Well, now that opening weekend is over what was everyone's impressions?
I will warn any readers- MAJOR spoilers in the tags. If you don't want to know, don't open them up.
As for me-
Spoiler:
I was disappointed. I liked the dinosaurs, those are always cool of course, but the Indominus Red felt so unnecessary. A lot of it felt unnecessary. And there were a few plotholes in my mind.
For starters- why go into the iRex paddock before checking where the Rex is supposed to be? Seriously, what if it was an equipment malfunction?
Why did the iRex smash open the gate to the Valley, but not go in? Did she just take a look around at all the herbivores and decide, "Nah, there'll be some kids along in a minute. I'll mess with them."
Raptors just switching sides willy-nilly. First they're sorta on Chris Pratt's side, then the iRex, then oh wait no we're totally on Pratt's side now.
How did her heels manage to survive all that running, and hiking, and walking, and hiding, and fighting? I suppose to show that she can do all that in heels?
A lot of the movie felt really forced, and cheesy. Head of Security didn't really play his part too well IMO- wasn't really believable. Not to legion the brilliant idea of using raptors to scent track the iRex. Pratt didn't seem very believable as an ex-Navy Seal either I think. Wasn't too fond of the kids dialogue either.
I think my biggest disappointment was the final confrontation with T-Rex, Blue, and iRex. I may have set myself up here, but I wanted the old battle-scarred T-Rex to take on iRex alone and win. But they had the velociraptor help out at the last second. And then the Mosasaur(which was far too large for a mosasaur) rise out of the water and finish iRex off. It felt like a Deus ex Machina. It stole the victory.
I suppose over all I liked it okay, but sadly it's not at the top of my list. It was also the movie I was most looking forward to this summer.
The Dinosaurs seemed more like Humans than Animals. Which lead to the dino issues you mentioned in my opinion. The first one suggested intelligence but the creatures are ultimately animals and behaved like them for the most part.
The movie being based around needing to keep kids happy and interested in the park, to me, spelled out how the movie was actually going to be. Like it was telling me well ahead of the Dinosaur stuff what the movie was going to be like.
The flying creatures, looking back at when I was obsessed with dinos, are thought to have preyed on fish, bugs and small creatures because they don't have the mouths for chewing. How would any of those flying creatures actually eaten any of the humans they attacked? To me this stuck out as a bad idea for something scary.
Meh from me. BUT it was better than I expected. I thought it would suck way worse than it did.
Better than the last two in the series, not as good as the first, but worth the price of admission. World managed to recapture the 'awe' of the first film, which I think really helped it stand out compared to Lost World (was made to sell toys) and III (made too... to). Everyone knew what this movie would be about, and the movie knew what people wanted and it was okay enough in the end.
Spoiler alert; DINOSAURS EAT PEOPLE!
Though gotta say;
Spoiler:
This film is a really big example of a movie that benefited nothing at all from the cliche'd romance subplot. Hell, it wasn't even convincing. The film was so unconvincing on it I feel like some marketers sat down and said "eh good enough" and left it at that just because they though there had to be a kiss and faux attempt at romance just cause it 'supposed' to be there.
Made a half of billion dollars over the weekend. O.o
My favorite part?
Spoiler:
We need more teeth!
Heh...
I only had two trivial issues:
1) That clear gyroball scooter? How the hell does it get traction? It seems to my it'd spin on the spot.
2) Claire running in her high heels all movie? Yeah... right. Espcially after baiting the extra "teeth". o.O
Mono-wheels are another fiction (like AFV tanks).
They look good, but there is no possible way for them to work IRL.
Take stopping.
Cars and Bicycles stop because the front and rear wheels have an angular momentum that is separated by the chassis. So, when you apply the brakes, the chassis acts as a bar to the whole vehicle just rolling along on momentum.
BUT... If you put the brakes on a mono-wheel... All you have done is lock the passenger compartment to the outer wheel. That wheel keeps on turning due to momentum, just a little more slowly due to the added mass of the passengers suddenly being lofted (but that mass is added back to the momentum once the passenger compartment clears the top of the vehicle in rotation, and gravity returns the potential energy to kinetic energy back into the wheel).
There is literally no way to apply brakes to a mono-wheel to stop it like a car.
Just like the vehicle you mention.
You can only apply brakes slightly, such that the weight of the passenger compartment acts as a weight to slow the rotation slightly (you have to make certain the passenger compartment does not loft over the top of the wheel, but only rises slightly, putting its weight into slowing the forward momentum. . . slightly).
The Tendency of a mono-wheel to seize up during braking (or if it accelerates too quickly) even has a name:
Gerbiling
That is right, after the Hamster/Gerbil wheel (and not after the famous Richard Gere rumor)
I think the mono-wheels typically take about a hundred or more times the distance to stop as a normal vehicle due to this problem.
