Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom - 2018

[Smitty]

On 05/07/2018 at 14:47, George Clooney said:

 

Just to touch on this, but some modern blockbusters also edit more to try and create feeling or give an impression of something via the edit, rather than shoot for clarity.  The most obvious example is Batman begins, where Nolan edited certain fight scenes to be really confusing purposefully to try and convey the fear and confusion the bad guys would have felt fighting Batman.  It didn’t really work though, most people just didn’t like those scenes, so in later movies he shot them much clearer.  A better example, and one that works IMO is the fight between Cap and Bucky about 2 thirds into The Winter Soldier.  If you watch the behind the scenes footage, you’ll see that Evans and Stan really can do that sequence with the knife, in one take and it looks really cool.  They could have filmed it from a fixed shot, in one take and it would have looked great, but they made the choice to edit it so it’s less clear and slightly more choppy, but the tempo of the edit builds till we get the reveal at the end of the fight.  Not sure if I explained that very well, it’s one of those things that makes sense in my head, but putting it into words is harder.

 

Yes, of course and i'm aware of all that but so often it just makes the film look like total shit.

 

When you have shots that are so quick that you can't really establish where you are in the space or what's happening then you can't follow the damn action in question.

 

Generally action is just shot like fucking garbage nowadays, and nobody seems to care. It's all cut/cut/cut/cut-hold-hold/cut/cut/cut/cut/cut/cute - SHITE.

 

Actually -

 

Quote

FLURRYJUMBLECUTCUTCUTCUTCUTCLOSEUPCLOSEUPCLOSEUPRANDOMANGLENOMOMENTUMFOLLOWTHROUGHNOMASTERSHOTCUTCUTCUTCUTSHAKYCAMCLOSEUPCLOSEUPETC.

 

 

Fucking OVERLAP your shots! Slow them down! Let you audience understand the geography of the space! You watch 100 million dollar superhero films and they have no idea how to make their fights/action look any good.

 

 

Can you imagine what that would look like if it were made today?

 

 

Or this?

 

Nowadays its movie after movie after movie with terrible hyperactive editing, terrible shot composition, limp cheography, aggressive and horrible colour grading, obnoxious and completely fake-looking CGI.

[Smitty]

I've posted it before but this article nails some of the main issues with the overuse of CGI nowadays:

 

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/

 

 

 

[Stig]

JW2 had more animatranic Dinos in the movie since the origin JP.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/movieweb.com/amp/jurassic-world-fallen-kingdom-animatronic-dinosaurs/

 

Quote

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom is going to feature more animatronic dinosaurs than we've seen in a very long time. Jurassic World managed to successfully reinvigorate the franchise, but the vast majority of the dinosaurs seen on screen were made using CGI, with just a single scene using practical puppets to bring the prehistoric creatures to life. That's not going to be the case in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, according to producers.

Frank Marshall and Pat Crowley recently spoke a bit about Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, which arrives in theaters on June 22.

 

Director J.A. Bayona previously revealed that the sequel will incorporate more practical dino effects, but Marshall has doubled down on that, saying that this movie will include the most animatronics we've seen since Steven Spielberg's original Jurassic Park. Here's what he had to say about it.

 

"I think since Jurassic Park we've got more animatronics than any of the other movies. Except for Jurassic Park. The process of the animatronics is so advanced now from what it used to be. What they're able to do now is fantastic. And it's so much faster to see what you're gonna have. So that made it really cool."

 

This should be good news for fans who felt that Jurassic World being mostly CGI was a bit of a letdown. Part of what makes Jurassic Park hold up so well today 25 years later is its blend of practical effects and CGI. Hopefully, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdomcan mange to recapture a bit of that same magic. Pat Crowley elaborated a bit, explaining how things in the animatronics game have changed since the original movie was made and what it takes to bring the practical dinosaurs to life.

 

"[In the original Jurassic Park,] they were working with hydraulics. Everything now is it's mostly servos and stuff like that. There [are] guys at joysticks, but there are still puppeteers making it breathe and making that head turn and doing all the rest of that stuff. They're all dressed in black and they spend a lot of time in yoga studios, [because they work] like that for years. It's amazing. They're really talented."

 

The final trailer for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom showed off some of these practical dinosaur effects, but also teased that the creatures are going to make their way to the mainland. While that has drawn comparisons to The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Pat Crowley says the upcoming sequel sees dinosaurs in close proximity to humans on the mainland "for a longer period of time than we've ever been." Considering that a volcanic eruption looks like it's going to wipe Isla Nublar off the map, all of those dinosaurs have to go somewhere, right? And they have to leave the door open for Jurassic World 3, which has already been announced for a 2021 release date and will see Colin Trevorrow return to the director's chair. This news comes to us courtesy of Slash Film.

