|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Nov 24, 2014 20:50:58 GMT 5
What a pity the Gallimimus in that video are scaly. I was hoping for feathered dinosaurs. Yay! Err...I mean um...
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 24, 2014 21:52:09 GMT 5
Especially after JP 3 it should be quite understandable that people aren’t keen on yet another part. What did set JP apart from a dumb monster movie if not its somewhat scientific portrayal of real animals? Throughout the last two films, nothing has been done to live up to that legacy by adaptiong to scientific findings, and it looks like this movie ain’t going to change that (even the short teaser already showed two of the main flaws). JP3 had many issues during the production, it's no wonder that the result wasnt that good (it is even pretty good keeping in mind the conditions). JW production has been much better prepared. Regarding the scientific accuracy, at first no, JP3 at least tried to present feathers and vocalization at the time. Each film in tje series tried to present news points somewhat scientifically hinted. And that can be the case fir that one too. And again it's been a long the missing feathers were annunced, that s a bit sad but we still can focus on the others elements. What counts is to make a good movie. And a good movie needs something to set it apart from dumb minster movies, doesn't it? I get that the lost world at least tried to show social behaviour in T. rex, so I should revise my judgement in regard to it. As for JP 3, it showed vocalisation-completely madeup vocalisation. And as for the so-called feathers; I suppose you are referring to those small spikes on the back of the Velociraptors' heads. Not really a serious attempt, you could find similar structures on a dragon. They make the droms look even more reptilian actually. Dromaeosaurs had a coat of contour feathers and fully developed remiges. Portraying it like an iguana with some spikes comong out of its neck doesn't make it better. Off course that scientific accuracy won't be part of this movie hhas been known for quite some time, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be happy about it now.
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Nov 24, 2014 22:04:24 GMT 5
I'm fine with scaly dinos, or as some like to call them, "retrosaurs". a term from Dinotoyforum, which I left because I didn't agree on their views of the commonocity of dinofuzz.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 24, 2014 22:27:24 GMT 5
JP3 had many issues during the production, it's no wonder that the result wasnt that good (it is even pretty good keeping in mind the conditions). JW production has been much better prepared. Regarding the scientific accuracy, at first no, JP3 at least tried to present feathers and vocalization at the time. Each film in tje series tried to present news points somewhat scientifically hinted. And that can be the case fir that one too. And again it's been a long the missing feathers were annunced, that s a bit sad but we still can focus on the others elements. What counts is to make a good movie. And a good movie needs something to set it apart from dumb minster movies, doesn't it? I get that the lost world at least tried to show social behaviour in T. rex, so I should revise my judgement in regard to it. As for JP 3, it showed vocalisation-completely madeup vocalisation. And as for the so-called feathers; I suppose you are referring to those small spikes on the back of the Velociraptors' heads. Not really a serious attempt, you could find similar structures on a dragon. They make the droms look even more reptilian actually. Dromaeosaurs had a coat of contour feathers and fully developed remiges. Portraying it like an iguana with some spikes comong out of its neck doesn't make it better. Off course that scientific accuracy won't be part of this movie hhas been known for quite some time, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be happy about it now. Horner explained about JP3 that we knew some dinosaurs could vocalize but he simply suggested to apply that to the raptors. So while not truly scientifically exact, that was a good element to bring to the franchise. As for the feathers, I recall you the movie was produced in 2000, while the first Velociraptor specimen found with quil knobs evidences dates back 2007. So even if the feathers in the movie are not that good, that was at least an advance and progress. Even the 2003 BBC WWD with Nigel Marven still featured scaled Velociraptors. But some hardcore fans didn't like this, and it's possible this is what prevented JW to bring feathered raptors. And yes, despite your opinion, these were intended to be feathers in the JP3 raptors. It's not everyday that a new JP movie or a dino-movie is going to be released and given this is THAT franchise which allowed to popularize to modern views of active, sophisticated animals, even if this new movie has somewhat questionnable choices, I don't see why everyone should despise it without even see what the movie is about, not only the dino content but the stuff inspired by Crichton works. Seriously, there are people here who just learn about the production of it and directly rejects it. It deserves a chance.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 24, 2014 22:43:00 GMT 5
