Harry Potter was not about magic, most people don't really care for that sort of thing.
Just as Twilight was not about Vampires, and Raiders of the Lost Ark not about archaeology or Nazis.
The thing that makes a film work is the human story within it.
In Jurassic Park viewers could not give a toss about Alan Grant being a bit upset about dino-ethics. It was the dynamic between him and the kids that sold that film.
Otherwise you just have Godzilla or any number of effects heavy pointlessness that maybe kids will like but no one else.
The JP4 film has gotten generic actors to play generic roles in a generic dino-mayhem set-up. You don't need a trailer to see that.
The premise just sounds awful and the trailer shows how dreadful a film it'll be. It feels very much like a generic disaster movie but with dinosaurs, well actually one hybrid GM dinosaur. Visually it looks impressive and the CG will be of much better quality come release, it still the same formula of amazing visuals without a good story.
May be an idea to wait till the film is actually finished before judging it?
I don't care about Grant's dynamic with the children at all.
Although, there are some interesting themes in this new film that I like, and I will not dismiss them based on a teaser trailer.
Agree. How much Alan Grant liked kids is probably at the bottom of the pile of things that interest me about that film. It's got bloody dinosaurs in it for god sake, I've not been in love with dinosaurs since 1993 because Dr. Grant befriended a child, it was because I saw a film with them in and they were the coolest things ever.
Harry Potter was not about magic, most people don't really care for that sort of thing.
Just as Twilight was not about Vampires, and Raiders of the Lost Ark not about archaeology or Nazis.
The thing that makes a film work is the human story within it.
In Jurassic Park viewers could not give a toss about Alan Grant being a bit upset about dino-ethics. It was the dynamic between him and the kids that sold that film.
Otherwise you just have Godzilla or any number of effects heavy pointlessness that maybe kids will like but no one else.
The JP4 film has gotten generic actors to play generic roles in a generic dino-mayhem set-up. You don't need a trailer to see that.
You honestly believe that it was the biggest film of all time because people went to see Sam Neill warming to some kids???????
Bryan Cranston should have been the main star of the film, and there was way too much smoke and dust hiding the monsters.
Godzilla looked great from the trailers... The actual film sucked. Hoping it works in reverse in this case. I tend to take trailers with a pinch of salt. I mean the Drive trailer gave the impression it was a different kind of film.
Anyway, Bryce Dallas Howard looks a bit like a pantomime villain in the way she's dressed. Not sure about that. And I don't want raptors to be on the side of humans so hopefully that's not the case for the whole film.
May be an idea to wait till the film is actually finished before judging it?
Unfortunately in recent time, it has been in the majority of times that films are more about the visual effects than the actual story. Plus in this film, it would seem they are going for the family market and are catering more towards the kids, probably limiting the depth of the story, as more advanced storylines might be lost for the kids audience.
Personally I would have preferred a story of where the world has been overrun by dinosaurs and a group are trying to destroy the dinosaurs, while along the way they uncover hidden truths and hidden agendas of the organisation they work for etc.
Anyhow, I would still watch this movie but probably at home on DVD.
There's one other thing that's kind of silly, why are they only armed with a shotgun or rifle? Also isn't this further into the future, so won't they have more advanced weapons? As the kids were even riding some futuristic bubble vehicle. Maybe the least they could do is give him a rocket launcher.
Unfortunately in recent time, it has been in the majority of times that films are more about the visual effects than the actual story. Plus in this film, it would seem they are going for the family market and are catering more towards the kids, probably limiting the depth of the story, as more advanced storylines might be lost for the kids audience.
Personally I would have preferred a story of where the world has been overrun by dinosaurs and a group are trying to destroy the dinosaurs, while along the way they uncover hidden truths and hidden agendas of the organisation they work for etc.
Anyhow, I would still watch this movie but probably at home on DVD.
There's one other thing that's kind of silly, why are they only armed with a shotgun or rifle? Also isn't this further into the future, so won't they have more advanced weapons? As the kids were even riding some futuristic bubble vehicle. Maybe the least they could do is give him a rocket launcher.
Could go with that. Maybe that'll be a future sequel? Myself I'd love a full on 18-rated blood and guts version along the lines of Flesh from 2000 A.D. but that'll never happen (at least in this franchise)
The original Jurassic Park was about a lot of things, none of those things being dinosaurs.
That was just the dramatic hook, you could have told that same story within a WW2 setting or an earthquake.
That's why I also quite liked JP3, because it was not about dinosaurs.
But it seems JP4 is completely and utterly about dinosaurs, so basically a Disney ride with paper thin characters along the way.
