Jurassic World

A subforum for discussions about Film, TV, and Videos.

Moderators: Rebuild/OT Moderators, Board Staff

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Posts: 5660
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: Somewhere

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:21 pm

Aren't sharks an endangered species?

soul.assassin
Geezer of All Trades
Geezer of All Trades
User avatar
Age: 47
Posts: 4891
Joined: Feb 26, 2010
Location: Anywhere
Gender: Male

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby soul.assassin » Tue Nov 25, 2014 11:34 pm

View Original PostRay wrote:Aren't sharks an endangered species?


Unless InGen breeds them in-house by the dozen mainly for mosa food. (In the novel, goats and cows were bred and raised as food for many of the raptors and the T-rex.)

FreakyFilmFan4ever
(In)Sufficient Director
(In)Sufficient Director
User avatar
Age: 36
Posts: 9897
Joined: Jun 09, 2009
Location: Playing amongst the stars
Gender: Male

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby FreakyFilmFan4ever » Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:07 am

I'm not against CGI in movies or even JW. JP is one of the best examples of the usage of CGI. The marine reptile scene in the trailer looked fake regardless of how it was accomplished.

The Eva Monkey
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
User avatar
Posts: 9109
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Location: The Evanets.
Gender: Male
Contact:

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby The Eva Monkey » Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:26 am

Look at this fistful of fuck, concept art for human/dinosaur hybrids. I think I would have paid money to see something this laughably awful:

http://imgur.com/a/ou5o6

Rosenakahara
Evangelion
Evangelion
User avatar
Age: 26
Posts: 3319
Joined: May 20, 2014
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Rosenakahara » Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:28 am

^ Please tell me this is a joke.
"She had better march back here and try again! I only send people off on my terms! ...Or in a casket."
I don't need a scabbard to sheathe my mind
What is going on is a concerted effort from anti-progressives to silence anyone who disagrees with them.-Bagheera 2016
The Twelve Kingdoms discussion thread

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 40
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:23 pm

The unmade Jurassic Park IV with human dinosaur hybrid mercenaries is the greatest movie never made.

CGI in trailers is always is a lot rougher than the finished film.

Also, to people complaining about the genetically engineered dinosaur:

This plot was actually sort of excised in the first movie, but is actually the main plot of the first book. The raptors are genetically modified with frog DNA and can reproduce. This is mentioned in the Spielberg film and there's some hints here and there but it's downplayed. The horror aspect of the book itself is that the raptors have escaped the island and probably have a viable colony elsewhere and have either found away around the lysine deficiency or by simple unintended consequences are immune to it.

The genetic modification of the dinosaurs on the island is as much or more the "chaos theory" thing in the book, whereas the movie sort of makes it out to be "Chaos theory states a greedy asshole employee who was underpaid by a greedy asshole employer will fall down and be eaten by a dinosaur with a fantastic sense of dramatic timing"; in the book Malcom's rantings are all about how Hammond and InGen will never be able to control and predict the behavior of the creatures they have returned to life. A major point in the book is the "fridge horror" of releasing an invasive species that has no native habitat; it's invasive everywhere.

In the book, several species have in face escaped the island and begun reproducing and attacking people in the prologue.
the prophecy is true

Statistical fact: Cops will never pull over a man with a huge bong in his car. Why? They fear this man. They know he sees further than they and he will bind them with ancient logics. —Marty Mikalski

The Eva Monkey
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
IT'S OVER 9000!!!
User avatar
Posts: 9109
Joined: Jun 14, 2004
Location: The Evanets.
Gender: Male
Contact:

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby The Eva Monkey » Wed Nov 26, 2014 12:42 pm

View Original PostRosenakahara wrote:^ Please tell me this is a joke.

Which part, the part about human/dinosaur hybrids, or the part about watching human/dinosaur hybrids? Because if it's the later, I would totally be like this the whole time:

SPOILER: Show
Image


Also, to people complaining about the genetically engineered dinosaur:

This plot was actually sort of excised in the first movie, but is actually the main plot of the first book.

If I complain, it's because of the pure idiocy that these people couldn't learn from their mistakes the first time around. I like to think in reality, people would be smarter than that. I wouldn't think that not only would they repeat the same mistake, but take it to an even higher level by making some sort of nightmare frankenstein dinosaur.

