Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I'm kind of excited about this, because movies about dinosaurs are in my wheelhouse, so to speak. That being said this specific trailer didn't really do anything to make me more excited.
The novelisation of the second film addresses the difference between real dinosaurs and these creations; Alan Grant is bemoaning the fact that funding for paleontology is drying up because people think it's easier and better to just observe the living dinosaurs, but he points out that their behaviour and genome is artificial, and can't tell you much about how real dinosaurs behind in the past.
welshhoppo wrote: Well seeing as T-Rex were actually pretty small unit about the Age of 15, I assume they also have rapid growth.
I know it's not "canon" but in operation Genesis (the best park building game ever) the maximum life was only a few years.
Totally offtopic somewhat but interestingly many species can have short lifespans in captivity until specific missing criteria for keeping them healthy is found. Fish are often a good example as the water qualities and temperatures can be quite complex for some.
That said, yes, the Jurassic Park dinosaurs are indeed heavily genetically modified, which is great because it means that changes in study of real dinosaurs doesn't make them any less or more "real" plus we can have Blue style raptors with an intelligence we can more relate too
I thought it was impressive how the writers threw in that comment in the last movie about how many of the dinosaurs would look quite different if they weren't hybrids.
trexmeyer wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this trailer looks absolutely awful?
No. I love this property and JW 1 was a fantastic homage to the originals while adding new concepts, but this looks like Rehash 5: The Bride of Rehashening. The Episode 7 of Jurassic Parks, if you will.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/12 10:17:37
Posters on ignore list: 36
40k Potica Edition - 40k patch with reactions, suppression and all that good stuff. Feedback thread here.
Gangs of Nu Ork - Necromunda / Gorkamorka expansion supporting all faction. Feedback thread here.
ZergSmasher wrote: I've liked all of the JP movies so far, despite the flaws. The first one is obviously the best, but all have been decent at least. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one after seeing the trailer. I did enjoy Chris Pratt's character from JW, so it's nice to see him coming back, plus they are bringing Jeff Goldblum back in, so that'll be cool. The visuals look good, but that's par for the course for a Jurassic Park movie.
Eh, I'm with TotalBiscuit - Jurassic World was a better film and a better execution of the concept than the original(which was good, don't get me wrong).
I'm in two minds about Fallen Kingdom - it sounds an interesting idea, but I was actually kind of looking forward to seeing some of those weird plot concepts they were floating around right after World came out, like the tech being leaked out and "open sourced" and the consequences of that. FK seems like it might end up being a mashup of JP2&3, which is, you know, fine.
JW had the potential to be better than JP, I can set my nostalgia glasses aside that much. But then the pterosaur stuff happened. That was just... really really bad.
ZergSmasher wrote: I've liked all of the JP movies so far, despite the flaws. The first one is obviously the best, but all have been decent at least. I'm cautiously optimistic about this one after seeing the trailer. I did enjoy Chris Pratt's character from JW, so it's nice to see him coming back, plus they are bringing Jeff Goldblum back in, so that'll be cool. The visuals look good, but that's par for the course for a Jurassic Park movie.
Eh, I'm with TotalBiscuit - Jurassic World was a better film and a better execution of the concept than the original(which was good, don't get me wrong).
I'm in two minds about Fallen Kingdom - it sounds an interesting idea, but I was actually kind of looking forward to seeing some of those weird plot concepts they were floating around right after World came out, like the tech being leaked out and "open sourced" and the consequences of that. FK seems like it might end up being a mashup of JP2&3, which is, you know, fine.
JW had the potential to be better than JP, I can set my nostalgia glasses aside that much. But then the pterosaur stuff happened. That was just... really really bad.
Eh, I think there were issues with actually connecting the characters. It could really have used a "Everyone Meets" scene. But yeah, pterosaurs picking up humans with their feet... that was just bad.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:You're saying they did to this franchise what they did to the people of color on the island?
Challenge for ya: Name a paleontologist who isn't white. Top Google results don't count.
Challenge for ya: Name a paleontologist who isn't white. Top Google results don't count.
I bet you the average person can't even name ONE palaeontologist of any race/colour/background. Whilst dinosaurs always grab peoples attention there aren't many within the field who appear often enough on TV or in other media to be commonly known to the average person.
