Jump to content

Jurassic World.............


Recommended Posts

Next time a Velociraptor tries to attack me, I'll have to remember to put my hands up... :lol:

... like he wouldn't have been consumed instantly.

Many are mimicking this ridiculous scene from the film... :lol:

jurassic-world-meme-sea-lions.jpg

JSmith :ninja:

If you look at the special features, there is one where Chris Pratt states that he had training from someone who controls wild animals for a living...but maybe not as wild as a velociraptor!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Walruses are hardly fast on their feet (flippers) nor are they 'meat eaters' as we understand it so the animal trainer is unlikely to be trampled to death. The velociraptors on the other hand just see a man as lunch.

The velociraptor's physical size in the movie is largely exaggerated to look more threating.

http://theconversation.com/discovering-a-new-dinosaur-helped-us-prove-velociraptors-had-feathers-44788

C.M

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true ... Walruses are very dangerous and have killed people in situations like this.

Can you link to a circumstance where someone has been trampled by a walrus ?

Google appears to have no reference to such an occurrence.

C.M

Link to post
Share on other sites


Can you link to a circumstance where someone has been trampled by a walrus ?

Google appears to have no reference to such an occurrence.

C.M

Just did a Google search:

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=walrus+kills+human&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Just one of the above:

" Some hunters have lost their lives or been seriously injured due to not being prepared for the strength and the aggression of the walrus that they were attacking."

http://www.walrus-world.com/humans-and-walruses/

So I don't know what search you did.

Edited by The Barstool Executioner
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reference to what I said ......" Can you link to a circumstance where someone has been trampled by a walrus ?"

You have selectively quoted............... " Some hunters have lost their lives or been seriously injured due to not being prepared for the strength and the aggression of the walrus that they were attacking."

But that passage actually reads as ...........

Most of the time humans are safe from the walrus. There has never been a report of one attacking for no reason or making a meal out of a human. However, the walrus is a fierce fighter and will do all it can to protect itself and the offspring. Some hunters have lost their lives or been seriously injured due to not being prepared for the strength and the aggression of the walrus that they were attacking.

Hardly something that supports your assertion.

The point being made is that walruses do not by their very nature aggressively pursue humans to kill them, let alone trample them to death (that is without provacation and the protection of their young).

If anything, humans are the real 'monsters' of this world where the excessive exploitation of natural resourses tramples under foot the welfare of our fellow creatures.

C.M

Edited by Tweet
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there'd be a greater likelihood of getting devoured by a rather large chicken than being trampled to death by a bred in captivity walrus that is looking for a feed from it's trainer. ;)



jurassic-world-meme-chickens.jpg



Those chooks look dangerous... maybe they're related to the pterodactyl? ;)



Jurassic World sequels... oh no! :o



JSmith :ninja:


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there'd be a greater likelihood of getting devoured by a rather large chicken than being trampled to death by a bred in captivity walrus that is looking for a feed from it's trainer. ;)

jurassic-world-meme-chickens.jpg

Those chooks look dangerous... maybe they're related to the pterodactyl? ;)

Jurassic World sequels... oh no! :o

JSmith :ninja:

Moving on, ,so what other scenes in 'Jurassic World ' are you wanting to rubbish J.S ?

C.M

Link to post
Share on other sites


The thing is the dinosaurs just don't look real and look added in... which they are.

Hollywood relies too much now on CGI in lieu of proper sets and real looking animatronic creatures IMO, hence why I agree mostly with the below articles and comments regarding same.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/

"When Chris Pratt is interacting with three Velociraptors that are right in front of his face, they might as well be cartoons, because they're right next to a living, breathing person constantly reminding us all what a living, breathing being actually looks like."

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-CGI-work-of-the-movie-Jurassic-World-look-more-cartoonish-and-less-real-compared-to-the-90s-monster-films

"THAT is the REAL problem with the CGI- we need to think about the fact of WHY the effects of the original were superior; because when you saw the effects like I did in the first film, you never really thought about the fact that it was all fake- it was and IS very realistic. it's like real dinosaurs were trained to be in the movie."

JSmith :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Hollywood relies too much now on CGI in lieu of proper sets and real looking animatronic creatures IMO, hence why I agree mostly with the below articles and comments regarding same.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/

"When Chris Pratt is interacting with three Velociraptors that are right in front of his face, they might as well be cartoons, because they're right next to a living, breathing person constantly reminding us all what a living, breathing being actually looks like."

https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-CGI-work-of-the-movie-Jurassic-World-look-more-cartoonish-and-less-real-compared-to-the-90s-monster-films

"THAT is the REAL problem with the CGI- we need to think about the fact of WHY the effects of the original were superior; because when you saw the effects like I did in the first film, you never really thought about the fact that it was all fake- it was and IS very realistic. it's like real dinosaurs were trained to be in the movie."

JSmith :ninja:

There are some very good explanations linked to above, in my opinion.

It is not that today's CGI techniques are poor (in most ways they are more advanced than ever), but that they're over-used and inappropriately used. They are relied on too much instead of the story, dialogue, and acting. They are used so much that imperfections can become distracting, and disengaging, for the movie-goer.

I personally found the original movie Jurassic Park more engaging (more wonder, more suspense, interesting characterisation: e.g. the overweight IT specialist), though I recall feeling disappointed at how little the beasts were shown close up.

But then there are the successes of modern CGI achievements that should not be overlooked. For example, capturing the facial expressions and movements of actors and using them to control animated characters has been a very successful development. The humanoid creature Gollum, and the dragon Smaug, were brought to life with CGI, in the Hobbit movies, in a way that was beyond even advanced animatronics. This technique was also used very successfully in Avatar.

Edited by MLXXX
Link to post
Share on other sites


It might also be an idea to have a listen to why certain things look certain ways.

For instance as explained in the making of Jurassic Park there were massive difficulties with the T-Rex, especially given they had to wet it.

I've seen Jurassic World and cannot understand where the POV about looking fake is coming from, that said each to their own.

My final thought would be if you disliked it so much, then why would you bother to spend some much time commenting on it.

I believe the next sentence is, just saying!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the dinosaurs looked ok, but given they died out a few million years ago, I'm not sure what a real one looks like.

Most movies I watch for entertainment value ... San Andreas, for example, has just as much "obvious CGI" but that didn't seem to register the same degree of vitriol.

If it was a documentary, then perhaps I'd be more critical, but it was a pretty good popcorn flick I recon.

Edited by The Barstool Executioner
Link to post
Share on other sites

My final thought would be if you disliked it so much, then why would you bother to spend some much time commenting on it.

I wanted to like it... big fan of the original. :)

It's one of many examples of over-usage of CGI in modern film making.

I'm not sure what a real one looks like.

Alive... not so "added in".

JSmith :ninja:

Link to post
Share on other sites


Just a bit of perspective here folks ; Stan Winston who collaborated with others to do the animatronics and models for jurassic park and others won 4 academy awards including J.P.; Aliens ; predator and terminator . His work is in the Smithsonian . He did work on many others including iron man ; A.I. ; in fact all the terminator movies etc etc

Some movies get the budget to work with his workshops ; as cgi costs come down over time the realism of a H.R. Gieger alien costume takes second place unfortunately . But cgi as noted gets better over time ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bit of perspective here folks ; Stan Winston who collaborated with others to do the animatronics and models for jurassic park and others won 4 academy awards including J.P.; Aliens ; predator and terminator . His work is in the Smithsonian . He did work on many others including iron man ; A.I. ; in fact all the terminator movies etc etc

Some movies get the budget to work with his workshops ; as cgi costs come down over time the realism of a H.R. Gieger alien costume takes second place unfortunately . But cgi as noted gets better over time ..

Most seem quite happy with the effects, and if taken for what the film is, is an more than satisfying film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most seem quite happy with the effects, and if taken for what the film is, is an more than satisfying film.

Yeah ; how many have they made now ? ; the same question is raised each time .. Its a popcorn flick ; buy it for the atmos soundtrack :thumbsup: oh wait stuff that ..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Point made Jsmith

:thumbsup:

if you had devoted as much energy on Google to just "Jurassic World CGI" keywords

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Jurassic+World+CGI&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=2WAuVoz_LMLvmAW6xYmgCQ

instead of wandering off topic and trying to find Google evidence of the worlds first man eating walrus, you would have realised its not just jsmith, but literally millions of people on the internet who think the same, that the CGI in Jurassic World is basically, pretty much crap

:)

Edited by mello yello
Link to post
Share on other sites

?

realistic

looks realistic, not so artificially generated

i believe its cheaper on production costs and for maximising profit by riding on the back of previous classic ground breakers

im sure you are familiar with "profit" ?

:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

JW was the most profitable of all 4 movies in the franchise and has broken several box office records ... doesn't sound like a movie people hate because of the special effects, just one they enjoy as a break from the mundane complaining of a few.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Jurassic-Park#tab=summary

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/06/14/box-office-jurassic-world-scores-near-record-204-5-million-weekend/

Link to post
Share on other sites

JW was the most profitable of all 4 movies in the franchise and has broken several box office records ... doesn't sound like a movie people hate because of the special effects, just one they enjoy as a break from the mundane complaining of a few.

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Jurassic-Park#tab=summary

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/06/14/box-office-jurassic-world-scores-near-record-204-5-million-weekend/

sorry, i need to correct you there (again)

nobody said anyone hated it for the special effects

what was said was that there was only one person who mentioned the CGI not being up to par

and i have already addressed those posts above

Thanks, I guess a negative contribution still counts ... Not so sure it's is actually informed by viewing the Blu Ray the thread is about though.

Have you seen it on Blu Ray Smithy? which version did you watch, 2D or 3D?

Mate, thin skins and the agendas of one person beyond this thread aside:

You know as much as me that so much of a soundtrack is lost without a decent sub. I'd suggest that most of the enjoyment in this film is due to the below 80hz lfe that a tv by itself just doesn't produce.

Jurassic World is nothing in the order of Mad Max, but it's a keeper imho and going by this thread in all but one members opinion.

Who besides you buddy?

Jutta gave it 2/5 but will still buy it, the overwhelming majority of this thread has been positive, beyond your continual, personal attacks on those who have expressed otherwise. I think you need break Smithy you are far from the positive contributor you used to be.

... then we went into a brief discussion about man eating walruses

and you dont have to have seen the film to correct any misconception that it is universally accepted (outside of this forum) nor would it detract from anyone enjoying the film regardless

and even if one single solitary person didnt like it ?

so what ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...