Jurassic World

Mal-Adjusted · 25-11-2014 9:30pm

I'm actually really excited. One thing from the original that i wanted to know was what the park actually looked like. Hammond says that it's all built and ready to go with roller-coasters and such, but we never see it (we only see hints of it, like the Mosasaur pit, in the 2012 PC game). I always wanted to know what a fully finished and running JP would be like.

I really don't mind the hybrid dinosaur. sure they're all hybrid Ostriches anyway

Besides, InGen are a eugenics company that brought dinosaurs back twenty years earlier, they'd hardly stop there.
For the creature itself, if it's a genetically engineered, super agressive monster, it can make the film sort of like "Alien" with dinosaurs. It may also give the film more focus with only one animal threatening people (initially at least). A problem I had with earlier films was that the animals didn't really act like animals, (JPIII was the Spinosarous constantly chasing Grant and co. when a real animal wouldn't). Having some sort of hybrid means they can do as they like with it. Even in the book, the new type of lab-grown raptors are the real threat, the ones that bred in the wild were a lot closer to lions or cheetas.

To me, Chris Pratts character reminds me more of Robert Muldoon than Ian Malcolm. A fairly no-nonsense character.

What doesn't fill me with confidence about the trailer was the CGI, specifically the Mosasaur pit scene. but like someone else said, it's got eight months to finish rendering. I am surprised by the sheer abundance of CGI in the trailer, compared to all the talk they had about physical props.

sorry for the long(ish) post

Gandalph · 25-11-2014 9:31pm

Trailer was only meh, and I'm a big JP fan. Don't care though because I know I will probably like the movie none the less.

Devastated they didn't follow the space theme like in Dino Crisis 3...would of been Oscar worthy!

AnLonDubh · 25-11-2014 9:33pm

Falthyron wrote: »

Aren't dinosaurs dangerous enough? Have we really exhausted all possible story-lines with a species so varied and interesting already?

Dinosauria is a clade.:pac:

Liam92 · 25-11-2014 9:54pm

As a huge JP fan, I'm very excited for this film, and I trust Colin Trevorrow directing because it seems he has a clear vision on what it should be. (Watch Safety Not Guaranteed, Trevorrow's only other film, which is actually very impressive)

On the CGI issue, it does look a bit tacky but there is still over 6 months to go until its release date. The lack of animatronics/puppets in the trailer is just whetting the cinemagoer's appetite to see these dinos properly.
Especially the hybrid, apparently called a D-Rex, which is meant to be a t-rex, velociraptor, cuttlefish, and a snake combined.

Paddy@CIRL · 25-11-2014 10:04pm

Having had the chance to watch the trailer again, with a little less excitement, I can't say I'm full of confidence. Pratt's lines are a bit hammy and the CGI is a bit weak. Still, there's a good while to go yet...

pixelburp · 25-11-2014 10:19pm

What doesn't help the trailer is that almost no context or backdrop is given. Anyone keeping up with production, be it here or elsewhere, would have known the basic gist of the plot, that it involved the themepark making some rash decisions to boost flagging numbers, and in that sense the super-dino kinda makes some sense, but the trailer fails to inform us of any of that: it's just a procession of shiny FX shots followed by some stiff-faced portents about a genetically altered dinosaur. Watching it again, it's a terrible trailer. We give off about promos that give too much of the film away, this somewhat feels like the opposite - not enough information is given.

Gbear · 25-11-2014 10:45pm

pah wrote: »

THEY WERE ALL HYBRID DINO'S in JP 1 ffs. the missing bits are from frogs

It isn't the silliness of the technology that's the problem; it's the silliness of using it as a plot device when the park is already up to its tits in enormous death lizards.

Agricola · 25-11-2014 11:02pm

That trailer did nothing for me. I was a huge dinosaur nerd at the age of 12 when JP came out, it will always have a place in my heart, but I think this is a case of lightning not going to strike twice. Once you've done JP, where do you go. Another film about the park opening, then the shít hits the fan when the pens are unlocked. This time with Hyrid dinosaurs though, that will make it work..... Nope.

McSasquatch II · 25-11-2014 11:08pm

Big fan of Pratt, but he looks miscast here playing the modern version of JP1's Muldoon from what I can see. There's scope for lots of carnage given that the park is fully operational, with throngs of people, but meh. Overall it was fairly insipid. Oh and the effects do indeed look terrible. Jaws is forty years older than this movie, and it had a better looking white shark.

