Open discussion about ILM and the magic they create. Also VFX and movies in general. Anyone can post topics here.

Moderator: malducin

#31305
:lol: No, pretty much everything I think up falls into the 99% category. I just always assumed this is the way the franchise would develop after the issue was raised in the original film. Would have been nice for it to have some gravitas and meaning.

Of course the film may yet deal with these issues, and better than I could imagine.
Well, rest easy in the knowledge that your idea made me simultaneously smile at the awesomeness of it and cry at the fact that there's a chance the final product won't be like that. :lol:

I'm still holding out hope that the movie will be more than just "another park incident", though. Maybe that's how it'll start out and it'll end with the more grand scale "world is in danger"-thing?

Also, this is interesting, apparently the shot of the opening "Jurassic World" gates is a trailer-only shot, specifically designed for it and it won't be in the final cut. According to Trevorrow, at least.
User avatar
By aslan
#31318
Well that's very kind Tyler, thank you. I shall endeavour to become the writer of the next Jurassic film. Shouldn't be too hard!! :lol:

I feel that saying the gate shot is trailer only is designed to fend of the criticism that it's been met with. I do feel like the only person who didn't notice anything wrong with it though.
#31324
Well that's very kind Tyler, thank you. I shall endeavour to become the writer of the next Jurassic film. Shouldn't be too hard!! :lol:

I feel that saying the gate shot is trailer only is designed to fend of the criticism that it's been met with. I do feel like the only person who didn't notice anything wrong with it though.
Maybe I missed this part in the interview, but did Colin actually say that it was some form of "peace offering"-shot to defend against criticism?

I, too, enjoyed the shot. It was a nice call-back to the origins without being an in-your-face, stop-the-movie-and-wink-at-the-audience jerk-off shot.

I mean, my immediate reaction was definitely "O hai entirely CG shot in a very CG-heavy trailer", but I still liked it.
User avatar
By ShaneP
#31325
I think this trailer works better on TV than on my laptop. The CG work looks better as well.

Somewhere I read the opening shot with the gate is a trailer-only shot created just for it.
User avatar
By aslan
#31577
This film looks like a giant miss for me, but I have been interested in the highly vocal criticism of the vfx out there. Some really stupid and ill informed comments. Why this surprises me I don't know. One person posted comparison pics of the original film raptors and the new ones to demonstrate that cg has gotten worse in the last 22 years. But the original film photo was a publicity shot of the animatronic raptors !!!

That said, I do have issue with the vfx shown so far. Not the cg itself, but with the shot design, and I wonder if it's this that is disappointing people? The vfx shots seem very crowded and lack spacial depth, which makes for cramped compositing of cg assets, the raptor shots are the worst example of this. The eye seems to read the actor and cg creatures as almost on the same ground plane in the shot, which can be interpreted as "bad" cg. This is the directors failing and a difficult one for vfx artists to compensate for.
#31606
This film looks like a giant miss for me, but I have been interested in the highly vocal criticism of the vfx out there. Some really stupid and ill informed comments. Why this surprises me I don't know. One person posted comparison pics of the original film raptors and the new ones to demonstrate that cg has gotten worse in the last 22 years. But the original film photo was a publicity shot of the animatronic raptors !!!
:lol: Classic internet.
That said, I do have issue with the vfx shown so far. Not the cg itself, but with the shot design, and I wonder if it's this that is disappointing people? The vfx shots seem very crowded and lack spacial depth, which makes for cramped compositing of cg assets, the raptor shots are the worst example of this. The eye seems to read the actor and cg creatures as almost on the same ground plane in the shot, which can be interpreted as "bad" cg. This is the directors failing and a difficult one for vfx artists to compensate for.
You know, now that you mention it, those Raptor shots do seem a little cramped. I couldn't quite place my finger on why they seemed 'off', but that could be why.

I'm still super pumped to see what ILM will have in store for us. I've been waiting 11 years for an onslaught of ILM's CG dino goodness, with only glimpses of it in Lucy and Trans4mers. My body is ready, regardless of the outcome.
#31618
New trailer:

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/traile ... e#/slide/1

A very brief glimpse of the Rex (complete with goat feeding time homage), and lots and lots of new VFX shots. Things look pretty good CG-wise, but I think now that Aslan pointed out the Raptor-thing, I won't be able to un-see it. :lol: It's not that the Raptor shots look bad, it's just they look like the shots that need the most work.

My main concern is that it's going for the Peter Jackson "big swooping CG crane shot"-thing. Just a couple shots like that, but...I don't know. It's just something that I don't think belongs in a JP flick. I always liked the more natural camera angles of the films, especially the documentary/handheld style for TLW:JP (though that has more to do with the nature of the story and the limitations of technology at the time). Combine the "unnatural" camera angles with the concept of explosions with dinosaurs and helicopters crashing and tons of gunfire, and it looks a little too much like a generic action/monster movie rather than a Jurassic Park movie.

