|
GORDON posted:Speaking of the toys, I saw that a bunch of them had the "JW" corporate logo tattooed/grown into their skin.... did the dinos in the movie have that? It seemed especially prominent on the iRex toy, but I don't remember noticing it in the flick. Movie no but the original Jurassic park toys from the 90s also had the JP corporate logo on them
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
I know practical effects would have been absolutely impossible, but good lord do I miss giant animatronics and exploding miniatures. Fury Road has left a giant, dusty, semi-truck shaped hole in my heart that ten-thousand Dreamworks-rear end dinosaurs could not fill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 6, 2015 12:21
|
|
|
I liked this dumb movie. I went with my mum because she wanted someone to go with and I couldn't help smile during the really silly dinosaur fight which felt like a kid smashing his toy dinosaurs together. The call backs to Jurrasic Park worked on me too. Script was poo poo and the weird criticism of marketing, merchandising and romantic subplots was fun but so out of place. Felt like someone making the movie secretly hated it. OMG JC a Bomb! posted:I know practical effects would have been absolutely impossible, but good lord do I miss giant animatronics and exploding miniatures. Yeaaaaa CGI was weak in parts and worst of all uneeded. I know this was done on the cheap but couldn't they have gotten some animatronic raptor heads? The only time I thought it was super super distracting was with the pterodactyls though. hemale in pain fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Jul 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
I found the most egregious use of CGI was when the boys go to the new visitor center and see the Holo-Saurapod thing. The camera focused to much on a hologram, as if it was a majestic display of the parks wonder. And then of course the kid goes bonkers on all the little info-slabs as if looking up basic facts is much more enjoyable than the living feats of creation that are on a tour.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Yeaaaaa CGI was weak in parts and worst of all uneeded. I know this was done on the cheap but couldn't they have gotten some animatronic raptor heads? The only time I thought it was super super distracting was with the pterodactyls though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Watched it again at the drive-in this weekend. I hope I never get to a point in my life where I don't smile when watching a Raptor riding a T-Rex into battle against a genetically engineered monster dinosaur.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Gaj posted:And then of course the kid goes bonkers on all the little info-slabs as if looking up basic facts is much more enjoyable than the living feats of creation that are on a tour. In my experience, this is true to real life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Worth pointing out that apparently anytime it was a straight closeup of a raptor head, that actually was an animatronic. The best examples are when the Raptors are in the head-cage things, or when the Raptor puts its head through the bars after Owen saves the rookie from the attack. For real? I could of sworn that looked very much like CGI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 09:46
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:For real? I could of sworn that looked very much like CGI. Edit-- http://www.filmdivider.com/3596/first-look-at-an-animatronic-jurassic-world-raptor/ That's the first link I found on a quick google search, but I know I saw it elsewhere. Xenomrph fucked around with this message at 12:59 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 12:41
|
|
|
I never know what anyone is talking about when they say that the CGI sucks or does not look real. It looked fine to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I'll have to find where I read it, but yeah apparently those were animatronic. The thing which really stuck out to me was how awkward it looked when he touched them like his hand wasn't really making contact. I wonder if they used models but CGI'd over them like in the Thing prequel. But yea, could of been real I guess. I'll keep an eye out when it comes to TV or is put up on netflix.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:I never know what anyone is talking about when they say that the CGI sucks or does not look real. It looked fine to me. Basically everything in a modern movie is CGI, and therefore looks bad, and is therefore bad CGI, and therefore looks bad, and will never match the glory days of animatronics and stop motion and getting children and stunt people and stunted children killed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
The CGI did look pretty bad though? Like during the pterodactyl attack. It's frustrating as some of it was good like with the Raptors but then they must of ran out of budget for other scenes.
hemale in pain fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Jul 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
I have no way of rewatching the movie right now, but I don't remember noticing anything odd. To be' fair I am not the most observant person around so I could gphave missed it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
I was wondering how they got the Raptors' heads in the little head cages. We all know how smart they are and after they got put in the cages once they would know to not fall for that trick again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ruby idiot railed posted:Basically everything in a modern movie is CGI, and therefore looks bad, and is therefore bad CGI, and therefore looks bad, and will never match the glory days of animatronics and stop motion and getting children and stunt people and stunted children killed. Also, everything always literally (literally) looks like a cutscene from a PS1 game. I can't wait until the next great special effects innovation comes along, and people pine for the days when good ol' CGI was artisanally crafted by living human beings, rather than automatically generated by soulless AI bots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:I have no way of rewatching the movie right now, but I don't remember noticing anything odd. To be' fair I am not the most observant person around so I could gphave missed it. It just looked like butts to me and like they were trying to cover up the bad CGI with fast camera movement and motion blur. Cnut the Great posted:Also, everything always literally (literally) looks like a cutscene from a PS1 game. I can't wait until the next great special effects innovation comes along, and people pine for the days when good ol' CGI was artisanally crafted by living human beings, rather than automatically generated by soulless AI bots. But practical effects do look better than CGI?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:But practical effects do look better than CGI?  
