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.

Watching the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes at the moment... CGI is still CGI but it's leagues ahead of what was on show in the Jurassic World trailer.

Maybe it's me being younger, but I don't seem to see difference between cgi and stuff

It's worth remembering that CGI in trailers is rarely finished, and is even sometimes cooked up for a quick shot in the trailer that will never make it to the film (like the big double doors as a throwback to the first movie), which will never get much attention from the studio hired to do the work.

 -Loki- wrote:
It's worth remembering that CGI in trailers is rarely finished, and is even sometimes cooked up for a quick shot in the trailer that will never make it to the film (like the big double doors as a throwback to the first movie), which will never get much attention from the studio hired to do the work.

Yeah, I factored that in. It just a concern that the CGI in the trailer is no better than the original film.

 Flashman wrote:

 -Loki- wrote:
It's worth remembering that CGI in trailers is rarely finished, and is even sometimes cooked up for a quick shot in the trailer that will never make it to the film (like the big double doors as a throwback to the first movie), which will never get much attention from the studio hired to do the work.

Yeah, I factored that in. It just a concern that the CGI in the trailer is no better than the original film.

The CGI was damn near perfect in the original...

If it ain't broke... don't fix it!

 Medium of Death wrote:



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.

Love Deep Blue Sea - cool film

I'd go to Jurassic World tomorrow

Unless, one of the reasons they did it was the whole "Prove they can"

I liked the part at 1:58, where some sort of red substance fell on a mans hand, thereby warning him that something is above him. I've never seen that done in any movie, ever. Particularly monster movies, never seen its like before. My mind races at the possibilities of what could be above the man.

Possible plot spoilers:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Unless, one of the reasons they did it was the whole "Prove they can"

Then they ignored the biggest lesson from the original park!

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Unless, one of the reasons they did it was the whole "Prove they can"

Then they ignored the biggest lesson from the original park!

Apparently the park has been working just fine for 10 years

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Unless, one of the reasons they did it was the whole "Prove they can"

Then they ignored the biggest lesson from the original park!

That line might come up.

I would go there...trophy time. and just imagine what deep fryed tyrannsaurus nuggets would taste like.

I wonder, would this park offer dino hunts....and how long would the waiver have to be?

 Mr Morden wrote:
That might be what they say now - but I recall when PM came out and all the critics were falling over themselves to sayt what an awesome movie it was - even though IMO it has a terrible terrible srcipt, worse acting, effects laden nonsense - to me it its like a Nolen film - all flash and no substance but something critics love - often as they are directed to do so.... .

We must have been reading different reviews. Most of the reviews I saw when Phantom Menace was released were that it was pretty, but suffered from wooden acting, corny dialogue and an over-reliance on CGI...

 Mr Morden wrote:
Love Deep Blue Sea - cool film

'These sharks can swim backwards! Because Plot!'


And the single most telegraphed death scene in Hollywood's history...

On one hand I'm excited for the dinosaurs and the evil corp vibe. Something Aliens-esque would be great. On the other hand I feel they're missing the entire point of the first and only good Jurassic Park. What made the film so compelling was the exploration of reluctant fatherhood and watching an old man have to destroy and give up on his legacy.

Exploration of the human condition could be in there, not really what makes a good trailer these days I guess. And if they're taking a new direction it will probably work out great rather than copying the original formula which... they never successfully managed anyway. I guess I'm cautiously optimistic.

Zond wrote:
. What made the film so compelling was the exploration of reluctant fatherhood and watching an old man have to destroy and give up on his legacy.

Really? I just enjoyed it because Dinosaurs!


Sam Neil was far more entertaining than whatever was going on with Hammond. Hell, in the book, Hammond doesn't even get the chance to 'give up' his legacy, as he gets eaten by Compys.

 insaniak wrote:

Zond wrote:
. What made the film so compelling was the exploration of reluctant fatherhood and watching an old man have to destroy and give up on his legacy.