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Posts: 5660
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: Somewhere

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Wed Nov 26, 2014 2:24 pm

@Chuck

From the First Post:

Theres actually a dialogue in the original novel between Hammond and one of his scientists about them creating 'Hybrid Dinosaurs'. Though in the original novel, the scientist said that it should be done to make the dinosaurs less violent and more domesticated thus making them less of a threat should any of them escape into the wild.


Hammond disagreed, saying the dinosaurs should be presented as close to appearances as they would have existed millions of years ago.

In the book, the Raptors overcame the Lysine Contingency by eating Soybeans, raiding farms in South America in order to supplement their diet and keep themselves from dying out.

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 40
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:13 pm

The dinosaurs in the book are part frog and can switch genders to reproduce.

The discrepancy between this and Hammond's argument about keeping the dinosaurs 'real' (which only concerned him as part of the customer experience of park visitors) is meant to highlight how Hammond is a hypocritical asshole that doesn't understand the fundamentals of the technology he is abusing.

The novel is about the relationship between discovery and business and a critique of the irresponsibility with which modern consumer society treats both nature and technology. While Spielberg's first film is genuinely entertaining and probably the best extant example of how to incorporate special effects into storytelling, it incorporates basically none of the themes of the book.

Jurassic Park the novel is a condemnation of 1980's corporate management culture (Crichton touched on this theme frequently, but dealt with it directly in Rising Sun) of profit-at-any-cost. John Hammond, the character in the book, is essentially a sociopath and an archetypal 80's executive. The disaster that is Jurassic Park is an exploration of how the business mindset that became prevalent during that time (and continues to dominate and be taught in business schools) corrupts and destroys every aspect of human relations- with each other, with technology and science, and with nature.

By contrast, the film version of the character is a kindly grampa who is betrayed by the mean raptors (the noble Tyrannosaur is merely misunderstood, and only eats evil dinosaurs and bad men, like sniveling lawyers who run away instead of protecting children from a ten ton man eating lizard) who betray his love (Hammond is more worried about Grant shooting the raptors than the raptors eating Samuel L. Jackson) and Dennis Nedry, an anagram of Nerdy, a fat disgusting pervert whose greed leads him to betray Hammon's dream of sharing these magical animals with the children of the world (who can afford to travel to Costa Rica for a vacation and buy tickets to an incredibly expensive theme park on a private island accessible only by helicopter).

The themes raised in the book (man lacks power over nature, his own devices, and ultimately himself) are given lip service but dismissed. Ian Malcolm is reduced from a liberal firebrand and mouthpiece for Crichton to excoriate the frivolity of modern society to a comic relief character who macks on the girl, only for his intellectual rockstario lothario routine to lose out to the rugged manliness of Alan Grant. The issues raised in the book are mentioned a few times in dialogue but glossed over; the dinosaurs are contained to the island, the reproduction issue is raised and immediately dropped, and the dinosaurs themselves are simultaneously lionized and painted as victims, along with Hammond, of a fat bumbling employee who dared to attempt to rise above his station.

When you look deeply at Jurassic Park the film, it's a Hollywood funhouse mirror version of the book that aggressively misses the point, which is probably why Crichton was essentially pressed to write a sequel under threat that if he didn't write the book of the film, they'd hired someone else. Then, of course, they threw out everything but a few character names and ignored his writing again anyway.

Anyway, the book repeatedly raises the point that the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are artificial, genetic chimera monstrosities and not real dinosaurs in any way. Hammond's expressed feelings in that conversation are illustrative of his hypocrisy and cavalier attitude about the vast power he wields. He doesn't even understand how the technological backbone of his operation works.

