Jurassic World

JP Liz V1

Chris Pratt in talks to join now Source

McSasquatch

Really like Chris Pratt, but it's a series where the casting has never mattered to me.

Sleepy

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Prior to the rise of CGI there was always a sense of wonder of *How did they do that?* to a lot of big films and there was quite a market for pieces on how things were made (and still is somewhat) but CGI has created a sort of lazy response mentality with viewers which is when something amazing happens your brain goes *That was done on computers* and because you make that connection instantly you draw your eyes towards the tell tale signs of cgi.

I miss these types of docs too... can even remember movies being based around them: F/X Murder by Illusion etc.

Mickeroo

Sleepy wrote: »

I miss these types of docs too... can even remember movies being based around them: F/X Murder by Illusion etc.

Movie Magic, saturday afternoon's on rte 2. I remember seeing the Alien Queen fight Ripley in the loader!

Sleepy

I think one of my favourite practical special effects was a very simple one: the perfectly concentric ripples of water in the glass of water in the jeep just before the T-Rex attack in the first Jurassic Park movie. Spielberg apparently drove Winston's team nuts with the request and they tried endless different means of getting it right until one of them finally managed it by attaching a guitar string to the bottom of the glass and plucking it at the right moments!

Mickeroo

Sleepy wrote: »

I think one of my favourite practical special effects was a very simple one: the perfectly concentric ripples of water in the glass of water in the jeep just before the T-Rex attack in the first Jurassic Park movie. Spielberg apparently drove Winston's team nuts with the request and they tried endless different means of getting it right until one of them finally managed it by attaching a guitar string to the bottom of the glass and plucking it at the right moments!

The part where the t-rex puts it's head through the ceiling of the jeep and there's only the piece of glass separating him from the kids, apparently the screams there are genuine as his head wasn't supposed to break the glass. I'm far from anti-CG but there's no denying that you'll never get that kind of spontaneity with it.

ScumLord

Mickeroo wrote: »

The part where the t-rex puts it's head through the ceiling of the jeep and there's only the piece of glass separating him from the kids, apparently the screams there are genuine as his head wasn't supposed to break the glass. I'm far from anti-CG but there's no denying that you'll never get that kind of spontaneity with it.

I still think up close, animatronics are the way to go. You can enhance them with CGI by adding in things like pulsating skin.

Galvasean

Mickeroo wrote: »

The part where the t-rex puts it's head through the ceiling of the jeep and there's only the piece of glass separating him from the kids, apparently the screams there are genuine as his head wasn't supposed to break the glass. I'm far from anti-CG but there's no denying that you'll never get that kind of spontaneity with it.

Nothing more convincing than genuinely frightened children

Nerdkiller1991

Good news for celluloid lovers, as Jurassic World is set to be shot on film.

SimonTemplar

Sleepy wrote: »

I think one of my favourite practical special effects was a very simple one: the perfectly concentric ripples of water in the glass of water in the jeep just before the T-Rex attack in the first Jurassic Park movie. Spielberg apparently drove Winston's team nuts with the request and they tried endless different means of getting it right until one of them finally managed it by attaching a guitar string to the bottom of the glass and plucking it at the right moments!

That's why I love practical effects. I know there is a great deal of intelligence behind the software that creates CGI and there is a skill involved in rendering it realistically, but practical effects like those water ripples exhibit a wondering sense of ingenuity.

JP Liz V1

http://www.rte.ie/ten/news/2014/0407/607256-irish-actress-katie-mcgrath-for-jurassic-world/


Irish actress Katie McGrath is set to star in the upcoming Jurassic Park re-boot, Jurassic World.
The Merlin and Dracula star is the latest addition to the cast that already comprises of Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Nick Robinson and Judy Greer.
Jurassic World is slated for release in June 2015 and will be directed by Colin Trevorrow, with Steven Spielberg expected to executive produce.

pixelburp

IIRC, I'm pretty sure it's not a reboot, just set years after the events of the first three films instead.

McSasquatch

Judy Greer should be in more movies.

syklops

SimonTemplar wrote: »

That's why I love practical effects. I know there is a great deal of intelligence behind the software that creates CGI and there is a skill involved in rendering it realistically, but practical effects like those water ripples exhibit a wondering sense of ingenuity.

Yeah I know what you mean and I miss that. If you watch the making of type programs for various 90s blockbusters, the ingenuity and creativity involved to get the effects they want is unreal. I was watching one bout, I think Twister, a while back, and they were talking about a scene where a house gets destroyed, and the engineer was saying that showing a house being destroyed by a twister in itself was challenging, but they also needed to be able to reset the set back to the way it was, and time is money so they need to be able to reset it in about 15 minutes max. The feat of engineering is unreal. Then CGI came along and ruined everything.

norrie rugger

No then CGI came along and should have been used to enhance practical effects, not replace them

Yeti Beast

A JP fan site apparently received pics of a prop from the new movie - basically, it's like a tourist display map of the "Jurassic World" theme park. It's actually very similar to how myself and a friend (another big JP fan) imagined the park for our fantasized about Trespasser sequel. We'd sue except, yanno, we're nobody and have no proof. :pac:

Adamantium

syklops wrote: »

Yeah I know what you mean and I miss that. If you watch the making of type programs for various 90s blockbusters, the ingenuity and creativity involved to get the effects they want is unreal. I was watching one bout, I think Twister, a while back, and they were talking about a scene where a house gets destroyed, and the engineer was saying that showing a house being destroyed by a twister in itself was challenging, but they also needed to be able to reset the set back to the way it was, and time is money so they need to be able to reset it in about 15 minutes max. The feat of engineering is unreal. Then CGI came along and ruined everything.

I heard about this one and I was like "WHAT?!!"; model making and practical effects had been polished to their zenieth by the late 90's, when it stopped becoming the large enterprise it was. It was perfected art form. I often look at Star Trek First Contact and Titanic as a good example of this.

krudler

Adamantium wrote: »

I heard about this one and I was like "WHAT?!!"; model making and practical effects had been polished to their zenieth by the late 90's, when it stopped becoming the large enterprise it was. It was perfected art form. I often look at Star Trek First Contact and Titanic as a good example of this.

I think the limits of what they could do at the time bred creativity. I'll cite T2 as a perfect template of real and digital effects forever. The morphing T1000 stuff was mind blowing at the time as audiences had never really seen anything like it in that environment. But then you had scenes like the storm drain chase and the fantastic police chopper/swat van sequence. Which looks real because it is real.

brevity

Apparently some details were leaked recently, the directory has now confirmed some of these leaks. Spoilers ahead.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/29/5760370/jurassic-world-director-trevorrow-confirms-leaked-story-details

Adamantium

http://www.slashfilm.com/jurassic-world-plot-details-colin-treverrow/

The other was that our relationship with technology has become so woven into our daily lives, we’ve become numb to the scientific miracles around us. We take so much for granted.

Those two ideas felt like they could work together. What if, despite previous disasters, they built a new biological preserve where you could see dinosaurs walk the earth…and what if people were already kind of over it? We imagined a teenager texting his girlfriend with his back to a T-Rex behind protective glass. For us, that image captured the way much of the audience feels about the movies themselves. “We’ve seen CG dinosaurs. What else you got?” Next year, you’ll see our answer.

SOLD.

krudler

Bloody hell Chris Pratt is doing well for himself this year

krudler

krudler wrote: »

Bloody hell Chris Pratt is doing well for himself this year

He's on a similar trajectory to that Taylor Kitsch was on a few years back, hopefully it works out better for him.

krudler

Deleted User wrote: »

He's on a similar trajectory to that Taylor Kitsch was on a few years back, hopefully it works out better for him.

Seems Kitsch got a bad run of films although Lone Survivor was excellent I thought. I think he's better in an ensemble than a leading man though. I do like Pratt, he's got natural charisma and comedy chops, and if Guardians of the Galaxy turns out to be a hit it'll just open the door even further for him.

tok9

Comic Con poster is pretty cool.

irish_stevo815

Going by that it looks like they're building on the original island and the Raptors are running wild...... Bring on the carnage

krudler

irish_stevo815 wrote: »

Going by that it looks like they're building on the original island and the Raptors are running wild...... Bring on the carnage

Bout time they went back to the original island.

Mickeroo

No feathers on the raptor, tsk tsk.

marklazarcovic

bring on the carnage is right,cannot wait

iDave

I thought nothing survived on the original island?

McSasquatch II

iDave wrote: »

I thought nothing survived on the original island?

Nedry's shaving foam! :pac:

Nah, I think this is a new resort/theme park called Jurassic World, which is either built on the old site A/B or a new location. In other words, they started again.

Spoonman75

Mickeroo wrote: »

No feathers on the raptor, tsk tsk.

I noticed that immediately. While not scientifically accurate I prefer them this way. I prefer my dinos without feathers.

iDave

Oak76 wrote: »

Nedry's shaving foam! :pac:

Nah, I think this is a new resort/theme park called Jurassic World, which is either built on the old site A/B or a new location. In other words, they started again.

