"Jurassic World v5.0 (TRIGGER WARNING)" On 4/18/2015 at 3:05:09 PM, Trainwreck started the thread: Whereas...
"Jurassic World v1.0" was ruined by some broken html and "Jurassic World v2.0" was derailed by Velociraptor87 and Ostromite's stance on progressive LGBTQ+/women's issues, and "Jurassic World v3.0" was skipped over due to Dilophosaurus' lack of HTML implementation, and "Jurassic World v4.0" was ruined by the absence of appropriate trigger warnings,
I have started "Jurassic World v5.0 (TRIGGER WARNING)" so that we may all freely discuss women's issues in contemporary dinosaur science fiction.
Indominus is oversized in this poster, but that's ok as long as it's just the poster. What I hate is the dinosaur's lack of lips.
And Ostro, that's not so bad since it's a completely fantastical creature anyway. Unless Tolkien himself described them as not having lips, of course. Unless you're just joking, but I have no reason to believe you'd make light of such a thing. Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 4/18/2015 at 3:33:16 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #5, saying: It bothered me with the Nazgul birds because it just looks stupid and lazy. It's such an obvious visual trick to make them look evil.
I mean, Jesus, even the orcs had lips, and they're all mutilated and deformed elsewhere. How does it eat? It can't even close its mouth. Replies: 7
Msg #7: On 4/18/2015 at 5:33:56 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #6, saying: I also kinda wish they had played up the bird aspect more - some artists' renditions have included beaks, which I thought was cool. In the movies, they're indiscernible from typical European fantasy dragons, if not slightly battered.
Msg #8: On 4/18/2015 at 6:37:32 PM, elementry replied, saying: Can the I-Rex even be considered a dinosaur since it's a mash-up of all sorts of creatures? Replies: 9, 13
Msg #9: On 4/18/2015 at 6:38:58 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #8, saying: It's a mash-up of different theropods, so, yeah, I'd say it's a dinosaur. Of course, the whole debate on "What is a dinosaur?" is supposed to be the thematic core of the film, but I just say it's a dinosaur.
Msg #10: On 4/18/2015 at 7:21:23 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: I really like the poster (and I totally LOVED the second one that was released today), but I'm not convinced that Indominus is as large as the poster makes her out to be. She's obviously supposed to be bigger than a T-Rex, but THAT large? I keep thinking of that brief shot in the tv spot where she charges one of the ACU members firing at her, jaws wide open...and then I look at this poster, and I'm thinking NO WAY. Hope the effects are at least consistent enough in the film itself to where they don't make Indominus or any of the other animals look like 1998's Godzilla. That would not be chill. Replies: 11, 12
I-Rex's mouth looks crocodilian, which is too far removed from real theropods for us to expect its features to surface. At least, as far as I know. And I'm assuming that crocodiles weren't on the list of genetic donors to this animal (can't be fucked to look it up).
BTW thanks Ostro, for ruining the Nazgul for me on any future viewing of LOTR.
The second poster is good:
But here again, the mosasaur is scaled up something like 4x. Given that it's about this size in the trailer, I bet the size is accurate. I wouldn't put it past Ingen to have scaled it up intentionally, however.
Still, what bothers me most is the goddamn Dimorphodons picking people up. Replies: 14, 17
Msg #14: On 4/19/2015 at 1:23:47 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #13, saying: Something I just noticed - either that mosasaur is right about to crash against the glass (which is impossible), or it's a distance away -making it even bigger. The fuck??? Replies: 15
Msg #15: On 4/19/2015 at 1:47:46 AM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #14, saying: Replies: 16
Msg #16: On 4/19/2015 at 2:03:27 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #15, saying: *troll 2 voice* IT'S COMING STRAIGHT FOR THE GLASS. AND THEN IT'S GOING TO EAT ME. OOHHHH MY GOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Msg #17: On 4/19/2015 at 3:05:09 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #13, saying: You can't just "scale up" an animal in genetic engineering, though. I know it's speculative fiction and you have to let go of some semblance of realism to even buy into the premise in the first place, but the animal's bones and organs would be all fucked up and it probably die as an infant. Imagine a movie where some evil scientist "scaled up" a Komodo dragon to the size of a school bus. It might be fine for a Sharktopus kind of thing, but we'd laugh our asses off if they put it in a serious tent-pole science fiction action movie. Replies: 18, 23
Msg #18: On 4/19/2015 at 3:13:09 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #17, saying: complete with green screen city destruction ala THEM!
Msg #19: On 4/19/2015 at 5:16:17 AM, Dilophosaurus replied, saying: yes, you absolutely can scale up an organism through genetic engineering. look at the phenotypic range of dogs, for example. there's absolutely no reason to suggest that an organism's size can't be modified genetically. of course, you'd then have the cubed/squared problem to worry about and whether or not the scaled-up organism will have circulatory and respiratory system capable of moving materials in to and out of tissues fast enough. Replies: 20
Msg #20: On 4/19/2015 at 5:26:54 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #19, saying: ... I think every problem you mentioned, Ostro already knew about, which is why he thought scaling up animals was speculative fiction in the first place. These animals would die if they were scaled up. What the fuck was your point? Replies: 21
Msg #21: On 4/19/2015 at 5:34:42 AM, Dilophosaurus replied to Msg #20, saying: my point was that it's not speculative fiction. we've demonstrated that we can do it, to a point, through selective breeding of domesticated animals and model organisms. and we could certainly do it with a higher degree of control and precision through direct manipulation of the genome, which he said we couldn't. we know there are genes that control for height, which, in terms of a dinosaur, is length. more of those genes could be added to the genome or they could be upregulated to see what the phenotypic result would be. he mentioned organs and skeletons failing. i mentioned respiration being the primary concern. those problems are not the same. that the fuck was my point. Replies: 22
Msg #22: On 4/19/2015 at 5:49:10 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #21, saying: You coulda done a better job, nancy.
Msg #23: On 4/19/2015 at 6:11:28 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #17, saying: they already scaled up veloceraptors, if one believes that the raptors are actually supposed to be raptors and not deinonychus.
All JP dinosaurs are hybrids at some level, as they use frog dna to fill in gaps, and Ligers are bigger than both lions and tigers, so the size could be a byproduct of the hybridization alone
That size may be something that the species is able to achieve on it's own but usually doesn't because genes responsible for growth deactivate. Ingen could have just stopped that from happening. It happens in humans often enough. The tallest man on record was almost 9 feet tall and 440 pounds, easily making him more than 4 times the weight of a lot of many women.
Narrator, the raptors actually were supposed to be deinonychus in the book, iirc. I believe Grant said something like, 'many of us believe that deinonychus is just a type of raptor anyway,' which imo was a weak way of really saying that the author of the book thinks velociraptor has a much cooler name (and he's right about that). At any rate, there's a big difference between doubling the length of a raptor and quadrupling the length of an already-large aquatic beast. The latter's mass would increase 16x! (Someone more knowledgeable please correct that if I'm wrong.)
Msg #25: On 4/19/2015 at 4:44:43 PM, Bryan replied, saying: Didn't Trevarrow already say that the Mosasaur shot was created specifically for the trailers?
Msg #26: On 4/19/2015 at 4:51:06 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Which shot though?
Msg #27: On 4/19/2015 at 6:31:43 PM, Dilophosaurus replied, saying: how are our points the same when he said "we can't" and i said "we can"?
anyway, the third poster is out! raptor squad! i am so excited for tomorrow. i hope the new trailer is 2-3 minutes long with 1-2 minutes of new footage. i am so glad that i recently became extremely busy with a new teaching job. with all the prepping and grading, it's left almost no time to wait in anticipation. 6/12 (or 6/11, in some cases) is just around the corner! Replies: 28
Msg #28: On 4/19/2015 at 8:57:05 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #27, saying: Ostro said that we could "scale up" an animal but it would have structural/internal organ issues.
You said that we could "scale up" an animal but it would have respiratory/regulatory issues (which are regulated by internal organs).
So yeah, you guys are essentially making the same point.
Msg #29: On 4/19/2015 at 9:19:20 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Look, if you can scale up a picture in photoshop, I'm sure you an scale up an animal...
... no problem.
Msg #30: On 4/19/2015 at 9:35:29 PM, Narrator replied, saying: well perhaps it does have respiratory problems or whatever. It might still be young, and they just use it while it's alive. Ingen isn't exactly ethical. Almost as bad as Seaworld. (Lol)
Msg #31: On 4/19/2015 at 11:34:00 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I'm a little ignorant of genetic engineering. Why can't you scale a animal up but you can scale it down (remember in the books Hammond has a pygmy elephant; yeah it had health problems but it was alive for long enough)? Is it because you just stunt the growth of the animal? Replies: 32
Msg #32: On 4/20/2015 at 1:14:30 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #31, saying: I'm no expert, but you can't just scale an animal up significantly without expecting massive problems. Even when humans suffer from runaway pituitary glands (or whatever makes them big), they usually suffer from problems. A Gregor Clegane-type of inidividual is exceedingly rare, from what I understand.
Msg #33: On 4/20/2015 at 8:57:27 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I'm not biology major, but wouldn't genetically engineered dinosaurs have trouble living in our world anyway? Scaled or unscaled, they come from a time where earth was much more oxygenated than it is today. Insects were the size of bicycles and whatnot. Turtles the size of a Volkswagen bug. Realistically, they'd probably all die from lack of enough oxygen.
Or am I being stupid? Replies: 34
Msg #34: On 4/20/2015 at 12:05:09 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #33, saying: The large insects wouldn't be able to live, since modern oxygen levels are the limitng factor for their size. But dinosaurs, having lungs, would adapt to whatever environment they are born into. Think of it as the difference between living at sea level your entire life versus being born and raised in the Andes.
But again, if anyone knows my understanding to be incorrect, please let me know...
Msg #35: On 4/20/2015 at 1:36:44 PM, Dilophosaurus replied, saying: the circulatory system is the biggest hurdle. large animals have specialized circulatory systems that have adaptations for moving large volumes of blood, sometimes against the force of gravity. the circulatory systems of sauropod dinosaurs, for example, would have to account for massive neck and tail length and blood volume. all other things being equal, if you can't get oxygen in and co2 out (heart/lungs) and, secondarily, nutrients in and waste out (kidneys/liver), nothing else matters. this is a direct result of the cube/square law. other than that, to a point, skeletal and organ systems should function normally, although not optimally. creatures have a quality called "phenotypic plasticity", which means that most individual features can exist over a range and that each feature can be tweaked as needed throughout life. assuming the jurassic park universe, where there seems to be a much more comprehensive understanding of genetics, developmental biology, and the relationship between the two, i would expect, through some trial and error, that they would be able to modify these animals within a certain functional range. scaled up four or five times over? probably not. but, depending on the specific creature, yes, although it may be quite different, anatomically speaking, than the original version.
this is also coming from a person who holds the necessary qualfications necessary to work in henry wu's lab. (was anyone else here inspired by "jurassic park" to study advanced bio and genetics?) i once spoke to jack horner about working on the chicken/dino project, but, sadly, the project has fallen apart and the people working on it have moved into cancer research.
Msg #36: On 4/20/2015 at 3:11:25 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: If this doesn't come off to you as the tons of fun that it's sure to become, then you're simply dead inside.
so, indominus is somehow in the aviary. a helicopter crashes into the aviary, but there are already pterosaurs outside. then, other pterosaurs escape through the hole. i wonder what the sequence of events is.
i'm excited to see how this all fits together.
Msg #43: On 4/20/2015 at 4:06:39 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: Indominus being so smart that he's ripping trackers out and commanding willing dinosaurs to do his bidding with him is hilarious. It's kinda silly, but this just looks fun. It'll all go well for him until Pratt, his posse, and a likely familiar T-Rex step in.
Yes we did. Now for my next trick!
Msg #44: On 4/20/2015 at 4:15:45 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #41, saying: Possibly, but definitely dumber than The Lost World. The problem with JP3's dumb writing is that it's so poorly paced and the plot has lots of pointless scenes and contradictions, while Jurassic World, regardless of its execution, looks like its plot is conceptually stupid. The I. rex is giving orders to the dimorphodons like Caesar in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Chris Pratt is training the raptors to be his security cohort, the main antagonist dinosaur is a super-intelligent gigantic hybrid with all the scary parts of the series' previous theropod villains - it all looks so fucking dumb in principle.
For the past year, almost every new piece of information released about the film has sounded stupid, and every single time, without fail, a bunch of guys on here bend over backwards to explain why it's not stupid. Either everyone is so in denial from years of desperately clamoring for a new Jurassic Park film that they can't accept the plain reality in front of them, or they actually think this twelve-year-old boy's notebook doodles come to life is just what we needed for the next (and probably final) installment in this franchise. Replies: 45, 46, 48
Msg #45: On 4/20/2015 at 4:23:30 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #44, saying: So, what exactly would be YOUR ideal JP film? Replies: 47
Msg #46: On 4/20/2015 at 4:25:11 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #44, saying: I think calling it a 12 year old's doodles is a bit harsh, but I agree, conceptually anyway, this movie isn't going to be as 'smart' as TLW, and not the first one by a long shot.
