Why doe Jurassic Park look better than any movie released today?
- Thread starter Xeke
- Start date
- Status
I like Jurassic Park because a little CGI went a long way.
Spielberg knows how to blend the effects very well plus tell the stroy in a suspenseful way (If not logical which is not Spielberg's strength).
The book is much better & if they ever reboot, they need to faithfully adapt the movie. However, that in no way means the movie is bad.
Spielberg knows how to blend the effects very well plus tell the stroy in a suspenseful way (If not logical which is not Spielberg's strength).
The book is much better & if they ever reboot, they need to faithfully adapt the movie. However, that in no way means the movie is bad.
crisdecuba
Member
Interesting Jurassic Park related videos:
Stop motion animation test of T-Rex walking. This was before they'd decided to pursue CGI. They were planning on working with a variant of stop motion animation called Go Motion (the difference being that some of the frames would be blurred in order to simulate motion blur). Even such a technique, based on what I can see in this video, isn't enough to achieve realism, IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEK9mitagS8
They still used Go Motion to plan out some of the scenes, like the kitchen scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hox0UfY0YQ&feature=related
One of their early CGI tests - T-Rex walking through a field in daylight (a BIG deal back then):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQGFiRzv1hE
Crappy video quality, but it's the same scene, with a bit of a Gallimimus chase at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9Vp_lCjoc&NR=1
Stop motion animation test of T-Rex walking. This was before they'd decided to pursue CGI. They were planning on working with a variant of stop motion animation called Go Motion (the difference being that some of the frames would be blurred in order to simulate motion blur). Even such a technique, based on what I can see in this video, isn't enough to achieve realism, IMO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEK9mitagS8
They still used Go Motion to plan out some of the scenes, like the kitchen scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hox0UfY0YQ&feature=related
One of their early CGI tests - T-Rex walking through a field in daylight (a BIG deal back then):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQGFiRzv1hE
Crappy video quality, but it's the same scene, with a bit of a Gallimimus chase at the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV9Vp_lCjoc&NR=1
JoshuaJSlone
Member
-COOLIO- said:
It may appear unreal, but it's also often doing things that would be crazy to pull off any other way. So I'd agree it has an advantage. Anything goes.Zombie James said:
Anasui Kishibe
Banned
because it's made by Spielberg. Man knows his shit when it comes to using CGI in an effective way
chicko1983
Member
I loved all the JP movies.
JP1>>>JP3>>JP2
Id love to see a 3-d cgi dinosaur flick with all dinosaurs perfectly proportioned and more like a documentary.
I would pay good money to see it if they were willing to spend good money making it.
JP1>>>JP3>>JP2
Id love to see a 3-d cgi dinosaur flick with all dinosaurs perfectly proportioned and more like a documentary.
I would pay good money to see it if they were willing to spend good money making it.
That is some seriously impressive stop motion. I goddamn love stop motion. But yeah, glad they went CG for JP; it was the right choice.crisdecuba said:
EDIT -
My favourite stop motion work: Talos from Jason and the Argonauts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q17dl_aUNf4
The jerky style of animation compliments a towering man made of bronze. First time Talos' head moved to look down at Hercules I was so frightened as a child. One of the reasons I loved Shadow of the Colossus so much was because it captured that feeling Talos gave me all those years ago.
The skeleton fight is still awesome, but I don't think it has aged quite as well (but from a logistics/technical standpoint it is more of an achievement):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gKD7qy98-E
lawblob said:
As annoying as it is to watch (and I agree with you), its probably pretty realistic. Its not like the kids wil go 'oh yeah, put the flashlight down'. There is a fucking T-Rex coming at you. You'd probably shit your pants with a lion, let alone a fucking. t. rex.
Furret said:
I'm 40 this year. In school those big things with long necks and thick legs were either brontosauruses or diplodocuses. Science has developed since then, and they all have fancy names like apatosaureses blah blah.
Did you notice how I pointed out the names were probably wrong? I don't give a fuck. In my world, they are brontosauruses/diplodocuses. And spinysaurus? No, doesn't exist. T-rex is the top of the tree for meatosauruses.
Night_Trekker
Member
chicko1983 said:
This is correct. Fuck The Lost World.
The book was great, though.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
Night_Trekker said:
The book was a mess of a thing too. Not as bad as the movie, but Crichton was talked into writing it, and it was pretty obvious from reading that he didn't care at all.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
I felt he was reaching a bit with the active camosaurus.DrForester said:
Night_Trekker
Member
DrForester said:
Bah, I enjoyed it immensely. Not the best of his books I've read, but it was pretty solid. I never did read the original JP, though.
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Shit was cool.
Muldoon is a complete Hoss in the book, if I remember correctly while living in Kenya working for Hammond's regular zoo, he ends up fighting a lion with only a knife. And winning. On top of that, he has a huge arsenal in the book. Including rocket launchers, and the like. Pretty sure he ends up killing a few raptors with a grenade launcher.Snuggler said:
My point? An spin off based on the guy would have been a better mark in the series than The Lost World.
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
still pining for JP4 with dino commandos named after characters of greek mythology. my dream movie.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
The book was a mess, but leagues better than the film was. I went opening night of "The Lost World" and left swearing up a storm because of how little they used from the book. If they followed the book, the movie would have been badass. The raptor stampede, and especially the (completely over the top yet awesome) active camo dinosaurs.DrForester said:
And I loved the third movie though. It basically just took a ton of the cut scenes from the first book and strung them together into a movie. Sure, the narrative was not really there, but I got what I wanted which was humans running in terror from dinosaurs.
