Jurassic World Dominion: trailer

[Brian G Turner]

Looks like they may actually be trying to wrap up this franchise, with a direct connection to the original:

However, why is is that the original Jurassic Park special effects still seem superior to anything that's followed?

 

[CupofJoe]

Now, that I may actually watch!

 

[BAYLOR]

I loved the first first film , The second and third, not so much. The current Franchise has nothing to offer except dino action sequences and a bunch of one uninteresting one imensional characters. Im not sure bringing back the original characters for this next installment will be much of an improvement.

 

[Rodders]

I lost interest in this Franchise a long time ago.

 

[Toby Frost]

As someone who loves dinosaurs, I just wish they'd do a straight adaptation of the original novel, together with long discussions about the ethics of genetics interspersed with the occasional disemboweling.

 

[BAYLOR]

As someone who loves dinosaurs, I just wish they'd do a straight adaptation of the original novel, together with long discussions about the ethics of genetics interspersed with the occasional disemboweling.

One of my favorite scenes in the first film, was when the Hunter stalking the Raptor forgot his own rule about the dangers of hunting Raptors . Its not the Raptor you see which is the danger , It's one sneaking up on you that you don't see.

 

[Toby Frost]

"Clever girl."

For me the problem with the films is that they're aimed at children. I completely understand why this has been done - my younger self would have loved Jurassic Park - but that does mean that some of the more interesting technical and ethical elements were left out. There's a discussion between Henry Wu and John Hammond in the book about making dinosaurs slower that feels quite fundamental to what it's saying, but isn't visually exciting. For some weird reason I find the idea of how to look after imaginary and extinct animals quite interesting.

 

[.matthew.]

For some weird reason I find the idea of how to look after imaginary and extinct animals quite interesting.

For some weird reason that made me think of the Futurama episode on the primate planet with the animals running into the holo fence.

 

[Please Be Nice]

Looks like they may actually be trying to wrap up this franchise, with a direct connection to the original:

However, why is is that the original Jurassic Park special effects still seem superior to anything that's followed?

Nostalgia may be the reason. And Jeff Goldbloom. To someone with an eye for effects the magic was gone after the first viewing. hybrid animatronics and 90s cgi just doesn't hold up. The modern films use the hybrid method of cgi and puppets and look fantastic. The light sliding off the creases in the raptor skin is magnifique.

 

[Please Be Nice]

One of my favorite scenes in the first film, was when the Hunter stalking the Raptor forgot his own rule about the dangers of hunting Raptors . Its not the Raptor you see which is the danger , It's one sneaking up on you that you don't see.

If you prefer the book then read the book. 100% adaptation is literally not the intent or design of adapting, hence the word adapting.

 

[BAYLOR]

If you prefer the book then read the book. 100% adaptation is literally not the intent or design of adapting, hence the word adapting.

The only book ive ever read by Michael Crichton is Sphere.

I have no idea how close the film is to the book in terms of adaptation.

 

[CupofJoe]

Another Trailer...

or two

 

[BAYLOR]

Another Trailer...

or two

Hopefully, those CGI Dinos will get best actor considerations.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I just wish they'd do a straight adaptation of the original novel

I was reading the Wiki page on the 2nd Jurassic World film, and apparently there was an attempt in that to cover more of the original book's content.

 

[SilentRoamer]

Looks like they may actually be trying to wrap up this franchise, with a direct connection to the original:

However, why is is that the original Jurassic Park special effects still seem superior to anything that's followed?

I watched a Youtube video about this.

Basically the original film had very few shots of CGI in the total runtime. Lots of animatronics etc which meant that the teams working on CGI had a lot more time to cover a lot less. Which means lots of frame by frame checks as opposed to AI and processing power.

and

are really interesting watches and explain far better than I ever could.

I agree with you 100% about the CGI nowadays (not just on Jurassic park but many other big blockbusters)

 

[KGeo777]

I started to dislike Hollywood fx movies after Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I feel that film was the high mark before story content began to noticeably drop. I didn't feel satisfied anymore with the films that were fantasy-driven.

Terminator 2 disappointed me--and while the FX in Jurassic Park amazed me--the cgi*--the story and characters did not. I was underwhelmed.
There was something feeble to them. Nedry and Ian Malcolm were the most energetic characters, the rest were kind of bland.
I liked the sequels better. The Lost World had Pete Postlethwaite and the third movie had the best overall story. Alan Grant was given much more to do and his character had an arc. The ending was a little cheap.

I haven't bothered watching the sequels beyond clips but while the cgi texturing is better than in the earlier movies--it is terrible in other ways. Poorly choreographed. The opening scene for this latest movie is so poorly designed. You just have random shots of dinosaurs and then a big close up on a sleeping one--then the T-rex appears--there's no build up of suspense--and much of their little fight is happening in close up.

It just does not have any excitement.