Msg #47: On 4/20/2015 at 4:26:10 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #45, saying: Oh, hold on, let me just get the screenplay I wrote...
[opens up a desk drawer and a jack-in-the-box with a big middle finger on it pops out] Replies: 49
Msg #48: On 4/20/2015 at 4:27:21 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #44, saying: I have to agree with Ostro....so much of what I've seen and heard about this movie is just dumb. I'm holding out hope it all still comes together into a good or at least fun movie, but I am afraid.
Msg #49: On 4/20/2015 at 4:32:20 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #47, saying: I'm not asking for your screenplay. I'm asking what you'd prefer or expect from your ideal JP movie. Replies: 53
Msg #50: On 4/20/2015 at 4:35:36 PM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: I'll fully admit this whole idea could go off the deep end. But I'm sure nerds thought it'd be stupid for raptors to be supersmart and opening doors in the first one. Turned out to be terrifying. Replies: 51
Msg #51: On 4/20/2015 at 4:43:24 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #50, saying: I'm fully prepared, if need be, to walk out of this movie disappointed. But nothing in this trailer gives me that impression so far. I'm not expecting this to be some lofty, prestigious awards-worthy piece of filmmaking, with an airtight plot and gripping characters. I just wanna go to a JP movie and have FUN. And from this trailer, that's what this movie seems to be peddling in-full. That's all any reasonable person, fan or otherwise, could ask for.
Msg #52: On 4/20/2015 at 4:59:07 PM, Bryan replied, saying: I was never on board with the creating of a new dinosaur thing but I was willing to give it a shot. I still am. However, if it does turn out that the I-Rex can communicate with other species, that I'm going to be severely disappointed.
I'm hoping the character was referring to the raptors, as he uses "they" instead of "she." And, if in fact she is communicating with the raptors, then I hope it's just the raptors because she's genetically part raptor. I'm thinking that the I-Rex just scares the dimorphodons out of the aviary rather than "sending" them.
Msg #53: On 4/20/2015 at 5:12:03 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #49, saying: I wanted a film that had a wide variety of real dinosaur species that were represented as accurately as possible and a straight-forward story of exploration and escape that didn't repeat the slasher film formula of the previous movies or rely on goofy science fiction gimmicks to draw in people who aren't interested in paleontology.
Msg #54: On 4/20/2015 at 5:12:15 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Pretty sure it was in reference to the Raptors since Pratt sends the raptors out into the jungle at night and that's the location and time the dialogue comes up. It's a weird out of context reading that makes the next shots give out another impression.
My biggest gripe is... all this damn CGI. CGI EVERYWHERE. ENOUGH!
These movies weren't always about actions scenes. And they were more or less restrained. This makes it feel like just what Hollywood does. Create as many effects shots as possible for people to have eye candy. Too bad the eye candy is so artificial to look at. Replies: 55
Msg #55: On 4/20/2015 at 5:20:05 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #54, saying: Yes, a 2+ minute trailer highlighting moments with a large scope is naturally going to have a lot of CG.
It's not all this 2+ hour film will be. There were shots of the kids hiding in a dark room, and Pratt trying to protect them from something. The first teaser ended with Ty Simpkins cowering by himself with a shadow creeping over him. It's pretty reminiscent of the kitchen scene in the first one. This was clearly a trailer made to emphasize action.
Msg #56: On 4/20/2015 at 5:24:16 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: It's NOTICEABLY CGI, Paul.
Replies: 57
Msg #57: On 4/20/2015 at 5:55:44 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #56, saying: Umm okay. There's such a thing as CGI used in this big scope manner in which you haven't "noticed"? What matters to me as if it's good or bad CG, and I'm seeing a lot of improvement over the initial footage. Looks fantastic.
This looks better
Msg #64: On 4/20/2015 at 11:15:23 PM, DJ Jerm replied, saying: The communication thing is clearly a reference to the raptors.. not the I Rex... how did anyone think otherwise?? Replies: 66
Msg #65: On 4/20/2015 at 11:17:37 PM, RaptorHiss replied, saying: I feel like I've seen this entire movie already. There seems to be way too many money shots in all of these trailers. I sort of imagined being wowed in the theaters on seeing the new I. Rex for the first time, but now that moment's come and gone. Even though I knew knew Wu would be in the film, again I imagined that being a big moment in theaters. I'm still going to enjoy the heck out of the final product, but I sort of regret looking at these trailers, especially the latest one. But come on, how was I going to not watch it? Replies: 74
Msg #66: On 4/21/2015 at 12:12:55 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #64, saying: Maybe because the raptors have been communicating for three goddamn movies already. Replies: 67, 69
Msg #67: On 4/21/2015 at 1:43:06 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #66, saying: Yeah. Why exactly would they be talking about them communicating in a tone suggesting they were surprised, if it's already known they can communicate w/ each other?
Edit: Okay. Strike that. The guy is clearly saying "They're" in a plural sense. My bad.
Msg #68: On 4/21/2015 at 2:07:03 AM, Narrator replied, saying: lets not pretend that if you didn't know what CGI was you wouldn't think those animals were real things. The CG looks great, and in the type of shots that were shown it's a much better option than animitronics
regarding the communication thing, I thought they were referring to both the I-rex and the raptors.
...all of this aside, this movie looks lame. It doesn't even feel like the same world as Jurassic Park and TLW. JW3 felt weird too, but this basically feels like a b movie rip off with a huge budget. Jurassic Park wasn't good because of the monsters, it was good because of the characters, which they forgot. TLW was good, and is my favorite only because Ian Malcolm is in it more. I'm really hoping he makes a secret cameo in this. Otherwise I'll probably see it once in theaters and never again.
Msg #69: On 4/21/2015 at 5:00:38 AM, DJ Jerm replied to Msg #66, saying: Really though it was only revealed that they were properly "communicating" in the third JP movie, and for all we know, Grant never took the stage to explain his observations to the public.
To assume that the Irex is the one communicating doesn't make logical sense, given how much emphasis was put on the raptors being the ones communicating in JP3... Not sure where people got the idea that the Irex is communicating to other dinos from. Replies: 70
Msg #70: On 4/21/2015 at 6:28:24 AM, brown legend replied to Msg #69, saying: It probably has to do with:
-The Irex roaring at the dimorphodons/pteranodons and then them flying out and scooping up people -The ankylosaurs attacking the gyrosphere with the Irex running behind them -the line about "communicating"
Of course....that could all be misleading and what really might be happening is:
The Irex is just scaring them off and they're flying out to escape the Irex and decide to attack people on their own -The ankylosaurs are just running from the Irex and the gyrosphere just happens to be in the way -The line is a reference to the raptors, or the raptors communicating with the Irex but still leaves the two points above.
I could see how people can perceive that the Irex is communicating with the other dinosaurs in the park.
Msg #71: On 4/21/2015 at 11:54:56 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Haha this latest trailer has me worried. I've been cautiously optimistic about the use of a genetic hybrid largely because Trevorrow has been paying so much lip service to the original and to the fambase, but this is looking more like he has no clue what made JP great. It takes more than a flashy CGI sequence to impress; actually, restraint and simplicity are far more impressive than ridiculous spectacle. I'm not convinced the I-Rex is going around issuing orders just from this trailer, but if that's even partially true, then this movie is fucking stupid.
For anyone saying, "it looks like a fun monster movie get over it": this kind of thinking is exactly the problem. JP is supposed to be much more than that, it is supposed to be intelligent and compelling sci-fi.
Msg #72: On 4/21/2015 at 12:30:05 PM, Varan101 replied, saying: Yeah this movie looks kinda dumb. Possibly the worst looking big movie of the summer.
Msg #73: On 4/21/2015 at 1:29:22 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: "It takes more than a flashy CGI sequence to impress; actually, restraint and simplicity are far more impressive than ridiculous spectacle."
This was my point all along. Chris said it well here.
When Jurassic Park came out it was one of a kind. Nobody had seen anything like it before, and because the technology was so new, Spielberg didn't allow his camera to go every which way. He methodically centered it or slowly moved it to reveal the vastness of the landscape and the enormity of these creatures. Then, he combined the brand new CGI to give it more reality with animatronics.
One could say that this restraint was necessary for the time, but then it works and still works today.
And then I look at this trailer and there's no restraint. Everything is CGI. Hell the whole Aviary sequence looks CGI. And as impressive as the CGI is, it still doesn't feel real. It's too much, so heavy handed that it leaves the film not feeling so grounded.
But most importantly, it feels like a distraction. Like there isn't any meat on the bones of this story. Every piece of dialogue in this trailer is such a generic, boring cliche. And Jurassic Park is a series that has had some great, memorable dialogue.
-Why didn't anyone shoot at the dinosaurs? I want to see military vs dinos! -Show me a motorcycle chase with raptors! -I want aquatic dinos! -Dinosaur fights please?! Preferably that don't end with the franchise icon dead in 30 seconds.
Literally all things in this movie. This is fan service, the film. This is the Jurassic Park 3 we should have gotten. Open park, massive success, questionable ethics, driven by money and greed vs scientific exploration, written by people that made the best planet of the apes film ever and re written by someone with a proven ear for dialogue and well rounded characters.
At the very least this will be the second best film in the franchise, and while it won't ever usurp the technical marvels of the time, I could still see this being a better film than the first movie. Replies: 78
Msg #78: On 4/21/2015 at 7:44:27 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #77, saying: The only one of those I wanted was aquatic animals, and I guess dinosaur fights, though every film has had them already. I also agree that this movie has a lot going for it that I had always hoped they would tackle - namely, a film set in an open park full of tourists and management that's less ethical than InGen in the first film (though I always imagined it would BioSyn) - but it still has that ridiculous hybrid dino-monster premise and, in any case, fan service is garbage. Whenever a franchise starts sucking its own dick to please its fans, you wind up with shit like Revenge of the Sith, Darabont's script for Indiana Jones and the City of the Gods, and the later Silent Hill games Replies: 80
Msg #79: On 4/21/2015 at 7:45:10 PM, JPController replied to Msg #73, saying: "Taking dinosaurs off this island, is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas and I'm going to be there when you learn that."
"Somewhere on this Island is the greatest predator that ever lived, the second greatest predator must take him down."
"Your going to use that?"
"If he doesn't surrender yes."
Memorable lines Indeed.
Msg #80: On 4/21/2015 at 9:32:09 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #78, saying: How was ROTS fan service? Replies: 82
Msg #81: On 4/21/2015 at 9:40:55 PM, RezForPrez replied, saying: ROTS was not fan service, AOTC was, and it was horrible but I think everyone who bothers to think of it can see that it's horrible for other reasons and not because it includes things fans always clamor to see. It's terrible for horrid greenscreen work with a terrible script and bad acting, but a movie full of bounty hunters, hundreds of jedi fighting, and crazy monster battles is just fine on paper and would have been great in surer hands.
The hybrid idea is fine to me and a logical progression of events from the movies and ties directly into book Wu. "Give the people something they want to see, not reality" etc.. no matter what this was always going to be an action adventure tentpole movie first, It's apparent from the trailers alone that they've put in the most focus on science and ethics since the first film if not even moreso, it remains to be seen.
Msg #82: On 4/21/2015 at 10:03:26 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #80, saying: I was mostly thinking of the end where they bring in Chewbacca, the Darth Vader suit, the Death Star, and tie everything in a little bow for the original trilogy, as well as the same kind of visual call-backs that run through all the prequels (like Palpatine on the bridge of General Grievous's ship like it's the throne room from Return of the Jedi). Replies: 83
Msg #83: On 4/22/2015 at 1:28:36 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #82, saying: little call backs like the palpatine on the bridge thing are fine. Actually I think they're a good thing, and seeing the death star's early construction was, I suppose, a fan service and not really necessary, but imagine if these movies actually came out in order, seeing the early construction of the death star, before it just showing up in 4 would be kind of good. Same with vader. Though I think his suit should have been a little different at the beginning instead of being the same, but nicer looking.
The real fan service thing was the Yoda vs Palpatine fight. That's like a "what if" scenario every kid had probably been thinking of since the OT, and that had zero restraint. But it was the last "not really" installment and everything in that movie was going to shit, so why the hell not. It's not that well executed and sort of breaks the flow of the anakin vs obi wan fight that was actually important to the story which also could have been done better, but was still the best duel of the prequels. (Duel of fates wasn't that good, and we don't talk about AOTC) So yeah, that part was fan service, but I think that movie was mostly george lucas not caring about the fans and telling his own, poorly written and directed story.
