Jurassic World |Production Thread| Filming has wrapped!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mathezar said:
So no John Williams... :(

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/l...giacchino-to-score-jurassic-world-1201178580/
Click to expand...

Better news even.
I can assure Giacchino will tribute greatly the original still making it it's own thing. He did it with Cloverfield (Godzilla tribute), he did it with Speed Racer (tribute of itself), he did it with Star Trek (again tribute of itself) he did it with The Incredibles (old James Bond)...
This man knows his tributes. Also, he already worked on the OST of a Jurassic Park videogame.
My favourite composer without a doubt.

The movie can be shit, but this news has made me hyped.
 
Migrant said:
I hope that plot synopsis turns out to be fake. The elements of
training dinosaurs
and
gene-splicing
are just taking things a bit too far. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm more than happy to get another "theme park goes awry" story for the franchise.
Click to expand...

I think the dino-training makes perfect sense when you think about. Present-day beasts like Lions and Killer Whales are trained. It would make sense for Jurassic World to try and train their dinosaurs as well.

The whole concept of this movie is that Jurassic Park is actually up-and-running. It's further along. So I'm fine with that aspect.
 
MisterGrey3000 said:
tumblr_n5wfo9hpNo1s0fe9eo1_500.png

What definition of monster are you using?
Click to expand...

Nice crop job you did there.

Either way, both conceptually and definitively, dinosaurs were monsters. Giant creatures that we only know about through stories and bone.
 
Yah trained dinos makes sense, we're talking animals raised in a zoo for their whole lives. Have the velociraptors be like captive tigers/lions/whatever, trained professionals know how to work with them but they can still be incredibly dangerous when provoked.
 
Migrant said:
I hope that plot synopsis turns out to be fake. The elements of
training dinosaurs
and
gene-splicing
are just taking things a bit too far. Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'm more than happy to get another "theme park goes awry" story for the franchise.
Click to expand...
Those were honestly elements I was expecting to find in the 3rd movie. Maybe I thought that because of one of the video games based on 3 where I think that was the storyline (for the GBA I think), but I was a little disappointed with 3 because it didn't have anything crazy like that. But I can definitely see the appeal of sticking with real Dinosaurs, they can be plenty cool enough if done right.

MisterGrey3000 said:
Thanks,smart-ass.
:/
Also, you don't understand the definition of a monster.
Click to expand...

If you go beyond the first Google search result at other dictionary sources you can look up definitions in a variety of places that include things like:
-any creature so ugly or monstrous as to frighten people.
Or
-any animal or human grotesquely deviating from the normal shape, behavior, or character.
Or
-a person who excites horror by wickedness, cruelty, etc.
Or
-any animal or thing huge in size.
Or
-A thing or animal that is excessively or dauntingly large.

Many of which seem to describe quite a few dinosaurs. Funny thing about words is that they can have multiple definitions, like how Literally can mean both literally and virtually now (which I hate so much, grrr)
 
Rodney McKay said:
*nonsense*
Click to expand...
Are you fuckin' kidding me? This is ridiculous....
You know what I mean when I say MONSTER.
They were animals, they weren't dragons, bigfoots, or griffins. They were animals that lived, slept, ate, and fucked. T. rex most likely spent a lot of time sleeping after eating, just like a Lion. It didn't spend all of it's time running around, terrorizing the late Cretaceous .
A lot of them were probably very docile, and many of them were small. We'd probably be able to peacefully co exist with a lot of them if they were alive today.
 
MisterGrey3000 said:
Are you fuckin' kidding me? This is ridiculous....
You know what I mean when I say MONSTER.
They were animals, they weren't dragons, bigfoots, or griffins. They were animals that lived, slept, ate, and fucked. T. rex most likely spent a lot of time sleeping after eating, just like a Lion. It didn't spend all of it's time running around, terrorizing the late Cretaceous .
A lot of them were probably very docile, and many of them were small. We'd probably be able to peacefully co exist with a lot of them if they were alive today.
Click to expand...

OK calm down, no need to throw a hissy fit there pal, didn't realize I stepped into the middle of some kind of Dino-ethics debate here. Real life creatures can be refereed to as monsters too with it fitting the definition of the word.