 

 

[Smitty]

2 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

JW2 had more animatranic Dinos in the movie since the origin JP.

 

 

 

This doesn't mean anything when JP had few animatronic shots in it, if JW2 has loads in it. There is actually hardly any dinosaur action in JP. It's just that what's there is used intelligently and artfully.

 

The overriding visual impression of this movie is fake as fuck.

 

[Smitty]

12 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

 

 

 

Ah yes, building an animatronic for that realistic look and then slathering CGI all over it anyway. Genius.

[Stig]

12 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

Ah yes, building an animatronic for that realistic look and then slathering CGI all over it anyway. Genius.

Just like in the original JP then where they built models to create and overlay CGI shots.

 

You're moaning about overuse of CGI and then when they did something to combat that you're moving the goal posts.

 

I mean, no doubt they went ott with it all, it's what modern blockbusters do but I dont think they did a shit job. These shots as an example look perfectly fine to me.

 

 

[Smitty]

2 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

 

 

You're moaning about overuse of CGI and then when they did something to combat that you're moving the goal posts.

 

 

Because they're still overusing CGI, bad CGI to boot.

 

Having more animatronics in minor/static shots, or having animatronics in place only to paint over them, does not mean you are using your CGI shots intelligently.

[Smitty]

52 minutes ago, Stigweard said:

Just like in the original JP then where they built models to create and overlay CGI shots.

 

Nah, not like that at all. There are no CGI overlay on model shots AKAIK in JP. You're thinking of shooting a reference shot with a model/animatronic to get the lighting/shading right in the environment before building the same shot from scratch with the CGI. A model shot helps you improve the CGI shot, but the model is nowhere in the final shot.

 

People talk about how advanced CGI has become, but the shots you show (and the movie itself) don't look like 25 years of advancement to me. They need to double their CGI budget on the next one.

 

If they would just bring the scale down a bit maybe they could actually focus on making each dinosaur shot look as good as possible. Have 200 really amazing looking shots than 2,000 so-so looking ones. But once you know you can technically achieve a shot with 536 dinosaurs back-flipping through an slo-mo explosion inside a crashing spaceship then of course you do it. The limitations of the past are gone and it shows - again and again.

 

When you make a dinosaur movie and you can't get your dinos right, what's the fucking point? If you can't convince me that I'm seeing something real, what's the fucking point? One hundred and fifty million dollar budget and you choose to put obviously fake and terrible-looking CGI raptors 3 feet from the camera?

[kerraig UK]

23 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

Because they're still overusing CGI, bad CGI to boot.

 

Having more animatronics in minor/static shots, or having animatronics in place only to paint over them, does not mean you are using your CGI shots intelligently.

 

So interestingly, I think this movie is well within the 50 worst movies I've ever seen. Right up there with the incredible melting man, 2012 and Moulin rouge. It's pure garbage. 

 

However, the FX are genuinely out of this world next level insanely incredible. The post team deserve an Oscar 

[Smitty]

13 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

 

So interestingly, I think this movie is well within the 50 worst movies I've ever seen. Right up there with the incredible melting man, 2012 and Moulin rouge. It's pure garbage. 

 

However, the FX are genuinely out of this world next level insanely incredible. The post team deserve an Oscar 

 

I'm not seeing it, personally. There's a close-up shot where a raptor snarls and it just looks bad. Is it more technically accomplished than ever before? Yes. Does it look good? No.

 

Fake shit looks fake and I'm not in the movie anymore, i'm not for one second imagining that this thing is real or could even be real.

 

Maybe they just need to triple their budget on close-up CGI shots or something, I don't know. Make the render farms melt, whatever, just make it actually look IT'S IN THE SCENE. That should be your baseline. If you can't do that, then you need to go back to basics.

[Smitty]

There's a great video explaining in detail the problem how modern action is frequently shot/edited (particularly with reference to fights) on Youtube, but I can't for the life of me remember what it was called so I can find it.

[Smitty]

On 11/06/2018 at 07:34, Paulando said:

I really hate the flying camera thing. I guess on one hand, why should you emulate a cumbersome real-life camera? Why not unshackle yourself and the audience from the limitations that it brings? But on the other, it can look so false, and really draws attention to the fact that the entire scene is basically CGI.

 

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/9/8/8/404988_v1.gif

 

Garbage.

[kerraig UK]

28 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

I'm not seeing it, personally. There's a close-up shot where a raptor snarls and it just looks bad. Is it more technically accomplished than ever before? Yes. Does it look good? No.

 

Fake shit looks fake and I'm not in the movie anymore, i'm not for one second imagining that this thing is real or could even be real.