Really? I just enjoyed it because Dinosaurs!


Sam Neil was far more entertaining than whatever was going on with Hammond. Hell, in the book, Hammond doesn't even get the chance to 'give up' his legacy, as he gets eaten by Compys.

I always felt Goldblum was the best

Enjoying it because dinosaurs is fair enough. I just prefer well rounded characters reacting to the dinosaurs rather than just dinosaurs on their own. And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.

Zond wrote:
And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.

From memory (been a while since I read it), it was actually mostly fairly close. There were a few more dinosaur species in the book (including the Pterasaurs that didn't make it in until #3 in the movies), the ages of the kids were reversed, and the aforementioned end of Hammond... I vaguely recall there being two T-Rexes running around as well. Pretty sure it was escaping from the younger T-Rex that wound up with them on a raft floating into the Pterasaur enclosure.

But for the most part it was one of the more faithful movie adaptations I've seen.

One thing that does bother me is how young the cast are.

Don't get me wrong but the main characters look too young to be in their roles at the park. Chris Prat is presumably playing the gamekeeper similar to Bob Peck's roll? Again, I don't see him having a believable amount of experience. Muldoon was meant to be a big game hunter with years of experience and he got outwitted.

They could have at least made her just a niece of Hammond that finally realised his dream but meanwhile some dodgy character is cooking up genetically modified monsters to sell to the military despite her refusing to do so.

I hope there's a shot of Dr. Malcolm lying back on a sofa with some scotch and a cigar watching the news. Just enough time for a Goldblum esque one liner.

Apparently Dr Wu, the Asain chap that talks to them about at the beginning of the first movie is more of a character. It says he's been living in Hammonds shadow, but he seemed like a pretty happy guy. I'd imagine he would have just wanted to get the park working. Maybe he'll end up to be the real bad guy.

 Medium of Death wrote:
One thing that does bother me is how young the cast are.

Don't get me wrong but the main characters look too young to be in their roles at the park. Chris Prat is presumably playing the gamekeeper similar to Bob Peck's roll? Again, I don't see him having a believable amount of experience. Muldoon was meant to be a big game hunter with years of experience and he got outwitted.

They could have at least made her just a niece of Hammond that finally realised his dream but meanwhile some dodgy character is cooking up genetically modified monsters to sell to the military despite her refusing to do so.

I hope there's a shot of Dr. Malcolm lying back on a sofa with some scotch and a cigar watching the news. Just enough time for a Goldblum esque one liner.

Apparently Dr Wu, the Asain chap that talks to them about at the beginning of the first movie is more of a character. It says he's been living in Hammonds shadow, but he seemed like a pretty happy guy. I'd imagine he would have just wanted to get the park working. Maybe he'll end up to be the real bad guy.

Why would it need a bad guy? I think what LW did the worse was make humans the big bad an the dinos the misunderstood and poorly treated gentle giants.
Besides, Jurassic Park is like Godzilla, you nee to have kids in there. Makes the audience more sympathetic. And if a kid does something collossally stupid to move the plot forward, you can handwave it to "They are kids"

 insaniak wrote:

Zond wrote:
And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.

From memory (been a while since I read it), it was actually mostly fairly close. There were a few more dinosaur species in the book (including the Pterasaurs that didn't make it in until #3 in the movies), the ages of the kids were reversed, and the aforementioned end of Hammond... I vaguely recall there being two T-Rexes running around as well. Pretty sure it was escaping from the younger T-Rex that wound up with them on a raft floating into the Pterasaur enclosure.

But for the most part it was one of the more faithful movie adaptations I've seen.

Plus, y'know, they cut the scene where Muldoon shoots a T. rex with a rocket launcher. While drunk.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

Zond wrote:
And obviously the book is entirely different, most screen adaptations usually are.

