CGTalk > Main Forums > General Discussion
Login register
Thread Closed share thread « Previous Thread | Next Thread »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-15-2013, 09:45 PM   #16
Darkherow
Expert
portfolio
W Lee
United Kingdom
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 686
I wonder why they are reviving this after such a long period of time since there's no material for the continuation of the story. I wonder how long has Universal been think about making this film, since they haven't any director and cast...all this to be released in summer of 2014? I just hope they have enough time to do a good job of it. However sadly it just feels like another revival of old success, with no original material, I wonder what kind of ideas the screen writers come up with, even though they wrote rise planet of the apes. So there maybe hope for this yet?
 
Old 01-15-2013, 10:06 PM   #17
PerryDS
Everything Creative
 
PerryDS's Avatar
portfolio
Perry Shulak
Contractor, self-employed
Critical Fusion Inc
Edmonton, Canada
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 761
Send a message via MSN to PerryDS
I came across a speculation website that had pretty well the original cast attached, along with Josh Whedon as director.
__________________
Perry Shulak
Design, Illustration, writing and interactive media
www.criticalfusion.com
www.perryshulakcreative.com
 
Old 01-16-2013, 12:09 AM   #18
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,835
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkherow
I wonder why they are reviving this after such a long period of time since there's no material for the continuation of the story. I wonder how long has Universal been think about making this film, since they haven't any director and cast...all this to be released in summer of 2014? I just hope they have enough time to do a good job of it. However sadly it just feels like another revival of old success, with no original material, I wonder what kind of ideas the screen writers come up with, even though they wrote rise planet of the apes. So there maybe hope for this yet?


That's why it's getting a 3D re-release: To gauge interest.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION
 
Old 01-16-2013, 03:29 AM   #19
DanHibiki
Expert
 
DanHibiki's Avatar
portfolio
- -
Senior 3d Animator
Invivo communications
Richmond Hill, Canada
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artbot
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?

if so we could have had a live action The Terrible Thunder Lizards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wfuz7FfM-I
 
Old 01-16-2013, 05:24 AM   #20
Papa Lazarou
Lord of the posts
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelgy
. 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.


Are you suggesting that Spielberg deliberately botched that movie so people would take his other movies more seriously? I'd find that hard to believe. He may not have given it his full attention due to being more interested in some of the other projects he was working on, but I can't imagine him setting out to make a lesser movie to send some kind of signal.
 
Old 01-16-2013, 06:25 AM   #21
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,835
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Papa Lazarou
Are you suggesting that Spielberg deliberately botched that movie so people would take his other movies more seriously? I'd find that hard to believe. He may not have given it his full attention due to being more interested in some of the other projects he was working on, but I can't imagine him setting out to make a lesser movie to send some kind of signal.


I'm not sure what you're driving at, but I took Kelgy's comment in reference to things like Roland's gun.... that Spielberg "knows he's making a movie" and therefore revels in "breaking reality or common sense for the sake of the movie".

I took it to mean that in Kelgy's mind, this was sort of a lower form of storytelling.

My belief is that this is the "magic" of the movies... This type of "only in the movies" event scenarios and tropes which all the best directors know how to exploit.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION
 
Old 01-16-2013, 09:28 AM   #22
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,397
I dont think he deliberately puts that sort of self conscious "its only a movie" comic touch in there so people will regard his historical films more highly. I think he does it because a)he himself didnt take the fantasy-sci fi genre all that seriously and b) he is trying to be a crowd pleaser and he has two audiences to think about after his Oscar win. The summer audience and the Oscar voter. He actively sought an Oscar win in the 80s-- he reportedly kept an Oscar-themed cartoon over his desk showing Gandhi holding a bunch of Oscars and looking jealously at ET smiling with bags of money.
When he got an honorary award he flew from a film set overseas to accept it in person (while the same year Michael Caine stayed on the set of Jaws the Revenge and missed getting his). He is the opposite of Woody Allen when it came to Oscars.


After Schindler it was said that he had "grown up." He didnt dispute that characterization and looking back at most of his pre-Schindler sci fi-fantasy films they arent all that serious--the most was probably Close Encounters but he disowns the elements of it that are the most serious(the family disintegration).

I dont think that self conscious humor was so obvious in Jurassic Park but the overall tone was sunnier so maybe it was just harder to notice. Lost World was literally dark and more somber. And he did another Oscar season movie the same year just as he had with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. I think he wants to please two audiences.