To be honest, it would appear a bit strange if dinosaurs that existed in the movies before suddenly get a completely new look (i.e. feathers). These movie monster-dinosaur are a relict from the times where JP originated and it makes some sense, given that it are not completely real dinosaurs anyway (frog DNA and such). I hope that they depict some new dinosaurs though that maybe have more preserved DNA, so that they have feathers.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 24, 2014 23:53:57 GMT 5
To be honest, it would appear a bit strange if dinosaurs that existed in the movies before suddenly get a completely new look (i.e. feathers). These movie monster-dinosaur are a relict from the times where JP originated and it makes some sense, given that it are not completely real dinosaurs anyway (frog DNA and such). I hope that they depict some new dinosaurs though that maybe have more preserved DNA, so that they have feathers. I think it will be seen probably in the next movies, not in that one. In fact, they also base the scaly creatures on a suggestion of the character Henry Wu in the original novel where he explains to Hammond that they could make "better" dinosaurs, more appealing to the public expectations. That could explain the choices in JW...where the Henry Wu character is back (the only character of the previous trilogy).
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 25, 2014 1:11:36 GMT 5
Sure, Hadrosaurs. Which are known from reasonably complete skulls, no indication of what they called a resonating chamber in the movie. They could have done that with a hadrosaur, their dromaeosaurs were already over the top in terms of intelligence and behaviour–JP3 capped it all. Quill knobs had already been correctly identified in Avimimus in 1987, while fossils including the clearly dromaeosaurian Sinornithosaurus and Microraptor and others (e.g. www.ivpp.ac.cn/qt/papers/201206/P020120604548887839317.pdf) were found well before 2000. But my point is not to discuss the accuracy of JP3, which nobody will deny was poor, while obviously it has to be looked upon in the context of its time (just like the other JPs). It’s about the kind of improvements that should be made in a modern movie. To a serious dinosaur enthusiast scaly Velociraptors may have looked a little conservative and counterintuitive for a JP movie (see below) back in 2000. Now they look plain ridiculous, not to be taken seriously any more. Like a plucked eagle that’s supposed to look impressive. As you remarked, this has been known since a long time now. All the more reason why some people don’t look forward to this movie. Also, the situation can be looked upon both ways; without knowing whether it will be good, is it justified to hype it that much? I mean seriously, they basically made a trailer for a trailer! Yes, and that certainly isn’t a good thing. It’s rather irrelevant what they were intended to be, it’s important what they were. Alibi filaments at best. No, and objectively, most of those are crap. Exactly my point. It went from presenting a very modern view on dinosaurs in 1993, to presenting a terribly outdated one now. Well, I guess at the same time too much and too little has already leaked through then. I’ve also never seen "Shark attack 3: Megalodon", does it also deserve a chance? JW may deserve a chance. But it should also do something to deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Nov 25, 2014 17:33:05 GMT 5
Artistic license.
The franchise is focused on raptors, not hadrosaurs. Horner made it clear that they had generalized this to raptors for dramatic purpose.
But the quill knobs found on Velociraptor had a more decisive impact. This does change that JP 3 was in advance compared to even documentaries of the time, even though their feathers were not accurately made.
I've got your point since a looong, I've longly argued that against "pro-scaled raptors" in the JP fan community.
A teaser for the trailer because they know the movie is awaited since a long, 13 damns years, it's not the first movie to use teasers to annunce the trailer, that's really not relevant. You're not a JP enthusiast so you can't understand that. The teaser has already more than 6 millions views on YT. That's not what we expect from a "Shark Attack Megalodon B-movie"...
Premature judgement, if the movie is using outdated scaly figures, it can be good on other points.
The whole point is that the production has been much stronger and serious than the last movie of the franchise.
Are you really comparing the JW movie with one of the most mocked B-movie ever made ?
