Jurassic Park 4 - June 13, 2014

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  01 January 2013
Jurassic Park 4 - June 13, 2014

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...rk-4-hit-411594
__________________
Daniel Broadway 2013 Compositor Reel

Vimeo Videos
Daniel Broadway

 
  01 January 2013
Wasnt the last one so bad that it went straight to DVD?
__________________
Matthew O'Neill
www.3dfluff.com
 
  01 January 2013
The last one had a theatrical release. I remember newspaper write ups highlighting the fight between the Spinosaurus and T-rex and the dvd videos on the making of it was a real eye opener for me on how the cg process worked.

It had script problems (I believe they improvised the script on set) and looked like the budget was cut for the final scene when they called in the marines, but it did a much better job of rounding out the Alan Grant character and the ubiquitous child wasnt as irritating as a Spielberg kid(although they replaced it with an irritating adult character-Mulder's wife). It was more like an old fashioned B movie adventure-or tried to be. It was about a half hour shorter than the other JPs too.
Finally got to see a velociraptor running at full speed.

I'll give them credit if they dont include any children as a major character so it can hark back to the pre-Jurassic Park days when a dinosaur in a movie didnt automatically mean children.

But what are they going to do--have the dinosaurs develop greater intelligence--planet of the dinosaurs? That was the story idea that Jack Horner let slip some years ago.
 
  01 January 2013
No Sam Niel, no watch!
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  01 January 2013
The first film was taken from the majority of the first Crichton book. A few scenes were not included but later used in the franchise. Spielberg directs, Tippet and ILM join together for groundbreaking visuals. Monumental landmark achieved.

The Second film used roughly half to 3/4's the story from the second book, plus some scenes fromt the first book. Story is a little choppy, but Spielberg once again directs and ILM delivers great CG this time less animatronics. Reviews are pretty evenly split and it gets a 52% on rotten tomatoes. It's not the same monumental achievement the first film was but still does great at the box office.

The third film used parts of the remaining material from the second book as well as material from the first book that was never used (the pterodactyl/aviary dome) plus it was poorly stitched together with some bad writing (not Crichton) and pretty poor directing. (Joe johnston, NOT Spielberg). Reviews are pretty bad and is criticized for a weak plot, no character development and lacking the Spielberg touch. Still does respectable numbers in the box office but isn't the success of the first film and is seen as a summer action filler.

A new film would have literally NO source material left to use from the original books, Spielberg will not direct, and so far it seems like none of the original cast will be included. The original is one of my favorite movies of all time and mostly what made me want to go into CG, but I have almost no desire to see a fourth installment and everything tells me it's going to be nothing more than a cheap summer flick with no substance.
__________________

 
  01 January 2013
Should be called, Jurassic Park why?
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by mlager8: Reviews are pretty bad and is criticized for a weak plot, no character development.


**lol What character development was in the first two?
Alan Grant dislikes children in the first-he comes to like them at the end. Hammond decides his park wasnt such a good idea after his grand children are threatened/injured.The rest of the characters are pretty much stock. The girl is a computer whiz and helps them with the island computer security instruments.

In the second movie Ian Malcolm faces financial and family problems because he spoke out about the events in the first movie. Hammond is now a good guy in trouble and needs Malcolm to help him stop his nephew. His girlfriend has theory about dinosaur parenting and ultimately is proven right--though the pay off we get is her falling asleep in front of the tv. Daughter overcomes fears of dinosaurs and her gymnastics training comes in handy. Malcolm patches up his relationship problems through the bonding experience of surviving dinosaurs. Threatened dinosaur baby gets revenge on the bad guy and makes his daddy proud (Liked that part). The end.

Third movie-Alan Grant is now a bitter recluse who lost his career and girlfriend after the first movie. He despises the island and genetically engineered dinosaurs. A troubled married couple lose their son on the island and trick Grant and his assistant into going there.
Grant discovers his assistant is trying to steal dinosaur eggs to help finance their work and is angry. Married couple patch things up and their son resourcefully survives on his own. Grant gets over his fears of the dinosaurs and even confirms a theory he has about velociraptor behavior. His assistant makes a heroic save and returns from the dead.

The third movie has the most character development by traditional narrative storytelling standards. Definitely problems and not a thrill ride like the other two but people who think the first two are better in character development dont pay attention or just look at Spielberg movies through rose tinted glasses.
 
