Jurassic world

DDcorvus said:
And as far as I understood none of the animals will have fur/feathers which is quite dissappointing.
Click to expand...

If they pick up the line from JP3, at least the velociraptors will have some feahters.....



And the best thing about this film so far is that the makers are straying away from CGI and are using animatronics and costumes to create their dinosaurs just as the first film did.
Click to expand...

You are kidding right? The first film was famous for it's special effects. Back in the day it was revolutionary. They didn't call it CGI, but that's the only difference. I do hope they maintain the level they had in 1993. The CGI technique has improved a lot, but the more it improves, the less realistic it gets.
 
Johnny said:
If they pick up the line from JP3, at least the velociraptors will have some feahters.....





You are kidding right? The first film was famous for it's special effects. Back in the day it was revolutionary. They didn't call it CGI, but that's the only difference. I do hope they maintain the level they had in 1993. The CGI technique has improved a lot, but the more it improves, the less realistic it gets.
Click to expand...

I was implying that they used the perfect amount of CGI at needed moments and used animatronics as much as possible, which is what I admire about Steven Spielberg unlike how CGI was used for nearly.. well.. everything for The Hobbit. It ruined the movie and none of it even looked realistic.
 
Moebelle said:
I was implying that they used the perfect amount of CGI at needed moments and used animatronics as much as possible, which is what I admire about Steven Spielberg unlike how CGI was used for nearly.. well.. everything for The Hobbit. It ruined the movie and none of it even looked realistic.
Click to expand...

Every time you see the entire animal, it's CGI in JP. But, the CGI in JP looks realistic, in contrary to modern CGI.

But, JP is not free of mistakes. For instance, when the T-Rex chews his way through the fence he is at the same level as the cars. But when the car is pushed into the exhibit there's suddenly a very high wall on the other side.....

I love the Jurassic World idea, also that there's already a leaflet. How awesome would it be if this would ever become reality?
 
Johnny said:
Every time you see the entire animal, it's CGI in JP. But, the CGI in JP looks realistic, in contrary to modern CGI.

But, JP is not free of mistakes. For instance, when the T-Rex chews his way through the fence he is at the same level as the cars. But when the car is pushed into the exhibit there's suddenly a very high wall on the other side.....

I love the Jurassic World idea, also that there's already a leaflet. How awesome would it be if this would ever become reality?
Click to expand...

Both true with the expection of the Triceratops and some Velociraptor shots. The cliff controversy still makes me think what was going through minds when they made the mistake.
 
Yeah the map that leaked a few months back does give some traction to some ideas about the movie. The animal list is interesting because it answers some questions from the movie and book universe. Here is an article if you haven't seen it.

Jurassic World brochure gives dinosaur clues and map of the island | Mail Online

Some points to consider:

The animal list has Apatosaurus on it instead of the present on Nublar (in JP1) Brachiosaurus. This may be a typo on this leaked prop that is then changed. Or it may stem from like some have suggested pre production when it was considered a closer to the novel reboot. Several of the novel only species are on the list as well. Considering Brachiosaurus were likely unable to be preyed upon I imagine they would still be present on Nublar even 23 yrs later.

Dilophosaurus is not on the species list either. Again probably related to liability because of their spitting tendencies.

Raptors are not on the list as well. This is peculiar because Pratt is specifically playing a scientist that works with them. Possibly the park only opened because they were agreed to be hidden or supposed to be culled. Maybe he is working to tame or make them docile.

Baronyx is on the list but Spinosaurus is not. This somewhat proves the "fan" theory that when the incident in the first park happened the Spinosaurus in JP3 was a juvenile. Juvenile Spinosaurus likely had no sail. And since late 80s/early 90s scientists had no idea what Spinosaurus looked like (the previous specimins were destroyed in Berlin in ww2 and people thought they resembled an Allosaur). When the scientists hatched it they likely thought it was a baby Baronyx. Hence no conspiracy behind Spinosaurus not being "on Ingen's list".

Edmontonsaurus is on the list instead of Corythosaurus. All of these above examples could be meta commentary about Zoos and "phase outs".
 
tschandler71 said:
Yeah the map that leaked a few months back does give some traction to some ideas about the movie. The animal list is interesting because it answers some questions from the movie and book universe. Here is an article if you haven't seen it.