TL;DR I have some concerns, therefore I'll only end up seeing this movie three times in theatres.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Mal!
#31620
Visual effects look seamless, imho. I kinda agree that one of the shots of the raptors facing Chris Pratt looks a bit dodgy, but the rest of the work is amazing. The compositing here seems better than the various clips and trailers of Age of Ultron, for example.But I agree with Tyler about the tone of the movie.
#31625
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Oh, the internet/Youtube comments on this trailer.

The anti-CGI brigade is out in full force.

Guys, maybe we are actually the ones in the wrong here. According to the vast majority of basement VFX-perts out there, they're just shocked and disturbed that there's so much CGI in this movie! I mean, really. I don't understand why that scene of a helicopter crashing into a 500 foot tall glass aviary and then exploding into a fireball as a genetically modified dinosaur sprints away and roars in triumph wasn't done with the far more realistic looking animatronics. 8)

Even in layman's terms, why don't people understand? Look at the shots. Look at what the camera is seeing. Notice how the entire dinosaur is seen in the frame? Head-to-tail-to-foot can be seen? When have we ever in this entire franchise seen a fully visible dinosaur achieved in practical FX work? The triceratops in the first one and the infant Tyrannosaurus in the second. That's pretty much it. Animatronics for when only part of the animal was seen. Knees and up, head to shoulder, only the feet, whatever. That's what was practical work. Everything else? That oh-so-hated CGI. :roll: This isn't new. That's why Dennis' work was credited as "Full Motion Dinosaurs" in the first one. Anytime you saw the whole dinosaur, it was CGI. They specifically framed shots to cater to whichever method would work best. We're at a stage in technology when they don't have to say "angle the camera up so we don't see the wires coming out of the Raptor's knees". They can actually have the whole raptor in frame.
#31637
Yeah, the aviary or even the wide-shots of stadiums (like the Mosasaur tank and such) are probably the best candidates for miniature work. I think it'd be interesting if they pulled a Weta Workshop and had miniatures for the jungle foliage and stuff, too, but I doubt it. Weta Digital's CGI may be hit-and-miss, but their miniature work is always on point.

Also, to clarify with my "anti CGI brigade"/"2015 will rely on CGI"-comment, most of the internet's comments about such things revolved around lack of animatronic dinosaurs. I've heard very few people talk about or complain about lack of miniatures. Probably because miniatures enhanced with CGI are less noticeable than animatronics vs. CGI. To them, it's either one or the other - they don't seem to realize that you can blend the various methods. Or they feel that animatronics is the method that's getting the shaft far more than miniatures (like, they're white-knighting the dying world of animatronics, but don't realize that miniatures is facing a similar fate).

I read a comment recently (I really have to stop doing that, internet comments are poison) about the scene they showcased recently of when I-Rex breaks free from his enclosure and kills a soldier guy. You have a POV shot of I-Rex where the camera crane rises up 20 feet in the air while the two humans stand in front. This particular internet commentator was all like "This spits in the face of all the hard work Spielberg did to create drama and tension with the dinosaurs. There's no tension! You never show the POV of the dinosaur because it works against creating that sense of awe! Spielberg knew this! He always had POV shots of the humans, because it creates a sense of wonder! This is garbage!" :roll:

I wanted to point out that they have a POV shot of a raptor within the first three minutes of the original JP, but I figured it'd be falling on deaf ears. True, Spielberg used a lot of low-angle shots, but that doesn't mean he refused to do high-angle shots of dino POVs. Raptor's running had POV shots, the camera pushes through the bush to represent the Dilophosaurus. And those are just off of memory. I'm sure if I was to re-watch all three in their entirety I could find more examples.
#31946
Watched it yesterday (The place where I live usually get to see movies a day or two earlier than the advertised release date). I have few things to say about the VFX.
Spoiler: show
I think while technically the CGI is more advanced than it was 15-20 years ago, there wasn't particular moment which made me awestruck at all. Even shots which were made to do that failed miserably. Now, I'm not saying that the CG is bad, it's actually better than Ultron and the movie certainly isn't a fest of dodgy CGI like Battle of Five Armies. Alas, nothing, even Indominus Rex, surprised me. If I have to pick a scene where I thought the vfx work was under ILM's usual standard, then I'd say it's when a herd of herbivorous dinosaurs stampeding past the gyrosphere the two kids were in. The dinosaurs themselves were great-looking, but the compositing was horrendous that seemed to be moving away from the plate. Even scenes that were supposed to be adrenaline inducing didn't manage to do what they were written to do. If all things are accounted for, however, I thought I had fun watching it when the credits rolled.
User avatar
By ShaneP
#31950
I had about the same reaction with the vfx. However, I loved the character of "Blue" in the film. And there was one shot I really loved in the film and that was the raptors and Pratt on the bike riding towards camera. Everything looked like it was there. I loved that shot.

And I liked what Legacy did with the Apatosaurus. Very moving.

Most of what I liked was the small things like a monorail in the background cliffs or a building in a treeline. I also wonder: who built that big yacht that travels to Nublar? That was really good work.

Overall, I thought Treverrow did a very good job. This film was at least as good as The Lost World and JP3.