Sorna has at least three Rexes and a Spino...I haven't seen TLW since I can't remember how long, but I don't get what's the difference with the other island.
Ok, maybe Nublar has mor open spaces, I don't know.
Or maybe not a Spino anymore.
Sorna has at least three Rexes and a Spino...I haven't seen TLW since I can't remember how long, but I don't get what's the difference with the other island.
Ok, maybe Nublar has mor open spaces, I don't know.
I haven't seen TLW since I can't remember how long, but I don't get what's the difference with the other island.
Ok, maybe Nublar has mor open spaces, I don't know.
I haven't seen TLW since I can't remember how long, but I don't get what's the difference with the other island.
Ok, maybe Nublar has mor open spaces, I don't know.
One of the things I love about Mad Max Fury Road is that you'd think you've seen all the best action bits from the trailers, but you haven't.
Certainly.
I'd just appreciate something a bit different.
They might not mention it much, but it could be good fodder for the sequels.Sorna was the breeding/cultivation island, the natural habitat enclosure and then they captured the dinosaurs after they got bigger and brought them to park island for visitors to see. Sorna is the open world place while Nublar is the contained park. Funnily enough I wonder if they are going to mention anything about Sorna in this movie other then a footnote... like did they take it back over? carpet bombed the island? Or does it remain a natural and protected refuge after the takeover of InGen.
Can you imagine if Jurassic World trailers looked half as cool as Mad Max's
Can you imagine if it looked like a better movie and what the reaction would be
Can you imagine if Mad Max got the same treatment from "fans"?
"Too much Michael Bay splosions. CG storm is obvious CG. Is there a reason for a sequel... 20-something years later? Third one was ass. Where's Mel Gibsblum? This movie is going to suck! Wow, Charlize plays the cold-hearted woman who is seduced by the charming, leading man."
Can you imagine if Mad Max got the same treatment from "fans"?
"Too much Michael Bay splosions. CG storm is obvious CG. Is there a reason for a sequel... 20-something years later? Third one was ass. Where's Mel Gibsblum? This movie is going to suck! Wow, Charlize plays the cold-hearted woman who is seduced by the charming, leading man."
1:05 in "Our Rex is Bigger Than Yours"... that isn't just a coincidence right?!
Nope. I love that we hear a TLW reference.. I hope there's more.
Btw, despite earlier thoughts/reports.. there's only one animatronic, the Apatosaurus.
That is very disappointing. You'd think that it would be common sense that the reason the original holds up so well is because so much of it was practical. You got lazy Trevorrow and co.Tsk tsk.
That is very disappointing. You'd think that it would be common sense that the reason the original holds up so well is because so much of it was practical. You got lazy Trevorrow and co.Tsk tsk.
That is very disappointing. You'd think that it would be common sense that the reason the original holds up so well is because so much of it was practical. You got lazy Trevorrow and co.Tsk tsk.
I don't believe that not using animatronics is lazy. CG is just as valid of an effect.
^^To add onto what he just said, the animatronic Spinosaurus shots are terrible especially when it's attacking the plane.
Actually it kind of depends. I recently watched JP3 and more than a few shots with the animatronics there looked janky as hell. Maybe it was the lighting I don't know. But it was jarring a few times.
Actually it kind of depends. I recently watched JP3 and more than a few shots with the animatronics there looked janky as hell. Maybe it was the lighting I don't know. But it was jarring a few times.
I don't believe that not using animatronics is lazy. CG is just as valid of an effect.
^^To add onto what he just said, the animatronic Spinosaurus shots are terrible especially when it's attacking the plane.
If it weren't for Colin we wouldn't have any actually- the Apatosaurus animatronic is the direct result of him pushing for it.
He should have pushed harder, then. Not having any raptor animatronic shots with the big focus on Raptor Squad in the film just sucks.
The reason they're able to have a "raptor squad" in this movie is exactly because of the advances in CG. They're not going to pull that off with animatronics. It'd be like trying to get an animatronic Yoda to fight Count Dooku.
I get what you are saying, but that example isn't helping. I would have preferred an animatronic Yoda fighting Dooku instead of that horrible CGI abomination jumping around like a jackass.
I get what you are saying, but that example isn't helping. I would have preferred an animatronic Yoda fighting Dooku instead of that horrible CGI abomination jumping around like a jackass.
I would have preferred that never happen at all :-|
Btw, despite earlier thoughts/reports.. there's only one animatronic, the Apatosaurus.
My question is how would they do that? How would that even work out? Yoda had to be CG for that level of movement. Even if he moved less, it would have still needed to be CG.
I think animatronics are good for certain things, but definitely not for very active motions. I'm honestly at the point where I greatly prefer CG to animatronics. I'm going through TLW right now, god help my soul, and every animatronic has been ass. It's not just JP3 or its cinematography (which I think is fine). Animatronics work for certain things, again, but I find that most of the time the movements are just far too obviously robotic for my liking.
