Jurassic Park Collection 4K UHD (1993-2015)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

The original negative exists, but they used IP footage for all the CGI scenes. They either can't or won't foot the bill to recomposite the original effects. It's probably a bit of both. Pitch Black's CGI was recomposited for its restoration iirc, so it's doable...if the data and money is there.

Wut? They don't use "IP footage for all the CGI scenes", they use filmouts i.e. the completed CG shot is recorded back onto a piece of film which is then cut into the camera negative. That the CG and shots with location titles look all soft and smudged in JP1's UHD is not because of a crappy source but because of Universal's fear of an optical planet, where any kind of analogue or digital visual/editorial effect must be twatted with DNR otherwise IT WILL LOOK BAD. They did the same shit with Waterworld where every such VFX shot gets 'The Treatment' whether it's optical, digital, or even just filtration in-camera because some idiot mistook a deliberately soft shot for being an optical. Morons.

And Pitch Black's CG was recomposited whatnow?

Originally Posted by d3nt0n

With all the CG used they wouldn't be able to use the negative for most of the film, it'd have to be sourced from at least an IP.

"With all the CG they wouldn't be able to use the negative for most of the film"? Are we talking about the same film here? I think JP1 has something like four or five minutes of CG, tops, because everything else was done in-camera. They only use the CG for full body shots of the dinos moving about, everything else is practical. And no, the CG is not "from an IP". Where do you guys get this stuff? Please say YouTube

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Wut? They don't use "IP footage for all the CGI scenes", they use filmouts i.e. the completed CG shot is recorded back onto a piece of film which is then cut into the camera negative. That the CG and shots with location titles look all soft and smudged in JP1's UHD is not because of a crappy source but because of Universal's fear of an optical planet, where any kind of analogue or digital visual/editorial effect must be twatted with DNR otherwise IT WILL LOOK BAD. They did the same shit with Waterworld where every such VFX shot gets 'The Treatment' whether it's optical, digital, or even just filtration in-camera because some idiot mistook a deliberately soft shot for being an optical. Morons.

Filmouts were what I was talking about, yes. I minced my words there!

And Pitch Black's CG was recomposited whatnow?

Caught me two for two here. I was actually thinking of Eternal Sunshine for The Spotless Mind, which they're supposedly completely rebuilding for the new restoration. Two totally different movies but my brain farted! Wow!

[Ben_UK]

I can appreciate this is probably not a specific Jurassic Park point, but ive seen screengrabs of a JP 35mm print, and I have to say that whenever I have seen such screenshots they always kinda look similar, they have an almost universal “golden” push to the colour scheme and are very contrasty. What is the general opinion of people using 35mm release prints to create a watchable version of a film, does scanning such things yield accurate / desirable results or are they way off in terms of colour / contrast etc? Also if they are way off, why are they?

[HDMan72]

If only JP had a new remaster along with the original DTS mix.

[NeilZ]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I can appreciate this is probably not a specific Jurassic Park point, but ive seen screengrabs of a JP 35mm print, and I have to say that whenever I have seen such screenshots they always kinda look similar, they have an almost universal “golden” push to the colour scheme and are very contrasty. What is the general opinion of people using 35mm release prints to create a watchable version of a film, does scanning such things yield accurate / desirable results or are they way off in terms of colour / contrast etc? Also if they are way off, why are they?

Even scanned film needs to be reel color corrected to accommodate for different aging of different reels, and different people have different preferences, so that can result in the gold or sometimes blue or even green push sometimes seen in them.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Ben_UK

I can appreciate this is probably not a specific Jurassic Park point, but ive seen screengrabs of a JP 35mm print, and I have to say that whenever I have seen such screenshots they always kinda look similar, they have an almost universal “golden” push to the colour scheme and are very contrasty. What is the general opinion of people using 35mm release prints to create a watchable version of a film, does scanning such things yield accurate / desirable results or are they way off in terms of colour / contrast etc? Also if they are way off, why are they?

Film prints have very high gamma (meaning that they have very dark, dense blacks) because this tiny little square of film has to have light blasted through it to illuminate a giant screen. So to have blacks look anything like black they can't let too much light through in those darker portions of the print. If you've ever heard of a process called 'bleach bypass' this has yet darker blacks because it leaves the silver on the film and creates an even denser image.

Basically, scans of film prints usually have VERY dark blacks and almost zero shadow detail because of this.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

They're actually re-releasing these with the original art? God exists.

All of them except JPIII. I don't mind it being treated like the red-headed stepchild of the franchise, though. It kind of is.

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Scandi is getting new steels. Here's happy with my black individual UK steels already.

Pretty cool, but I'll be waiting for the inevitable box set of the complete hexalogy.

Originally Posted by aviosis

Lol the fans were wanting to cancel the Spinosaurus back in 2001 but now want it back. I wonder if we'll see it in the new movie this summer...

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Was the Spinosaurus really that controversial? I was only seven when the film came out so I dunno what the fan discourse was like. I just remember watching the film on a pirate copy with Japanese subtitles, and then getting the official video for Christmas, lmao.

As someone who turned 13 in 2001, and was very much part of the JP fan community at the time... yes. Controversial is an understatement. There was a massive backlash to the Spinosaurus unceremoniously killing the T. rex in a fight that lasts a little over 30 seconds. I myself had a bit of a negative reaction, but I never went as hardcore as some others, and I got over it soon enough. Some people have been beating that dead horse (dead T. rex?) for 20 years, though.

