CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › JURASSIC WORLD 2 (2018) Pre-Release Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JURASSIC WORLD 2 (2018) Pre-Release Thread - Page 4

post #151 of 428

The only thing they need to do make the CGI 10x more palatable is make the colour grading more natural. I became aware of this when I read in an Empire Magazine interview with Peter Jackson: he was talking about how, on set, flesh-coloured dwarf prosthetics had to be bright red, and tree bark needed to be purple and blue, because otherwise the processing would make them look wrong. They didn't - as far as I know - have that problem before orange and teal became the standard movie look. 

 

 

While 90% of Jurassic Park's dinosaurs look perfect, some bits - close ups of the CGI raptors, the gallimimus stampede, the brachiosaur's skin - look pretty ropey now. But they're coloured naturally, and so the whole scene looks more real, even if the dinosaur itself looks a bit ropey. In Jurassic World, the excessive colour grading makes the entire world look fake, so the dinosaurs themselves have no chance to blend in.

 

Another, easily fixable problem with CGI monsters is that animators always make them move too cartoonishly. As a kid, I remember clocking that one of the things that made Jar Jar stick out was all the little flourishes he did - bobbing on his heels, exaggerated swallowing and breathing, googling his eyes - and that one of the things that made Gollum so convincing was that he didn't perform any of these flourishes. In real life, animals breathe, eat, and look around without making particularly visible movements, or without their skin bulging in and out, sagging and stretching. 

 

We've swung right back to the Jar Jar approach, and Jurassic World is a perfect example. The film opens with a baby raptor hatching, and its fingers drum across the surface of the egg and twitchily flick away pieces of it. In Jurassic Park, when we see the baby raptor being born, it's a puppet, and its fingers move and flex clumsily and slowly - like a newborn, tiny creature's would. In Jurassic World, the I-Rex's nostrils flare, its head twitches, its entire body bobs up and roils as it moves; in Jurassic Park, the T-Rex's body isn't rigid, but its body and tail are largely tense, like a creature in motion would be. 

 

TLDR: We've had the means to make CGI creatures look totally great for a decade - it's the way its animated and coloured that's the issue.  

post #152 of 428

Yeah, I think we talked about the grading way back in the thread for Jurassic World.

 

I think I post a comparison!

post #153 of 428

Agreed with Rex.  The CGI nowadays has become this egoic sense of pride toward how much animation was done. When they first did Jurassic Park, so much effort was put into making sure the dinosaurs were as realistic as other modern day animals. They studied animals and knew what it had to look like visually. Storyboards became pre-vis shots so that the film had a meticulously intended flow of construction. It was all meaningful. They didn't go too ambitious. They went as far as they needed to. That mark of restraint tends to narrow the focus to the bear essentials. An animator would painstakingly jiggle a brachiosaur calf just a bit as it hit and that was considered a fucking win. Now they have to jiggle all the damn muscles even if they don't make sense to be seen. 

post #154 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post

Belloq! BELLOQ!

You don't think I want a Carnotaurus? I've been dying years to see a Carnotaur in a Jurassic film!

I aggree, Crichton's novels are filled with all sorts of goodies that nobody is touching. I can't believe Trevorrow never dug into the novel for them.

But, word is that they might have done it this time. We shall see.

Wasn't that a carnotaur late in JP3 that interrupted our heroes digging through spino shit for that ringing Nokia(?) phone? It gave a sniff, made a stinkface for the camera, and walked away, right?
post #155 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turingmachine75 View Post


Wasn't that a carnotaur late in JP3 that interrupted our heroes digging through spino shit for that ringing Nokia(?) phone? It gave a sniff, made a stinkface for the camera, and walked away, right?