What on earth are you talking about? The main question of the original is "Can man play God? And if so, should they?" which was pretty much answered through them creating their version of DINOSAURS and the DINOSAURS killing the tourists.
How that fits into a WW2 setting or an earthquake is beyond me.
Anyway, Bryce Dallas Howard looks a bit like a pantomime villain in the way she's dressed. Not sure about that.
True, though I'm wondering if the film could be taking a few swipes at corporate entertainment, given the whole complex is now up and running. The very first film suggested it wasn't so much the recreation of the dinosaurs was the bad idea as their commercial exploitation, so it might be carrying on with that thread. All faintly hypocritical of course - these films are made to draw in big crowds to see their dazzling dinos, but there you go.
And what of Chris Pratt's leather waistcoat? Really not sure about that...
Unfortunately in recent time, it has been in the majority of times that films are more about the visual effects than the actual story. Plus in this film, it would seem they are going for the family market and are catering more towards the kids, probably limiting the depth of the story, as more advanced storylines might be lost for the kids audience.
Personally I would have preferred a story of where the world has been overrun by dinosaurs and a group are trying to destroy the dinosaurs, while along the way they uncover hidden truths and hidden agendas of the organisation they work for etc.
Anyhow, I would still watch this movie but probably at home on DVD.
There's one other thing that's kind of silly, why are they only armed with a shotgun or rifle? Also isn't this further into the future, so won't they have more advanced weapons? As the kids were even riding some futuristic bubble vehicle. Maybe the least they could do is give him a rocket launcher.
Or why not have a kill switch built into the Dinosaurs in case anything went wrong...maybe they do and it fails, though that would come to be expected.
Christ! What's wrong with film makers today??? Plenty to work with in terms of dinosaurs, but no, that's not enough..... gotta ramp it up with "genetically modified" bollocks. I can sorta understand why drab stuff like deodorant or washing up liquid needs to be shuzzed up with added "X-10ium" or whatever nonsense they think will fool folks into thinking it's bigger/better/badder but I don't think that logic can be thrown at everything and anything, especially a film!
Well I think the premise of "THE PARK ..... IS OPEN" is a neat way to go, even if the most obvious. It's the natural successor I think, as it will tease the up and running theme park Isla Sorna was perhaps meant to be in Jurassic Park.
Christ! What's wrong with film makers today??? Plenty to work with in terms of dinosaurs, but no, that's not enough..... gotta ramp it up with "genetically modified" bollocks. I can sorta understand why drab stuff like deodorant or washing up liquid needs to be shuzzed up with added "X-10ium" or whatever nonsense they think will fool folks into thinking it's bigger/better/badder but I don't think that logic can be thrown at everything and anything, especially a film!
The idea is that people in the movie have become blase about dinosaurs. The story is inspired by the director seeing kids at the zoo just staring at their phones. When dinosaurs are the norm, what do the corporations do to re-ignite interest?
So actually the thing you are complaining about, the constant 'amping up', is a very deliberate element of the story.
The idea is that people in the movie have become blase about dinosaurs. The story is inspired by the director seeing kids at the zoo just staring at their phones. When dinosaurs are the norm, what do the corporations do to re-ignite interest?
So actually the thing you are complaining about, the constant 'amping up', is a very deliberate element of the story.
I think it is a cool idea.
Agreed. That is the exact question the film will be asking.
I don't understand why a trailer would be released with unfinished CGI. Why not polish the trailer and then move onto the rest of the film?
This is because it takes considerable amount of time and money to get to the complete CG quality. Plus with the film still months away, they are still working on the CG, it's still going through the stages of it getting made and corrections before final output. It's not a process that can be finished in a matter of days or weeks but months. You should also know that CG elements are passed on from one department to the next, from modelling all the way to compositing, it takes considerable amount of time for the final product to be given approval.
The idea is that people in the movie have become blase about dinosaurs. The story is inspired by the director seeing kids at the zoo just staring at their phones. When dinosaurs are the norm, what do the corporations do to re-ignite interest?
So actually the thing you are complaining about, the constant 'amping up', is a very deliberate element of the story.
I think it is a cool idea.
That's cobblers. The concept of taking something already fearsome and ferocious and jacking it up 200% is plain lazy....... Shrouding it with a veneer of irony, social comment or whatever is just a smokescreen.
Its alarmingly like that Deep Blue Sea shite with those ludicrous genetically enhanced sharks running amok.
on an island again for the fourth time.same as before.they could have had new place for the film to take place in.just going to be the same as the last three.dissapointing.
on an island again for the fourth time.same as before.they could have had new place for the film to take place in.just going to be the same as the last three.dissapointing.
Well judging by the trailer and usually all blockbusters except the odd few (this ain't going to be the odd few).
