Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

[RalphoR]

Originally Posted by KID_Q

I think one armed Sam Jackson should have a surprise role in this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAgm...ature=youtu.be

[shinobipopcorn]

That whole game is a riot.

LEGO Jurassic World - Alan's Talking Raptor Dream from Jurassic Park III - YouTube

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Brightstar

Will this be the the first Jurassic Park film to be shot on Digital camers ?

Well, only the aerial shots in 'Jurassic World' were done with Red digital cameras. Rest of the movie was shot on 35mm 4-perf film and 65mm 5-perf film.
'Fallen Kingdom' will be shot entirely in digital with no film elements, as far as we know. This will also be the first JP series movie to be framed in 2.40:1.

[DrWally]

The 2.40:1 framing is a mistake IMO. Spielberg very deliberately chose to use 1.85:1 on the original because he correctly felt that it would make the scale of the dinosaurs more imposing vertically. JP is a beautifully blocked and composed movie in its staging within the frame.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by DrWally

The 2.40:1 framing is a mistake IMO. Spielberg very deliberately chose to use 1.85:1 on the original because he correctly felt that it would make the scale of the dinosaurs more imposing vertically. JP is a beautifully blocked and composed movie in its staging within the frame.

J.A Bayona and Oscar Faura like composing in 2.40:1 it seems; if you look at their filmography. So, they may have not wanted to stray from their styles. Both Spielberg and Johnston said that dinosaurs need more height rather than width to stand tall inside of a frame and still look imposing enough. 2.39:1 does not allow that.

If one were to show the full dinosaur within a 2.39:1 frame, they'd have to shoot from quite a distance, making the characters feel really small within the letterbox frame. Also, the closeups will be either loose or too tight. This is why Spielberg, Johnston and Trevorrow chose flat formats. Unfortunately, people think 1.85:1 looks like TV, despite so many iconic films (Godfather, ET, JP, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Avatar, etc) being shot flat.

So, at your regular cinema screen (2.39:1), the movie will fill the entire screen. But on IMAX (1.43:1, 1.89:1) and TV (1.78:1), the dinosaurs will look much smaller and much less imposing than the dinos in the previous four films. Most of the people around the world will watch the movie on their TV for all its life and it'll always feel smaller and less "immediate" with the thick black bars on top and bottom.

It remains to be seen how 'Fallen Kingdom' compares visually to the other films in the series.

[Chris_MD]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Well, only the aerial shots in 'Jurassic World' were done with Red digital cameras. Rest of the movie was shot on 35mm 4-perf film and 65mm 5-perf film.
'Fallen Kingdom' will be shot entirely in digital with no film elements, as far as we know. This will also be the first JP series movie to be framed in 2.40:1.

It's about time. This is the year 2018, and film should not longer be used. It's analog and poor resolution.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by Chris_MD

It's analog and poor resolution.

No, it's not.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Chris_MD

It's about time. This is the year 2018, and film should not longer be used. It's analog and poor resolution.

You probably enjoy going to Fathom shows, don't you?

[Chris_MD]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

No, it's not.

Ok, then what resolution does film have?

[Riddhi2011]

^ Film is an analog image capture medium. It's not limited to numerical zeroes and ones. It does not have resolution in terms of Ks like 2K, 4K, etc (though 35mm negative is said to contain about 6K equivalent resolution). What it has is the ability to capture light directly into the silver halide crystals through a photochemical reaction. This leads to the image being directly imprinted, or baked onto the negative, like putting your palm on the wet cement, which then solidifies. Also, because the grain pattern is different in every single frame of film, there is a beautiful randomness to the image quality.

In digital, there's no imprint. The sensors are stuck and fixed at the exact same points throughout. There's NO randomness to a digital image. It feels more sterile. This is why digital does not have any inherent "look." In order to get that "film look" a lot of time and hard work is needed in the DI suite (in film you get that look inherently). Apart from the number of Ks there's no discernible diffeence in "look" between a HD, 2K, or 4K image, only a rise in theoretical resolution. Whereas, 8mm, 16mm, 35mm and 65mm look significantly different from each other due to the difference in grain size.