I would have preferred that never happen at all :-|
It needed to be CG, sure, but not to the extent it was used in the film. I'm of the opinion that Yoda shouldn't have engaged in a lightsaber duel at all, but if he had to do it they could have used animatronics for closeups and used CGI for wides. You are completely right about all this, I am just frustrated with the current climate in Hollywood where they just use CGI instead of trying to do things practical.
Hey, I won't challenge your opinion or anything. I just feel like CG is mostly so good now that its surpassed animatronics. Nothing can beat something actually being there on set under the exact same lighting parameters as everything else that fills the frame, but the problem is that I can still see an animatronic as just an animatronic with some guys moving it around, and the juttery animation and things like blinking eyelids stick out to me just as much as lackluster CG.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that both have flaws, but I prefer the animation and expressiveness of CG. When you say "Hollywood" I think that's too much of a hivemind label; it's not "Hollywood" but rather what the filmmakers feel would be the best route, and this deviates between filmmakers.
It's the "CG is so good now that its surpassed animatronics" thing that irritates me. In most cases that is correct, but there are so many instances where studios assumed CG would be adequate and it just ruins the film. An example that I go to regularly is the movie I Am Legend. The vampire creatures in that movie looked so horrible that it completely took me out of the movie and brought down what I thought was a pretty decent movie. I guess I'd just prefer that they try and work out the juttery animation stuff instead of relying on CG. Surely technology has advanced to the point where they could come up with some kick ass animatronics, it is just sad that they might not bother nowadays.
I'm certainly not saying it's used perfectly all the time. I'm literally only comparing quality CG to animatronics. I don't think they should bother spending so much money and time building a kick-ass animatronic, tbh. It's still an effect either way you cut it or gloss over it. They were building animatronics back then because it was the only option. Just because they did it a while back doesn't mean it was ever ideal. However for really close up shots or actors touching the object, a moving model might suffice.
Like the apatosaurus...
Can you imagine if Jurassic World trailers looked half as cool as Mad Max's
Can you imagine if it looked like a better movie and what the reaction would be
But Mad Max turned up great, like legitimately great, so those complaints have no reason to be.
Actually, if you see older Fury Road threads, you see tons of people saying stuff like "no Mel, no sale" and the like.
98% on Rotten Tomatoes tends to shut down the random haters. If it reviewed poorly it would be getting the same treatment. I honestly think there are some people just salivating for Jurassic World to get thrashed in the reviews so they can tear it apart. Whatever makes them happy, I guess.
Ultimately you are right, I just have to get out of the practical mentality because clearly it's going by the wayside.
I would be upset if I felt that it was being replaced in favor of an inferior technique, but I honestly don't think it is. At the same time you can have bad CG and great animatronics. It's not so straightforward, I understand. But you can have amazing CG and bad animatronics. I hate to admit it but the Apatosaurus animatronic isn't that great. On the flip side, I think it doesn't look that great because the CG animals look so much better thanks to solid CG, texturing, lighting, and movement. I've seen others criticize the apato animatronic, but I don't think it's any worse than the animatronics in the other films aside probably the sick triceratops.
See, the sick Triceratops is perfect for a good animatronic. The motion is limited for contextual reasons, and the actors could interact with it as its sick and non-threatening. It doesn't really blink or move much because it's ill. The script calls for Ellie examining and touching the bump on its tongue as well, so in any case this is far more sensible than CGI.
But it makes me wonder whatever happened to it. It probably died not long after
It'd probably be CGI today. Especially with Ellie having to touch the tongue. A scene like this in Jurassic World would have been amazing. I don't think that dying Apatosaurus is going to cut it.
Of all the times I've seen the film, I only realized last weekend when my brother brought it up how the triceratops' horns make it look ancient despite only being as old as the park/genetics lab. I can't unsee. It's seen some shit, apparently.
It'd be a poor choice and I can't see why they'd do it CG. The dying Apatosaurus is in a similar situation with possibly even less interaction, and it's still animatronic.
That's why she was sick. She burns the candle at both ends.
Yep, it'd be a bad decision. I still think it would have happened though. If that sad Apatosaurus head was all Trevorrow could get into the film there is no way they'd let him make a model on the scale of that triceratops.
Yep, it'd be a bad decision. I still think it would have happened though. If that sad Apatosaurus head was all Trevorrow could get into the film there is no way they'd let him make a model on the scale of that triceratops.
There's no way those completely still, muzzled raptor heads are cg. And they clearly made raptors based on promo shots and that Asian video linked a few posts above. So that apatasaurus cannot be the only animatronic in the film.
That's what Demoncarnotaur said, man. I've come to trust anything he says when it comes it JP news.