Jurassic World brochure gives dinosaur clues and map of the island | Mail Online

Some points to consider:

The animal list has Apatosaurus on it instead of the present on Nublar (in JP1) Brachiosaurus. This may be a typo on this leaked prop that is then changed. Or it may stem from like some have suggested pre production when it was considered a closer to the novel reboot. Several of the novel only species are on the list as well. Considering Brachiosaurus were likely unable to be preyed upon I imagine they would still be present on Nublar even 23 yrs later.

Dilophosaurus is not on the species list either. Again probably related to liability because of their spitting tendencies.

Raptors are not on the list as well. This is peculiar because Pratt is specifically playing a scientist that works with them. Possibly the park only opened because they were agreed to be hidden or supposed to be culled. Maybe he is working to tame or make them docile.

Baronyx is on the list but Spinosaurus is not. This somewhat proves the "fan" theory that when the incident in the first park happened the Spinosaurus in JP3 was a juvenile. Juvenile Spinosaurus likely had no sail. And since late 80s/early 90s scientists had no idea what Spinosaurus looked like (the previous specimins were destroyed in Berlin in ww2 and people thought they resembled an Allosaur). When the scientists hatched it they likely thought it was a baby Baronyx. Hence no conspiracy behind Spinosaurus not being "on Ingen's list".

Edmontonsaurus is on the list instead of Corythosaurus. All of these above examples could be meta commentary about Zoos and "phase outs".
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Spinosaurus lives on Sorna, not Nublar. For instance, we also don't see stegosaurus in JP1....

But, we have seen Brachiosaurus in JP 1, Mamenchisaurus in JP2, and Brachiosaurus again in JP3...... Quite logical..... And in one of the deleted scenes, they clearly are discussing the cost of cleaning up Nublar, including getting rid of the animals.
 
Yep but my point probably makes less sense if you've never read the novel. In the novel the animals were basically product lines each breeding attempt having a model number so to speak.

The original planned (movie) park on Isla Nublar was supposed to eventually contain Baroynx and Stegosaurus on Nublar. My point is the fan theory is now proven correct that the reason Spinosaurus wasn't on "Ingen's list" is because they at least thought it was a baby Baroynx not a Spinosaurus.
 
I watched Jurassic Park for the first time in years a couple of weeks ago. It struck me how poor a zoo Hammond was building. I could imagine us all jumping on Zoochat and criticising:
- the inability to walk the park on foot or control the speed of moving through the exhibits; - the obtrusive (and dangerous for animals) electric fences;
- the small number of species on display, compounded by heavily forested enclosures that make them hard to see;
- mixed species enclosures that make no paleontological sense - Jurassic Brachiosaurus mixed with late Cretaceous Parasaurolophus!;
- Unsafe enclosures for animals. What was Triceratops doing having access to browse known to be poisonous? (Let's set aside the plot hole of how they cloned extinct flora or how Sattler knew it was toxic based on fossil evidence);
- postage stamp collection. Why keep extinct in the wild species if you're not going to allow them to breed?

This zoo has great potential but I fear it's going to waste under current management. InGen - the SeaLife of extinct animal parks!
 
CGSwans said:
I watched Jurassic Park for the first time in years a couple of weeks ago. It struck me how poor a zoo Hammond was building. I could imagine us all jumping on Zoochat and criticising:
- the inability to walk the park on foot or control the speed of moving through the exhibits; - the obtrusive (and dangerous for animals) electric fences;
- the small number of species on display, compounded by heavily forested enclosures that make them hard to see;
- mixed species enclosures that make no paleontological sense - Jurassic Brachiosaurus mixed with late Cretaceous Parasaurolophus!;
- Unsafe enclosures for animals. What was Triceratops doing having access to browse known to be poisonous? (Let's set aside the plot hole of how they cloned extinct flora or how Sattler knew it was toxic based on fossil evidence);
- postage stamp collection. Why keep extinct in the wild species if you're not going to allow them to breed?