You cited a definition of the word monster and I showed you that there are alternative definitions that you ignored. There is nothing "nonsensical" about what I posted, just alternate definitions of a word.
 
Didn't the trex have that wicked cool hover ability to reach the fence and tear it away? I mean that car fell pretty far, how else would a genetically modified trex be able to reach that area without a sweet hover ability?

Let's go full crazy and continue the wacky/stupid science the movies have adhered to for the last three movies and get even dumber!
 
Rodney McKay said:
OK calm down, no need to throw a hissy fit there pal, didn't realize I stepped into the middle of some kind of Dino-ethics debate here. Real life creatures can be refereed to as monsters too with it fitting the definition of the word.

You cited a definition of the word monster and I showed you that there are alternative definitions that you ignored. There is nothing "nonsensical" about what I posted, just alternate definitions of a word.
Click to expand...

Whatever man.
I'm not here to argue semantics with you or the other guy, I'm really not.

I was simply stating that it sucks that Dinosaur deceptions in the media are regressing into inaccurate fantastical monsters rather than real animals.
:/
 
Perhaps we should further clarify when using nouns with multiple definitions and interpretations. Yes, we should use these things called "adjectives" which I hear help clarify situations like this. So instead of saying, "Dinosaurs are not monsters" which may or may not be true depending on what definition and interpretation you use, you should say, "Dinosaurs are not mythical monsters" which is an irrefutable fact and makes it very clear what type of monsters you are referring to.
 
MisterGrey3000 said:
Whatever man.
I'm not here to argue semantics with you or the other guy, I'm really not.

I was simply stating that it sucks that Dinosaur deceptions in the media are regressing into inaccurate fantastical monsters rather than real animals.
:/
Click to expand...

That's totally fair no worries, just be aware in future that posting a single definition of a word as a means of proving something is probably going to end up starting a semantic argument, whether you mean to or not.

And as far as how Dinosaurs are depicted, I think they're no different than other animals, meaning that there will be a lot of them that are friendly and no threat to humans, and others that might be if provoked.

In a documentary, I'd totally want them to be shown like that. But in an action/suspense thriller? I'm probably going to want at least one type to be threatening in some way, either in self defense, hunger, or because they had rabies ala Cujo.
 
Rodney McKay said:
That's totally fair no worries, just be aware in future that posting a single definition of a word as a means of proving something is probably going to end up starting a semantic argument, whether you mean to or not.

And as far as how Dinosaurs are depicted, I think they're no different than other animals, meaning that there will be a lot of them that are friendly and no threat to humans, and others that might be if provoked.

In a documentary, I'd totally want them to be shown like that. But in an action/suspense thriller? I'm probably going to want at least one type to be threatening in some way, either in self defense, hunger, or because they had rabies ala Cujo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. My bad.
Seventy_X_Seven is also right, I should have clarified what I actually meant instead of jumping to a dictionary definition.
I didn't mean to be aggressive towards you or the other poster, sorry about that.
 
brandonh83 said:
I think a Carnotaur, while cool, would just kind of be another T-Rex, just like the Spino. I don't think that would have been some utterly amazing thing. Save for the river scene, the Spino chasing them is the same as a T-Rex chasing them but with a fin and a bit bigger and with what looked like a permanent shit-eating grin always on its face.
Click to expand...

New Dinosaur is basically real Carnotaurus sized, bigger than the Raptors, smaller than the rex.. so I honestly don't see why it couldn't have worked. Carnotaurs could have filled a unique niche.

strafer said:
Greatest reveal ever.

trexbreakout1hpd6.gif
Click to expand...

Fuck yes.

obin_gam said:
Sorry, the plot synopsis sounds like a fanfic. Not buying it.
Click to expand...

It's true. Poorly summarized, but true.

Ixion said:
I'm guessing the goal of this movie is to do the following (similar to a Godzilla film):

-
Create a new hostile, mutant dinosaur villain
-
Have the trained raptors, Tyrannasaurs, etc, fight the mutant villain
-
Audience roots for their old heroes and has a grand ol' time
Click to expand...

