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.

Its multiple versions of a mini variety of Godzilla at a free buffet

I dont judge movies on trailers anymore, Frozen stopped that for me

I am SO pumped for this movie!

Am I so jaded that things I adored from my childhood (Jurassic Park & Star Wars) hold no interest for me now with their new films coming out?

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Don't think of "Guardians of the Galaxy" as a superhero film.

Think of it as a buddy crime comedy.
With lasers.

I'd second that, and add the title of spiritual successor to the Fifth Element.

I approached it expecting Burt Macklin- Space FBI and was very pleasantly surprised.

Putting GtG in the same sentence as Fifth Element is a sin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:
I'm with Formosa, I don't give a crap how bad the movies are, I get to see dinosaurs killing stuff, that's me happy.

I respect that.

It isn't.

But your bias against Marvel movies is well documented, so we can safely ignore any elderly outbursts you make when discussing them.

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.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
Though I certainly agree that no one is as green as Ruby Rhod in this, or any other universe.

That is because he isn't just green, he is supergreen.

Groot is pretty green...

I'm sure that this time everything will work out well for the island:

 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.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 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.

No Neil? No deal.

Did they create a hybrid for a particular reason or just for the hell of it?

I'm getting Deep Blue Sea feelings, although at least in that film they made the sharks intelligent for a decent/understandable purpose.

That scene at the end with him on the bike...



I'm calling the female scientist self sacrifices at some point, or takes on a dangerous task by herself because redemption or something.

 Medium of Death wrote:
No Neil? No deal.

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 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

 Ahtman wrote:

 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

Who is the redhead in the new Jurasic film ?

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.

For me there are are only two types of films - ones I like (good ones) and ones I don't (Ibad ones)

I think that good/bad is just a confusing breakdown between the two criteria we are talking about.

A movie can be well-made, a movie can be enjoyable, and it could be both/either/neither.

 -Loki- wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
No Neil? No deal.

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

 Mr Morden wrote:


Who is the redhead in the new Jurasic film ?

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.

 nels1031 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Who is the redhead in the new Jurasic film ?

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.

You couldn't pay me to go to that park.