Jurassic World (2015)

[Arkadin]

Originally Posted by Strafer

And here's hoping they don't use too much CGI.

good luck with that.

[Aerodude73]

"hopefully we'll make it in the next 2-3 yrs."

Well, that's great & all, but that "Hopefully" can be & Is, a pretty scary word...

At least we know the Main Man is providing this latest bit of news.

[vegeta88]

Good to hear that from Spielberg himself. I like that he is involved.

As for the CGI talk, I agree that using a mix of practical and CGI is a good idea; however, I would never say practical is always better than CGI. I think in the third movie, it was a toss-up as to which form looked worse. The close-ups of the practicals (both Spino and Raptors) looks pretty bad.

I don't really think there is such a thing as over-use of CGI unless it means trying to do more than can be accomplished based on budget and time. Green Lantern could have looked amazing if they had six to eight more months to work on it.

Originally Posted by Nightfury82

Coming from anyone but Spielberg I would pass the news off as rumor.

Can a mod edit the title? "Jurrassic" grinds my gears.

Agreed.

[bluearth]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Was that CG they used in the movie called Avatar?

For a movie that is as far reaching as Avatar I have no problems with massive CG use. To me the movie can be seen in the fantasy genre some, so it feeling realistic was not that important to me.

However Jurassic Park is a movie about dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were real animals. Nobody has ever seen one in the flesh but the models, given the right camera angle etc, will always be superior to CG.

I'll put it this way.

Two artists decide to make a portrait of someone.

The first artist uses a canvas and paints to make the portrait.

The second artist uses a computer program to make the portrait.

Which would you prefer?

One exists in the real world. You can feel and touch it. The other exists on a computer chip.

The point is I have more appreciation for the art of making models and minatures then I do for someone who creates these things with a computer program.

Its like live music. They could just play the music through speakers, but why do they play it live? It adds that extra flavor to the music a recorded version doesn't have. Models and minatures have that extra flavor CG will never have.

I'm so tired of directors like Zach Snyder who would rather use CG as a cop out instead of trying to film a scene a certain way or angle. For example in Sucker Punch when the car is driving up to the asylum. Instead of finding a real area to shoot this scene he turns the car into CG with a CG asylum and has the camera zoom around unrealistically. I dont like that. It makes it fake.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by bluearth

For a movie that is as far reaching as Avatar I have no problems with massive CG use. To me the movie can be seen in the fantasy genre some, so it feeling realistic was not that important to me.

However Jurassic Park is a movie about dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were real animals. Nobody has ever seen one in the flesh but the models, given the right camera angle etc, will always be superior to CG.

I'll put it this way.

Two artists decide to make a portrait of someone.

The first artist uses a canvas and paints to make the portrait.

The second artist uses a computer program to make the portrait.

Which would you prefer?

One exists in the real world. You can feel and touch it. The other exists on a computer chip.

The point is I have more appreciation for the art of making models and minatures then I do for someone who creates these things with a computer program.

Its like live music. They could just play the music through speakers, but why do they play it live? It adds that extra flavor to the music a recorded version doesn't have. Models and minatures have that extra flavor CG will never have.

I'm so tired of directors like Zach Snyder who would rather use CG as a cop out instead of trying to film a scene a certain way or angle. For example in Sucker Punch when the car is driving up to the asylum. Instead of finding a real area to shoot this scene he turns the car into CG with a CG asylum and has the camera zoom around unrealistically. I dont like that. It makes it fake.

I like the use of CG to blu-ray transfers: If done faithfully it can be a great experience.

[Blu Ian]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

What is this? Somebody better be trolling IMDB.

Dwayne Johnson and Kiera Knightley in a Jurassic Park movie? Haha.

[Aerodude73]

Originally Posted by Strafer

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0369610/

What is this? Somebody better be trolling IMDB.

Dwayne Johnson and Kiera Knightley in a Jurassic Park movie? Haha.

Yup - that's why it shows "Rumored" next to their names.

[Agent Bond]

Remember when they said they wouldn't be making JP4 out of respect for Michael Crichton's passing?

