Jurassic World Continues To Be Powerfully Stupid. I'm OK With This.

Riding on a motorcycle alongside a team of trained velociraptors is a scenario ripped from the absolute deepest depths of Jurassic Park fan-fiction, and this idea that someone would 'invent' a new dinosaur for a theme park? It's complete garbage. But somehow I'm still OK with Jurassic World. Just.

I mean, it's going to be terrible. Surely we're all aware of that. But is it going to be terri-bad or terri-good? That's up for debate. At the moment I'm leaning ever-so-slightly to terri-good but it's on the precipice.

Mostly I'm really excited about the giant alligator dinosaur. I'm so down for that thing.


    I love that B.D. Wong is back! Having B.D. Wong is never wrong.

      B D Wong always brings it, he was the best part of the "too difficult for Americans" show "Awake".

    Looks ok but it still annoys me that the dinosaurs look so poorly CGI'd. Another site had comparison gifs from the first movie and the puppet dinosaurs looked so much more realistic.


        this where im glad that i have crapy eyesight because i cant see anything wrong with the cgi in these trailers yet ive definately seen some terrible cgi effects in low budget d list movies

          It's not that it's terrible, just that it looks CGI compared to the amazing work they did on the first movie

        To jump on this:

        The movie is a little under 2 months away. This is a shot comparison between the Super Bowl Trailer and the first trailer, released 2 months apart: http://i.imgur.com/PuZNwZp.png

        On the Reddit post for the original trailer, a VFX artist shared some light on this all:

        VFX artist here.

        To those making comments about the quality of the CG critters in this trailer — and to anyone who has ever wondered how it's possible for the original Jurassic Park to have had such awesome CG, while [insert some more-recent movie] didn't — those are both interesting observations, and here's the deal with both.

        First of all, it's important to remember that the further we are from releasing the movie, the further the VFX are from completion. Early trailers and commercials will always feature VFX that aren't "done," because our target for delivery is like six months from now, and our team doesn't find out for sure which VFX shots they're going to need for the ad campaign until... hold on... juuuuuuust about the moment they need those shots right this fucking second oh my god.

        Papers get thrown, people run down hallways, it's a whole Broadcast News thing.

        So, we take whatever work is done on one of those shots, save off a copy, and rush a quick alternate version to completion. Maybe the animation is final, but the comp isn't. Maybe nothing is final. Maybe everything is final, but later someone changes their mind and adds another thing to the shot. Whatevs. We give them Some Version of the shot — complete with, like, color and everything, it's super official — and they release the trailer, and we go back and keep workin' on it like we were already doin.' This is how you end up with comparison albums featuring, for instance, the difference between trailer and movie VFX for Guardians of the Galaxy. Happens all the time.

        As for the more general complaint that I hear a lot — "but, we were able to make everything photoreal in Jurassic Park in 1993, what gives?" — there's a lot that gives. It's complicated.

        Aside from utilizing a whole slew of fairly basic (albeit smart) tricks that make it easier to look photoreal, Jurassic Park also had a few things going for it, historically speaking.

        As a thing to attempt doing, it was more or less unprecedented. Just a ton of work, a ton of question marks, unforeseen innovations were certain to be required, and custom scripts and software would have to be written. They knew what it had to look like, but they didn't know exactly how to get there. Their target was a look. They'd know it when they saw it.

        So, they started hammering away at it. There wasn't even a solid optimism that it was possible to pull off so much CG, at that level of quality, at that point in time — much less an absolute goddamned foregone conclusion that obviously it's possible to do twenty times as much CG at that level of quality — and so they benefited, a bit, from the exploratory nature of it. As far as executives and producers and studios and expectations go, the attempt to make that first CG dinosaur movie was akin to Apollo 11. "Oh god, I hope this is fucking possible."

        When it actually worked, it was an accomplishment.

