Quote from: Russ840 on Dec 08, 2017, 08:08:55 AM
Quote from: reecebomb on Dec 08, 2017, 07:55:29 AM
Quote from: Russ840 on Dec 08, 2017, 07:25:13 AM
I like Covenant for the most part. Its not without problems. No film is.
I loved Jurassic world. I think it is a very good movie. I would say its a quality movie. I like the meta touches in there.
I think this movie is going to entertain me. I am excited for it.
I think there are many films out there that are perfect or let's say near perfect, Alien for one, it's a world apart from Covenant. That of course doesn't mean that the movie has to be perfect or even good to be entertaining, because the film industry would have collapsed completely if this were the case. Lucky for Hollywood, people are easily entertained, and often the shallower content, the more easily it can be digested by the geneal audience who's attention span is decreasing by the day (not aimed at you).
I guess we both can agree that Jurassic World isn't on the same level as JP, right?
Absolutely.
JP is one of my top 5 movies. For me there is not much on its level.
I would say that Alien is as close to perfect, for me, as a film gets. ( Its my all time fav ).
Like you say. A film does not have to be perfect to be good. I think JW has much more about it than the average blockbuster. It ticked all the boxes for me.
Regarding this movie. It one trailer. Clearly it's not working for you but don't judge of 1 trailer. Give the film the chance that you want to give it without a negative bias and you may Be suprised. That's always my attitude.
Ok, at least we both love Alien and JP. But that wasn't really what i meant, the film doesn't even have to be good to have some entertainment value and then there are so films that are so bad they end up being sort of good. That said i guess JW is not too bad next to blockbuster of today and it mostly succeeded what it was set to do, to give the audience some mindless dino fun. It was entertaining for me but i still wouldn't call it a good movie, i'd give it a strong 5 or a weak 6. Jurassic Park was perhaps as much of a sci-fi movie as it was adventure. These sequels are all about over the top set pieces with zero sublety or regards to realism, of course there are room for these types of movies too but many of us need something more than cheap thrills. And i will see it, doubt there is something better dino related coming out soon.
Quote from: BigDaddyJohn on Dec 08, 2017, 01:16:12 PM
I'm really interested to see what Bayona's work will look like overall. He's a MUCH more talented director than Trevorrow, so that's a good point.
That is true, but it seems that it doesn't matter who directs the blockbusters these days, the result is mostly decided by the studio.
Quote from: Corporal Hicks on Dec 08, 2017, 08:29:38 AM
I'm not massively versed in the genre of dinosaur films (JP is about it) but I like they're doing something a little different (for JP ASAIK) with the whole eruption angle. It's not just a retread in terms of the broad-story.
The way i see it, this scenario mainly enables the studio to bring forth a spectacle that is even larger in scale and over the top, something that's not really anything new (the stampede, T-Rex coming to the rescue...) and as we have witnessed from the this trailer, it's just end up being even more ridiculous cartoony cgifest rather than the excitment that has the real power to thrill. Volcano and dinosaurs, pretty awesome but whats next, tornados with dinosaurs in them.
The problem with these unconvincing enourmous set pieces are that they greatly reduce/cheapen the impact of each encounter when a dinosaur appears in the film. I think audience are developing fatigue from the overuse of cgi, none of that is actually impressive anymore, though people still watch it.
