George Spiggott wrote: This really had me until the hybrid dinosaur. Weren't all the dinosaurs in the original technically hybrids (frog + dinosaur)?
They used frog DNA to fill in the gaps that they didn't have, which is also what they used to explain some of the dino's switching genders since they were all female.
Clearly they've learned from the old mistakes and instead, are making brand new ones.. Seriously- why would you breed a giant fething sea monster?! Let alone a hybrid t-rex/raptor
And hollywood have run out of ideas. Is it just me or did the CGI look better the first time round.
Also I can just hear the trailer;
*Epic voice*
This year.....The park that pretty much killed off its first lot of visitors, including that guy that saved earth from an alien invasion....and then managed to loose a 25 ton tyrannosaurus Rex on the streets of Manhattan has once again opened its doors, but this time to poor defenceless children.
angelofvengeance wrote: Clearly they've learned from the old mistakes and instead, are making brand new ones.. Seriously- why would you breed a giant fething sea monster?! Let alone a hybrid t-rex/raptor
I'm actually really excited for this. I think I'm young enough for the first ones that while I like the original it didn't leave a proper lasting impression on me. And my bar for movies is pretty low I think, I seem to really like movies that a lot of people hate.
Wow the first film was out two years before I was born. Crazy. I'm a itchin to read the book now.
Unless.... this is the first of a new breed of guerrilla marvel cinematic universe films, and the young boy injects himself with mutant dino DNA, becoming Reptil!
The dinosaurs look great, I'm in even if I don't see my hoped for twist. I'll have to wait for video though- my sons wouldn't sleep for a week if they saw that on the big screen.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Ok, it's apparently a Mosasaurus, not a Kronosaurus. That's worse. Things are bigger.
I thought it was supposed to be a Liopleurodon. Though size estimates fro Liopleurodon vary depending on who you ask. Some say 10m, some 25m.
It was way too big whatever it was, the monster shown was halfway to Gaiju size, way more thasn even 25m.
Alex C wrote: Look like they still haven't genetically engineered the Velociraptors to be the correct size either.
Velociraptors are the size of chickens, Dienonychus is about the size shown, Utah Raptors were slightly smaller but broadly similar IIRC. Its a forgivable labeling error, the beasts themselves were plausible.
Alex C wrote: Look like they still haven't genetically engineered the Velociraptors to be the correct size either.
Velociraptors are the size of chickens, Dienonychus is about the size shown, Utah Raptors were slightly smaller but broadly similar IIRC. Its a forgivable labeling error, the beasts themselves were plausible.
Utahraptors were quite large, actually. 25 feet or so I believe. The error is, as you say, that they aren't actually Velociraptors.
Also that they weren't covered in feathers, of course. But that would probably look ridiculous.
Alex C wrote: Look like they still haven't genetically engineered the Velociraptors to be the correct size either.
Velociraptors are the size of chickens, Dienonychus is about the size shown, Utah Raptors were slightly smaller but broadly similar IIRC. Its a forgivable labeling error, the beasts themselves were plausible.
Utahraptors were quite large, actually. 25 feet or so I believe. The error is, as you say, that they aren't actually Velociraptors.
Also that they weren't covered in feathers, of course. But that would probably look ridiculous.
Alex C wrote: Look like they still haven't genetically engineered the Velociraptors to be the correct size either.
Velociraptors are the size of chickens, Dienonychus is about the size shown, Utah Raptors were slightly smaller but broadly similar IIRC. Its a forgivable labeling error, the beasts themselves were plausible.
Utahraptors were quite large, actually. 25 feet or so I believe. The error is, as you say, that they aren't actually Velociraptors.
Yeah but velociraptor is just such a badass name we couldn't let it go to waste.
angelofvengeance wrote: Probably a really dumb decision to put the rail bridge ACROSS the lake where they keep the Hainosaurus...
It is stupid to make the others, but having one of those lying around in the water is just pants-on-head. I also had trouble thinking people would just be happy and excited to see it leap out of the water like they showed.
angelofvengeance wrote: Probably a really dumb decision to put the rail bridge ACROSS the lake where they keep the Hainosaurus...
It is stupid to make the others, but having one of those lying around in the water is just pants-on-head. I also had trouble thinking people would just be happy and excited to see it leap out of the water like they showed.
Eh, I have much less issues with the lake monster as something like that is far easier to contain. Now if we find out its enclosure is a "secure" gate or two away from open ocean... That's another story.
Movie looks like fun. I was one of those Dinosaur kids, so I'll take any chance to see well rendered Dinosaurs rippping people apart. I'll forgive them a 'hybrid' to see more of it.
angelofvengeance wrote: Probably a really dumb decision to put the rail bridge ACROSS the lake where they keep the Hainosaurus...
It is stupid to make the others, but having one of those lying around in the water is just pants-on-head. I also had trouble thinking people would just be happy and excited to see it leap out of the water like they showed.
Eh, I have much less issues with the lake monster as something like that is far easier to contain. Now if we find out its enclosure is a "secure" gate or two away from open ocean... That's another story.
My issue was more with peoples reaction than with the thing itself. I just don't see people clapping and cheering such a creature.
That was actually one of the sentiments in the original Jurassic Park novel, as I recall.
I don't recall which character it was - John Hammond maybe? Being disgusted with the reactions of the guests when they fed the goat to the T-rex... That rather than feeling wonder, and awe; they all felt fear, and horror.