        That was the context for that CG work. These days, the context for the CG in, like, The Avengers, is akin to Southwest Flight 782, service from Oakland to Burbank. "Oh god, I hope I'll be able to rent a red car when I obviously make it to Burbank."

        It became "obvious" (to the higher-ups) that we could do CG VFX. The process got figured out, the pipelines established, the groundwork laid, the procedures sorted... and now, the process of arriving at the end of the VFX process is seen as the goal. First you do your story art, then you do your modeling, then you do your layout, then you do your animation and sims, then you do your comp, then you render out the result. "That's how ya do it." Once the process is complete, your VFX are complete. Congratulations, let's move on to the next movie.

        The problem — and distinction — is that, remember, Jurassic Park's goal was a look. They didn't know what the process would be, but they'd know it when they saw it. Now the goal is, largely, a process. Finish the process.

        Are we capable of delivering CG at the level of quality you see in Jurassic Park? Fucking absolutely. (And, "duh," quite frankly. Most movies with big CG setpieces are actually at that level of quality.) When that doesn't happen, these days, it's because we're working under a very different set of limitations. For instance, way, way, way more shots, way more complex shots, way harder shots, an atmosphere of assumed possibility, a wee bit of studio apathy, less-and-less money, higher-and-higher rez, stereoscopic delivery... and, uh, not to put too fine a point on it... not much of a premium being placed on quality of life for the artists. (That's a whole separate thing.)
        In addition to that, like I said a few paragraphs ago, Jurassic Park also (smartly) utilized a handful of tricks to make life easier. In CG, realistic shiny things are easier than realistic matte things, so they made the T-Rex wet. They did the T-Rex scene at night. They did a tremendous number of hand-offs between the CG Tippet critters and the practical Winston critters. Not to mention, there's way fewer CG shots in that movie than you're probably remembering, and on and on.

        So. Yeah, it was twenty years ago, but they were also climbin' a different mountain.

        Now, it's important to note that Jurassic Park deserves every bit of the VFX credit it gets. (That Gallimimus sequence blows my mind.) It's outstanding work, it stands the test of time, it's great — I know I'm basically saying, "yeah, good job with the fucking Coliseum, you guys, you scrappy group of rag-tag weirdos," but. I want to make sure it's clear that I'm not throwing shade at Jurassic Park. I love Jurassic Park.

        But, for being a trip to the moon with nothing but a tin can and a calculator — sorry, I'm very analogy-heavy this morning — for being just this impossible thing, it also managed to avoid some of the pitfalls of the modern CG experience.

        Expectations, mostly. Different flavors of expectations, at different points along the line. Being the first to do a very hard thing well isn't easy. For that matter, neither is being the 6000th to do a very hard thing well, when people are totally unimpressed with the assumption that you can do a very hard thing well. Like "come on, knock it out. We're on a schedule here."

        Not that they weren't on a schedule, but. You know what I mean. I've rambled on long enough.

        tl:dr — trailer VFX are often a work in progress, and Jurassic Park's CG was incredible, but arguably managed to benefit from "pioneer" culture, and set out to clear a bar much lower than we typically deal with these days

        Last edited 21/04/15 11:52 am

          Source: https://np.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2ndx0r/the_full_jurassic_world_trailer/cmcs22y

          People go on and on about the original JP having way better effects than modern CGI but they're wrong for several reasons.

          1. They haven't watched the movie recently. The CGI isn't terrible, but it's not as photorealistic as people remember.

          2. It was new. The leap from fake ass jittery stop motion monsters to CGI monsters was astromical. That leap can't be achieved every movie. The leap from JP1 to JP2 was much smaller and as a result it doesn't feel as impressive. Fast forward a decade to where CGI is as common as practical effects and people are downright unpressed and even sick of it. CGI no longer inspires that awe and wonder it once did. So, in their mind people think "nothing was as real looking as JP1".

