|
Steve2911 posted:The CGI is pretty bad too. Taken apart from anything else, the Jurassic World gallimimuses are clearly more detailed and "realistic" than the Jurassic Park ones. I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to argue the point, because it's immediately obvious just from looking at the two screenshots side-by-side. Parachute posted:What the gently caress are you even saying? LOL. CineD: the only forum you can successfully troll merely by talking substantively about its subject. SMG's gimmick could be ten times more effective than it already is if he just started posting literal excerpts from Intro to Film textbooks.
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
I think I understand where you're coming from, but maybe that particular scene was not meant to evoke the same emotions in JW than it did in JP.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Jurassic World CGI looks like some SYFY original movie garbage in comparison with the original Jurassic Park. Its plain as loving day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Jurassic Park CGI looks like some SYFY original movie garbage in comparison with the original Jurassic World. Its plain as loving day. ftfy
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
Yeah like anyone's gonna trust someone who's vision is so poor they can't even see that Bernie Sanders doesn't stand a chance. The CGI is Jurassic World is some of the worst in the past 10 years put to the silver screen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Jurassic World CGI looks like some SYFY original movie garbage in comparison with the original Jurassic Park. Its plain as loving day. Nah.  Jurassic World has better models, and the motion blur doesn't have that weird 90s look a lot of older CGI motion blur has. Jurassic Park's just a better movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Yeah like anyone's gonna trust someone who's vision is so poor they can't even see that Bernie Sanders doesn't stand a chance. The fact that I can see that is why someone bought this for me actually.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
That image immediately proves my point: Jurassic World's CGI is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Motion blur in Jurassic Park/World/poo poo things makes me think of this (info on second one is in the desc here).
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You mean like one of these? Ahhhh your giant t-rex has a bent tail from the box too!
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 02:54
|
|
Holy poo poo, Tim, I don't think that's very safe!
|
I always wanted the T-Rex that ate people. That's the coolest feature a dinosaur toy could have.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:That image immediately proves my point: Jurassic World's CGI is garbage. That skin next to the 1993 label looks more real to you? How?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Taken apart from anything else, the Jurassic World gallimimuses are clearly more detailed and "realistic" than the Jurassic Park ones. I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to argue the point, because it's immediately obvious just from looking at the two screenshots side-by-side. Well yes, it was made 22 years later.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
As someone who saw the original Jurassic Park in theatres in 1993 at the age of 8, I loved Jurassic World because it made me really loving wish the theme park from the movie existed and I got a tear in my eye during some scenes. I want to be splashed by a Mosasaurus, damnit! Best decision this series made was to kids like me wanting to see an actual theme park with dinosaurs instead of people running away from dinosaurs in the jungle for 2 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:As someone who saw the original Jurassic Park in theatres in 1993 at the age of 8, I loved Jurassic World because it made me really loving wish the theme park from the movie existed and I got a tear in my eye during some scenes. I want to be splashed by a Mosasaurus, damnit! Best decision this series made was to kids like me wanting to see an actual theme park with dinosaurs instead of people running away from dinosaurs in the jungle for 2 hours. What's extra funny is I'd been piecing together a 4th Jurassic Park movie pitch for years, and right from the get-go I wanted it to feature a fully-functional park. I'm confident I even posted it in one of the myriad Jurassic Park threads on these forums at one point or another several years ago. I had a good time posting my pitch idea on some of the more prominent Jurassic Park fan messageboards, and I'd get die-hard fans saying "your idea is dumb, they'll NEVER make a movie with a fully-functioning park!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:LOL. CineD: the only forum you can successfully troll merely by talking substantively about its subject. I think in the past SMG did a really good job of exploring themes from films but now any large thread invariably involves him coming in and starting a huge argument. Like him constantly saying "Chastain" earlier just to make people respond and correct him.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
I think my favorite part of JW was when BD Wong was all like "none of these are real dinosaurs!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I think my favorite part of JW was when BD Wong was all like "none of these are real dinosaurs!" My favorite part was when he basically said, "gently caress the audience we got our cash. We out." I'm not even joking that was the best part of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:You mean like one of these? I kinda feel sad I sold all my Jurassic Park toys because they were cool as poo poo. The new Jurassic World toys are just poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:Nah. The CGI is absolutely better on every conceivable technical level, but I have to admit that I found myself thinking "this looks kind of fake" more often when watching JW than I did watching the original JP. Part of that is certainly just because there's a lot less CGI in the original, so there were less opportunities for the CGI team to mess up. But besides that, I think a lot more care was put into the original's use of CGI, because Spielberg knew that it was a new technology and for the movie to work it had to be absolutely seamless. So there was a lot of careful framing, making sure that most of the CGI shots were in low light conditions where the viewer was less likely to notice flaws, etc. Nowadays a big-budget movie can throw in a ton of CGI anywhere and as long as enough money is available the result will look at least passable, so filmmakers are a lot less careful with how and where they use it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Even in the big bright light centre-of-stage-shots... look at the lighting and contrast on that Brachiosaur. It might be technically worse, but it looks better because of how the scene is constructed, the background and colouration picked, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I think my favorite part of JW was when BD Wong was all like "none of these are real dinosaurs!