Jurassic World

[Chuckman]

Scary things does not equal 'not for children'.

[Sachi]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a family adventure movie.

Maybe for the 90s. What a time.

I really wish that they would make an R-rated Jurassic Park movie. I mean can you imagine a slasher movie with Dinosaurs?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnosaur_(film_series)

[Ray]

I meant a dinosaur slasher movie that wasn't either cheap or cheesy as hell.

[Sachi]

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Horror, especially slasher horror, has a very niche fan base, and only works so well because it's also very cheap to make. A dinosaur slasher movie with special effects on the scale of modern blockbusters is a failed venture. Jurassic Park and Jurassic World can justify it's budget with mass appeal.

It seems like many of the sorts of movies you demand out of big budget Hollywood can be found in B movies. And there's nothing wrong with B movies; you just need to raise your suspension of disbelief just a bit more than usual. But as far as getting a more variety of films and more support for independent and emerging filmmakers, B movies are the way to go.

[Guy Nacks]

I believe the appropriate genre is Thriller, which is a combination of action, adventure, and scary moments. JP will never genre-bounce into being a pure horror film without cheapening the entire brand.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I would call Jurassic Park a family adventure. In fact, all 4 Jurassic films have significant commentaries on what it considers to be the proper role of a family. You can't separate the family from Jurassic Park without making an entirely different movie.

Jurassic Park explores step fatherhood through the role of Dr. Alan Grant and the children, who are preparing for their parents' divorce. ("He left us... He left us!")

The Lost World: Jurassic Park explores the role of divorced fatherhood through Dr. Ian Malcolm and his daughter.

Jurassic Park 3 explores more of the divorce issues, but ties it all back together at the end.

And Jurassic World explores children's fears of an upcoming divorce (almost like the first film did), but ultimately forgets about it at the end. (I'm not saying that these all movies were very good about presenting a commentary on family structures.)

[Chuckman]

Jurrassic Park (the first Spielberg film) is actually a commentary on toxic masculinity. It's a followup to the way that Aliens and Terminator 2 discussion the role of motherhood in the emerging feminist world with undefined gender roles.

Alan grows as a man by taking on the traditionally "feminine" role of nurturing and protecting the children. Of their duo, Ellie is the action-oriented one but this reversal of typical gender roles does not by default make her unfeminine or him unmasculine.

It's a very positive response to the reactionary patriarchal attitude of taking vengeance on independent women by becoming irresponsible emotionally cruel lotharios who respond to the beauty of female sexual growth with disgust and exploitation.

[Ray]

http://www.scified.com/news/jurassic-wo ... -dinosaurs

Jurassic World 2 will have social commentary and parallel the treatment of modern animals, and maybe even discuss the concept of Animal Rights.

Both Jack (Horner) and me we are concerned about man's relationship with animals. Dinosaurs are a parable of the treatment of today animals: abuse, experiments in medicine, pets, have wild animals in zoos like prisons, military use has been made of them, animals and weapons .."

Colin Trevorrow made a visit to the film festival as well, and he chimed in to detail some more details about the plot of the film. "Jurassic World health with exacerabated consumerism", he described, and then went on to say that the sequel would "shift to deal with more complex issues." Trevororrow continued. The second part of the saga will be a very different film, which will explore new directions. So it is clear that it should be Bayona who directed the sequel so that it (the direction) will be able to grow and evolve with your personal (outlook)."

[Chuckman]

The theme park thing is tired, I want Jurassic World 2 to be about a downtrodden man who feels rejected by modern culture forming an attachment to a sexy raptor human hybrid and becoming the leader of the dinosaurs.

Some men look at dinosaurs and say, "why don't we ride them into battle against a thin strawman of the 1%" and some men... honestly I don't know why anyone would disagree.

The raptor human hybrid better be fucking sexy man. Like scales in all the right places.

[Ray]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-v ... uel-954234

Jurassic World 2 will have more animatronics and the director is planning to 'downplay' the CGI.

[Chuckman]

That's cool but I'n not excited about it or anything. I think the PRACTICAL GOOD CGI BAD fetishism nerds preach is kinda lame, tbh, especially when people can't tell the difference or can't detect subtly used CGI.

I didn't have any issue with JW's effects so I don't see why that's a big deal.