Yeah, I kinda expect something similar. Perhaps they won't exactly be doing the park workers bidding, but happen to share similar motives (killing Mutantsaurus).
 
Why would they create such a dangerous creature anyway. As much as you people here seem to love Monstr-o-sauruses it wouldn't make sense to build a Park to see "real" dinosaurs and then put a hyper dangerous bullshit dino in there just for shit and giggles.
Something something Hasbro.
 
Amalthea said:
Why would they create such a dangerous creature anyway. As much as you people here seem to love Monstr-o-sauruses it wouldn't make sense to build a Park to see "real" dinosaurs and then put a hyper dangerous bullshit dino in there just for shit and giggles.
Something something Hasbro.
Click to expand...

It won't be that dumb. It will be something explained, like frog DNA isn't as sustainable as it was back in the Hammond Jurassic Park. Proving the process and building a sustained Jurassic World will be a world of dino DNA + mixed animal DNA. In efforts to create something new/attraction a rogue scientist not Wu, will splice the DNA in.. albeit against Wu's will and direct direction NOT to. The motives of the rogue scientist will be money or something other ..

That creation will evolve into the antagonist creature and won't be some stupid planned experiment gone wrong. It will be the Paul Riser (Aliens) character in 2015, doing the bidding of a large corporation and meeting his/her demise in great fashion in the 3rd quarter of the film.

Don't let a 1 paragraph synopsis throw you, the script will likely be more solid and there are lots of big names attached to this film.
 
I actually like the sound of it. Of course, it's pure fantasy at this point. Really, it's always been. We had the venom spitting Dilophosaurus, etc.

I understand the reaction, though. I got it out my mind this would be an attempt to scientific accuracy when they decided not to go with feathers, again.
 
There is a reason Dr Wu is the only returning character. :p

I think they should retcon the dilophosaurus. It didn't actually have frills or venom. Dr Wu was experimenting with dino chimeras (frilled lizard, cobra), it was his first success. Pray you don't meet his latest one.

Also I wouldn't be too concerned with the "tamed" aspect. They will be trained like an orca or a tiger at an animal park. Trainers will be there but you better believe they can (and will) still kill at a moments notice. Not tamed like domesticated dogs, tame like zoo animals.
 
Will we get Ultimasaurus??? Genetic mix between a T-Rex, a Triceratops, a Velociraptor, an Ankylosaurus, and a Stegosaurus.

ultimasaurus1.jpg


Unreleased Chaos Effect toy. It was suppose to be the "Star Toy" of the toy line.
 
sc0la said:
There is a reason Dr Wu is the only returning character. :p

I think they should retcon the dilophosaurus. It didn't actually have frills or venom. Dr Wu was experimenting with dino chimeras (frilled lizard, cobra), it was his first success. Pray you don't meet his latest one.

Also I wouldn't be too concerned with the "tamed" aspect. They will be trained like an orca or a tiger at an animal park. Trainers will be there but you better believe they can (and will) still kill at a moments notice. Not tamed like domesticated dogs, tame like zoo animals.
Click to expand...

Imagine pooperscoopering a Trike's dump.
 
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucking A.

Please tell me the trained shit is false at least, but I'm assuming not.

Fuck.

I guess I'll always have the novels and the first two movies.
 
Oh dear, not liking this turn, still hope this news turns out to be fake...

For fucks sake, can't we for once have a movie where dinosaurs are portrayed as actual animals instead of some sort of movie monsters. The first JP movie more or less did this very well. Naturally predators want to hunt, isn't that scary enough?
 
This thing sounds mean as fuck. At first I was like WHAT when I read the name, but I think any name would have probably gotten a wtf reaction out of most.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Jurassic World: Rebirth Review Thread
2 3 4
153
4K
analog_future replied
Jurassic World Rebirth | Official Trailer
2 3
142
6K
Pagusas replied
Jurassic World Rebirth | Official Trailer
News 
15
1K
ForAcademicPurposes replied
New Jurassic World movie will be Jurassic World: Rebirth. Official details released.
2 3
122
8K
jason10mm replied
So whats everyones Spotify wrapped minutes this year
18
1K
TwiztidElf replied
Top Bottom