  01 January 2013
I'm all down for a JP4. I just hope they have some really skilled writing to create it.

But I'll second the Spielrg colored glasses sentiment: he did some really stupid stuff in JP2. For example: what happened to the crew of the ship that took the t-rex to San Diego? It was implied that they were eaten- but the only dino on board was the mama rex.
 
  01 January 2013
I'm going to keep my expectations low, but hope for a pleasant surprise. Still way too soon to tell what may come of this.

I'm pretty wary after seeing that 3rd one. I remember almost walking out when the raptor "spoke" to Grant in his dream.
__________________
"The best things in life are either illegal, fattening, or take too long to render."
 
  01 January 2013
will it have any of this:
[ SPOILER - Click to reveal ]
Spoiler:



if not, i'm not interested.
__________________
[Invivo Animation Reel]
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by DanHibiki: will it have any of this:

if not, i'm not interested.


Funny, that. I remember hearing of a real screenplay for either JP 3 or maybe 4 where the dino cloning tech was used to mix in human traits with dinos so they had larger brains, but still had dino power. There was to be a secret army of them being grown somewhere when they get loose, havoc ensues, etc. It was basically militarized raptors with armor and weapons, which really isn't all that much of a reach when you consider how we use dogs and dolphins as soldiers.

It sounds dopey, but if it had the right director and a good screenplay ( a huge "if"), it could be a riot. Besides, if they could really clone dinos, do you really think the sole outcome would be to populate an amusement park with them? More than likely, someone would be trying to capitolize on them, and who capitolizes better on potential new weapon tech than the military?
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by redbellpeppers: I'm all down for a JP4. I just hope they have some really skilled writing to create it.

But I'll second the Spielrg colored glasses sentiment: he did some really stupid stuff in JP2. For example: what happened to the crew of the ship that took the t-rex to San Diego? It was implied that they were eaten- but the only dino on board was the mama rex.


Didn't you know? The dino killed them all and then went back into its holding cell and locked the doors.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by kelgy: **lol What character development was in the first two?
Alan Grant dislikes children in the first-he comes to like them at the end. Hammond decides his park wasnt such a good idea after his grand children are threatened/injured.The rest of the characters are pretty much stock. The girl is a computer whiz and helps them with the island computer security instruments.

In the second movie Ian Malcolm faces financial and family problems because he spoke out about the events in the first movie. Hammond is now a good guy in trouble and needs Malcolm to help him stop his nephew. His girlfriend has theory about dinosaur parenting and ultimately is proven right--though the pay off we get is her falling asleep in front of the tv. Daughter overcomes fears of dinosaurs and her gymnastics training comes in handy. Malcolm patches up his relationship problems through the bonding experience of surviving dinosaurs. Threatened dinosaur baby gets revenge on the bad guy and makes his daddy proud (Liked that part). The end.

Third movie-Alan Grant is now a bitter recluse who lost his career and girlfriend after the first movie. He despises the island and genetically engineered dinosaurs. A troubled married couple lose their son on the island and trick Grant and his assistant into going there.
Grant discovers his assistant is trying to steal dinosaur eggs to help finance their work and is angry. Married couple patch things up and their son resourcefully survives on his own. Grant gets over his fears of the dinosaurs and even confirms a theory he has about velociraptor behavior. His assistant makes a heroic save and returns from the dead.

The third movie has the most character development by traditional narrative storytelling standards. Definitely problems and not a thrill ride like the other two but people who think the first two are better in character development dont pay attention or just look at Spielberg movies through rose tinted glasses.


This reminds me of one of the lectures I watched being given by Alfred Hitchcock (YouTube is my class room) where he mentions that while it is important you do have content in your story. He adds that once you know what your story is about, it is no longer as important as the method you use to present it. He admitted that more often than not, once the writing was done, he was very distant about the characters and didn't care about them at all.

I can't remember exactly what he said, but Hitchcock threw a lot of "It's just a movie!" comments in that lecture which made many of the students laugh.

His point was a story could be as shallow as two or three sentences, but if you know how to package it, how to build it, and how to "put your audience through it". You do end up with a good movie.

I think this is the same lecture where he talks about two ways to film a bomb under a table. And it's the same event, but doing it properly makes it "cinematic" and "suspenseful" and doing it another way you just get "action".

