Why doe Jurassic Park look better than any movie released today?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Medalion said:
Um maybe I missed something but the ending with the Helicopter scene where Dr Grant is looking out the window, are those not Pterodactyls? I haven't watched the movie in ages but I thought's what they were...
Click to expand...
Pelicans
 
Medalion said:
Um maybe I missed something but the ending with the Helicopter scene where Dr Grant is looking out the window, are those not Pterodactyls? I haven't watched the movie in ages but I thought's what they were...
Click to expand...
They were birds.
 
Medalion said:
Um maybe I missed something but the ending with the Helicopter scene where Dr Grant is looking out the window, are those not Pterodactyls? I haven't watched the movie in ages but I thought's what they were...
Click to expand...
no they wuz birds, part 3 had the pteranodons
 
Exactly, they changed the ending to have him see the pelicans to hammer home the point about Dinosaurs evolving into birds.
 
The part where Lex shines the flashlight in the T-Rex's eye and its pupil dilates is one of the most effective uses of practical effects EVER.
 
Aselith said:
Umm, yes they do. You might notice them more when they are pointed out to you but people, not knowing what they are, see them as what they are meant to be because they look great.
Click to expand...

Nobody pointed them out to me, I spotted those things easily the first time I saw the movie.

Gigglepoo said:
That's like complaining about chocolate syrup being used in the shower scene instead of actual blood.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.
 
Whats funny is the dinosaurs in King Kong looked absolutely fake (the whole running scene beneath the dinos in the canyon... :lol )
 
chubigans said:
Whats funny is the dinosaurs in King Kong looked absolutely fake (the whole running scene beneath the dinos in the canyon... :lol )
Click to expand...
It's hard to do a fully detailed dinosaur in all CG up close in daylight and in motion :)
 
Gigglepoo said:
That's not true at all. The dinosaurs couldn't escape because they needed a specific protein they could only get from the zoo technicians on the island.
Click to expand...
So there was no rationale given in the movie for not breeding pterosaurs? More to my point about it being simply a limitation of efx at the time then.
 
Awwww yea

rNfM2.gif

STZYf.gif

hRMVY.gif

YyDhr.gif

v6ecy.gif

SPdzh.gif

aXuCA.gif
 
jett said:
Yeah, right.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, right.

I wasn't a kid the first time I saw the movie though, I was like 18 or something. Maybe if I saw it when I was younger, I would have been more impressed/convinced.
 
chubigans said:
Whats funny is the dinosaurs in King Kong looked absolutely fake (the whole running scene beneath the dinos in the canyon... :lol )
Click to expand...

That's Peter Jackson being retarded.
 
Actually the OP is wrong, based on recent evidence.. the TREX doesn't look real at all (it has no feathers ><)
 
because the lord of the rings trilogy wrapped up five years ago. the last giant fantastical feature to still have modesty and reverence to use the right tool for the right cinematic job.

jp certainly looks better than that over-saturated two hour cut-scene that cameron shit out last christmas, though.
 
Avatar was a giant fucking CG cartoon but it still was an impressive CG cartoon, call it names if ya want, it still had a lot of depth and texture and weight at times.
 
friskykillface said:
what happened with the DNA in the shaving cream bottle? did they ever explain that
Click to expand...

One big thing they left out of the movie (aside from letting a lot of characters live who died in the books, like Malcolm and Hamond) was that the entire island was carpet bombed as soon as they were rescued in the helicopter.

I love that the movie guys conned Crichton into writing a sequel he didn't want to write, then used nothing from the book as a reference for writing the 2nd movie script (though to be fair, the book was a mess and it was obvious from the "Malcolm was only mostly dead" excuse as to how he survived that Crichton just didn't care).
 
ghst said:
because the lord of the rings trilogy wrapped up five years ago. the last giant fantastical feature to still have modesty and reverence to use the right tool for the right cinematic job.

jp certainly looks better than that over-saturated two hour cut-scene that cameron shit out last christmas, though.
Click to expand...
coughbullshitcough

15nsidk.png
 
Medalion said:
it still had a lot of depth and texture and weight at times.
Click to expand...

i just hope you're some shader fetishist or something and you're not talking about the plot.

15nsidk.png
[/QUOTE]

detailed? sure. right bang in the depths of uncanny valley? even more so.

it looks like a nice cg rig, it doesn't look remotely convincing.
 
scoobs said:
Actually the OP is wrong, based on recent evidence.. the TREX doesn't look real at all (it has no feathers ><)
Click to expand...

At the time of the production of the movie I believe it was already known, the reason they ignored it was because of audience expectations. :P
 
ghst said:
because the lord of the rings trilogy wrapped up five years ago. the last giant fantastical feature to still have modesty and reverence to use the right tool for the right cinematic job.

jp certainly looks better than that over-saturated two hour cut-scene that cameron shit out last christmas, though.
Click to expand...

troll harder

And fuck your defense of the CG in LOTR. :lol Modesty and reverence my fucking ass.
 