The big difference in CGI animation today is that when they did the first 2 JP movies (and Starship Troopers), they used stop motion animators to do it. They employed a mechanical device (it looked like a dinosaur made of Lego with wires on it) that would transfer puppet movements to the digital model. After The Lost World, they switched to hand drawn animators--who did not have the same experience with animal motion--and then they switched again to motion capture. Humans running around on a stage and they transfer that to the digital model---and it just is not going to work since a 6-foot human does not weigh as much as a 30-foot dinosaur would.
On the original Jurassic Park they were conscious of how heavy a big animal would be when moving around--especially since they were also matching it to the animatronic ones.

* I was not amazed by the animatronics in Jurassic Park because it wasn't such an advancement compared to the CGI yet watching the behind the scenes of the T-rex more recently--is much more impressive to me. The movements in the movie were very controlled and muted--but when you see the actual puppet moving around without that rigid control--it is impressive how real it looks.

 

[BAYLOR]

I started to dislike Hollywood fx movies after Who Framed Roger Rabbit. I feel that film was the high mark before story content began to noticeably drop. I didn't feel satisfied anymore with the films that were fantasy-driven.

Terminator 2 disappointed me--and while the FX in Jurassic Park amazed me--the cgi*--the story and characters did not. I was underwhelmed.
There was something feeble to them. Nedry and Ian Malcolm were the most energetic characters, the rest were kind of bland.
I liked the sequels better. The Lost World had Pete Postlethwaite and the third movie had the best overall story. Alan Grant was given much more to do and his character had an arc. The ending was a little cheap.

I haven't bothered watching the sequels beyond clips but while the cgi texturing is better than in the earlier movies--it is terrible in other ways. Poorly choreographed. The opening scene for this latest movie is so poorly designed. You just have random shots of dinosaurs and then a big close up on a sleeping one--then the T-rex appears--there's no build up of suspense--and much of their little fight is happening in close up.

It just does not have any excitement.

The big difference in CGI animation today is that when they did the first 2 JP movies (and Starship Troopers), they used stop motion animators to do it. They employed a mechanical device (it looked like a dinosaur made of Lego with wires on it) that would transfer puppet movements to the digital model. After The Lost World, they switched to hand drawn animators--who did not have the same experience with animal motion--and then they switched again to motion capture. Humans running around on a stage and they transfer that to the digital model---and it just is not going to work since a 6-foot human does not weigh as much as a 30-foot dinosaur would.
On the original Jurassic Park they were conscious of how heavy a big animal would be when moving around--especially since they were also matching it to the animatronic ones.

* I was not amazed by the animatronics in Jurassic Park because it wasn't such an advancement compared to the CGI yet watching the behind the scenes of the T-rex more recently--is much more impressive to me. The movements in the movie were very controlled and muted--but when you see the actual puppet moving around without that rigid control--it is impressive how real it looks.

The stars of the films are the special effects , the actors are only along for the ride.

 

[KGeo777]

The stars of the films are the special effects , the actors are only along for the ride.

I feel the first one missed a golden opportunity. They could have done an open park with an Irwin Allen disaster movie approach--lots of tourists--more dinosaurs. They advertised it deceptively through merchandise--they had trading cards showing a triceratops kicking around a tourist jeep etc. I didn't expect to see a sick triceratops.
There's a lot of scenes of them sitting around in the jungle or base, and nothing of interest happening.
The Valley of Gwangi has more dinosaur scenes at 90 minutes than Jurassic Park has at 2 hours.

 

[BAYLOR]

I feel the first one missed a golden opportunity. They could have done an open park with an Irwin Allen disaster movie approach--lots of tourists--more dinosaurs. They advertised it deceptively through merchandise--they had trading cards showing a triceratops kicking around a tourist jeep etc. I didn't expect to see a sick triceratops.
There's a lot of scenes of them sitting around in the jungle or base, and nothing of interest happening.
The Valley of Gwangi has more dinosaur scenes at 90 minutes than Jurassic Park has at 2 hours.

Ive alway been a fan of those old films.


The cinema CGI extravaganzas that passes for entertainment gives me a greater appreciation of the sheer craftsmanship ,writing and imagination in such films as. Frankenstein , The Mummy , Thing to Come , The Day the Earth Stood Still, When Worlds Collide , Them , The Forbidden Planet , The Blob , War of the Worlds The Four Skulls of Johnathan Drake , The Seven Samurais , Godzilla, Them, Planet of the Vampires. Voyage across the Universe , Alien , The Forbin Project, Robinson Crusoe on Mars , The Time Machine, The Time Travelers, X From the Unknown Journey to The Center of the Earth , Fantastic Voyage, The Daimajin Films The Golden Voyage of Sinbad , Black Sabath ,Quatermass and the Pit , Alien, Battle Beyond the Stars, The Terminator , Excalibur, Blade Runner Raiders of the Lost Ark , Conan the Barbarian . And quite a large number of other Hammer films and American International films by Roger Corman and others These films had good stories and entertained and were not overwhelmed by the effects.

There's too many films for me to list.

 

[CupofJoe]

I know it was just a typo but Blade Runner Raiders of the Lost Ark is a film I would pay good money to see!
Deckard fighting the Nazis and Batty facing off against Indiana!