They also are impossible to steer at high speeds (they act as a gyroscope, and refuse to change direction - on a two-wheel vehicle, the differential angular momentum between front and rear wheels is what allows direction change, and why part of the reason counter-steering occurs on two-wheeled vehicles), and at lower speeds they fall over (or in the case of a ball, roll in odd directions all over the place).
This movie is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the Flaws of over-dependence upon CGI.
The raptors switching sides just seemed to be them following the alpha at the time.
My real question is what happens if one of those glass mono wheels runs into some dinosaur droppings? Is the tour basically ruined because you can't see?
Dr. What wrote: The raptors switching sides just seemed to be them following the alpha at the time.
My real question is what happens if one of those glass mono wheels runs into some dinosaur droppings? Is the tour basically ruined because you can't see?
Or if one of the many stegosaurus or ankylosaurus got protective and gave it a whack.
Overall I liked the movie and found it plenty enjoyable. The three things I'd claimed to have issues with are;
A.) iRex (love that nickname) being Too smart. How did it know to hide its body temperature? It has no idea of thermal cameras. That should have just been an instance of regular cameras and its camo ability. Ok so it's part raptor, how does it know the language they're using? That leads into...
2.) Team Raptor changing sides on a dime. They didn't really turn on Pratt as seen by the one spotting him and not instantly ganking him like they did everyone else, just took out his team, but I'd have like to see them stay strictly team human.
III.) The various flying dinos all making an immediate beeline for that break in the dome and then all heading straight to the visitor center to attack the people in one giant mixed flock. As said, they're fish eaters. Some of those things were even much smaller than the people they were attacking!
I didn't mind the Masosaur helping take down iRex. I view it as well as the T-Rex and Blue all going at it as the "real" dinos getting to take down the fake one together. And while I mention "real" dinos I'd have liked a small throw away comment from the lab guy about them having feathers when he mentioned how the Dino clones look different from how they should look.
They look good, but there is no possible way for them to work IRL.
Take stopping.
Cars and Bicycles stop because the front and rear wheels have an angular momentum that is separated by the chassis. So, when you apply the brakes, the chassis acts as a bar to the whole vehicle just rolling along on momentum.
BUT... If you put the brakes on a mono-wheel... All you have done is lock the passenger compartment to the outer wheel. That wheel keeps on turning due to momentum, just a little more slowly due to the added mass of the passengers suddenly being lofted (but that mass is added back to the momentum once the passenger compartment clears the top of the vehicle in rotation, and gravity returns the potential energy to kinetic energy back into the wheel).
There is literally no way to apply brakes to a mono-wheel to stop it like a car.
Just like the vehicle you mention.
You can only apply brakes slightly, such that the weight of the passenger compartment acts as a weight to slow the rotation slightly (you have to make certain the passenger compartment does not loft over the top of the wheel, but only rises slightly, putting its weight into slowing the forward momentum. . . slightly).
The Tendency of a mono-wheel to seize up during braking (or if it accelerates too quickly) even has a name:
Gerbiling
That is right, after the Hamster/Gerbil wheel (and not after the famous Richard Gere rumor)
I think the mono-wheels typically take about a hundred or more times the distance to stop as a normal vehicle due to this problem.
They also are impossible to steer at high speeds (they act as a gyroscope, and refuse to change direction - on a two-wheel vehicle, the differential angular momentum between front and rear wheels is what allows direction change, and why part of the reason counter-steering occurs on two-wheeled vehicles), and at lower speeds they fall over (or in the case of a ball, roll in odd directions all over the place).
This movie is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the Flaws of over-dependence upon CGI.
MB
Interesting, and I am glad I read the thread (and didnt spoiler myself while doing so)
Nice commentary on monowheels, I wonder if they are viable for small devices, for robotics?
Yes, but the largest known species of mosasaur could have reached near 60 feet in length, which is about the size of the animal in the film. There were also a couple of other species of mosasaur, that while not as large as the one seen in film, easily surpassed the length of an adult T. rex.
You also have to remember, the animals in the film were not true to how they would have appeared; they were reverse engineered from their closest living relative and made to appear how people wanted them to.
AduroT wrote: Overall I liked the movie and found it plenty enjoyable. The three things I'd claimed to have issues with are;
A.) iRex (love that nickname) being Too smart. How did it know to hide its body temperature? It has no idea of thermal cameras. That should have just been an instance of regular cameras and its camo ability. Ok so it's part raptor, how does it know the language they're using? That leads into...
Seeing as it could detect thermal radiation, it makes sense that it would camouflage by hiding it's thermal radiation (especially as it has the ability to). When we try and hid from something, we get out of sight and be quiet because that's how we find things. The frog they mentioned can hide its thermal radiation doesn't actually know what it's doing, it's all instinctual.
I really liked it. Were bits silly? Yeah. But the whole premise is a bit silly. Doesn't make it less awesome.