As a side note, how could you keep an animal like a Mosasaur fed? It's not like you can toss it a truckload of plankton, like a whale shark.
angelofvengeance wrote: Probably a really dumb decision to put the rail bridge ACROSS the lake where they keep the Hainosaurus...
It is stupid to make the others, but having one of those lying around in the water is just pants-on-head. I also had trouble thinking people would just be happy and excited to see it leap out of the water like they showed.
Eh, I have much less issues with the lake monster as something like that is far easier to contain. Now if we find out its enclosure is a "secure" gate or two away from open ocean... That's another story.
My issue was more with peoples reaction than with the thing itself. I just don't see people clapping and cheering such a creature.
Really- it all looks like a pretty cool show - isn't the same as feeding other large predators in captivity like Killer Whales?
Mr Morden wrote: Really- it all looks like a pretty cool show - isn't the same as feeding other large predators in captivity like Killer Whales?
People aren't really as predisposed to hate/fear killer whales, which is one reason they are used in such shows. They also aren't seen as man-eaters or predators as sharks, which people do fear/hate and get their own week on TV, and this thing eats sharks (and people). I think people might be thrilled, to be sure, I just don't think they would react like they do to a dolphin show.
This is ignoring the inherent ethical problem of forcing sea creatures to do shows for our amusement in the first place.
Mr Morden wrote: Really- it all looks like a pretty cool show - isn't the same as feeding other large predators in captivity like Killer Whales?
People aren't really as predisposed to hate/fear killer whales, which is one reason they are used in such shows. They also aren't seen as man-eaters or predators as sharks, which people do fear/hate and get their own week on TV, and this thing eats sharks (and people). I think people might be thrilled, to be sure, I just don't think they would react like they do to a dolphin show.
This is ignoring the inherent ethical problem of forcing sea creatures to do shows for our amusement in the first place.
Maybe Killer Whales did use to have a bad rep, despite never attackig people (same as wolves really), now its the opposite
- also thinking the clip is pretty much the same show as is done with big crocs on farms - plenty popular.
Flashman wrote: Concern 1 = The CGI doesn't look much of an improvement on the original
Concern 2 = It's the whole park thing again. At least 2 and 3 tried something a bit different.
Concern 3 = Collaborating with Velociraptors
On 3, I dont think it is that, I think the raptors are too busy running from super dino to care about him.
They care enough to know they need to stay ahead of the humie on the bike and the humie knows no one going to dissuade the critter chasing them to not sample a earthling
Flashman wrote: Concern 2 = It's the whole park thing again. At least 2 and 3 tried something a bit different.
Well the original was a non-working park with just a handful of employees, researchers, and two kids for little good reason. This one is a fully functioning and populated amusement center. You know, like Jaws 3.
Flashman wrote: Concern 2 = It's the whole park thing again. At least 2 and 3 tried something a bit different.
Well the original was a non-working park with just a handful of employees, researchers, and two kids for little good reason. This one is a fully functioning and populated amusement center. You know, like Jaws 3.
Pleeeeeeeeeeease tell me it's rated R for blood & gore!
Flashman wrote: Concern 2 = It's the whole park thing again. At least 2 and 3 tried something a bit different.
Well the original was a non-working park with just a handful of employees, researchers, and two kids for little good reason. This one is a fully functioning and populated amusement center. You know, like Jaws 3.
Pleeeeeeeeeeease tell me it's rated R for blood & gore!
Probably not. PG-13 was a death knell for most cinema as it made studios aim directly for the most boring middle ground they could find.
Flashman wrote: Concern 2 = It's the whole park thing again. At least 2 and 3 tried something a bit different.
Well the original was a non-working park with just a handful of employees, researchers, and two kids for little good reason. This one is a fully functioning and populated amusement center. You know, like Jaws 3.
Pleeeeeeeeeeease tell me it's rated R for blood & gore!
Probably not. PG-13 was a death knell for most cinema as it made studios aim directly for the most boring middle ground they could find.
Just once I'd like to see the studios go all out on a horror-Jurassic Park flix.
I'd posit it'd work and work well in the box office.
jasper76 wrote: Yikes....they got the doofus from Parks and Recreation???
You didn't see him in Guardians of the Galaxy?
I didn't see it. Stricly personally, I'm not a big fan of the superhero genre..not that I hate them or anything, just that I don't get inspired to watch them too frequently. I guess I just assumed that he'd be typecast, or whatever the correct phrase is. Like, whenever I see James Gandolfini in a movie, I'm watching Tony Soprano. It might be hard for me to watch a movie, and not think of him as the lead singer to Mouse Rat
sorry for swearing but I don't give a shi... how bad this movie looks, I felt like a kid again watching that trailer and am going to watch it, it has bloody dinosaurs, that's enough for me even at 31!
Search your feelings Frazzled, you know it to be true! both movies are based on a bunch of misfits with very different agendas and abilities, thrown together by greed, or the desire for an ultimate weapon, and intense action sequences mixed with surprisingly casual violence and prolific humor. Heck, for half the movie one of the main characters has very limited speech! Groot Multeepass, or I am Leelu....
Though I certainly agree that no one is as green as Ruby Rhod in this, or any other universe.
Formosa wrote: sorry for swearing but I don't give a shi... how bad this movie looks, I felt like a kid again watching that trailer and am going to watch it, it has bloody dinosaurs, that's enough for me even at 31!
I know im a bad person
I'm looking forward to it - hopefully some pretty girls (who survive) along with the killer Dino's - job done. And I'm older than you..............