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Both are fake looking. One just needed a better job done on the eye which a bigger budget than a mere 7 million could have easily done, and the other cost way more money to only barely look any better and still looks off. But ultimately we know it's fake anyways. Like I said in the Jurassic World thread, we've gotten to the point where we know something isn't real no matter how its done. Practical effects are easier to work with and make look real, CGI can do more things, a blend of the two would be ideal but is unlikely anymore. It's part of what made T2 and the original Jurassic Park look so good, the blending of practical and CGI. Ultimately now, it's pretty much just preference. Do you prefer practical or CGI? Because soon there won't be too much of a difference. Hopefully.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
"Barely look any better." Hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Burkion posted:Both are fake looking. If it wasn't implied that the second one was CGI I'd have assumed it was a photograph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
GORDON posted:I was wondering how they got the Raptors' heads in the little head cages. We all know how smart they are and after they got put in the cages once they would know to not fall for that trick again. Most zoo animals are trained to go into particular cages/areas where they can then be checked or sedated if needed for vet check-ups. I imagine raptors would not play that but since Owen can train them to do games he can probably train them to put their heads in the devices.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:For real? I could of sworn that looked very much like CGI. hemale in pain posted:
Taken in concert, it's clear that you didn't think that particular effect looked "real", despite it literally being real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
The effects in the original Jurassic Park still look great for the most part because they were used sparingly and appear in a much more competently shot movie. It was also before the age of excessive color filtering in action movies where everything has this otherworldly blue tinge to it. When you have floaty cam zipping around with no sense of weight or depth to the scene, it's very easy for a viewer to lose their suspension of disbelief and think to themselves "oh okay, this was obviously done by a computer." It's also a lot easier to be nitpicky when the movie itself is really bad (JW) instead of good (JP).
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:The effects in the original Jurassic Park still look great for the most part because they were used sparingly and appear in a much more competently shot movie. It was also before the age of excessive color filtering in action movies where everything has this otherworldly blue tinge to it. When you have floaty cam zipping around with no sense of weight or depth to the scene, it's very easy for a viewer to lose their suspension of disbelief and think to themselves "oh okay, this was obviously done by a computer." It's also a lot easier to be nitpicky when the movie itself is really bad (JW) instead of good (JP). The blend of practical and CGI also helped JP a lot. There are some shots where it's hard to tell, notably with the T-Rex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:The CGI did look pretty bad though? Like during the pterodactyl attack. It's frustrating as some of it was good like with the Raptors but then they must of ran out of budget for other scenes. I may be wrong, but it doesn't seem like movies run out of budget for CGI, it seems like they run out of time given the hectic post production schedules I hear about constantly. I also want to know how often bad CGI is the result of directors overruling the guys in charge of CGI production.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:I never know what anyone is talking about when they say that the CGI sucks or does not look real. It looked fine to me. The scene where the kids jump off the waterfall to avoid the iRex is the first thing that comes to mind. The iRex was too obviously pasted onto the scenery and the shot's framing highlights its lack of depth compared to the set. It looked like the kids were running from a matte painting as opposed to a giant monster which totally undermines the suspense (read: the entire point) of the scene. I don't know how it's possible to get any sense that anyone's in danger in that scene. Maybe it works in 3D, I only saw it in 2D, but the fact remains that the shoddy CGI ruins an entire sequence of the movie. I can't speak for anyone else but that's what I mean when I say the CGI sucks in this. I'd have to see the movie again to focus more on the overall quality of the CGI itself but when the direction and editing work against the CGI by emphasizing its weaknesses, complaints about the CGI sucking are inevitable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
In 3D in that scene the iRex's jaws come out of the screen and eat your face. It was awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
kiimo posted: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. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Burkion posted:The blend of practical and CGI also helped JP a lot. There are some shots where it's hard to tell, notably with the T-Rex. The best example of that is when the T-Rex is chewing on the tire of the car the kids are trapped in in the T-Rex escape sequence of Jurassic Park. Once you know the car is CGI you can easily tell, but until it's pointed out there is nothing to make you question it is a real object.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Pretty much all CGI is composited onto physical objects to one degree or another. It's just that for about ten years or so we've been at the point where you don't have to do insanely elaborate hybrid blocking schemes (like creatures and things changing from real to CGI to partially real from shot to shot) simply because the CG tech isn't quite there yet. CGI from 10+ years ago doesn't look that good anymore, but there are indy movies with CGI that would have been impossible 15 years ago and even movies that are not filled with giant action sequences often have a certain amount of CG work done because the alternative isn't practical or even possible (Zodiac springs to mind). People who continue to whine about CG looking weightless and fake are generally starting to sound like old grandpas except in the most egregious cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 06:57
