Why doe Jurassic Park look better than any movie released today?
- Thread starter Xeke
- Start date
- Status
Maklershed
Member
It definitely looks better than the cartoon looking nonsense from Star Wars.
The lawyer just got eaten. I love that scene.
The lawyer just got eaten. I love that scene.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
:lol
We're having Saturday date night together, aren't we?
Every time I see this movie, I think how amazingly it's held up. It could come out today and still be praised. Too bad the N64 never looked like this film.
We're having Saturday date night together, aren't we?
Every time I see this movie, I think how amazingly it's held up. It could come out today and still be praised. Too bad the N64 never looked like this film.
FleckSplat
Member
Because we don't know how dinosaurs are supposed to move.
Maklershed
Member
None of it looks fake because no one has ever seen a dinosaur. Combined with the close-ups being animatronics, that's about all there is to avoiding anything looking "fake."
There are also a comparatively small amount of CG dinosaurs on screen at any one time, as opposed to the huge crowds most current blockbusters will throw out. Such as the Helm's Deep sequence in LOTR.
So if Jurassic Park has aged in any way, it's the lack of a lot of dinos on screen at once. It was very smartly done for its time.
There are also a comparatively small amount of CG dinosaurs on screen at any one time, as opposed to the huge crowds most current blockbusters will throw out. Such as the Helm's Deep sequence in LOTR.
So if Jurassic Park has aged in any way, it's the lack of a lot of dinos on screen at once. It was very smartly done for its time.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Xeke said:
brandonh83
Banned
because Spielberg is god.
friskykillface
Banned
:lol :lol I just said the same thing to my brother
Watching it right now, one of my favorite movies, wish I could have seen this in Theaters, I was 4 or 5.
what happened with the DNA in the shaving cream bottle? did they ever explain that
Watch out Newman!!!!!!
Watching it right now, one of my favorite movies, wish I could have seen this in Theaters, I was 4 or 5.
what happened with the DNA in the shaving cream bottle? did they ever explain that
Watch out Newman!!!!!!
This. Smart use of practicals goes a long way, but CG has come really fucking far since then. Not everyone uses it well though.gdt5016 said:
This shot was meant only to make kids like me have crazy brainstorming sessions for how it would be involved in a sequel.friskykillface said:
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
CG realism is really a matter of resources and time. Jurassic Park's quality is partly due to it being comparatively less CG-intense than most recent FX-heavy movies, but also because ILM and Spielberg were able to give it their undivided attention. Most special effects companies are simply stretched too thin now to produce that kind of work regularly.
They still do, but it depends on what you're using them for. For humanoid creatures and things with a lot of joints or complex muscle structure, it wouldn't work well.Xeke said:
Dinosaurs are pretty perfect for animatronics because they don't have fur, have comparatively few joints, and nobody can notice if they move stiffer than "lifelike."
It's because they used real dinosaurs. Trust me I knew someone who worked on that film.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How in the hell do you train a T-Rex to work with humans? Well Spielberg was really patient, grabbed what he could, when he could. The lawyer in that scene was a real lawyer by the way, T-REX actually munched him, they did it in one take.
Yeah, I know what you're thinking. How in the hell do you train a T-Rex to work with humans? Well Spielberg was really patient, grabbed what he could, when he could. The lawyer in that scene was a real lawyer by the way, T-REX actually munched him, they did it in one take.
Dastardly Jerks
Banned
Xeke said:
Yeah and you know what happens afterwards? They stash all the robots away after they're used in some Hollywood storage backlot and never get used again. Then all the robots become sentient and realise how unloved they are, they get angsty, unite and rebel. Next thing you know, fucking SKYNET and robot wars and shit man. God DAMN.
I, for one, won't allow this to happen.
Escape Goat
Member
.
BattleMonkey
Member
Lot of usage of practical effects with CG to help instead of tons of CG dominating entire scenes. They spent lot of time on the CG and concentrated where it was needed instead of making entire sets and sequences one giant CG scene.
JP was a great example of using CG while not going overboard. Too many movies nowadays are rushed through in a month of filming in front of green screens just to have it sit on computers for over a year CGing up the rest of the movie in.
JP was a great example of using CG while not going overboard. Too many movies nowadays are rushed through in a month of filming in front of green screens just to have it sit on computers for over a year CGing up the rest of the movie in.
revolverjgw
Member
FuturusX said:
Respect for Spielberg +100
kame-sennin
Member
The reason the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park looked real was because the effects team had physical references that they could compare and compete against. Almost every scene with a CGI dinosaur also had an animatronic dinosaur in it. That means that they could compare lighting and texture for their CG effects with a real model under the exact same conditions. It also makes it easier for the artists to know when they miss the mark because the CG effects are constantly being intercut with perfect looking animatronic shots. It's the combination of practical and computer effects that make it work so well.
And it has nothing to do with our ignorance of real dinosaurs. Otherwise, the weirdo aliens in the new Star Wars movies would look real too, considering how meticulously they were rendered.
And it has nothing to do with our ignorance of real dinosaurs. Otherwise, the weirdo aliens in the new Star Wars movies would look real too, considering how meticulously they were rendered.
MadraptorMan
Member
The fact that JP's cgi still holds up today is just incredible. The movie was released in what, '93? Truly a work of art.
Fox Mulder
Member
because Jurassic Park is better than any movie released today...
Another flaw in JP was that there were no pterodactyls.
They had a great plot justification in that the animals could fly and easily escape. But understand that the practical reason was that there was no way back then to make a flying dinosaur with wings render as convincingly as the less complex land-bound dinosaurs. Had they attempted pterodactyls, the movie's efx would not hold up as well.
They had a great plot justification in that the animals could fly and easily escape. But understand that the practical reason was that there was no way back then to make a flying dinosaur with wings render as convincingly as the less complex land-bound dinosaurs. Had they attempted pterodactyls, the movie's efx would not hold up as well.
kame-sennin
Member
Teddman said:
Like the lizard that Obi-wan was riding? Or the pterodactyls on the rainy planet? Humans have enough experience to accurately gauge how a T-rex would move once they see it. Based on bone structure and size, the human brain can easily extrapolate how such an animal would move. As people have already said, in the JP sequels it was immediately noticeable how crap the CGI was.
jett said:
This.
It looks good considering when it was released and is a testament to the time and effort poured into it. But something like King Kong has far better effects. 1920s New York in that film is particularly impressive.
There is a lot of crappy CGI about, so Jurassic Park still holds up - and looks better than its sequels too.
brandonh83
Banned
not even the JP3 animatronics looked good. the part when the Spino attacks the plane in the jungle looks goddamn atrocious.
- Status