It's odd but of all the sciences, physics seems to get an edge in the TV world; or at least has more presenters than other areas of science.
There's a vast world of science out there, yet there's probably less than a handful of scientists who make it onto the TV enough to be a known name. Heck consider that when most major studies are revealed to people through the media its often under the title of "major institute revels new discovery through study" rather than giving any name (which to be fair isn't bad because often as not most major discoveries are the result of team work)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/17 12:52:38
Overread wrote: It's odd but of all the sciences, physics seems to get an edge in the TV world; or at least has more presenters than other areas of science.
There's a vast world of science out there, yet there's probably less than a handful of scientists who make it onto the TV enough to be a known name. Heck consider that when most major studies are revealed to people through the media its often under the title of "major institute revels new discovery through study" rather than giving any name (which to be fair isn't bad because often as not most major discoveries are the result of team work)
It's a matter of ego. Physicists are the surgeons of the academic sciences, god complex etc - and I can say that because I studied to be one - so they have a higher proportion of people who think they "should" be out there bringing religiosity to the fuzzy-wuzzies as it were.
As to the general dearth of scientific voices in the media, for that you can blame the media. They assume their audience are morons and so rarely put up *actual* experts, preferring to put a layer of "analyst" type people between the viewer and the actual information(this is also handy for putting whichever is their preferred political slant on the coverage), and on top of that on the rare occasions they do permit actual experts on the screen/pages, they almost always go with an adversarial "interview" format where the "interviewer" is really only there to prompt the actual expert and whatever coo-coo-cachew nutball/paid industry shill they have on to provide "balance" to have a big ol' argument.
Serious, rational people giving measured, evidence-based opinions aren't compatible with the modern corporate "infotainment" media format.
EDIT: As to the pterosaur issue - eh, I file that under the same category as "they should have feathers", and it's been adequately and plausibly handwaved by the genetic hybrid argument along with all the other oddities of appearance and behaviour. Maybe they had to use some Eagle DNA to stabilise the pterosaur genome they had and that makes them hunt like birds of prey because Science Is Magic or whatever.
I think when the main "baddie" of the film is a hyper-intelligent super-duper T-Rex/Raptor hybrid that can basically turn invisible, stretching your suspension of disbelief to "pterosaur hunting behaviour isn't 100% accurate to the present scientific consensus" isn't really that much to ask eh
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/17 13:54:26
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Sadly its true, even big groups like the BBC Wildlife department have shifted far from telling detailed stories. Many of the TV they produce now jumps from species to species so fast they can only show a little bit of each one. Granted they are aiming to try and shift away from people knowing 3 kinds of African animal (and demanding more lions) to showing a lot of species variety that might otherwise just not get the demand to be shown.
But I do get annoyed at the casual level of information displayed. Of course the science community doesn't help itself much either; a lotof higher level journals/publications are often priced very high and there's often a genuine lack of good middle-ground comprehensive publications.
So you end up with nothing to lead people from those coffeebook style casual books (which are mostly picture books) easily into more advanced understanding. Indeed just finding some good publication can take quite a bit of research to find.
Challenge for ya: Name a paleontologist who isn't white. Top Google results don't count.
I bet you the average person can't even name ONE palaeontologist of any race/colour/background. Whilst dinosaurs always grab peoples attention there aren't many within the field who appear often enough on TV or in other media to be commonly known to the average person.
I'm pretty sure the characters I referred to were a CEO and an assistant. An assistant who spent all day with the boys and must have been the redhead's right hand at the office day after day. An assistant who died in a particularly horrific way and was never mentioned again by anyone, not even out of sympathy for her traumatizing last moments on earth or to ask about the whereabouts of her body.
Overread wrote: Sadly its true, even big groups like the BBC Wildlife department have shifted far from telling detailed stories. Many of the TV they produce now jumps from species to species so fast they can only show a little bit of each one. Granted they are aiming to try and shift away from people knowing 3 kinds of African animal (and demanding more lions) to showing a lot of species variety that might otherwise just not get the demand to be shown.
But I do get annoyed at the casual level of information displayed. Of course the science community doesn't help itself much either; a lotof higher level journals/publications are often priced very high and there's often a genuine lack of good middle-ground comprehensive publications.
