Sorna has at least three Rexes and a Spino...
Or maybe not a Spino anymore.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jurassic World SPOILER THREAD | Boy, do I hate being spoiled all the time
- Thread starter Anton Sugar
- Start date
- Status
Or maybe not a Spino anymore.
Calcium
Banned
Isla Sorna housed the breeding facilities and the research labs. I'd guess that Sorna has more space since so much of Nublar is taken up by various park facilities. Even moreso now that there are 2 parks on the island.
Sorna was the breeding/cultivation island, the natural habitat enclosure and then they captured the dinosaurs after they got bigger and brought them to park island for visitors to see. Sorna is the open world place while Nublar is the contained park. Funnily enough I wonder if they are going to mention anything about Sorna in this movie other then a footnote... like did they take it back over? carpet bombed the island? Or does it remain a natural and protected refuge after the takeover of InGen.
Anton Sugar
Member
Hard not to gush about that movie in other threads, haha. I mean, that movie's FIRST "setpiece" is punctuated by an immense sandstorm...and it still manages to impress with each new sequence.
Tomorrow night will be my fourth viewing
Yeah, I just saw your post-apoc idea. Anything different, agreed! That's the problem with them "only" being in a park: ideas for "what could happen" are pretty much limited to "the dinosaurs get loose".
If we could time skip to where they had been reintegrated into certain parts of the actual natural ecosystem, that could be cool. If the raptors were accurate (small as a turkey, that is), we could probably replace some dying wolf populations with them
I'm making shit up now, but I think getting the dinos out of the park is a must at some point.They might not mention it much, but it could be good fodder for the sequels.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Can you imagine if Mad Max got the same treatment from "fans"?
"Too much Michael Bay splosions. CG storm is obvious CG. Is there a reason for a sequel... 20-something years later? Third one was ass. Where's Mel Gibsblum? This movie is going to suck! Wow, Charlize plays the cold-hearted woman who is seduced by the charming, leading man."
"Too much Michael Bay splosions. CG storm is obvious CG. Is there a reason for a sequel... 20-something years later? Third one was ass. Where's Mel Gibsblum? This movie is going to suck! Wow, Charlize plays the cold-hearted woman who is seduced by the charming, leading man."
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Can you imagine if Jurassic World trailers looked half as cool as Mad Max's
Can you imagine if it looked like a better movie and what the reaction would be
Can you imagine if it looked like a better movie and what the reaction would be
Jawmuncher
Member
Looked good to me.
brandonh83
Banned
Apart from the visuals the MM trailers did nothing for me. Congrats on the style I guess? The JW previews have me pondering things whereas the MM trailers were just flash. Most of these trailers are geared toward action and effects to sell tickets obviously but again I think it's an awful comparison.
Also the world doesn't exist in the GAF OT bubble. Plenty of people think it looks awesome. There's a high level of excitement so I guess it does look like a good movie to a lot of people?
Also the world doesn't exist in the GAF OT bubble. Plenty of people think it looks awesome. There's a high level of excitement so I guess it does look like a good movie to a lot of people?
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
But Mad Max turned up great, like legitimately great, so those complaints have no reason to be.
Actually, if you see older Fury Road threads, you see tons of people saying stuff like "no Mel, no sale" and the like.
Calcium
Banned
98% on Rotten Tomatoes tends to shut down the random haters. If it reviewed poorly it would be getting the same treatment. I honestly think there are some people just salivating for Jurassic World to get thrashed in the reviews so they can tear it apart. Whatever makes them happy, I guess.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
Btw, despite earlier thoughts/reports.. there's only one animatronic, the Apatosaurus.
Nope. I love that we hear a TLW reference.. I hope there's more.
Nope. I love that we hear a TLW reference.. I hope there's more.
brandonh83
Banned
I'm good with just that one. I'm enjoying the original stuff more than just hearing old cues, but I love that they're there. I just don't want there to be too much of it.
Calcium
Banned
That is very disappointing. You'd think that it would be common sense that the reason the original holds up so well is because so much of it was practical. You got lazy Trevorrow and co.Tsk tsk.
Jawmuncher
Member
Actually it kind of depends. I recently watched JP3 and more than a few shots with the animatronics there looked janky as hell. Maybe it was the lighting I don't know. But it was jarring a few times.
brandonh83
Banned
I don't believe that not using animatronics is lazy. CG is just as valid of an effect.
^^To add onto what he just said, the animatronic Spinosaurus shots are terrible especially when it's attacking the plane.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
^ I don't agree that CG is always just as valid, but it certainly can be.