Also, analog colour and detail is much more robust and soothing to the eyes than digital. In addition to this, the highlights and shadows are better resolved on film than on digital. Some of the greatest directors alive today prefer film over digital - Spielberg, Nolan, PT Anderson, Tarantino, Scorsese, Wes Anderson, Aronofsky and more.

[shinobipopcorn]

I think the snaps in this very thread are a good indicator of the advantages of film.

Also, just ask any hardcore audiophile why they hold onto their vinyl if you want to know why analog can be better than digital. The audio world is a little different that the visual world when it comes to the A v D debate, but it's something to think about.

[Riddhi2011]

There will always be a difference between analog and digital because analog is a real, physical medium that is interacting with the physical world elements to create an imprint. While digital is an artificial, fake medium that is trying to re-interpret and re-create the real world through calculations of numbers. Digital, without excessive and pointless manipulation, can never feel as real, organic or alive, as film does; no matter the number of Ks. Even with those manipulations it does not feel as organic as film stock does.

[AaronJ]

I have to admit that I prefer film in general. I'm not strongly anti-digital, but I think that it doesn't have the same "feel" as film. And that was an excellent point about how 16mm, 35mm, 65mm all inherently, naturally look different due to the difference in grain. I've always liked what Aronofsky said about the decision to use Super 16 on The Wrestler and Black Swan:

I like Super 16 because the cameras are really light, really moveable. Also, for The Wrestler it was a money-saving thing. The film stocks on 35mm would become so glossy that they'd get close to what people are doing on video. I wanted to go back to the grainy, vérité feel of The Wrestler ... Like with wrestling, ballet is shot in wide shot with two shots on the side, and no one really brought the camera—well, wrestling—into the ring or for us, onto the stage and into the practice room. I really wanted the camera to dance, but I was nervous about shooting a psychological thriller/horror film with a hand-held camera. I couldn't think of another example where they did that ... steady-cams are very different than hand-helds, because hand-held gives you that verite feel. I was concerned if that would affect the suspense, but after a while I said, "screw it, let's go for it.

I think what he refers to as that "vérité feel" is absolutely crucial to the (IMO great) success of each of those films. As I said, I'm not against digital in every case. But for the films mentioned above, I can't believe them being shot on digital. I just think the individual project is what determines what is best.

Though, indeed, a few scenes (I think just the subway scenes, but I could be wrong) were shot on a Canon 7D, with grain added in post. But that was simply because Libatique could easily walk around and film on a subway with DSLR. But yeah, the rest was Super 16 and is so beautiful, and fits the story and tone so perfectly.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by hewylewis

Here's a sneak peek at the toys for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom by Mattel!

25014051_395739087543023_6966785331794280448_n.jpg

It's interesting how the IndoRaptor looks so similar to the male raptors from JP3; the dark skin colour and those quills on the head-

JP3 Male Raptor.jpg

right down to the pale stripes on the body -

JP3 Male Raptor 2.jpg

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

It's interesting how the IndoRaptor looks so similar to the male raptors from JP3; the dark skin colour and those quills on the head-

Attachment 190078

It's a good design choice for Fallen Kingdom if the toy lines are anything to go by. Jurassic World took a backward step in realism and quality for the Raptors by trying to homage or emulate the designs from Jurassic Park (1993) which was presumably done for nostalgic reasons. JP3 was a nice update based on scientific discovery, and I hope Fallen Kingdom takes that same forward momentum.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Blu-21

It's a good design choice for Fallen Kingdom if the toy lines are anything to go by. Jurassic World took a backward step in realism and quality for the Raptors by trying to homage or emulate the designs from Jurassic Park (1993) which was presumably done for nostalgic reasons. JP3 was a nice update based on scientific discovery, and I hope Fallen Kingdom takes that same forward momentum.

But they still stick to those same reptilian slit-like eyes. That's a shame, given dinosaurs gave rise to birds, who have round pupils like the Raptors in JP3.