So you end up with nothing to lead people from those coffeebook style casual books (which are mostly picture books) easily into more advanced understanding. Indeed just finding some good publication can take quite a bit of research to find.
On top of that, many scientists don't tend to be great public speakers.
It's why David Attenborough narrates the BBCs work because he has the voice for it.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
I was going to say David Attenborough was a presenter rather than a scientist by training, but that's not correct; he has a degree in Natural Sciences.
Other than him, I can name Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, Jim Al-Khalili and there's several historians whose names are on the tip of my tongue (the Scottish one from Coast and Vikings, for example, and a couple of women). David Bellamy, too, although I've not seen him in a while.
The problem is the repetition, for audiences with low attention spans; "coming up, here's a thing"; "the thing"; "before the break, we showed you this thing". 20 minutes of material stretched over 45 minutes.
I often wonder how much repetition is actually needed VS how much marketing/management theories "think" is needed. Plus if it one of those positive feedback loops in that the more you repeat the more your tester audience expects and then demands repetition and thus the more you repeat.
I also think its a shame that they cannot mix and match more so; having simpler shows and then more complex and in-depth ones.
Overread wrote: Sadly its true, even big groups like the BBC Wildlife department have shifted far from telling detailed stories. Many of the TV they produce now jumps from species to species so fast they can only show a little bit of each one. Granted they are aiming to try and shift away from people knowing 3 kinds of African animal (and demanding more lions) to showing a lot of species variety that might otherwise just not get the demand to be shown.
BBC nature documents used to be best of the business by far but they have too evolved into 'fancy' formats, 'racy' editing to make it look more 'exciting' and result is usually crap. Not to mention outright faking: there was a document about Ural mountains and bear scenes were from Western Europe. Or a document about Canadian wildlife where eagle attacking a Caribou scene was actually from Lapland.
Look at the evolution of the Walking With Dinosaurs brand. First series were simply like regular nature documents only with Dinosaurs and stuff with them. Sure maybe they exaggarated a few things (25 metre long pliosaur?) but overall it was well designed stuff which took its time to show us animals and tell about them. Compare it to more recent stuff: kids movie with talking dinosaur, a time travelling idiot trying to avoid getting eaten, "the fiercest/biggest/most evilest dinosaurs ever". Everything is 'extreme' with flashy "infoboxes" and swirling futuristic graphics. It is awful. Complete and utter garbage.
But surely I am just an old geezer who should go back listening gramophones and watching mute b&w movies? You know who really love the original WWD series? The kids. Walking with dinosaurs/beasts, Ballad of Big Al, they watch them over and over again. Newer stuff? Meh.
To whom they are doing that stuff?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/01/16 12:01:38
BBC nature documents used to be best of the business by far but they have too evolved into 'fancy' formats, 'racy' editing to make it look more 'exciting' and result is usually crap. Not to mention outright faking: there was a document about Ural mountains and bear scenes were from Western Europe. Or a document about Canadian wildlife where eagle attacking a Caribou scene was actually from Lapland.
There has always been a lot of creativity in wildlife documentaries. Many species its hard to get a continuous series of video of just one individual or a group of them. Hence why many have often been combinations of multiple groups which are then crafted into a single story, both for entertainment and because its mentally easier for people to follow and learn off a single story than off multiples.
There's a reason that you get things like the old "Big Cat Diaries" and "Meerkat Mannor" from Africa, but you don't see similar styles of show done on wolves or bears. The African plains make it a lot easier to track individuals and heck some african wildcats are so used to jeeps and trucks that cheetahs will lounge atop them. Meanwhile your average wolf won't be anywhere near most peopled things unless they are very isolated from human activity. Add into it the hilly, woody terrain and you've got a very hard situation to track.
That said there are liberties; eg grizzly bears hardly "roar" yet when audio has been done many were given lion roars to go with the motion; meanwhile there's that infamous scene that was faked of lemmings leaping over the edge of cliffs (actually a guy with a bucket tossing them over a rise and the camera to simulate it).
I think its fine to combine film from different individual animals to a single series provided that the behaviours shown are authentic. It can allow for a high quality story and show to be produced whilst remaining factual and true. I think the issues come when what is shown is outright faked/made up or guessed at in the extreme.