Other than that, I loved it. They did a pretty decent job of actually having characters in the movie take issues with some of the things they expected audiences and critics to complain about, then explain it in a second and move on. You weren't getting Casa Blanca for plot. Although, given the love story... "We'll always have that crazy island with Dinos that tried to eat us".
All in all, I felt it was an amazing sequel to the first Jurassic Park. The second and third movies didn't even matter, this felt like a much more proper sequel.
Yes, but the largest known species of mosasaur could have reached near 60 feet in length, which is about the size of the animal in the film. There were also a couple of other species of mosasaur, that while not as large as the one seen in film, easily surpassed the length of an adult T. rex.
You also have to remember, the animals in the film were not true to how they would have appeared; they were reverse engineered from their closest living relative and made to appear how people wanted them to.
What ruffled my feathers was that if it was supposed to be a Tylosaurus they should have called it such!
I'm all cool with them changing the dinosaurs a bit to appease a crowd, but when I was a kid I would have called them on the size discrepancy.
They likely continued to call it Mosasaur because that was the name of a boss in one of the Jurassic Park games (that for some reason was really popular with fans). So they ascended the Mosa from video game extra to main cast
LordofHats wrote: They likely continued to call it Mosasaur because that was the name of a boss in one of the Jurassic Park games (that for some reason was really popular with fans). So they ascended the Mosa from video game extra to main cast
Now I'm really curious what game that was- I thought I had played them all.
Isn't Mosasaur the name of the group of big sea reptiles that included Tylosaurus? If so, it's just a case of them not being specific as opposed to being wrong. The Velociraptor size discrepancy is still terrible...
I feel that, while it was an enjoyable movie, it really suffered from just taking to long to pull itself together. They started with the main characters in three different locations, and didn't get them together until the finale. To me, this made the movie feel disjointed for much of it's run time. I think that if they had had Claire show her nephews around the park they could of tied the characters together better. She shows them around the exhibits, we build up the sense of wonder, then she takes them behind-the-scenes, and we get to meet the bridge crew, and visit the raptor paddock [insert the raptor scene]. We now have everyone in one place. They then run into Mr. Masrani, who decides "Hey, let's see what the kids think of our new exhibit". Boom. We visit FXRex, We have it's intro, plus the kids now know it is a nasty bit of work. Claire then sends the kids off with Zara while she gets Owen to look at the paddock. We now have the same scenario of Claire blowing her nephews off for work, but we feel that the characters are connected. The movie may now resume.
I also feel that the movie should have spent more time building up a sense of wonder about the park. It would have been nice to linger on the attractions a bit more. As it was, I wasn't feeling any sense of wonder until
Spoiler:
We reached the ruins of the old park
As it was, we knew things were going to heck, and didn't have any reason to wish that they wouldn't (which I think was where the first movie really excelled).
That said, the movie did have it's good points. It was nice to see them acknowledge the shortcomings of their dinosaur designs (via Wu's "We make what the visitors expect" comment). The captive raptors turned out fairly well, as they made it clear that Owen barely manages to keep them from eating him, and doesn't really control them. Also, I just can't criticize
Spoiler:
A battle royale involving a T. rex, several humans, multiple raptors, FXRex, and a Mosasaur
Sinful Hero wrote: What ruffled my feathers was that if it was supposed to be a Tylosaurus they should have called it such!
Well, to be fair a Tylosaurus is a member of a subgroup of mosasaur.
ImAGeek wrote:Isn't Mosasaur the name of the group of big sea reptiles that included Tylosaurus? If so, it's just a case of them not being specific as opposed to being wrong. The Velociraptor size discrepancy is still terrible...
Well nevermind. After a bit of a Wikipedia search I found the Mosasaurus Hoffmannii which got up to 59ft...
Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
I wish they'd addressed it in this one, just a little offhand comment like 'oh they aren't actually velociraptor. We got the name wrong then...' Or something like that, but it's not a big deal really.
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
Or at least only death you don't have to spoiler cuz it was in the trailers.
Honestly though, I'm super glad the trailers lied about how "tame" the raptors were. Definitely more believable in the film. And yeah, the raptors are the equivalent to the deinonychus. The Utahraptor was more like 12 feet, not 4 feet tall. Deinonychus was 4-5 feet, and looked pretty much how these guys do. Actually, it has a scarier name too. But not as easy for kids to pronounce. So I can understand the switch.
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
Same family, different genus.
See even Hats can't get it right, and surely Hats is smarter than some Hollywood douche bags
Meg: A novel of deep terror by Steve Alton. Primarily a novel about Carcharadon Megalodon. Not going to say it was great prose, but I enjoyed it in Middle/High school. Had three sequels, one of which features Kronosaurus and. Lieropluradon(the fourth in the series ).
As ridiculous as it may have been letting 'tourists' roam around in a 'hamster ball', wouldn't it work just like a Segway in terms of gyroscope and stopping?
They look good, but there is no possible way for them to work IRL.
Take stopping.