It's interesting that there appear to be trained raptors in the new film; in both of Crichton's novels, the velociraptors are heavily used as a metaphor for mankind generally and specifically for mankind's tendency to overreach our collective grasp and rush ahead into disaster and pervert and corrupt the natural world. (Whereas their frog/various other creatures/dinosaur chimera nature is the main plot point in Jurassic Park, in The Lost World the raptor pack's lack of social dynamics (which are revealed to be a learned behavior and not genetic) is a critique of human culture's newly manifesting inability to cope with rapid advances and technology and what they mean to culture that is not prepared to handle them)

Suffice to say, genetically modified/engineered dinosaurs are not simply mentioned in the novel but are the central plot point and it looks like this film, whether it actually means to or not, is going to take a few steps closer to the actual meaning of the book it's sort of adapted from. Though, it wouldn't shock me if the film ends up implicitly blaming the genetically modified dinosaur or some sort of incompetent/evil scientist and not the pretty jurassic park lady.
the prophecy is true

Statistical fact: Cops will never pull over a man with a huge bong in his car. Why? They fear this man. They know he sees further than they and he will bind them with ancient logics. —Marty Mikalski

FreakyFilmFan4ever
(In)Sufficient Director
(In)Sufficient Director
User avatar
Age: 36
Posts: 9897
Joined: Jun 09, 2009
Location: Playing amongst the stars
Gender: Male

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby FreakyFilmFan4ever » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:14 pm

View Original PostRosenakahara wrote:^ Please tell me this is a joke.

The designs themselves are a joke. The images say “COPYRIGHT INDUSTRIAL LIGHT AND MAGIC,” but ILM does NOT hold ANY of the copyrights to the designs they are commissioned to create for other studios. ILM never owned the rights to the JP dinosaurs, and they never will own the rights to the JP dinosaurs. Universal Studios, not ILM, owns the rights to the JP dinosaurs, because they own the movie rights to the JP franchise. Universal just hires ILM and their artists to draw up the stuff for their movies and make them loog good for the movie. The fact that these images have ILM copyrights printed all over them suggests that someone outside of the company forged these as a prank.

P.S. The human hybrid dinosaurs are a lame idea. I know it’s theoretically possible in the JP world building, but I think everyone knows that’s not the reason why people watch a Jurassic Park movie. The concept is too far removed from the core appeal of the franchise. People watch it to see people get eaten by dinosaurs, not to see human-dinos eat people.

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 40
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:20 pm

The fact that Universal essentially owns dinosaurs as a trademark is hilarious in light of my post above.

Technically they own the specific depictions in the films; as a similar example, Universal Pictures owns the image of Frakenstein's Monster as a green skinned man with a flat head and bolts in his neck, but has no rights to other depictions of the creature, as the book is in the public domain. Universal only owns the movie verions.

Yet, virtually all modern artistic depictions of dinosaurs tie back to Jurassic Park somehow, so they pretty much do own dinosaurs but are not particularly aggressive about it. Even Godzilla (2014) has those mouth flap things from the JP T-Rex.
the prophecy is true

Statistical fact: Cops will never pull over a man with a huge bong in his car. Why? They fear this man. They know he sees further than they and he will bind them with ancient logics. —Marty Mikalski

Bagheera
Asuka's Bulldog
Asuka's Bulldog
User avatar
Posts: 18679
Joined: Oct 15, 2010

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Bagheera » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:51 pm

View Original PostFireball wrote:Horrible CG, annoying kids, inb4 jet-packed alpha raptor


'93 Jurassic Park still looks a million times better


JP the book had an awful premise and laughable science, but it was okay in other respects for the reason Chuck describes. JP the movie was pretty but terrible, though it was less awful than its sequels. The preview for this one does not inspire.

Hollywood, get it straight: huimans are not a delicacy. Dinosaurs were animals. Sensationalism like this sets a terrible precedent for later movies -- not as a matter of principle, but because it means no one will bother to even try to get it right. But then, this is why I always preferred Walking With Dinosaurs to this sort of nonsense to begin with.

Oh, and using a great white as fucking bait for a Liopleurodon in a theme park? Double-plus lame, man.

View Original PostChuckman wrote:Yet, virtually all modern artistic depictions of dinosaurs tie back to Jurassic Park somehow, so they pretty much do own dinosaurs but are not particularly aggressive about it. Even Godzilla (2014) has those mouth flap things from the JP T-Rex.


It doesn't matter, since their designs are terrible. The raptors don't even have feathers, for chrissakes. Hell, all the therapods should have feathers, but none of them do. If they wanna lay claim to their crappy designs for all eternity they're welcome to them.
For my post-3I fic, go here.
The law doesn't protect people. People protect the law. -- Akane Tsunemori, Psycho-Pass
People's deaths are to be mourned. The ability to save people should be celebrated. Life itself should be exalted. -- Volken Macmani, Tatakau Shisho: The Book of Bantorra
I hate myself. But maybe I can learn to love myself. Maybe it's okay for me to be here! That's right! I'm me, nothing more, nothing less! I'm me. I want to be me! I want to be here! And it's okay for me to be here! -- Shinji Ikari, Neon Genesis Evangelion
Yes, I know. You thought it would be something about Asuka. You're such idiots.