The plot, the new additions, the new situation, the never used material from Crichton's work...it deserves it. I've followed the production closely, it definitely deserves it. I understand that the lack of feathers is disturbing but spitting on the movie just because of that ? Not so much.
Okay you don't like the JP franchise (but without it, it's not even sure you'll have been even interested in dinosaurs at all given their impact), so just don't comment it if really "that's crap".
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Nov 25, 2014 19:32:13 GMT 5
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Nov 25, 2014 19:42:27 GMT 5
I'm going to say something (not that it will matter, as no one has acknowledged me in days) what's your guys deal with scaly raptors? I personally think they look better that way.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 25, 2014 20:10:20 GMT 5
I don't think it is right to spoil the people by posting unreleased trailers. This is one of the few cases where I am glad that it got blocked.
|
|
gigadino96
Junior Member
Vi ravviso, o luoghi ameni
Posts: 226
|
Post by gigadino96 on Nov 25, 2014 20:17:50 GMT 5
I don't think it is right to spoil the people by posting unreleased trailers. This is one of the few cases where I am glad that it got blocked. That wasn't the full trailer. At least that's what I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Nov 25, 2014 20:51:33 GMT 5
Maybe, but that's still a spoiler. I cannot watch it anyway. Can you?
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Nov 25, 2014 21:09:52 GMT 5
You can use that as an excuse for almost everything. It’s not the speculation I find annoying, it’s that they insist on using inaccurate assumptions in the same way that made the previous part mediocre. It’s this artistic license that has led to the franchise introducing easily as much BS into the minds of its fans as it introduced good concepts (for the idea of dinosaurs being fast and active, there was "velociraptor was as fast as a cheetah" and "T. rex could outrun cars", for the idea of dromaeosaurs being social and intelligent there was primate-like intelligence and the vocalisation of a howler monkey…).
So what?
I don’t really get what you mean…
That’s exactly the point, I don’t get how that isn’t relevant. Some people await this film as if they knew it was going to be great, apparently so much that they can’t tolerate if someone else voices that they don’t.
Nope, I’m not a big fan of JP, at least not the latest developments. I can understand the outstanding role of the original film tough–I just wish the sequels had lived up to it.
Well, whatever. Just don’t be disappointed later, since your hopes are running so high for this movie.
So the likes of Mega Beasts, March of the Dinosaurs, Clash of the Dinosaurs and Jurassic Fight Club were no crap in your opinion?
Since we’re already at that, this is interesting; In what regards is the production of this movie better, and how would you happen to know?
as a matter of principle, yes. The point is that if the people working on it aren’t careful, it can easily get that bad. And I don’t care about how mocked that movie is, it’s the sheer premise that pretty much guarantees a bad movie, and that’s were the problem lies. The Jurassic Park franchise has always been a tightrope walk between good science fiction thrillers using prehistoric animals and dumb monster movies using ridiculous versions of prehistoric animals. So far they were the former, but they’ve undoubtedly been drifting (and yeah, that’s partly due to staying on the scientific level of 1993 almost a decade later). All this enthusiasm for this movie needs a bit of caution, people should watch the movie first, or at least the trailer!
What’s so great about that? What has even been released about the plot? You mean that strange hybrid animal? I guess one would have used the exact same argument before JP3, after all there was a really spectacular addition even one that really existed. But in the end, it was poorly done.
Nothing terribly new about that, actually just a change of name, and a return to an old location. I hope it doesn’t just become a ripoff of the first movie with a new main monster, because at the moment it looks a lot like that.
What is that material you’re hinting at?
It’s not just the lack of feathers, it’s the spitting at scientific accuracy (objectively that started when they used Achillobator-sized Velociraptor and refused to at least call them Deinonchus).
If I wanted to call it crap, there’d be nothing you could say about it. I’m not doing that tough, I was referring to dinosaur movies in general (that’s mainly documentaries).
any my interest in palaeontology wasn’t inspired by Jurassic Park. I first saw that film when I was 12, I’ve had this interest since I was 5…
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Nov 25, 2014 21:12:25 GMT 5
...like I said, no one acknowledges me.
|
|