It is a good story though. Has anyone read the book version of ROTS? it's far superior to the movie. Much better acting as well.
Msg #84: On 4/22/2015 at 6:03:39 AM, Rick Arnold replied, saying: I'm just happy that the newest trailer finally gave us a shot of Jurassic World's answer to Ray Arnold and Dennis Nedry.
Not only does he have a collection of dinosaurs toys like Wash from Firefly, but he's also wearing an original Jurassic Park shirt with the red logo.
-Why didn't anyone shoot at the dinosaurs? I want to see military vs dinos! -Show me a motorcycle chase with raptors! -I want aquatic dinos! -Dinosaur fights please?! Preferably that don't end with the franchise icon dead in 30 seconds.
Literally all things in this movie. This is fan service, the film. This is the Jurassic Park 3 we should have gotten. Open park, massive success, questionable ethics, driven by money and greed vs scientific exploration, written by people that made the best planet of the apes film ever and re written by someone with a proven ear for dialogue and well rounded characters.
At the very least this will be the second best film in the franchise, and while it won't ever usurp the technical marvels of the time, I could still see this being a better film than the first movie.<<
THANK YOU. I feel like very few people recognize the crew who are behind this project. I still have complete faith in this project - and of all people here, really, I should be one of the more cynical. I mean, for fuck's sake, I paid to fly down to be a part of the movie.
Besides, there's still an ENTIRE section of this movie that no one has seen. For the most part, a good majority of the footage we've seen already has been recycled as to not spoil other scenes. Let it all tie together before you dismiss this movie of being "not up to par".
Msg #93: On 4/23/2015 at 2:58:51 PM, Rick Arnold replied, saying: It's a movie that features Burt Macklin: Interstellar Rogue teaming up with X-Men's Bishop and Gwen Stacy to take down a genetically-modified super-dinosaur with help from a pack of raptors and the T-Rex from the first film!
Oh, and Kingpin and that scientist that disappeared after the first act of the Amazing Spider-Man are involved too.
And the great Jake Johnson as a Jurassic Park groupie with dinosaur toys on his desk.
Replies: 99
Msg #99: On 4/24/2015 at 1:24:46 PM, RezForPrez replied to Msg #98, saying: Reilly books are fantastic, but even more fantastic is how Jurassic World could have copied a book that was published after filming had wrapped. A great mystery indeed, you might be on to something slueth. Replies: 100
Msg #100: On 4/24/2015 at 3:24:44 PM, ST1NG replied to Msg #99, saying: Isn't it obvious? This Trevorrow guy must be using the time machine from SNG to travel to the future so he can plagiarize books and movies that haven't even come out yet. Probably banging Mark Duplass too, that sneaky dick.
Awesome new clip though! Gave off a real JP vibe to me.
Msg #101: On 4/26/2015 at 4:51:06 AM, Snake Mark replied, saying: Is it bothering anyone else that they keep referring to them as "Assets?" As if to drive home the point that Masrani is the big bad corporation with no care for anything it creates.
Also... lack of lips totally not an issue till y'all brought it to my attention. Replies: 102
Msg #102: On 4/26/2015 at 6:04:30 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #101, saying: It's an issue if you care at all about dinosaur accuracy. I mean, it's bad enough that the raptors' tails aren't stiff and they continue to waltz about without feathers, but getting rid of lips is a deliberate design choice that removes the animal one step more away from reality. Replies: 103
Msg #103: On 4/26/2015 at 8:00:23 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #102, saying: I'm probably giving the writers too much credit, but maybe the lack of lips, and that removes the animal one more step away from reality, or nature, is a statement about the interference in nature in the first place. It's what Malcolm and Grant and that one lady plant scientist were against in the first place. Interfering with the natural course of things messing with complex systems causes catastrophes. The lack of lips might sort of highlight that it's an unnatural abomination....
The article title is misleading - they aren't retconning, just kinda ignoring. Replies: 105, 109
Msg #105: On 4/29/2015 at 9:13:38 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #104, saying: With the action being shifted back to Nublar along with, seemingly, all dinosaur production, plus no returning characters from TLW or JP3, I am assuming there isn't really anything in the previous two movies that is relevant to this new one. I still can pretty much guarantee they will at least mention Sorna in JW. What I want to know, though, is if Sorna was made into a nature preserve for the dinosaurs and restricted to the public after the events of TLW, why did they not do the same to Nublar as well? We now know for a fact that, in the movie universe, Nublar was not destroyed like it's book counterpart, and at least some of the dinosaurs from the original park survived all the way to the opening of Jurassic World. Replies: 106
Msg #106: On 4/29/2015 at 9:54:08 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #105, saying: My guess is, InGen sold Nublar and kept Sorna. Replies: 107
Msg #107: On 4/29/2015 at 10:29:23 PM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #106, saying: Did InGen even have any legal claim to Sorna anymore, though? It seemed like by JP3, the Costa Rican government or whoever had basically confiscated (for lack of better term) the island and turned it into a restricted nature preserve. I don't think InGen had any more right to be there by that point than Grant and co. did. I'm just curious why a corporation was allowed to go into Nublar and once again turn it into a tourist attraction.
Also, it seems like InGen is still involved in the operations of Jurassic World to some degree. We'll have to wait til the movie comes out to see to what extent, I'd imagine.
Msg #108: On 4/30/2015 at 3:05:34 AM, PunkNerd replied, saying: If I'm remembering right the website viral marketing says Masrani bought InGen. I don't know what kind of hoops you would have to jump through to get the okay for another park, but perhaps it helps that the first park was screwed up by human design, and the other films are simply the result of people going to islands they shouldn't go to. The park never really failed, it was Nedry turning everything off.
Msg #109: On 4/30/2015 at 3:07:24 AM, PunkNerd replied to Msg #104, saying: The website mentions Hoskins as having been in charge of hunting the Pteranodons which escaped at the end of the third film. I doubt they'll bring it up in the film, but at least the advertising company has been working to make all four films connected.
Msg #110: On 4/30/2015 at 5:23:25 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I'm still angry that Crichton used a non-existent military force to destroy Nublar at the end of the first book. I know it was the 80s, and serious research was a pain in the ass, but you can't tell me that he didn't have a goddamn Encyclopedia Brittanica on hand.
Msg #111: On 4/30/2015 at 10:45:11 AM, Compy01 replied, saying: Always the pessimist but this trailer looks like my worst nightmare. Like they've completely gone against everything JP is about and made another CGI loaded action film that no one will remember next summer. Does it bother anyone that the trailer has a bit of a comedic tone? Pratt doing that sex gesture; a few of the cast seem like they've been plucked from comedies - that New Girl actor to name one.
It feels like a monster mash film generated with the name 'Jurassic World' just so they'll have a guaranteed audience. Replies: 112
Msg #112: On 4/30/2015 at 3:45:25 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #111, saying: I'm basically in the same boat; dinosaurs are monsters, not animals. Even the herbivores are crazily endangering humans or serving as COOL ACTION FODDER for Indominus.
Msg #113: On 4/30/2015 at 8:52:21 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: Hoping this is an example of poorly cut trailers. Replies: 114
Msg #114: On 5/1/2015 at 4:06:51 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #113, saying: I blame the homosexual lobby and its takeover of the SCOTUS Replies: 115
Msg #115: On 5/1/2015 at 5:32:30 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #114, saying: Oh, for christ's sake. My life is a punchline now.
Msg #116: On 5/5/2015 at 5:49:51 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: Just woke up from a very heavy dream in which I saw JW in it's entirety. Like most dreams, I can't exactly remember everything that occurred from start to finish, but there was some seriously peculiar shit going down in the details; the T-Rex scratching himself like a dog, an extended jungle chase sequence near the end that involved the Rex initially, then gradually adds a stampede of Dilophosaurus that looked incredibly fake (seriously, they were speckled red and blue, with the CGI so awful that you could never get a clear look at them), lots of rain, sequences where rock music would play...weirder still is that the Indominus Rex was nowhere to be seen.
The dream was so deep & weird that I even saw the Tomatometer for JW...ranging between 62-75% fresh. Even critics that I follow on a daily basis had their reviews posted; Chris Stuckmann gave it a B, the Schmoes liked it (with Mark giving it an 4.9 and Kristian giving an 4.2), but also had John Campea, Jon Schnepp & the New Yorker (wtf?) hating it.
I'm fairly emotional right now.
Msg #121: On 5/8/2015 at 12:18:40 AM, IKK_Viper replied, saying: Just bought my tickets as well! June 11th 7:30pm showing already sold out, so I got the 8pm showing! As early as I could get. I'm driving about two hours to go see this with my family in Fort Myers. Mostly going there for my little 13 year old brother who is an avid dinosaur fan. The kid is literally a genius when it comes to recalling names and types of dinosaurs. He's even getting pretty good at drawing them too.
Msg #122: On 5/8/2015 at 12:34:47 AM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #117, saying: I had a feeling you were touched as a child.
Msg #123: On 5/8/2015 at 2:29:18 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: 70MM IMAX or sod off. Replies: 124
Msg #124: On 5/8/2015 at 7:24:21 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #123, saying: Oh, I'll upgrade formats once I see the film for what it is, as simply as possible. If JW is amazing and warrants multiple viewings, then I'll go to my local Cinemark IMAX or IMAX museum (there's a Dome in Fort Worth that kicks all ass) soon after and catch the film there. Maybe, just for the hell of it, I'll go check out a simple 35mm showing over at the Texas Theatre in Dallas. I'm lucky in my employment that I am off every Thursday, Friday and Saturday...an entire weekend fully dedicated to seeing JW as many times, in as many different ways as I can. I also get paid on 6/11, which helps :-)
Msg #125: On 5/8/2015 at 8:44:00 AM, Narrator replied, saying: You guys need to learn how to sneak into movies
Msg #126: On 5/9/2015 at 5:00:03 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: Confirmed runtime of less than 2 hours. First bit of news about the movie I haven't liked in a while, I guess since that fuckface Gee I suck a lot of dicko was picked to make the music.
I've always felt the 115 min. runtime and pacing of ROTLA should be the template for these kinds of movies, and this seems to nail that.
Msg #128: On 5/9/2015 at 8:42:07 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #126, saying: It could be a lot worse, man.
It's not the minutes that count, it's the quality & entertainment they bring to those minutes that'll make everything worthwhile. Proper craft and a decent (and finished) script could've made JP3 a cool little 90-min movie, had all involved not chosen to go off half-cocked and make a cheap & shitty one.
Msg #129: On 5/9/2015 at 12:46:56 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #126, saying: Giacchino is best
Msg #130: On 5/9/2015 at 1:41:29 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #126, saying: The run-time is the first bit of news I have liked in a while. Summer blockbusters are getting so flabby now. You can't even go see a superhero movie or some dumb action sequel about giant robots without committing almost three hours of your life to it like it's an adaptation of a huge novel or an epic biopic.
Msg #131: On 5/9/2015 at 5:20:35 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: Trevorrow just confirmed on Twitter a running time of 124 minutes, with end credits.
Msg #144: On 5/12/2015 at 9:43:38 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: No way is that practical. I mean, it looks good, but it doesn't look practical.
Msg #145: On 5/12/2015 at 9:44:13 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: They went with creating heads for various CU shot implementation. Again, these for use were posted to Twitter by Trevorrow. Any full body, no -- which are hugely most of the film. In short, people can't seem to tell the difference anymore. It's like when no one believed the scene in KOTCS where the pillars raise up into the air before Indy and co. fall through the sand floor wasn't ILM's work until the documentary on the DVD/Blu came out proving it.
Msg #146: On 5/12/2015 at 10:11:43 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Except I can. I can tell the difference through the movement. The CGI is too showy while the animatronics will have limitations on movement - which I'm for because I think they move too often. Replies: 148
Msg #147: On 5/12/2015 at 10:16:07 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: I think we can all agree that that guy is fucked. RIP soldier person.
Msg #148: On 5/12/2015 at 10:27:46 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #146, saying: I have no idea what you think is too showy about a head moving back and forth as it bites. You could say that's sorta well beyond their capability. Replies: 149
Msg #149: On 5/12/2015 at 10:43:57 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #148, saying: I was not pointing that out for that shot specifically. This is one of the shots I have the least problem with.
But like, why have the eye through the foliage as CGI? And it always looks it when I see it. Do it practical, it's easy and in camera. The jaws under the car. Looked better in JP because it was an actual head. Etc.
Msg #150: On 5/12/2015 at 11:29:01 PM, Bryan replied, saying: Looks practical to me.
Msg #151: On 5/13/2015 at 1:50:27 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Too dark, too fast to even tell. Replies: 152
Msg #152: On 5/13/2015 at 2:35:53 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #151, saying: Why do you care so much about the animatronics?