[Sachi]

The best is a mix of practical and CGI. Too much CGI is noticeable. Let's not forget how much the Star Wars prequels have aged relative to the original trilogy. The original Jurassic Park still looks great, whereas the CG abominations in JP 3 look like a video game. Fury Road and The Force Awakens are both excellent balances of CG and practical effects.

[Gendo'sPapa]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Far more talented filmmakers in recent years have made the same promise about a greater usage of practical effects in their films. In the end what it all comes down to is how the team manages their time. Scheduling is the key with these massive blockbusters. It's far cheaper & easier to handle effects work off to a post house who works on a shot 24/7 in a cubicle than it is to have 500 people (crew + cast) on set waiting for a technician to re calibrate a faulty wire in a machine so the dinosaur can turn it's head left. The release date is set & the studio won't budge. If the team builds in amble pre-production time to get the practical effects working & schedule the shoot accordingly to handle the difficult, super expensive & time consuming challenges of using wonderful animatronics on set than it can happen. If the film is planned out like most super expensive blockbusters do nowadays than a lot of practical effects will end up being nothing more than a foam dinosaur carcass in a field somewhere.

As of late the only filmmakers I can recall who promised extensive use of practical effects work in their newest films & actually delivered have been George Miller (Mad Max: Fury Road - with much digital wire removal), J.J. Abrams (I think The Force Awakens is an empty film but it delivers on the practical effects side) & Ridley Scott (Prometheus).

Also it's not Jurassic World 2. It's still Jurassic Park 5.

[Bagheera]

The best is a mix of practical and CGI. Too much CGI is noticeable. Let's not forget how much the Star Wars prequels have aged relative to the original trilogy. The original Jurassic Park still looks great, whereas the CG abominations in JP 3 look like a video game. Fury Road and The Force Awakens are both excellent balances of CG and practical effects.

Fury Road makes fantastic use of CGI. Did you know that most of the vehicle sequences involving people moving around were filmed on stationary vehicles? Everything from backgrounds to the damn wheels was filled in using CGI, and you would never know it when watching the final product. And Furiosa's prosthetic limb? CGI start to finish. But Fury Road also makes terrific use of practical effects, which is really what most movies should be doing: using practical effects as a foundation and CGI to build on them in useful and interesting ways. CGI should never be the star of the show; rather, it should be one tool in a director's toolkit that interacts with everything else to produce a pleasing final work, same as lighting and sound and so on.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Honestly the CGI vs Animatronics battles is kind of pointless after the film reaches a certain budget. The differences between CGI and animatronics is really only noticeable in cheap, low-budget movies, and in those kids of films animatronics will always look better than CGI to me. But if you have a movie where $70 million is going to be spent on the special effects alone, it almost does't matter which technique they use anymore. I remember watching Star Wars 7, and people were shocked when they were told that certain scenes were not CGI. "But it looks so real," is their response. If you can't tell just by looking at the shot which technique was used, does it still matter? I would say no. If you cannot tell just by looking at the shot, if you have to be told which is CGI and which is animatronic, then it didn't matter which technique the filmmakers used because you couldn't tell the difference anyway.

[Chuckman]

Effects should never be the star of the show, period. Verisimilitude comes from the expectation that the fantastical element should be there.

That's why it sucks when directors get cute with a shot with the camera passing through a Cheerio or something. It draws attention to the fact of the camera.

Nerds mentally masturbate over the dumbest shit. Stop looking for excuses to hate movies before they even premier and have some fucking fun.

[movieartman]

whereas the CG abominations in JP 3 look like a video game

Don't know about that, the cgi still looks pretty good on the Raptors in this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du95opzY8qg

[Sachi]

Don't know about that, the cgi still looks pretty good on the Raptors in this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du95opzY8qg

Actually, the majority of the raptors are practical, with the exception of a few shots here and there. I was thinking more of this moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7tNqjsclhs

Doing some digging though, there is still a lot of practical work in the movie, some of it better done than others.

[movieartman]

I miss Stan Winston so much.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

The dinosaurs in JP3 looked fake more often than the previous 2 films no matter how they were created. Joe Johnson's approval of editing and shot choices and his sense of blocking didn't really capture the best parts of either technology, and I ended up laughing at the stiff robot Spinosaurus when it roar into the broken airplane. Sure, Stan Winston still did a killer job on the animatronic, but Johnson's creative sensibilities were not utilizing Winston's work as well as Spielberg did.

That being said, it's still a more fun watch than JP2. David Koepp just butchered that script.