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:I'll have to find where I read it, but yeah apparently those were animatronic. The look of the raptors was changed in post, so actually any time you see their heads it's CGI painted over this animatronic. There eyes were made larger and there snouts thicker, which is why whenever anyone is touching them their hand doesn't seem to be making proper contact. Oddly they kept the practical I-Rex head in several shots despite also changing the design of that design in post, so that you have a model which only passingly resembles what we see in the majority of the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 07:25
|
|
|
The CGI was okay. Not perfect, but nothing ever is nor will be unless you're as exacting as Stanley Kubrick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 07:45
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:The look of the raptors was changed in post, so actually any time you see their heads it's CGI painted over this animatronic. Wait any part of the IRex was an animatronic? Fooled me. I really only wish they'd dragged the OG TRex anamatronic out for that final scene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Didn't it rot to pieces?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
  Leaving aside differences in the dramatic effectiveness of the shots (the T. rex one is clearly far superior), I think this is an instructive comparison. Other than the comparative lack of "true" physical presence in relation to the second, the first one is more lifelike in every way. Muscles move under the skin, the tongue flops around, the cheek flaps vibrate from the force of the sound coming out of the dinosaur's mouth. These are all things that more closely mimic "reality" than does the T. rex animatronic. Some people place an (IMO) inordinate amount of value on the one solitary category where the animatronic manages to edge out the CGI. And, in the grand scheme of things, the perceptive difference isn't really that massive, given that we're comparing something that is actually physically there to something that is basically a cartoon. The thing is, both dinosaurs are totally, completely, 100% fake in every way that actually matters. They're both just illusions. The I. rex isn't real, and neither is the T. rex. You couldn't actually reach out and touch the T. rex, because it's just a big puppet made out of rubber. It's all about suspension of disbelief. What we have here is a vocal contingent of people on the Internet whose pathological inability to suspend their disbelief for CGI has come to act as a cultural signifier for a worldview, one where you constantly pine for the good old days and bitterly reminisce about how great everything used to be back in the 80s and 90s before those damned idiot kids ruined everything. Jurassic World still wasn't a very good movie, though. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Seeing them side by side really is instructive. Even if the CGI one lacks "true" phisicality... well, who cares? How can you even tell or notice that, when in the flat universe of the screen the setting reacts as if it was real?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
This is why I keep saying it's really not a matter of quality, if the CGI is good enough anyways- it's a matter of preference. Great example- Godzilla 2014 VS the older Godzilla movies. Godzilla's CGI allowed him to be even more 'realistic' than ever, with fantastic subtle motions like breathing in that you can follow from his chest to his nostrils, that just cannot be done with the suit version of Godzilla. However it doesn't change the fact that you know both are fake as gently caress. Never once did Godzilla look real, in any movie. It falls down to what you would prefer to see. I like seeing actual props and animatronics and suits. My favorite kind of special effect is good stop motion. So I prefer suitmation Godzilla, much as I prefer the animatronic T-Rex. Can't speak for others though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
We're talking about a guy who was able to make a giant shark movie into a record breaking blockbuster hit when he didn't even have a working giant shark to use for like 90% of the shoot. Very few directors have the ability to shoot big special effects techniques like animatronics in a seamless way, its not that surprising that nobody's really been able to reproduce what Spielberg did in JP. Edit: Definitely agreed that the issue comes down to a personal preference, usually based on what you grew up with. For instance I'm a complete sucker for matte paintings but its not like I'm going to get into arguments with anyone about how much better matte paintings are than real scenery. Its just an aesthetic that I happen to enjoy for various subjective reasons. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 06:07 |
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:The look of the raptors was changed in post, so actually any time you see their heads it's CGI painted over this animatronic. Cheers for clarifying. I must admit I never noticed the I-Rex being a practical effect at any point so that's cool. paradoxGentleman posted:Seeing them side by side really is instructive. It's really obvious and I care however lame that is. Do you think it would make no difference if Fury Road used CGI instead of cars? Instead it used CGI to improve the practical effects. CGI is fine. Original Jurrasic Park used it so I would be a huge dumb hypocrite to say it sucks and I enjoyed the final CGI battle between t-rex and i-rex buuut come on practical effects are cooler. hemale in pain fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:51
|
|