No your the same as many people who just want to enjoy films and not be influenced by snobbish, single minded film critics who complain about having to watch films they don't like (and make no secret of their bias) even though they are paid to do so. So excellent fun movies like Battleship, Pacific Rim, Skyline are talked down because people enjoy them.........and they are not 3 hours long filled with nonsense pseudo science masquerading as real science rather than just admitting its a film about monsters / aliens etc and getting on with making a tight fun film.
Formosa wrote: sorry for swearing but I don't give a shi... how bad this movie looks, I felt like a kid again watching that trailer and am going to watch it, it has bloody dinosaurs, that's enough for me even at 31!
I know im a bad person
I'm looking forward to it - hopefully some pretty girls (who survive) along with the killer Dino's - job done. And I'm older than you..............
No your the same as many people who just want to enjoy films and not be influenced by snobbish, single minded film critics who complain about having to watch films they don't like (and make no secret of their bias) even though they are paid to do so. So excellent fun movies like Battleship, Pacific Rim, Skyline are talked down because people enjoy them.........and they are not 3 hours long filled with nonsense pseudo science masquerading as real science rather than just admitting its a film about monsters / aliens etc and getting on with making a tight fun film.
This is largely why I tend to ignore film critics. I know what I want from a film when I sit down to watch it, and can make my own decision based on the trailer and the first half an hour whether I'm going to get it. For simple minded Saturday evening entertainment, I don't need something as visually awesome as LotR, or as moving as the new Planet of the Apes (if you haven't seen new one, do it, it's amazing!), or as epic as The Dark Knight. Pacific Rim, Battleship, any Bond/Bourne type thing, hell, even Transformers if I skip the crap bits will do just fine.
Formosa wrote: sorry for swearing but I don't give a shi... how bad this movie looks, I felt like a kid again watching that trailer and am going to watch it, it has bloody dinosaurs, that's enough for me even at 31!
I know im a bad person
I'm looking forward to it - hopefully some pretty girls (who survive) along with the killer Dino's - job done. And I'm older than you..............
No your the same as many people who just want to enjoy films and not be influenced by snobbish, single minded film critics who complain about having to watch films they don't like (and make no secret of their bias) even though they are paid to do so. So excellent fun movies like Battleship, Pacific Rim, Skyline are talked down because people enjoy them.........and they are not 3 hours long filled with nonsense pseudo science masquerading as real science rather than just admitting its a film about monsters / aliens etc and getting on with making a tight fun film.
This is largely why I tend to ignore film critics. I know what I want from a film when I sit down to watch it, and can make my own decision based on the trailer and the first half an hour whether I'm going to get it. For simple minded Saturday evening entertainment, I don't need something as visually awesome as LotR, or as moving as the new Planet of the Apes (if you haven't seen new one, do it, it's amazing!), or as epic as The Dark Knight. Pacific Rim, Battleship, any Bond/Bourne type thing, hell, even Transformers if I skip the crap bits will do just fine.
Yep same here - completely agree. New Planet of the Apes are very good films - personally loved Transformers and did not enjoy Dark Knight that much.......
A Film Critics job isn't really to tell people whether they will like a film or not, or if they should like a film. Sometimes they get upset or really invested in a film and are passionate about it and may encourage people to avoid/see a particular film but they can't really tell you what you do or don't like.
The Transformers series is almost universally terrible from every angle, but that doesn't mean that some people still didn't enjoy them. Enjoying them also doesn't make them suddenly not bad either, though. Nor does it make someone awful for enjoying them. What it often does mean is that some people will be annoyed when it is pointed out that a movie or series they like is actually gak. I like Balls of Fury but it is an awful movie. The opposite would be something like Citizen Kane in that it is a very good movie, but it isn't really well liked by many. Disliking it also doesn't change that it is an important work historically, technically, or aesthetically.
Critics also aren't some uniform group, which something like Rotten Tomatoes should be proof of. Occasionally something like Toy Story will come along that the majority agree on, but that is fairly rare.
Also, Avatar was a crap movie with great special effects.
Ahtman wrote: A Film Critics job isn't really to tell people whether they will like a film or not, or if they should like a film. Sometimes they get upset or really invested in a film and are passionate about it and may encourage people to avoid/see a particular film but they can't really tell you what you do or don't like.
The Transformers series is almost universally terrible from every angle, but that doesn't mean that some people still didn't enjoy them. Enjoying them also doesn't make them suddenly not bad either, though. Nor does it make someone awful for enjoying them. What it often does mean is that some people will be annoyed when it is pointed out that a movie or series they like is actually gak. I like Balls of Fury but it is an awful movie. The opposite would be something like Citizen Kane in that it is a very good movie, but it isn't really well liked by many. Disliking it also doesn't change that it is an important work historically, technically, or aesthetically.
Critics also aren't some uniform group, which something like Rotten Tomatoes should be proof of. Occasionally something like Toy Story will come along that the majority agree on, but that is fairly rare.
Also, Avatar was a crap movie with great special effects.
Lots of opions - I disagree with pretty much all of them - Film Critics are part of a marketing operation - look at how they all licked the feet of George Lucas when he crapped out the Star Wars Prequals.
The Transformers series is almost universally terrible from every angle, but that doesn't mean that some people still didn't enjoy them.
Your opinion - no more valid or correct than anyone else..................
Mr Morden wrote: Your opinion - no more valid or correct than anyone else.....
