Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

[Nightrunner]

I am so bummed we are not going to get the Raptor-Man or Raptor Men in this one.



lol

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

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.

Palaeontologists didn't need complete DNA to figure out how dinosaurs looked like. So, the Jurassic Park/World scientists wouldn't need the full DNA info either. They could just work from what they gathered. JP3 raptors could just be the first bird-like raw raptors, albeit with a lot of imperfections. They found out that these raptors were much more dangerous and intelligent, hence they decided to create a second dumbed-down version which we see on Nublar. The JP2 male raptors changed their sex, as explained by Alan Grant in JP1.

We are not talking about the reason filmmakers made them look different but the possible reasons why JP3 raptors look so different. Ultimately, I think it's best that these films try to stick close to the scientific facts and still be imaginative rather than completely ignore the science by saying they are nothing but genetically modified theme park creatures.
Again this is because these movies are targeted for children and it's better they learn something from these films.

[Cremildo]

Originally Posted by Chris_MD

Ok, then what resolution does film have?

The notion that movies shot on film have "poor resolution" is ridiculous because it's demonstrably false. I don't know how old you are, but I've seen plenty of actual film projected on large screens to know that their resolution is quite fine, indeed. Not to mention the thousands of movies shot on film that look glorious when properly restored, remastered and enconded on home video.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

The notion that movies shot on film have "poor resolution" is ridiculous because it's demonstrably false. I don't know how old you are, but I've seen plenty of actual film projected on large screens to know that their resolution is quite fine, indeed. Not to mention the thousands of movies shot on film that look glorious when properly restored, remastered and enconded on home video.

AFAIC, all someone needs to do is see a Christopher Nolan film in an IMAX theater, and all questioning of film's "resolution" will immediately be gone. Whatever one thinks of the film (I adore it), I saw Interstellar in 15/70 IMAX and let me tell you: That was an experience.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Palaeontologists didn't need complete DNA to figure out how dinosaurs looked like. So, the Jurassic Park/World scientists wouldn't need the full DNA info either. They could just work from what they gathered. JP3 raptors could just be the first bird-like Raw raptors, albeit with a lot of imperfections. They found out that these raptors were much more dangerous and intelligent, hence they decided to create a second dumbed-down male (JP2) and female (JP1) version.

We are not talking about the reason filmmakers made them look different but the possible reasons why JP3 raptors look so different. Ultimately, I think it's best that these films try to stick close to the scientific facts and still be imaginative rather than completely ignore the science by saying they are nothing but genetically modified theme park creatures.
Again this is because these movies are targeted for children and it's better they learn something from these films.

Well I don't think Jurassic Park was a children's film to be honest. Its my number one and was released when I was 13. There is a lot of adult material in there both visually and tonally. The 'clever girl' scene, T Rex attack, severed arm, cloning/DNA aspect are all things that clearly were not 'targeting' children. But that's the genius of Spielberg, his ability to create a sense of wonder and enthrall all ages. E.T is another example.

Within the laws of the movies how the dinosaurs look is based on two things. What Ingen think people want and what DNA is available to the scientists. Those two factors dictate what the raptors look like. As far as I am aware (maybe I am wrong here) at no point in any of the movies does Ingen go out of the way to create 100% realistic creatures. Their results are purely the result of the two factors above.

So that's the movies. Then their is the decision on the filmmakers part as to whether to update the look of the dinos with each film depending on our real world knowledge. Obviously this is personal opinion but to keep altering the appearance of them not only messes with continuity but seems kind of a futile exercise. Where do you stop?Foe example the original Rex is in JW. How do they explain that our old friend suddenly has feathers and doesn't actually roar anymore? Not only would it not make sense but it would kill the threat of the T Rex. What if we discovered that the raptors were scavengers more than hunters? We already know they were much smaller than depicted in the films so why isn't Blue only 4 foot? So within the boundaries of the movies themselves you should just leave them. The original dinosaurs were iconic. You don't change iconic. Remember Predalien?

[Geoff D]

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.