But when he did return to sci fi after LW it was a Kubrick film--almost total absence of that self-conscious humor except the Chris Rock--Robin Williams stuff, then he did a couple of sci-fi authors who were considered more prestigious than Crichton and that self-aware humor was greatly restrained if not absent all together.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 12:16 AM   #23
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,835
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Quote:
Originally Posted by kelgy
I dont think he deliberately puts that sort of self conscious "its only a movie" comic touch in there so people will regard his historical films more highly. I think he does it because a)he himself didnt take the fantasy-sci fi genre all that seriously and b) he is trying to be a crowd pleaser and he has two audiences to think about after his Oscar win. The summer audience and the Oscar voter. He actively sought an Oscar win in the 80s-- he reportedly kept an Oscar-themed cartoon over his desk showing Gandhi holding a bunch of Oscars and looking jealously at ET smiling with bags of money.
When he got an honorary award he flew from a film set overseas to accept it in person (while the same year Michael Caine stayed on the set of Jaws the Revenge and missed getting his). He is the opposite of Woody Allen when it came to Oscars.


After Schindler it was said that he had "grown up." He didnt dispute that characterization and looking back at most of his pre-Schindler sci fi-fantasy films they arent all that serious--the most was probably Close Encounters but he disowns the elements of it that are the most serious(the family disintegration).

I dont think that self conscious humor was so obvious in Jurassic Park but the overall tone was sunnier so maybe it was just harder to notice. Lost World was literally dark and more somber. And he did another Oscar season movie the same year just as he had with Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. I think he wants to please two audiences.

But when he did return to sci fi after LW it was a Kubrick film--almost total absence of that self-conscious humor except the Chris Rock--Robin Williams stuff, then he did a couple of sci-fi authors who were considered more prestigious than Crichton and that self-aware humor was greatly restrained if not absent all together.


I honestly embrace the Spielberg "before Schindler's List" in terms of style... I think knowing where you can tweak some logic or reality and knowing where you can get away with "leaving Roland's gun behind" is part of the "kung fu" of making films.

And if you think Spielberg is good (bad) for doing those, in my opinion Christopher Nolan is a master at the same thing. For example, in TDKR, Batman has his aircraft to provide support for the attack down Main street, but not only does he decide to abandon his aircraft to fight Bane on foot, he also critically does not destroy all the enemy vehicles first - leading to the death of many policemen when Talia makes her escape in a Tumbler. Nolan's genius is that he knows if he forces the action into "The climatic struggle of good and evil with Batman and Bane in a sea of humanity" fans will like it anyway. It's what THEY really "need to see". Double-fault on Bane himself as apparently he had extra vehicles that he didn't use - again - because he's needed for the fistfight. While Batman blasting all the Tumblers (and Bane) with his autocannons would have been the logical solution to the problem... that would also not "serve the film" as well as having Batman and Bane taunt each other in the street and engaging in a fisticuff - even if it was long established that the entire assault was part of a desperate plan to stop a timed bomb that would destroy all of Gotham - You'd think Batman with all his logic would try and shave off a lot of time... but no... We need our Hero and Villain fistfight.

Both Spielberg and Nolan are called out on it by the minority, but the majority come away from the cinema fully sold.

That is a film making master class - in my opinion. No offence to the Scorseses, or De Palmas of the world (I love their movies too). But I'm always awestruck at what guys like Nolan and Spielberg get away with.

EDIT: On the Oscars, yes, I think it always hounded Spielberg that he didn't "score" that one for a long time. But I'm sure he did find solace in the commercial success of the films he was making.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 01-17-2013 at 12:40 AM.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 02:45 AM   #24
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan
.. I think knowing where you can tweak some logic or reality and knowing where you can get away with "leaving Roland's gun behind" is part of the "kung fu" of making films.


I would say having the T-rex appear at the end of Jurassic Park even though it literally appears out of thin air is more of an example of what you are talking about. The pay off of seeing the T-rex again trumps the logic of the moment and no one cares-- but another filmmaker who was more fussy about maintaining the narrative illusion may have insisted that there be an extra shot or two to make it more plausible that it comes into the room and in that case the audience wouldnt have been hurt by that addition.

That was just Spielberg not caring about it-not wanting to spend the money, time,-thinking about Schindler, Lucas handling the editing, whatever..