Cars and Bicycles stop because the front and rear wheels have an angular momentum that is separated by the chassis. So, when you apply the brakes, the chassis acts as a bar to the whole vehicle just rolling along on momentum.
BUT... If you put the brakes on a mono-wheel... All you have done is lock the passenger compartment to the outer wheel. That wheel keeps on turning due to momentum, just a little more slowly due to the added mass of the passengers suddenly being lofted (but that mass is added back to the momentum once the passenger compartment clears the top of the vehicle in rotation, and gravity returns the potential energy to kinetic energy back into the wheel).
There is literally no way to apply brakes to a mono-wheel to stop it like a car.
Just like the vehicle you mention.
You can only apply brakes slightly, such that the weight of the passenger compartment acts as a weight to slow the rotation slightly (you have to make certain the passenger compartment does not loft over the top of the wheel, but only rises slightly, putting its weight into slowing the forward momentum. . . slightly).
The Tendency of a mono-wheel to seize up during braking (or if it accelerates too quickly) even has a name:
Gerbiling
That is right, after the Hamster/Gerbil wheel (and not after the famous Richard Gere rumor)
I think the mono-wheels typically take about a hundred or more times the distance to stop as a normal vehicle due to this problem.
They also are impossible to steer at high speeds (they act as a gyroscope, and refuse to change direction - on a two-wheel vehicle, the differential angular momentum between front and rear wheels is what allows direction change, and why part of the reason counter-steering occurs on two-wheeled vehicles), and at lower speeds they fall over (or in the case of a ball, roll in odd directions all over the place).
This movie is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the Flaws of over-dependence upon CGI.
MB
Interesting, and I am glad I read the thread (and didnt spoiler myself while doing so)
Nice commentary on monowheels, I wonder if they are viable for small devices, for robotics?
They aren't.
They have been experimented with as a part of a modular system, but overall they remain just as unreliable as small robots as they do for large robots or vehicles.
You might be thinking of a "Unicycle" robot, which is different from a mono-wheel.
A Unicycle puts the cargo above the wheel, which allows for greater directional control, due to being able to rotate the wheel. Stopping is also easier due to the ability to displace the cargo forward while stopping to halt the angular momentum of the wheel. This is not possible on a mono wheel, because the cargo is INSIDE the wheel (it is a part of the wheel).
Unicycle≠mono-wheel
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: A small group of us UCLA Biologists (Cyberneticists, really: Computational & Systems Biology - but it's still biology) have been thinking about going to see it.
We had a fight via txt message last night over whether to waste our time on it, given that movies like this tend to be annoying to biologists.
I think there is a split vote on whether to go see it or not. Those of us in the pedant camp have a hard time suspending disbelief.
Yes, but the largest known species of mosasaur could have reached near 60 feet in length, which is about the size of the animal in the film. There were also a couple of other species of mosasaur, that while not as large as the one seen in film, easily surpassed the length of an adult T. rex.
You also have to remember, the animals in the film were not true to how they would have appeared; they were reverse engineered from their closest living relative and made to appear how people wanted them to.
What ruffled my feathers was that if it was supposed to be a Tylosaurus they should have called it such!
I'm all cool with them changing the dinosaurs a bit to appease a crowd, but when I was a kid I would have called them on the size discrepancy.
Tylosaurus is too small, it was only around forty feet in size.
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
Yes, but the largest known species of mosasaur could have reached near 60 feet in length, which is about the size of the animal in the film. There were also a couple of other species of mosasaur, that while not as large as the one seen in film, easily surpassed the length of an adult T. rex.
You also have to remember, the animals in the film were not true to how they would have appeared; they were reverse engineered from their closest living relative and made to appear how people wanted them to.
What ruffled my feathers was that if it was supposed to be a Tylosaurus they should have called it such!
I'm all cool with them changing the dinosaurs a bit to appease a crowd, but when I was a kid I would have called them on the size discrepancy.
Tylosaurus is too small, it was only around forty feet in size.
45. Mosasaurus Hoffmannii would be a more likely candidate(59ft), which I mentioned a few posts later.
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
Or a Deinonychus.
Deinonychus is also too small.
He was also around 11-12. How big is it supposed to be?
Length has nothing to do with true size, which is hip-height and mass. Jurassic Park "Velociraptors" stand close to human height, have far larger skulls, and appear to have significantly higher mass. Deinonychus meanwhile was just the size of the largest domestic dog breeds.
Length has nothing to do with true size, which is hip-height and mass. Jurassic Park "Velociraptors" stand close to human height, have far larger skulls, and appear to have significantly higher mass. Deinonychus meanwhile was just the size of the largest domestic dog breeds.
Which would have worked better for the book's sized veloraptors, as Genaro was able to throw one off of him. The movie version is substantially larger.
Having stood next to a life sized version (Austroraptors attacking a plant eater at the Houston Museum) they fell like they fit.
Length has nothing to do with true size, which is hip-height and mass. Jurassic Park "Velociraptors" stand close to human height, have far larger skulls, and appear to have significantly higher mass. Deinonychus meanwhile was just the size of the largest domestic dog breeds.