This is a common refrain but after having seen Kong Skull Island and coming away with no illusion as to the size and scale of Kong then 'scope will work just fine for dino's as long as it's being wielded in the right way. From ICG magazine:

Fong shot on ARRI ALEXA XT Plus, supplied and supported by Panavision LA, with occasional use of a Phantom for high-speed shots. Fong also turned to Panavision for some custom anamorphic lenses. “I always knew I wanted to shoot anamorphic – which everyone thought was crazy, because Kong is so tall,” Vogt-Roberts reveals. “But I knew if we could find a way to fit him in the frame, or use that frame to actually make him feel bigger, because he’s being cut off, that would achieve what I wanted.” Fong adds that although “some didn’t agree with the choice, we stuck to our guns, and I think the images prove us correct.”

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This is a common refrain but after having seen Kong Skull Island and coming away with no illusion as to the size and scale of Kong then 'scope will work just fine for dino's as long as it's being wielded in the right way. From ICG magazine:

Yeah, I didn't see the film in the theater, but I've watched it many times at home (I think it's really fun!) and I've never seen the 'scope as a problem at all.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Well I don't think Jurassic Park was a children's film to be honest... You don't change iconic. Remember Predalien?

Despite the horror elements, JP was always aimed at children and young adults. That was the target audiences because, hello, "dinosaurs." Kids are the most crazy about dinosaurs apart from paleontologists, not adults.

As for iconic designs, I am not suggesting they change the Nublar raptors to look like JP3 ones. But when they re-created new dinosaurs for JW, they could've stuck top JP3 designs and it'd make proper sense.

As for T-Rex, it didn't have feathers. Only smaller subspecies of T-Rex, like Yutyrannus Huali had feathers. This is because they roamed colder climates. It was a weather adaptation rather than a common trait.Also, they found a perfectly preserved T-Rex skin and it had no feathers but the scaly skin that we saw in JP films -

T-Rex Tail scales_no feathers.jpg

As for Predalien, they have already gone that route with the I-Rex and now the I-Raptor.

[hewylewis]

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 190080

right down to the pale stripes on the body -

Attachment 190081

But the Indoraptor's quills are more like a porcupine than birds' feathers, and there's some on its hips too. Plus, did you see the points of articulation it has? Sweet!

[hewylewis]

Originally Posted by Nightrunner

I am so bummed we are not going to get the Raptor-Man or Raptor Men in this one.



lol

... You're kidding, right?

[hewylewis]

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.

Honestly, I hated the raptor redesigns for JP3. Lost World raptors looked WAY cooler!

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

This is a common refrain but after having seen Kong Skull Island and coming away with no illusion as to the size and scale of Kong then 'scope will work just fine for dino's as long as it's being wielded in the right way.

I always felt that Kong would look much better in IMAX 1.43:1 or 1.85:1, owing to his stature. Skull Island was beautifully photographed though.

[wonderer99]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Despite the horror elements, JP was always aimed at children and young adults. That was the target audiences because, hello, "dinosaurs." Kids are the most crazy about dinosaurs apart from paleontologists, not adults.

As for iconic designs, I am not suggesting they change the Nublar raptors to look like JP3 ones. But when they re-created new dinosaurs for JW, they could've stuck top JP3 designs and it'd make proper sense.

As for T-Rex, it didn't have feathers. Only smaller subspecies of T-Rex, like Yutyrannus Huali had feathers. This is because they roamed colder climates. It was a weather adaptation rather than a common trait.Also, they found a perfectly preserved T-Rex skin and it had no feathers but the scaly skin that we saw in JP films -

Attachment 190107

As for Predalien, they have already gone that route with the I-Rex and now the I-Raptor.

Jurassic Park was not aimed at any demographic. Like I said, one of Spielberg's strengths is the ability to cater to all. That is especially true of Jurassic Park and E.T while movies like Close Encounters and Jaws aimed towards adults more. Having said that Jurassic Park was that decades Poltergeist, pushing the PG rating to its limits. This was 1993 remember.

As for the dinosaurs look I won't repeat what I said except to say that unless there is a reason to alter their look in the films for story purposes then they should just leave the designs be. You keep mentioning how the raptors in JP3 look better and more realistic but they look nothing like a real (or what we believe to be real now) velociraptor. Would you really want them to change the raptor for this purely to be anatomicallyy correct?