I like to think one of his best students probably is Steven Spielberg. It's true a vast majority of his stories are really pedestrian and very basic (usually about family values). But it's his vision and technique and energy that are his greatest assets. It's those things like when Malcolm yells: "We have to get this baby T-Rex out of here" and at that exact moment there is a loud sound and we cut to a left-right pan of the Mercedes SUV rolling almost weightlessly in the mud outside and Malcolm comes back to the camera with: "Mommy's very angry"..... It's moments like that to "put audiences through it" to ramp-up events... to build... and then to take them back down or up again.

That's one form of cinematic genius whether you like it or not.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 01 January 2013 at 12:14 AM.
 
  01 January 2013
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan:

This reminds me of one of the lectures I watched being given by Alfred Hitchcock (YouTube is my class room) where he mentions that while it is important you do have content in your story. He adds that once you know what your story is about, it is no longer as important as the method you use to present it. He admitted that more often than not, once the writing was done, he was very distant about the characters and didn't care about them at all.


I can believe he said that. Spielberg commented some time ago that his generation grew up with tv and movies, while Hitchcock and his generation grew up with theater and books. He said they needed to renew interest in the written word but that was just award ceremony BS on his part. I am pretty sure it was Brian Aldiss who first made the observation that Spielberg cited but cant remember where I read it.

. If there are plot problems in Lost World (and there are) it was probably deliberate. I know he commented in an interview at the time that he felt it was his responsibility to keep costs down, but I strongly suspect he also wanted to signal to the audience (or at least oscar voters) that he had outgrown that kind of movie. The bit with Roland's gun left conveniently to be tampered with. Almost comedic. When he did return to sci fi it was the more respected names like Kubrick, Dick, HG Wells. And now his robot movie is on hold and he might do a Moses biopic instead.

It was a jarring experience re-watching the Birds recently because it is light night and day in terms of character development compared with a Spielberg equivalent sci-fi movie. Its the only sci fi movie Hitchcock made. Just the conversations the characters have-- much more intelligent than anything in a Spielberg movie that comes to mind. Even the daughter who talks about domestic violence in an off hand way--I cant imagine Spielberg ever doing that. Too controversial. Spielberg could be an envelope pusher in terms of visual action and fx but not character development (except in the 70s with that dysfunctional family in CE3K). Hitchcock did push the envelope in visuals as well obviously but he made his characters do/experience things that one normally didnt see in movies. Exploring psychological issues, obsessions etc.
There are other lower tier fantasy directors who were much better than Spielberg at just telling an interesting story even if they didnt have the best visual effects or sought to quicken the pace to get a stronger audience reaction --they did their utmost to make up for it with storytelling (i.e Terence Fisher). They dont get called auteurs usually--more of a "journeyman" style director.


I remember the dinosaur soldier storyline being talked about--Artbot makes it sound more interesting and plausible than what I had read about it. It sounded more like the Dirty Dozen with dinosaurs.
 
  01 January 2013
Spielberg's ability has always been rooted in his talent for being able to put himself in the position of audience member.

Decisions like going to the pool again to shoot a fake head popping out of a port hole in JAWS because he realized at that exact moment (he was watching a near-final edit) that it would "get the audience one more time to make the pop corn jump".... That's his genius.

I know the directors you talk about. The ones who are "good in other ways". But the Spielberg (and Hitchcock) style are visceral styles. Physical styles with set pieces, timed motion, and "movieland quirks" (such as leaving your gun to be tampered with, or like one I observed in Skyfall - you can't activate your homing beacon without pulling it out of your pocket first in full view of everyone but nobody notices!).

It's true that even in the simple things, Hitchcock and Spielberg probably wouldn't make the same decisions. And especially on key plot points (ie: Who lives, who dies) they wouldn't make the same choices again... It's a question of capacity. Spielberg said he was always uncomfortable with the concept of filming sex scenes or anything of that nature because it felt uncomfortable.

Different people make different directors. But there's no doubt the two are linked by visual style.

These are the "cinema things" that Hitchcock and Spielberg both understood in an almost mechanical way. It's reflex for them. Hitchcock of course dealt with different kinds of themes, but you can also see that both used plots that were relatively un-complex except for how things would be revealed.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a film from the classical era that has the labyrinthine style plot of say Cloud Atlas or the simultaneous event complexity of a Bourne film. They just didn't make them like that before.

So things like Jurassic Park 1 and 2... they worked because of Steven's unique way of looking at the film as an essay worth only 1 or 2 statements. The compromise of course is usually Steven wouldn't dare go 3 levels too high. You ask for a detective novel, some people give you Sherlock Holmes, and others will give you The Hardy Boys.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.