Yeah, the Spino looked bad as animatronic, but I think that comes down to how they filmed it.
If it weren't for Colin we wouldn't have any actually- the Apatosaurus animatronic is the direct result of him pushing for it.
Yeah, the Spino looked bad as animatronic, but I think that comes down to how they filmed it.
If it weren't for Colin we wouldn't have any actually- the Apatosaurus animatronic is the direct result of him pushing for it.
New Samsung innovation centre clip shows a bunch of new shots, and we see a bit of Zara interacting with the kids and not just being gobbled up.
I really just love seeing a functional park. Apart from all the hologram crap, it feels like an actual theme park.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1EBhVGG8Eg
I really just love seeing a functional park. Apart from all the hologram crap, it feels like an actual theme park.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1EBhVGG8Eg
Jawmuncher
Member
Yeah I was like WTH I don't remember it looking that bad. Raptor stuff looked fine though.
Anton Sugar
Member
Not just you--some of the animatronic work was rough.
brandonh83
Banned
Despite the one animatronic there's still models though, yes? Like the raptor head.
Calcium
Banned
Obviously it has to be filmed right for the animatronics to shine. The cinematography in JP3 wasn't going to get the job done, but it could have worked better for this movie.
He should have pushed harder, then. Not having any raptor animatronic shots with the big focus on Raptor Squad in the film just sucks.
brandonh83
Banned
The reason they're able to have a "raptor squad" in this movie is exactly because of the advances in CG. They're not going to pull that off with animatronics. It'd be like trying to get an animatronic Yoda to fight Count Dooku.
Calcium
Banned
I get what you are saying, but that example isn't helping. I would have preferred an animatronic Yoda fighting Dooku instead of that horrible CGI abomination jumping around like a jackass.
brandonh83
Banned
My question is how would they do that? How would that even work out? Yoda had to be CG for that level of movement. Even if he moved less, it would have still needed to be CG. I think animatronics are good for certain things, but definitely not for very active motions. I'm honestly at the point where I greatly prefer CG to animatronics. I'm going through TLW right now, god help my soul, and every animatronic has been ass. It's not just JP3 or its cinematography (which I think is fine). Animatronics work for certain things, again, but I find that most of the time the movements are just far too obviously robotic for my liking.
Anton Sugar
Member
I would have preferred that never happen at all :-|
brandonh83
Banned
Fuck you guys Yoda fighting was awesome, if not just a harmless guilty pleasure. Still, Lindelof probably could have found a better way to do it.
Charles Foster Kane
Rosebud
I would have preferred most of the things in those movies had never happened at all.
Jawmuncher
Member
I'm all for CG and Animatronics. They all work, but CG is always going to offer more options until we can make full on robots.
Mysterious
Banned
Calcium
Banned
It needed to be CG, sure, but not to the extent it was used in the film. I'm of the opinion that Yoda shouldn't have engaged in a lightsaber duel at all, but if he had to do it they could have used animatronics for closeups and used CGI for wides. You are completely right about all this, I am just frustrated with the current climate in Hollywood where they just use CGI instead of trying to do things practical.
Animatronics are only good for certain things and I think dinosaurs are one of them. They nailed it with Jurassic Park and I just wish they tried to do it again with Jurassic World instead of using mostly CG. Having practical effects even improves the performance of actors, just look at the Star Wars prequels for how relying on CG can horribly, horribly wrong.
I haven't seen TLW recently, which animatronics don't hold up? I honestly can't remember anything that wouldn't age well. Maybe the juvenile T-Rex, I guess.
You and me both, brother.
brandonh83
Banned
Hey, I won't challenge your opinion or anything. I just feel like CG is mostly so good now that its surpassed animatronics. Nothing can beat something actually being there on set under the exact same lighting parameters as everything else that fills the frame, but the problem is that I can still see an animatronic as just an animatronic with some guys moving it around, and the juttery animation and things like blinking eyelids stick out to me just as much as lackluster CG.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that both have flaws, but I prefer the animation and expressiveness of CG. When you say "Hollywood" I think that's too much of a hivemind label; it's not "Hollywood" but rather what the filmmakers feel would be the best route, and this deviates between filmmakers.