I was left in a strange cocktail emotions after viewing this film none of them particularly positive.
The film was a muddled mess in the pacing, plot, character and overall storytelling departments.
The worst part of the film is either the ridiculous and pathetic attempt to humanize prehistoric killing machines, the garbled rant that drones are somehow inferior to said uncontrollable animals, or that wretched last fight.
It made more of an attempt to be a high minded cyber thriller like JP1 and it had Chris Pratt so that's good.
Overall I'd put it in the same spot as Jurassic Park 3.
Well it certainly wasn't as high minded but it came much closer than any of its sequels.
There has been nothing close to the concepts being exchanged in the iconic "slap it on a lunchbox and mass produce it" scene from JP1 in the franchise, particularly this installment.
I.... I want to say that I liked it. I grew up on Jurassic Park and its sequels. I really loved them, even the third.
This film though.... It just lacked things. The Raptors apparently being human friends, the fact that no one bothered to check the tracker implant on the hybrid before they wandered into its enclosure, the afore mentioned attack of the flying dino's, most of which would avoid people and ate fish.
The fact that the hybrid killed for fun.
The attempts to re-create the old classic scenes from 1, 2 and 3 (The Trex/Raptor battle from film 1, the Raptor field from film 2 and the pterodactyl flying alongside the helicopter from 3) but 'in HD'.
There is potential. Potential for another film, but one that does not hold back and does not have that damn romance undercurrent.
Potential for one that has less of the multi dino tag team and general derpiness (T'rex and Raptors not just killing the squishy humans after taking down I'Rex(loving that name btw) and does not have a human in high heels out running a Tyrannosaur, a creature that can reach around 4 times the speed a human can in proper foot wear.)
Potential for one that has some real dinosaur hunting people horror.
And a severe lack of potential for one that involves Raptors being trained for army uses and all this bull about Drones being usless (seriously, an army of Raptors advancing would last as long as cavalry against modern firearms)
There is the potential. Its just not being realised.
It's not like the film was proposing that Velociraptors would be better than drones, it was the character in the film, who was an idiot, and everyone disagreed with him.
LordofHats wrote: Better than the last two in the series, not as good as the first, but worth the price of admission. World managed to recapture the 'awe' of the first film, which I think really helped it stand out compared to Lost World (was made to sell toys) and III (made too... to). Everyone knew what this movie would be about, and the movie knew what people wanted and it was okay enough in the end.
Spoiler alert; DINOSAURS EAT PEOPLE!
Though gotta say;
Spoiler:
This film is a really big example of a movie that benefited nothing at all from the cliche'd romance subplot. Hell, it wasn't even convincing. The film was so unconvincing on it I feel like some marketers sat down and said "eh good enough" and left it at that just because they though there had to be a kiss and faux attempt at romance just cause it 'supposed' to be there.
"made to sell toys"
"some marketers sat down and said 'eh good enough'"
Sounds like a GW codex or Formation prodution meeting...
I liked it, sure there was pacing issues and some silly things like the Drone talk (which is just a guy trying to make a bad point to further his goals) and a woman in heels out running a T-Rex.
But I went in expecting nothing, bought a ticket while at work on a whim and then went after to see it. What I got was fun that reminded me of my childhood. I know as a kid I sure would have wanted a pack of Raptors. The I-Rex, hell I think I had an idea like that as a kid. The return to the old visitors center was good, and I enjoyed Pratt as a not super serious Ex-Military man. Because you know that is a thing, most Vets I know aren't super serious.
It was good to get in there and let some of these silly things slide for once rather than being slightly frustrated at plots holes (Im looking at you Avengers 2).
VictorVonTzeentch wrote: I liked it, sure there was pacing issues and some silly things like the Drone talk (which is just a guy trying to make a bad point to further his goals) and a woman in heels out running a T-Rex.
But I went in expecting nothing, bought a ticket while at work on a whim and then went after to see it. What I got was fun that reminded me of my childhood. I know as a kid I sure would have wanted a pack of Raptors. The I-Rex, hell I think I had an idea like that as a kid. The return to the old visitors center was good, and I enjoyed Pratt as a not super serious Ex-Military man. Because you know that is a thing, most Vets I know aren't super serious.
It was good to get in there and let some of these silly things slide for once rather than being slightly frustrated at plots holes (Im looking at you Avengers 2).
T.Rex's max speed likely clocked out around twenty miles per hour, so it's not unreasonable for her to have left the Tyrannosaur in the dust if she wasn't wearing heels. Although considering it's top speed may have been as low as fifteen miles per hour, she may have even been able to do it in heels.
Thoroughly enjoyed it. decent plot and enjoyable subplot with the ImGen weaponisation angle, great CGI (saw it in 3D) and the characters were pretty solid.
