stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Jun 21, 2015 7:12:38 GMT 5
I do not even have qualms with the dinosaurs from a cineastic viewpoint (palaeontologically... dont ask), but the writing... yikes.
Acting was ok to really good, directing good, but the writing. Good LORD have mercy upon the writers for they areth imbeciles.
And Indomitus (proper Latin, I guess...) design was rather dull and not frightening.
The original JP had real Horror scenes, while JW was purely Action. I have no problem with fake dinosaurs but please make a better one.
Its a Carcharodontosaurid with a loadout of fantasy abilities. But I guess its good for CP reasons.
|
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240 
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 21, 2015 7:30:52 GMT 5
As theropod has said, they could have just made a carnosaur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Jun 21, 2015 7:42:37 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 21, 2015 7:47:35 GMT 5
Apearently, large Carcarodontosauroids were avoided because the general audience would have confused them with Tyrannosaurs.
Also, it was stated in the film that I. rex was made because the general public had become used to dinosaurs, they were no longer a "wow factor". The novelty of a living stegosaurus had worn thin. Do I think I. rex could have been a little more creative? Yes. But from a film standpoint, going all out would have make I. rex too far out there, a similar thing happened with the proposed "Di-hu-ogs".
|
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 22, 2015 14:57:56 GMT 5
That in itself is pathetic enough a reason, but their Indominus is not more recognisable either (a real carcharodontosaur could easily have been designed in a way to make it look just as distinct, or even more so).
It ends up being an imaginary monster instead of a dinosaur, introduced because they were tired of using real dinosaurs, and this seems to run very well with the general policy for this movie (which was not just to ignore the last 2 decades of scientific discoveries, but to actually go back in time from the scientific standards of 1993).
Whatever Jurassic Park used to be, this sequel is just a monster movie, nothing more.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 22, 2015 23:27:53 GMT 5
1. It's outright said in the film that it's NOT A DINOSAUR ITS A MONSTER. 2. It's a film, not a documentary, quit treating like one, enjoy the thing. 3. 1993 dinosaurs are the best  |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2015 1:15:37 GMT 5
"1993 dinosaurs are the best " No, real dinosaurs are the best, and will always be the best. And yes, it is a monster. The point being that most people (especially those whose opinions I'm concerned with most) like JP precisely because it was a dinosaur film and NOT just another dumb monster film. |
|
Deathadder
Junior Member
aspiring paleontologist. theropod enthusiast.
Posts: 240
|
Post by Deathadder on Jun 23, 2015 1:16:46 GMT 5
That, I agree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinodontosaurus on Jun 23, 2015 1:21:42 GMT 5
It is indeed a film, a film that could have been more ambitious and served it's core message better had it used more realistic models. But it didn't, it was overly safe and lazy, which is ample grounds to criticise it on because - like you said - it is a film. If Jurassic Park was made with the same lazy and safe attitude as Jurassic World was then the dinosaurs in it would have been slow, dumb, lumbering tripeds.
Another point that is sort of related to the terrible dinosaur models is how the raptors screeched and howled while stalking both the I. rex and the people. Sure, it's a film so who cares right? Well, in my opinion, if the raptors silently stalked their prey they would be way more terrifying and a way bigger presence on screen. You know they are there, you know they are coming, but you don't know exactly where they are at or when they will strike. Much more suspenseful.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 23, 2015 8:18:37 GMT 5
Because raptors coordinate their hunts with mind reading. Even if you say they used eye contact, there are parts where they couldn't possibly have seen each other. theropod, in your opinion... But not in mine. Ok? Please respect my opinion, ok? I respect yours, ok? |
|
|
|
Post by theropod on Jun 23, 2015 10:44:48 GMT 5
That I respect someone's opinion doesn't mean I'm not allowed to argue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 11:20:23 GMT 5
All we can hope for now is that a future blockbuster dinosaur movie will show accurate dinosaurs to the public. Maybe JP5/JW2(yes, there are sequels planned) could revolve around InGen's first attempts at genetically "pure" dinosaurs. Or at least I hope so. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 23, 2015 16:33:00 GMT 5
Agreed.
I would really like if there was a dinosaur movie with the same intent as the original Jurassic Park movie, combining action with up to date research. I mean Jurassic Park did not just show a completely new picture of dinosaurs (as Spinodontosaurus stated), but it was also one of the first movies to have the courage to depict evolution as a proven fact which was probably far more risky than feathered raptors would be now.
However, some argue that Jurassic Park is one of the franchises where the quality of the first movie can't be reached anymore. Maybe we need a new dinosaur related franchise for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by allosaurusatrox on Jun 24, 2015 0:24:54 GMT 5
I seriously doubt that Deinonychus (velociraptor nublarensis in the films) was feathered.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jun 24, 2015 0:34:34 GMT 5
I know that this is not the right place to discuss this, but phylogeny strongly suggests it was, as feathers are known from all corners of Paraves.
|
|