Msg #153: On 5/13/2015 at 8:29:35 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Because it's a physical thing shot in camera. And when it's done right, there's nothing more believable because it's tangibly there, not hiding behind pixels. Replies: 154, 155
Msg #154: On 5/13/2015 at 12:57:38 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #153, saying: lol what bullshit
Msg #155: On 5/13/2015 at 2:31:42 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #153, saying: But at the same time, animatronics are severely limited in their movement, so while the way light hits them is always going to be more realistic, you can also always tell when it's an animatronic because it kind of just stands still and moves its head a bit. I love practical effects for basically the same reason you're getting at, but it's pretty asinine to get a bug up your ass about the movie not having enough animatronics in it when they're only appropriate for certain kinds of shots to begin with.
EDIT: While I'm not really a huge fan of the writing style on Cracked articles nowadays, this article covers why a lot of us think this movie doesn't look that impressive. It covers the animatronics thing, but the big one for me is the color grading. I fucking hate it.
Msg #156: On 5/13/2015 at 5:36:48 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I'm getting a bug up my ass cause I've seen one shot. The first movie proved you could do it seamlessly.
BTW, the grading changes from trailer to trailer and tv spot to tv spot. But mostly, digital color grading these days looks awful when they're compressed down for internet and are never the true representation of what we're going to see.
Having said that, I really hate the greens/teal tinge.
EDIT: That cracked article is spot on. Replies: 157
Msg #157: On 5/13/2015 at 5:48:14 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #156, saying: Except they are a true representation of what we're going to see because almost all theaters project digitally i.e. they play an HD video file on an iMac hooked up to a projector. I've honestly lost all interest in paying to see movies in the theater because the last couple films I've seen have had such poor image quality that they would actually look better on my TV at home. And don't give me that shit about how it's a "bad" theater. It happens at the mall theater, the independent arthouse theater, the dollar theater, everywhere. Digital projection looks like 1080p YouTube. Replies: 158, 159
Msg #158: On 5/13/2015 at 7:04:58 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #157, saying: I WANT TO HUG A BABY DINOSAUR Replies: 164
Msg #159: On 5/13/2015 at 7:15:29 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #157, saying: I haven't given you any shit lol
But I'm not sure you've compressed video before. Even a bit of compression is going to squeeze and desaturate the colors. Just because you're still 1080p, doesn't mean anything. You're compressing the image down from like huge 35mm (8k resolution) with some shots at 60mm (12k!!!) trailer to 100 mb. at 1080p.
When I first saw Prisoners trailer, the colors looks horrendous and digital. When I saw the movie in the theater all that shit was amazing. Replies: 160
Msg #160: On 5/13/2015 at 7:21:13 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #159, saying: Okay, two things:
1) Every time I mention the poor image quality of digital projection, somebody - on this board, Twitter, wherever - always says "well that was obviously a bad theater, the one I go to blah blah blah".
2) I have compressed video before and I understand how it works, and, believe it or not, I've seen the movies many of these trailers advertise. If you do a side by side comparison with the trailer and the film, you can technically see a difference, but the overall effect, how it immediately feels to the human eyeball, is fundamentally the same. The stuff you're talking about reminds me of all the technical jargon people were using to justify the high frame rate thing when The Hobbit came out and everyone was complaining that it looked like shit.
Msg #161: On 5/13/2015 at 8:56:51 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: No, I just know what compression can do because I've seen it first hand. That's all. I do it all the time. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that going from a much HIGHER QUALITY will affect the color grading. Just look at SD stuff from the original Jurassic Park. It affects it, no question. Granted, that's also going from multiple film copies.
Yay Dr. Wu!!! Replies: 167
Msg #167: On 5/15/2015 at 2:24:36 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #166, saying: Not cheesy? It's hilariously cheesy! Which, of course, is the whole idea. I've seen a million of these pretentious "tomorrow is now" tech company promo videos and this is a perfect facsimile.
HOWEVER...
All you motherfuckers who said the raptors shouldn't have feathers because they have frog DNA spliced in can fucking eat it because they just said in this video that the technology has moved beyond that.
Msg #168: On 5/15/2015 at 3:26:21 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I keep seeing everyone posting excitedly about this movie, but I can't get this out of my head (TRIGGER WARNING):
This movie looks so goddamn awful that I can't even bring myself to buy tickets now. I've even lost the will to invoke an Ian Malcolm quote about this. Replies: 169
Msg #169: On 5/15/2015 at 3:40:43 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #168, saying: Almost every single piece of information released about this film for the past year has made me less and less excited. It looks bad, like bad bad, but I keep having to hear everyone on this board bend over backwards to explain why, no, it actually looks good because this, that, and the other thing. Maybe it will be good and all these desperate excuses will turn out right, but my gut instinct is that it's retarded.
I know I was kind of getting on Chase's case about his hang-up with the animatronics, but the CGI really does look like shit to me and I can't shake the feeling that this is just going to feel like one of the Marvel movies but with dinosaurs, just an endless series of weightless cartoon action scenes with comic relief and soft science fiction thrown in.
Msg #170: On 5/15/2015 at 4:52:06 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: Agree to disagree here, guys. I'm reserving my judgment for when I actually watch the film. From what I see, the film looks better than the last JP entry, and a helluva lot more ambitious for sure. I'm already going to see the film on principle alone, since I do love the first two films, but the ambition & intent inherent in what the filmmakers are trying to do here is at least worthy of an admission ticket for the JP fanboy/girl, film buff & average moviegoer. Replies: 171
Msg #171: On 5/15/2015 at 5:00:39 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #170, saying: The level of ambition is key. I still remain impressed that Trevorrow got Universal to delay the release date a year so they could re-work the script they had (something written in just three weeks by Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) and increase the budget for what they had in mind regarding the full breadth of their idea. I don't care who wants to say it looks horrible for whatever reason, you're entitled. I'm seeing the kind of true sequel to the original film that TLW and JP3 failed to be for reasons already discussed and debated, and the climax is going to be wonderful (from what I've read on it).
I don't see this one posted yet, but it's more relevant now. Every new bit I'm seeing of Ty Simpkins character experiencing something wondrous and exciting with us right with him is giving me promise of significant, specific things I'd been asking for over the years from this. I adore the shot at 1:13.
Msg #178: On 5/15/2015 at 9:26:42 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: I guess I don't get it, guys. Ok, Trevorrow is ambitious: but is that enough to have confidence that the final product won't be the same overproduced Hollywood bullshit that comicbook movies have become?
I don't know what's worse: exaggerating the mosausaur size by tenfold, portraying I-Rex as a psychotic monster who thrives on carnage, or having mind-controlled dimorphodons picking people up. Oh! Maybe the leaked scene where a pteranodon supposedly picks up a woman and drops her into the mosasaur's mouth. Replies: 179, 180
Msg #179: On 5/15/2015 at 9:33:50 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #178, saying: I wouldn't even call it "ambitious" for him to insist they re-write the script and get a bigger budget. It just means he didn't want the production to be a chaotic disaster.
Msg #180: On 5/15/2015 at 10:08:00 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #178, saying: Lol some of what you're saying isn't even reality. They were talking about the "trained" raptors communicating with the wild ones in that trailer. It's an out of context mish-mash of scenes and dialogue. Your "leaked" scene is in every recent TV spot. She gets dropped into the tank and the mosausaur attacks her. I know, how outlandish. Might as well be The Wolf-Martian Meets Lavalantula.
Indominus essentially being a crazed thing acting as its been engineered is neat (from Trevorrow: "When you grow up in captivity, you don’t know your mother and you’ve never seen another thing like you. Farmers will tell you that hybrid cows are a little crazy. What we did was had this corporation create something new with modern genetics but it was driven by that need to constantly offer the audience something with more teeth". This is cool, and it's different, and I'm so glad the internet doesn't get to call the shots on what makes a true Jurassic Park successor. Replies: 181
Msg #181: On 5/15/2015 at 10:35:03 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #180, saying: That's definitely an interesting explanation.
Msg #182: On 5/15/2015 at 10:39:13 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: As for the scene of the pteranodon dropping a woman into the water - The trailers cut immediately to the mosasaur eating one of the dimetrodons, not the woman. Not sure if she actually gets ate. The constant trigger warnings in this thread are also really tacky - whether or not trigger warnings are overused isn't relevant, and making fun of an actual psychological phenomenon isn't cute. Would you make fun of someone with PTSD being triggered? Not singling anyone out btw, just saying, very tacky. Replies: 183
Msg #183: On 5/16/2015 at 2:18:42 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #182, saying: You're hardly in a position to dictate to others what's tacky or appropriate.
But for the record, if anyone here experienced significant mental distress resulting from dinosaurs roaring near exploding helicopters in real life, I would certainly take their feelings into account. Replies: 185
Msg #184: On 5/16/2015 at 2:25:49 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: In less than six seconds of a TV spot, there's human POV. Just pointing that out in the wake of silliness.
Stop before 26 seconds, though. After is the reason I despise TV spots with the ruining of scares or set-pieces no one needed to see out of context like that. Replies: 186, 189
Msg #185: On 5/16/2015 at 2:47:11 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #183, saying: This is the exact response I expected, which is really, really funny. I even specifically mention that I'm not singling anyone out and you still get a stick up your ass, which is petty tbh. So glad I stopped acknowledging you for the most part. Lmao. Replies: 187
Msg #186: On 5/16/2015 at 2:50:19 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #184, saying: That TV spot is fucking fantastic. *_*
Msg #187: On 5/16/2015 at 3:03:00 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #185, saying: Cool man, I guess this is the part where I'm supposed to get upset at your remark or something. Replies: 188
Msg #188: On 5/16/2015 at 3:04:35 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #187, saying: (you must be bothered because you keep replying)
Msg #189: On 5/16/2015 at 3:07:51 AM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #184, saying: It's ruined by the shoddy CGI work, Paul, not the reveal. Replies: 190
Msg #190: On 5/16/2015 at 3:13:38 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #189, saying: Hmm. I agree that CG is waaaayyy too prevalent in blockbuster/tentpole movies, but is this film's CG any more shoddy than say, the Avengers? Cuz comparing the two it's pretty passable. It doesn't look as good or as convincing as 1993/1997, sadly, but I wouldn't call it "shoddy"... just overused. That's kinda a disservice to the animators. Then again, I'm taking maya and 3ds max right now, so I might be a lil biased. *_*
Msg #191: On 5/16/2015 at 3:17:03 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Avengers? You just said my naughty word. Replies: 192
Msg #192: On 5/16/2015 at 3:18:33 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #191, saying: ... I could take that to mean so many different things.
Msg #193: On 5/16/2015 at 3:21:06 AM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Let's just say... I hate the Avengers. Replies: 195
Msg #194: On 5/16/2015 at 3:21:30 AM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying:
Msg #195: On 5/16/2015 at 3:22:02 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #193, saying: Oh, drats. Hahahahah. Overall or just the effects? Cuuuz yeah, the CG in the Avengers is pretty... ehh... obvious.
Msg #196: On 5/16/2015 at 4:52:48 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #163, saying: TV has to work with restraints. You can't have half hour long CGI battles in TV to keep the audiences attention. CGI, and animitronics need to be used so sparingly, and cut away from, that the focus is kept on the characters, and the story, rather than being filled up by action that doesn't matter. TV needs to entertain and keep attention with substance, because it can't keep attention with dazzle. Replies: 197
Msg #197: On 5/16/2015 at 9:54:40 AM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #196, saying: Two cents - I still think JW will be a ball. Replies: 198
Msg #198: On 5/16/2015 at 2:57:43 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #197, saying: Low expectations or not, and serious issues with the whole notion of the I-Rex aside, I bought my tickets for the IMAX Experience, 7pm on June 11, at Gulf Coast Town Centre. Why? 'Cause I'm a fan and even if it's bad, I want to know exactly how bad it's gonna be. I'm not going to sit in my armchair and judge based on a couple of minutes worth of disjointed footage for a film that's a successor to my absolute favorite movie in the world. See you at 10pm June 11th.
Msg #199: On 5/16/2015 at 3:41:40 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #161, saying: All right, Chase, after seeing Mad Max: Fury Road, and I see what you're talking about because that moved looked a bit more orange in the trailer than it looked in the theater... I think, anyway. It certainly didn't feel as orange, but I'd have to do a side-by-side comparison to really tell how different it looked. The kinds of films I was talking about before are things like Godzilla, which really did look - or feel - as gray and desaturated as it did in the trailer.
Msg #200: On 5/16/2015 at 3:55:15 PM, The Crow replied, saying: Watch the film in it's entirety before you start bitching about how bad it is.
I used to think sushi looked disgusting and terrible... Until I tried it. Instantly changed my mind about sushi thereafter.
Yes, I understand it's weird to compare Jurassic World to sushi... But, well... There it is.
We've maybe only seen about 1/16th of this film (if that), so to write it off based off of the "money shots" that are being put in the trailers to get the general masses to see the fllm, is quite a bit unfair to the people involved in making the film. Universal can't really afford to dig this franchise into a larger whole than it's unfortunately already in, so I doubt they would let a shit screenplay get put into production. At the very least, it will be a fun experience - maybe not brilliant, but at least a hell of a thrill ride. And if it's smarter than we expected? Even better.
But, shit, come on now, guys. Some of this negativity is ridiculous. Replies: 201
Msg #201: On 5/16/2015 at 4:09:55 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #200, saying: It's not ridiculous to be pessimistic about the film when all the released materials looks dumb and fake. You can't keep saying "oh, well there's a bunch of awesome stuff you don't even know about yet, so stop complaining" every couple of weeks when they release a new trailer or TV spot and it's more of the same dumb and fake shit. I know you were in the movie and know more about it than we do, but your logic here could apply to literally any movie that people think looks stupid before it comes out. Replies: 202, 203, 205
Msg #202: On 5/16/2015 at 4:40:36 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #201, saying: Except most people involved in the production of this film are top tier talent. Usually they will produce something that's at least watchable.
I mean seriously watch this Dumb and Dumber trailer...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0zGXZa2dG0
Looks generic and awful. But great actors and directors and it turned out great. Replies: 204
Msg #203: On 5/16/2015 at 4:51:38 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #201, saying: Since you've already prejudged this thing into the ground, so certain of it's shittiness based on a few minutes of promotional sizzle reels...because you are so absolutely sure that JW will be total ass, are you actually going to get up from the keyboard and watch the entire movie? Replies: 206
Msg #204: On 5/16/2015 at 4:52:48 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #202, saying: LOL
Msg #205: On 5/16/2015 at 4:57:40 PM, The Crow replied to Msg #201, saying: >>It's not ridiculous to be pessimistic about the film when all the released materials looks dumb and fake. You can't keep saying "oh, well there's a bunch of awesome stuff you don't even know about yet, so stop complaining" every couple of weeks when they release a new trailer or TV spot and it's more of the same dumb and fake shit. I know you were in the movie and know more about it than we do, but your logic here could apply to literally any movie that people think looks stupid before it comes out.<<
It has nothing to do with me being in it - I know only maybe a smidge more than most, but I'm still hugely in the dark like everyone else.
My problem is that some people here are writing it off as being terrible without even seeing the finished product, based off of a few CGI shots that have been put out there. No matter how advanced CGI or animatronics get - they will always be fake and LOOK fake, because humans (most, at least) can tell the difference subconciously between the two. The only thing I'm curious about is how the dinosaur movement is on screen - and so far from what I've seen, it seems like the dinosaurs have a certain weight to them. To me, that's what sets about what looks more realistic, and what looks fantasy. As long as I don't get something akin to The Hobbit or Avengers CGI, then I'm happy. You can't deny that the dinosaurs already look photorealistic based off of texture alone.
But as I said before, we've literally MAYBE have only seen a cumulative total of about 5 minutes of a 1 hour, 57 minute movie.
Calm your jets and kill the pessimism a bit. Replies: 207
Msg #206: On 5/16/2015 at 5:14:09 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #203, saying: Ok wonderboy, you're acting like Ostro just peed in your corn flakes. Calm down with torches & pitchforks. Replies: 208
Msg #207: On 5/16/2015 at 5:37:40 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #205, saying: You're acting like all that's come out is a teaser poster or some promotional stills, but the film comes out in a month and there have been multiple trailers, TV commercials, cast and crew interviews, and supplementary viral marketing to go by, and, to me (and a lot of other people), it all looks bad. The whole point of trailers, et al. is to make people want to watch the movie, and, as someone who has been waiting for over a decade for this film and was already biased in favor of it, all this stuff has made me not want to see it because it looks so awful, but you're saying that's somehow my fault.
Also, fuck off with the Dumb and Dumber trailer, Vinny. That's not even remotely comparable and you know it. Replies: 209
Msg #208: On 5/16/2015 at 6:25:31 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #206, saying: I'm perfectly calm, dude. There are no pitchforks to be seen. It really was just a simple question. Just because I vehemently disagree with him on mostly everything doesn't mean that every question I direct at him has to be an argument. Replies: 210
Msg #209: On 5/16/2015 at 6:26:27 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #207, saying: So that's a no? Replies: 211
Msg #210: On 5/16/2015 at 6:30:19 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #208, saying: Really? Cuz you were kinda going in on him with your BS about "actually getting away from the keyboard".
Msg #211: On 5/16/2015 at 6:31:16 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #209, saying: What is the purpose in asking me whether or not I'm going to go see the film? You're just trying to get some kind of rhetorical victory over me by cornering me with an irrelevant personal question: if I say yes, you can act like I'm a hypocritical fanboy whiner, and if I say no, you can act like I'm unreasonable and not a true Jurassic Park fan. That's some Bill O'Reilly shit. Replies: 215
Msg #212: On 5/16/2015 at 6:41:12 PM, PaulSF replied, saying: Grinch, I wish you'd post more. It's like s little sliver of light every once and awhile. Replies: 216
Msg #213: On 5/16/2015 at 7:01:09 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: Calm down, everybody!
There is no Bill O'Reilly shit here going on here, dude. You are complicating the holy hell out of a very simple & direct question. Personally, I'm hoping for you to say yes; it would tell me that you are willing to see it and actually give it a proper day in court by having an informed opinion/judgment on it, rather than one based off some trailers and TV spots.
I know that we don't get along, but I'm really not trying to attack or smother you here man. If anything, I would only hope that you would want to see the movie just to have an informed opinion. No offense here, but I personally cannot respect or take seriously somebody's opinion/judgment on a film that they haven't actually seen. Replies: 217, 218
Msg #216: On 5/16/2015 at 8:04:12 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #212, saying: THIS, times infinity.
Msg #217: On 5/16/2015 at 8:05:45 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #215, saying: ... Ostro is a film critic. He knows his shit.
Msg #218: On 5/16/2015 at 8:14:49 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #215, saying: You are complicating the holy hell out of a very simple & direct question.
What I said in post #211 isn't complicated at all. The only reason you would ask that is to try to discredit what I'm saying by putting me on the spot to defend my character - specifically, apparently, my willingness to give the film "a proper day in court." No matter what I say in response to that (irrelevant) question, you can make it seem like I'm an asshole and, therefore, my opinion is dismissible, even though it has nothing to do with anything I said.
I personally cannot respect or take seriously somebody's opinion/judgment on a film that they haven't actually seen.
Does this apply to your own opinion, as well? What about everyone on the board who thinks the movie looks good? Again, you can apply this logic to literally any discussion of any movie trailer. Not to mention that I said the movie looks bad, not that it is bad. Replies: 219, 221
Msg #219: On 5/16/2015 at 8:20:57 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #218, saying: No matter what I say in response to that (irrelevant) question, you can make it seem like I'm an asshole and, therefore, my opinion is dismissible, even though it has nothing to do with anything I said.
Nah he's literally just asking a personal question. Quit trying to look for the bogeyman. Not everyone is looking for an angle.
I mean I am, but he's not. Replies: 220
Msg #220: On 5/16/2015 at 8:24:35 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #219, saying: Which is why he asked it in such snide, condescending way, right? Get real. Replies: 222, 228
Msg #221: On 5/16/2015 at 8:49:09 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #218, saying: Does it apply to my own opinion? Yes, it does. I don't expect anyone to take something I say seriously about a film that I haven't seen. Then again, I make it a point to NOT give my opinion on films that I judge sight unseen; it would be an unfair judgment. I'm not going to see FIFTY SHADES OF GREY because I'm genuinely not interested in seeing that kind of movie, but I'm not going to sit here and expect everyone to take me seriously if I say that it looks like total ass without having actually watched it.
You keep re-iterating the idea that I'm going to make you look like some giant asshole regardless of what answer you give to my question (irrelevant as you think it is, it's important to ME because I am genuinely curious). But once again, I must re-iterate that I AM NOT trying to lure you into a trap or smother you & defame your reputation here. Besides, unless you had something to lose here that I'm otherwise oblivious to, why the hell would you be so worried about anything I say? Replies: 223, 225
Msg #222: On 5/16/2015 at 8:55:58 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #220, saying: Like you haven't been snide or condescending with anyone on this board before...get REAL.
I worded the question that way because you obviously felt so strongly about dissing the way the movie "looked" without having seen the actual film (or saying that you would or would not go see it) that you had to jump on a keyboard to tell everyone about it. Replies: 224
Msg #223: On 5/16/2015 at 8:56:15 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #221, saying: There's no reason to be as snide as you were, tbqh. It doesn't encourage discussion - it encourages people to shut down from the conversation. And there's a huge difference between how Ostro can interact with people and how you do - and it really does seem like you're holding some sort of vendetta against him. I know I, personally, have been a prick to you, but has Ostro? It sounded like you were taking his opinion personally, like you worked on Jurassic World. Which is a very silly stance to take on something subjective like the quality of a movie.
Trailers are designed to allow audiences to gauge whether or not they are interested in seeing said movie. These trailers are doing a bad job of that, and Ostro is voicing his opinion based off the trailers - which EVERYONE does.
Since you've already prejudged this thing into the ground, so certain of it's shittiness based on a few minutes of promotional sizzle reels...because you are so absolutely sure that JW will be total ass, are you actually going to get up from the keyboard and watch the entire movie?
That's not how people talk when they're "genuinely curious." Was I honestly supposed to believe that, after saying that, I could say that I probably will the see the film anyway without you saying something rude and aggressive in response?
Also, if you honestly think there's no reason for people to talk about movies before they're released, I don't know what the fuck you're doing on this board right now. That's, like, three quarters of what goes on here.
Msg #226: On 5/16/2015 at 9:06:02 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #223, saying: The first time JPWonderboy ever talked to me, as far as I know, was this thread on Jaws last summer, and he seems to have some problem with me from the get-go. I don't know if he actually does, and I try to respond to him as if he doesn't because I don't like to assume things like that, but it certainly feels like he does to me.
EDIT: Re-reading that thread, apparently he asked me if I was the same in real life as I am on the board in the first Jurassic World thread, so I guess that counts as an earlier interaction. Replies: 227
Msg #227: On 5/16/2015 at 9:12:20 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #226, saying: Sounds like someone has a creepy crush. If you find a box of Valentines chocolates full of maggots, RUN.
I've called him out and been honest with his behavior here before so I'm not making this shit up. I've actually defended some of your points to him. It's a simple misunderstanding. You can continue to make assumptions about what he was going to follow up with or you can grow up, answer his question and move on. Replies: 230, 232
Msg #229: On 5/16/2015 at 10:31:31 PM, JPwonderboy replied, saying: Seriously, this is unnecessary.
All I did was ask a question. A simple yes or no question. And instead of answering it, you two are going on about how I asked the question, what my motives are with the answer, where I stand to gain from said answer and what Ostro stands to lose, etc. And then you two proceed to try and smear me by bringing up old posts and making this into something far bigger than it actually is.
Do you two have ANY clue as to how ridiculous you sound?
Ostro, who gives a shit as to how I asked the question? Scout's fucking honor, upon answering the question, I would have responded with nothing more than a simple "thank you" and that would've been the end of it. I had, and still have, ZERO urge to pursue some elaborate argument with you over this, and yet here we are. I assure you, there is nothing that I can say to make anyone here think any differently of you. People have already made up their minds as to whether they like you or tolerate you; they don't need my help. Replies: 231
Msg #230: On 5/16/2015 at 10:32:24 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #228, saying: Gurl! That's why I said this was a misunderstanding! Did I NOT say that?!?
Msg #231: On 5/16/2015 at 10:33:10 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #229, saying: Downplaying + denial is a very common tactic used by abusers so try again dude. Not saying -you're- an abuser, only that you use the same logic as one, so -realy- examine how you speak/type on the internet. Like, this might sound harsh, but I'm really trying not to be. I just... know this experience firsthand. And I tried to be polite and explain to you that this was an issue of semantics but honestly your language in your initial post was very, very silly. If you weren't bothered, you wouldn't have been motivated to make that post in the first place - if you know you're right, don't get defensive, boo! Like I said, this is an issue of semantics, so calm the fuck down and reevaluate how you use language. If we sound "ridiculous" it's because you refuse to accept responsibility for how you speak to people, which is very, very sad.
Msg #232: On 5/16/2015 at 10:35:45 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #228, saying: That's cool that you know him outside of this website, but he can be presenting one very specific face to you as opposed to everybody else. Honestly, it wasn't cool. But no point in arguing with you because you honestly did nothing wrong - you didn't, you have no malice. It seems like he does, and I'm just saying, his language needs working on. Replies: 233
Msg #233: On 5/16/2015 at 11:32:01 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #232, saying: I think you're the last person on this board who should be giving a lesson on peaceful language dude. Replies: 234
Msg #234: On 5/16/2015 at 11:49:20 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #233, saying: I've also experienced abuse firsthand, so forgive me if I feel like calling that out. At this point, this isn't me tryna be a total asshole - it's me saying hey, back up a bit, realize that you're kinda overstepping boundaries. IF wonderboy feels like I've done an incredible disservice to him, I hope he knows I meant no intentional harm. And If you're talking about a certain user in particular, I'm sorry if I have offended you, personally, because that was never the intent.