I'd say the gun issue is different because it relates to character behavior and the pay off, because of that logical lapse, isnt so great. Its nothing really. It had been established that Roland was cautious about his gun and Vaughn had asked to see it earlier which let Roland (and the audience) know that he was going to tamper if he could. Then Roland places the gun nicely in Vaughn's view--basically he became conveniently dumb. And the audience knows Vaughn is going to fiddle with it.
Its possible for someone to act thoughtless like that but it sticks out in a movie when things are supposed to happen for a reason--its not even subtle. Its a lazy way of getting the scenario where Roland will get his chance to shoot the T-rex and not be able to and be forced to use a tranquilizer.
And then on top of it when Roland does shoot the T-rex with the dart, we dont even see him approaching Roland--I guess those extra reaction shots would have cost too much. The audience could have used them though to build tension as he reloads.

The gymnastics scene sticks out even more--its a show stopper--the raptor sequence has this frenetic pace and then suddenly we pause so the girl can calmly walk over and do a few seconds of spinning and kick the raptor out--then we get the "you were cut from the team?" line and the scene resumes.
Its a parody.

But then Raiders of the Lost Ark is also a parody of a serial B adventures that took themselves seriously so its not the first time Spielberg has done that.
He didnt do that in Duel or Jaws or Close Encounters but he had other people involved in the production making creative decisions so it wasnt a solely Spielberg endeavor--and the Indiana Jones films had Lucas who will also stick self-aware comedy into his films(the Chewbacca Tarzan yell) when he feels like it.
But there are other filmmakers who dont do that kind of self-aware humor thing very much.
Its not quite breaking the fourth wall but its tapping on the wallpaper.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 03:34 AM   #25
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,835
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
Well, the T-Rex being in the exhibition hall wasn't in the original plan. So it can be argued the cost increased as a result of the new ending sequence...

Still, it is big responsibility to add something you really want. When he added the porthole-and-head sequence in JAWS, Spielberg volunteered to rig his own swimming pool (I think) to do the sequence. So he's not alien to pushing more to get more.

Not adding extra shots to establish the T-Rex coming around the main hall may in fact be him just applying what Michael Bay refers to as "Shooting for the Edit". This was a fast edit. So maybe it didn't occur to him at the time how to do the T-Rex coming to the building without slowing down what was already meant to be a frantic sequence.



But I don't think it's a case of "I don't care." The point I been raising the whole time is, from what I observed of some directors like Spielberg, Hitchcock, or Abrams.. the particularly visual ones... is that their work seems to show a "caring in phases"... At some point you really only care to get the footage you need for the editing room. And then in the editing room, you actually cut out parts you used to care about because this time you care about the edit.

It has happened to me.

Note: Agreed though that Jurassic 2 gymnastics gag probably could have been shorter or removed altogether (along with dialogue before or later referring to gymnastics).

"Roland's Gun" (can we call this a new Trope?) is needed so that you get the necessary double pay-off of the gun not working... which helps lead to the Dino rampage in Civilization (which is the end-goal). This is identical to the Batman-Bane fisticuff... one moment of logic failure that is needed for a cinematic pay-off.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 01-17-2013 at 03:40 AM.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 04:46 AM   #26
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,397
Sure it probably increased the cost--but I am talking about adding enough to erase that perception of the T-rex not appearing out of thin air. Spielberg said when making Lost World he could have shown more dinosaur footage in LW--he was aware of the places that it was cut short-but he felt it wouldnt be economically responsible or something like that.

And when the trailer is attacked the dinosaurs are hidden for a while even when they are attacking it at the same time.
And also when the round up starts--we just jump in on them with no establishing shot of the dinosaurs before they get disturbed.
It may have broken up the pace of the action in that case but then so did the gymnastics bit.
He couldnt have the dinosaurs shown grazing, but he could have the girl doing her acrobatics. lol
And supposedly that was needed so we could see the girl-who had been terrified of the baby t-rex and insisted that she be someplace high (so they would be in the high hide when the t-rexes came through the forest)--would now face her fears. Its really clumsy writing if it isnt meant to be a joke and I think its the latter.

Its necessary that something happens to prevent the gun from working--its better if Vaughn (whatever his character's name was--I know who Eddie was) does the tamper so his character is doing something and influencing the action, but it could have also been that Roland, absent-minded, didnt load his gun--that would have worked too. That is more plausible than him leaving the gun for Vaughn to fiddle with.

And let's not forget the hand hanging from the steering wheel of the boat.
That exists only as a sight gag. A joke-regardless of how likely it would be for a hand to be hanging like that. And the audience wants an explanation of what happened.

I think Hitchcock was more restrained in his use of that logic breaking humor. He put himself into the background and occasionally had a joke but he wants you to buy into the world he creates--I do not think Spielberg is as fussy about achieving that in the films we are talking about.