          3. JP1 mainly used puppets/anamatronics. There's barely any CGI in JP1, around 4-6 minutes in total. So of course the dinosaurs looked more real, cause most of what people remember IS real, physical actual rubber dinosaurs. When you watch it now, the difference between CG and practical shots is very stark, but back then our brains weren't as used to CGI so it blended so seamlessly.

          4. JP1 is an incredible movie. It uses tension, practical effects and CGI in a really balanced way to make an incredible experience. So naturally people just see it as a superior movie and claim the CGI has never been improved on. Because really, few movies as good as JP1 grace the cinemas these days.

            It's not so much the fact that CG was "impressive" when it started to be used more in movies that is making people prefer the original. It's that it was expensive and underdeveloped so directors couldn't rely on it. It could only be used in small doses and for shots where you absolutely couldn't complete the scene without it convincingly.

            Giving directors and filmmakers limitations forces them to get creative with their work and pull things off in unique ways that leave people guessing.

            The problem now, is that CG is refined and easy to rely on to the point of it being used in movies that don't even need it (one movie had a man wearing sunglasses where the camera was constantly in the reflection, so they had a team remove the content of the glasses and CGI his eyes and reflections back in for every scene for example).

            Being able to do literally ANYTHING with CGI tempts directors that previously had to exercise restraint to keep pushing the boat out with their scenes, to the point where it becomes completely unbelievable and boring.

            The first Jurassic Park wasn't impressive just because of the practical effects or the carefully used CG, it was impressive because it took it's time. It's well paced and doesn't ever do anything too huge too often, and when it does decide to push the boat out with a specific scene, it's usually a payoff to something that's been building over time.

            Jurassic World fails on a basic level to me, for the fact that even the enclosures and park itself look remarkably unrealistic in design and scope, and it tries way too hard to try and go one step beyond the predecessors by trying to make everything bigger, louder and scarier, which isn't necessarily the best way to approach things. It's also the reason why Jurassic Park's original 2 sequels start to grate.

            Simplicity is key.

      Reminds me of when Alien 3 paled horrendously in comparison to the robots/puppets from Aliens.

        Alien 3 was a puppet too. But a small one, and thus the compositing wasn't the greatest.
        Whereas in Alien/s it was a guy/s in a suit.

    I don't know, I'm loving what I've seen :P it's a spectacle movie more than anything, I don't need to believe it. Some of the CGI looks a bit iffy but we'll see what we see.

    Last edited 21/04/15 11:43 am

    some how i dont think its going to be terrible, i think it may actually be decent especially given the competition its got to go up against with avengers ( it will still be in the top 10 by the time this comes up), mad max which is out next month and then star wars at christmas time.

    I suspect it will be like days of future past/godzilla which were great movies last year and that it wont be like tmnt. If anything I'm more worried that the force awakens will be terrible than JP4 just because everyone hyping the shit out of it compared to JP4 which everyone is basically writing off

    I'm holding out hope.

    They're dinosaurs. Wow enough.

    After seeing Safety Not Guaranteed I can't help but feel this is the director saying that he's in on the joke...

    You've also got the screenwriters from Rise of the Planet of the Apes writing the story for this. Trailer made that look a bit shit as well.

    I don't think it's fair to say it's going to be terrible at all. Too many times we've seen footage out of context only to find out the movies good. Rather than judging a book by its cover, why not wait til we see the whole product?

    "someone would ‘invent’ a new dinosaur for a theme park? It’s complete garbage" - but sourcing dinosaur DNA from an ancient mosquito encased in Amber (even though in reality that's currently impossible) is fine?

      I see one as a little lie that fits what a real life company may do if they had the tech while the other just seems a bit far fetched for what is essentially a zoo.

      Agreed. You see these kinds of arguments in the horror community all the time.

      "Oh, this guy can transfer his soul in to a doll using voodoo? Neat!"

      "Wait... He can overpower a grown man, despite being a doll? PREPOSTEROUS!!!"

      Makes me giggle.

      Not to mention the liberties taken with the properties of the supposedly *actual* dinosaurs used in the original...