Calcium
Banned
It's the "CG is so good now that its surpassed animatronics" thing that irritates me. In most cases that is correct, but there are so many instances where studios assumed CG would be adequate and it just ruins the film. An example that I go to regularly is the movie I Am Legend. The vampire creatures in that movie looked so horrible that it completely took me out of the movie and brought down what I thought was a pretty decent movie. I guess I'd just prefer that they try and work out the juttery animation stuff instead of relying on CG. Surely technology has advanced to the point where they could come up with some kick ass animatronics, it is just sad that they might not bother nowadays.
brandonh83
Banned
I'm certainly not saying it's used perfectly all the time. I'm literally only comparing quality CG to animatronics. I don't think they should bother spending so much money and time building a kick-ass animatronic, tbh. It's still an effect either way you cut it or gloss over it. They were building animatronics back then because it was the only option. Just because they did it a while back doesn't mean it was ever ideal. However for really close up shots or actors touching the object, a moving model might suffice.
Like the apatosaurus...
Calcium
Banned
Ultimately you are right, I just have to get out of the practical mentality because clearly it's going by the wayside.
RIP.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
JW trailers looked as good as a fully functional Jurassic Park my inner and outer child would enjoy. Most vocal groups feel all films they grew up with need to grow with them and they start analyzing and calling out every trope as if they're some goddamn genius on storytelling.
Guys, I love Fury Road. The trailers were exciting as all hell and the movie delivered tenfold. But MM trailer was all flash. JP showed some interesting things in line with JP themes and featured a FULLY FUNCTIONING PARK and internet babies feel nothing other than a need to bitch...?! I don't get it.
When they showed more action? "Gawd, they don't know what made the original do they?"
Can't win.
brandonh83
Banned
I would be upset if I felt that it was being replaced in favor of an inferior technique, but I honestly don't think it is. At the same time you can have bad CG and great animatronics. It's not so straightforward, I understand. But you can have amazing CG and bad animatronics. I hate to admit it but the Apatosaurus animatronic isn't that great. On the flip side, I think it doesn't look that great because the CG animals look so much better thanks to solid CG, texturing, lighting, and movement. I've seen others criticize the apato animatronic, but I don't think it's any worse than the animatronics in the other films aside probably the sick triceratops.
Calcium
Banned
I won't judge the Apatosaurus animatronic until I see it on the big screen. That sick Triceratops, though. Damn.
brandonh83
Banned
See, the sick Triceratops is perfect for a good animatronic. The motion is limited for contextual reasons, and the actors could interact with it as its sick and non-threatening. It doesn't really blink or move much because it's ill. The script calls for Ellie examining and touching the bump on its tongue as well, so in any case this is far more sensible than CGI.
But it makes me wonder whatever happened to it. It probably died not long after
But it makes me wonder whatever happened to it. It probably died not long after
Starting at 3:25, you can see a brief glimpse at some physical raptor and Indominus props.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-QJOUW_p48
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-QJOUW_p48
Calcium
Banned
It'd probably be CGI today. Especially with Ellie having to touch the tongue. A scene like this in Jurassic World would have been amazing. I don't think that dying Apatosaurus is going to cut it.
But it makes me wonder whatever happened to it. It probably died not long after
Well, that's depressing. Haha.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Of all the times I've seen the film, I only realized last weekend when my brother brought it up how the triceratops' horns make it look ancient despite only being as old as the park/genetics lab. I can't unsee. It's seen some shit, apparently.
brandonh83
Banned
It'd be a poor choice and I can't see why they'd do it CG. The dying Apatosaurus is in a similar situation with possibly even less interaction, and it's still animatronic.
Calcium
Banned
That's why she was sick. She burns the candle at both ends.
Yep, it'd be a bad decision. I still think it would have happened though. If that sad Apatosaurus head was all Trevorrow could get into the film there is no way they'd let him make a model on the scale of that triceratops.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
There's no way those completely still, muzzled raptor heads are cg. And they clearly made raptors based on promo shots and that Asian video linked a few posts above. So that apatasaurus cannot be the only animatronic in the film.
brandonh83
Banned
Well that's what I'm saying, that scene could be the only scene where an animatronic makes enough sense to have one built. This isn't necessarily the case but it's the only scene we know of in the movie with direct interaction. Doing a scene like the Triceratops in CG would have been vastly more difficult than just building something for the actors to interact with to the degree that they do, and I think that if the movie had a scene similar to that, that it would have been animatronic. The dying apatosaurs being animatronic reinforces this I think.
Calcium
Banned
That's what Demoncarnotaur said, man. I've come to trust anything he says when it comes it JP news.
brandonh83
Banned
Could his source be incorrect? Also seems incorrect to me.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked