Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom 4K UHD (2018)

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pmonger

I'm wondering if anyone can enlighten me as to how iTunes can have this in Atmos when the physical release is DTS:X?
Did they create a separate mix, or is it possible to convert from one to the other?

Originally Posted by tyrok

Universal has a deal to include DTS:X on major disc releases but there is no streaming version of the format so they all get some form of Dolby.

It was theatrically released in Dolby Atmos and DTS:X

The streaming version is the theatrical Atmos mix.
The BD/UHD DTS:X is technically a convert/remix since the home DTS:X is not the same as the theatrical DTS:X

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It was theatrically released in Dolby Atmos and DTS:X

The streaming version is the theatrical Atmos mix.
The BD/UHD DTS:X is technically a convert/remix since the home DTS:X is not the same as the theatrical DTS:X

Home Atmos mixes are also remixes.

[pmonger]

Originally Posted by PeterTHX

It was theatrically released in Dolby Atmos and DTS:X

The streaming version is the theatrical Atmos mix.
The BD/UHD DTS:X is technically a convert/remix since the home DTS:X is not the same as the theatrical DTS:X

Thanks all. I didn't realise it would be so easy for multiple mixes/formats to co-exist.

Does this mean it will be common for films with DTS:X on UHD/blu-ray to get Atmos mixes on iTunes? I've been thinking that if it's DTS:X then I have to buy the physical copy to get the immersive audio and streaming would only have 5.1.

[Vangeli]

I believe there's no streaming DTS:X options, they're all Atmos.

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by pmonger

Does this mean it will be common for films with DTS:X on UHD/blu-ray to get Atmos mixes on iTunes? I've been thinking that if it's DTS:X then I have to buy the physical copy to get the immersive audio and streaming would only have 5.1.

JP:FK is the first multi-format that had was DTS:X on disc to get its Atmos track in streaming. Other movies like Atomic Blonde, Fate of the Furious and Despicable Me 3 are limited to 5.1 DD+ on streaming.

Originally Posted by Vangeli

I believe there's no streaming DTS:X options, they're all Atmos.

Funny story how they were blown out of the water and withdrew during the ATSC 3.0 competition. When Dolby presented AC-4 performing full 7.1.4 at something like 256kbps they were "Well, we don't have anything to compete with that!" Keep in mind Dolby Digital AC-3 was developed and released at the beginning of the '90s, over 25 years ago. AC-4 is a leap above that.

[Phreakuency]

Watched the UHD last night and enjoyed it.

Movie wise it definitely felt like they made 1.5 movies and sold it as 2 but it was still quite enjoyable and had enough Dino action.

The picture quality was really good, noticeably better than JW and definitely more consistent. The audio was absolutely brilliant. So much immersion to the sound and a lot of oomph and clarity.

[ObiWanShinobi]

Watched it last night, and boy am I glad I didn't buy it at full price. I'll eventually get it for completion sake, but what a letdown.

Is it just me or does Christ Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard look bored in this? Neither character had the pop and charm of the portrayals in the first movie, here they seem bored, going through the motions, not all that invested in whats going on. All the actors seemed to be on cruise control, minus the scared nerdy guy, he's the only one that had any zip, and he also happens to be the most annoying character.

It's somewhat entertaining when it comes to dino action, but as a whole it's a total dud.

2/5

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

All the actors seemed to be on cruise control, minus the scared nerdy guy, he's the only one that had any zip, and he also happens to be the most annoying character.

Franklin Webb is essentially this movie's equivalent of Marcus Brody from The Last Crusade.

[xbs2034]

Originally Posted by pmonger

Thanks all. I didn't realise it would be so easy for multiple mixes/formats to co-exist.

Does this mean it will be common for films with DTS:X on UHD/blu-ray to get Atmos mixes on iTunes? I've been thinking that if it's DTS:X then I have to buy the physical copy to get the immersive audio and streaming would only have 5.1.

There also is the IMAX 12 channel mix, so another immersive theatrical mix.

From what I've seen, I think a lot of titles with DTS X disc releases don't have Atmos streaming, but it all varies, and I believe the different immersive mixes tend to be variants of each other anyway so it shouldn't be too hard to create another once one is done.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by ObiWanShinobi

Watched it last night, and boy am I glad I didn't buy it at full price. I'll eventually get it for completion sake, but what a letdown.

Is it just me or does Christ Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard look bored in this? Neither character had the pop and charm of the portrayals in the first movie, here they seem bored, going through the motions, not all that invested in whats going on. All the actors seemed to be on cruise control, minus the scared nerdy guy, he's the only one that had any zip, and he also happens to be the most annoying character.

It's somewhat entertaining when it comes to dino action, but as a whole it's a total dud.

2/5

Neither had a ton to do once the film veered off into haunted house territory but I preferred their performances in the first half of FK over their work in JW. Both the acting and the writing made the characters seem more real and sympathetic although Claire becoming an dino-rights advocate between films is a bit of a leap.