Sure there were a few flaws (how exactly did the lead lady end up with her breasts nearly out, chest covered in sweat and her skirt right up her thigh? oh yeah gotcha) and plot holes but it was a solid romp.
Some great little homages to the original and that end fight was awesome. Managed to do more in that 10 mins than the whole of the last Godzilla film did in 2 hours.
Defo worth a watch in 3D.
Kanluwen wrote:Eli Roth is helming a film version of "Meg", apparently.
Got announced an hour or two ago.
Awesome.
Ratius wrote:Thoroughly enjoyed it. decent plot and enjoyable subplot with the ImGen weaponisation angle, great CGI (saw it in 3D) and the characters were pretty solid.
Sure there were a few flaws (how exactly did the lead lady end up with her breasts nearly out, chest covered in sweat and her skirt right up her thigh? oh yeah gotcha) and plot holes but it was a solid romp.
Some great little homages to the original and that end fight was awesome. Managed to do more in that 10 mins than the whole of the last Godzilla film did in 2 hours.
Defo worth a watch in 3D.
To be fair, Godzilla was supposed to be slow. It was more an homage to the original.
LordofHats wrote: Well it's not like Jurassic Park is big on accuracy anyway. Set aside the whole feathers thing, the Velociraptors in JP are 2-4x the size of the actual species bearing that name. Really what the franchise calls a Velociraptor is closer in size to the Utahraptor (same genus, different species).
I wish they'd addressed it in this one, just a little offhand comment like 'oh they aren't actually velociraptor. We got the name wrong then...' Or something like that, but it's not a big deal really.
They did though.
They acknowledged it in the film where the owner guy is chewing out the geneticist guy for creating the iRex. Geneticist guy says something along the lines of "We filled in the DNA code all the time with different animals. When the DNA was pure, we modified it anyway to reflect the public's perception of what a dinosaur looks like".
Exactly. They knew what some of the complaints would be and had multiple characters address said issues in the film to give the audience a voice in film. Honestly, I find that VERY refreshing.
the thing is that it was just bad. There was no way those were any where near realistic to the older.
I mean here choose which one is the most realistic.
Which one is more realistic? The top one right?
Yeah that is partially animtronic and CGI combined, to trick the human mind into thinking it looks real,
The reason animtronics are so effect is that you use it conjuction to CGI, too much CGI will lead to terrible graphics and people just knowing that is CGI and becoming completely uninvested in the movie.
It is a very common thing and hence why I hated Jurassic world. Practical effects are always going to superior to just CGI. CGI will never get to that point if we abuse that.
I'm old fashinoned I just watch the film and hope to enjoy it.
The effects were good enough for me and the plot - so no issues.
At least it was not just "effects" like a C Nolan film.
The only bit we (friend and I) we thought was funny was the helicopter at the start - it was very similar to the one in Hot Shot Part II - where it lands and some one picks it up as its obviously a toy
the thing is that it was just bad. There was no way those were any where near realistic to the older.
I mean here choose which one is the most realistic.
Which one is more realistic? The top one right?
Yeah that is partially animtronic and CGI combined, to trick the human mind into thinking it looks real,
The reason animtronics are so effect is that you use it conjuction to CGI, too much CGI will lead to terrible graphics and people just knowing that is CGI and becoming completely uninvested in the movie.
It is a very common thing and hence why I hated Jurassic world. Practical effects are always going to superior to just CGI. CGI will never get to that point if we abuse that.
Hold on for a second- I hate to argue with you but you're taking the two images out of context.
The park image is a mostly static pose, used for a lot of promotions. The world picture is a creature in motion. Although World is used in a lot of trailers, it's not used in static promotions like magazine ads, collectible cards, and such like the park picture was.
Saw it the other night and we both enjoyed it. I wasn't expecting anything ground breaking, just a lot of dino on dino action and I got what I wanted. I was actually happy for that final killshot, I would have clapped if I was a clapper.
Interesting tidbit, The Village was on the sci fi channel last night.. I was watching it struggling to remember where I saw the 2 girls recently, then fired up IMDB. Bryce dallas howard and the kids' mom were sisters in Jurrasic World and in The Village like 10 years earlier. Small (jurrasic) world I guess.
djones520 wrote: Really enjoyed it. My only beef was the Mosasaur. That thing was about 5 times bigger then it should have been.
Eh... I knew that, but that head geneticist actually said something to the effect that they engineered these animals to be more what the consumers want, and not necessarily if it's the "right" dino specs.
It made truckloads of cash... so, I'm expecting MOAR!
The coolest part. The T-rex was never actually seen until the end. Yeah, Snippets of it, but when it comes out, the original theme plays AND it burst through the damn spinosaurus Skeleton. I mean DAMN that was cool
Automatically Appended Next Post: What I liked about indominus rex was that it had no real instincts. It was a hybrid, it didnt have them bred into them, and being raised alone lead to it being VERY confused when it got out
The flying creatures, looking back at when I was obsessed with dinos, are thought to have preyed on fish, bugs and small creatures because they don't have the mouths for chewing. How would any of those flying creatures actually eaten any of the humans they attacked? To me this stuck out as a bad idea for something scary.