 

Maybe they just need to triple their budget on close-up CGI shots or something, I don't know. Make the render farms melt, whatever, just make it actually look IT'S IN THE SCENE. That should be your baseline. If you can't do that, then you need to go back to basics.

Once you've seen the film we can have an actual in the scene discussion 

 

A vfx shot only has to work in the context of the scene immediately before it and the scene immediately following it. It does not need to work in a photorealistic context between BBC news and the latest episode of  Glow.

 

Your context on the media arts has been wrong for years. Which is why your reviews of media you haven't consumed within context has been consistently embarrassing 

[kerraig UK]

12 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

http://s3.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/article/9/8/8/404988_v1.gif

 

Garbage.

Nope. Film = garbage? Yes. That shot, stunning 

[Smitty]

17 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

Your context on the media arts has been wrong for years. Which is why your reviews of media you haven't consumed within context has been consistently embarrassing 

 

Wow, the tone suddenly shifted here to intense needlessly personal criticism. Not sure what 'context on the media arts' even means. Can I ask: such as? What 'reviews' are you thinking of, here?

[Smitty]

13 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

A vfx shot only has to work in the context of the scene immediately before it and the scene immediately following it. It does not need to work in a photorealistic context between BBC news and the latest episode of  Glow.

 

Weird, that was exactly the context I viewed said VFX shot in when I watched a couple of minutes before and after it. I'm not sure where the BBC News or Glow come into it.

[Smitty]

18 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

Nope. Film = garbage? Yes. That shot, stunning 

 

Woah, subjective opinion in being subjective shocker! I think it looks fake and doesn't add anything to the movie.

 

A shot from the back of Owen's bike, by comparison, would probably appeal much more to me. Same thing, showing the raptors weaving in and out of the trees and foliage at high speed, but with a fixed angle that doesn't make it seem like i'm just watching the inside of a computer.

[kerraig UK]

30 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

Wow, the tone suddenly shifted here to intense needlessly personal criticism. Not sure what 'context on the media arts' even means. Can I ask: such as? What 'reviews' are you thinking of, here?

It's not needlessly personal when I am addressing a person. In this instance I am addressing a person. You have a habit of criticising an in context experience out of context. You are known for it. That's fine. You are welcome to criticise something out of context, and describe your relationship with that experience not within the context it is meant to be experienced. But from the perspective of people who have experienced the same elements within context, it consistently makes you look ignorant.

 

The reason this is personal to you is because you are the forum member more than any other who does this.

 

The only thing I am suggesting is that your criticism lacks credibility because it regularly refuses to consider context. 

 

Within the context of the new Jurassic World movie, the VFX are consistent with the reality they are portraying. It is a horrible movie on many fronts, but I doubt you'd find many credible pundits who would argue against the VFX design 

[Smitty]

2 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

It's not needlessly personal when I am addressing a person. In this instance I am addressing a person. You have a habit of criticising an in context experience out of context. You are known for it.

 

Such as?

 

And of course its needlessly personal. We're talking about different perspectives on the same big of CGI, and instead of just explaining that you instead move to personally insult me and in a very broad way.

[Smitty]

4 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

The only thing I am suggesting is that your criticism lacks credibility because it regularly refuses to consider context.

 

Such as?

[Smitty]

9 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

I doubt you'd find many credible pundits who would argue against the VFX design 

 

Do you think I care about the opinion of 'credible pundits' when it comes to how I feel about the use of some VFX? Do you sit back and think 'well gee I wonder what John Weta thinks of this' before reflecting on how a piece of VFX looks to you? No, because that's now how opinions work. That's not how subjective experience works.

 

This means nothing, Kerraig, it's meaningless. It's an appeal to authority, and one that doesn't even exist.

 

This isn't really even a point about the technical qualities of the CGI in question, it's about the effect that it has on me, the viewer. What else matters except that end result, ultimately?

[kerraig UK]

3 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

Such as?

 

And of course its needlessly personal. We're talking about different perspectives on the same big of CGI, and instead of just explaining that you instead move to personally insult me and in a very broad way.

I have seen the piece of CGI in context, you haven't. Yet you seem to think our opinions of the piece of CGI should have equal bearing.

 

This is a particular Smitty trait

[kerraig UK]

1 minute ago, Smitty said:

 

Do you 

This isn't really even a point about the technical qualities of the CGI in question, it's about the effect that it has on me, the viewer. What else matters except that end result, ultimately?

 

Let me know when you've seen it in context. Although I'm sure you'll double down.

[Smitty]

7 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

I have seen the piece of CGI in context, you haven't. Yet you seem to think our opinions of the piece of CGI should have equal bearing.

