Jurassic Park Series

[HuDaFuK]

I freaking love that shot.

[OmegaZilla]

Yeah, has to be my favourite animatronic shot from JP one.

[Le Celticant]

She looks better on the right.

Probably because the shots are awfully framed (issue 101 with every movie).
Not everyone is spielberg and managed to tell a story with one frame like a painting.
What usually happens is director trying to overdo (saturate image infos, loud music with violin to make sure you cry... because of the music  because nobody cared about bob death  and make sure to do slow motion so all the audience sees him die slowly, you know, like accurate death, people never die in an instant stupidly)

In a theoretical model, the T-Rex in JP world should look a lot better than the one from JP one in terms of animations.
A lot has happened in the VFX world (ILM being for something ya know...) since. Now the character should have very accurate muscles, skin distortion...
Yet the behaving of the thing on screen is so unimpressive compared to the performance it delivered in the first film since it has a 5 minutes screen time and has the only purpose of fighting the indominus Rex in a titan clash which is... over-doing the fight and feel closer to a MMA fight than animals trying to eat each other.

Problem 101 with CGI isn't CGI being real or not, it's: Is the action real or not?
It's like everyfilmaker think: "Oh! We can make a T-Rex in CGI? Okay let's make it fly and poop rainbow!!"

[SiL]

My favourite story when it comes to the effects in Jurassic Park is how they kept having to slow the T-Rex's running speed down when it's chasing the Jeep because it didn't look right when it ran too quickly.

You don't get that these days. If they wanted a Rex running at 60mph they'd get it, whether it looked right or not.

[DoomRulz]

Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?

[HuDaFuK]

As others have said before, it all comes back to Goldblum's "could/should" statement. Because of the nature of it, it seems to be easier to go overboard with CGI than it would if you were building models and animatronics.

[OmegaZilla]

Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?

Most animators nowadays don't have a background in stop-motion. Think that's a big issue.

[DoomRulz]

Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?

Most animators nowadays don't have a background in stop-motion. Think that's a big issue.

How would that make a difference?

[Alien³]

Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?

There is plenty of weight. Some of the best uses of CG weight recently has been JW, Prometheus and Pacific Rim.

[DoomRulz]

Eh, I have to disagree. I can't see an animal as big as a T.rex moving as fluidly as it did in JW. In Jurassic Park, it just felt bigger and heavier.

[Le Celticant]

Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?

Most animators nowadays don't have a background in stop-motion. Think that's a big issue.

Nope, most famous animation school (and most guys from ILM, WETA, PIXAR & Dreamworks comes from this school) have stop motion courses.

Also something you don't realize is that when doing animation you actually do something close to stop motion called "Blocking" which is a pose of the strongest moment in the animation.
But again, if your director tells you that your dinosaur are going to make a titan fight and smash through concrete you are completely going to loose sense of weight because it is physically inaccurate.

The action is always the main problem. When you look at the first JP, no offense intended, but the CGI looks pretty bad compared to today standard (gamma problem in the compositing, lack of realistic motion blur and depth of field, no muscle/skin distortion matching anatomy) but it still works (even better than today) because it didn't ask the raptor to make a 10000 mile jump or the T-Rex to smash the great pyramid of Gizeh.

And it doesn't incorporate senseless thing from the dinosaur like the Spinosaurus... who couldn't go through two trees but could easily break through a fence of hard metal and concrete and yet being unable to break then a thin metal door or the roof of the house in JP3 in the phone ringing funny scene. 

[DoomRulz]

Why is there no weight to the animals' movement when it comes to CG usage these days? Is it just a case of lazy filmmaking?

Most animators nowadays don't have a background in stop-motion. Think that's a big issue.

Nope, most famous animation school (and most guys from ILM, WETA, PIXAR & Dreamworks comes from this school) have stop motion courses.

Also something you don't realize is that when doing animation you actually do something close to stop motion called "Blocking" which is a pose of the strongest moment in the animation.
But again, if your director tells you that your dinosaur are going to make a titan fight and smash through concrete you are completely going to loose sense of weight because it is physically inaccurate.

The action is always the main problem. When you look at the first JP, no offense intended, but the CGI looks pretty bad compared to today standard (gamma problem in the compositing, lack of realistic motion blur and depth of field, no muscle/skin distortion matching anatomy) but it still works (even better than today) because it didn't ask the raptor to make a 10000 mile jump or the T-Rex to smash the great pyramid of Gizeh.

And it doesn't incorporate senseless thing from the dinosaur like the Spinosaurus... who couldn't go through two trees but could easily break through a fence of hard metal and concrete and yet being unable to break then a thin metal door or the roof of the house in JP3 in the phone ringing funny scene. 

I agree with what you're saying. Just on the Spinosaurus and the trees, my guess is that the canopy was thick enough to keep a large theropod out. It's not that unrealistic.

[Alien³]

I'll be live in 15 mins talking Jurassic World...

[Le Celticant]

I agree with what you're saying. Just on the Spinosaurus and the trees, my guess is that the canopy was thick enough to keep a large theropod out. It's not that unrealistic.

True, you are  but it still affect your brain in a certain way by repeating the same action which ends up differently. It's more a story problem I guess, just a badly written action.

Spoiler

The indominus in this film looked physically way too off.
The film got me worried when he made concrete explode at the door when he passed through and threw the car away like paper to kill the guy.
At least in JP the T-rex, despite being a very strong dinosaur still had to use strength to move the car on its back and the car felt like a car, not like paper.

[close]

The T-rex could do it, but still, the car wasn't paper to it.

[DoomRulz]

I'll be live in 15 mins talking Jurassic World...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsF6dZnmNLA

I caught a few minutes (obviously lol). Good stuff mate, but I have to run. I'll watch the whole thing later on