Well not really. There are actually objective standards for elements of film making to determine if they are well done or not, and it didn't do much of anything well: bad script, bad acting, messy shots, ect. Just because one doesn't know the technical and trade elements involved in a craft doesn't mean they aren't there. A carpenter can tell the difference between a bad bit of work, an ok bit, and an excellent bit even if laymen don't see a distinction. Just as liking a greasy hamburger doesn't mean it is suddenly healthy, the same is true of many things in that liking or disliking a thing doesn't actually determine how well it is done.
As for critics 'licking Lucas's feet' over the prequels it seems you must have limited your exposure to what was out there as I recall reviews, at best, being mixed. Even looking at Rotten Tomatoes The Phantom Menace is sitting at an "F" rating (57%). Just like anything else there are going to be people who are good at their job and people who are bad at their job; not sure why this is understood for other professions but not this one. It is why, like a lot of things, you have to pick and choose carefully the ones you read, if you read them at all.
Did they create a hybrid for a particular reason or just for the hell of it?
Entertainment. From what I've read, the gist of it is the T-Rex wasn't a big draw anymore, to the point where people just aren't scared of it (something on the website about people being comfortable enough to take selfies in front of it). So they cook up something really scary to be a crowd draw.
Rumour is it's a mix of T-Rex, Veliciraptor, Cuttlefish (for chameleonic skin) and snake.
What I don't get is why they felt the need to point out that it's a hybrid, unless there's some deep meaning about not playing god in there (I doubt it). They get Dinosaurs wrong all the time. Velociraptors were actually about the size of chickens, the ones in the movies were Deinonychus sized. The Dilophosaurus did not have a frill neck nor did it spit venom as far as we have been able to tell, and Crichton admitted it was creative license. Aside from a few experts pointing out the inaccuracies, no one batted an eyelid. If they wanted a dinosaur with chameleonic skin, just say one of the Dinosaurs they created actually had it, rather than mix in cuttlefish.
I'm still interested in the movie, but the mix for the hybrid seems pretty dumb.
Mr Morden wrote: Your opinion - no more valid or correct than anyone else.....
Well not really. There are actually objective standards for elements of film making to determine if they are well done or not, and it didn't do much of anything well: bad script, bad acting, messy shots, ect. Just because one doesn't know the technical and trade elements involved in a craft doesn't mean they aren't there. A carpenter can tell the difference between a bad bit of work, an ok bit, and an excellent bit even if laymen don't see a distinction. Just as liking a greasy hamburger doesn't mean it is suddenly healthy, the same is true of many things in that liking or disliking a thing doesn't actually determine how well it is done.
As for critics 'licking Lucas's feet' over the prequels it seems you must have limited your exposure to what was out there as I recall reviews, at best, being mixed. Even looking at Rotten Tomatoes The Phantom Menace is sitting at an "F" rating (57%). Just like anything else there are going to be people who are good at their job and people who are bad at their job; not sure why this is understood for other professions but not this one. It is why, like a lot of things, you have to pick and choose carefully the ones you read, if you read them at all.
That might be what they say now - but I recall when PM came out and all the critics were falling over themselves to sayt what an awesome movie it was - even though IMO it has a terrible terrible srcipt, worse acting, effects laden nonsense - to me it its like a Nolen film - all flash and no substance but something critics love - often as they are directed to do so.... .
FIlim making is not just a profession its also art form- so its mostly about opinion - anything else is just kidding youself - like saying that a painting can only be judged on the "objective standards" - othewise most modern art would fail this test as it often requires little or no skill to actually create the images (or whatever).
IMO Transformers has a good pace, fun characters and good action - it looked great - but thats all it is an opionon - yours and mine have no more value or less value than the highest paid crictic as art and so by its very nature subjective.
back OT loving all I have seen in the trailer - not sure the point of venom for the hybrid - but shifting colours is fun - especially if it not just for camo but also to exprss emotion
Mr Morden wrote: FIlim making is not just a profession its also art form- so its mostly about opinion
Ignoring all the other nonsense, no one has claimed that films don't have a subjective element element and in fact it has been explicitly stated that people still have an opinion and can choose what they individually like or don't like. Where the disagreement comes in is the "mostly about opinion" part. Every person will have an opinion but that doesn't make it informed, well thought out, or based on extensive knowledge of the craft.
Kind of intrigued to be honest.
I absolutely adored the first JP, just had these great feel to it. Interesting to see how far they can push the CGI on this one.
Plus the redhead is gorgeous
Mr Morden wrote: FIlim making is not just a profession its also art form- so its mostly about opinion
Ignoring all the other nonsense, no one has claimed that films don't have a subjective element element and in fact it has been explicitly stated that people still have an opinion and can choose what they individually like or don't like. Where the disagreement comes in is the "mostly about opinion" part. Every person will have an opinion but that doesn't make it informed, well thought out, or based on extensive knowledge of the craft.
Lets just ignore each other on this subject as your views on films are totally incompatable with mine - as I said even the "craft" skills are subjective when you can have films where its all about imagery and highly regarded by the "elite" and others which are entertaining but slammed as popcorn, I find your statements as full of "nonsense" as you find mine so its not going to go anywhere.....
so lets go back on topic or continue this elsewhere
as I always say to my mates "just because I like a film... doesn't make it good"
I like some pretty awful movies (transformers, the 3rd of the new star wars) and like others have said above, I know what I like and know what I expect from a movie.
will this film be bad? almost certainly, but will I still enjoy watching it with my nieces and nephews, watching them get excited in the same way I did when I watched the original, that's what movies are made for people.
Did they create a hybrid for a particular reason or just for the hell of it?
Entertainment. From what I've read, the gist of it is the T-Rex wasn't a big draw anymore, to the point where people just aren't scared of it (something on the website about people being comfortable enough to take selfies in front of it). So they cook up something really scary to be a crowd draw.
Rumour is it's a mix of T-Rex, Veliciraptor, Cuttlefish (for chameleonic skin) and snake.
What I don't get is why they felt the need to point out that it's a hybrid, unless there's some deep meaning about not playing god in there (I doubt it). They get Dinosaurs wrong all the time. Velociraptors were actually about the size of chickens, the ones in the movies were Deinonychus sized. The Dilophosaurus did not have a frill neck nor did it spit venom as far as we have been able to tell, and Crichton admitted it was creative license. Aside from a few experts pointing out the inaccuracies, no one batted an eyelid. If they wanted a dinosaur with chameleonic skin, just say one of the Dinosaurs they created actually had it, rather than mix in cuttlefish.
I'm still interested in the movie, but the mix for the hybrid seems pretty dumb.
It might be the public not know it is a hybrid. I still hope the Spinosaurus makes an appearence....that thing is awesome
Bryce Dallas Howard, co-star of the M. Night Shamamalalaman flop, Lady in the Water, and the co-star of the M. Knight Shamalaanana somewhat decent film The Village.
Bryce Dallas Howard, co-star of the M. Night Shamamalalaman flop, Lady in the Water.
Also daughter of Ron Howard. Her recent career seems to have focused on unlikeable characters e.g. 50/50 and The Help. This seems to be a continuation of that trend.
Thanks - just been on IMDB - oooh they also have Judy Geer - she was fun in Big Bang and Kaite Mcgrath nice
It also says the park has been in operaiton for 10 years (presumably with minmum eating incidents) and declining visitors means they need something new........
Maybe the Umbrella Coproration coud buy them and help them out
Seaworld has managed to keep up strong visitors for decades until people saw "Blackfish" and started seeing through Seaworld's lies.
I find it very hard to believe that a Dinosaur park would be short on visitors after ten years that would require genetic modification.
It might have been better just to fabricate a dinosaur that they had never found before. Like "We don't know what this DNA is but lets make some and see what happens". They might aswell call it Monster Island. It's just a name...
I also share Ahtman's earlier concern about people actually cheering that giant monster jumping out of the water.
Watching the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes at the moment... CGI is still CGI but it's leagues ahead of what was on show in the Jurassic World trailer.
It's worth remembering that CGI in trailers is rarely finished, and is even sometimes cooked up for a quick shot in the trailer that will never make it to the film (like the big double doors as a throwback to the first movie), which will never get much attention from the studio hired to do the work.
-Loki- wrote: It's worth remembering that CGI in trailers is rarely finished, and is even sometimes cooked up for a quick shot in the trailer that will never make it to the film (like the big double doors as a throwback to the first movie), which will never get much attention from the studio hired to do the work.
Yeah, I factored that in. It just a concern that the CGI in the trailer is no better than the original film.
-Loki- wrote: It's worth remembering that CGI in trailers is rarely finished, and is even sometimes cooked up for a quick shot in the trailer that will never make it to the film (like the big double doors as a throwback to the first movie), which will never get much attention from the studio hired to do the work.
Yeah, I factored that in. It just a concern that the CGI in the trailer is no better than the original film.
Seaworld has managed to keep up strong visitors for decades until people saw "Blackfish" and started seeing through Seaworld's lies.
I find it very hard to believe that a Dinosaur park would be short on visitors after ten years that would require genetic modification.
It might have been better just to fabricate a dinosaur that they had never found before. Like "We don't know what this DNA is but lets make some and see what happens". They might aswell call it Monster Island. It's just a name...
I also share Ahtman's earlier concern about people actually cheering that giant monster jumping out of the water.
I liked the part at 1:58, where some sort of red substance fell on a mans hand, thereby warning him that something is above him. I've never seen that done in any movie, ever. Particularly monster movies, never seen its like before. My mind races at the possibilities of what could be above the man.
Possible plot spoilers:
Spoiler:
A really tall man eating a strawberry toaster strudel, or a person in a tree eating french fries with runny ketchup (ewww!). It could be anything really, and I'm excited to know. You've got my money Jurrasic World, well played.
Mr Morden wrote: That might be what they say now - but I recall when PM came out and all the critics were falling over themselves to sayt what an awesome movie it was - even though IMO it has a terrible terrible srcipt, worse acting, effects laden nonsense - to me it its like a Nolen film - all flash and no substance but something critics love - often as they are directed to do so.... .
We must have been reading different reviews. Most of the reviews I saw when Phantom Menace was released were that it was pretty, but suffered from wooden acting, corny dialogue and an over-reliance on CGI...
On one hand I'm excited for the dinosaurs and the evil corp vibe. Something Aliens-esque would be great. On the other hand I feel they're missing the entire point of the first and only good Jurassic Park. What made the film so compelling was the exploration of reluctant fatherhood and watching an old man have to destroy and give up on his legacy.
Exploration of the human condition could be in there, not really what makes a good trailer these days I guess. And if they're taking a new direction it will probably work out great rather than copying the original formula which... they never successfully managed anyway. I guess I'm cautiously optimistic.
Zond wrote: . What made the film so compelling was the exploration of reluctant fatherhood and watching an old man have to destroy and give up on his legacy.
Really? I just enjoyed it because Dinosaurs!