Oafley Jones · 25-11-2014 11:29pm

Falthyron wrote: »

For me, it is not about the feasibility of a 'super-saur'/hybrid-thing, but it has to do with a lack of imagination about the main threat in the movie. Why does it have to keep getting 'bigger'? Aren't dinosaurs dangerous enough? Have we really exhausted all possible story-lines with a species so varied and interesting already?

I'd imagine that toys were the big motivator here. Any toy company can knock out a T-Rex, whereas modified Dinos are going to be the sole intellectual property of universal.

SmokeyEyes · 26-11-2014 12:30am

Nothing can touch JP but I'm still excited that at 31 I'm still going to be able to go watch a film franchise I was absolutely nuts over as a 10 year old!

FortuneChip · 26-11-2014 12:31am

Falthyron wrote: »

I think it seems very generic and the CGI looks poor. A DNA modified dinosaur? Really? Aren't dinosaurs supposed to be terrifying enough. Why do we need to make a 'super-saur'? The shot of Star-Lord on a bike being flanked by Velociraptors was the final nail in the coffin for me. Next to the T-Rex, the Velociraptor is supposed to be a real threat, a cunning killer and extremely ruthless. Now they work for the humans?

Disappointing to be honest.

Exactly! Why do they have to go for something "unprecedented".
Honestly, it looks like Deep Blue Sea with a new skin.

From the few pieces of dialog we get, everything seems very serious. I was hoping for a bit more levity. Early days though.

davidrowe · 26-11-2014 1:23am

That scene with the shark really stopped me in my tracks! The genetic engineering plot sounds promising to me, but this franchise has taught me to keep my expectations low enough. It should make for a great couple of hours in the cinema anyway. I love seeing dinosaurs on the big screen!

Bipolar Joe · 26-11-2014 1:37am

Haven't seen the trailer, but being upset about a genetic engineering plot because it sounds dumb? You all have seen the first one, right?

dan1895 · 26-11-2014 2:00am

One of the things about the original was that the dinosaurs weren't monsters just animals. Dangerous animals but just animals none the less. This movie seems to be going out of its way to turn them into monsters.

Mackman · 26-11-2014 2:05am

For me, the whole brand new man made dinosaur thing just feels like something the studio exec's put in there, "we already had dinosaurs, we need something new!"

Very disappointing trailer. It just looks like another generic blockbuster, some kids that go missing, big new dinosaur escapes, a Muldoon character telling the park operators they are fools and has to rescue the kids, meanwhile bad CGI **** happens with big set pieces that are supposed to wow us, but really, it's all been done.

It all looks fake, everything, even the monorail going into the park, It all looks too clean. Maybe they will add realism with more CGI (ironic)

tim3000 · 26-11-2014 2:12am

Not overly optimistic about this. I don't like the idea of genetically modified Dinos, the real things are interesting/scary enough as is. I will still go and see it but I am not happy about the plot.

Adamantium · 26-11-2014 4:48am

To all the people who talk about the original, that was a very rare film in terms of CGI and just about every facet of production working together. In one of the making of documentaries, they has the CG animators and animal trainers PLUS animatronics guys running obstacle courses out in the carpark during every lunch break, so they could intuitvely understand what it would like to move and think like a animal. The cg team became actors, would this ever happen today? It looks hilarious and it's a universe away from guys sitting on their asses working at CG server farms sweating never seeing the light of day doing 1000's of shots. Jurrassic Park had about 50, what they would do to perfect those 50 would be considered insanity overkill and a waste of resources. All of the stop motion animators were horrified when the first CG test came in and they watched, they all assumed that Speilberg had killed a entire industry and all you would have to type D for Dinousaur, many of the guys retrained in hybrid arts, some becoming amateur biologists/animal science, because Steven wanted them there for their expertise on movement, it was a weird situation and confluence of events and is likely to never be repeated. Pure passion.

It's not the CG that has made it last 21 years later, it's the fact they made the move like animals despite the CG being poorer than it is today (Lettuce be serious)

This films's CGI looks great and will look even better, don't kid yourself if this trailer had been shown in 1993, you'd have had a heart attack.
Ask yourself, If after watching the original, would have finding out some of the dinos were hybrids all along ruined your enjoyment of the movie?