 

This is a particular Smitty trait

 

Well then you're getting the wrong perception of what I'm saying, because all I'm doing is offering up some running thoughts on what I've seen. There's nothing in what i've written that says 'i'm offering up a definitive review here'. I'm not seeing it (what impresses you so much), in what i've seen so far, is what i'm saying. But I literally may not have seen what has impressed you so much yet.

 

That said I know how my eyes, CGI etc work Kerraig so I'm not very convinced that the same shots from everything i've seen are going to become magically much, much better when viewed entirely in context.

 

What you're saying here reminds me somewhat of the lying member of staff at a cinema attended telling me, with a straight face, that the blatently under-lit film I was struggling to watch was 'just meant to be that way, that's how it came from the studio'.

 

Like, I have eyes. I saw the appropriate lighting of the scenes in the trailer.

 

BTW, i just don't know how you've taken what I said as some sort of insult to your person, which is what seems to have happened here with the sharpness and anger of your tone. If you think the CGI the most amazing CGI ever thats great, me disagreeing with you isn't me saying that your ability to assess VFX is broken. It's just about the effect that it has on you individually.

[kerraig UK]

3 minutes ago, Smitty said:

 

Well then you're getting the wrong perception of what I'm saying, because all I'm doing is offering up some running thoughts on what I've seen. There's nothing in what i've written that says 'i'm offering up a definitive review here'. I'm not seeing it (what impresses you so much), in what i've seen so far, is what i'm saying. But I literally may not have seen what has impressed you so much yet.

 

That said I know how my eyes, CGI etc work Kerraig so I'm not very convinced that the same shots from everything i've seen are going to become magically much, much better when viewed entirely in context.

 

What you're saying here reminds me somewhat of the lying member of staff at a cinema attended telling me, with a straight face, that the blatently under-lit film I was struggling to watch was 'just meant to be that way, that's how it came from the studio'.

 

Like, I have eyes. I saw the appropriate lighting of the scenes in the trailer.

 

BTW, i just don't know how you've taken what I said as some sort of insult to your person, which is what seems to have happened here with the sharpness and anger of your tone. If you think the CGI the most amazing CGI ever thats great, me disagreeing with you isn't me saying that your ability to assess VFX is broken. It's just about the effect that it has on you individually.

Nothing to do with me personally. I'm not personally offended. I am merely commenting on your criticism of seconds of out of context footage. It's not even a movie I like. And I'd criticise exactly the same way if it was not you but own brother writing those words.

 

You could level the same accusations at a similar amount of footage from speed racer, or dick Tracy, or batman, or matrix or lion king or any number of movies that choose style over reality. Fair enough if you don't like the style, but you cannot comment as to whether it works or doesn't work or is good or not until you've seen it within context 

 

Imagine judging the VFX work of shaolin soccer based on clips 

[Smitty]

44 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

 

Let me know when you've seen it in context. Although I'm sure you'll double down.

 

Let you know what? How is the visual effect in question going to look less fake in context? I don't even know what you consider in context. The only think that could happen 'in context' is that i will gain an appreciation of how important the shot is to my feeling about the film as whole. The shot itself, the actual visual, is not going to look worse or better.

 

I also asked you twice to furnish me with examples of me 'reviewing media' that I 'haven't consumed within context', but you seem unable to which is disappointing. I'd genuinely love to know.

[Smitty]

35 minutes ago, kerraig UK said:

 

 

You could level the same accusations at a similar amount of footage from speed racer, or dick Tracy, or batman, or matrix or lion king or any number of movies that choose style over reality. Fair enough if you don't like the style, but you cannot comment as to whether it works or doesn't work or is good or not until you've seen it within context 

 

Imagine judging the VFX work of shaolin soccer based on clips 

 

This is absolutely nothing to do with choosing style over reality. It's (probably) about the limits of CGI itself. It's not a matter of style. That said, clearly the 'style' on display is a photorealistic one, that's the aim of all the CGI.

 

I'm just finding that this stuff does nothing for me, personally. I'm certain most of the time now that when I watch a certain type of film I'm not going to get invested in it because nothing feels real.

 

The animatronics look great up close (i'm thinking of the raptor laid down) - these are the best looking parts - but you can also see the CGI elements laid on top (the eyes?) in rather obvious fashion.

 

You can tell me that the shot in question at 135:43 is actually amazing but its never going to be true to me, regardless of the context. My brain just doesn't accept it as a real thing, so it fails totally as an tool of the film maker to my mind.

[fat flatulent git]

Are you in a different time zone to the UK these days?

[DarhkFox]

Yeah watched this saturday. Its silly and dumb but i actually ended up enjoying it quite a bit. I liked the darker done.

 

Better than the first? Hmm maybe. Whilst Fallen Kingdom starts of seeming to be a remake of Lost World it changes it up a lot.

[the_debaser]

Just watched this again. Easily the best film of the year.