        Exactly. All the JP dinos are 'invented', and they all but explicitly tell you that in the first movie - they're all formed from damaged DNA filled in with frog DNA. And once the science progressed after the movie it's a more or less perfect goofy sci-fi retcon for why they're pretty much featherless, and... completely different sizes, I guess.

    "this idea that someone would ‘invent’ a new dinosaur for a theme park? It’s complete garbage" no it isn't. If people are going to resurrect dinosaurs for a theme park, it's silly to think they couldn't try at a new species :P

      Let's not forget the Dilophosaurus from the first film was an invention. Apparently they never existed

        Dilophosaurus existed, there's just no evidence it had a frill or spit venom. There are full skeletons available though that do have the skull ridge.

    Lol Mark, you're such a Negative Nancy :)

      He's scottish, comes from the chilly climate, haggis and compulsive habit of wearing a sporran... ;)

      Last edited 21/04/15 12:10 pm

    I'm thinking terrible. The acting in the trailer is horrendous, especially from the lead guy.

    Let's also bare in mind that the new dinosaur exists purely so Universal would own the IP. No copycat toy lines, savvy?

    I think it looks pretty good. Won't be as good as the original but who cares? I doubt the new Star Wars will be as good as the original either, doesn't mean it's not worth seeing.

    I know we've seen raptors in the trailers already, but I'd be interested to see if they touch on the whole raptors thing: ie 'what we thought we knew about raptors and how they looked, 20+ years ago vs what we now think they looked like (apparently much smaller-- closer to the size of chickens, and with feathers to boot).

    Please tell me someone will quote the late, great Muldoon:


    As an avid dinosaur lover since I was a little fellow I have no problem with the personal dino army but there's something I can't get myself to like about dinosaur gene splicing and breeding. There are so many cool dinosaurs, why can't they use one of them?

    Trailers are just plot summaries without the finale. It's kinda sad. It used to be "here's some cool visuals but we won't give it all away, you'll have to see the movie", and now it's "here's how the movie starts, here's the main characters, here's how the conflict arises and and here's the details of how the plot unfolds, if you want to know the particulars of how the hero predictably saves the day, you'll jave to see the movie".

    Im so glad I'm seeing Avengers 2 tomorrow and I've avoided every trailer. I don't even know anything about it.

    Ooh yay: totally sweet Triumph Scrambler, B.D. Wong and ooh, hey Jake Johnson, I see you there.

    Boo: CGI everything, no practical effects :(

    "idea that someone would ‘invent’ a new dinosaur for a theme park? It’s complete garbage" Obviously you have not read the original Jurassic Park novel by Michael Crichton. There is a discussion between John Hammond and Henry Wu about modifying the DNA and 'creating' new and improved dinosaurs in fear of tourists not finding 'real' dinosaurs scary enough.

    Remember Jurassic Park/World are tourist attractions and like all attractions the customers have an expectation of what they are going to see... which in the case of dinosaurs is big scary lizard-looking things. Can you imagine the mass disappointment if they saw small non-threatening animals? That would be bad for business.

    The discussion in the novel was left pretty open-ended. Wu was for, Hammond against I recall; but alas the tragedy in the park put an end to the discussion anyway as neither Wu nor Hammond survived.

    It's clear the plot for this latest instalment in the Jurassic Park film universe is taking inspiration from what was alluded to in the original novel, and I think that's pretty cool. I've had a long-lasting suspicion that DNA-manipulation is the reason the Velocitators in the film and novel do not match the fossil record. They were too small and not scary; and being one of the first species developed an executive decision was made to make them bigger. Either that or they made a mistake sequencing the DNA and by the time the raptor hatched and grew up they had already spent a few million dollars developing it and were past the point of crapping it and starting over. That's my theory anyway :)

    In relation to this new trailer, I don't mind the CGI. My biggest concern is that the new dinosaur looks remarkably similar to Godzilla.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now