Jump to content
IGNORED

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom - 2018


JohnC

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pelekophoros said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Pelekophoros said:

I read this the other day courtesy of someone else here:

 

https://t.co/anVeXAR0tk

 

and I think it explains quite a lot.

 

That's a brilliant article, thanks for the link. I read it before watching the recent trailer and...yeah, can't be unseen. It feels wrong. 

 

Jurassic Park just gets better with age. It's so naturalistic and grounded compared to the gloss of these new films. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, macosx said:

i thought that article was a complete crock.

More to do with framing and composition than a different aspect ratio.

 

Well, the aspect ratio has definitely changed, but you're right it talks a lot about framing and composition within that changing constraint. Which I think is fair given that the new director, with his new aspect ratio and his inability to provide shots that particularly stand out, has created such a flat looking film judging from the trailer.

 

I have uploaded my earlier screengrabs to Imgur to illustrate my point.

 

https://imgur.com/a/5p5mP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mr Cochese said:

What is frame fucking?

 

Basically that the director tinkers with the editing process so much that they end up ruining the flow and cadence of a scene.

 

It's become a very big deal in modern action blockbusters since you can shoot for as long as you like on digital, creating tons of footage from different angles, overloading the decision making process. 

 

Couple that with not being able to hold shots for very long (as it's all cgi so each second costs hundreds of thousands) and you're left with these shots with too much visual detail crammed into the frame, quick-cutting away before you can get a sense of what's going on. 

 

It could just be the way the trailer's cut, but it does look a bit messy and flat to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks aggressively stupid and rubbish. I was never a particularly big fan of the original Jurassic Park but I have to say that, as time goes on and more films in the franchise are produced, it becomes clearer and clearer just what an incredible accomplishment it was, especially given what they had to work with at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Treble said:

 

Basically that the director tinkers with the editing process so much that they end up ruining the flow and cadence of a scene.

 

It's become a very big deal in modern action blockbusters since you can shoot for as long as you like on digital, creating tons of footage from different angles, overloading the decision making process. 

 

Couple that with not being able to hold shots for very long (as it's all cgi so each second costs hundreds of thousands) and you're left with these shots with too much visual detail crammed into the frame, quick-cutting away before you can get a sense of what's going on. 

 

It could just be the way the trailer's cut, but it does look a bit messy and flat to me. 

 

The scene where they say "you have to get us home" and then a big black smudge runs into the dude and then it quickly cuts back to show the big black smudge run further to the right exemplifies this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Cochese said:

Turns out what they had was Steven Spielberg in his prime, good actors, and Industrial Light & Magic.

 

Ha, yes, I know it wasn't some plucky indie film or whatever. But for a string of movies released over the course of more than two decades to become ever more stupid and less visually striking as time goes on despite budgets of hundreds of millions really puts the accomplishments of the original into even sharper focus, even though it's not really a movie I would count amongst my favourites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pelekophoros said:

 

The scene where they say "you have to get us home" and then a big black smudge runs into the dude and then it quickly cuts back to show the big black smudge run further to the right exemplifies this.

You can clearly see it's a dinosaur.

I'd argue that cuts like that are more about achieving the fabled 12A rating (otherwise known as a many bums on seats as possible)  more than artistic vision. Most action cinema features ridiculously fast cuts nowadays as it allows you to better hide the violence that's taking place onscreen. Things like the hunger games, Bond, Avengers and so on all have fast, annoying cutting and often hard-to-follow fighting so that they can get that precious 12A rating. I remember an ex member of the BBFC telling me that Jurassic Park was originally going to have a 12 rating and that Spielberg shipped them all over to Hawaii to see the set and better understand what he was trying to achieve. It then got dropped down to a PG.

Having 12A puts all the responsibilities on the parents which is utter shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, strider said:

You can clearly see it's a dinosaur.

I'd argue that cuts like that are more about achieving the fabled 12A rating (otherwise known as a many bums on seats as possible)  more than artistic vision. Most action cinema features ridiculously fast cuts nowadays as it allows you to better hide the violence that's taking place onscreen. Things like the hunger games, Bond, Avengers and so on all have fast, annoying cutting and often hard-to-follow fighting so that they can get that precious 12A rating. I remember an ex member of the BBFC telling me that Jurassic Park was originally going to have a 12 rating and that Spielberg shipped them all over to Hawaii to see the set and better understand what he was trying to achieve. It then got dropped down to a PG.

Having 12A puts all the responsibilities on the parents which is utter shit.

 

Well, obviously it's a dinosaur being in Jurassic Park, but you to show just that bit to someone who's not seen it in the context of the trailer and see what they say:

 

5a787dea08822_ScreenShot2018-02-05at15_51_59.thumb.png.3f71708e5d798a0227fde3d302ee6b78.png

 

It even does that thing where it then cuts to a reaction shot and THEN cuts to the other shot (set further back and framed better, amusingly) which, yes, I'll admit is a cinematic masterpiece despite it showing the exact same thing again like some kind of Vandamme maximum impact replay effect.

 

5a787ec10e5f7_ScreenShot2018-02-05at15_56_24.thumb.png.39865ef1aacf37811a0fddf2a20576fa.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mad nonsense about military dinos and a T-Rex and raptor teaming up to fight a genetically engineered super reptile was the best part of the last film, if they want to give Toby Jones a mutant dinosaur army that can only be fought be a veteran army dino brought out of retirement I’ll be there day one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, macosx said:

Yeah just a better cinematography in all those examples really I reckon

 

 

 

But LARGE TALL dinosaurs are better suited to a LARGE TALL frame. Some of the things are framed really oddly, but for a film about scope it's a hare-brained choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I agree with macosx that the aspect ratio is just one part of it. That blog was interesting, but it read a bit like they were saying that Jurassic Park is the best film in the series and Speilberg used a 1.85 ratio, so therefore 1.85 is the best ratio to use for any subsequent films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, K said:

I dunno, I agree with macosx that the aspect ratio is just one part of it. That blog was interesting, but it read a bit like they were saying that Jurassic Park is the best film in the series and Speilberg used a 1.85 ratio, so therefore 1.85 is the best ratio to use for any subsequent films.

 

Well i liked the article because i never knew about the ratio differences, and it tried to inform more than just pointing out how poor the framing is.

 

When it's assumed that lots of money plus 25 years on from the first use of cgi should equal special effects far beyond the original i think it's overlooked that at least the artists and technicians back then were the ones breaking new ground and thus the absolute best people in their profession. Cgi dinosaurs aren't special anymore, and their attempts at how to present them isn't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.