Jurassic Park Series

Started by War Wager, Mar 25, 2007, 10:10:16 PM

Author
Jurassic Park Series (Read 1,367,363 times)

Snowdog

Snowdog

#11880

MrSpaceJockey

MrSpaceJockey

#11881
Quote from: Rankles75 on Jun 12, 2015, 12:48:33 PM
I can honestly say I don't give a rat's arse whether they have feathers or not. Some people really need to get out more...

Yeah, f**k people for being passionate about dinosaurs.

Rankles75

Rankles75

#11882
I've always been a dinosaur fan (who isn't?) and I'm perfectly fine with seeing them on screen the way I've grown up seeing them. Does it really matter that much if the T-Rex has feathers or not? Does it have a major effect on how things turn out? Or would it look just a bit f***ing stupid for it to suddenly have them after three films where it didn't? Do we really want 3ft tall, dumb as a bag of spanners Velociraptors? It's a film series about cloned dinosaurs eating people, a series that has gotten a lot of people interested in palaeontology (despite it's jaw-dropping, glaring inaccuracies  ::)). I will see the film sometime in the next week, and I'm quite sure my enjoyment of it won't be spoiled by a lack of f***ing quills. If there's people out there that can't get over something that trivial, then I honestly pity them...

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#11883
So. Jurassic World.

I have waited long. Everyone reading this probably has. Anybody that knows me knows very well that I have grown up with Jurassic Park and The Lost World: they are incredibly important parts of who I am -- of my very soul. Were it not it for Jurassic Park and The Lost World (as well as other films, mind you), I could be a different person, perhaps. They have radically and viscerally influenced my point of view in things, my interests, my creativity. I owe a lot to them.

That is why the moment I heard John Williams' theme for the first film, in a cinema, I bursted crying as the emotion was simply too much to contain. Jurassic Park was back on the silver screen and even then, even after following the development of this film ever since its announcement, even after booking my ticket on the 'J' seat row of the cinema, I still could not fully believe it until I was there, on that very seat, watching the film.

Of course, after 14 years of waiting, it's only natural that any film would not be able to satisfy all the expectation that have developed over time -- and it's especially true when you are talking about Jurassic Park and yours truly. So yes, the film is not some kind of holy grail nor is it perfect -- but I will tell you this: it has its heart in the right place, and you can feel it, especially if you are a long time enthusiast of this series. References, homages and little winks are everywhere to be seen.
Spoiler
]One of the characters is seen reading a book by Ian Malcolm. There is a John Hammond statue in the new Visitors' Center, and you can hear his voice welcoming the tourists. There is a brief scene where you see Mr. DNA, and another where the hologram of a Dilophosaurus, frill and all, is used to distract one of the Raptors. Zach and Gray visit the old Visitors' center, the bones are still there and all the gadgets are still there. They even fix one of the Jeeps and use it to leave the place. Owen sees the kids' footprints and that is how he knows they have survived the gyrosphere attack. And so on and so forth.
[close]
This is definitely a very nostalgic film.

Structurally, Jurassic World is overall dynamically paced and edited. In other places, it could have been tighter -- a pair or so characters (i.e. Lowery) are kind of useless to the plot and only serve as punchlines. The main characters are however well written and I found them unexpectedly relatable -- especially Mr. Masrani -- and I found myself surprised just at how well Wu is portrayed. He reminds me of some characters personifying death in the old Alfred Hitchcock Presents TV series. Those that have seen it definitely know what I mean. Great writing, and excellent performance from BD Wong (which I remind you is the only original actor from the original film to also appear here). Pratt and Howard own their roles and they really do have a dynamic chemistry to them. Also liked D'Onofrio and his character -- Hoskins -- well enough; not too over the top, thankfully, and unexpectedly
Spoiler
close in philosophy to Ludlow. If you have seen the film, you definitely know what I am getting at.
[close]

Surprisingly enough, besides Williams' rescored theme, I was not overly impressed with Giacchino's original score. I certainly expected more, although undoubtely it does suit the film sharply.

Now to the centerpiece. The dinosaurs. Palaeontological controversies aside, the dinosaurs and the other creatures look absolutely great. I do believe that many of the sequences could have been conveyed with practical animatronics, but the digital effects are top notch. Of course, they do not come without the usual dodgy shots but still -- they avoid sinking in the 'it looks cool therefore it does not have to look real' kind of philosophy that is so common nowadays. Here you can really applaud our great Phil Tippett. The Mosasaurus was absolutely incredible and life-like. I also loved how the Pteranodons dived, which reminded me of seabirds.