Sam Neil was far more entertaining than whatever was going on with Hammond. Hell, in the book, Hammond doesn't even get the chance to 'give up' his legacy, as he gets eaten by Compys.
Zond wrote: . What made the film so compelling was the exploration of reluctant fatherhood and watching an old man have to destroy and give up on his legacy.
Really? I just enjoyed it because Dinosaurs!
Sam Neil was far more entertaining than whatever was going on with Hammond. Hell, in the book, Hammond doesn't even get the chance to 'give up' his legacy, as he gets eaten by Compys.
Enjoying it because dinosaurs is fair enough. I just prefer well rounded characters reacting to the dinosaurs rather than just dinosaurs on their own. And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.
Zond wrote: And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.
From memory (been a while since I read it), it was actually mostly fairly close. There were a few more dinosaur species in the book (including the Pterasaurs that didn't make it in until #3 in the movies), the ages of the kids were reversed, and the aforementioned end of Hammond... I vaguely recall there being two T-Rexes running around as well. Pretty sure it was escaping from the younger T-Rex that wound up with them on a raft floating into the Pterasaur enclosure.
But for the most part it was one of the more faithful movie adaptations I've seen.
One thing that does bother me is how young the cast are.
Don't get me wrong but the main characters look too young to be in their roles at the park. Chris Prat is presumably playing the gamekeeper similar to Bob Peck's roll? Again, I don't see him having a believable amount of experience. Muldoon was meant to be a big game hunter with years of experience and he got outwitted.
They could have at least made her just a niece of Hammond that finally realised his dream but meanwhile some dodgy character is cooking up genetically modified monsters to sell to the military despite her refusing to do so.
I hope there's a shot of Dr. Malcolm lying back on a sofa with some scotch and a cigar watching the news. Just enough time for a Goldblum esque one liner.
Apparently Dr Wu, the Asain chap that talks to them about at the beginning of the first movie is more of a character. It says he's been living in Hammonds shadow, but he seemed like a pretty happy guy. I'd imagine he would have just wanted to get the park working. Maybe he'll end up to be the real bad guy.
Don't get me wrong but the main characters look too young to be in their roles at the park. Chris Prat is presumably playing the gamekeeper similar to Bob Peck's roll? Again, I don't see him having a believable amount of experience. Muldoon was meant to be a big game hunter with years of experience and he got outwitted.
They could have at least made her just a niece of Hammond that finally realised his dream but meanwhile some dodgy character is cooking up genetically modified monsters to sell to the military despite her refusing to do so.
I hope there's a shot of Dr. Malcolm lying back on a sofa with some scotch and a cigar watching the news. Just enough time for a Goldblum esque one liner.
Apparently Dr Wu, the Asain chap that talks to them about at the beginning of the first movie is more of a character. It says he's been living in Hammonds shadow, but he seemed like a pretty happy guy. I'd imagine he would have just wanted to get the park working. Maybe he'll end up to be the real bad guy.
Why would it need a bad guy? I think what LW did the worse was make humans the big bad an the dinos the misunderstood and poorly treated gentle giants.
Besides, Jurassic Park is like Godzilla, you nee to have kids in there. Makes the audience more sympathetic. And if a kid does something collossally stupid to move the plot forward, you can handwave it to "They are kids"
Zond wrote: And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.
From memory (been a while since I read it), it was actually mostly fairly close. There were a few more dinosaur species in the book (including the Pterasaurs that didn't make it in until #3 in the movies), the ages of the kids were reversed, and the aforementioned end of Hammond... I vaguely recall there being two T-Rexes running around as well. Pretty sure it was escaping from the younger T-Rex that wound up with them on a raft floating into the Pterasaur enclosure.
But for the most part it was one of the more faithful movie adaptations I've seen.
Plus, y'know, they cut the scene where Muldoon shoots a T. rex with a rocket launcher. While drunk.
Zond wrote: And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.
From memory (been a while since I read it), it was actually mostly fairly close. There were a few more dinosaur species in the book (including the Pterasaurs that didn't make it in until #3 in the movies), the ages of the kids were reversed, and the aforementioned end of Hammond... I vaguely recall there being two T-Rexes running around as well. Pretty sure it was escaping from the younger T-Rex that wound up with them on a raft floating into the Pterasaur enclosure.
But for the most part it was one of the more faithful movie adaptations I've seen.
Plus, y'know, they cut the scene where Muldoon shoots a T. rex with a rocket launcher. While drunk.
Well, They obviously could not film a scene like that. Because it would be so full of testosterone that it would make the audience instantly grow chest hair.
Both the JP book and movie follow the same basic threads:
1. People come to island to see park.
2. Nedry steals embryos and shuts down all the fences.
3. T-Rex attacks the tour.
4. Malcolm gets injured.
5. Grant, Tim and Lex get lost in the park.
6. Everyone else tries to get the power on.
7. They escape.
... but there are a lot of significant changes in the book, with extra characters (Regis, Wu and Dr. Harding) playing bigger roles, different characters dying and living (Genero and Muldoon survive, Wu, Hammond and Harding do not), a whole sub-plot with Raptors breeding in the wild and stowing away aboard the ship that left the island before the storm. Overall it's a different story, but no better or worse than the movie. They tell the same story shell, just differently.
The Lost World on the other hand... well... for someone who loved the book let's just say that movie they turned out was not what was expected. Or wanted.
Mr Morden wrote: That might be what they say now - but I recall when PM came out and all the critics were falling over themselves to sayt what an awesome movie it was - even though IMO it has a terrible terrible srcipt, worse acting, effects laden nonsense - to me it its like a Nolen film - all flash and no substance but something critics love - often as they are directed to do so.... .
