Jurassic World (2015)

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

If they were good enough, fair play. I'm just used to features like Hellboy 2, the hobbit extended editions, Prometheus 3D, Edgar Wright films, Etc have. This was like Harry Potter. Just a couple mediocre "look how incredible everything is, the movie is amazing YAY!" Features. I didn't learn anything about the production. Nothing about what attracted the actors, why they chose the script they did, why they chose to just use mediocre cgi, etc.

Par for the course on studio movies, sadly. I wish they'd quit it with all this cookie-cutter EPK style crap but special features are a dying art. Once they were created out of genuine love for a project but now it's mostly just about box ticking so people don't think they're being ripped off.

Don't get me wrongo, the indies still do a terrific job (yer Shouts, Criterions, Arrows etc) because they really are doing it for love of the game, and there's still the odd holdout involved in the studio releases like Charlie de Lauzirika who always delivers sterling stuff even if the film itself is somewhat lacking, but most of the video features I've seen on recent studio pictures are dreadful. Even the much-heralded DOFP Rogue Cut release didn't excite me because the main documentary still felt very fluffy, the commentaries were miles better.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

Not to mention the fact that the idiot director admitted that while filming the final sequence that he didn't even understand what he was filming at one point, because ILM was going to take care of it later.

I cannot believe he thought that was a smart thing to admit to, instead of be ashamed of - given how terribly directed the film was, he's probably the luckiest SOB ever to live that it came out as well as it did. Amateur hour would be offensive to amateurs.

To be fair, they shoot many sequences in a way that would allow ilm to pan across the shoot without a loss of quality compared to the rest of the film (they used 65mm for many shoots). Likewise many of the massive cgi scene really are done in post with you grabbing just what you need to then later truly create the scene. Likewise he may not have been the one directing those scenes, or may have only had a small part in them.

Watch safety not guaranteed if you haven't and tell me he is an amateur director. With that said I didn't like Jurrasic World, but my issues all stem from the script, which the director was involved with, but it wasn't his direction that specifically caused my issues with the film.

Originally Posted by klauswhereareyou

Glad they went the film route on this one because it shows how much better something shot on film can still look in 2015.

Honestly I don't agree with this at all. It looks good, but for something that used 65mm as extensively as this film apparently did, it looked decidedly mediocre, I also can't help but fell the dark finale probably would have looked better had it been shoot digitally.

[Dick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Underworld54

Yet it's good enough to watch 2 days in a row?

No, it wasn't. I was drifting off last night towards the end of the movie when they get on their motorcycles so I thought I should watch it again today while I was wide awake to re-evaluate it....only to find myself drifting off again towards the end of the movie at the same spot.

I liked it less the second time around. Like I said, it was a good, fun movie but nothing all that special and I doubt I'll revisit it anytime soon.

[Dick Deckard]

Originally Posted by Gamma_Winstead

If they were good enough, fair play. I'm just used to features like Hellboy 2, the hobbit extended editions, Prometheus 3D, Edgar Wright films, Etc have. This was like Harry Potter. Just a couple mediocre "look how incredible everything is, the movie is amazing YAY!" Features. I didn't learn anything about the production. Nothing about what attracted the actors, why they chose the script they did, why they chose to just use mediocre cgi, etc.

To me, the bonus features were just as predictable and by-the-numbers as the movie itself. Nothing new we haven't seen before in a movie, nothing new or interesting about the bonus features. Everything was so safe and watered down.

The most entertaining thing about the bonus features was in the interview with the director where he was sitting side by side with Spielberg and they looked so alike I thought he was trying to imitate his style of fashion. He imitated his movie almost exactly so why not just go all out and steal the look of Spielberg too.

[Parasite68]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

The movies take place in their year of release (this has been confirmed by the filmmakers), which means 1993 and 2015 respectively, with Jurassic World being 22 years after Jurassic Park. The T. rex was already fully grown when we saw her in the original film. Since I doubt they'd been breeding the dinosaurs since the '70s and probably sped up their growth, I'd guess she's maybe five, at most ten years old in JP. That would place her at around 27 or 32 in JW. Either way, she's definitely senior citizen age by T. rex standards.

Other than Walmart on Black Friday, she's the quickest meanest old lady I've ever seen. If I were a woman being chased by her, the first things to come off would be the heels, second would be my earrings to let that Lizard I mean business and it is now on like donkey kong!

[Parasite68]

Originally Posted by NYorker

Is this worth a blind buy? missed this in theaters, and the review was kind of so-so. Thought of getting the 3D version.

Like someone else said, if you liked the first one, you'll like this one. Do yourself a favor and get the 3D edition!

