Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

[Will.]

Originally Posted by Kylo Ren

All this aspect ratio talk is making my head hurt. I literally can't tell the difference between all the different ratios when I see a movie in the theaters. All movies look the same to me in terms of what AR they're using.

So, from my view, it seems a bit silly getting all worked up because they're not using a certain AR that you were hoping for.

Even though it's subtle, AR does have a dramatic effect on the "feel" of the movie. It's all down to personal preference, but hate when blockbusters go for 1.78 or 1.85 (although most are going 2.40 now thank goodness) because they look too much like a tv show. The wider the better!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

It's strange but to me the dinosaurs look more real in the original. It's not just a CG thing, the effects work in later movies improved obviously. It's more the way they moved, like they had more weight. When the T-Rex walked you felt it. In Jurassic World the Indominus felt like it barely made a tremble. The lumbering of the Rex as it broke through the fence still feels more real... .

That's because of a few things they did back then - Steve "Spaz" Williams was the real genius behind the decision to use CGI full motion dinosaurs. He studied dinosaur anatomy, consulted paleontological studies and all that stuff, on his own! He secretly conducted tests in CG when production had already begun with "Go-Motion."

After CG was given the approval, Tom St. Amand used a mechanical-electronic armature for motion capturing the dinosaurs. He was a puppeteer and gave the creatures that "weight." They felt heavy because T-Rex's movement and voice was partially inspired by elephants. You can even see Rexy's skin contours and folds feel like that of elephants. The eyes look like that of a Tiger and Lion. Also, they wanted to match the heaviness of the robotics and thus made the CG feel more slow, lumbering and animatronic.

Another thing they did is after the maquettes and sculptures of the animals were done. They took multiple angle photographs. They scanned the photographs and applied stills of actual tactile skin layers on top of the CG skin layers in post. As a result, they were able to make the CG skin feel as real as the skin on the animatronic models.

Plus, they mostly kept the animals in dark or under harsh light. Also, it helped that you saw very little of actual dinosaur footage, so you were more impressed. The cinematography and the edit was so fantastic that we felt the dinosaurs were always around; lurking somewhere.

Shooting on film with spherical lenses and the photochemical lab colour timing gave the image that grit, grain and gorgeous yet earthy colours that sold the look of a tropical, almost prehistoric island with lush and green jungle environment. In the words of production designer Rick Carter, "Perfect type of environment where you want to see a dinosaur."

And yes, the 1.85:1 aspect ratio helped a lot as it made the dinosaurs feel more real and less "epic," "fantastical" and "cinematic." The narrower ratio subconsciously made you accept that it feels real, because we associate epics and fantasies with cinemascope 2.35:1 and flat ratios with television and older silent era movies. This is why I dislike JW2's choice for scope because it destroys the "natural," "real" and "grounded" feel of the series that it had successfully maintained over the course of four films.

Originally Posted by Predatorix38417

...as a film buff it bothers me that they change the aspect ratio which has always been a key part of Jurassic Park, at least from a technical standpoint, because it's been used to show off the height and scale of the dinosaurs. Scope 2.39 ruins that because now the dinosaurs have to be cropped...

Yes, dinosaurs won't occupy the full frame much because the 2.40:1 ratio is really a bad choice for tall dinosaurs. Either they will be crouching in the frame, like that Baryonix inside the pipe, or the shots will be extremely wide angled, with too much extraneous and distracting details at the sides while the main characters (including full height dinos) stand in the centre.

I personally find 2,40:1 ratio emotionally less engaging and involving. It doesn't feel intimate and close to me. It feels distant, "out there." Even in the cinemas, which are mostly scope, I find 1.85:1 to be more engaging, focusing my attention to the characters and what's happening in the frame at all times. My eyes don't stray around. As a photographer and having shot a documentary short, narrower ratios feel compositionally more rewarding, real and beautiful. More true to life and less fantastical.

And our eyes have a "taller" field of view, close to the golden geometric ratio which is about 16:10. So, 1.85:1, which is mostly 16:9, feels closer to real-life because of that principle. Same reason why we tend to prefer IMAX 1.43:1 over cinemascope because it feels closer to our field-of-vision.

Jurassic Park franchise was built on that "true-to-life" principle for the first three at least. With 'Fallen Kingdom' it seems to have gone the ways of 'Indiana Jones' and 'Star Wars.' More epic but less like life.

I think if they wanted to go "epic," they could've filmed in IMAX like Christopher Nolan, with 1.43:1 or even 1.66:1 AR. The dinosaurs would've looked true-to-size and also huge. This would've also allowed them to shoot on real film. That's a missed opportunity.

Originally Posted by Will.