We must have been reading different reviews. Most of the reviews I saw when Phantom Menace was released were that it was pretty, but suffered from wooden acting, corny dialogue and an over-reliance on CGI...
And the single most telegraphed death scene in Hollywood's history...
Really? I just enjoyed it because Dinosaurs!
Contradiction much............. I thought it was a great scene as did many of my friends and nope was enjoying the film - but different strokes................I guess its a bit like the first few scenes in Nolan's latest effects driven yawn fest telegraph the whole plot resolution to anyone vaguely paying attention.
Lost World was awesome (IMO) - great fun, favourite one in the series. T-Rex family in San Diego - brilliant - complete with the dog jkennel and Mummy there is a Dinosaur in the yard. I quite enjoyed the book but nowhere near as much as the film.
Apparently the park has been working just fine for 10 years
The first park worked ok, it required deliberate sabotage to make it fail.
The second project was led by a donkey-cave, but was again sabotaged, and we are never given a plausible reason as to why the ship carrying the T-Rex lost its crew and again it required a deliberate idiot to release the dinosaur.
The deleted scene showing the orginal business plan was sound enough.
I ended up with more sympathy for the company than for the 'heroes', the corp suit was so stupid it could only have been scripted, it was like he was stupid under duress.
Also I dont like how when the 'heroes' took the helicopter out they confirmed everyone else dead. They didn't know that, it was just a case of we are ok, feth everyone else.
Also the whole reason most people died was due to sabotage. The dinos were wrapped up ready to be shipped to an urban zoo with high concrete walls. Plan was fairly solid frankly, excepting choice of security.
The film series central premise that human control of dinosaurs wouldn't work is based on scripted fiat. Build enough concrete and it would work, even electric fences would work so long as there were power backups and preferably multiple circuitry loops.
Kayaking in an open park filled wirth megafauna however, dumb idea.
Also genertically modifying a superpredator designed to be bigger fast and smarter is also scripted dumb. Its not like the new dino is a real exhibit, its not a copy of a genuine dinosaur. The only reason to make one is if they weanted it for 'weapons division' which is a whole different franchise, also heavily based on a scripted dumb corporations.
The Lost World on the other hand... well... for someone who loved the book let's just say that movie they turned out was not what was expected. Or wanted.
The whole point of filming Lost World is that it is out of copyright, so anyone can film it and have dinosaurs and modern(ish) characters without having to pay for lawyers. Most Lost World stories are made for TV productions, and there have been quite a few. Some keep the Victorian setting, most keep the Victorian setting but Amercianise the characters, some port it to the modern day.
Very few are worth watching.
Slasher movies dont count. The genre relies on people exploring the haunted house rather than staying put, and living through the night. Those films are intended to rack up a random bodycount, often with audiences not guessing who the survivors will be. Also being smart or heroic is no defence in those types of movie.
Making a dumb move in a horror movie is part of the genre. Its also part of human nature not to be entirely rational all the time, especially in high sterss situations.
Most cases are just errors and are explainable.
Burke abandoning the marines in Aliens running off and eventually being chomped by an alien behind a door he opens is a good example. He was a jerk for abandoning everyone and dumb to run blindly in that place. But it was part self preservation part panic and at least semi-logical. The audience is led to have no sympathy for the character and his fate
Scritped dumb is something else. It isn't a case of temporary insanity, stress or panic, or the human fight or flight responce getting people into trouble.
It manifests in persistently doing things which are intolerably stupid, mostly to make the point that the character is stupid, and despite similarities only applies when when the film/character is not deliberate slapstick farce because that is a comic genre or comic relief in a more serious film .
The hallmark of scripted dumb is that the dumbness is pointed out, and the failure is somehow inevitable, and those who were against the victim of scripted dumb are therefore vindicated in their opposition.
Remember in cinema the symapthy of characters is preordained by the script. There are cases where sympathies do not manifest or become the opposite to what is intended, Ja Ja Binks being a good example. Scripted dumb works heavily on the negative symapthies while simultaneously boosting the sympathies fro the proagonists. So much so that the protagonists can end up being total dicks and people still root for them. One of the galring things about scriopted dumb is when you realise this, and take a look at the characterisations in the films. The Jurassic Park series is a good example of heavy handed use of scripted dumb, including the told-you-so aftermath, other examples include Ghost Busters. Jurassic Park partly avoids this, most of the corporate characters are rational, but the preachyness part is laid on thick.. Jurassic Park 2 however lays it on very heavily, is watchable the first time around then, if you see the pattern for what it is, becomes annoying. Jurassic Park 3 doesn't include scripted dumb as the corporatiion is not involved in the plot.
JP3 does include something just as bad, the character with plot immunity who gets other people killed The 'reunite the family' plot meme does work as a film premise but to do so everyone in the family has to survive or the film becomes bittersweet. This is ok for scripting, however when one of the characters repeatedly gets third parties killed directly or indirectly, and blatantly doesnt care about it, it gets annoying.
Wyland -Yutani avoids the scripted dumb meme, even Burke, as there is a logic to what they do, and they dont deliberately feth up to continue the plot. 'Zombie doors' are not scripted dumb in general as there is usually no knowing what is on the other side and no plot progression without opening the door.
Orlanth wrote: The whole point of filming Lost World is that it is out of copyright, so anyone can film it and have dinosaurs and modern(ish) characters without having to pay for lawyers. Most Lost World stories are made for TV productions, and there have been quite a few. Some keep the Victorian setting, most keep the Victorian setting but Amercianise the characters, some port it to the modern day.