Ultimately the Jurassic Park movies all have threads of science running through them but after all said and done they are popcorn movies. For over 100 years dinosaurs have fascinated people and they have acquired certain (wrong) assumptions about them. The name even means 'terrible lizard' and we know it is all wrong. But there are plenty of documentarys out there if you want the truth. I just want to be entertained and the original movie is one of the most entertaining movies ever made. With or without its incorrect dinosaur depictions.

[Chris_MD]

Originally Posted by Cremildo

The notion that movies shot on film have "poor resolution" is ridiculous because it's demonstrably false. I don't know how old you are, but I've seen plenty of actual film projected on large screens to know that their resolution is quite fine, indeed. Not to mention the thousands of movies shot on film that look glorious when properly restored, remastered and enconded on home video.

That's the only reason they look. Because of analog film and it's flaws, alot of digital processing and mastering has to be done. If they simply recorded the movies on 4K or 8K cameras, they wouldn't need to spend that much time and money "restoring or mastering." Analog film presents alot of video noise. Use digital cameras and be done with it.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by Chris_MD

That's the only reason they look. Because of analog film and it's flaws, alot of digital processing and mastering has to be done. If they simply recorded the movies on 4K or 8K cameras, they wouldn't need to spend that much time and money "restoring or mastering." Analog film presents alot of video noise. Use digital cameras and be done with it.

By that logic, artists should just stop using ink and canvas and switch to wacom and photoshop. Save the hassle.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by Chris_MD

That's the only reason they look. Because of analog film and it's flaws, alot of digital processing and mastering has to be done. If they simply recorded the movies on 4K or 8K cameras, they wouldn't need to spend that much time and money "restoring or mastering." Analog film presents alot of video noise. Use digital cameras and be done with it.

Nah bruh. Films finished in 4K/photochemically and transferred onto UHD without any digital tinkering look better than just about anything else out there.

[shinobipopcorn]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

Jurassic Park was not aimed at any demographic. Like I said, one of Spielberg's strengths is the ability to cater to all. That is especially true of Jurassic Park and E.T while movies like Close Encounters and Jaws aimed towards adults more. Having said that Jurassic Park was that decades Poltergeist, pushing the PG rating to its limits. This was 1993 remember.

As for the dinosaurs look I won't repeat what I said except to say that unless there is a reason to alter their look in the films for story purposes then they should just leave the designs be. You keep mentioning how the raptors in JP3 look better and more realistic but they look nothing like a real (or what we believe to be real now) velociraptor. Would you really want them to change the raptor for this purely to be anatomicallyy correct?

[Show spoiler]

Ultimately the Jurassic Park movies all have threads of science running through them but after all said and done they are popcorn movies. For over 100 years dinosaurs have fascinated people and they have acquired certain (wrong) assumptions about them. The name even means 'terrible lizard' and we know it is all wrong. But there are plenty of documentarys out there if you want the truth. I just want to be entertained and the original movie is one of the most entertaining movies ever made. With or without its incorrect dinosaur depictions.

I thought the explanation for the raptors was that they portrayed the creature "Deinonychus" but used the Velociraptor name because it was cooler (and a hell of a lot easier to pronounce). Same thing? Different thing? Admittedly I'm not up on all my dinosaurs.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by shinobipopcorn

I thought the explanation for the raptors was that they portrayed the creature "Deinonychus" but used the Velociraptor name because it was cooler (and a hell of a lot easier to pronounce). Same thing? Different thing? Admittedly I'm not up on all my dinosaurs.

They were indeed designed after the Deinonychus.

Crash McCreery Deinonychus.jpg

[RalphoR]

"Even Nedry knew not to mess with the Deinonychus fence" nahhh....just doesn't sound right. Glad they used the name "Raptor" even though it's actually not correct.

[brooks101189]

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

Despite the horror elements, JP was always aimed at children and young adults. That was the target audiences because, hello, "dinosaurs."

I read somewhere Spielberg at the time saying he wouldn't let his kids watch it because they were too young, so I don't necessarily think they were meant to be kids movies.

The books certainly aren't.