[levcore]

I enjoy Jurassic World the more i watch it. This is someone who wasn't that impressed at the cinema but each time i rewatch it in 3D, it gets better and better (for me)

[Leonidas King]

Originally Posted by levcore

I enjoy Jurassic World the more i watch it. This is someone who wasn't that impressed at the cinema but each time i rewatch it in 3D, it gets better and better (for me)

Agreed Immortan.

My first theater experience I was so underwhelmed by it, the more I watch it the more I appreciate it.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

Agreed Immortan.

My first theater experience I was so underwhelmed by it, the more I watch it the more I appreciate it.

It's just a great rollercoaster ride and i can overlook the things that bother me such as some of the writing and characters. The pacing is spot on and it has so many good set pieces and i do think it's well directed, despite some of the dissenting comments in this thread.

[Suntory_Times]

Originally Posted by levcore

It's just a great rollercoaster ride and i can overlook the things that bother me such as some of the writing and characters. The pacing is spot on and it has so many good set pieces and i do think it's well directed, despite some of the dissenting comments in this thread.

The pacing was one of my biggest issues. It didn't feel like it built. Rather it just went from one set piece to the other. The one exception would be when the monster escapes, that was quite the involving scene, even if it was extremely stupid.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

The pacing was one of my biggest issues. It didn't feel like it built. Rather it just went from one set piece to the other. The one exception would be when the monster escapes, that was quite the involving scene, even if it was extremely stupid.

Just to clarify that's what i loved about the pacing, it's so fast and relentless, i agree it's very different to Jurassic Park in that way though.

[bradley4846]

anyone know where i can just get the disc for pretty cheap

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by bradley4846

anyone know where i can just get the disc for pretty cheap

It was $17.96 for the first 4 days at Wal-Mart. It's going to be $20 everywhere now until at least Black Friday.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Suntory_Times

Honestly I don't agree with this at all. It looks good, but for something that used 65mm as extensively as this film apparently did, it looked decidedly mediocre, I also can't help but fell the dark finale probably would have looked better had it been shoot digitally.

I agree Suntory, I've only seen this at the cinema so far but for all the talk about 65mm I thought it looked very ordinary. Could've shot all the plates digital (not just the RED aerial stuff) for all the difference it made to the final product.

[imsounoriginal]

Trevorrow says in the special features that he and DP were "geeking out" over using different film stocks and an unconventional AR on this. I think with this budget and Spielberg producing, they were able to use film when they otherwise may not have, and figured "well, who knows many times I'll get this chance?" Frankly I don't blame them.

[dvdmike]

Totally forgot they shot 65mm

[Underworld54]

Some scenes were film with an actual camera that was used by Kubrick on 2001.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Trevorrow says in the special features that he and DP were "geeking out" over using different film stocks and an unconventional AR on this. I think with this budget and Spielberg producing, they were able to use film when they otherwise may not have, and figured "well, who knows many times I'll get this chance?" Frankly I don't blame them.

Nor do I, but when the final result ends up looking as "digital" as this does (haven't seen it yet on disc, mind) I really do wonder why they bother. Can any normal person really tell that all the aerial plates are 6K RED while others are large format and the dialogue scenes 35mm? It's a cocktail of sources that's had all the filmic energy and unpredictability graded out of it for that final 2K digital finish, or perhaps there's something to be said for how well modern 35mm stocks stack up against 65mm in the digital environment, whereas if one were doing a photochemical finish on 35mm compared to 65mm then the difference would be much more obvious IMO (as per nolan's IMAX features). And using a camera that Kubrick used is cool and all but it won't magically infer greatness on what they're shooting (not having a pop at you Underworld, I'm just sayin').

[y2jman]

i have never done a lunchbox bluray before do you think i should do the walmart jurassic world bluray lunchbox instead getting regular bluray or not?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Nor do I, but when the final result ends up looking as "digital" as this does (haven't seen it yet on disc, mind) I really do wonder why they bother. Can any normal person really tell that all the aerial plates are 6K RED while others are large format and the dialogue scenes 35mm? It's a cocktail of sources that's had all the filmic energy and unpredictability graded out of it for that final 2K digital finish, or perhaps there's something to be said for how well modern 35mm stocks stack up against 65mm in the digital environment, whereas if one were doing a photochemical finish on 35mm compared to 65mm then the difference would be much more obvious IMO (as per nolan's IMAX features). And using a camera that Kubrick used is cool and all but it won't magically infer greatness on what they're shooting (not having a pop at you Underworld, I'm just sayin').

Oh I agree with you, was just trying to rationalize their use of 65mm. Frankly if anything it hurt, since apparently they used 65mm for the VFX shots (not very specific, just about every shot has a VFX) and to give ILM some wiggle room within the 2.00:1 frame. But the extra scrutiny of 65mm doesn't flatter the VFX, which often stand out in a bad way (less so in 3D). Didn't know this was finished in 2K, I honestly don't get the point of doing that if you're shooting film and 4K-at-home is right around the corner...