Very few are worth watching.
And basically none of them have anything to do with either the book "The Lost World", or the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park".
Orlanth wrote: The whole point of filming Lost World is that it is out of copyright, so anyone can film it and have dinosaurs and modern(ish) characters without having to pay for lawyers. Most Lost World stories are made for TV productions, and there have been quite a few. Some keep the Victorian setting, most keep the Victorian setting but Amercianise the characters, some port it to the modern day.
Very few are worth watching.
And basically none of them have anything to do with either the book "The Lost World", or the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park".
I remember being a kid and just confused by seeing "The Lost World" on tv, then tuning in and just going "This isnt The Lost World"
Orlanth wrote: The whole point of filming Lost World is that it is out of copyright, so anyone can film it and have dinosaurs and modern(ish) characters without having to pay for lawyers. Most Lost World stories are made for TV productions, and there have been quite a few. Some keep the Victorian setting, most keep the Victorian setting but Amercianise the characters, some port it to the modern day.
Very few are worth watching.
And basically none of them have anything to do with either the book "The Lost World", or the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park".
I remember being a kid and just confused by seeing "The Lost World" on tv, then tuning in and just going "This isnt The Lost World"
Yes, blame Michael Crichton (or his publishers) for being bereft of title ideas when they decided to push a sequel onto us. Aside from stealing from Conan Doyle, it's a total misnomer anyway. It's not like anyone at InGen had forgotten where Isla Sorna (or Site B) was.
You could call the title an homage to the original story - an untouched land full of dinosaurs - but no, there wasn't anything "lost" about Site B. InGen knew about it, but didn't tell anyone, and Biosyn apparently knew about it.
Orlanth wrote: The whole point of filming Lost World is that it is out of copyright, so anyone can film it and have dinosaurs and modern(ish) characters without having to pay for lawyers. Most Lost World stories are made for TV productions, and there have been quite a few. Some keep the Victorian setting, most keep the Victorian setting but Amercianise the characters, some port it to the modern day.
Very few are worth watching.
And basically none of them have anything to do with either the book "The Lost World", or the movie "The Lost World: Jurassic Park".
Jurassic Park: The Lost World is just a secondary title, it has no reference to the Lost World whatsoever.
Most Lost World movies however do have at least a nod to the book, if only including a lead character called Challenger etc. These however are just namedrops to justify the film title and dino content. Most productions are better and some are reasonably faithful to the original story.
Got to share this worth you. My favourite dinosaur film is One Million Years BC. Rather short on scientific reality, its a 60's cavemen vs dinosaurs romp that is awesome fun, and a loose remake of an earlier film from 1940 of the same name.. Stop motion dinosaurs have a place in my heart, far harder to do than CGI and in my opinion more characterful. What makes Omne Million Years BC epic is that there is no intelligible dialogue, everything is made up of single words grunt and mimes, and yet the plot is easy to follow. There were a number of caveman films in its wake, most with dinosaurs, however most had dialogue in English, which didnt work as well. The cliche caveman is supposed to grunt a lot look stupid but have fox l;ike cunning when he needs it.
It didn't hurt that the film had Raquel Welsh in a fur bikini, and not long after Dr No.
If I ever modify something's genetics, I'm naming it "Khan Napoleon Caesar". Even if it's just a Broccoli-Cauliflower hybrid, you know gak's gonna go down with a name like that.
It's basically the same jacket from GotG, with the Marauders logo covered up.... Yep, this is the Star Lord in a spinoff movie, told you we needed other genetic/cybernetically modified creatures in this one
It's basically the same jacket from GotG, with the Marauders logo covered up.... Yep, this is the Star Lord in a spinoff movie, told you we needed other genetic/cybernetically modified creatures in this one
Actually it might Be the GotG jacket. Notice where it says Fanart in the upper right corner.
Compel wrote: I suppose that's suggesting he hand reared the raptors hence why there's no face eating during the motorbike scene.
I still think the film is Spielberg trying to cash in on Sharknado and the likes success.
That might be a plausible explanation.
Mine still makes the most sense. That the raptors are running from an even bigger predator, and stopping for a snack will get them killed
the shrouded lord wrote: the thing about velociraptors being the size of chickens is a myth bro.
yes they were no where near the size they are in the movie, but:
I'd love to see a pack of these Utahraptor, estimated to have reached up to 7 m (23 ft) long and somewhat less than 500 kg (1,100 lb) in weight, comparable to an average sized polar bear.
the shrouded lord wrote: the thing about velociraptors being the size of chickens is a myth bro.
yes they were no where near the size they are in the movie, but:
Not quite, bro.
V. mongoliensis was the size of a turkey, not a chicken, meaning they were roughly .5-.6 meters tall to the hip, about 2 meters long, and weighed in at around 15 kilograms (and or course, covered in feathers).
That picture from National Geographic is shows an animal the size of Deinonychus antirrhopus and I'm not sure why they using it to show the size of V. mongoliensis. Check out The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs by Gregory S. Paul if you want a more accurate representation of the animal.
the shrouded lord wrote: the thing about velociraptors being the size of chickens is a myth bro.
yes they were no where near the size they are in the movie, but:
I'd love to see a pack of these Utahraptor, estimated to have reached up to 7 m (23 ft) long and somewhat less than 500 kg (1,100 lb) in weight, comparable to an average sized polar bear.
Does not approve.