This zoo has great potential but I fear it's going to waste under current management. InGen - the SeaLife of extinct animal parks!
Click to expand...
the bolded bit: the plant the Triceratops ate was a local plant, not one of the extinct ones. See below:

Ellie Sattler: "These are West Indian Lilacs. This is toxic."
Zoo Veterinarian Dr. Harding: "We know, but the animals don't eat them."
Ellie Sattler: "You sure?"
Dr. Harding: "Pretty sure."
Ellie Sattler: "There's only one way to find out. I'd have to see the animal's droppings."
Click to expand...

However your main point still stands of course, because there was a known poisonous plant in the enclosures and even if the animals weren't "supposed" to eat them, they are still herbivorous and it could reasonably be assumed that the plants would still be a potential risk. Especially given the enormous financial cost that each individual animal must represent.
 
Chlidonias said:
the bolded bit: the plant the Triceratops ate was a local plant, not one of the extinct ones. See below:



However your main point still stands of course, because there was a known poisonous plant in the enclosures and even if the animals weren't "supposed" to eat them, they are still herbivorous and it could reasonably be assumed that the plants would still be a potential risk. Especially given the enormous financial cost that each individual animal must represent.
Click to expand...

Also in the book the Triceratops was a Stegosaurus and it wasn't poisoned by a plant, it was actually eating too many rocks.
 
Chlidonias said:
the bolded bit: the plant the Triceratops ate was a local plant, not one of the extinct ones. See below:

However your main point still stands of course, because there was a known poisonous plant in the enclosures and even if the animals weren't "supposed" to eat them, they are still herbivorous and it could reasonably be assumed that the plants would still be a potential risk. Especially given the enormous financial cost that each individual animal must represent.
Click to expand...

Ah ha! I remember thinking she'd rattled off a scientific name (not hearing "West Indian lilacs" clearly, evidently) and assuming it was another cloned species just like the leaf she's looking at earlier when Grant sees the brachiosaurus. How they cloned that plant is never explained, or is it?
 
CGSwans said:
Ah ha! I remember thinking she'd rattled off a scientific name (not hearing "West Indian lilacs" clearly, evidently) and assuming it was another cloned species just like the leaf she's looking at earlier when Grant sees the brachiosaurus. How they cloned that plant is never explained, or is it?
Click to expand...
no it was never explained, it is just used as a throw-away line, probably without any thought behind it at all. I don't recall it from the original book either but it has been a long time since I've read it (I'm not sure they even mentioned un-extinctified plants in the book).

Speaking of inedible (and likely poisonous to dinosaurs) plants though, check out the trees the Brachiosaurus were eating when the team first encountered dinosaurs:
 

Attachments

  • sauropod.jpg
    sauropod.jpg
    10.1 KB · Views: 170
Chlidonias said:
no it was never explained, it is just used as a throw-away line, probably without any thought behind it at all. I don't recall it from the original book either but it has been a long time since I've read it (I'm not sure they even mentioned un-extinctified plants in the book).

Speaking of inedible (and likely poisonous to dinosaurs) plants though, check out the trees the Brachiosaurus were eating when the team first encountered dinosaurs:
Click to expand...

Haha! I remember noticing that too but giving it a retrospective pass on the basis that sauropods are thought to have gotten so damn big because they needed to digest vast quantities of low-quality browse.
 
Moebelle said:
Also in the book the Triceratops was a Stegosaurus and it wasn't poisoned by a plant, it was actually eating too many rocks.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a stegosaurus, but it got sick because it consumed poisonous berries together with the gastroliths.

In the book, poisonous plants next to the swimming pool are pointed out by Ellie Sattler as examples of how ignorant the people setting up JP actually are.
 
Moebelle said:
Also in the book the Triceratops was a Stegosaurus and it wasn't poisoned by a plant, it was actually eating too many rocks.
Click to expand...

No, they somehow ate some of the plant when they were eating the rocks ( or getting rid of them). The stones were a giveaway in the book. And actually, you also see this back in the movie. The moment she is inspecting the plant, you see her examine stones. I think it's something they cut out of the movie, and what's left doesn't make sense anymore.
 
Returning to the new film, I have to say after much scepticism I'm looking forward to it. What fills me with a sense of dread, however, is the rumour the main antagonist is a dinosaur cloned from combined Rex/Raptor DNA. Why?!? There's plenty of dinosaur species out there that could scare the crap out of you-Giganotosaurus?Carcharodontosaurus? Why not use the Carnotaurus plot line from The Lost World novel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top