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:That part was great because it's straight out of the first book, and it's a really succinct and easy way to handwave any "scientific inaccuracies" in the movie (like the lack of feathers). It also serves a 3rd role in being a part of how slippery and evasive he is. It's a great little line that does so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Taear posted:Like him constantly saying "Chastain" earlier just to make people respond and correct him. A joking reference to real confusion among viewers, which offended some posters so greatly that one suggested a new forum rule to ban it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
They shouldn't have given her the Jessica Chastain haircut.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Toady posted:A joking reference to real confusion among viewers, which offended some posters so greatly that one suggested a new forum rule to ban it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Since I've been to Disney World several times; All I could think when they closed down the rides in JW was, look at these scrubs waiting out in the hot humid tropical sun instead of heading back to the hotel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Quixotic1 posted:Since I've been to Disney World several times; All I could think when they closed down the rides in JW was, look at these scrubs waiting out in the hot humid tropical sun instead of heading back to the hotel. I was under the impression they were waiting for more ships to show-up because the island was in full evacuation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Justin Godscock posted:I was under the impression they were waiting for more ships to show-up because the island was in full evacuation. I thought it was after all ride closures, but before the evacuation orders were given. I wouldnt be caught dead in the open if there was an evacuation order on dinosaur island park. Then again maybe a lot of the visitors are only day visits and leave the island at night to sleep off resort for cheaper like people do for the disney parks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The "joke" ended when he did it in literally every post, despite people correcting him. It's about as funny as the M Night "joke", which is to say it's actually not funny and there's a rule against it for good reason. Who cares what someone calls a character in Jurassic Park 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
kiimo posted:I guess my point is if this is the new thread that you're going to come in and poo poo up I'm out of here. This is the loudest "What? Mom and dad aren't getting divorced! Shut up" post imaginable. I love it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:The "joke" ended when he did it in literally every post, despite people correcting him. It's about as funny as the M Night "joke", which is to say it's actually not funny and there's a rule against it for good reason. Making fun of someone for kind of looking like someone else is actually a lot less objectionable than making fun of someone for having a foreign last name.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:22
|
|
|
Parachute posted:What the gently caress are you even saying? While we can contrast the presentation of specific dinosaurs, it's also important to look at the themes. The scene of the Gallimimuses moving "like a flock of birds evading a predator" is reenacted in Jurassic World with different species: the Pteranodons and the Iranosaurus. Or, rather, JW provides an amalgam of that scene and the psychologically fraught 'birdcage' scene in JP/// (where the boy initially mistakes the pteranodon for his mother(!), and then the birdlike reptile-mother tries to feed him to a nest of her babies). Now, for many, the scene in Jurassic World is held up as, at least, the second best scene in the movie. But I don't think it's very well-shot. Take this, for example:  That's the exact moment where Zara is grabbed. Someone paid enough attention to this frame to include the dimorphodon, in the bottom center of the frame, trying to bite her hand as she gestures and exasperatedly asks at the boys to 'hold still for once'. A shot like this should tell us something about the characters. Since Zara and the boys barely speak, it's necessary to look at how their relationship is visualized - and you can see that they did that here, to an extent. Simply picture the shot before the CGI was added overtop. You have the older boy grabbing his brother and protectively bracing himself away from Zara, who is isolated from the rest of the crowd. She is presented like an unknowingly repulsive monster, which perhaps explains why the kids were running away from her.  The CGI is added overtop of this scene to visualize the kids' reaction to this character. You have the smaller creature being drawn towards her hand, and the larger creature pulling her away from the smaller one. So the horror is that of 'getting what you desire' - the brother wants the babysitter dead, but is horrified to see it actually happening With this in mind, the shot is not doing a great job of expressing all this. It's there on paper, but it's an ugly-looking shot - and not horror-ugly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
Toady posted:Who cares what someone calls a character in Jurassic Park 4.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I get that your "gimmick" is to be a discount low-rent SMG-wannabe, but that doesn't mean you also need to defend his every action as if it's your life's one true calling. Sometimes SMG does retarded poo poo, and it's okay to recognize that. Actually, It's a lot loving better if you just put him in your ignore list and don't bother reading/quoting his posts so any thread he posts in isn't littered with "SMG is dumb". Seriously, if you or anyone else find SMG's posting annoying, just ignore him. It takes like two seconds. SuperMechagodzilla posted:While we can contrast the presentation of specific dinosaurs, it's also important to look at the themes. The scene of the Gallimimuses moving "like a flock of birds evading a predator" is reenacted in Jurassic World with different species: the Pteranodons and the Iranosaurus. Or, rather, JW provides an amalgam of that scene and the psychologically fraught 'birdcage' scene in JP/// (where the boy initially mistakes the pteranodon for his mother(!), and then the birdlike reptile-mother tries to feed him to a nest of her babies). I rather read things like this (which is good) a thousand times over reading someone complaining that it's not. Happy Noodle Boy fucked around with this message at 02:42 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
weekly font posted:My favorite part was when he basically said, "gently caress the audience we got our cash. We out." The people on their cell phones in the audience didn't realize they were antagonists in this movie. It was great. (I mean real people in the theater audience.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Saw this the other day and while I wasn't very thrilled by the whole thing I was struck by the idea that the whole movie seems to be made up of really obvious commentary on the idea of franchise revitalization and difficulties of making a summer blockbuster. Things like: Zach/Gray-The kids feel like they represent two dreaded kinds of audience the autistic and the disinterested. Both are too young to care about the original franchise but the movie/park is effectively made for them because they are the demographic. Parents -If the kids are the audience then their parents are the studio interference. Embroiled in their own affairs, mostly phoning up making demands while not actually helping anything. Claire-Auntie Upper Management/Director. Sometimes the hero, sometimes the villian, mostly making the wrong decisions but central to everything. Owen- The tough working man thats getting the job done. Representative of the crew perhaps? The people that do the actual work to make a movie. The real heroes of the story. Masrani- The money. Important but mostly full of optimism and bad ideas. Hoskins-The mercenary type that comes in and forces through their one bad idea that they are sure is going to save everything. -Dr Wu's argument that you keep asking for more teeth and claws, effectively a bigger scarier monster, but without the behavior, feels a lot like a nod to the we want sex, blood, and action but still make it PG13 thing that comes up a lot. -At one point the kids literally fire up a nostalgia-mobile and use nostalgia as a vehicle. -The final showdown at the end tells you everything you need to know. The original was better. And Jaws, jaws was better too. -iRex's indiscriminate killing of everything it finds feels a bit like a commentary on how a blockbuster is supposed to work. Killing off all competition when its released. Honestly there's lots more there but I feel like I'm rambling a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
quote:I think the problem with the shot is that because it chooses to be a jump scare of her suddenly being picked you never get a focus/emphasis on what is picking her which is the culmination of her bosses' failures. It's not exactly that it's a jump-scare; it's that she's yanked out of the 'real world' and into the realm of fantastical horror-violence. Ignoring the CGI creatures again, for a moment. If we were to really abstract the scene down to its basic components, you can imagine the character being instantly teleported - in the span of a cut - from the middle of a bustling crowd to the infinite expanse of the sky. When you have that kind 'teleportation' in a film, it's a sort of metaphorical link: from her perspective, reality is dissolving. The ground beneath her, and the buildings around her vanish into thin air - then the air itself disappears. That's what I was saying before, when I said that the appearance of the pteranodons stands for the final breakdown of the virtual universe of the park. Zara is unplugged from the matrix, so to speak. The actual creatures just give it some specificity - linking her death to the masculine aggression of the older kid and the 'animalistic' bachelor party. The question is less 'why did she have to die so brutally?', and more 'why didn't anyone else?' The answer is that the brothers have learned to love eachother, Pratt and Chastain have learned to love eachother, and they recoil from these disgusting visions of themselves. In a straightforward way, the power of family prevents their universe from breaking down. You're absolutely right, though, that Chastain is ultimately to blame, and 'the power of family' becomes an excuse for righteous violence against the diabolical, anti-harmonious iRex (wasn't it originally called the Diabolus Rex?). It's a scapegoat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 05:18
|
|
|
Tellah posted:This is the loudest "What? Mom and dad aren't getting divorced! Shut up" post imaginable. I love it. Are you familiar with SMG? He's very good and he's very smart but he dissects movies until you know longer even know how to feel, like a robot repeating the word incongruous until it loses it's meaning forever. Then you think holy poo poo I'm not reading this movie correctly, as if you ever thought about "reading" a movie but then you go back and you re-watch The Phantom Menace and hey guess what it's still just as big of a huge pile of poo poo as you remember. He's always been nice and he never gets mad but dammit he'll stay in this thread and pull up off the wall references until you are convinced you now hate the thing you enjoyed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:You're absolutely right, though, that Chastain is ultimately to blame, and 'the power of family' becomes an excuse for righteous violence against the diabolical, anti-harmonious iRex (wasn't it originally called the Diabolus Rex?). It's a scapegoat. Anti-harmonious? She literally devours her only family.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:17
|
|