I'd single out Pineda's Zia as my favorite performance in the film. She played well against Claire and the neurotic tech guy and was believable as a foil for the cartoon villains once things fell apart. Hers is the kind of character that could become grating very quickly but Pineda did a good job with it.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Both the acting and the writing made the characters seem more real and sympathetic although Claire becoming an dino-rights advocate between films is a bit of a leap.

Why is it a leap?

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Why is it a leap?

I don’t think it’s a tremendous leap at all. I can understand why it seems that way though. In the first half of Jurassic World, Claire is portrayed as being a Hammond that cares more about the park than anything else, but with the added (negative) expense of not even caring for the animals.

However, once the Indominous Rex gets loose, she gets a hard dose of reality and that changes her. Her relatives are in the park and at risk, and furthermore, seeing how the Indominous Rex savagely attacks other dinosaurs for sport as opposed to food/survival, I think she feels for the dino victims. In that scene where she sees all the brontos in the field, she sees them more as animals as opposed to beasts and commodities. The fact that Blue becomes quite useful later on also reinforces her thoughts on how even the worst dinosaurs, in the end, are only acting on their primal instincts and not inherently evil. I’m sure she also feels guilty for partially rolling with that reckless monster that claimed so many dino lives to be created in the first place.

So, sure, in Fallen Kingdom, I’d say it makes sense that she’s advocating for the dinosaurs to be preserved. She ‘came around’, so to speak. It’s a gift to have them on the Earth again and having the island as their own sort of ecosystem, but of course the volcanic activity makes that difficult so she’d like to see them continue to thrive elsewhere.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Why is it a leap?

Because she's a caricature of a heartless corporate b*tch in JW. Emphasis on 'b*tch' since her Alan Grant redux arc of not liking kids but eventually warming up to them is one of her defining traits. It's far more likely that she would have transitioned to another corporate management position, probably one that was safer and less amoral, and started a family.

Again, I actually like her character and performance in FK. The transition I describe above might be more believable but it would also be much more boring. I'm glad they essentially ignored her characterization in JW since I found it rather irritating and lazy.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Because she's a caricature of a heartless corporate b*tch in JW. Emphasis on 'b*tch' since her Alan Grant redux arc of not liking kids but eventually warming up to them is one of her defining traits. It's far more likely that she would have transitioned to another corporate management position, probably one that was safer and less amoral, and started a family.

Again, I actually like her character and performance in FK. The transition I describe above might be more believable but it would also be much more boring. I'm glad they essentially ignored her characterization in JW since I found it rather irritating and lazy.

She has an arc in JW though. See my post above.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by mzupeman

She has an arc in JW though. See my post above.

I see her JW character as experiencing a profound trauma that would leave scars but I don't give the screenwriters credit for giving her an arc outside of the 'frigid b*itch learns to be a mother' garbage. She might realize she's complicit and feel guilty about that but it's more believable that she'd make donations with money earned at another corporate gig to ease her conscience rather than giving up her lifestyle as would be required by becoming a full-time dino-rights advocate.

Hammond's transformation between JP and TLW has similar issues but benefits from Attenborough's warm performance in JP fighting against the ruthless capitalist characterization. More importantly, that character's wealth & age meant he didn't have to work for a living if he didn't want to. And of course the aging ultra-rich turning to philanthropy is not unheard of.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

Because she's a caricature of a heartless corporate b*tch in JW. Emphasis on 'b*tch' since her Alan Grant redux arc of not liking kids but eventually warming up to them is one of her defining traits. It's far more likely that she would have transitioned to another corporate management position, probably one that was safer and less amoral, and started a family.

Again, I actually like her character and performance in FK. The transition I describe above might be more believable but it would also be much more boring. I'm glad they essentially ignored her characterization in JW since I found it rather irritating and lazy.

Claire's journey in between the two movies will be covered in "Claire: A Jurassic Story." In theaters May 2020.

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by Cherokee Jack

I see her JW character as experiencing a profound trauma that would leave scars but I don't give the screenwriters credit for giving her an arc outside of the 'frigid b*itch learns to be a mother' garbage.

"Garbage"?

[Hardback247]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

Claire's journey in between the two movies will be covered in "Claire: A Jurassic Story." In theaters May 2020.

Is it too hard for the audience to fill in the gaps between movies from the context they get in the sequel, or do they really need their hands to be held that much?

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Is it too hard for the audience to fill in the gaps between movies from the context they get in the sequel, or do they really need their hands to be held that much?

No one needs their hand held, but he brings up a valid point. At no point in Jurassic World does Claire ever stop seeing the dinosaurs as anything more than corporate products. And yeah, we can infer that she had a change of heart on that, but it'd be nice to know how/why. It's not essential (especially since these are glorified B-movies in which the humans are little more than potential monster fodder), but when the characters are already as thin as they are, any little backstory would've been nice.

[Cherokee Jack]

Originally Posted by Hardback247

"Garbage"?

It'd be lazy and vaguely insulting writing regardless but it's the fact that it's lifted straight out of the original JP film but handled with none of that film's restraint or artfulness that elevates it to the status of garbage.

Originally Posted by Hardback247

Is it too hard for the audience to fill in the gaps between movies from the context they get in the sequel, or do they really need their hands to be held that much?