Spoiler
Speaking of which, I was surprised at how uncomfortable Zara's death makes you feel. She is picked up and dropped several times by the Pteranodons in the lagoon, only to be scooped up by the Mosasaurus along with one of the flying creatures. You can still see her squirming as the maws of the beast close, although it is a quite frenetic sequence.
[close]

The Raptors' movements are very bird-like. I loved how they were portrayed and anyone in worry for their 'taming' can relax: they are as vicious as they can be. Beautiful designs too -- definitely the classic Raptors, but with their own additions to the original design.

The monstrous Indominus rex has presence and feels very animalistic. It is never really portrayed as a 'monster' until the finale. Its characterization and the way the script revolves around it certainly do flow greatly (especially when Pratt's character discusses its behaviour and most importantly the reasons behind it).

Regarding one of our old acquaintances,
Spoiler
The T.rex did look weird at certain angles. It seems they have stretched the design. Perhaps the intention was to show its age, but there are fan models that 'get' the proportions and angles of the original design far better. Regardless, seeing the Tyrannosaurus roar once again on the big screen was absolutely explosive. The final shot of the film pans around the Tyrannosaurus as it looks around and roars over Isla Nublar and let me say this -- it is gorgeous.
[close]

When it comes to the thunderous climax of the film,
Spoiler
It was definitely a bit overdone -- 'Jurassic Avengers' sprang to mind when the tag team thing happened. This is one of the points where, you know, I just disagree with how the script portrays the characters. The T.rex is summoned, brawls with the villain creature and is overwhelmed -- only to be saved at the last moment by a Velociraptor. Together, they fight the Indominus rex until it is pushed towards the fence of the Mosasaurus lagoon -- where the eponymous creature pulls a Deep Blue Sea and kills the white hybrid. Basically, the script treats the T.rex as a hero, who needs help to fight a bigger threat. You can see this scheme when it comes to a lot of other cinematic heroes. I think it kind of misses the point: these things are animals, not superheroes or anything like that. Animals do not have sudden allies; so in this scene it kind of drops plausibility. I can tell you a number of different endings for the climax, none of which as 'cheesy' as the final result.
[close]


Where to place it? As far as I am concerned I can safely say that this film is above Jurassic Park 3, but still a little below The Lost World (and for other people this might entirely depend on what opinion they have of the second film). I love this movie.

The magic of Jurassic Park is finally back ladies and gentlemen, and I lovingly suggest anyone reading this post to just go, go and see this movie where it should be seen: on a big, gargantuan cinema screen. See it with your partner, your friends, your family, your kids -- or even alone. You will not regret it.


Xenomorphine

Xenomorphine

#11884
Just saw it... Got there five minutes early and paid to see it in 3D, but for some reason, I walked in the (correct) screen and everyone was already watching it - decidedly not in 3D.

Sad panda... I never got to see the original's re-release in 3D and was hoping to with this. Ah, well.

So, verdict!

More or else as entertaining as the original. There are elements here and there which could have been modified, but over all, it's pretty much what 'Lost World' should have been, IMO. It's different, yeah: More believable acting, but not nearly as many iconic philosophical moments which make you think. But the balance makes it feel like it's successfully recaptured the magic.

Loved the climax. Worked well!

As for feathered/furry dinosaurs, well, I'm glad these remained reptilian. I've yet to find a single piece of art where those versions don't look underwhelming, at best (if not ridiculous) and it would have been downright bizarre to see the animals completely changed when we've seen them this way for three entire films.

Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 12, 2015, 12:40:35 PM
Switek's article explains why that isn't good enough. It's something, but it's still problematic. Here's a great comment someone left on Facebook in response to this subject; mock dialogue.

QuoteScientist: "Why do the dinosaurs have feathers now? The ones from the original park didn't?"

Dr. Wu: "Hammond had us engineer the originals to be featherless, much like some featherless breeds of chickens, because we actually discovered that they had feathers before fossil specimens of feathered dinosaurs had been discovered. There were concerns regarding the public's reaction to such a shocking change to their image. However, over the last 20 years, many feathered specimens have been discovered, so ironically enough, now featherless dinosaurs would be viewed as inauthentic! Consequently, the CEO of Jurassic World decided it best for us to engineer dinosaurs with their natural feathers."

You can't tell me that would have worked perfectly.

There actually is dialogue like that. I won't spoil the context, but he does actually point out that if the DNA had been 'pure' and not deliberately modified, then most of the creatures probably "wouldn't look like" they do in the park.

It's a really simple and effective piece of dialogue which basically covers any concerns, whatsoever, about accuracy in regards to aesthetics or behaviour. For that reason, it's actually better for not specifically referring to fur/feathers. Ambiguity covers all bases.