When someone you love belittles your feelings, for years on end, and tells you you are crazy, for years on end, it can have disastrous results on your mental health - especially when you have already been diagnosed with clinical depression and anxiety. In the past 5 months, I have been trying to make amends for that. I also know that, while I am responsible for my own actions, I can only go so far for apologizing for the chemical imbalance in my own brain.
I am talking to a psychiatrist about medication, and going from there. Most people should learn to do the same.
Anyone else who feels "wronged" can bring it up to me personally. Replies: 235, 236
Msg #235: On 5/17/2015 at 2:30:23 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #234, saying: And I want you to know that I meant no harm either. I'm not a bully. I hate bullies. And this entire situation was in no way meant to bully Ostro. It was to get a simple yes or no answer about whether or not he would actually go watch JURASSIC WORLD, considering his strong opinion. My hand on a bible, the intention was NEVER to retaliate based on his answer. You can take as much offense as you wish at the way I worded my question; the plain fact is that you and so many others have been far more rude and snide toward other users with similar comments. I understand that my past history fighting with Ostro before properly re-establishing myself on this board after 14 years was probably not the best way to go about things. But even as someone just scanning the boards, before I was able to log back on to the site again, I read other past posts & threads and took offense to his negativity, his condescension, his harshness to films and other filmgoers on this board. I suppose that I couldn't help myself but to finally respond to all of it somehow.
Here lately, in case anyone hasn't noticed, I have attempted to co-exist here without ruffling any feathers; to post here when I can and talk about movies & JW/JP without starting any fights with Ostro or others. I never meant any harm in asking him that question.
And in response to your many posts, V87, my language is perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with who I am or what I am, or how I say it. And I won't change for you or anyone on this board, regardless of how much you or others try to pounce on me.
BTW, in reference to your hilarious post about Ostro knowing his shit because he's a film critic...I'm evaluating what he SAYS, what impression he makes on me as a fellow filmgoer. Not what his "credentials" purport to be. We are ALL film critics here. It doesn't matter if you have your own personal blog, if you write for a website, if you have a higher education, or if you are a blue collar worker with a personal passion for film...we are all cut from the same cloth. And as such, we are free to disagree with each other, to call each other out if need be. That's not abuse. That's just the world we live in.
Logging out for the day. Let's just move on from here, if ever possible.
Msg #236: On 5/17/2015 at 2:38:18 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #234, saying: I just noticed some of the edits in your post, and I just wanted to say that, whatever you and I may disagree on, my heart goes out to you in regards to your imbalances. I myself am chemically imbalanced, and struggle day to day with anxiety, fears, depression, diagnosed OCD, and many other issues. It is a fight that on many days I feel as if I am losing, but I do what I can with what I've got.
I hope that you continue to get better and stay the course in your fight. No meanness or condescension intended, I mean it. You have my most profound sympathies. Replies: 237
Msg #237: On 5/17/2015 at 2:50:49 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #236, saying: This is something that, like I said, I've only seriously addressed in the past 5-6 months. I've let it affect my interactions with people on this website even before then, without even realizing - and that's the scariest thing about it. To be honest, I have been an absolute monster to some people- and I have tried to apologize. It's like there's this huge stigma about mental illness that prevents people from seeking help/acknowledging their problems. Like, the moment you seek a therapist you're "making a big deal out of nothing".
I'm really glad we had this opportunity to talk about this, tbh. It's very clear now that you really don't mean any negativity or malicious intentions in your post. It... really is hard, dealing with it on a daily basis. Knowing someone else can sympathize is huge.
I edit most of my posts because I have trouble verbalizing/writing my feelings immediately - it takes me a while to fully process things, and to be able to fully express things. And that sucks, and it's not meant to like... pinpoint people or make them feel less than. This is huge, dude. Thank you again. Replies: 238
Msg #238: On 5/17/2015 at 2:53:40 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #237, saying: You're very welcome, bud :) Replies: 239
Msg #239: On 5/17/2015 at 3:01:51 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #238, saying: You're legitimately one of the least petty and most understanding people now on this forum, so kudos for that - a lot of people could take lessons from you.
Sorry for being a fuckin petty gay man in the past, btw. Replies: 240
Msg #240: On 5/17/2015 at 3:12:21 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #239, saying: Hey man, all is forgiven. And I'm sorry for being such a flaming bi-cunt in the past, lol. It seems that the older we get, the more crotchety we become. I'm thankful that we can finally make peace.
Currently drinking rye whiskey & cola. This drink's for you, sir. Replies: 241
Msg #241: On 5/17/2015 at 3:20:03 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #240, saying: Whistle Pig Rye is the best ever. It is also something that, last I checked... was about $100 a bottle, 100% alcohol/50 Proof... But worth saving up for, tbqh.
Nothing wrong with being bi - TBQH, I considered myself 100% gay for the longest time. Am finally realizing that 'sex'uality is really not a big deal.
Women are pretty. *_* As are trans men. And trans women. Replies: 243
Msg #242: On 5/17/2015 at 3:22:41 AM, fordprefect replied, saying: A bad thread for a bad movie. Replies: 244, 245
Msg #243: On 5/17/2015 at 3:24:39 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #241, saying: Being bi does have it's advantages. Gotta love the variety, lol. If at all that I get fed up & frustrated at one sex, I can just jump back into the fray and mingle with the other. The joys of single life. Haha.
LET'S FIND OUT! Replies: 253
Msg #252: On 5/17/2015 at 8:59:14 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #249, saying: Saw that spot yesterday. This movie is starting to grow some serious balls.
Msg #253: On 5/17/2015 at 8:59:40 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #251, saying: Oh shit...it's ON.
Msg #254: On 5/18/2015 at 11:03:12 AM, Adam replied, saying: Aside from it all looking a little too bright and colourful, I am still excited to see this. One of my earliest childhood memories is 6 year old me peeking out from behind the chair in front of me in the cinema, watching Jurassic Park for the 2nd or 3rd time, after which followed a few more viewings where I was able to peek less and less and just watch in awe. But I remember this one specific moment perfectly, and the thrill I felt watching the raptors in the kitchen. If this even comes close to bringing me back to feeling that thrill and child-like joy - if only for a moment - it will have been worth it. Replies: 255
Msg #255: On 5/18/2015 at 9:49:22 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #254, saying: I dunno if the problem is it looks too bright and colorful - if anything, it looks desaturated, especially compared to the first two movies.
Guys, is it cool if I join you? I think I need a drink.
:-( Replies: 264
Msg #264: On 5/21/2015 at 11:15:08 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #263, saying: Tbh, the only thing that's given me any feelings of pessimism is that toy. I still think giving the Indominus Rex opposable thumbs is fucking stupid, buuut it also fits into the movie's logic of "let's Frankenstein together a dinosaur to make it the scariest thing imaginable". That clip with Masrani & Clair that Paul just posted cements that - Masrani seems a lot more interested in being outrageous, while almost completely foregoing security and safety. This isn't John Hammond - this is someone who arguably suffers some form of megalomania. Replies: 265
Msg #265: On 5/21/2015 at 11:21:59 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #264, saying: Just to be clear, I wasn't calling anyone out on skepticism or anything, just pointing out my personal skepticism creeping up on this whole endeavor. Read some shit today about JW that has me personally hoping and praying that it isn't true (although I fear that it is; I'd mention it, but it involves possible spoilers) Idk, maybe today is just a bad day to be a fanboy. Replies: 266
Msg #266: On 5/21/2015 at 11:27:09 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #265, saying: You can mention it and black out the text. Use the html code < font color = black > without spaces. Just make sure you close it off with < / font color > Replies: 267
Msg #267: On 5/21/2015 at 11:38:43 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #266, saying: Basically it has to do with the early reaction report from someone on JP Legacy that there are no Dilophosaurs in the film. It may not be a big enough deal to most, but as a hard-wired JP fanboy, the only personal demand I wanted from JW (apart from generally not sucking) is for there to be a Dilo. It doesn't have to be some elongated set piece, just a seconds-long shot. For fuck's sake, they're going back to Nublar! There is absoultely NO reason for their exclusion. I have no way of knowing the source's legitimacy, but it is no less depressing. Replies: 268
Msg #268: On 5/21/2015 at 11:40:19 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #267, saying: Jesus, that's no big deal, especially not compared to all this other crap. Replies: 269
Msg #269: On 5/21/2015 at 11:44:46 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #268, saying: See dude, I understand and totally get what you mean. But to me, as a major fan of that specific dino, it mattered to me greatly. Given all of the toys, the Lego set, the general rumblings, etc...it just makes no sense.
BTW, tried to use the spoiler code, used it in the exact way you described, couldn't get it to work. Oh well, no biggie. I'll figure out this HTML coding shit someday, lol. Replies: 270, 273
Msg #270: On 5/21/2015 at 11:56:20 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #269, saying: Here:
You can either do it this way, with the quotes,
or
you can do it without the quotes.
You can look at it in the page source in your internet browser, but here's how it looks in the reply window:
The little "Text color" drop down menu at the bottom of the reply box just adds these tags to the beginning and end of your post. Replies: 271
Msg #271: On 5/22/2015 at 12:00:10 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #270, saying: Figured it out. Thank you sir.
Msg #272: On 5/22/2015 at 12:02:15 AM, Narrator replied, saying: If you hit the edit button, it has all the code for you, just type the message, then hit edit, and replace White with Black
Msg #273: On 5/22/2015 at 3:07:04 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #269, saying: Actual Dilophosaurs were like, 12 feet tall and had no neck frill. Did you only like it in the first movie? O.o Replies: 274
Msg #274: On 5/22/2015 at 3:32:11 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #273, saying: Yes, I liked it both in the movie as well as outside of the movie's representation. And yes, I'm aware of the many inaccuracies. And I don't care. If you look at it, the JP Dilo is much like the Indominus Rex, in that it too could be taken as a hybrid of the original species of Dilophosaur, crossed with a frilled lizard, spitting cobra & rattlesnake (everything I'm listing here is only an assumption as to how it could be played, just FYI). Considering that the film is set on the OG locale of Nublar, it only makes sense that, in a JP entry who's story is essentially about hybrids, that they should feature the Spitter in some form or fashion...both as a callback to the original film, and/or as a small story element.
I understand that the accurate representation of the Dilophosaurus is underwhelming, aside from it's crests. Yet to me, it's still neat. And there's no reason that it should be left out of the film. I mean, we're talking about a movie in which none of the "assets" have scientifically-accurate feathers (tbh, the feathers thing really never bothered me). We're talking about a movie that appears to be taking a lot of stock in re-creating the nostalgia of the first film. It wouldn't have killed Trevorrow & crew to incorporate a nice little throwback to a dinosaur that hasn't been seen on screen in 22 years. Replies: 275
Msg #275: On 5/22/2015 at 3:51:11 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #274, saying: Honestly, even in 1993, it was inaccurate, and never presented as a hybrid of different animals - it was presented as a combination of Dilophosaur & frog DNA.
Nowadays, people would literally go "what the fuck". Replies: 276
Msg #276: On 5/22/2015 at 4:15:19 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #275, saying: I understand what the film is saying, accurate DNA with frog DNA. What I'm trying to elaborate on is that if the franchise really and truly cared about how accurate these animals were portrayed, then they would've given us an accurate Dilo...or just chosen another dinosaur & went about it an entirely different way. You seem to be speaking as someone who is already dissatisfied with the way the franchise is portraying the dinosaurs, and that's totally cool. But go visit some of the other JP forums out there. It's not about scientific accuracy. It's about continuing what's already been started within the universe of these films, and elaborating on it. The Dilo is a core part of that universe, yet Universal continues to shaft it's role in the films entirely and is instead pimping it out to sell more toys & merch. And I hate that.
Seeing the Dilo onscreen won't make people go "what the fuck"; if they had any love for the first film, then the familiarity of the Dilo from its first appearance will resonate in this sequel. Replies: 277
Msg #277: On 5/22/2015 at 5:31:53 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #276, saying: Most other fans would be wrong, if that's genuinely your experiences with them. Crichton's intent with the novels, like most of his other work, was scientific accuracy - it's why he made the main characters paleontologists/botanists. The movie's tried to capture a sense of accuracy by having Jack Horner on set as a consultant. It's also why we have the entire dig site scene where Grant painstakingly explains the bone structure of a raptor compared to a bird of prey.
