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

Status
Not open for further replies.
beelzebozo said:
you really think THE THING doesn't look better than anything released in the past 17 years? i'd say it looks better than 99.99999% of special effects heavy movies in the past 17 years. i could be applying my own prejudice here, though--i'll always take something that obviously exists in the same physical plane of existence with slightly less fluid movement over wiggly paste-on cg any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I think its practical effects are the best ever done. But no one segmented the discussion to effects. The title of this thread is "why does JP look better than any movie released today?", and not "why do JP's effects look better than any movie released today?", and I am responding to the former, which is ludicrous, as opposed to the latter, which is just funny.
 
First post about Stan Fucking Winston is on the fourth page?!

GAF, I am dissapoint

stan_winston.jpg
 
Because the outcome of any special effect is dependant on the skill of the guy behind it.

Not how much money is thrown at the effects.
Not how advanced the technology is.

Those two do not produce great effects alone. Believable animation requires skill and time. It's ludicrous to think that all modern CGI is automatically better than older CGI.
 
Solo said:
1. Take off your nostalgia glasses. You've got serious mental issues if you think a movie from 1993 looks better than any movie released in the past 17 years.
Click to expand...
It's miles ahead of the Star Wars prequels for example. If a person who didn't know would see both Jurrasic Park and The Phantom Menace and guess which was made first, I'm betting he would say JP was made years later because the effects are so much better.

The dinosaur stampede sequence in King Kong (jackson version) looks silly and unconvincing compared to most of JP.

And then are a TON of less "high-profile" movies in the last decade that look worse than JP. Mostly a lot of movies these days go way, way too far with the use of CG, giving them a fake look.

Jurrasic Park still looks great, and it's one of the best movies of the last 20 years for sure.
 
Koodo said:
If anyone pretends "classic" Yoda looks more realistic than a Na'Vi, then well, you're just wrong.
Click to expand...
Classic Yoda does look more realistic than the Naavi because the light bounces off the puppet the way it does in real life because it IS real
However Yoda does not animate as smoothly as the Naavi.
 
Wii said:
Classic Yoda does look more realistic than the Naavi because the light bounces off the puppet the way it does in real life because it IS real
However Yoda does not animate as smoothly as the Naavi.
Click to expand...

agreed.
 
jett said:
terminator_two_judgement_day.jpg
Click to expand...


Absolutely an amazing film, but I don't think the CGI stuff holds up well. The T-1000 when he goes all silver looks pretty fake sin a few scenes (like when he comes out of the fire after the semi crash). Terminator 2 holds up well because it's just an incredible action film, you don't care about the effects.
 
Zodiac is CG done right. Fincher in general is pretty good at the whole CG thing. Benjamin Button was a questionable film but an impressive technical achievement.
 
Mr. Sam said:
Zodiac is CG done right. Fincher in general is pretty good at the whole CG thing. Benjamin Button was a questionable film but an impressive technical achievement.
Click to expand...

Came in here to post about Zodiac. Basically flawless use of CGI.
 
Agreed with DrForester- T2 is an awesome film but the CG is pretty dated looking. It was amazing for its time, though.
 
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...

I think they're herons or something.

JP looks good because Speilberg was aware of the limitations of the CGI tech, and adjusted his use of it as such. Like how Lucas' tech in the original trilogy forced him to show things in a certain way, and generally only in certain conditions. The original SW trilogy looked better than any other scifi movie for a good ten to fifteen years after their release.

Newman's DNA can? Did that question get answered? Its cooling system failed after 48 hours I think. He explains the system's life span when he meets Dawson (sp?) at the restaurant at the start of the film.
 
It certainly looked more convincing than something like Avatar.

Of course, you'll have the usual argument that Dinosaurs are real and Navi aren't...and so on.
 
Conclusion.