From memory (been a while since I read it), it was actually mostly fairly close. There were a few more dinosaur species in the book (including the Pterasaurs that didn't make it in until #3 in the movies), the ages of the kids were reversed, and the aforementioned end of Hammond... I vaguely recall there being two T-Rexes running around as well. Pretty sure it was escaping from the younger T-Rex that wound up with them on a raft floating into the Pterasaur enclosure.

But for the most part it was one of the more faithful movie adaptations I've seen.

Plus, y'know, they cut the scene where Muldoon shoots a T. rex with a rocket launcher. While drunk.

Well, They obviously could not film a scene like that. Because it would be so full of testosterone that it would make the audience instantly grow chest hair.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I always felt Goldblum was the best

He was making good money for a long time out of playing exactly the same character in a number of films.

I'm sure he could do it one more time...

Both the JP book and movie follow the same basic threads:

1. People come to island to see park.
2. Nedry steals embryos and shuts down all the fences.
3. T-Rex attacks the tour.
4. Malcolm gets injured.
5. Grant, Tim and Lex get lost in the park.
6. Everyone else tries to get the power on.
7. They escape.

... but there are a lot of significant changes in the book, with extra characters (Regis, Wu and Dr. Harding) playing bigger roles, different characters dying and living (Genero and Muldoon survive, Wu, Hammond and Harding do not), a whole sub-plot with Raptors breeding in the wild and stowing away aboard the ship that left the island before the storm. Overall it's a different story, but no better or worse than the movie. They tell the same story shell, just differently.

The Lost World on the other hand... well... for someone who loved the book let's just say that movie they turned out was not what was expected. Or wanted.

 insaniak wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
That might be what they say now - but I recall when PM came out and all the critics were falling over themselves to sayt what an awesome movie it was - even though IMO it has a terrible terrible srcipt, worse acting, effects laden nonsense - to me it its like a Nolen film - all flash and no substance but something critics love - often as they are directed to do so.... .

We must have been reading different reviews. Most of the reviews I saw when Phantom Menace was released were that it was pretty, but suffered from wooden acting, corny dialogue and an over-reliance on CGI...

 Mr Morden wrote:
Love Deep Blue Sea - cool film

'These sharks can swim backwards! Because Plot!'

And the single most telegraphed death scene in Hollywood's history...

Really? I just enjoyed it because Dinosaurs!

Contradiction much............. I thought it was a great scene as did many of my friends and nope was enjoying the film - but different strokes................I guess its a bit like the first few scenes in Nolan's latest effects driven yawn fest telegraph the whole plot resolution to anyone vaguely paying attention.

Lost World was awesome (IMO) - great fun, favourite one in the series. T-Rex family in San Diego - brilliant - complete with the dog jkennel and Mummy there is a Dinosaur in the yard. I quite enjoyed the book but nowhere near as much as the film.

Agree about Goldblum in the films - very cool

 Mr Morden wrote:
Contradiction much.............

Er... how?

I said I liked a movie with Dinosaurs in it. I'm not seeing how that would mean that I wouldn't spot plot issues in a movie about sharks...

 d-usa wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Unless, one of the reasons they did it was the whole "Prove they can"

Then they ignored the biggest lesson from the original park!

Jeff Goldblum's character was preachy and annoying?

He was mostly ok in JP1, intolerable in JP2.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Apparently the park has been working just fine for 10 years

The first park worked ok, it required deliberate sabotage to make it fail.
The second project was led by a donkey-cave, but was again sabotaged, and we are never given a plausible reason as to why the ship carrying the T-Rex lost its crew and again it required a deliberate idiot to release the dinosaur.
The deleted scene showing the orginal business plan was sound enough.
I ended up with more sympathy for the company than for the 'heroes', the corp suit was so stupid it could only have been scripted, it was like he was stupid under duress.
Also I dont like how when the 'heroes' took the helicopter out they confirmed everyone else dead. They didn't know that, it was just a case of we are ok, feth everyone else.
Also the whole reason most people died was due to sabotage. The dinos were wrapped up ready to be shipped to an urban zoo with high concrete walls. Plan was fairly solid frankly, excepting choice of security.