I was referring to the Lysine Contingency but if they're starting again fair enough.

norrie rugger

They were able to breed in the wild and the suggestion was that they were able to get in naturally.

They started with no feathers so makes sense that they continue, most people would laugh and not believe it anyway. The image of dinos with feathers has not really made it into public thought yet

ScumLord

norrie rugger wrote: »

The image of dinos with feathers has not really made it into public thought yet

I don't think they need to pander to the ignorance of the crowd. The first film kick started a dinosaur craze, if they just want to piggyback on the success of that film rather than set their own path then I suppose they should go with the fantasy dinosaurs and ignore reality.

Mickeroo

ScumLord wrote: »

I don't think they need to pander to the ignorance of the crowd. The first film kick started a dinosaur craze, if they just want to piggyback on the success of that film rather than set their own path then I suppose they should go with the fantasy dinosaurs and ignore reality.

Like someone said in Palaeontology, they can always go for the angle that them having no feathers was deliberate on the part of the scientists in order to make them "sexier" to the public.

The raptors in the original film are 3 or 4 times too big to be Velociraptors anyway so even by the standards of the early 90's it was scientifically inaccurate to begin with. I was always puzzled why they didn't just go with Utahraptor or Dienonychus.

Angron

Mickeroo wrote: »

Like someone said in Palaeontology, they can always go for the angle that them having no feathers was deliberate on the part of the scientists in order to make them "sexier" to the public.

The raptors in the original film are 3 or 4 times too big to be Velociraptors anyway so even by the standards of the early 90's it was scientifically inaccurate to begin with. I was always puzzled why they didn't just go with Utahraptor or Dienonychus.

Yeah, that raptor thing always bugged me, especially since in dialogue at the start they say they are like large turkeys. The 6 foot or so they are shown at is a bit more than "large" for a turkey.

Cookie_Monster

c'mon guys, they were clearly missing the bit of DNA containing the feathers and that's where the frog goo was spliced in to give the leathery / amphibian type hide

perfectly valid sciency type explanation

brevity

I thought Dienonychus was a 'raptor?

Mickeroo

brevity wrote: »

I thought Dienonychus was a 'raptor?

It is! I think they did model the 'raptors in the film on Dienonychus but didn't think the name was catchy enough so went with Velociraptor instead.

brevity

Zubeneschamali

norrie rugger

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25945-feathersaurus-planteating-dinos-had-plumage-too.html#.U9I4OfldV-F

Feather me up bitches

ScumLord

I think the dinosaurs would look so much better with feathers. It would probably help with the realism to, 3D modelers have gotten really good at modeling things like hair and feathers and if they look more like animals we are familiar with I think it'll be easier to buy into the effects.

Dinosaur feathers would have been completely for show, so they'll allow the filmmakers to inject more character into the animals, they won't just roar but fan out plumage.

cython

ScumLord

ScumLord wrote: »

I think the dinosaurs would look so much better with feathers.

I think they would look so much better with Lazers !!

norrie rugger

Lasers!!!

Sorry just the American way of spelling makes no frikken sense

McSasquatch II

I missed where they announced Vince D'Onofrio would be in this. Just adds to my excitement to be honest. Here's a quote from himself in a recent interview bigging up the film.

“Some of the scenes in that, just the scenes that I shot — I’m not in nearly as much as Chris [Pratt] is or Bryce [Dallas Howard], they’re the leads in the movie — but just if I’m gonna talk about the stuff that I did, the scenes are so cool. There’s real dialogue scenes in the movie and there’s real, like, acting scenes in the movie, but at the same time the environment is full of dinosaurs. I mean, it’s just amazing.”

He's also promising lots of "iconic scenes" and when asked about the various fan theories doing the rounds he said, “None of them really have it. You have no idea what’s in store”. Doesn't mean it'll actually be any good of course, but I'm very happy it's not just a retread of the previous movies.

Full story on Screen Rant, which contains some potentially spoiler-esque speculation.

JohnDaniels

First trailer is coming soon.

Twenty-two years after the events of Jurassic Park, Isla Nublar now features a fully functioning dinosaur theme park, Jurassic World, as originally envisioned by John Hammond. This new park is owned by the Masrani Corporation. Owen (Chris Pratt), a member of Jurassic World's on-site staff, conducts behavioral research on the Velociraptors. After many years, Jurassic World's attendance rates begin to decline and a new attraction, created to re-spark visitor interest, gravely backfires.

Mitch Connor

What I take from that.... they have brought the Entity to Jurassic World.

brevity

Ooooo this better be good! I'm getting a bit excited about the prospect of a new Jurassic Park movie!