I wouldn't call the dilophosaurus a core part of the universe when it's featured in one scene, in one movie. Even further, those original dilophosaurs would have died by now. In addition, InGen and Masrani are foregoing the frog dna because they've found a way to fill in the gaps with DNA almost entirely from the dinosaurs. So if anything, we'd probably see a frill-less dilophosaur regardless. Not to be a dick, but I think you're grasping at straws. Replies: 278
Msg #278: On 5/22/2015 at 5:41:13 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #277, saying: If Crichton cared so much about accuracy, then why would he have written his dilophosaur to spit venom, when in fact there was never any evidence to support that addition? And in regards to the original dilophosaurs dying out, assuming the lysine contengency didn't wipe out all of the animals on Nublar, why on earth would the original T-Rex still be alive to thrive in JW?
And by core addition, what I meant was that the Dilo was in the first film and first novel. The way I see it, the novel & film are considered core. Replies: 279
Msg #279: On 5/22/2015 at 1:02:18 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #278, saying: Idk. The dilos dying was conjecture on my part - something that tiny probably didnt have many years to live naturally anyway, and besides herbivores, it was probably easy prey for the other, larger carnivores.
The venom spitting was one of the only things not based in science. Otherwise, I'd say Crichton cared a great deal. Replies: 280
Msg #280: On 5/22/2015 at 2:41:40 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #279, saying: The dilophosaurus venom was pure fiction, but the reason Crichton put it in there was to show that there is so much we don't and can't know about dinosaurs based on the fossil record. InGen was surprised by it, too, and it fits with the novel's themes of the unpredictability of nature and how impossible it is for humans to entirely contain and control. The frill in the movie is what bothered me because we actually would see that in the fossil record.
Msg #281: On 5/22/2015 at 3:39:07 PM, Bryan replied, saying: As much as I love JP's dilo, under no circumstances would I say he's a core part of the franchise. He's a one-trick pony that Spielberg completely milked. I wouldn't mind seeing it again but you're just coming off as a butt-hurt child. Replies: 282
Msg #282: On 5/22/2015 at 4:42:06 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #281, saying: Coming off like a butt-hurt child? Dude, that was a bit unnecessary, don't you think? This is just a healthy debate we're having here; nobody is calling each other names. There's no need to get ugly.
We all have opinions as to how and why the Dilo should or shouldn't be included, and that's totally cool. For me, it was my favorite dinosaur growing up. Whether anybody else likes it or not, many people love that dinosaur, and it IS a part of this franchise. At the end of the day, I just want to see it onscreen again.
Msg #283: On 5/24/2015 at 1:35:17 AM, Bryan replied, saying: You literally said it was a bad day to be a fanboy because you read an unsubstantiated rumor that the dilo, a dinosaur with less than five minutes of screen time over the course of three films but apparently still a vital part of the success of the franchise, would not appear in Jurassic World. It's childish. Replies: 285
Msg #284: On 5/24/2015 at 2:23:48 AM, PaulSF replied, saying:
Triumphant, gorgeous, thematic, etc.... everything I personally want.
Msg #285: On 5/24/2015 at 3:05:48 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #283, saying: Dude, this whole Dilo thing meant a lot to ME personally. You disagree, that's cool. It's alright to not agree, obviously. But to call me childish because I have a small but personal & important expectation for a highly-anticipated movie (shared by other people, if you read other forums) is a little below the line. Replies: 286
Msg #286: On 5/24/2015 at 3:27:43 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #285, saying: Fuck these people. Listen to the music. Replies: 287
Msg #287: On 5/24/2015 at 3:33:39 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #286, saying: Paul, my friend. I am. Over and over again. I'm in tears.
Happy tears ♡
Msg #288: On 5/24/2015 at 3:55:04 AM, Raptor Vinny replied, saying: To be 100% honest with you I think you are being melodramatic, Travis. To be completely bummed out because your favourite dinosaur has a slim chance of not being in a movie. I mean I think raptors are badass as fuck, but if for some reason they weren't in the film, I wouldn't lose sleep over it even though they are probably the biggest dinosaur in the franchise. I would think it's kinda dumb but that's it. Also you should temper your expectations as the dilo has never been an important dinosaur in the franchise. I still think it will be there but you shouldn't bank on it and let it affect your mood so greatly. Just be happy we even have a new JP movie coming in the first place, and it actually looks like it might be good to boot.
Anyway, fantastic music. Replies: 289
Msg #289: On 5/24/2015 at 4:05:54 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #288, saying: I understand what you are saying, Vinny. And I truly respect your opinion. Don't get me wrong, I am still overjoyed and excited to the max about JW. The Dilo is just a personal thing for me that no one will ever really understand, I suppose. Even still, thank you for being respectful in calling me out. Respect is always something I can count on from you, whether we agree or disagree, and it is much appreciated.
And btw, holy fuck, this MUSIC...for the first time in 18 years, we are getting a PROPER score for a Jurassic Park film. I couldn't be more grateful. This is an amazing score. Replies: 290
Msg #290: On 5/24/2015 at 4:16:50 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #289, saying: I actually love Don Davis's work on JP3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8nPsT0qbqo), but if these tracks are indicative of the rest of this score, this may absolutely be the best work since the first. Replies: 291
Msg #291: On 5/24/2015 at 4:27:57 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #290, saying: Man, I tried like hell to like Davis' JP3 score. And it just didn't fit the bill for me. It felt like a rush job, a low-rent carbon-copy of what came before. And no matter how hard I try (and I know Davis didn't compose it), but I will never be able to get the utter awfulness that was "Big Hat No Cattle" out of my head. UGH, lol!
The difference between Davis' score and Giacchino's JW score is that this new score feels like they are actually giving a damn. It feels like a whole new world, a whole new era of Jurassic wonder. For every second of "As The Jurassic World Turns", despite the goofy title, it feels as if the people behind both the score and the film are saying to us, "We're BACK, we give a shit, and we want to awe you."
They (Giacchino) earned it. Replies: 294
Msg #292: On 5/24/2015 at 4:49:11 AM, DJ Jerm replied, saying: Not feeling the new music too much The first one has its brief moments but is overall kinda forgettable to me. Like it's trying too hard to be this huge thematic/anthemic piece, but doesn't actually "say" anything.. like a guitar solo that just noodles around.
The 2nd one is cool in parts, particularly towards the end.
Msg #293: On 5/24/2015 at 4:58:02 AM, DJ Jerm replied, saying: I think Lost World actually had the best soundtrack of the first 3. JP3 score was generally boring, except for the Kirby Theme which was actually quite pretty.
Msg #294: On 5/24/2015 at 9:59:27 PM, PaulSF replied to Msg #291, saying: We'll just have to agree to disagree that Davis didn't give a damn. That score has some of my favorite tracks of the series, especially related to action and that Kirby theme. It also has a lot of the whimsy missing from something like TLW.
"The Indominus was meant to embody our worst tendencies. We’re surrounded by wonder and yet we want more. And we want it bigger, faster, louder, better. And in the world of the movie the animal is designed based on a series of corporate focus groups. Like in the same way a lot of movies are. They sit a bunch of people down and they ask them, “What can we do to make the dinosaurs more entertaining for you? What would make you tell a friend to come to Jurassic World?” And their answer is, of course, “We want to see something bigger, faster, louder, more vicious; we want a killer.” And they get what what they ask for."
On what DNA it is created from:
"It’s a hybrid of specific dinosaurs with great movie names like the Giganotosaurus and Majungasaurus, as well as other animals that exist in the world today, with certain attributes that Dr. Wu [B.D. Wong] felt would create the ultimate piece of entertainment." http://www.ew.com/article/2015/05/25/meet-new Replies: 302
Msg #302: On 5/26/2015 at 5:25:22 AM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #301, saying: It all leads me to wonder where the hell the cuttlefish/rattlesnake references came from?
Msg #303: On 5/27/2015 at 12:37:03 AM, RezForPrez replied, saying: So in all seriousness there's about 15 new TV spot trailers for this over the past week or two and one of them is just fucking awesome, it's creepy AF and doesn't give away anything and is exactly what I want out of trailers. WELCOME TO JURASSIC WORLD Replies: 304
Msg #304: On 5/27/2015 at 12:54:00 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #303, saying: Yeah, that would be a cool teaser (if they spent a little more time editing the sound and whatnot, it feels rushed), but all the trailers that have given stuff away still leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Msg #305: On 5/27/2015 at 9:10:20 PM, Bryan replied, saying: Yahoo! posted a new clip. I liked it. If it's indicative of the quality of the remainder of the film, JW might not suck.
Msg #306: On 5/28/2015 at 1:22:21 PM, Jackle replied, saying: The raptor clip was vey good indeed. The stuff they have shown in the last few weeks have been INCREDIBLE compared to the earlier footage. So, Ostro, what negativity do you have towards recent footage, raptor clip, and the music, if I might ask? Replies: 308
Msg #307: On 5/28/2015 at 1:22:22 PM, Jackle replied, saying: Oops dp
Msg #308: On 5/28/2015 at 2:46:14 PM, Carnotaur3 replied to Msg #306, saying: Yes, the world needs to know that Ostro may approve something! Replies: 309
Msg #309: On 5/28/2015 at 4:02:27 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #308, saying: I know, really. Jackle, I haven't seen any of this new stuff because a few clips of neat things won't change my mind about the core premise of the film and I don't listen to film scores before I watch the film because I think it's asinine. Why are you trying to call me out on being negative when half the people in this thread think the movie looks bad?
Msg #310: On 5/28/2015 at 11:46:01 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Hey guys, I love shit that Ostro probably hates to his core. Face/Off is the best action movie ever made, and no amount of critical analysis can convince me otherwise. I can be convinced that it's a terrible movie by some defined, absolute standard, but that doesn't change the fact that I'll love it anyway.
So, I fully expect to enjoy Jurassic World on some level. But it almost certainly won't live up to my lofty standard as to what a Jurassic Park - or even a good contemporary sci-fi - movie should be. Start thinking of Ostromite as that part of your brain which analyzes everything and his posts will be less irritating and more informative and consciousness-building. Replies: 311
Msg #311: On 5/28/2015 at 11:51:08 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #310, saying: I actually like Face/Off. Replies: 312
Msg #312: On 5/29/2015 at 12:12:36 AM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #311, saying: Who woulda guessed? Replies: 313
Msg #313: On 5/29/2015 at 12:32:08 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #312, saying: I guess I can see why it might be surprising that I like it, but I don't know why anyone would think I would hate it. I love action movies - especially science fiction action movies - but I dislike so many of the ones coming out now because they're either humorless, pretentious, ugly, visually uninteresting, drawn-out, cluttered with pointless CGI action, or some combination of all of them. Face/Off has none of that, so, even if I didn't like it, I would have no reason to hate it, but it actually has a lot of things that make it stand out: a clever, original conceit (movie stars playing each other), impressive practical stuntwork, excellent performances from actors who are given a chance to be campy, and a clear, distinct visual style. It's definitely a stupid movie, but it's a fun one, and I really wish there were more movies like that than just an endless series of "epic" movies. Woo could make a little action movie about John Travolta and Nicolas Cage doing impressions of each other and get Oscar nominations, but now every dumb action movie about two assholes shooting lasers at each other has to be THE BIGGEST MOVIE EVER and gross a billion dollars in three days or nobody gives two shits. Replies: 314, 318
Msg #314: On 5/29/2015 at 1:59:54 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #313, saying: Have you seen Guardians of the Galaxy? Replies: 317
Msg #315: On 5/29/2015 at 2:33:12 AM, Jackle replied, saying: I'm not trying to call you out man. I just got the impression you were the most sceptical here, and wanted to know if you were slowly changing your mind. I guess we will just see in in a few weeks! Replies: 316
Msg #316: On 5/29/2015 at 2:57:20 AM, Bryan replied to Msg #315, saying: Don't back down now, Jackle! You had that elitist on the ropes. With your hands on your hips and your "what now, Lee" smirk, you were all but guaranteed a victory over that killjoy whose opinions somehow taint everyone's enjoyment of current cinematic fare!
Msg #317: On 5/29/2015 at 3:31:22 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #314, saying: I liked Guardians of the Galaxy more than any of the other Marvel Cinematic Universe movies because it had likeable, complex characters, a lot of cool little memorable moments, a sweet soundtrack, and awesome spaceship designs (by the inimitable Chris Foss. It was Star Wars for people who like Mystery Men more than The Avengers.
Msg #318: On 5/30/2015 at 9:36:49 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #313, saying: I really should have known you liked Face/Off. Are you also a fan of Con Air, Broken Arrow, and The Rock? I'm going out on a limb and guessing you don't like Swordfish.