[Blu Ian]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

Remember when they said they wouldn't be making JP4 out of respect for Michael Crichton's passing?

No.

[vegeta88]

Originally Posted by Agent Bond

Remember when they said they wouldn't be making JP4 out of respect for Michael Crichton's passing?

I remember that, but didn't they say that for Stan Winston as well?

I sure hope neither of those two end up in the film. I like Dwayne Johnson, but that would be weird.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by bluearth

For a movie that is as far reaching as Avatar I have no problems with massive CG use. To me the movie can be seen in the fantasy genre some, so it feeling realistic was not that important to me.

However Jurassic Park is a movie about dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were real animals. Nobody has ever seen one in the flesh but the models, given the right camera angle etc, will always be superior to CG.

I'll put it this way.

Two artists decide to make a portrait of someone.

The first artist uses a canvas and paints to make the portrait.

The second artist uses a computer program to make the portrait.

Which would you prefer?

One exists in the real world. You can feel and touch it. The other exists on a computer chip.

The point is I have more appreciation for the art of making models and minatures then I do for someone who creates these things with a computer program.

Its like live music. They could just play the music through speakers, but why do they play it live? It adds that extra flavor to the music a recorded version doesn't have. Models and minatures have that extra flavor CG will never have.

I'm so tired of directors like Zach Snyder who would rather use CG as a cop out instead of trying to film a scene a certain way or angle. For example in Sucker Punch when the car is driving up to the asylum. Instead of finding a real area to shoot this scene he turns the car into CG with a CG asylum and has the camera zoom around unrealistically. I dont like that. It makes it fake.

Thats ridiculous beyond belief. The idea that an animatronic dinosaur is more real than a computer generated one. News flash. THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY FAKE Dinosaurs are extinct and can't be filmed. Animatronics had there use in 1993 but are just not needed anymore

[Kyle15]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Smith

Thats ridiculous beyond belief. The idea that an animatronic dinosaur is more real than a computer generated one. News flash. THEY ARE BOTH EQUALLY FAKE Dinosaurs are extinct and can't be filmed. Animatronics had there use in 1993 but are just not needed anymore

Animatronics are physical, real things. When done with time and talent, they are absolutely timeless. It saddens me that studios just don't take the time to go this route anymore; they'd rather beef-it-up with sterile, sparkly CG. Now, I don't think all CG looks that way, but it has commonly in recent years.

Both mediums have different feels of realism.

[Blu Ian]

The test of this little hypothesis of mine may come in the form of Jurassic Park IV. Rumors about the film have been circulating for a while, but when I met him by chance last month at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, paleontologist and Jurassic Park scientific adviser Jack Horner mentioned that a script has been written and is waiting to be transformed into a film. Horner even dropped a significant clue as to what the movie is going to be about. “They’ve already brought dinosaurs back…,” he said, “so how could they make the dinosaurs scarier?” The answer is further genetic tampering.

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dino...jurassic-park/

Please no damn feathered dinos.

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Strafer

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dino...jurassic-park/

Please no damn feathered dinos.

That would be more accurate. Recent evidence suggests feathered dinosaurs not only existed but were actually quite common among theropods. Though it would be difficult to fit that in continuity with the first three movies

I don't see how it would make them less scary. I think if you were being chased by a a giant sharped toothed monster whether it was covered in feathers or scales wouldn't matter too much

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Strafer

http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dino...jurassic-park/

Please no damn feathered dinos.

dinosaurs are already scary....u don't need to change them!!!

[Jimmy Smith]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

dinosaurs are already scary....u don't need to change them!!!

Technically making them closer to how we know them to have been is making them not changing them. Taking the feathers away was the real change that we made on these creatures

[GunRanger]

Saw this; a guy met Spielberg recently, and he said there will be animatronics in the next film
http://www.jplegacy.org/board/showpo...&postcount=652

[TylerDurden]

Maybe Turkey Rex will be in this one.

[Blu Ian]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Maybe Turkey Rex will be in this one.

/slap

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by Strafer

/slap

Aww no love for the big bird? Gobble gobble.