And, uh... A lot more natural-sounding than that speculative comment above was. ;)

Alien³

Alien³

#11885
Quote from: Omegazilla on Jun 12, 2015, 02:57:50 PM
The magic of Jurassic Park is finally back ladies and gentlemen, and I lovingly suggest anyone reading this post to just go, go and see this movie where it should be seen: on a big, gargantuan cinema screen. See it with your partner, your friends, your family, your kids -- or even alone. You will not regret it.


Glad you enjoyed it dude! I'm hoping you'll eventually write up an article around the Indominus. ;D

Vertigo

Vertigo

#11886
Quote from: DoomRulz on Jun 12, 2015, 01:43:26 PM
By the way, Vertigo, I read your review on RT.com. Good read. Given my opinion of TLW, I think I'll enjoy this much more.

I put it up on here first a couple of pages ago (Edit: actually three pages ago on p790), but thank you. :)

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#11887
Quote from: Alien³ on Jun 12, 2015, 03:34:51 PM
Glad you enjoyed it dude! I'm hoping you'll eventually write up an article around the Indominus. ;D
That's DEFINITELY on schedule!

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#11888
Quote from: Rankles75 on Jun 12, 2015, 02:56:04 PM
I've always been a dinosaur fan (who isn't?) and I'm perfectly fine with seeing them on screen the way I've grown up seeing them. Does it really matter that much if the T-Rex has feathers or not? Does it have a major effect on how things turn out? Or would it look just a bit f***ing stupid for it to suddenly have them after three films where it didn't? Do we really want 3ft tall, dumb as a bag of spanners Velociraptors? It's a film series about cloned dinosaurs eating people, a series that has gotten a lot of people interested in palaeontology (despite it's jaw-dropping, glaring inaccuracies  ::)). I will see the film sometime in the next week, and I'm quite sure my enjoyment of it won't be spoiled by a lack of f***ing quills. If there's people out there that can't get over something that trivial, then I honestly pity them...

You clearly have ZERO understanding of dinosaur science and why it matters. If you really think it's that inconsequential, then go and do some research into how much Jurassic Park has influenced the way people perceive dinosaurs.


Quote from: Alien³ on Jun 12, 2015, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: Omegazilla on Jun 12, 2015, 02:57:50 PM
The magic of Jurassic Park is finally back ladies and gentlemen, and I lovingly suggest anyone reading this post to just go, go and see this movie where it should be seen: on a big, gargantuan cinema screen. See it with your partner, your friends, your family, your kids -- or even alone. You will not regret it.


Glad you enjoyed it dude! I'm hoping you'll eventually write up an article around the Indominus. ;D

While you're here...did you see any cool cosplay in L.A.?

Vertigo

Vertigo

#11889
I'd just like to add, Omega makes a good point about Phil Tippett's work - the animations are magnificent, everything moves in an unusually believable and charismatic way. I'm sure there's a parallel universe out there where he's widely lauded as the next generation Ray Harryhausen.

The Indominus looks particularly impressive to me. I love the way it occasionally squats into a quadrupedal pose, which is something you couldn't really do with a proper dinosaur carnivore (Spinosaurus speculation aside).

When it comes to creature designs though, I mentioned that the recurring dinosaur species don't match their JP series predecessors. I've had trouble putting my finger on what's wrong with the raptors (size weirdness aside), but just read Andrea Cau point it out on Facebook - they have teeth going right the way back to below their eyes, which would mean they couldn't even be classified as theropods.

When you look at the points that the dinosaurs are neither accurate nor series-consistent, it makes me wonder if the real reason they never tried to make fuzzy raptors/Gallimimus as menacing/iconic as the scaly originals was that the designers just weren't up to the challenge.

OmegaZilla

OmegaZilla

#11890
It's bizarre when you think about it because they would definitely have maquettes et al from Winston Studio to scan and from which to take reference.

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#11891
Not necessarily. A lot of stuff was sold at auction two years after JP 3 was released. It's possible they don't have them anymore.

Novak 1334

Novak 1334

#11892
Just got back from seeing the movie.  Disappointing to say the least

Gate

Gate

#11893
About the finale....

Spoiler

The Tyrannosaurus Rex was probably feeling challenged. Mama Rex was the only Rex in the park and the I-Rex's base was a T-rex... So this abomination most likely felt like a territorial tresspasser.
[close]

By the way, I'm only upset that Jeff Goldblum didnt make a cameo after the credits on a talk show about the events.

DoomRulz

DoomRulz

#11894
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/06/12/two-smithsonian-paleontologists-review-jurassic-world/

Quote'I enjoyed the whole absurdity of it': Paleontologists review 'Jurassic World.'

AvPGalaxy: About | Contact | Cookie Policy | Manage Cookie Settings | Privacy Policy | Legal Info
Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Patreon RSS Feed
Contact: General Queries | Submit News