The film series central premise that human control of dinosaurs wouldn't work is based on scripted fiat. Build enough concrete and it would work, even electric fences would work so long as there were power backups and preferably multiple circuitry loops.
Kayaking in an open park filled wirth megafauna however, dumb idea.
Also genertically modifying a superpredator designed to be bigger fast and smarter is also scripted dumb. Its not like the new dino is a real exhibit, its not a copy of a genuine dinosaur. The only reason to make one is if they weanted it for 'weapons division' which is a whole different franchise, also heavily based on a scripted dumb corporations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


The Lost World on the other hand... well... for someone who loved the book let's just say that movie they turned out was not what was expected. Or wanted.

The whole point of filming Lost World is that it is out of copyright, so anyone can film it and have dinosaurs and modern(ish) characters without having to pay for lawyers. Most Lost World stories are made for TV productions, and there have been quite a few. Some keep the Victorian setting, most keep the Victorian setting but Amercianise the characters, some port it to the modern day.
Very few are worth watching.

ISnt scripted dumb part of horror and suspense movies?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
ISnt scripted dumb part of horror and suspense movies?

Yes, and no.

Slasher movies dont count. The genre relies on people exploring the haunted house rather than staying put, and living through the night. Those films are intended to rack up a random bodycount, often with audiences not guessing who the survivors will be. Also being smart or heroic is no defence in those types of movie.

Making a dumb move in a horror movie is part of the genre. Its also part of human nature not to be entirely rational all the time, especially in high sterss situations.
Most cases are just errors and are explainable.
Burke abandoning the marines in Aliens running off and eventually being chomped by an alien behind a door he opens is a good example. He was a jerk for abandoning everyone and dumb to run blindly in that place. But it was part self preservation part panic and at least semi-logical. The audience is led to have no sympathy for the character and his fate

Scritped dumb is something else. It isn't a case of temporary insanity, stress or panic, or the human fight or flight responce getting people into trouble.
It manifests in persistently doing things which are intolerably stupid, mostly to make the point that the character is stupid, and despite similarities only applies when when the film/character is not deliberate slapstick farce because that is a comic genre or comic relief in a more serious film .
The hallmark of scripted dumb is that the dumbness is pointed out, and the failure is somehow inevitable, and those who were against the victim of scripted dumb are therefore vindicated in their opposition.
Remember in cinema the symapthy of characters is preordained by the script. There are cases where sympathies do not manifest or become the opposite to what is intended, Ja Ja Binks being a good example. Scripted dumb works heavily on the negative symapthies while simultaneously boosting the sympathies fro the proagonists. So much so that the protagonists can end up being total dicks and people still root for them. One of the galring things about scriopted dumb is when you realise this, and take a look at the characterisations in the films. The Jurassic Park series is a good example of heavy handed use of scripted dumb, including the told-you-so aftermath, other examples include Ghost Busters. Jurassic Park partly avoids this, most of the corporate characters are rational, but the preachyness part is laid on thick.. Jurassic Park 2 however lays it on very heavily, is watchable the first time around then, if you see the pattern for what it is, becomes annoying. Jurassic Park 3 doesn't include scripted dumb as the corporatiion is not involved in the plot.

JP3 does include something just as bad, the character with plot immunity who gets other people killed The 'reunite the family' plot meme does work as a film premise but to do so everyone in the family has to survive or the film becomes bittersweet. This is ok for scripting, however when one of the characters repeatedly gets third parties killed directly or indirectly, and blatantly doesnt care about it, it gets annoying.

Wyland -Yutani avoids the scripted dumb meme, even Burke, as there is a logic to what they do, and they dont deliberately feth up to continue the plot. 'Zombie doors' are not scripted dumb in general as there is usually no knowing what is on the other side and no plot progression without opening the door.