Even though it's subtle, AR does have a dramatic effect on the "feel" of the movie. It's all down to personal preference, but hate when blockbusters go for 1.78 or 1.85 (although most are going 2.40 now thank goodness) because they look too much like a tv show. The wider the better!

Great 1.85:1 movies - You think Christopher Nolan's IMAX shot movies with the 1.78:1 AR look like TV movies? Don't watch Dunkirk then, because 90% of it is 16:9. You think films like All The President's Men, E.T: The Extra Terrestrial, Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds, Life of Pi, Schindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, The Master, look like "TV MOVIES" huh? Don't tell that to people who are associated with filmmaking, ever. Please. Does AVATAR feel like a tiny TV movie to you as well?

[Janjira54]

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM | No Turning Back - YouTube

Animatronics!

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Yes, dinosaurs won't occupy the full frame much because the 2.40:1 ratio is really a bad choice for tall dinosaurs. Either they will be crouching in the frame, like that Baryonix inside the pipe, or the shots will be extremely wide angled, with too much extraneous and distracting details at the sides while the main characters (including full height dinos) stand in the centre.

I personally find 2,40:1 ratio emotionally less engaging and involving. It doesn't feel intimate and close to me. It feels distant, "out there." Even in the cinemas, which are mostly scope, I find 1.85:1 to be more engaging, focusing my attention to the characters and what's happening in the frame at all times. My eyes don't stray around. As a photographer and having shot a documentary short, narrower ratios feel compositionally more rewarding, real and beautiful. More true to life and less fantastical.

And our eyes have a "taller" field of view, close to the golden geometric ratio which is about 16:10. So, 1.85:1, which is mostly 16:9, feels closer to real-life because of that principle. Same reason why we tend to prefer IMAX 1.43:1 over cinemascope because it feels closer to our field-of-vision.

Great, informative post. Thanks.

I do disagree, sort of, with the part here that I quoted. While it may very well be true for the Jurassic films, for all the reasons already stated, I don't think it's really true for a film like The Counselor which I watched just last night. That's scope and it worked perfectly for how Scott and Wolski wanted to shoot it.

Shots like this didn't have my eyes straying at all:

[Show spoiler]

And landscape shots like this were just perfectly framed:

[Show spoiler]

[Show spoiler]

So, I really think it depends on the type of film one is making. Now I apologize if you referring specifically to a film like the Jurassic films and I misunderstood. Sorry if that was the case.

[Will.]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Great 1.85:1 movies - You think Christopher Nolan's IMAX shot movies with the 1.78:1 AR look like TV movies? Don't watch Dunkirk then, because 90% of it is 16:9. You think films like All The President's Men, E.T: The Extra Terrestrial, Saving Private Ryan, War of the Worlds, Life of Pi, Schindler's List, The Shawshank Redemption, The Shining, The Master, look like "TV MOVIES" huh? Don't tell that to people who are associated with filmmaking, ever. Please. Does AVATAR feel like a tiny TV movie to you as well?

Originally Posted by Will.

It's all down to personal preference

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Janjira54

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM | No Turning Back - YouTube
Animatronics!

Yes it is. But the lighting, the green colour grading and obviously glossing the puppet over with a CG polish make it look computer generated, in my opinion. It's also apparent the difference shooting on film and digital makes.

1.
This is a tactile looking animatronic -

T-Rex animatronic.jpg

2.
This looks CG-ish.

JW2 Rexy.jpg

The lighting and colour makes it look the most fake. As I said, they've probably touched up the puppet with CGI. Also, this shot confirms my fear with the aspect ratio. Close-up shot with too wide a frame and distracting elements at the sides.

JW2 Owen trucks.jpg

The truck at the left is taking up almost the entire frame when it's Owen who is the sole focus of this shot.

[wonderer99]

Riddhi are you going to be this deliberately negative about every little reveal right up to release? If so, no offence but you may have to go on ignore if so. It's all opinions and that but it is beginning to seem like your on a mission buddy. Your going to bring a real downer to a new Jurassic Park movie thread.

I appreciate that you are not liking what your seeing so far but please realise that everything you are seeing is an unfinished product at this point. Relax a little.

[imsounoriginal]

Yeah this is exhausting already.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Riddhi are you going to be this deliberately negative about every little reveal right up to release? If so, no offence but you may have to go on ignore if so. It's all opinions and that but it is beginning to seem like your on a mission buddy. Your going to bring a real downer to a new Jurassic Park movie thread.

I have no such mission. What is this, Marvel vs DC? Yes I didn't like what I see. And I have stated and demonstrated the reasons why I did think in such a manner. However, seeing as you people are feeling offended, I will stop.
I've been in love with this franchise since the very first film I saw in the cinema. I have no intention to behave like a spoilsport. So, for the sake of other Jurassic brothers, I will stop arguing.
Peace.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I have no such mission. What is this, Marvel vs DC? Yes I didn't like what I see. And I have stated and demonstrated the reasons why I did think in such a manner. However, seeing as you people are feeling offended, I will stop.
I've been in love with this franchise since the very first film I saw in the cinema. I have no intention to behave like a spoilsport. So, for the sake of other Jurassic brothers, I will stop arguing.
Peace.

No one is offended by your posts mate (which makes a change in 2017). It's just that we have seen so little of the film so to judge anything at this point would be kinda pointless. Now that's not to say nobody can offer reservations based on what they see but to find fault with so much based on a teaser of a trailer is crazy imo. I mean it's not even the full trailer and we are still half a year away from release.
As I have said before in the thread the original is my favourite movie ever. I was 13. I swear that movie changed me in the cinema. I hold it very close to my heart and there is little about the film I don't know or love. So trust me when I say this movie is on my radar in a big way as were the previous sequels. Again it's all opinions but I am not seeing anything to be offended by at this point. The director is not a hack. He has made some great movies and I trust his vision. As for the aspect ratio it's a non starter. Why not try something different? Give a JP film a different perspective?

I'm not trying to be off with you mate, I know how it is to have something you love onscreen meddled with as do we all. But I think your jumping the gun a little. People should worry less about aspect ratios and framing and be excited more about volcanoes and stampeding dinosaurs. My 2p of course.

[Riddhi2011]

^ No worries buddy.

[testmon112]

Looks more cinematic.

[AaronJ]

Honestly, for me, as long as the film has the same great chemistry between Pratt and BDH I'll be satisfied. That was my favorite part of the first one.

Everything else is secondary to me.

[ScarredLungs]

I am going love this film as I did the last one. Still one of my favorite series!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by testmon112

Looks more cinematic.

It definitely looks scarier with that tighter flat ratio crop, to me. The Rex feels more closer to my face. And I can appreciate the details in the shots a lot more. It just makes everything feel more real for me.

However, we have to respect the filmmakers' choice as the others have rightly pointed out.

[testmon112]

Yeah look Riddhi I totally understand what you're saying but yeah different formats require different demands and approaches. I'm sure Bayona & Oscar Faura have their reasoning with going with scope for this film but I wonder if it's going to open up to 1.85 IMDB is always a bit shaky on these things.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by testmon112

Yeah look Riddhi I totally understand what you're saying but yeah different formats require different demands and approaches. I'm sure Bayona & Oscar Faura have their reasoning with going with scope for this film but I wonder if it's going to open up to 1.85 IMDB is always a bit shaky on these things.

If they shot open gate on the Alexa 65 (2.1:1) or with anamorphic lenses, then it won't open up. If they shot this spherical, like the 'Beauty and the Beast 2017' or 'Blade Runner 2049,' then they might decide to go for a larger 1.89:1 aspect ratio in Imax digital. I'd love that.

But, I don't want to worry about it anymore, anyway. We'll know if they go for that Imax version before the release date nears.

[Riddhi2011]

I apologise to everyone I annoyed here in this thread. I realise I got carried away a bit too much. Sorry if I spoiled the enthusiasm of any member for JW2, even in the slightest.

I should have kept my personal preferences and wishes to myself and not gone on making so many posts about it.

At the end of the day, this is someone else's creative work, not mine. I respect that. Such technical issues aren't worth losing sleep over, as some of you have rightly said.

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I apologise to everyone I annoyed her in this thread. I realise I got carried away a bit too much. Sorry if I spoiled the enthusiasm of any member for JW2, even in the slightest.

I should have kept my personal preferences and wishes to myself and not gone on making so many posts about it.

At the end of the day, this is someone else's creative work, not mine. I respect that. Such technical issues aren't worth losing sleep over, as some of you have rightly said.

You have every right to state your opinion, no need for an apology. You just went overboard a little bit, it happens.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

I apologise to everyone I annoyed here in this thread. I realise I got carried away a bit too much. Sorry if I spoiled the enthusiasm of any member for JW2, even in the slightest.

I should have kept my personal preferences and wishes to myself and not gone on making so many posts about it.

At the end of the day, this is someone else's creative work, not mine. I respect that. Such technical issues aren't worth losing sleep over, as some of you have rightly said.

No need to apologise buddy, you did nothing wrong. Your clearly a big JP fan and like I said before I absolutely understand how it feels to see changes made to what feels like 'your' film. I felt the same way when there were rumblings before JW about the dino's being weaponised. It felt like they were just trashing something so important to me. Thankfully that never came to pass (yet!)

Apologies if I came across a little to harsh mate. We all want the best film possible and that will mean different things to different folks. Hopefully Bayona can do us all good.