I should have used a better example in my earlier post, such as Fight Club or Taken. Replies: 319
Msg #319: On 5/30/2015 at 9:53:03 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #318, saying: I like Broken Arrow because it was made during the peak of John Woo's career and really shows off a lot of his talents (though I prefer quite a few of his other films). I don't like Con Air because it feels really phony and tacky, like a bunch of dickheads in a conference room made a list of Cool Shit that thought rednecks and bikers liked and had to put in the movie. I don't like The Rock, either, but only because of Michael Bay's patriotic military fetishism bullshit, which, again, feels very phony to me. John Woo is totally sincere when he puts all that silly shit in his movies because he actually thinks it's fucking awesome, and that conviction is what makes the movies work.
And, yes, I hate Fight Club, Swordfish, and Taken. Taken is simply too blatantly misogynistic and racist for me to enjoy the car chases and gunfights even a little bit, and the first two are pretentious trash. Though Swordfish is a lot worse, I hate Fight Club more for it's current status as the Citizen Kane for an entire generation of twenty- and thirty-something wannabe tough guy nerds.
EDIT: To be fair, though, I haven't seen The Rock in over a decade, and I can't remember the film itself too clearly, just how I responded to it. Replies: 320
Msg #320: On 5/31/2015 at 10:08:07 AM, Narrator replied to Msg #319, saying: you seem to like or dislike movies based mostly on things that have nothing to do with the movie itself which is stupid. Replies: 321
Msg #321: On 5/31/2015 at 3:10:15 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #320, saying: Uh, such as? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you just mean how much I hate Fight Club for its popularity with douchebags? Like I said, I think the movie is bad independent of that, and, even if I didn't, it's perfectly legitimate to dislike a film because of how other people react to it and talk about it. You don't watch movies in a vacuum, and you don't choose why you like or dislike something. If the reason you dislike a movie is "stupid," you can't think through it logically and force yourself to like it. It's involuntary. Replies: 322
Msg #322: On 5/31/2015 at 4:02:09 PM, Narrator replied to Msg #321, saying: judging the quality of a movie, or anything, because of how another person feels about it is stupid and unfair. Saying you can't help why you like or dislike something is a poor excuse. You can evaluate your impressions and say "actually, you know what, the immediate feelings I have about that movie/show/thing is really only because someone I don't like also likes it. I should try to look at it without that in mind" You can't force yourself to like something, but you can give something the benefit of the doubt and try to look past your immediate impressions.
And no, the fight club thing isn't the only reason. You seem to be Judging tomorrowland on the basis of what disney intended the movie to be, how it's a big advertisement, and blah blah, but none of that actually matters, what matters is the end product, and what comes out of it, regardless of intent. It would be like saying the food is disgusting because you find out your cook is racist. It's really not that hard to separate the two things, and judge one and not the other. As a film critic or... whatever it is you do, but I think it's something like that, you take your impressions and feelings at face value way too much. I think as someone who judges the quality of films semi professionally/professionally you owe it to the things you judge to do some actual, genuine introspection.
First, I did not judge anything only by how other people react. In fact, if I have seen a movie, that's pretty much impossible to do.
Second, I never said I was judging the quality of a film by its popularity with other people. I said it was the reason I personally dislike the film so much. In other words, again, I already think the movie is bad, but how others treat the film and talk about it makes me dislike it more.
Third, judging something by how others respond to it is neither stupid nor unfair, whether you're talking about the quality of the film or your own personal response to it. Films and other texts are social artifacts that you must engage with in terms of how it relates to other people as well as yourself. This is basic rhetorical analysis.
Saying you can't help why you like or dislike something is a poor excuse.
It's not an excuse, it's the truth. You can't help why you like or dislike something. The best you can do is figure out why you respond the way you did and be honest about it, which is what I always try to do before I discuss a film in any context.
You can evaluate your impressions and say "actually [..] without that in mind" You can't force yourself to like something, but you can give something the benefit of the doubt and try to look past your immediate impressions.
Are you talking about Fight Club in particular? If so, again, I think the movie is bad in and of itself. You're also a fool if you think I don't look past my immediate impressions before I form an opinion on something. I would think my extensive public record, here and elsewhere, would at least show that much, even if you think I'm wrong about everything.
You seem to be Judging tomorrowland on the basis of what disney intended the movie to be, how it's a big advertisement, and blah blah, but none of that actually matters, what matters is the end product, and what comes out of it, regardless of intent.
No. You're saying how and why a film was made is utterly irrelevant, and that's just not true. Again, this is basic rhetorical analysis: considering the context in which a text was created and its intended purpose. You can analyze a text independent of this (which is what I do when I write about Shakespeare, for instance), but it's not irrelevant by any means.
It would be like saying the food is disgusting because you find out your cook is racist.
Actually, it would be more like saying the food is disgusting because you found out the cook spit in it, but let's go with your analogy. Howard Hawks is one of my favorite filmmakers, but he was a horrible racist in real life, and it shows in many of his films. My favorite Hawks film is Rio Bravo, which has no clear racist themes in it if you watch it without knowing that Hawks is a racist, but, if you do know, it re-contextualizes the film's all-white cast and conservative politics and changes how you understand and respond to the film. You're saying that this is total hooey and that I should ignore anything I know about Hawks' racism, but not only is that not intellectually honest, it's not even possible, and I would say it's not even desirable. Hawks being a racist is the truth, and you should never ignore any truth when confronting a work of art.
As a film critic or... whatever it is you do, but I think it's something like that, you take your impressions and feelings at face value way too much. I think as someone who judges the quality of films semi professionally/professionally you owe it to the things you judge to do some actual, genuine introspection.
I think this is the first time in the history of the internet where someone has accused me of not thinking critically enough. If you can't tell that I put a lot of thought into what I say about movies, that I try to avoid simply saying whether I liked something or not but actually say something substantial about it, then that's your own damn fault.
Msg #325: On 6/1/2015 at 3:17:21 PM, Grizzle replied, saying: If the movie climaxes with a T-Rex vs. I-Rex battle I may just end up jerking off in the theatre. Replies: 326
Msg #326: On 6/1/2015 at 4:26:42 PM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #325, saying: I'm about 95% sure that's what will happen, with the spino skeleton on main street being smashed by Rexy in the process.
Plus, the Tyrannosaurus defeating the I-Rex would be a nice little nod to the Spinosaurus fight of JP3. It's fan-service, for sure, but damn I'd love it.
Msg #329: On 6/1/2015 at 7:33:57 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #327, saying: Because it's fun. Replies: 330
Msg #330: On 6/1/2015 at 7:54:05 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #329, saying: Sure, it's fun, but so are kung fu fights and chariot races and sexy girls dancing at the beach. It doesn't mean I want it in a Jurassic Park movie. Jurassic Park always had a bit more class than your usual monster movie. Replies: 332
Msg #331: On 6/2/2015 at 1:11:44 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: More Trevorrow on feathers, Indominus, previous scripts, etc.
Trevorrow says that he didn't like any of the existing scripts for JPIV and asked to re-write it with his writing partner Derek Connolly.
As previously noted in his interview with EW, Trevorrow sees Jurassic World as a satire about Hollywood excess in reaction to jaded audiences.
Trevorrow felt that the problem with the second and third JP movies were that they left the park and just involved going to an island filled with dinosaurs (the 'Lost World' trope), when what makes JP dramatically compelling is the idea that you're going to a place that is suppose to be perfectly safe and then isn't.
Regarding the Indominus rex, it was initially Spielberg's idea. Only he wanted it to be an undiscovered species of dinosaur. Trevorrow felt that broke the rules of the JP universe. The only dinosaurs in JP are real ones. If Steven wanted his 'super-dinosaur' it would have to be genetically engineered hybrid.
Also regarding the lack of feathers on the raptors, Trevorrow says that was also Spielberg's idea as well, a result of the fact that when he did the TV series TERRA NOVA, they gave the raptor's feathers which he (Steven) found "emotionally unsatisfying." Trevorrow, however, sought an in-universe explanation for why the dinosaurs didn't have feathers and went back to Crichton's original novel where he found a line in which Dr. Henry Wu says that the dinosaurs aren't "pure" due to imperfections in the genetic material and that also the owners of JW didn't want feathers, they wanted "more teeth." Lastly for people wondering how you get DNA from marine reptiles like a Mosasaur, Trevorrow says that you can get prehistoric DNA from places besides mosquitoes, like bone marrow is fossil fragments. http://www.jurassicworlduniverse.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2015summer-sfx.pdf
Now that I might watch.
Msg #333: On 6/2/2015 at 1:22:21 PM, The Crow replied, saying: LOVE Trevorrow's opinion on why the sequels didn't work nearly as well as the first movie. He's absolutely, 100% right.
You really have to admire the care and attention Colin has put into this film. You can clearly tell he put so much thought into making this film work on every level.
Also... #DatGiacchinoScore
Msg #334: On 6/2/2015 at 9:56:58 PM, Velociraptor87 replied, saying: I'm not sure who criticized the trike animatronic from the first movie, but they were dead wrong. Rewatching the first JP on bluray and it's honestly one of the best, most convincing animatronics I've seen.
Msg #335: On 6/3/2015 at 12:36:21 AM, Bryan replied, saying: Early Twitter reviews for the premiere are very positive. Should be interesting to see how the pendulum swings on this one.
Msg #336: On 6/3/2015 at 5:44:35 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: Just saw a new clip on the Jurassic World Facebook page.
The velociraptor CGI still looks terrible; but people have been defending it since the early days claiming the movie was unfinished. Now that they've finished production, can we imagine we'll see better CGI in cinemas?
Msg #337: On 6/3/2015 at 11:43:33 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I am liking the score so far. Very hopeful.
Msg #338: On 6/4/2015 at 5:12:10 AM, PaulSF replied, saying:
Too bad that I don't have cable :-(
Msg #355: On 6/6/2015 at 4:00:38 AM, Ostromite replied to Msg #353, saying: OoooOOOOooo new footage! Who gives a shit? The movie comes out next week. It's not worth watching a movie with commercial breaks. Replies: 356, 362
Msg #356: On 6/6/2015 at 9:11:10 AM, Evilgrinch replied to Msg #355, saying: I always enjoy catching an old favourite on TV. You stumble upon it, blow in and out without paying much attention, piss during the ads.
Msg #357: On 6/6/2015 at 11:19:15 AM, Compy01 replied, saying: I don't ever watch TV, and most of the time, the only films I watch are in the cinema.
Msg #358: On 6/6/2015 at 12:02:32 PM, Narrator replied, saying: If you don't understand the joy of watching a movie you own on TV with adds and bits cut out then you don't understand life
Msg #359: On 6/6/2015 at 1:05:29 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: Did anyone else cringe when they saw the little screens showing the vital signs of all the soldiers/rangers in the park? Fucks sake. It all just looks so stupid. You just know there is going to be that one scene, with Bryce Dallas Howard and Jake Johnson in the control room on the phone to a park ranger - and he's called Roger or whatever - and they're all shouting 'Rodger, run!' and then you hear him screaming down the phone while his vitals bleep, turn red and flat-line. And then you'll see loads of vitals go down at once and one of them will shout, 'we're losing men, fast! Get them out of there!' Replies: 361
Msg #360: On 6/6/2015 at 3:09:22 PM, Adam replied, saying: Tickets bought for a midnight showing this Wednesday night. Have to drive halfway across the city for it, and have to work early the following morning, but it kinda has to be done, ya know? I'm feeling giddy.
Msg #361: On 6/6/2015 at 6:29:56 PM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #359, saying: It's a neat trope that has been in most action movies ever since 'Aliens' popularized it with the marines. Is it really that bad to you?
Msg #362: On 6/6/2015 at 6:31:03 PM, Raptor Vinny replied to Msg #355, saying: I have my laptop right next to my TV. It was basically just something to have on in the background when you guys aren't providing me with enough entertainment. Jesus.
And Compy, I really hope that doesn't happen just so I can laugh at you.
Msg #363: On 6/6/2015 at 6:36:08 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/jurassic-world-director-interview-why-would-you-make-another-sequel-its-a-horrible-mistake-10298896.html
Domestic: $110m International: $230m Worldwide gross by 14/06: $340m
-EG
Msg #371: On 6/7/2015 at 12:43:04 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #369, saying: Actually, there are about 30 spots now. The footage rarely gets me excited, but the early reactions and Trevarrow's interviews are what is really making me look forward to this thing. I want so much now to believe that Universal is just feeding this thing to the lowest common denominator filmgoers and that they're leaving the meat off the appetizers.
Msg #372: On 6/9/2015 at 3:01:16 AM, JPwonderboy replied, saying:
Adorbz :P
Msg #373: On 6/9/2015 at 2:57:42 PM, Compy01 replied, saying: MINOR SPOILER WARNING: Skip over this if you don't want to find out something that we all guessed would probably happen anyway.
---------
The film has good reviews which is getting me excited for it now. Trevorrow has been saying all the right things in his interviews and after I initially feared the trailers and TV spots gave too much away, it's just the same clips recycled over again. So I'm looking at it in a positive light now. Hopefully it will deliver.