1. The CG in JP spans no more than five or so minutes of screen time.
2. The close ups are comprised of anamatronics.
3. Some of the best, most experienced people in special effects were concentrated into this project.
4. It was directed by Spielberg.
5. George Lucas directed the effects, apparently.
6. Overall, this film was made by craftsmen who poured a lot of effort into detail, ensuring that no weaknesses would be exposed. The effects were used sparringly, and only when they had no other resort.
7. JP is from an era where names like ILM, Stan Winston, Rob Botin and Phil Tippet meant something. Now, special effects work is an industry where companies can bid with the most competitive prices. The technology and horsepower is there, but the raw talent may not be. Thus, films with truly excellent and unique effects are few and far between (just like the pre-CG age).

Cool thread. Learned a lot.


A personal note: I simply do not get the Avatar criticisms. The special effects were nothing short of incredible.
 
Funny this thread was made 'cause I was thinking the same thing after seeing it on HBO recently.

Especially since Spider-Man 2 was on another HBO channel at the same time.
 
Sapiens said:
A personal note: I simply do not get the Avatar criticisms. The special effects were nothing short of incredible.
Click to expand...


I dont think anyone's saying that the effects in Avatar suck. In fact, they are leaps and bounds the most complicated, most ambitious of any movie up until it's release.

However, just because you're breaking new ground in technology, doesn't mean it's going to be the most effective. To me, the CG can't be touched on a technical level (what's being rendered in terms of complexity), but thanks to the scope, we can def. tell it's CG.

The restraint and limitations in JP mean we get a much more concentrated effort, the result being that the very little use of CG is nearly flawless and masterful.

I kind of liken it to how Grand Theft Auto IV is impressive because of what it's trying to render, and still maintain great visuals (lets use the PC version).

While something like say, God of War, has a MUCH smaller scale at any given time, but looks more impressive.
 
I think Aliens looks better than JP, but that was released before it so i guess that doesnt count due to the thread being about movies release today.

Models >>>>> CG

Always.
 
Unrelated but I find the space/hardware scenes in Star Wars episode I a lot higher in visual quality and realism than in episode III.
 
c2morg said:
I think Aliens looks better than JP, but that was released before it so i guess that doesnt count due to the thread being about movies release today.

Models >>>>> CG

Always.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Whenever I watch a special effects movie with a group of friends, we just can't help but nerd out about the spfx on screen. When it comes to older films that rely more on traditional effects and animatronics, we probably spend half the film discussing how much we just LOVE it and how impressive it looks today. I find it interesting that 'The Thing' was brought up. I watched that recently and pretty much everybody in the room agreed that THAT was the better way to do creature features and horror films. As an aside, concerning horror films, it isn't JUST the use of CG that makes them completely un-scary. Most of it is because of the camerawork(just compare the camerawork done in the original Halloween or hell, even the original Friday the 13th to the re-makes and tell me which creates more suspense and sense of impending doom).

On the flip side, whenever we watch....almost anything from today(Star Wars prequels, Spider-Man, Pirates, Crystal Skull, etc) we spend half the time cringing and bemoaning how awful the CG effects look to us. CG, when it's obvious, takes me out of the film. It destroys the suspension of disbelief.
 
I'll tell you why it looks so good: because Steven Spielberg traveled back in time to capture actual dinosaurs and put them in the film. I know this because he traveled forward in time to put in a 3D videogame in Jaws, a movie that came out in 1975!

Watch the scene in Jaws where there's an arcade. A kid is playing a shark hunting game that is 3D. How did that get there in 1975? Time travel.
 
curls said:
Unrelated but I find the space/hardware scenes in Star Wars episode I a lot higher in visual quality and realism than in episode III.
Click to expand...
Me too

Episode III has a sorta playstation FMV feel to everything...
 
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...
Yes this is true. Pterodactyls were in the first book but they didn't mKe it to the movie. The scene is actually similar to the huge bird cage in the third movie.
 
Joe Shlabotnik said:
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.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. And even getting the best staff at a vfx house to work on something doesn't guarantee it'll be awesome if you don't give them enough time and the studio decides a shot is "good enough" when it's clearly not because they either don't want to spend anymore money or wants to hit an unrealistic date - look at The Mummy Returns.

These days, certain kinds of CG effects are pretty much indistinguishable from practical ones when done really well - primarily in virtual sets (countless examples, see this John Adams clip for example - many many other examples in several major effects-heavy movies in the past 3-5 years. Off the top of my head, you can check the behind the scenes stuff in Iron Man 1 where they extended a shot at the end with Iron Man and Warmonger on the roof. Since these types of shots are mostly meant for background use, you're not really focusing on these elements anyway so it's easier to pull off) and hard surfaces (i.e. Iron Man suit).
 
I wonder how the herbivores in The Lost World seemed to know they had to eat high-lysine stuff like lentils, beans, etc.
 
DonMigs85 said:
I wonder how the herbivores in The Lost World seemed to know they had to eat high-lysine stuff like lentils, beans, etc.
Click to expand...

If they don't eat it, they get sick and the park ranger has to call the
amber lamps
.
 
loosus said:
I do have to say that there wasn't really any part of Jurassic Park that made me say, "Damn that looks fucking fake." It's kinda bizarre if you think about when it was made.
Click to expand...


there were a couple. Oddly the animatronic stuff was less realistic than the CG. And when you think how old/cutting edge the CG was at the time, its even more impressive.

If I did have to push, I'd say the 'yeah, well those birds are flocking this way' were a little unrealistic. But the T-rex and the first view of the diplodocus/brontosaurus (fuck using its real name, thats what I learnt) are unsurpassed.
 
DrForester said:
Absolutely an amazing film, but I don't think the CGI stuff holds up well. The T-1000 when he goes all silver looks pretty fake sin a few scenes (like when he comes out of the fire after the semi crash). Terminator 2 holds up well because it's just an incredible action film, you don't care about the effects.
Click to expand...
I still love when the T-1000 rebuild himself after being thawed in the steel mill and the reflections with the lights and textures... still beautiful imo.
 
Jurassic Park 3 was just on Encore. It's really campy compared to the first and just doesn't have the "magic" the first movie had.
 
What's weird is I can't even remember a damn thing about Jurassic Park 2. JP1 is seared into my brain forever, of course, and I've seen JP3 on cable a number of times. But every time I try to think of JP2 I always end of thinking of scenes from JP3. Was it really that bad?
 
demon said:
What's weird is I can't even remember a damn thing about Jurassic Park 2. JP1 is seared into my brain forever, of course, and I've seen JP3 on cable a number of times. But every time I try to think of JP2 I always end of thinking of scenes from JP3. Was it really that bad?
Click to expand...
No, it's actually pretty underrated
Everyone just likes to complain about the gymnastics bit, t-rex in san diego or that they changed too much from the book (which sucked and would've been a terrible film)
 
Jurassic Park 3 was a disgrace.

The story was a mess.
The characters were hilarious.

And even though it was a dream sequence.....a fucking speaking raptor? COME ON.
 
mrklaw said:
there were a couple. Oddly the animatronic stuff was less realistic than the CG. And when you think how old/cutting edge the CG was at the time, its even more impressive.

If I did have to push, I'd say the 'yeah, well those birds are flocking this way' were a little unrealistic. But the T-rex and the first view of the diplodocus/brontosaurus (fuck using its real name, thats what I learnt) are unsurpassed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't learn anything.

It was a Brachiosaurus.

Any five year old could have told you that. It's a very famous dinosaur and they specifically refer to it by name in the film.
 
Wii said:
Me too

Episode III has a sorta playstation FMV feel to everything...
Click to expand...

I'm glad I am not going mad then. WTF happened?
 
big_z said:
^
that show was fucking horrible
Click to expand...

It is a children tv show with aweome puppetry/prativcal effects that deals with topics like euthanasia, war, racial prejudice, drugs and prostitution !
What not to love ?
 
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
1K
INC replied
Top Bottom