1. Will be too long
2. Characters you couldn't care less about
3. A plot a child could write
4. CGI used to compensate for everything else
on an island again for the fourth time.same as before.they could have had new place for the film to take place in.just going to be the same as the last three.dissapointing.
Actually the second and third film were based on different islands.
Comments
Just as Twilight was not about Vampires, and Raiders of the Lost Ark not about archaeology or Nazis.
The thing that makes a film work is the human story within it.
In Jurassic Park viewers could not give a toss about Alan Grant being a bit upset about dino-ethics. It was the dynamic between him and the kids that sold that film.
Otherwise you just have Godzilla or any number of effects heavy pointlessness that maybe kids will like but no one else.
The JP4 film has gotten generic actors to play generic roles in a generic dino-mayhem set-up. You don't need a trailer to see that.
I don't care about Grant's dynamic with the children at all.
Although, there are some interesting themes in this new film that I like, and I will not dismiss them based on a teaser trailer.
So how did you see it? You're embarrassing yourself now.
Yes Godzilla was very disappointing.
Bryan Cranston should have been the main star of the film, and there was way too much smoke and dust hiding the monsters.
May be an idea to wait till the film is actually finished before judging it?
To be fair, this is one of those films that HAS to have a lot of CGI
You honestly believe that it was the biggest film of all time because people went to see Sam Neill warming to some kids???????
Godzilla looked great from the trailers... The actual film sucked. Hoping it works in reverse in this case. I tend to take trailers with a pinch of salt. I mean the Drive trailer gave the impression it was a different kind of film.
Anyway, Bryce Dallas Howard looks a bit like a pantomime villain in the way she's dressed. Not sure about that. And I don't want raptors to be on the side of humans so hopefully that's not the case for the whole film.
Unfortunately in recent time, it has been in the majority of times that films are more about the visual effects than the actual story. Plus in this film, it would seem they are going for the family market and are catering more towards the kids, probably limiting the depth of the story, as more advanced storylines might be lost for the kids audience.
Personally I would have preferred a story of where the world has been overrun by dinosaurs and a group are trying to destroy the dinosaurs, while along the way they uncover hidden truths and hidden agendas of the organisation they work for etc.
Anyhow, I would still watch this movie but probably at home on DVD.
There's one other thing that's kind of silly, why are they only armed with a shotgun or rifle? Also isn't this further into the future, so won't they have more advanced weapons? As the kids were even riding some futuristic bubble vehicle. Maybe the least they could do is give him a rocket launcher.
Could go with that. Maybe that'll be a future sequel? Myself I'd love a full on 18-rated blood and guts version along the lines of Flesh from 2000 A.D. but that'll never happen (at least in this franchise)
How that fits into a WW2 setting or an earthquake is beyond me.
And what of Chris Pratt's leather waistcoat? Really not sure about that...
Or why not have a kill switch built into the Dinosaurs in case anything went wrong...maybe they do and it fails, though that would come to be expected.
Or it could be Jaws 3D all over again <shudders>
The idea is that people in the movie have become blase about dinosaurs. The story is inspired by the director seeing kids at the zoo just staring at their phones. When dinosaurs are the norm, what do the corporations do to re-ignite interest?
So actually the thing you are complaining about, the constant 'amping up', is a very deliberate element of the story.
I think it is a cool idea.
Agreed. That is the exact question the film will be asking.
Many people, including me, have been bitching about the CGI looking crap in the trailer (which IMO it does).
This has now been picked up by various 'news' sites:
https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/jurassic-world-trailer-why-cgi-complaints-are-103631940751.html?vp=1
I don't understand why a trailer would be released with unfinished CGI. Why not polish the trailer and then move onto the rest of the film?
This is because it takes considerable amount of time and money to get to the complete CG quality. Plus with the film still months away, they are still working on the CG, it's still going through the stages of it getting made and corrections before final output. It's not a process that can be finished in a matter of days or weeks but months. You should also know that CG elements are passed on from one department to the next, from modelling all the way to compositing, it takes considerable amount of time for the final product to be given approval.
Looks like a fun film. I'll see it.
That's cobblers. The concept of taking something already fearsome and ferocious and jacking it up 200% is plain lazy....... Shrouding it with a veneer of irony, social comment or whatever is just a smokescreen.
Its alarmingly like that Deep Blue Sea shite with those ludicrous genetically enhanced sharks running amok.
Well judging by the trailer and usually all blockbusters except the odd few (this ain't going to be the odd few).
1. Will be too long
2. Characters you couldn't care less about
3. A plot a child could write
4. CGI used to compensate for everything else
Actually the second and third film were based on different islands.