Vertigo is an implausible kind of plot but it is played straight. For it to work for the audience it has to be. The behind the scenes disagreements about the "letter writing scene" is a fascinating example of Hitchcock and company debating how the audience should react and what character pov to focus on.

Last edited by kelgy : 01-17-2013 at 04:52 AM.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 05:01 AM   #27
teruchan
Skeleton Man
 
teruchan's Avatar
portfolio
Terrence Walker
The Last King
of Scotland
Shanghai, China
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 893
The whole scene would have been ruined if we saw cuts of the T-Rex approaching. It works because he appears out of thin air.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!
 
Old 01-17-2013, 05:31 AM   #28
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,397
The whole scene would not have been ruined.

It prevents the raptor from being grabbed in the air as a surprise but that wasnt as important as seeing the T-rex again doing something.
It could have been using a telephone and it would have still been cool to see because of the novelty of never before seen realistic organic creatures moving with motion blur etc.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 06:11 AM   #29
CGIPadawan
Part-Time Blenderite
 
CGIPadawan's Avatar
Giancarlo Ng
Quezon City, Philippines
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 6,835
Send a message via Yahoo to CGIPadawan
I'm with teruchan there.

Both times the pay-off is from a "cue".

In "Jurassic Park" the main John williams theme kicks in with the "sudden rescue" and the pay-off when the characters see the extraordinary melee (at the same time we do).

In "The Lost World" the pay off is that we are made to believe Ian and Company have time to "get the baby T-Rex out of here" and then cue the loud noise. And the pay off with Ian's one-liner.

Both would be ruined with some kind of "establishing shot". The "pure cinema" of it works because of the audience manipulation of feedback.

I think this is different to when Spielberg talks about "fiscal responsibility". As I understand it, this is something you have to do all the time when on a studio production. It's like counting bullets for your machine gun - you don't have unlimited supply.

We can all still agree the Gymnastics thing was bad... But I don't think that was a joke.. It was at worst a clumsy attempt to add dimension to a minor character.. probably coming from Spielberg's bias for making children significant characters alongside adults. No bigger stunt can do that if not the gymnastic girl saving the life of an adult and overcoming her fears.

The reveal that Vaughn had done something to the gun is another character driven bid by Spielberg. Knowing he has limited time to establish something of each character. So it's shown he messed with the shells only later and we didn't even see Vaughn actually do it. The purpose is again for the "cinematic pay off". It's "whoring to the audience" to get a rise out of them rather than doing it "reporter style". If Roland just forgot to load the gun, that kind of leaves the "opportunity" to notch something in Vaughn's character on the floor.

Once you've reached the point that you have to make sure Roland's gun won't work, you choose how that is going to happen. It probably just seemed useful at the time to make it something for Vaughn's character (again... screwing reality and good logic in the process).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelgy
I think Hitchcock was more restrained in his use of that logic breaking humor. He put himself into the background and occasionally had a joke but he wants you to buy into the world he creates--I do not think Spielberg is as fussy about achieving that in the films we are talking about.


This I agree with. They both have incredible visual prowess. But ask Hitchcock to make Jurassic Park, and you wouldn't end up with the same picture. In his version it's possible more characters would have died (including maybe one of the kids).
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
REVERSION

Last edited by CGIPadawan : 01-17-2013 at 06:23 AM.
 
Old 01-17-2013, 06:40 AM   #30
kelgy
Stranger in Town
 
kelgy's Avatar
portfolio
Kel G
Professionally unemployed
Surrey, Canada
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,397
The pay off issue in the finale of JP--that implies that the dinosaurs as characters dont matter--that they are merely shock devices. Do you really think that? The t-rex attacking and then tossing the raptor into the skeleton and the banner falling as it roars is at least as important as that shock entrance. Its supposed to be a character performance.


In the original King Kong when the t-rex appears in the distance--would it have been better if it just suddenly popped into view behind the tree? Its a cheap manipulation trick to be honest.
A ghost popping out of a closet.


But I agree that Williams music is extremely important to a Spielberg film--Spielberg is dependent on Williams supplying the emotional cues since music can do that regardless of what imagery is on screen.




Quote:
Originally Posted by CGIPadawan
In his version it's possible more characters would have died (including maybe one of the kids).



I agree that if Hitchcock made Jurassic Park one of the kids might have been toast.

What did you think of King Kong 2005's dinosaur sequences? Do you think it was necessary logic breaking to have the stampede and the t-rexes hanging from the vines or that it was over done?
 
Thread Closed share thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

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 11:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.