I watched the whole trilogy a couple of years ago and was surprised by how much I actually enjoyed the second one. I remember disliking it quite a bit when I saw it in 97, but it's entertaining. The third movie I liked in theaters, and I thought it was a great ride up to the ridiculously abrupt end. It needed another 20 minutes IMO, it's only 90 minutes long or something. Still, the first movie is one of my all-time favorites, and it's right there with Jaws for best "creature" flick.
 
ghst said:
you certainly make a compelling case.
Click to expand...

From the top of my head:

Shit ass rubber puppet that was supposed to be Legolas during many scenes.
Abuse of clichéd "epic" sweeping camera shots over and over...and over just because PJ could do it thank to CG.

CG was needlessly abused many times in LOTR.

CG was molested even further in King Kong. Go PJ go!
 
Blader5489 said:
Nobody pointed them out to me, I spotted those things easily the first time I saw the movie.
Click to expand...

Ok. So, you're one in a million. The majority of people were convinced and didn't immediately see the man behind the curtain with the pie tins. A majority of people would need it pointed out to them to see it.

Saying that some extreme outlier spotted a special effect doesn't make it horrible. It still looks better than 99.999% of the stuff out there. You more than most should realize that with your incredible insight into special effects.
 
Same with Terminator 2. For some reason these two action movies transcend their time.
 
jett said:
From the top of my head:

Shit ass rubber puppet that was supposed to be Legolas during many scenes.
Abuse of clichéd "epic" sweeping camera shots over and over...and over just because PJ could do it thank to CG.

CG was needlessly abused many times in LOTR.

CG was molested even further in King Kong. Go PJ go!
Click to expand...

so the "indefensible cg" of lotr comes down to a rubber puppet, and sweeping shots that almost uniformly had modeled miniatures at their foundations. and some hyperbole.

there are definite moments of shoddy cg in lotr (as there are in jp) but their adherence to traditional methods, and attempts to integrate them with modern solutions, in both cases, created an effect of something far more authentic and tangible than what has become the modern standard. avatar being the poster child of this.
 
Back on topic the scene with the T-Rex running full stop under the rain still looks spectacular, but the transition from CG to animatronic is still obvious to me because the animatronic is simply to limited in its facial expressions. There's a scene where the T-Rex opens its mouth and it could not look more mechanical.
 
Several reasons IMO

Good animators, they sent the animators to mime class to learn about weight distribution (that's why most CG feels weightless), they studied animal movements, and they had stop motion animator guru Phil Tippet as well to guide them.

Darkness, it hides some of the shortcomings of the CG rendering, but still the dinosaurs in broad daylight look pretty damn good. They don't look like they're made of jelly.

Reasonable number of shots, so they had heaps of time to get things absolutely perfect, JP has less than 100 CG shots IIRC. By comparison, StarWars Episode III had about 2000 CG shots.

They put more effort rehearsing the scenes (they used small dinosaur marionettes to plan the shots) so the actor's performances would match up with the CG later. With some recent films, it seems they just improvise on the set and let the animator have a migraine squeezing the CG into the shot.

I miss 80s/90s ILM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFqJtcRTqZg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miVlDKGa8F4

The result...

Jurassic Park - Before And After
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz5Asn03qF4
 
ghst said:
so the "indefensible cg" of lotr comes down to a rubber puppet, and sweeping shots that almost uniformly had modeled miniatures at their foundations. and some hyperbole.

there are definite moments of shoddy cg in lotr (as there are in jp) but their adherence to traditional methods, and attempts to integrate them with modern solutions, in both cases, created an effect of something far more authentic and tangible than what has become the modern standard.
Click to expand...

It's not indefensible, but to prop up the LOTR trilogy as a bastion of modest and revered use CG is laughable.
 
They obviously "look" more realistic because they're actual, tangible objects. But they never animate better than the best CGI nowadays. This isn't a problem in Jurassic Park because their effects are centered on creatures that don't display emotions and are just mean to scare the audience (I also realize the movie uses some CGI as well, and that has really aged); but when it comes to sentient characters, animatronics are rarely better than the best CGI found nowadays.

If anyone pretends "classic" Yoda looks more realistic than a Na'Vi, then well, you're just wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TMNT the movie released 35 years ago today!
2
52
3K
Heimdall_Xtreme replied
Quentin Tarantino on why movies are better than TV
2
66
5K
Zelduh replied
New Jurassic World movie will be Jurassic World: Rebirth. Official details released.
2 3
122
8K
jason10mm replied
Grok is so much better than ChatGPT now
2 3 4 5
208
7K
Critical Hit replied
  • Poll
Which actor has the better movies: Will Smith or Leonardo DiCaprio?
2 3
116
990
INC replied
Top Bottom