Cookie_Monster · 26-11-2014 10:16am

Adamantium wrote: »

Ask yourself, If after watching the original, would have finding out some of the dinos were hybrids all along ruined your enjoyment of the movie?

probably not but that doesn't stop it from being stupid anyway. There are thousand of dinos they could use, why not allosaurus, Epanterias, megaraptor and so on.

With what we know now of raptors too the ones in the first film are totally ridiculous, pity to keep the trend going rather than correcting the look and size - if only somewhat...

at least in JP3 they sorta tried

For Jurassic Park III the male Velociraptor was given quill-like structures along the back of the head and neck. While this was the extent to which CGI effects were able to render feathers at the time, the structures do not resemble the down-like feathers real-life dromaeosaurids bore or the fully developed arm feathers, akin to the wing feathers of modern birds, born by Velociraptor

Mal-Adjusted · 26-11-2014 10:24am

Did they ever explain why the Velociraptors looked completely different in each film?

dan1895 · 26-11-2014 10:35am

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Did they ever explain why the Velociraptors looked completely different in each film?

I don't think so nor did they ever say why they called them velociraptors when they were deinonychus or dromeosaurus. Velociraptors were only about knee height.

Roar · 26-11-2014 10:38am

Genetically engineered creature goes on the rampage killing everyone?

Congratulations. You've just rebooted Deep Blue Sea

Got a bad feeling about this. Some of the CGI looked poor - fair enough it's only the trailer, but that shot of Burt Macklin on a motorbike while velociraptors rush by him looked terrible.

The whole thing just doesn't look... Right.

razorblunt · 26-11-2014 10:39am

I feel a bit let down by that trailer. Perhaps it's nostalgia, but the dinosaurs look awful in this.
I'm not completely against the idea of the hybrid running amok but when you have endless dinosaurs to use you don't really need anything else IMHO.

That Monorail a) looked awful and b) was completely unnecessary, what I liked about the first one was that it was a believable park, it's now like some sort of Gatwick Terminal Link / Disneyland moshup.

I'll still go see this and perhaps the graphics will be rendered a bit more but it's all a bit meh.

Angron · 26-11-2014 10:44am

dan1895 wrote: »

I don't think so nor did they ever say why they called them velociraptors when they were deinonychus or dromeosaurus. Velociraptors were only about knee height.

Apparently that happened because someone misunderstood naming for dinosaurs, and thought the genus was velociraptor.

Sean Quagmire · 26-11-2014 10:57am

The trailer looks awful. I know the CGI isn't finished but it looks completely over done. did they really need to CG the bloody gate?

the dialogue makes the scientist sound dumb and sinister. And Chris Pratt's 'cool and down with the hip' character appears predictable and lacks depth of a leading character. This film will be weak.

.ak · 26-11-2014 11:34am

I'll go see it. But my expectations of it will be the same as I had for the sequels - just rebranding a classic. Cheap rollercoaster thrills... but sometimes that's not a bad thing. I'll go to it, I'll enjoy it, but I'll probably forget it a week after. Don't see any point in getting offended by it though.

smcgiff · 26-11-2014 11:37am

dan1895 wrote: »

One of the things about the original was that the dinosaurs weren't monsters just animals. Dangerous animals but just animals none the less. This movie seems to be going out of its way to turn them into monsters.

Agreed. Have only seen the trailer and have not read the 300 odd posts here.

This reminded me of "Alien" on an earth setting. Not impressed, will be watching on DVD or online.

peteeeed · 26-11-2014 11:39am

they fed one of them JAWS , i'm in

conorhal · 26-11-2014 11:42am

Oh dear... I thought that this trailer would shout 'take my money!' instead it shouts, 'the studio would like Chris Pratt to have a talking wisecracking velocaraptor sidekick just like that Rat in that Galaxy Guardians movie, can we do that?'

peteeeed wrote: »

they fed one of them JAWS , i'm in

On the other hand, there is that...

.ak · 26-11-2014 11:42am

One thing that annoyed me though isn't the fact they had to write in a GM dino, but the fact that they seem to need to make a bigger/badder/fictional dino when they have the iconic t-rex at hand. In the 3rd one I really disliked the whole having a bigger dino than the t-rex thing, just seemed cheap to me.

I think with these sort of movies toning things down works better than going over the top. Chris Nolan's revamp of the Batman series is a great example, or JJ's Star Trek. Strip things back a bit and let the iconic elements speak for themselves.

EDIT: Reminds me of the Ian Malcolm quote - Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, yeah, but your scientists writers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.

Jurassic World

Comments