title and rap sheet, it's much more likely he was going for a cheap shot than any sort of thoughtful critique of what was being said.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Splice is fuckin' dope.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Except it's not because one has no bearing on the other, and it's a logical fallacy if you think it does. How does one thoughtfully critique "I HATE FEATHERS FEATHERS ARE STUPID"
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Sir John Feelgood posted:They're called Velociraptors because they're fast. holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:How does one thoughtfully critique "I HATE FEATHERS FEATHERS ARE STUPID" Do you ever stop and think Dinosaur would taste like chicken? Man that poo poo is delicious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 05:20
|
|
|
SirDrone posted:Do you ever stop and think Dinosaur would taste like chicken? Man that poo poo is delicious. More like six-foot turkey. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:How does one thoughtfully critique "I HATE FEATHERS FEATHERS ARE STUPID" There's plenty to say about feathers and why they are/aren't in the movie. Aside from me personally thinking they look drat retarded, one could make the claim that in the modern "Jurassic World" park, armed with modern knowledge of dinosaurs and that some of them had feathers, the park's geneticists must have consciously decided to manipulate the dinosaurs so they don't have feathers. Perhaps they wanted the dinosaurs to fit what the public "expects" them to look like, as a means of mass-market appeal. Undoubtedly that's literally the reason (or at least part of the reason) why the filmmakers opted to not have feathered dinosaurs in the movie. The dinosaurs as portrayed in the first movie are so ingrained in the public consciousness that that's what people expect dinosaurs to look like, so any deviation from it seems "wrong". Hell, I can't even imagine a T-rex roar sound effect other than the Jurassic Park one. Any other roar just sounds wrong to my ears, and we're talking about an arguably "fictional" sound that no human ears have ever heard. It's akin to changing the hum and whirr of a Star Wars lightsaber, it would instantly sound out of place. I'm wondering if the movie will address it, even with a throwaway line of dialogue from Dr. Wu or whatever. It would tie back to some of Wu's dialogue in the Crichton novel, where he talks about altering the dinosaurs in order to make them more manageable, or make them fit public expectations, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets brought up as "baby steps" in dinosaur DNA manipulation that led up to the creation of the hybrid dinosaur thing that wreaks havoc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Literally anything other than what you posted. They're not dinosaurs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Literally anything other than what you posted. Everything you wrote here has to do with the thought processes of the filmmakers. Your post said nothing about the filmmakers and everything about your own reaction. "Aside from me personally thinking they look drat retarded" is the entirety of the post I originally responded to. There is nothing else to respond to in that post. Hopefully these short sentences pay off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:They're not dinosaurs. Like yeah they're already man-made genetic hybrids, but for the purposes of the park's appeal to the public (both in the first movie and in Jurassic World, not to mention the real life audience watching the movies) they're essentially dinosaurs brought back to life. People wouldn't go to Jurassic Park to see genetic monsters that happen to look like dinosaurs, even if that's literally what they are. Visitors would want to be convinced that they're seeing dinosaurs, even if they have to lie to themselves to do it. Same thing applies for the movie audience, unless it's thematically appropriate for the movie to demonstrate otherwise. Jurassic Park 3 touched on it when Grant calls the dinosaurs theme park monsters and genetic freaks, but it's like 1 throwaway line of dialogue and then the movie does nothing with it - it's immediately back to "HOLY poo poo LOOK AT THESE DINOSAURS EATING PEOPLE" for the rest of the movie. Jonah Galtberg posted:Everything you wrote here has to do with the thought processes of the filmmakers. Your post said nothing about the filmmakers and everything about your own reaction. "Aside from me personally thinking they look drat retarded" is the entirety of the post I originally responded to. There is nothing else to respond to in that post. Hopefully these short sentences pay off.  vI mean I guess we can put my post in the past and you can actually respond to the filmmaker discussion I've since brought up and you can contribute to the thread like a big boy if you'd like. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Can you elaborate on that? They're theme park attractions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:They're not dinosaurs. Um, yeah they are. Grant calling the dinosaurs theme park monsters is 80% anger that Ingen has destroyed his profession, 20% sperg/geek elitism at thinking some trivial bit of information matters, even if it doesn't to anyone else. A dinosaur where some small percentage of its DNA was replaced with something else is still a dinosaur. Remember Grant's scene in 3 how quickly he loses the audience when he tries to steer away from Ingen Dinosaurs and towards Old Dinosaurs. Nobody gives a poo poo about the Old Dinosaurs. In the world of this movie series, Dinosaurs exist, and they live on an island that you can take trips to. The 60 year old ranting about how they aren't real dinos is as valid as someone kvetching that MP3s aren't real music. MisterBibs fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:They're theme park attractions. Are the animals in Sea World any less animals because they're attractions in a theme park? MisterBibs posted:Um, yeah they are. If we're venturing into genetic tampering, surely there's a threshold where a creature stops being what it originally was. It especially comes up in fiction when we're talking human-animal hybrids (The Fly, Island of Dr Moreau, Splice, etc) but I don't see why it couldn't apply to all animals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:A dinosaur where some small percentage of its DNA was replaced with something else is still a dinosaur.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
tetrapyloctomy posted:A human where two percent of its DNA was replaced was something else is still a ... chimpanzee? No, it'd still be a human. Especially if the only other human beings have been dead for 50 million years, making the actually-its-this stuff nonsensical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
The animals in Jurassic Park are dinosaurs, technically, that also bear little resemblance to their prehistoric counterparts. Although he was trying to be as authentic as possible, the only way Hammond could possibly confirm that he 'got things right' was by cross-referencing with fossil records. He could make some guesses based on existing animals (like frogs), and maybe take some inspiration from paleoart, but the skeletons are really all he'd have to go on. From the book "All Yesterdays", here's a paleoartist's rendering of an animal, based on its fossilized skeleton:  This animal is a type of bird, known as a 'swan'.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
I think Grant is also very bitter by the time of JP3 because he has become the "I went to an island filled with genetically engineered dinosaurs" guy and that's all everyone asks him about instead of all his hard work he has done in the field for years before and after the events of Jurassic Park.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The animals in Jurassic Park are dinosaurs, technically, that also bear little resemblance to their prehistoric counterparts. Nightmare fuel, right there. Also, swans are assholes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I want to see a feathered raptor use stability flapping while kicking the poo poo out of a dude. Raptor doing the Liu Kang bicycle kick on a dude.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
wdarkk posted:I want to see a feathered raptor use stability flapping while kicking the poo poo out of a dude. quote:The reptile let out a slow velociraptor cackle. It sounded like a raptor, but in her heart she knew it wasn't. In that instant, she completely understood the concept of a raptor that was not a raptor. This looked like a raptor, like most of the Mud People's raptors. But this was no raptor. This was evil manifest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Um, yeah they are. Xenomrph posted:Go on. N-no? They're things that have been created to be used in a theme park. Their aggression or lack thereof, their look, their size (especially Velociraptor which is loving huge compared to the actual dinosaur), their intelligence. All has been created in a lab to provide the "most fun" (approachable for herbivores, scary for carnivores) attractions possible. If Sea World used genetic sequencing to make dolphins speak english and do your taxes then it would be more comparable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:N-no? They're things that have been created to be used in a theme park. Their aggression or lack thereof, their look, their size (especially Velociraptor which is loving huge compared to the actual dinosaur), their intelligence. All has been created in a lab to provide the "most fun" (approachable for herbivores, scary for carnivores) attractions possible. Where is this stated from an objective source? The closest thing to this being true is in the books, and its the polar opposite outcome: the JP staff suggested more Theme Park modifications to the dinosaurs to be seen (more demure, slower, less violent), and Hammond puts the kibosh on it. The gimmick of the new movie is that they've only just recently started making dinosaurs that never really existed in the past. That wouldn't be a thing, in-universe or not, if they weren't making as-real-as-possible dinosaurs in the first place. In-universe, the dinosaurs don't have feathers because they just didn't, and the only difference between them and the prehistoric ones is that they can change sex if they need to. Out of universe, they haven't changed because most of your audience isn't going to accept giant birds tromping around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:N-no? They're things that have been created to be used in a theme park. Their aggression or lack thereof, their look, their size (especially Velociraptor which is loving huge compared to the actual dinosaur), their intelligence. All has been created in a lab to provide the "most fun" (approachable for herbivores, scary for carnivores) attractions possible. I mean, I agree with you more than I disagree with you, but a lot of that stuff isn't on the screen, it's us as viewers cobbling together meaning out of a lot of disparate elements and filling in holes. Also, those Stegos in TLW were not at all approachable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Except it's not because one has no bearing on the other, and it's a logical fallacy if you think it does. Oh no, I definitely see your point. I just am playing devins advocate about the fact the whole liking stupid poo poo thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
....but they're lizards...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:N-no? They're things that have been created to be used in a theme park. Their aggression or lack thereof, their look, their size (especially Velociraptor which is loving huge compared to the actual dinosaur), their intelligence. All has been created in a lab to provide the "most fun" (approachable for herbivores, scary for carnivores) attractions possible. If the filmmakers wanted to take the "scientific accuracy" route they could have picked a different dinosaur of the appropriate size, but "velociraptor" has a really great ring to it, sounds cool as heck, is easy to market, and even easier to abbreviate ("raptor"). Beyond that, we don't really know what sort of genetic tampering was going on, intentionally or otherwise. I don't think their intelligence or aggression was messed with at all - even before Grant knows Jurassic Park exists, he's scaring children by telling them how smart raptors were. Art Alexakis posted:Oh no, I definitely see your point. I just am playing devins advocate about the fact the whole liking stupid poo poo thing. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Peanut President posted:(especially Velociraptor which is loving huge compared to the actual dinosaur) Crichton got the size right, he just used the wrong name. The "velociraptors" in the book are most likely based on Achillobator giganticus:  The species hadn't been officially classified yet, and so one of the reference books Crichton was using simply referred to it as being an exceptionally large variety of velociraptor. But these things look like they could gently caress you up, even with feathers: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:27
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Crichton got the size right, he just used the wrong name. The "velociraptors" in the book are most likely based on Achillobator giganticus: I can't remember if it was during the making of the book or the movie (likely the movie), but in the documentary I watched as a kid they specifically said that there was some hand-wringing over the size of the raptors, but fate was kind and someone discovered Utahraptor at the time, and they basically said "This is the size of our raptors".
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 04:41
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:I can't remember if it was during the making of the book or the movie (likely the movie), but in the documentary I watched as a kid they specifically said that there was some hand-wringing over the size of the raptors, but fate was kind and someone discovered Utahraptor at the time, and they basically said "This is the size of our raptors". I think it was just recently that some fan noticed that one of Crichton's sources actually did make reference to a giant species of velociraptor from Mongolia, which fits perfectly with their description in the book. So, in hindsight, that's probably where Crichton got it from. It seems like a pretty big coincidence otherwise. Utahraptor was discovered after the movie raptors were already designed based on their description in the book, but the filmmakers did jokingly treat it as a vindication. The ones in the movies are actually too small to be Utahraptor, though. The movie versions are kind of all over the place. They can't really be said to be any particular kind of actual dinosaur. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 06:14 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
I'm certain we've had the feather discussion before. It's a moot point for this film, but dinosaurs had many variations of feathers. There's no reason a fictional T. rex must look flamboyantly homosexual (which is what fans are actually afraid of). They can look strange and alien:  Or have a more familiar appearance:  Dinosaurs in today's children's books have feathers. I believe the website for the new film explains the lack of feathers; perhaps it will even get mentioned in the film. As for whether or not the creatures in the film are dinosaurs, they're certainly not genuine ones. The lysine contingency is mentioned in the film despite having no effect on the plot, to drive the point that they are artificial mutants. Sickly and stressed, they spontaneously change sex because of junk DNA from non-dinosaur species. The books delve more deeply into this, especially the (underrated) second one, which uses Site B as a thought experiment about the social behavior of these organisms. The raptors become antisocial and chaotic, starving their own young. The film adaptation draws the opposite conclusion of the book, that Site B is a natural lost world to be preserved and not a manmade freak show with an overabundance of prion-infected predators (modern society and its conformity to self-destructive beliefs in the era of mass media). Lost World is like Hannibal, a sequel foisted upon the author whose message was overlooked in the hype and disappointment. Toady fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Toady posted:flamboyantly homosexual (which is what fans are actually afraid of).  Are you saying that people who don't like feathered dinosaurs are closet homophobes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2015 10:30
|
|