 

In the original script and junior novelization, it was supposed to be a Carnotaur. But in the final film they made it into a Ceratosaurus. 

post #156 of 428

NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD ALERT!

post #157 of 428

There are several things to keep in mind about the CGI in JURASSIC PARK.  One, it was used incredibly strategically.  Two, ILM had an enormous amount of prep time because they knew they were pushing the envelope and had to get it right.  And three, Phil Tippett and his "Go Motion" animators were actively hands-on with the computer animators, helping them figure how to make the creatures move like real animals.  The movie's effects mostly hold up quite well because of these factors.

 

With some notable exceptions, modern CGI-heavy movies don't use the digital effects strategically (they use them everywhere, because they can), they don't allow their effects teams a literal year of dedicated prep, and they don't bring on entire staffs of other animators to help with movement guidance.  For reasons like these, I'm mostly unimpressed with a lot of the CGI we see in today's movies, and while I can appreciate the artistry and effort that goes into the work, it's been over a decade since a digital creation has fooled me into thinking I was looking at something physically present in front of the camera (Davy Jones in PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST).  I put things like the APES movies in a slightly different category, in the sense that I think the effects are often remarkable, but I knew going in I was seeing digital effects.

post #158 of 428

The tone of this thread looks a little sad from a detached perspective. The weight of film minutes in this series is of silly monster chase movies with barely two braincells to rub together (disguised by lot of sciencey words).  Maybe the discussion around them of how they could be smart like the first one makes it all worthwhile.  But call me a pessimist, I think we know what we're going to get from here on out.

post #159 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexBanner View Post
 

The problem with the Jurassic Park franchise is that, while its concept is genius, it's good for exactly one film - and Spielberg realised that film perfectly in 1993. It's been said umpteen times before, but the film's main strength is the contrast between horror and wonder, and because that was done so well, it can't be done again. 

 

Jurassic Park is like Jaws in that a sequel to it is inevitably going to be a logical but less interesting continuation (The Lost World, Jurassic Park III), a retread (Jurassic World), or take the story in silly, gimmicky directions (Jurassic World). Stuff like genetically modified dinosaurs, or dinosaur commandos, or a human-dinosaur hybrids are totally out of sync. with the themes and tone of the original film.

 

I've no idea what the premise for a 'proper' Jurassic Park film could be mind, I'm just complaining that they're continuing to make incredibly lucrative films that I don't need to watch. 

 

Uh, having just rewatched Jurassic World for the first time since it came out, I'd like to walk back a little: I still think the premise is good for one film, and that that film was made, and made perfectly, but they can eke a good many fun and exciting sci-fi films off the back of it. 

 

Claire's the only character I liked from start to finish; they really overdo Owen's obnoxious, smug, self-satisfied bro-ness at the start, but Chris Pratt makes it work once the character starts helping and gets off his high horse; the younger kid is sympathetic throughout, and I like the not-too subtle but fairly underplayed spectrum-vibe they give him; the older is insufferable to start with, but, because of that, he comes off pretty well during the second half. The tech staff are nicely individual, and Masrani is a very charming, believable Richard Branson type - he's the kind of character who really threw me as a kid: the guy who's nice, intelligent, and seems on top of things, but whose plan goes tits up anyway. These aren't deep character studies, but they all feel like real people. 

 

Poor Judy Greer is saddled with one of the most thankless roles I think has ever been written for anyone, and the divorce/family responsibility theme is laboured, unnecessary, and unfair: Claire's responsible for one of the biggest attractions in the world - of course she'll not be able to spend all fucking day with her sister's kids. She's not their mother, either - when Owen gives her a look when she can't remember their ages, he comes off as a judgemental prick instead of her coming off as a neglectful aunt which, rightfully, isn't considered a thing. 

 

One really good thing it does that a lot of modern movies forget to do is make everyone sweaty and gross. It's amazing how many 60s-90s movies you watch in which, when characters are in high-tense situations or hot countries, the sweat is pouring off them - nowadays this doesn't happen, because the actors are usually a bit more comfortable on set. That, and a lot of other things, mean the film has a really good sense of place. 

 

TLDR: Based on Jurassic World, there's nothing stopping Jurassic World II being a fun bit of entertaining fluff - with a little bit of extra weight and investment because the original film it's derived from is so amazing. 

post #160 of 428

Masrani is the only character I actually like in Jurassic World. The fact that they dispatched him so early on was pretty disappointing. 

post #161 of 428
So early? He dies more than halfway into the flick.
post #162 of 428

Too early for me. Guy should have had more to do. 

 

He's kind of the only character that has a real Jurassic vibe about him. These films ride high with eccentric characters. 

post #163 of 428
Putting a band aid on a decapitation of a movie.
post #164 of 428
He freed all those majestic winged T-Rex monsters. He died a hero.
post #165 of 428

I love the bit where he's all 'Hammond expressly told me on his deathbed that he wanted the park to remind people how small we are in the grand scheme of things. Now take me to the abomination before God that we have created!'

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

That mark of restraint tends to narrow the focus to the bear essentials. An animator would painstakingly jiggle a brachiosaur calf just a bit as it hit and that was considered a fucking win. Now they have to jiggle all the damn muscles even if they don't make sense to be seen. 

I think a part of this is simulation complexity, not 'animators gotta animate.' Jurassic Park was the first film ever to do skin and muscle simulation, and was comparatively pretty simple. I can't find info, but I'd bet no more than two or three muscles per bone, which got them semi-realistically bulging muscles and shifting skin. The rigs in Jurassic World are exponentially more complex, and the more complex a simulation, the harder it is to predict and control the results, so you get skin and muscles jiggling in weird ways. And they may actually be more realistic than Jurasic Park, but like Jaws made a lot of people think sharks looked like Bruce, which in fact Bruce looks almost nothing like a real shark, Jurassic Park made people think that dinosaurs should look and move and jiggle a specific way, and anything that breaks with that reads as 'wrong' because that was how we first saw dinosaurs brought to life.

post #166 of 428
Jiggle talk...I thought that was reserved for the Wonder Woman thread.
post #167 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
 

I love the bit where he's all 'Hammond expressly told me on his deathbed that he wanted the park to remind people how small we are in the grand scheme of things. Now take me to the abomination before God that we have created!'

 

 

I think that kind of mild contradiction is actually good writing. They're not totally opposed ideas, but they are positions that sit a little uncomfortably with one another - but the vast majority of people have ideas like that. Maybe he's like a big kid himself, and is dead excited to see a new monster? Maybe he's just really interested in what the genetics dept. can do, and that curiosity outweighs any reticence? 

post #168 of 428
If I had the power to approve I Rex I would in a second.

I'd also make sure security protocols weren't total shit like "make the pen nice and big, the walls twice as high and thicker, and no door built ever, for any reason. Nobody goes in there."

Movie averted.
post #169 of 428
There's actually a moat inside to give the walls even more height and to prevent the IRex to reach the observatory in the concept artwork. Then they got rid of it for who knows what reason.

The illogical reasons for the IRex getting out could have actually been averted with a re-edit. Take the scene where the animal team finds the tracker in the jungle and move it before the escape scene. You can insinuate that the animal tore it off and threw it over the walls and into the jungle. Everyone freaks out because the sensors say the creature is out of the pen so now Owen and those guys have a legitimate reason to go inside to investigate. Then the scene where they find the tracker meat and the slow realization that she's still inside.

Someone give me a high quality copy of this movie so I can go to town.
post #170 of 428

That's way worse.  Why wouldn't you just investigate the tracker first thing and find the meat?  Then doesn't I Rex look dumb!

post #171 of 428
"I wish the movie had taken all the precautions to prevent itself from becoming a movie!"
post #172 of 428

Bradi gets it!

post #173 of 428

It seems like Goldblum will only have a minor role in this upcoming installment, but it's still cool to have him back: http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3467195/jeff-goldblum-small-significant-role-jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom/

post #174 of 428
post #175 of 428


Cute.  Perhaps too cute!

 

I'm still stunned that Universal apparently isn't pulling the same trick they did for Thanksgiving 2014 and premiering the trailer during the football game tomorrow night on NBC.  Have we even gotten any indication when the trailer might be coming?  If not tomorrow, I'd say in front of THE LAST JEDI.  Any other options would be really inexplicable.

post #176 of 428
Rumor is premiering with Star Wars. It’s a smart move.
post #177 of 428
w4RTESL.gif
post #178 of 428

Jurassic World?

It's fine.

post #179 of 428
It's kind of the worst.

Movie was playing on my ship; forgot how much I despise Pratt in this.
post #180 of 428
Pratt was the least of the film’s problems.
post #181 of 428
Jurassic World?
I’d let it give me a handy.
post #182 of 428
Jurassic World naturalistically pulls off one of those Frank Frazetta Conan the Barbarian poses with a T-Rex...it's pretty great.

post #183 of 428

Those gifs really highlight how over-animated the dinosaurs in Jurassic World were - the puppets in Jurassic Park don't just look real because they are, but because, like real living animals, they don't quiver, twitch, and bob every second. 

post #184 of 428
It is too bad World didn't have more puppets. Apparently Trevorrow had to fight for the one they had in the movie
post #185 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

Jurassic World?
It's fine.

It’s better than fine. It’s good. Although the divorce stuff is clunky. Still think the T-Rex entrance for the final fight was the best movie “fist pump moment” that summer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

Movie was playing on my ship; forgot how much I despise Pratt in this.

The problem with Pratt in this is they sold his character in the trailers as “Starlord vs Dino’s” when he really wasn’t playing Peter Quill.
post #186 of 428
Oh I know that. Ev
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post

It’s better than fine. It’s good. Although the divorce stuff is clunky. Still think the T-Rex entrance for the final fight was the best movie “fist pump moment” that summer.
The problem with Pratt in this is they sold his character in the trailers as “Starlord vs Dino’s” when he really wasn’t playing Peter Quill.

Yeah, it's condescending asshole vs. Dinos.
post #187 of 428

So starring you, then.

post #188 of 428
I wish.
post #189 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ska Oreo View Post

Oh I know that. Ev
Yeah, it's condescending asshole vs. Dinos.

Ohh man wait until him and Jeff Goldblum are on screen together. 

 

Also Jurassic World is brilliant, fuck you all. God bless.

post #190 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul755 View Post



The problem with Pratt in this is they sold his character in the trailers as “Starlord vs Dino’s” when he really wasn’t playing Peter Quill.

I dunno... I thought he was still basically the Pratt-thing he usually does.

 

I didn't know waalt was such a fan of the movie!

post #191 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waaaaaaaalt View Post

Also Jurassic World is brilliant, fuck you all. God bless.

Waaaaaaaalt is my new favorite poster.
post #192 of 428

happy thanksgiving wlt!

post #193 of 428
“Brilliant “

I’m thankful for the amount of humor this board provides..

And Brad.. always Brad.
post #194 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Call Me Roy View Post

“Brilliant “

I’m thankful for the McRib.

And Brad.. always Brad.
post #195 of 428
post #196 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

I dunno... I thought he was still basically the Pratt-thing he usually does.

 

I didn't know waalt was such a fan of the movie!

The absurd fun stupid dino friend is a ball.

 

Also if you refuse to call me what I want to be called.......look just thank god we aren't in Canada JORDAN PETERSON!

post #197 of 428

the absurd fun stupid dino friend, wlt?

post #198 of 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post
 

the absurd fun stupid dino friend, wlt?

I mean't to put an s on friends. I mean't the raptors of course. Also you are a bastard.

post #199 of 428

oh yea, the raptors were fun

 

and really, I enjoyed the movie the first time I saw it

 

so doofy!

 

but also CLOM

post #200 of 428

The trailer is going to premiere during this week's Thursday Night Football on NBC.  Make of that what you will.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › JURASSIC WORLD 2 (2018) Pre-Release Thread