>CGI from 1993 is still the best we have ever seen
Because that shot barely has any CGI. It's just the legs.
The scene looks good only because of the lighting covering up the 90s CGI.
Compare it to the dinosaurs chasing them in the field and you will find that the CGI is not that great in broad daylight.
The T-Rex looks great in King Kong. The other dinos, not so much.
The first Bayformers holds up better than either of these
Why did Jackson put in all the Looney Tunes stuff, like in the beginning when the guy falls and he's obviously a second or two away from being trampled, but then the dinosaurs seem to pause off-screen long enough so that next time you see them the guy is still a second or two away from being trampled?
Why do Jackson movies always seem to have this shit?
When they are running between the legs of the dinosaurs look like a 60's car scene. So obvious.
Another oldfag here. I saw it in the theater when I was 10. It was fucking awesome. Looking back on the movie now I see that a lot of the non-dinosaur stuff is really cheesy, but yeah, that was a great experience back in the day. The T-Rex scene in the rain was straight-up real, you felt like you were there.
Just imagine the dinos instead of the random horses that appear
Secretly the scariest thing in the movie by the way
Some of the scenes do. The galliminus look rubbish now. But the t-rex still looks solid, thanks to the careful use of the CG model mixed with the robot.
The raptor scenes also still look fine for the time.
Having the whole island drenched in rain, as it was in the book, was good for the immersiveness. Slippery mud everywhere, wind... helped make you feel like you were there. Also it was cool to feel like crazy shit might be happening all over the island now that the security systems were down.
no need to add raptors, it doesn't add to the sense of danger, it just makes the whole scene ridiculous and even more unbelievable. with the horrendous use of CGI, this scene summarizes jackson pretty well, it just lacks some stupid dialogue
Fincher would disagree.
Every Fincher film has more CGI than a standard Hollywood blockbuster. Literally every interior scene is shot on a sound stage. Every time you see blood in a Fincher film you can be sure it's CGI. The Social Network has more VFX shots than the 2014 Godzilla. And no one ever notices a thing.
Pretty sure all of his films will age good.
I loved how you never actually saw the raptors on-screen until the last 20 minutes of the movie. In fact the first time you actually see one is when one suddenly bursts out of the pipes behind Satler.
Actually the first thing to scare me in the movie as a lad was literally the opening scene where the raptor rips up the worker. Obviously it's shot very intensely and quickly with SHOOOT HAAH but the bit that scared me was when the worker is suddenly lifted like six feet off the ground by SOMETHING that's in the cage. The sudden display of strength spooked me for some reason, probably because it wasn't that big a cage so it's not like it's a t-rex in there.
That was only the beginning of course, I had a lot more scares to come.
*Blocks your path
This was shockingly good for 2006 and actually still looks great. Given it predates proper facial motion capture it's crazy how well it simulates Bill Nighy's acting. I know they did the capture dots but those were just markers then, not the tracking rigs they have now.
I wonder if it's because he's all wet and fleshy that makes the textures hold up better.
WETA is a fucking hack company, all they do is add motion blur and hurr look everyone it's in motion so you're just watching over pixelated crap like in real life.
fuck you fucking pig fucker hackson
The Apes films are straight up extraordinary.
>CGI of something you never saw in real life looks good
What a coincidence i watched it again just this evening. Such a great movie
Nedry screaming in the car traumatized me as a kid
They knew the limitations and so they only used CGI during night scenes, chose a greyish coloring for the dinosaurs and used animatronics for all the close shots, saving the CGI budget rare wide shots.
Have Weta Digital finally surpassed Industrial Light & Magic as the reigning champions of CGI?
>Science from 1993 is more accurate than science from 2017
Actually they think that alot of baby dinosaur had feathers and as they grew older they started losing them till they have one as an adult. At least do your research before you start talking about science.
Mostly because it understood what so many modern films (Hint: IT) fail to understand about CGI which is that no matter how good you get it, no one is going to believe it's completely real. The more you use, the more dissonance you create with the audience. That's why everyone is so jaded to movies now, because it all looks like a video game. There's a big reason TV is in a golden age and movies are taking a dip, because it's tiring to watch actors interact with things that aren't even there.
Jurassic Park is bar none my all time favorite film because of how believable it all is. There's a perfect balance of practical effects, animatronics, and special effects with CGI used to fill in the small gaps in between. It's all shot in Hawaii, and it's not over crowded with gratuitous shots of the dinosaurs up until the climax of the movie. It lends itself to better story telling all around because it leaves you wanting more, so when you finally do get a chase scene between kids and raptors or when the TRex appears in the car scene, it has that much more terror and impact.
Too bad the rest of the movies completely abandoned those ideals and shot itself in the face.
Same, they turned him into some benevolent, if insensitive, old man, rather than the manipulative corporate bastard he was in the book.
Yeah, he falls off the roof.
Same, it wasn't that bad of a book, but the writing reads like something out of a harry potter fanfiction, just with more scientific jargon and intestine spilling.
>Michael Crowley of The New Republic alleged that, in retaliation for his having written a negative review of Crichton's previous novel State of Fear, Crichton named a character with a small penis who rapes a baby after him. From page 227:
>"Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers."
Crichton was THE BEST writer actually and ceased to give a single fuck after all that Jurassic Park money started rolling in
Can we all appreciate the fact that whatever you thought of rouge one they're phasing models back in
Honestly it's hard to tell it's a real model because of the digital filtering they apply in editing, which is a problem with most movies nowadays. So it still ends up looking too even and smooth like CGI.
Just read that extract. His prose is extremely dull and awkward, and basically involves just saying what's happening in a boring and stilted manner. I mean
>But he couldn't see. He couldn't see anything, and his terror was extreme.
come on now.
He's good at coming up with an overall story I guess, which I suppose makes him a good screenwriter and maybe that was his intention all along. But his actual writing sucks.
I try to avoid hyperbole when I can, but I remember being in the theater when the T-Rex roared for the first time. I was awestruck. I was completely dumbfounded and absorbed into the moment. It was real and nobody could have convinced my little 9 year old brain differently.
You're exactly my age. Saw this shit in theaters at 10 yo. Until this day, the greatest theater experience I have ever had and will never be topped. Of course I was 10 and naturally a pleb still. Spielberg is the master of making adventure films for 10 yo kids to remember forever (ET... Indy...JP).
Hollywood used to know how to do shit right. What went wrong, Anon?
It kind of amazes me how millenials on /tv/ love this movie so much. I liked dinosaurs as a kid and I did see it in the theater with mom as a kid of 10 or so. I was entertained and all, but it didn't /leave an indelible impression on me/. Add to this (I guess) that dad always disliked the movie based on one viewing (he hadn't joined mom and I at the theater, but must have seen it later on TV at some point), and periodically said so over the next decade+ as I was growing up.
I think that a large part of what is going on here is a nostalgia specific to people born between 1985-1995 or so. Also, CGI in general is not defensible.
It's mostly animatronic, that's how. Practical effects win again.
It's the most memorable movie experience I had in my life. Went twice with my family. People who missed do not know what going to the cinema really feels like because nothing has come close to Jurassic Park save maybe Titanic and that movie has magic as well.