Green Mamba
Member
That's funny, because brontosaurus hasn't been a valid name in over one-hundred years.mrklaw said:
jett said:Indeed. Look at Indy 4 for instance, I wouldn't say CG blended well at all there.On the other hand I look at something like A.I. and the CG work is still flawless.
Keep in mind I haven't seen Indy 4, but... Spielberg has always intentionally used less impressive effects in the Indiana Jones films. If you look at any of the films and compare their effects to any of his others during that time period, they will inevitably come off as very awkward or silly. I remember reading a discussion between Spielberg and Lucas in which they talked about using 'old-school' techniques for the effects as an homage to the sort of pulp novels and serials that inspired the creation of the series.
Medalion said:
I doubt it. Spielberg seems to have a good handle on how to apply effects to his films. Unless he intentionally is doing something to look old, as in the Indiana Jones films, he appear to know how far to push something and when to pull back - whether he does that by subtraction or through the use of models or animatronics.
Joe Shlabotnik said:
Yep. Good CGI is expensive but it can look incredible in the hands of the right people. Take Avatar, photorealistic jungles, photorealistic CGI characters and animals, everything in 3D. The vast majority of the movie was done on the computer, no animatronics whatsoever and it all looked magnificent.
CGI is not a problem, but BAD CGI is. There are too many action movies that rely heavily on CGI but not enough time and effort is spent on the CGI because the producers/studio don't want to spend the dough. Good CGI is invisible, but bad CGI sticks out like a sore thumb and that's what people remember in discussions like these.
Vinci said:
Do you have a source for this?
I think you've become confused over the use of the term "old school techniques".
Indiana Jones always had very good effects for the time, well above the average (ILM were largely peerless during the '80s).
What comparable films are you suggesting looked better?
Furret said:
I don't have a source for this. This is based on recollection. For all I know, I'm remembering it wrong - it was some time ago when I came across this. But I do have a strong memory of that exchange, that they were very interested in capturing the look and feel of pulp novels and serials with Indiana Jones and that meant toning down the special effects.
I'm by no means a Spielberg fanatic, so I've no reason to believe my mind is simply playing tricks on me. But no, I don't know where I read this originally. You are free to say you don't believe it if you like; I've no evidence to support my memory.
Vinci said:
I suspect you're mixing up comments they made from Indy 4 (where they did talk, well lie, about using old school practical effects) and them talking about the old films.
The original Indiana Jones films were state of the art at the time and I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise - either viewers or the film makers.
They certainly did want to evoke the atmosphere of the old pulps but not by using purposefully sub par effects.
Compare Raiders to something like George Pal's Doc Savage and you'd think there was 30 years between the two films, not six.
Furret said:
That's the thing: I've had this in my head for far longer than that. Since the Temple of Doom era, if not longer.
It's quite possible I'm remembering this wrong. I'm just saying that it's something I do recall them mentioning, whether I'm remembering the exact phrases wrong or not. Whatever the case, it's not a huge deal to me. Odds are I'm remembering some aspect of the conversation wrong. Jett's comment simply brought it back into my head.
Count Dookkake
Member
Pretty certain Spielberg was talking about the map transitions, like the wipes in Star Wars.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Because current directors emphatically believe CGI looks real, even though it doesn't.
JP was a lot better about disguising it's CGI to be less obvious (presumably because they were aware if you put a CGI dinosaur right next to an actor in a close up, it would be obvious it wasn't real.).
JP was a lot better about disguising it's CGI to be less obvious (presumably because they were aware if you put a CGI dinosaur right next to an actor in a close up, it would be obvious it wasn't real.).
Count Dookkake said:
That's perhaps what it was. I don't recall the particulars - it's been a long while since I came across that interview.
Furret said:
It's quite possible, that's true. I notice he said something about wanting Indy 4 to look similar to the older films, but I cannot find anything confirming what I said about those films particularly. So I have to assume that I'm remembering some aspect of the conversation wrong.
Oh well.
Sapiens
Member
RSP said:
This is rather close minded.
I will take the best means to accomplish a task, personally.
Some tasks are better served by CG, others by models and animatronics. It all depends on what the film makers want.
Some of the best special effects artists, like the great Phil Tippet, were able to make the transition from oldschool to newschool quite effortlessly.
If you asked Tippet to accomplish something like Starship Troopers with 1980s techniques only, he's probably shit in your mouth.
Even though District 9 had very good CGI, it impresses me on a whole different level. I really do appreciate the artists and the amount of effort they put into their work, but like other films with "amazing" effects recently, they don't excite me in the same way movies like Jurassic Park did. I still do think that movies like Jurassic Park greatly benefit from the element of suprise, when you finally get to see the T-Rex.
Edit: Weird sentence.
Edit: Weird sentence.
Furret said:
FFS. we didn't do dinosaurs in depth. I was a child. Big fucking dinosaurs, thats all. I pointed out that I didn't care what they are called now which means I understand that naming has changed. I'm not celebrating my ignorance, I was merely pre-empting the onslaught of the pedants.
my favourite dinosaur when I was little was the Stegosaurus. God knows what its called these days.
- Status