JPIII is still easily the weakest installment in my mind, but that has little to do with the particular species of carnivore they use as the main villainous dinosaur. I do have one complaint regarding the Spino however, and that is that it's a bit too simplistic and one-note. The T. rexes in the first two movies have a nuanced, believably animal-like behavior to them which is absent in the Spino. It's just "look at this bloodthirsty monster viciously trying to kill everything in sight". And that's JPIII's whole problem in a nutshell, really. It's too basic, too straightforward.

Originally Posted by mrjeff

I remember even as a 15 year old, thinking it was pretty dumb that it was a dinosaur they completely made up rather than based on a real one.

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Hey man I hate to break it you ya but...

https://www.britannica.com/animal/Spinosaurus

It is a real animal that existed, but at the time JPIII was made they didn't really know what it looked like due to incomplete fossils, and made an educated guess (combined with the usual movie monster exaggerations) at what it probably looked like based on related species.

Now over the last few years, we've been learning more about it, and it looked... extremely different, let's just say.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

It is a real animal that existed, but at the time JPIII was made they didn't really know what it looked like due to incomplete fossils, and made an educated guess (combined with the usual movie monster exaggerations) at what it probably looked like based on related species.

Now over the last few years, we've been learning more about it, and it looked... extremely different, let's just say.

Not to get all nerdy "um actually" but Stan Winston Studio cut it fairly close aside from posture and taking further artistic liberties re: aesthetics. They were built lower to the ground and their sail wasn't like a Dimetrodon. Nothing as drastic as say, Dilophosaurus' frill and skull.

Anyhoo, that's beside the point it wasn't a made-up Dinosaur (despite artistic liberties) which is what he said.

[Camellott89]

Don’t know how I feel about the colors.

[DR Herbert West]

I know how I feel.

[dallywhitty]

Never 5get playing The Lost World: Jurassic Park on the PlayStation.

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

Not to get all nerdy "um actually" but Stan Winston Studio cut it fairly close aside from posture and taking further artistic liberties re: aesthetics. They were built lower to the ground and their sail wasn't like a Dimetrodon. Nothing as drastic as say, Dilophosaurus' frill and skull.

Anyhoo, that's beside the point it wasn't a made-up Dinosaur (despite artistic liberties) which is what he said.

Different skull shape, much proportionally smaller legs, a big paddle-like tail, a larger and differently shaped sail, etc. It's not made-up (I wasn't agreeing with that part), but definitely a much different animal. But I'm not trying to crap on the efforts of the artists responsible for designing JPIII's villain or anything. It's basically what they thought Spinosaurus looked like at the time (with, again, some deliberate monster elements to make it more threatening), and that's all you can ask for.

It's not the only JP dinosaur that differs from its real life counterpart. Dilophosaurus is an obvious one, as you mention. We could name other examples, like how the Velociraptors should be called Deinonychus, be covered in feathers and have round as opposed to slit pupils (something JPIII got right). The Mosasaurus is massively oversized and has scales and scutes like a crocodile, when it should be smoother and most likely dark gray/black-ish in color. But let's not get too nerdy here.

I accept it as just being how these animals look in this fictional universe. JP's version of Dilophosaurus has a frill and the ability to spit venom. JP's raptors are scaly lizard monsters. JP's Pteranodon has feet that grasp and is able to carry an adult human. JP's Spinosaurus is a terrestrial "super predator", powerful enough to kill an adult Tyrannosaurus. No big deal.

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I accept it as just being how these animals look in this fictional universe. JP's version of Dilophosaurus has a frill and the ability to spit venom. JP's raptors are scaly lizard monsters. JP's Pteranodon has feet that grasp and is able to carry an adult human. JP's Spinosaurus is a terrestrial "super predator", powerful enough to kill an adult Tyrannosaurus. No big deal.

I love Crash McCreery's art. The Spinosaurus was one of his last contributions I believe. The JP dinosaurs were always visually distinct thanks to him. The new ones miss that definitive look of his!

[aviosis]

Lol at the power rangers steels for JP smh

[Deathbymonkeys]

Originally Posted by Camellott89

Don’t know how I feel about the colors.

I'm worried if I DON'T buy them, the 6th one's steelbook will match these lol. I have the dual steel set for all 5, and a few different World and Kingdom steels.

[NeilZ]

Originally Posted by aviosis

Lol at the power rangers steels for JP smh

I guess the 6th one will be pink.

[nick4Knight]

If I had money to waste I'd buy those Except I think the first one shouldn't be what it is, and that kinda ruins the whole set. I get its meant to be amber coloured but I think it skews yellow too far...

[Ssj3 Goku]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

stinks that the two best are the ones with the crap transfers

I love the lost world flaws and all. It's way better then JP3 but I do like all of the films.

[esmeron]

Originally Posted by nick4Knight

If I had money to waste I'd buy those Except I think the first one shouldn't be what it is, and that kinda ruins the whole set. I get its meant to be amber coloured but I think it skews yellow too far...

I think first one is like that cause of that amber egg, when they were at presentation. And from there i think they went with yellow. Like every movie steelbook makes sense if you look. They weren't just randoms... Like last one for example is grey - almost ash color, just remember erruption of volcano...
Dunno, it's just me .
AmazonIT has whole 5 of them for like 150€ with shipping, A.DE on the other hand is pricier, with whole 5 of them over 200, with shipping i think 210?

[Fat Phil]

Wow. The UK steelbooks suddenly look less shit.