Also there's some fake stuff that is fake through simplification. For example a lot of nature documentaries talk of snakes dislocating their jaws; when in actuality they don't dislocate, but instead have a jaw structure adapted to allow them to open much wider than is normal for most species. One is a quick said phrase that likely started as "Well its like they dislocate their jaw" and quickly got shortened even more through time. Chinese Whispers can be a huge issue for education material as once a bad comment or two slips into a popular reference book or other material, it can quickly take root for a long time before its finally pushed out. Esp when the material is circulated to those who view it as entertainment more than knowledge - and thus inaccuracies can persist because of a lack of fact checking or cross referencing etc...
BBC nature documents used to be best of the business by far but they have too evolved into 'fancy' formats, 'racy' editing to make it look more 'exciting' and result is usually crap. Not to mention outright faking: there was a document about Ural mountains and bear scenes were from Western Europe. Or a document about Canadian wildlife where eagle attacking a Caribou scene was actually from Lapland.
There has always been a lot of creativity in wildlife documentaries. Many species its hard to get a continuous series of video of just one individual or a group of them. Hence why many have often been combinations of multiple groups which are then crafted into a single story, both for entertainment and because its mentally easier for people to follow and learn off a single story than off multiples.
There's a reason that you get things like the old "Big Cat Diaries" and "Meerkat Mannor" from Africa, but you don't see similar styles of show done on wolves or bears. The African plains make it a lot easier to track individuals and heck some african wildcats are so used to jeeps and trucks that cheetahs will lounge atop them. Meanwhile your average wolf won't be anywhere near most peopled things unless they are very isolated from human activity. Add into it the hilly, woody terrain and you've got a very hard situation to track.
That said there are liberties; eg grizzly bears hardly "roar" yet when audio has been done many were given lion roars to go with the motion; meanwhile there's that infamous scene that was faked of lemmings leaping over the edge of cliffs (actually a guy with a bucket tossing them over a rise and the camera to simulate it).
I think its fine to combine film from different individual animals to a single series provided that the behaviours shown are authentic. It can allow for a high quality story and show to be produced whilst remaining factual and true. I think the issues come when what is shown is outright faked/made up or guessed at in the extreme.
I don't mind if they combine some footage to make up for gaps (for example they need a good closeup from bear feeding and can't acquire it from authentic location). However if whole thing is made up from segments filmed in somewhere else, or even trained animals, then it is outright fakery. If filming bears in Urals is too hard, maybe not make a documentary about bears of Urals? Why not make a documentary about bears in Scandinavia if that's what you can film? It's same species of bear anyway. Only problem is that it lacks the 'exotic' location...
Problem is that documentaries are nowadays so obsessed about making 'stories' so they become 'gripping' that they are all written in advance, all the cuts and angles planned out in a storyboard, before any footage of the actual animals is captured.
LordofHats wrote: This. Seriously. I don't think I've ever met anyone who liked dinosaurs so much that they could actually name a real paleontologist...
I think everyone knows who Robert Bakker is at a minimum, no?
Because man, if you don't, go get yourself a copy of Raptor Red and enjoy a read.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/01/23 16:57:03
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
Honestly I'm pleased to see it taking that turn of story twist. It's also very bold for the producers as well since most franchises try to remain true to their original concept. Which is great, but honestly there are only so many times that you can make "team of people isolated on island and hunted by raptors and T-Rex" before it gets just too old a method. Seeing them take the technology further toward warlike intentions is a very neat evolution of the franchise content.
I think it also gives them more freedom to be creative with the dinosaurs; and in a very nice way it also leaves the market quite open for another JP Original style film using more up-to-date dinosaur understanding and studies (feathers).
I'm also all for them taking this further and further through film after film until we have a T-Rex with "a frekking laserbeam on its head".
This warlike story also has the potential for some really emotional and deep segments when you consider that the original film had the use of the tech being for restoration of condors right at the very end; we never saw it done or heard it was done, but we saw them as a hint at the very end.
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Weaponized dinosaurs is such a dumb, dumb idea I sure hope they don't keep running with it. I am sure they will, though.
Also loving the intro. Jurassic Parks are usually kind of adventure movies, except JP3 - which is the only one, IMO, that is what they should be: survival horror.
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
- so they have a higher proportion of people who think they "should" be out there bringing religiosity to the fuzzy-wuzzies as it were.
Who would give someone with the last name Cope the middle name Drinker? 