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Posts: 5660
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: Somewhere

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Wed Nov 26, 2014 3:55 pm

Annoying kid Actor


For the record the kid actor they have playing is Ty Simpmkins, the kid has a pretty good track record. He was the kid in Les Miserables.

Here's the Breakdown of the trailer by IGN's Rewind theater.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/26/jurassic-world-rewind-theatre

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 40
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:08 pm

Most science fiction has laughable science. Technical accuracy isn't really the point, social commentary is. Science fiction makes a better vehicle for social commentary since it's more grounded than fantasy and problems can't be magicked away, although there is a very real and very strong trend towards cultural and emotional realism in fantasy fiction following certain authors leading a humanist movement in the genre since the late 90's.

The bugs-in-amber thing in Jurassic Park is absurd (but was a little less absurd at the time) but the book is aware of this- again, the dinosaurs aren't dinosaurs, they're chimeras that have some dinosaur DNA and look like dinosaurs. As with much sci-fi, much of it is bunk and some of it is scarily accurate- using frog DNA to patch the holes in the raptor genome and accidentally allowing females to fertlize each other isn't all that different from using a gene to make corn glow in the dark, at least conceptually if not in the details.

Hammond's comment is doubly hypocritical since his scientists basically shaped the creatures to look and act the way Hammond expected them to- in the book he's partly portrayed as a Steve Jobs kind of perfectionist executive who doesn't really do things so much as 'demand perfection' i.e. badger people and take credit for the ideas of technically competent people who can't put on a show the way he can. Hammond is also compared to a carnival showman. As before the film incorporates this motif but spins it around; in the book Hammond is a carnival barker charlatan and Jurassic Park is the Fiji Mermaid on a grand scale, in the film Hammond is again the kindly grandpa who just wants people to be happy and is troubled by the deceptions and seeking out the "real". Book Hammond is a corporate privateer, film Hammond is a fake wizard who wants to learn the real magic.

In a way, Hammond in the film is the manifestation of a filmmaker's internal struggle over the value of film as art. The "can't you see the fleas" bit that Hammond delivers, which raises the question of emotional value versus the lies and adaptational changes inherent to making a film out of really anything. It's interesting, then, that Hammond is played by another director, and not just any director but the director of a well regarded historical epic.

Where was I? The amber. Pulling dinosaurs out of a petrified bug's ass is about as believable as lightning reanimating a dead body, Cavorite, radiation's magical powers, etc.

This is a complaint I do not level specifically against you, Bagheera, but against audiences generally. We're too nitpicky these days. People forget that the willing suspension of disbelief is willing. Yes, the story must earn that suspension disbelief, but we must also be willing to part our skepticism. Otherwise we get bogged down in surface details and miss the deeper importance of stories.

Also, re: feathers, did they know that when the movies were made? I thought the feathers thing was a recent discovery.

Either way, it's a meta-thing. Feather raptors wouldn't look as cool and exotic so the InGen scientists would make unfeathered raptors.
the prophecy is true

Statistical fact: Cops will never pull over a man with a huge bong in his car. Why? They fear this man. They know he sees further than they and he will bind them with ancient logics. —Marty Mikalski

FreakyFilmFan4ever
(In)Sufficient Director
(In)Sufficient Director
User avatar
Age: 36
Posts: 9897
Joined: Jun 09, 2009
Location: Playing amongst the stars
Gender: Male

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby FreakyFilmFan4ever » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:13 pm

^ I agree with these statements about JP as narrative sci-fi art. I looked over this thread and realized that we (myself included) seem to be coming off a bit too negatively on this film, and it isn’t even out yet. It’s not directed by someone who has a terrible track record or anything like that, and the premise is taking the franchise in the right direction. I see no reason to look down on this film just yet.