[Blu-21]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

But they still stick to those same reptilian slit-like eyes. That's a shame, given dinosaurs gave rise to birds, who have round pupils like the Raptors in JP3.

True. The JP3 Raptors to this point anyway, are the best and most realistic Raptors in the whole franchise. I dig the bird-like features of the designs. They make them look more intimidating and intelligent IMO.

[wonderer99]

I would rather my Jurassic Park/World Dino's remain as reptilian. To look like how we grew up believing they looked before all this feather stuff appeared, fact or not. I want the child's drawing of a dinosaur, not the national geographic version. These films don't need to keep changing the appearance based on new info. Also as these animals are created using recovered DNA it would not make sense to keep changing the appearance. If the DNA recovered from a dinosaur in JP looked like a raptor why did they look different in 3? Different species DNA recovered? It's not clear. We just have to accept them as updated raptors. Raptor, mark II. I personally hated the raptor look in number 3.

[Riddhi2011]

Eschewing science for nostalgia is a silly thing in my honest opinion. You are forgetting that kids are the target audience for JP movies, not adults. Kids learn from what they see. So, it is better to represent animals authentically than feeding the nostalgia bubble for a very small section of the audience - the fans.

JP3 Raptors aren't mark II, rather mark I. Keep in mind that animals were bred first on Sorna where they studied them, did modifications on their DNA and then shipped them to Nublar. Seeing that JP3 raptors closely resemble the actual dinosaurs, I'd say they are the Ver. 1 raptors. The reason we don't see them in Jurassic Park is because they were more dangerous and intelligent than the more monstrous, blood-thirsty ones in Nublar.

I can't see how anyone could hate the more accurate and beautiful, bird-like designs and prefer scientifically wrong and reptilian design. It's just looking through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia. The JP raptors in my opinion look more like monsters with a dull colour-scheme. For 1993, it works because there was very little info available on how they looked. There is no reason to stick to those outdated designs in 2018, especially given that InGen has the tools to modify the genes to create dinos that closely resemble their prehistoric counterparts.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Eschewing science for nostalgia is a silly thing in my honest opinion. You are forgetting that kids are the target audience for JP movies, not adults. Kids learn from what they see. So, it is better to represent animals authentically than feeding the nostalgia bubble for a very small section of the audience - the fans.

JP3 Raptors aren't mark II, rather mark I. Keep in mind that animals were bred first on Sorna where they studied them, did modifications on their DNA and then shipped them to Nublar. Seeing that JP3 raptors closely resemble the actual dinosaurs, I'd say they are the Ver. 1 raptors. The reason we don't see them in Jurassic Park is because they were more dangerous and intelligent than the more monstrous, blood-thirsty ones in Nublar.

I can't see how anyone could hate the more accurate and beautiful, bird-like designs and prefer scientifically wrong and reptilian design. It's just looking through the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia. The JP raptors in my opinion look more like monsters with a dull colour-scheme. For 1993, it works because there was very little info available on how they looked. There is no reason to stick to those outdated designs in 2018, especially given that InGen has the tools to modify the genes to create dinos that closely resemble their prehistoric counterparts.

I think you misunderstand me. Its not about nostalgia, its about what people expect. This applies to both us as viewers of the movies and the visitors to the parks themselves. Modern research claims T Rex had a deep, almost inaudible rumble instead of a roar. Nobody wants that in JP movie.

No dinosaur in any of the movies was the real deal. They have never had complete DNA so could never reproduce the real deal. Frog DNA was used with all dinosaurs on both Sorna and Nublar as far as we are aware. Plus the Indominus was literally created to give people what they wanted. Bigger,faster, more teeth. Its a whole subplot of JW.

So for the raptors to have changed between The Lost World and JP3 purely means the filmmakers wanted to update them to be more in line with current knowledge. They are mark II for the filmmakers but even they are still not 100% real due to the lack of complete DNA. But as the movies themselves acknowledge visitors don't want whats real (or get bored with it), they want what they expect.