.
My guess, Raised in the Aviary and then let loose sent them into a confused frenzy. Attacking, Not eating, anything in sight
How many people did they (Pterodactyls?) actually kill? Like, confirmed on screen deaths? I saw a lot of people being knocked over, and bitten, and lifted through the air and dropped, but I don't recall people actually dying on screen. The only one I know of was the assistant/babysitter who got lifted over the water (but really it was the Mosasaur that killed them both).
Contrast that with the escaped T-Rex in San Siego (Lost World), it killed a lot more civilians IIRC.
So guys, What do you think the sequel will be like?
And We are getting one. Chris said he is signed for more, it blew up the box office, getting good reviews, We are getting one.
But what do you think? Maybe taking back the park? or a prequel on how they took back the island?
I don't think any truly confirmed(pg-13 rating after all), but a few were dropped from a very good height, and I could have sworn a 2-3 were stabbed in the chest and bitten on the face.
Would be interesting to know kill-counts for both films. The original was 5 iirc(Lawyer, Nedry, Muldoon, Tech guy, guy at the cage).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: So guys, What do you think the sequel will be like?
And We are getting one. Chris said he is signed for more, it blew up the box office, getting good reviews, We are getting one.
But what do you think? Maybe taking back the park? or a prequel on how they took back the island?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So guys, What do you think the sequel will be like?
And We are getting one. Chris said he is signed for more, it blew up the box office, getting good reviews, We are getting one.
But what do you think? Maybe taking back the park? or a prequel on how they took back the island?
The sequel will be called Jurassic War, with the tagline being "war finds a way". It will be about American-made dinosaurs with huge laser-gattling-cannons and missile-launchers mounted on their bodies fighting Chinese-made dinosaurs with laser-gattling-cannons and missiles mounted on their bodies in San Francisco. It will star Chris Pratt, Jeff Goldbloom and Arnold Schwarzenegger as an insane Muldoon.
BlaxicanX wrote: The sequel will be called Jurassic War, with the tag being "war finds a way". It will be about American-made dinosaurs with huge laser-gattling-cannons and missiles mounted on their bodies fighting Chinese-made dinosaurs with laser-gattling-cannons and missiles mounted on their bodies atop the Golden Gate Bridge. It will star Chris Pratt, Jeff Goldbloom and Arnold Schwarzenegger as an insane Muldoon.
I was gonna guess it would be a light hearted political movie about the US using army dinos to maul their enemies in 3rd world countries. Tag teams of humans and animals hunt down resistance and the story can be about 2 brave kids who rise from the ashes of a dino attack and become friends with a wounded raptor that is left behind. Over the course of the movie the raptor learns that these boys are not the enemies they had been raised to maul. After learning the english language he gets back to his unit and leads his fellow dinosaurs into a revolt against human rule. During this revolt he forgets his newly found humanity and it takes seeing the kids about to be slaughtered by a stegosaurus to realise he has become the very thing he hates.... humans.
The end is a dinotopia with talking dinosaurs and all the nations become one. The ending is a statue of the raptor in the form of that famous Abraham Lincoln statue.
The final installment of the trilogy will be about the issue surrounding dinosaur and human partnerships.
I mean here choose which one is the most realistic.
Which one is more realistic? The top one right?
Yeah that is partially animtronic and CGI combined, to trick the human mind into thinking it looks real,
The reason animtronics are so effect is that you use it conjuction to CGI, too much CGI will lead to terrible graphics and people just knowing that is CGI and becoming completely uninvested in the movie.
It is a very common thing and hence why I hated Jurassic world. Practical effects are always going to superior to just CGI. CGI will never get to that point if we abuse that.
I dont think that is it at all. The bottom dinosaur, or gaiju as I called it on the earlier trailer thread is WAY TOO BIG.
Humans have depth perception and and sense of proportion, see a horse or a man and you get an idea how far away he is based on the size, you can even judge the height of a distant man. The oversized bottom sea monster hits all the subliminal bs triggers. Its completely irrationally out of scale and is processed by the brain as an anomaly. T Rex is bigger than animals we see in real life, but is of a scale we are prepared for and also have scaling objects close by..
I can tell both are fake, because neither are real and are not really dinos.
Listen, what you do in these films is put yourself in the movie. Yeah, it isnt real, but to the characters it is. What they are seeing is real.
In all seriousness, probably an unoriginal rehash of Lost World.
Following a public relations disaster in which many park visitors and park staff were killed including the CEO, and countless more injured, the company's share price has tanked. The island is quarantined, the dinosaurs are left to their own devices and the park becomes a nature reserve once again.