Rosenakahara
Evangelion
Evangelion
User avatar
Age: 26
Posts: 3319
Joined: May 20, 2014
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Rosenakahara » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:14 pm

View Original PostChuckman wrote:We're too nitpicky these days. People forget that the willing suspension of disbelief is willing. Yes, the story must earn that suspension disbelief, but we must also be willing to part our skepticism. Otherwise we get bogged down in surface details and miss the deeper importance of stories.

Basically this, if i wasn't willing to suspend my disbelief i wouldnt be a doctor who fan, because that is like 90% "sci-fi science"
"She had better march back here and try again! I only send people off on my terms! ...Or in a casket."
I don't need a scabbard to sheathe my mind
What is going on is a concerted effort from anti-progressives to silence anyone who disagrees with them.-Bagheera 2016
The Twelve Kingdoms discussion thread

Bagheera
Asuka's Bulldog
Asuka's Bulldog
User avatar
Posts: 18679
Joined: Oct 15, 2010

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Bagheera » Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:29 pm

View Original PostChuckman wrote:This is a complaint I do not level specifically against you, Bagheera, but against audiences generally. We're too nitpicky these days. People forget that the willing suspension of disbelief is willing. Yes, the story must earn that suspension disbelief, but we must also be willing to part our skepticism. Otherwise we get bogged down in surface details and miss the deeper importance of stories.


I am willing, if they at least try to earn it. JP never even bothered to try.

. . . which is why don't watch movies much these days: my standards have shifted (I can't say they've become more stringent, because I still enjoy the Marvel movies, and hell, I even enjoyed TF4. Scientific accuracy clearly isn't that important to me, but I'd rather people tried something new once in awhile. If that something new has some grounding in reality, well, so much the better).

Also, re: feathers, did they know that when the movies were made? I thought the feathers thing was a recent discovery.


Nah. Ostrom came up with the idea in the 1960s when he described Deinonychus, and the idea was well-established by the mid-90s when JP was made (even Crichton should have been aware of it at the time). Artistic depictions of dinosaurs with feathers started in 1975 with Sarah Landry's depiction of Syntarsus, and Gregory S. Paul, one of the more popular paleoartists out there, has been drawing maniraptorans that way since the late 1970s.

Mind you, we didn't get proof until the mid-1990s, but the idea was firmly established decades earlier.
For my post-3I fic, go here.
The law doesn't protect people. People protect the law. -- Akane Tsunemori, Psycho-Pass
People's deaths are to be mourned. The ability to save people should be celebrated. Life itself should be exalted. -- Volken Macmani, Tatakau Shisho: The Book of Bantorra
I hate myself. But maybe I can learn to love myself. Maybe it's okay for me to be here! That's right! I'm me, nothing more, nothing less! I'm me. I want to be me! I want to be here! And it's okay for me to be here! -- Shinji Ikari, Neon Genesis Evangelion
Yes, I know. You thought it would be something about Asuka. You're such idiots.

Fireball
First Ancestor
First Ancestor
User avatar
Posts: 4247
Joined: Sep 17, 2010
Location: Karlsland

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Fireball » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:04 pm

I'm sure they will touch up the CG but as far as the trailer goes it feels soulless like they purposely left out all the humanity. They decided to focus on panning shots of the park for most of the trailer and spliced together dumb lines like it's some cape movie. Everything needs to be an overbearing spectacle now but there was only like 10 minutes of actual dino footage in the original. It wasn't even about the dinosaurs themselves, much like Jaws wasn't about the shark. It was about humans fighting that damn thing for their lives. The actors and the direction sold that movie.

View Original PostRay wrote:For the record the kid actor they have playing is Ty Simpmkins, the kid has a pretty good track record. He was the kid in Les Miserables.

It's that kid from Iron Man 3. Fuck that kid.
Avatar: Rommel-chan

"I was born into the wrong time" - laughed the girl


「<ゝω・)\綺羅星☆!!/
[/size]

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 40
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:07 pm

I didn't have any problems with him in IM3.

The trailer almost looks like an advert for the park rather than a movie about it. I like that, to be honest.
the prophecy is true

Statistical fact: Cops will never pull over a man with a huge bong in his car. Why? They fear this man. They know he sees further than they and he will bind them with ancient logics. —Marty Mikalski

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Posts: 5660
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: Somewhere

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:37 pm

Jurassic World Margarita Ville.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vILCLTaZMx4


Return to “Film and Video”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests