Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)

[Riddhi2011]

True, but again, scope hasn't yet been done for Jurassic Park in trailers for TV. The first two films had 4:3 versions because the TVs were that way then. Even for JP3, I recall all trailers being in flat ratios, except perhaps the teaser.
There seems to be some 35mm scope trailers for JP 1 and 3 on ebay, though. However, they are strictly meant for the cinemas. Nowadays, nobody makes separate aspect ratio prints for trailers, unless it's an IMAX trailer.
Anyway, I hope I am fully wrong and the feature is indeed in a flat ratio.

[AaronJ]

I doubt the film will be in scope.

And no, I have no evidence or rational argument to back that up. It's purely a gut feeling. But it just seems unlikely to me.

[imsounoriginal]

IMDb is unreliable as hell this far out from release, but as of now it's listed at 1.85:1. Might just be a Transformers 5 situation of a flat container for a 2.00:1 movie, or maybe it's actually flat throughout. Or maybe it's fully scope and IMDb just doesn't have the right info. Frankly I don't think we'll know anything until there are interviews with the director and/or DP, or people actually see the movie lol

I do hope it's being shot mostly/completely on film though. Alexa 65 is nice and all but I do love me some visual consistency in a series.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

IMDb is unreliable as hell this far out from release, but as of now it's listed at 1.85:1. Might just be a Transformers 5 situation of a flat container for a 2.00:1 movie, or maybe it's actually flat throughout. Or maybe it's fully scope and IMDb just doesn't have the right info. Frankly I don't think we'll know anything until there are interviews with the director and/or DP, or people actually see the movie lol

I do hope it's being shot mostly/completely on film though. Alexa 65 is nice and all but I do love me some visual consistency in a series.

Wouldn't place much faith in IMDb info. They said The Post was in 2.39 before the trailer came out in 1.85.

[imsounoriginal]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Wouldn't place much faith in IMDb info. They said The Post was in 2.39 before the trailer came out in 1.85.

Like I said.

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I do hope it's being shot mostly/completely on film though. Alexa 65 is nice and all but I do love me some visual consistency in a series.

JW:FK is being shot on digital via the Alexa65 as the main unit camera.

JW2 Camera page 2.jpg

Source - http://arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

I also hoped they would shoot on film for consistency's sake, but no. As for the B Camera, it might be the Alexa XT or just Alexa65.

[Batman1980]

Every time a movie like this is shot digitally instead of on film, a kitten dies.

[Riddhi2011]

No need to mock those that prefer film over digital; if that was your intent @Batman1980. If not, then forgive me for misunderstanding.

[Cremildo]

He meant that he prefers film over digital.

[AaronJ]

I don't mind digital at all. The stuff shot on film these days barely looks like film anyways.

[NegaScott128]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

I don't mind digital at all. The stuff shot on film these days barely looks like film anyways.

Case in point: Jurassic World. One of the ugliest studio films in recent memory.

[imsounoriginal]

Wasn't too keen on how over saturated World looked but otherwise I thought it looked fine, though not spectacular by any means.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Case in point: Jurassic World. One of the ugliest studio films in recent memory.

I won't agree with that.

But.

It seems like they strip all the grain from anything shot on film. These days, I'm not sure there's a huge difference between the two. Then again, I'm a bad judge. So, no one should probably listen to anything I say. I'm usually wrapped up in the film, and not watching exactly how it looks.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me?

[wonderer99]

When the original movie came out it was wonderous, excited discussions about the dinosaurs and how real it all looked (no internet back then). Now it's all chat about aspect ratios, digital,film and grain removal.

It's a shame we have to grow up isn't it?

[Riddhi2011]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

...discussions about the dinosaurs and how real it all looked....

A significant contributing factor to why JP looked so real and organic was because of the photochemical timing and film grain, which blended the live action and CG elements together rather well.

[punisher]

Originally Posted by wonderer99

When the original movie came out it was wonderous, excited discussions about the dinosaurs and how real it all looked (no internet back then). Now it's all chat about aspect ratios, digital,film and grain removal.

It's a shame we have to grow up isn't it?

growing up doen't mean you have to eat Domino's pizza for the rest of your life or burgers at McDonald's. Give me a good ol' pizzeria pie and a nice pub for my burgers any day. The kool aid drinkers can have their digital everythings..me I'll take film and analogue sound any day....

[Geoff D]

JP looked so real because so much of it was done in camera, using CG only where they absolutely had to do. That's something that often gets overlooked in these kinds of discussions.

[postmodel]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

JP looked so real because so much of it was done in camera, using CG only where they absolutely had to do. That's something that often gets overlooked in these kinds of discussions.

That's why I feel like it still holds up better than the sequels.

Parts of JP3 where they used animatronics still look fake compared to JP1, but I feel like that comes down more to how Spielberg/Cundey shot it compared to Johnston/Johnson.

It still baffles me that movies now will use practical effects, but then go "thanks to CGI we can now do more with practical effects!" It's like..no, now you just wasted practical effects with some shoddy soon-to-be dated CGI.

[Pieter V]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Case in point: Jurassic World. One of the ugliest studio films in recent memory.

And Stefan Sonnenfeld was the colorist. Boring boring boring!!!!

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by NegaScott128

Case in point: Jurassic World. One of the ugliest studio films in recent memory.

I don't hate the film, but it did look ugly. It was shot like a 70s TV sitcom, looking flat and bright.

Originally Posted by Riddhi2011

A significant contributing factor to why JP looked so real and organic was because of the photochemical timing and film grain, which blended the live action and CG elements together rather well.

...and it helps having Dean Cundey as your DOP.