A team of intrepid scientists, conservationists and film makers are sent to study the dinosaurs, but they have to face off against a big bad corporation seeking to use the dinosaurs for their own ends and profit margins (probably some Private Military Company looking to weaponize them somehow, following the Military Raptors plot hook in JW).
hotsauceman1 wrote: So guys, What do you think the sequel will be like?
And We are getting one. Chris said he is signed for more, it blew up the box office, getting good reviews, We are getting one.
But what do you think? Maybe taking back the park? or a prequel on how they took back the island?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So guys, What do you think the sequel will be like?
And We are getting one. Chris said he is signed for more, it blew up the box office, getting good reviews, We are getting one.
But what do you think? Maybe taking back the park? or a prequel on how they took back the island?
It did better than super hero movies, there will be 2 more jurassic movies. The war idea sounds like fun. A 2 part movie on how dino's start showing up in america like starwars 2 & 3. you'd think a neighboring land mass, but it's hollywood, they need the shot of t-rex knocking down the hollywood sign or part 2 might just be a lone dino in eating people like lake placid & the croc
At the end of Jurassic World we see InGen now has a whole host of embryos. They make a facility, things go wrong, they go silent, and a team is sent to investigate. I'm curious if it'll be on an island, or deep in a jungle on the mainland.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So guys, What do you think the sequel will be like?
And We are getting one. Chris said he is signed for more, it blew up the box office, getting good reviews, We are getting one.
But what do you think? Maybe taking back the park? or a prequel on how they took back the island?
Sapient Dinosaurs?
The "Dinosauroid"
Spoiler:
A model of the hypothetical Dinosauroid, Dinosaur Museum, Dorchester
See also: Dinosaur intelligence § Sapient dinosaurs
In 1982, Dale A. Russell, then curator of vertebrate fossils at the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa, conjectured a possible evolutionary path for Troodon, if it had not perished in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 65 million years ago, suggesting that it could have evolved into intelligent beings similar in body plan to humans. Over geologic time, Russell noted that there had been a steady increase in the encephalization quotient or EQ (the relative brain weight when compared to other species with the same body weight) among the dinosaurs. Russell had discovered the first Troodontid skull, and noted that, while its EQ was low compared to humans, it was six times higher than that of other dinosaurs. Russell suggested that if the trend in Troodon evolution had continued to the present, its brain case could by now measure 1,100 cm3, comparable to that of a human.[13]
Troodontids had semi-manipulative fingers, able to grasp and hold objects to a certain degree, and binocular vision.[13] Russell proposed that his "Dinosauroid", like members of the troodontid family, would have had large eyes and three fingers on each hand, one of which would have been partially opposed. Russell also speculated that the "Dinosauroid" would have had a toothless beak. As with most modern reptiles (and birds), he conceived of its genitalia as internal. Russell speculated that it would have required a navel, as a placenta aids the development of a large brain case. However, it would not have possessed mammary glands, and would have fed its young, as some birds do, on regurgitated food. He speculated that its language would have sounded somewhat like bird song.[13][31]
However, Russell's thought experiment has been met with criticism from other paleontologists since the 1980s, many of whom point out that his Dinosauroid is overly anthropomorphic. Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., consider it "suspiciously human" and Darren Naish has argued that a large-brained, highly intelligent troodontid would retain a more standard theropod body plan, with a horizontal posture and long tail, and would probably manipulate objects with the snout and feet in the manner of a bird, rather than with human-like "hands".[31]
At the end of Jurassic World we see InGen now has a whole host of embryos. They make a facility, things go wrong, they go silent, and a team is sent to investigate. I'm curious if it'll be on an island, or deep in a jungle on the mainland.
sounds cool to me - bit like the old Dino Crisis games- loved them
At the end of Jurassic World we see InGen now has a whole host of embryos. They make a facility, things go wrong, they go silent, and a team is sent to investigate. I'm curious if it'll be on an island, or deep in a jungle on the mainland.
sounds cool to me - bit like the old Dino Crisis games- loved them
At the end of Jurassic World we see InGen now has a whole host of embryos. They make a facility, things go wrong, they go silent, and a team is sent to investigate. I'm curious if it'll be on an island, or deep in a jungle on the mainland.
I had a hard time being immersed in the movie. The constant flicking back to the control room characters and their terrible scripted lines or stupid stuff like "We gotta jump" while the kids stop and get a run up while there is a dinosaur in pursuit! The script writers obviously know nothing of fight or flight responses. Another example was the capture squad, the shotgun guy walked into the open mouth.
A world of contrast to JP2: the lost world where you had the guy in the jeep actually show abit of emotion when he realised he was screwed when the 2 T-Rex showed up.
The T-rex also gave me a weird vibe when it showed up. Maybe because it seemed to be moving in slow motion? Kinda reminded me of terminator salvation when Arnold showed up for some reason.
I actually rate this my least favourite of the 4 movies. While there are things that annoyed me in 2 and 3, they were not popping up again every 10 minutes breaking the immersion.
romaeosaurid_parade_by_durbed.jpg
