Jurassic Park IV/Jurassic World

It's probably going to suck... unless they have John Williams composing.

Looks like a remake of deep blue sea set in the world of Jurassic park.

I know Nublar is excited.

This has got to be the quickest 2:41...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFinNxS5KN4

Why is it that older movies with less technology look more realistic than newer movies? Jurassic Park's dinos looked more real than these CGI ones. The Star Wars prequels relied too much on CGI created backgrounds and characters rather than sets and muppet/animatronics like the first three. Glad Abrams fixed that(so he says) for the new ones. Michael Bays movies are the worst with too much CGI. The new Ninja Turtles look much more fake than in the first 2 movies in the 90s.

Animated films suffer from too much CGI too. The duo cartoon/live action Who Framed Roger Rabbit? looked better than today's live action/CGI stuff. Hell even Mary Poppins looks better. It seems as if these days they got too dependent on CGI and got lazy. And they've ruined classic properties with it to(along with bad scripts) when you take account of the Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Yogi Bear and now Peanuts. CGI sucks, why not go back to more traditional animation? Some movies work well as computer productions, like Pixar and Dreamworks stuff, but others look like garbage with no genuine feel to them.

"Launchpad McQuack wrote:

Why is it that older movies with less technology look more realistic than newer movies? Jurassic Park's dinos looked more real than these CGI ones. The Star Wars prequels relied too much on CGI created backgrounds and characters rather than sets and muppet/animatronics like the first three. Glad Abrams fixed that(so he says) for the new ones. Michael Bays movies are the worst with too much CGI. The new Ninja Turtles look much more fake than in the first 2 movies in the 90s.

Animated films suffer from too much CGI too. The duo cartoon/live action Who Framed Roger Rabbit? looked better than today's live action/CGI stuff. Hell even Mary Poppins looks better. It seems as if these days they got too dependent on CGI and got lazy. And they've ruined classic properties with it to(along with bad scripts) when you take account of the Smurfs, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Yogi Bear and now Peanuts. CGI sucks, why not go back to more traditional animation? Some movies work well as computer productions, like Pixar and Dreamworks stuff, but others look like garbage with no genuine feel to them.

I would assume that cel-animated graphics (the only good form of animation) are expensive or too much trouble.

A good example is an anime called Big O. First 13 episodes were cel-animated graphics. The last 13 episodes were digital animation and were obviously cheapened.

Hell if you look at how Tom and Jerry evolved throughout the decades, the animation got worse and worse.

Well the original Jurassic Park also used CGI for certain scenes (Brachiosaurus walking at the beginning, anytime a dinosaur runs like the raptors in the kitchen), and animatronics for others (the sick Triceratops, Parts of the T-Rex scene escape where it wasn't running or full body). This new one does use animatronics for some of it they said, though you'll probably mostly just see the action-oriented parts that need cgi in trailers.

"Dolphins1Beatles wrote:

I think I got a boner. No, just goosebumps. I think Jurassic Park was the first movie I saw in theaters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvu-zlR5A8Q

Why can't this be real? (With herbivores only. I wouldn't want to get eaten by a raptor).

I like the two sequels, but this should be better than both. Can't top the original though. Plus, that film holds up incredibly well, effects look better than many current movies. I guess its because they combined animatronics with CGI, which they apparently did with Jurassic World as well.

BD Wong is the only returning person apparently. Unless Laura Dern or Sam Neill have been kept under wraps for a small role. In the book (which is equally amazing) BD Wong's character plays a huge role that was cut down in Jurassic Park to one part, so its nice that they brought him back for a larger role.

First is definitely the best. Two was still very very good. Three was pretty bad in my opinion however I watched it since it was part of my childhood (the series I mean). Just hoping this is better than three.

Dear Ron Howard, thank you.What can I say? I'm excited. I grew up with the movies. I'm a little skeptical about that motorcycle scene though.

I'm a little surprised by them over marketing the trailer... it's only December.

http://youtu.be/fGyH8KRyC3A

:lol: you needed to see that youtube video to know that?

I say, who gives a ****...

"Fin D wrote:

http://youtu.be/fGyH8KRyC3A

I noticed some similarities from what I remembered from the 1st movie, but that's ridiculous...

Anyone know what dinosaurs they created the hybrid from? i have to imagine the T-rex is the biggest genetic contributor. He's the best dino villain.

"Clark Kent wrote:

I noticed some similarities from what I remembered from the 1st movie, but that's ridiculous... Anyone know what dinosaurs they created the hybrid from? i have to imagine the T-rex is the biggest genetic contributor. He's the best dino villain.

I don't know. I thought the scientific community came to a consensus that the tyrannosaurus was more likely a scavenger, but it's a movie, and they've already established it as a villain in the first one so it is completely possible.

"Clark Kent wrote:

I noticed some similarities from what I remembered from the 1st movie, but that's ridiculous...

Anyone know what dinosaurs they created the hybrid from? i have to imagine the T-rex is the biggest genetic contributor. He's the best dino villain.

I've heard part T-Rex, part raptor, part snake and part cuttlefish

"finsincebirth wrote:

I've heard part T-Rex, part raptor, part snake and part cuttlefish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Gwvc6VON2Y